Following on from our post over the growing concerns about the state of the UK’s freshwater resources, in May of this year. A joint report by the Fabian Society and the WWF ‘Running Dry’ has brought in an edge of much needed practicality.
It’s hard to remember in all this rain that the UK experienced its worst drought since 1975 this year with many households experiencing low flow events up and down the country. It is therefore fitting that water companies and the Government are looking to mitigate the situation. The report highlights one of the roles that we, the British public, can play and how our willingness to act is affected by the sources of information we receive.
The question asked was simple; are people willing to pay extra on their annual bills to protect Britain’s rivers?
The survey within Running Dry consisted of 2,400 people in six groups. They were presented with different sets and sources of information pertaining to the use of the freshwater and the impact of extraction on the environment. Information was presented from Governmental sources, Water companies or a mixture of both. Results showed that in every group 40% of people were unwilling to pay additional charges to restore and repair UK Rivers; but generally the more information given on the nature of the environmental damage and schemes of restoration the more people were willing to pay an additional fee. People placed more trust in the Governmental sources of information than water companies. Water companies are due to begin surveys to ascertain what value customers place on this additional service, shortly.
It’s unsurprising that in a time of recession that not everyone is willing to pay additional fees, with wages still at 2005 levels; but what value can we place on the UK’s freshwater ecosystems, systems that have functioned for thousands of years and is only now, under our collective influence, beginning to break?
The BES will shortly be releasing a 12th edition of Ecological Issues to be focused on this issue of water security and the impacts of extreme weather events on the UK’s freshwater ecosystems.
Why is paying more beeing suggested as the solution? Surely this is related to good water resource management. Increasing population density in the south east will naturally lead to scarce water resources,for both the customer and river ecology, whereas increasing new build in areas of greater water resources wont take such a hit. This requires strategic thinking at high political levels. Some research suggesting that metering is not the solution either, as people start off being careful then increase usage back to previous levels. Constant push on public awareness / education has been successful during drought periods (Veolia’s data) but needs to be continuous.
I really dont see how extra payment is going to make a difference to our behaviour or governments insistance on development in the south east. Water companies make a tidy profit after all, so why is extra money needed from the customer – & for what exactly? If going ahead with this need to be specific on where any extra money is going & how the benefits are going to be measured and assessed. Appears to me to be yet another example of taking money for ‘green’ purposes yet no visible benefits to the environment are likely to be seen.
Why is paying more beeing suggested as the solution? Surely this is related to good water resource management. Increasing population density in the south east will naturally lead to scarce water resources, for both the customer and river ecology, whereas increasing new build in areas of greater water resources wont take such a hit. This requires strategic thinking at high political levels. Some research suggesting that metering is not the solution either, as people start off being careful then increase usage back to previous levels. Constant push on public awareness / education has been successful during drought periods (Veolia’s data) but needs to be continuous.
I really dont see how extra payment is going to make a difference to our behaviour or governments insistance on development in the south east. Water companies make a tidy profit after all, so why is extra money needed from the customer – & for what exactly? If going ahead with this need to be specific on where any extra money is going & how the benefits are going to be measured and assessed. Appears to me to be yet another example of taking money for ‘green’ purposes yet no visible benefits to the environment are likely to be seen. River restoration / rehabilitation schemes wont increase available water resources & wont prevent rivers running dry!