Source
doi:10.1155/2022/6603348 — original publication (opens in a new tab; the file is not redistributed)
Summary
Empirical survey study measuring social acceptance of greywater reuse across ten application types (bush irrigation, crop irrigation, stone cutting, construction, car washing, public toilets, aquaculture, aquifer recharge, olive pressing, drinking) under three treatment conditions (no treatment, home treatment, centralized treatment) in four rural villages of western Bethlehem Governorate, Palestine. N=300. Five-point Likert scale. Key finding: bush irrigation is the only consistently accepted reuse regardless of treatment; direct-contact applications are universally rejected; centralized treatment is the most trusted; acceptance is largely independent of demographics. LIT_017
NZ applicability note: Palestine context (arid climate, water scarcity, no rural sewer network, cesspit-based sanitation) is not directly comparable to NZ. The ranking of accepted vs. rejected use types and the centralized treatment trust premium are likely generalizable; specific acceptance percentages are not.
Key claims
- Greywater is approximately 75–80% of domestic wastewater (potentially 100% where dry latrines are used); blackwater is a smaller fraction but has higher nutrient content — greywater separation and reuse addresses the dominant fraction of residential waste water. LIT_017
- Bush/garden irrigation is the only greywater reuse application accepted across all treatment conditions: Likert mean 3.54 (untreated), 3.53 (home treatment), 3.83 (centralized) — the baseline acceptable use regardless of treatment level because it is perceived to have no direct human contact. LIT_017
- Crop irrigation shifts from neutral (3.14 untreated) to accepted (3.62) after centralized treatment — treatment level is the decisive factor for food-contact reuse acceptance; centralized treatment unlocks agricultural applications. LIT_017
- Applications perceived to involve direct human contact are consistently rejected regardless of treatment level: drinking (1.62–1.72), olive pressing (1.85–1.94), aquifer recharge (1.98–2.04), aquaculture (2.26–2.38) — cultural/health risk perception rather than technical feasibility governs these limits. LIT_017
- Intermediate acceptance: stone cutting (3.19–3.36), construction (3.12–3.42) — uses without direct contact receive moderate support; car washing (2.95–3.17) and public toilet flushing (2.59–2.70) are newer concepts with high neutral response rates, indicating unfamiliarity rather than rejection. LIT_017
- Centralized treatment is the most trusted treatment type; home treatment generates near-identical skepticism to no treatment — community-scale centralized greywater infrastructure commands significantly higher public confidence than household-level solutions; home treatment may be perceived as a temporary or inferior solution. LIT_017
- Social acceptance is largely independent of income, family size, and monthly water bill — acceptance is attitudinal and culturally mediated, not primarily driven by socioeconomic status; targeted public education and dissemination campaigns are the primary lever for increasing acceptance of new reuse applications. LIT_017
- 90% of rural households in this context already separate greywater and use it untreated in garden irrigation — informal greywater reuse is near-universal in water-scarce rural communities even without formal infrastructure or encouragement. LIT_017
Connections
Referenced by
EDT domains (1): D03: Water, Waste & Circular Systems
SSI indicators (1): I07: Fulfilment of Basic Needs