first question asked by the survey was “Do you remember receiving this
letter from Bournemouth & West Hampshire Water?” (A copy of the
letter was shown to the householder). Only 40% of those surveyed
remembered receiving the letter.
two of the survey asked the residents what the reason was for not taking
up Bournemouth & West Hampshire Waters offer. Of those 40% that did
remember getting the letter, the biggest reason for not taking up the
offer was simply that they were not interested.
This could be due to the fact that the letter was not clear in
enough in stating the free offers and their benefits to the householder.
second most popular reason was people did not have the time to take up
the offer, this accounted for 25% of answers, and 16% of residents
surveyed did not take up the offer as they were suspicious of
Bournemouth & West Hampshire Waters motives, and so perhaps did not
feel the offer was genuine.
people surveyed during the follow up Project did not hear back from
Bournemouth and West Hampshire Water after responding to the letter (one
of these of these queries has since been confirmed). If 2 residents did
not hear back out of a sample of 300 (6.3%) there could have been others
in the 4,759 contacted.
were then asked “how would you prefer to be informed of these genuine
offers (those outlined in the letter) if there was a similar Project in
the future?” The highest response to this question was via a letter or
flyer. This is likely to be because this is the easiest and least
invasive form of communication, but unfortunately, as the Project
demonstrated this is not one of the most successful forms of
communication in terms of a positive response. The third highest
response was face-to-face contact. Although not the most time efficient
form of communication, it appears it would be successful. When students
from Bournemouth University carried out the survey of those homes that
did not respond 78% of those surveyed said they would be interested in a
similar Project if one arose in the future. It appears that not only
does the face to face approach ensure people listen and absorb the
message/offer but it also gives them the opportunity to ask questions
which might have otherwise have put them off from responding.
fourth most popular response to this question was radio, but this would
not be a feasible option, as not only are the costs of radio advertising
too high but it is likely that a large proportion of those that did
respond to the advert would not actually be in the catchment area and so
not eligible to take up the offer.
of those surveyed said that they did believe that the use of water
saving measures did have a positive effect on the environment. This is
encouraging as it shows that residents realise that individuals being
environmentally friendly can have an effect as a whole.
the 75% of people who said that they did recycle, 80% said they did so
for environmental reasons, but 14% said they recycled because the
council collected recyclable material.
Borough Council does carry out a free recycling service for the majority
of homes within the area surveyed, so it may well be that of the 80% who
said they recycled to help the environment, whilst their intentions were
good it was in fact because of the ease in which they could recycle that
prompted them to do so i.e. because the council provided the service for
them. This is backed up by the fact that of the materials people said
they recycled the three biggest materials recycled were Bottles,
Newspapers and Plastic, which are the items that the council arranges
collection and recycling of.
were asked whether or not they already had some form of water saving
device in their home or garden. The results were split exactly 50/50.
The fact that half the residents already had water saving devices
reinforces the finding that residents believe that these devices have a
positive effect on the environment.
those that said yes 54% already had water butts in their gardens, 20%
had cistern displacement devices such as a Hippo bag in their cisterns
and 18% had trigger hoses.
of the residents, who said that they did not respond to the letter
because they were not interested, already had water saving devices. They
may have given this response because of the fact that they already had
these devices, leading to a lower response rate.
of those who had water saving devices said that their main motivation
for using them was environmental, where as 26% said economic and 28% a
combination of environmental and economic.
44% of those surveyed had heard of the Bourne Stream Partnership before.
This may not seem a significant number, but the original ““Use Water
Wisely”” Project determined that only 19.7% of residents had heard
of the Bourne Stream Partnership before the Project, therefore ““Use
Water Wisely”” has succeeded in doubling the number of residents
aware of the Partnership.
asked to indicate on a map where the Bourne Stream ran, only 34% of
residents had an accurate idea and the majority of these residents were
the ones who lived on roads where the Bourne Stream is visible i.e. Coy
Pond Road. This may show that many of the residents do not think of the
Bourne Stream as a local amenity, or use it regularly for walking /
cycling etc. This may mean people are less concerned about the quality
of the stream and their impact upon it.
previously mentioned, most people used water saving devices for either
economic or a combination of environmental and economic reasons. When
asked how their attention could be grabbed by future campaigns, the
highest response (31%) was by financial incentives.
Chi-squared tests used to compare results between Area 1 and Area 2
proved that there was no significant difference in the results of the
two areas (appendix 7). When the chi-squared
test was used to look for differences between the results of difference
age groups, again no significant difference was found (appendix
9). This means that no one area or age group has significantly
different responses and attitudes towards water conservation and the
Bourne Stream. However, the Response Hotspots map shows that all the
hotspots of 4 or more responses to the original Project are in close
proximity to the stream. This shows that these residents are not more
environmentally friendly than the residents who live further away, but
maybe are more aware of the stream and use it regularly for walking etc
and so responded for this reason.