Athens, Ga. – “Purified water,” “reused water,” “recycled water”—these terms mean exactly the same thing. Even though all three refer to water that’s been treated to the highest drinking water standards, research has shown that people much prefer the idea of consuming purified water to reused or recycled water. A recent study from a team of University of Georgia River Basin Center affiliates has for the first time put a dollar value on that preference.

“Whether people know about recycled water or not, they don’t like those terms,” said lead author Megan Hopson (PhD ’22), formerly of the Odum School of Ecology and now an assistant professor of biology at Reinhardt University. “In this paper, we specifically show that it financially has an impact on how much they’re willing to pay to the utilities, which is a big factor for utilities that have to pay so much money for setting up potable water systems.”

Ensuring that consumers have access to plenty of safe, clean drinking water is a growing challenge. Population growth, urbanization, and changing climate and weather patterns are putting pressure on existing water resources. But while the demand may be growing, the supply is not.

“No new water is being created. It cycles up into the atmosphere, it precipitates down, but ultimately we’re not getting any more,” said Hopson. 

But despite the fact that advanced treatment technologies have been proven highly effective—even removing contaminants like hormones and pharmaceuticals that aren’t removed by typical drinking water treatment—people are hesitant to accept recycled or reused drinking water. There is a persistent “yuck factor” at work. That, in turn, can make utilities hesitant to invest in them.

“Some treatment technologies are very pricey, and they require a lot of maintenance, but we do have ones that are shown to remove even a lot of contaminants like hormones and things that people are very afraid of,” said Hopson. “But there’s a real perception of risk involved with this. A lot of utilities aren’t willing to put the investment in for it then not to be accepted.”

The authors surveyed more than 1,000 people from four cities across the U.S. to measure how the terminology used to describe potable recycled water affected consumers’ willingness to pay for it. They asked how much people were willing to pay for water described as “purified,” “recycled,” “reused,” “treated wastewater,” or “reclaimed water,” as compared to “the same water you receive now.” 

“‘Reclaimed water’ and ‘treated wastewater’ can sometimes mean slightly different things, but ‘reused,’ ‘recycled,’ ‘purified’—they all mean the exact same thing; there’s no difference between them,” said Hopson. All the terms refer to water that is safe to drink.

The team found that across all four cities—Atlanta, Denver, San Antonio and San Diego—consumers indicated they would require a price discount to purchase anything other than the same water they receive now. However, the estimated discount consumers needed to accept purified water was significantly lower than what they needed for water described by any of the other terms. 

On average, people would require a monthly discount of $9.99 for reclaimed water, $15 for reused water, $17.31 for recycled water, and $22.30 for treated wastewater, but only $2.25 for purified water. Given that the average monthly water bill ranges from $15.11 per person in San Antonio to $43.17 per person in San Diego, all but the purified water discounts would have a notable financial impact on utilities.

The results point to the importance of terminology in consumer decision-making, Hopson said, and suggest that using the term ‘purified water’ as the standard would go a long way toward public acceptance. But such a change will take time.

“‘Reused’ or ‘recycled water,’ they’re in everyone’s vocabulary, they’re in our policies, in our science,” she said. “That’s been the standard term for decades.”

While change would be difficult, Hopson said the study provides evidence that it is worth the effort.  

“Especially here in the Southeast with the continual litigations and conflicts over water resources, reused water is definitely one of the best paths, in my opinion, but definitely one of the options to expand our water resources. So, it’s definitely an essential thing for us to keep looking into and keep investigating,” she said. 

Impact of Terminology and Water Restrictions on Consumer Willingness to Pay for Potable Recycled Water in the U.S., was published in Environmental Science & Technology. The study’s senior author is Laurie Fowler of the Odum School of Ecology, and coauthors are Jeffrey D. Mullen and Gregory Colson of the Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.