The water crisis in Flint, Michigan put the need to protect and invest in clean drinking water front and center in the minds of many Americans. But how to go about investing, as well as how to get the public on board with such spending, is a difficult challenge that faces policymakers.

A new study from the University of Delaware has found that when given the choice, people prefer to invest their money in conservation, such as protecting key areas of a watershed—also referred to as "green infrastructure"—over traditional water treatment plants, or "gray infrastructure." The researchers also found that different messages related to climate change, global warming, extreme weather events and decaying infrastructure affect people’s willingness to contribute to projects.

When given the choice, people prefer to invest their money in conservation, such as protecting key areas of a watershed, over traditional water treatment plants. Image credit: Pixabay.When given the choice, people prefer to invest their money in conservation, such as protecting key areas of a watershed, over traditional water treatment plants. Image credit: Pixabay.In a field experiment involving 251 adult participants from sites throughout northern Delaware, the researchers had participants perform a simple task in which they earned money for their effort and were then asked if they would like to donate the funds to an organization that could help alleviate water-quality issues in the future. Participants could donate to either the American Water Works Association, representing traditional gray infrastructure, or the Conservation Fund, representing green infrastructure.

“People are much more willing to pay for conservation,” says Kent Messer, director of the Center for Experimental and Applied Economics in the university’s College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. “They like the idea of permanently protecting the waters from their source and avoiding having to do technological fixes.”

Examining how different messages affected people’s choices, the researchers found that, in informing citizens why protecting water is important, people were more willing to give money when climate change or global warming was discussed compared to messages that emphasized extreme weather events.

“The big surprise was that messages stating that storms are increasing in frequency due to extreme weather events led to a dramatic decrease in people’s willingness to pay for either conservation or gray infrastructure,” says Messer.

When it comes to policymaking, he says, there has been a debate on whether it is more effective to avoid discussion of climate change and instead focus on large storms. Messer says the research suggests that emphasizing large storms such as Hurricane Sandy makes people less willing to take action because they apparently perceive these large storms as being beyond human control.

“If it’s just decaying infrastructure, normal storms or even climate change, then people might feel they can do something about it," he says. "But when you start really emphasizing these large-magnitude storms, there becomes a sense of hopelessness.”

To contact the author of this article, email GlobalSpeceditors@globalspec.com