Student support and perceptions of urine source separation in a university community

Water Research

Volumn 100, Issue , 2016, Pages 146-156

  Ishii, Stephanie K L ^a,b   Boyer, Treavor H ^a  

^a University of Florida   (United States)

^b Vice President Residuals Group Practice Leader   (United States)

Author keywords

Public acceptance; Public perception; Survey; Theory of planned behavior; Urine source separation; Wastewater treatment

Indexed keywords

BODY FLUIDS; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; SEPARATION; STUDENTS; SURVEYING; SURVEYS; WASTE TREATMENT; WASTEWATER DISPOSAL; WASTEWATER TREATMENT; WATER CONSERVATION; WATER MANAGEMENT;

BEHAVIORAL CONTROL; ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES; ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR; PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE; PUBLIC PERCEPTION; THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR; WASTE WATER SYSTEMS; WATERRESOURCE MANAGEMENT;

SOURCE SEPARATION;

WATER;

ATTITUDINAL SURVEY; COST ANALYSIS; DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY; HUMAN BEHAVIOR; PERCEPTION; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; SEPARATION; SOCIAL THEORY; STUDENT; UNIVERSITY SECTOR; URINE; WASTE TREATMENT; WASTEWATER; WATER MANAGEMENT; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; COMMUNITY; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SEPARATION TECHNIQUE; THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITY; UNIVERSITY STUDENT; URINE; VIDEORECORDING; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; STUDENT; WASTE WATER; WATER SUPPLY;

UNITED STATES;

CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; HUMANS; STUDENTS; UNIVERSITIES; URINE; WASTE WATER; WATER SUPPLY;

EID: 84966461485     PISSN: 00431354     EISSN: 18792448     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2016.05.004     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50(2):179-211.
2. Attari S.Z. Perceptions of water use. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2014, 111(14):5129-5134.
3. Baggett S., Jeffrey P., Jefferson B. Risk perception in participatory planning for water reuse. Desalination 2006, 187(1-3):149-158.
4. Bland J.M., Altman D.G. Statistics notes: cronbach's alpha. Br. Med. J. 1997, 314:572-573.
5. Blume S., Winker M. Three years of operation of the urine diversion system at GTZ headquarters in Germany: user opinions and maintenance challenges. Water Sci. Technol. 2011, 64(3):579-586.
6. Boyer T.H., Overdevest C., Christiansen L., Ishii S.K.L. Expert stakeholder attitudes and support for alternative water sources in a groundwater depleted region. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 437:245-254.
7. de Koster W., Achterberg P. Comment on "Providing information promotes greater public support for potable recycled water" by Fielding, K.S. and Roiko, A.H., 2014 [Water Research 61, 86-96]. Water Res. 2015, 84:372-374.
8. Dillman D.A., Smyth J.D., Christian L.M. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-mode Surveys: the Tailored Design Method 2008, Wiley, New York.
9. Dolnicar S., Hurlimann A., Grün B. What affects public acceptance of recycled and desalinated water?. Water Res. 2011, 45(2):933-943.
10. Dunlap R.E., Van Liere K.D., Mertig A.G., Jones R.E. Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56(3):425-442.
11. Fielding K.S., Roiko A.H. Providing information promotes greater public support for potable recycled water. Water Res. 2014, 61:86-96.
12. Flack J.E., Greenberg J. Public attitudes toward water conservation. J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 1987, 79(3):46-51.
13. Foley J., de Haas D., Harley K., Lant P. Comprehensive life cycle inventories of alternative wastewater treatment systems. Water Res. 2009, 44(5):1654-1666.
14. Gao H., Scherson Y.D., Wells G.F. Towards energy neutral wastewater treatment: methodology and state of the art. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 2014, 16:1223-1246.
15. Gilbertson M., Hurlimann A., Dolnicar S. Does water context influence behaviour and attitudes to water conservation?. Australas. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 18(1):47-60.
16. Guest J.S., Skerlos S.J., Barnard J.L., Beck M.B., Daigger G.T., Hilger H., Jackson S.J., Karvazy K., Kelly L., Macpherson L., Mihelcic J.R., Pramanik A., Raskin L., Van Loosdrecht M.C.M., Yeh D., Love N.G. A new planning and design paradigm to achieve sustainable resource recovery from wastewater. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43(16):6126-6130.
17. Hartley T.W. Public perception and participation in water reuse. Desalination 2006, 187(1-3):115-126.
18. Huggins T.M., Haeger A., Biffinger J.C., Ren Z.J. Granular biochar compared with activated carbon for wastewater treatment and resource recovery. Water Res. 2016, 94(1):225-232.
19. Ishii S.K.L., Boyer T.H. Life cycle comparison of centralized wastewater treatment and urine source separation with struvite precipitation: focus on urine nutrient management. Water Res. 2015, 79:88-103.
20. Johnson C.Y., Bowker J.M. Ethnic variation in environmental belief and behavior. Environ. Behav. 2004, 36(2):157-186.
21. Lam S.-P. Predicting intentions to conserve water from the theory of planned behavior, perceived moral obligation, and perceived water right1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 29(5):1058-1071.
22. Lamichhane K.M., Babcock R.W. Survey of attitudes and perceptions of urine-diverting toilets and human waste recycling in Hawaii. Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 443(15):749-756.
23. Larsen T.A., Alder A.C., Eggen R.I.L., Maurer M., Lienert J. Source separation: will we see a paradigm shift in wastewater handling?1. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43(16):6121-6125.
24. Larsen T.A., Gujer W. Separate management of anthropogenic nutrient solutions (human urine). Water Sci. Technol. 1996, 34(3-4):87-94.
25. Leverenz H., Tchobanoglous G., Asano T. Direct potable reuse: a future imperative. J. Water Reuse Desalination 2011, 1(1):2-10.
26. Lienert J., Burki T., Escher B. Reducing micropollutants with source control: substance flow analysis of 212 pharmaceuticals in faeces and urine. Water Sci. Technol. 2007, 56(5):87-96.
27. Lienert J., Larsen T.A. Considering user attitude in early development of environmentally friendly technology: a case study of NoMix toilets. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40(16):4838-4844.
28. Lienert J., Larsen T.A. High acceptance of urine source separation in seven European countries: a review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44(2):556-566.
29. Medilanski E., Chuan L., Mosler H.-J., Schertenleib R., Larsen T.A. Wastewater management in Kunming, China: a stakeholder perspective on measures at the source. Environ. Urbanization 2006, 18(2):353-368.
30. Millan M., Tennyson P., Snyder S. Model communication plans for increasing awareness and fostering acceptance of direct potable reuse 2015.
31. Mo W., Zhang Q. Energy-nutrients-water nexus: integrated resource recovery in municipal wastewater treatment plants. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 127:255-267.
32. O'Neal J.A., Boyer T.H. Phosphate recovery using hybrid anion exchange: applications to source-separated urine and combined wastewater streams. Water Res. 2013, 47(14):5003-5017.
33. Pahl-Wostl C., Schonborn A., Willi N., Muncke J., Larsen T.A. Investigating consumer attitudes towards the new technology of urine separation. Water Sci. Technol. 2003, 48(1):57-65.
34. Trumbo C.W., O'Keefe G.J. Intention to conserve water: environmental values, reasoned action, and information effects across time. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2005, 18(6):573-585.
35. Udert K.M., Wachter M. Complete nutrient recovery from source-separated urine by nitrification and distillation. Water Res. 2012, 46(2):453-464.
36. Whitmarsh L., O'Neill S. Green identity, green living? the role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30(3):305-314.
37. Wilsenach J.A., Loosdrecht M.C.v. Integration of processes to treat wastewater and source-separated urine. J. Environ. Eng. 2006, 132(3):331-341.
38. Zollig H., Fritzsche C., Morgenroth E., Udert K.M. Direct electrochemical oxidation of ammonia on graphite as a treatment option for stored source-separated urine. Water Res. 2015, 69(1):284-294.