Drought Campaign Survey Final Report
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Southwest Florida Water Management District Media Research and Evaluation of the "Drought Campaign" and Focus Group Pretesting of the "Skip a Week" Campaign Ads Final Report Media Research and Evaluation of the Southwest Florida Water Management District’s Water Conservation Public Awareness Campaign Final Report Table of Contents Final Report Executive Summary Introduction................................................. 1 Survey Report Summary.................................................................................. 1 Focus Group Report Summary ........................................................................ 5 Water Conservation Media Campaign Survey Report ..................................... 7 Appendix A – Survey Instrument...................................................................... 28 Appendix B – Posttest Data including Comparisons........................................ 38 Appendix C – Pretest Data .............................................................................. 98 Appendix D – Drought vs. Water Shortage ...................................................... 109 Appendix E – Lawmaker Question................................................................... 129 Appendix F – Self-Reported Behavior Change ................................................ 149 Appendix G – Advice to Conserve ................................................................... 155 Media Research Focus Group Report ............................................................. 173 Appendix A – Moderator’s Guide ..................................................................... 189 Appendix B – Focus Group Transcripts ........................................................... 196 Bartow Focus Group Transcript ....................................................................... 197 Sarasota Focus Group Transcript.................................................................... 250 Brooksville Focus Group Transcript................................................................. 287 Tampa Focus Group Transcript ....................................................................... 381 Final Report Executive Summary The Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) partnered with Salter>Mitchell to research and evaluate media messages focusing on water conservation. The two-part research and evaluation strategy consisted of both qualitative and quantitative data collection. This report combines the results of the data collection and analysis into one comprehensive report. This executive summary will present the overall findings from the survey data (pre/post campaign) and the focus group concept testing. The remainder of the report will present the full findings and analysis of each research methodology. Summary of Survey Research The Southwest Florida Water Management District (the District) partnered with Salter>Mitchell to learn more about the public’s opinions and attitudes regarding water conservation for residents in their 16 county service area. This posttest survey was conducted shortly after the District’s water conservation media campaign. This report analyzes data collected from May 8 to May 14, 2009 through the use of an online survey panel. The sample was made up of 803 residents (theoretical margin of error of +/- 4 percent) in the District’s service area. Respondents consisted of both homeowners and renters. The primary goal of this report is to examine the citizens’ attitudes and current use of water and determine the effectiveness of the District’s water conservation media campaign. Data from the posttest will be compared, when applicable, to the pretest data collected from February 24 to February 28, 2009. Ultimately, the results should be used to guide conservation strategies for future media endeavors. Research Objectives of the Posttest This posttest research was conducted to measure residents’ changes in perceptions and self reported behaviors that may be linked to the District’s media campaign. In addition to determining changes between the pre and posttest, “new” data was collected to establish a customer satisfaction measure for the District. The main research objectives are listed below: 1. Identify changes in the public’s current water-related behaviors and attitudes from the pretest and posttest 2. Determine if there was a change in the level of awareness about proper use of water as defined by the District 3. Determine unaided and aided recall of District campaign messages regarding water conservation 4. Determine a level of satisfaction for the District and measure awareness of District responsibilities While no media campaign can be pinpointed as the sole contributor to behavior change, we will use the data to draw correlations about the campaign’s effectiveness. One should be aware that other compounding factors (like news stories, other District campaigns, etc.) may have had an affect on the posttest data. District staff should take into consideration other water-related campaigns that may be competing with the perceptions of residents when reading these data. Major Findings Caring for their lawn Responses were fairly consistent with the pretest data – about a third of the sample stated that either they (28.1%) or a lawn service paid by the house (29.4%) cared for the lawn. Water-related personal behaviors, attitudes and knowledge There was no statistical difference between the regions when looking at how often respondents water their lawn. While a fifth of the sample stated that they never water their lawn, half of the sample reported watering either once a week or less. There was however a statistical difference in the way respondents reported watering from the pretest to the posttest - the largest difference appeared in the “I never water my lawn” cell (pre – 16.3% to post – 21.6%). While this is a desired behavior of the campaign, the concept of “never watering my lawn” cannot solely be attributed to the District’s media effort. It is the belief of the research staff that a mix of elements – repeated news stories about the drought/water shortage, government campaigns (SWFWMD and other entities), and general talk about the issues – were probably the driving factors of the decrease. For the posttest, we added a question to see if people understood where the water they used in their landscape came from. Overall, respondents believed that “municipal water” was the landscape water source. It is the belief of research staff that many still don’t realize where their water comes from. The District should continue to include this education aspect in their outreach endeavors. “Drought” versus “Water Shortages” When asked to describe the current conditions of “water resources in your area,” two-thirds of the post sample indicated “in a drought.” This goes along with the messaging of the campaign as well as the news stories that were common during the previous months. Respondents were asked about how long they believed the conditions had been like this. The largest increase shows up in the “3 years” response (pre - 15.7% to post – 21.3%). It is the belief of the research staff that this was a result of the District’s campaign. The reason: the campaign specifically stated that “we were in a 3 year drought.” This data shows that there was likely penetration of the message. Attitudes Towards Water Conservation Respondents agreed more in the posttest that there was a water shortage and they had changed the way they used water in the past year. They disagreed more with the statement that their water use had little effect on the amount of available water in their area. Overall, people did agree that their water use had an effect on the available water in their area. Just as in the pretest report, the District should continue to look for ways to link personal water use and overall supply. Nearly everyone indicated their use of water was ‘Less than the average person in my area’ or ‘About the same as the average person in my area’. This is fairly consistent with what is seen in previous research – people generally have a more positive sense of themselves. As discussed in the pretest report, the District should figure out ways to concretely show residents how much of an impact they have on the water source. Campaign Recall and Evaluation Respondents were asked about their awareness of water conservation advertising. Nearly 70 percent of the sample stated that they had seen or heard an advertisement in the past few months about conserving water. The reader should remember that just an awareness of an advertisement does not mean that it was the District’s advertisement. When evaluating advertising, we typically look at two types of advertising recall: unaided and aided. Unaided recall is determined by asking respondents to describe the advertisement. The responses are then coded to determine if it people remembered the ad. Only 3.61percent of the sample described one of the District’s advertising concepts. Since unaided recall is difficult to achieve with a short campaign, we decided to seek aided recall. Aided recall is achieved by presenting respondents with phrases, slogans or descriptions of advertisements and asking if they saw or heard it in the past two months. Those with aided recall were more than twice as likely to report “3 years” as the length of time for the local water resource conditions – a specific element in the District advertisement. When looking at other self-reported conservation behavior and perceptions, those who were exposed were also more likely