Gender predicts concern for water utility issues
Do men and women think differently about their water utilities? In a recent post I wrote about some findings from a Texas A&M Institute for Science, Technology & Public Policy (ISTPP) public opinion survey that included questions taken directly from the American Water Works Association (AWWA) State of the Water Industry survey. The ISTPP survey’s sample of nearly 2,000 individuals was carefully crafted to be representative of the US population, and so is a goldmine of public perceptions about water. I’m blogging about interesting findings here as time allows; today I’m looking at gender.
Water & gender
I’ve always been a bit skeptical about the idea that water is a “gendered” issue in the United States. From a purely biological perspective, there’s no reason to expect that men and women think differently about water utility issues. People of all genders need water to drink, cook, and clean; sanitary sewers and stormwater systems protect everyone. There’s a huge body of academic research on gender related to water and sanitation in the developing world, which make sense—in much of the world, women and girls bear the greatest (literal) burden of securing drinking water, and are most vulnerable to poor sanitary conditions. My Texas A&M colleague Kathleen O’Reilly has worked extensively on this issue.
But in most of the US, men and women experience water utilities in more or less the same way. For the most part, American girls aren’t trudging long distances on foot to fetch water, and American women don’t have to use open pit toilets in urban areas.
What women want (from their water utilities)
So it was surprising (to me, at least) to discover a subtle but consistent gender disparity in attitudes toward water issues in our dataset. As noted in my last post, the ISTPP survey asked eleven questions taken directly from the SOTWI. All eleven attitudinal questions are based on a five-point scale: unimportant (1), slightly important (2), important (3), very important (4), and critically important (5).
Here are the results from the national survey, broken down by gender:
Women reported greater average concern than men across all eleven categories. The greatest disparities were in concern for water loss, climate change, affordability, and conservation. The differences aren’t huge in absolute terms—about a third of a standard deviation in general—but the consistency is striking. The gender effect is in the same direction across-the-board, and the difference is statistically significant in nine of the eleven categories. The gender differences persist in regression analyses that control for partisanship, region, and age.
Unfortunately, the 2015 SOTWI doesn’t include gender data, so we can’t say much about whether a similar gender gap exists within the water sector.
The Aquatic Gender Gap
I don’t know enough social psychology to know exactly what’s behind the gender gap in American water utility attitudes. But these results offer a potentially powerful clue for politically savvy utility leaders: building support for water systems in American communities probably starts with women.
How utility people—and everybody else—think about water issues
Each year the American Water Works Association (AWWA) conducts a survey of its members on the State of the Water Industry (SOTWI). The survey seeks to “identify and track significant challenges facing the water industry.” Among other things, the SOTWI survey asks respondents about their perceptions of various water issues, and so broadly gauges attitudes within the water sector.
It’s common for water sector folks to lament that the public doesn’t understand water issues. After several years of responding to SOTWI and reading the results, I wondered: How does the public perceive water issues? How closely do attitudes within the industry align with those of the general public?
Organizations like Texas A&M’s Institute for Science, Technology & Public Policy (ISTPP) offer a way to answer those questions scientifically. In the summer of 2015 I worked with ISTPP colleagues to deploy a nationally representative mass public survey of attitudes toward energy, agriculture, and environmental issues in the United States. The ISTPP survey yielded nearly 2,000 respondents. As part of the ISTPP survey, we included several items about water policy taken directly from the SOTWI survey. Identical wording and question structure provides an extraordinary opportunity to compare attitudes within the water sector (the “pros”) against attitudes in the general public (the “Joes”).
The SOTWI questionnaire included 34 items; from among these we selected 11 items that directly ask the respondents’ perceptions of water issues such as water resources, capital, and affordability for low-income households. All 11 attitudinal questions are based on a five-point scale: unimportant (1), slightly important (2), important (3), very important (4), and critical (5).
Convergence & divergence
Some interesting patterns emerged. Average values ranged between 3.2 and 4.6 among the Pros, with infrastructure replacement emerging as a clear #1 priority. The general public averaged 3.10-4.11, with long-term supply availability as the top value. Ordinal rankings—that is, which issues were more or less important relative to each other—were fairly consistent between Pros and Joes.
But the really interesting picture emerges when we look at the disparities in average scores across the eleven issue area. This graph shows the difference in average score for Pros minus average for Joes:
The most striking disparities are at the top and bottom of the graph. Water sector respondents perceive infrastructure replacement, regulatory compliance, and source water protection as much more important than does the public. Meanwhile, the public evidently views low-income affordability as significantly more important than does the water sector.
Together, these results offer clues about the areas of relative harmony and dissonance between the American water sector and the American public. Water organizations and utility communications staff should perhaps concentrate on developing effective ways to convey the significance of infrastructure replacement, regulatory compliance, and source water protection.
By the same token, these findings suggest that low-income affordability matters much more to the public Joes than to water sector Pros. It stands to reason that taking affordability seriously can help utility leaders legitimize their own priorities to the public.
Why rate structures, not assistance programs, offer the most promising path to water affordability
When discussions of water and sewer affordability turn to policy solutions, they typically focus on Customer Assistance Programs (CAPs). But a focus on CAPs bypasses a much more direct, effective, and efficient means of improving affordability: rate design. To see what I mean, consider the way we combat infectious diseases.
Therapy vs Inoculation
Clinical therapy and inoculation are both ways to fight infectious diseases. Each approach can improve health, neither is perfect, and some combination of both is useful in practice. But for the most serious diseases, inoculation is far superior to therapy.
Clinical therapy is costly. For therapy to cure a disease, a patient must recognize that (s)he is sick, be aware that treatment is available, seek treatment, and then follow a course of treatment and hope that it works. For health care providers, therapy requires highly skilled employees, careful diagnostic procedures, and treatment that can involve expensive drugs and equipment. Meanwhile, the broader community bears the costs of people who go untreated or carry the disease without symptoms.
Inoculation is comparatively inexpensive. Inoculation requires little time or sophistication from patients, and it is quick and easy for health care providers. A tiny minority might suffer adverse effects, but the community benefits from widespread immunization, which can sometimes effectively eradicate a disease from an entire population.
Customer assistance programs as clinical therapy
CAPs seek to ameliorate affordability problems caused in part by water and sewer rates. CAPs come in lots of shapes and sizes. Some are as simple as shut-off forbearance and budget billing; others involve income-qualified rate discounts or bill forgiveness plans; still others provide high-efficiency fixtures or appliances for low-income households.
Like clinical therapy, CAPs are costly. CAPs have obvious direct costs to the utility, like revenue lost through discounts or the direct cost of installing retrofits. CAPs can also have significant administrative costs: someone must determine which customers qualify, keep records of who receives or is denied assistance, and keep track of those who lose eligibility over time. Utilities sometimes coordinate assistance with other agencies to administer these programs more efficiently, but that only reduces administrative costs, it doesn’t avoid them. CAPs can be politically and legally risky, too, since they are explicit transfers from one group to another. In many states utilities are legally constrained from such transfers.
Less obviously, CAPs are also costly for their recipients. In order to participate in a CAP, a water customer must:
- Learn that the program exists;
- Find out if (s)he is eligible;
- Apply for the program; and
- Follow up with program administrators as necessary to maintain eligibility.
Each of these steps imposes a transaction cost of time and effort on working-class families. If participation requires an in-person visit, then transportation and child care add to those costs. Language barriers and distrust of government can raise transaction costs even further. There are good reasons to believe that many people who are eligible for and badly need CAPs never apply for them.
Rate design as inoculation
Some key elements of rate design can improve affordability directly, without the need for CAPs, by maintaining low prices for essential household water and sanitation. Specifically, affordability-friendly rate structures feature:
- Low fixed charges;
- Volumetric sewer prices based on indoor flows;
- Low volumetric water prices for essential household water use; and
- Steeply escalating volumetric prices for demand beyond essential use.
Like inoculation, rate design is a solution with low administrative burdens. Affordability-friendly rate designs create no additional transaction costs for utilities or customers. Since rate structures apply to everyone, there’s no need to determine or track income eligibility, and there’s no worry that eligible customers are failing to sign up. Customers do not need to learn about, apply for, or document their eligibility. Rate design isn’t an affordability cure-all, but it can go an awfully long way toward immunizing a population against unaffordable water and sewer service.
So why don’t more utilities use rate design to address affordability?
Ordinary organizational inertia is one reason, of course. There’s also a widespread misperception in ratemaking circles that affordability contravenes goals like cost-of-service equity, full-cost pricing, and/or conservation. Happily, affordability-friendly rate design can exist in harmony with all of these principles—I’ll tackle that topic in a future post.
But the greatest barrier to more affordability-through-rate design is probably revenue stability. High fixed charges generate revenue reliably. Revenue from volumetric charges fluctuate with water sales, which vary seasonally and can skyrocket or plummet depending on the weather. A utility doesn’t sell much high-priced, high-volume water if it rains all summer and nobody waters their lawn. That can leave the utility in tough financial shape, because the utility’s capital and operating costs are mostly fixed. Some utilities have responded to falling average water demand by raising their fixed charges, in large part to manage revenue volatility. That’s bad news for affordability.
So a key to more affordable rate design is developing mechanisms that manage utilities’ revenue risks. Adequately insulated from those risks, utilities can price water more equitably, efficiently, and affordably.