As part of a sustainability class at UC San Diego, Im researching how to reduce water usage in a commonly metered luxury high rise (here in drought-prone Southern California) and how to present my proposals convincingly to homeowners. There are over 150 units and about 300 residents. (For many, its a second home, and occupancy is seasonal. Owner occupancy is the norm, but some units are rentals.)
The building is an iconic structure thats now more than 40 years old. Plumbing is not (and Im told, but havent verified, that it cannot be) individually metered. A significant number of units have original high-flow plumbing fixtures, and staff believes many fixtures also waste water through leakage. Toilets need to be wall mounted, which increases the cost of replacement and limits options. Additionally, common metering reduces the incentive for individual owners to incur retrofitting costs. However, local regulations do require 1.6 GPF toilets be installed upon re-sale, so owners cant avoid eventual replacement.
The HOAs General Manager & Facilities Manager, as well as some of the HOA Board members, are sustainability advocates. Some residents are not. Indeed, some view conservation efforts as lowering their quality of life (perhaps remembering the unsatisfactory early generation low-flow fixtures) and feel they can afford, and have earned the right, to use as much water as they wish. Thus, financial incentives are unlikely to have much impact.
Im looking for social marketing techniques that will appeal to the rich. Ive been thinking in terms of finding out what fixtures are used at other luxury residential buildings and/or hotels (e.g., the Ritz Carlton condos in DC and the Plaza in NYC) and inspiring residents to keep up with the Joneses as part of the campaign.
Any ideas?
Jo Brooks
[email protected]
858-412-4564
Reducing Water Use in Luxury Condo
Sign in or Sign up to comment
...
Jo
I take it you have conducted surveys with the condominium's residents to determine what their barriers are to implementing water conservation practices. You mention some are resistent, even hostile to the idea, feeling that they are entitled and that conservation would be an imposition.
And perhaps cost is not a barrier? I suspect that knowledge is not, but only investigation would tell.
The trick, obviously, is to make implementation more attractive than not, removing or reducing obstacles, and engaging the owners to inspire action.
Your idea of using norms would seem to have promise. What is the fashion in super-upscale places, what do their role models do (does Buffett use conserving appliances?).
How much money would be saved if residents adopted appropriate measures? I don't suppose (but don't know) that that in itself would lead anyone there to action, especially since no single household could see the results of their particular actions. But that sum might be used as an incentive of some sort--concert tickets for residents if the building achieved some goal, perhaps.
Obtaining committment is sometimes effective; getting individuals to agree to do something, optimally in a public manner, might not only induce them to actually act but encourage others to do so as well. Of course you don't know if this would likely be effective until after doing some survey or focus group investigation.
Just doing something might be a barrier. Having catalogs delivered to each household with facilitation for filling out the forms, placing orders, and making appointments might be what is needed to get people to take action. ("Mrs. Smith, here is your catalog. I'll be back next Saturday to take your order and we can schedule an appointment with the plumber at the same time.") Again, only prior investigation would let you know if this would be a likely approach.
Using defaults might also be good. Offer a range of possibilities, including standard conservation devices, fancy ones, and "thank you, not at this time" options, with the standard being the default unless they chose another.
Robert Rowell
educator
United States