INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT. Appraisal of the Factors Influencing Public Perceptions of Water Reuse in Cyprus

Transcript

1 INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT Under the Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Innovation of the Research Promotion Foundation Appraisal of the Factors Influencing Public Perceptions of Water Reuse in Cyprus Project Code: ΑΕΙΦΟΡΙΑ/ΚΟΙΑΦ/0609(ΒΙΕ) FREDERICK RESEARCH CENTER

2 Table of Contents PART A PART B INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT ANNEXES Annex B1 - Other Information Appendix B1.1 Appendix B1.2 Appendix B1.3 Distribution of Funds to Partners (1st Installment from RPF) CVs of Selected Research Assistants for FRC and CUT Contracts of Selected Research Assistants for FRC and CUT Annex B2 Project Deliverables Appendix B2.1 Appendix B2.2 Appendix B2.3 Appendix B2.4 Appendix B2.5 Appendix B2.6 Appendix B2.7 Deliverable D1: 1st RPF Progress report Deliverable D5: Agenda and Minutes for first coordination meeting (of steering committee) Deliverable D6: Agenda and Minutes of second coordination meeting (of steering committee) Deliverable D8: A manuscript of a review paper on water reuse practices worldwide. Deliverable D10: Scientific Presentation in Conference 1 Dr. Anastasiou or Research Associate of HO Current Practices in Cyprus + Methodology Development. Deliverable D16: Project Website. Deliverable D18: A synopsis report that will detail the existing legal structure, policy, and practice regarding water reuse in Cyprus. Appendix B2.8 Deliverable D19: Stakeholders Workshop 1 Appendix B2.9 Appendix B2.10 Appendix B2.11 Deliverable D20: Workshop #1 minutes and meeting summary report. Deliverable D21: Survey Questionnaire Deliverable D22: Brief report indicating the Sampling Design Methodology. PART C INTERIM FINANCIAL REPORT Attached Financial Documents

3 ΚΥΠΡΙΑΚΗ ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΑ ΕΥΡΩΠΑΙΚΗ ΕΝΩΣΗ Η ΔΕΣΜΗ ΣΥΓΧΡΗΜΑΤΟΔΟΤΕΙΤΑΙ ΑΠΟ ΤΗΝ ΚΥΠΡΙΑΚΗ ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΤΟ ΕΥΡΩΠΑΪΚΟ ΤΑΜΕΙΟ ΠΕΡΙΦΕΡΕΙΑΚΗΣ ΑΝΑΠΤΥΞΗΣ ΤΗΣ ΕΕ DESMI IS CO-FUNDED BY THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS AND THE EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND OF THE EU ΕΝΤΥΠΟ ΥΠΟΒΟΛΗΣ ΕΝ ΙΑΜΕΣΗΣ ΕΚΘΕΣΗΣ ΠΡΟΟ ΟΥ ΕΡΕΥΝΗΤΙΚΟΥ ΕΡΓΟΥ ΤΗΣ ΕΣΜΗΣ INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT FORM FOR RESEARCH PROJECTS FUNDED BY DESMI PROJECT TITLE HOST ORGANISATION PROJECT COORDINATOR Appraisal of the Factors Influencing Public Perceptions of Water Reuse in Cyprus Frederick Research Center Dr. Christos Anastasiou 1

4 Ο ΗΓΙΕΣ ΥΠΟΒΟΛΗΣ ΕΝ ΙΑΜΕΣΗΣ ΕΚΘΕΣΗΣ ΠΡΟΟ ΟΥ / INTERIM REPORT SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Η Ενδιάμεση Έκθεση υποβάλλεται σε ηλεκτρονική και έντυπη μορφή (σε δύο δεμένα αντίγραφα), το αργότερο δύο μήνες μετά την ημερομηνία λήξης του Έργου. Η Ενδιάμεση Έκθεση περιλαμβάνει τρία μέρη: The Interim Report is submitted in electronic and print format (in two bound copies), within two months of the Project s completion date, at the latest. The Interim Report comprises of the following three parts: ΜΕΡΟΣ Α / PART A - Ενδιάμεση Έκθεση Προόδου / Interim Progress Report Α.1. Γενικά Στοιχεία Έργου / General Project Information Α.2. Περίληψη / Abstract Α.3. Υλοποίηση Έργου / Project Implementation Α.4. Πίνακας εσμών Εργασίας / Work Packages Table ΜΕΡΟΣ Β / PART B Παραρτήματα / Annexes Β.1. Παράρτημα Β1 - Παραδοτέα του Έργου / Annex B1 Project Deliverables Β.2. Παράρτημα Β2 - Άλλες Πληροφορίες / Annex B2 - Other Information ΜΕΡΟΣ Γ / PART C - Ενδιάμεση Έκθεση Οικονομικών Πεπραγμένων / Interim Financial Report Η Ενδιάμεση Έκθεση Οικονομικών Πεπραγμένων υποβάλλεται σε ξεχωριστό ειδικό έντυπο που είναι διαθέσιμο στον ιστοχώρο του Ιδρύματος Προώθησης Έρευνας σε μορφή αρχείου Excel. The Interim Financial Report is submitted in a separate form in excel format available on the Research Promotion Foundation s website. 2

5 P A R T A Α.1. GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION Operational Programme Priority Axis National Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Innovation Strategic and Multithematic Research Programme Action Project Protocol Number Project Title Host Organisation Sustainable Development Social and Economic Sustainability ΑΕΙΦΟΡΙΑ/ΚΟΙΑΦ/0609(ΒΙΕ)/11 Appraisal of the Factors Influencing Public Perceptions of Water Reuse in Cyprus Frederick Research Center Project Coordinator Dr. Christos Anastasiou Project Starting Date 1/11/2011 Project Completion Date 31/10/2013 Report Submission Date 28/12/2012 Approved Funding 120,000 EUR Funding Received from RPF (so far) 42,000 EUR Actual Expenses Incurred (so far) 61, EUR (considering overheads = 73, EUR) 3

6 Project Coordinator s Contact Information Address Filokyprou 7-9, Palouriotissa, 1036 Nicosia Telephone No Fax No address c.anastasiou@frederick.ac.cy Α.2. ΠΕΡΙΛΗΨΗ / ABSTRACT (up to 500 words in each language) Ελληνική Περίληψη Το παρόν έργο αποσκοπεί: 1. στο να αναδείξει τη δυνατότητα χρήσης ανακυκλωμένων υδάτων 2. στον εντοπισμό αδυναμιών ή ανησυχιών μεταξύ των εμπλεκόμενων φορέων στον τομέα της ανακύκλωσης λυμάτων, και 3. στην αναγνώριση των πλέων σημαντικών παραγόντων που δύναται να επηρεάσουν ένα ουσιαστικό σχέδιο χρήσης ανακυκλωμένων υδάτων στην Κύπρο. Αναμένεται ότι το εν λόγω έργο θα καταλήξει στην υπόδειξη συγκεκριμένου Σχεδίου ράσης και μηχανισμών για ουσιαστική ένταξη των ανακυκλωμένων υδάτων στο υδατικό ισοζύγιο της χώρας. Για την επίτευξη των προαναφερθέντων στόχων οι ακόλουθες δράσεις έχουν προταθεί: 1. επισκόπηση της βιβλιογραφίας και σύνοψη της παρούσας κατάστασης στην Κύπρο, όπως και πρακτικών που εφαρμόζονται ανά το παγκόσμιο 2. ανάπτυξη ενός εργαλείου (ερωτηματολογίου) και συλλογή πληροφοριών που αφορούν στις αντιλήψεις ομάδων ενδιαφέροντος για το θέμα των ανακυκλωμένων υδάτων, και 3. την ανάπτυξη ενός σχεδίου δράσης για τη χώρα Το έργο ξεκίνησε επίσημα την 1η Νοεμβρίου, Κανένα ουσιαστικό πρόβλημα δεν παρουσιάστηκε κατά τη μέχρι τώρα πορεία του έργου, και η πρόοδος του αξιολογείται ως 4

7 ικανοποιητική. Πέρα του συνεχούς συντονισμού μεταξύ των εταίρων στο έργο, οι διάφορες ομάδες εργασίας αφού συμπληρώθηκαν (π.χ. έγινε πρόσληψη ερευνητικών συνεργατών), εστιάστηκαν στα επί μέρους αντικείμενα τους, ως ακολούθως: Η ομάδα του Frederick Research Center (ΑΦ), πέρα από το γενικό συντονισμό του έργου, 1) οργάνωσε και συντόνισε ένα εξειδικευμένο εργαστήρι στα πλαίσια του οποίου ανταλλάχτηκαν απόψεις και πληροφορίες ως προς την παρούσα κατάσταση στον τομέα της ανακύκλωσης υδάτων στην Κύπρο, 2) συντόνισε και εκπόνησε ένα εργαλείο συλλογής πληροφοριών (ερωτηματολόγιο) που αφορούν στις γνώσεις, τάσεις, και αντιλήψεις διάφορων ομάδων του πληθυσμού της χώρας ως προς το ανακυκλωμένο νερό, 3) ανέπτυξε (σε στενή συνεργασία με το ΣΦ2) μια λεπτομερή μεθοδολογία δειγματοληψίας, 4) υποβοήθησε την εκπαίδευση μιας ομάδας συνεργατών που συνέλεξαν πληροφορίες (κάνοντας χρήση του ερωτηματολογίου), 5) επέβλεψε τη συλλογή πληροφοριών από το ευρύ κοινό, γεωργούς, και επιστήμονες / ειδικούς, 6) συμμετείχε στην επεξεργασία και στατιστική ανάλυση δεδομένων που συλλέχτηκαν, 7) ετοίμασε και απέστειλε ένα άρθρο σε επιστημονικό συνέδριο, του οποίου η παρουσίαση θα γίνει το Σεπτέμβριο του επόμενου έτους, 8) εκπόνησε μια συνοπτική έκθεση για το νομοθετικό πλαίσιο και την υφιστάμενη κατάσταση του τομέα ανακυκλωμένων υδάτων στην Κύπρο, 9) ετοίμασε ένα άρθρο που κάνει επισκόπηση των πρακτικών ανακύκλωσης υδάτων ανά το παγκόσμιο (που θα αποσταλεί σε επιστημονικό περιοδικό μέσα στον προσεχή μήνα), και, τέλος, 12) συντόνισε την ετοιμασία της ιστοσελίδας του έργου. Η ομάδα του Τμήματος Αναπτύξεως Υδάτων του Υπουργείου Γεωργίας, Φυσικών Πόρων και Περιβάλλοντος της Κυπριακής ημοκρατίας (ΣΦ1) 1) συμμετείχε σε συναντήσεις συντονισμού του έργου, 2) συμμετείχε και συνέβαλε στο πρώτο εργαστήρι εμπλεκόμενων φορέων και επιστημόνων / ειδικών, 3) συνείσφερε ουσιαστικές πληροφορίες και βοήθεια στη σύνταξη της συνοπτικής αναφοράς του τομέα ανακυκλωμένων υδάτων στην Κύπρο, και 4) συνείσφερε στις συζητήσεις που αφορούν στην κατανόηση των μέχρι τώρα αποτελεσμάτων της έρευνας. Η ομάδα του Τεχνολογικού Πανεπιστημίου Κύπρου (ΣΦ2) 1) συμμετείχε σε συναντήσεις συντονισμού του έργου, 2) συμμετείχε και συνέβαλε στο πρώτο εργαστήρι ενδιαφερόμενων φορέων και επιστημόνων / ειδικών, 3) συνείσφερε στην προσπάθεια ανάπτυξης της μεθοδολογίας δειγματοληψίας (σε άμεσο συντονισμό με την ομάδα του ΑΦ), και 4) ηγείται της προσπάθειας στατιστικής ανάλυσης δεδομένων του έργου. Κάποια προβλήματα που παρουσιάστηκαν κατά τη διάρκεια της υλοποίησης του έργου 5

8 αφορούσαν, ως επί το πλείστο, τη συλλογή δεδομένων από τη κατηγορία των επιστημόνων/ειδικών, και επιλύθηκαν πλήρως και σε εμπρόθεσμο χρονικό διάστημα. Μια πιο ουσιαστική δυσκολία που αντιμετωπίζουμε αφορά στην σχετική αδυναμία στο να αναγνωρίσουμε κατάλληλα συνέδρια στα οποία θα μπορέσουμε να παρουσιάσουμε τα αποτελέσματα μας, μέσα στα χρονικά περιθώρια του έργου. Μια από τις δυσκολίες πηγάζει από το γεγονός ότι η στατιστική ανάλυση των δεδομένων που περισυλλέγησαν έχει μόλις αρχίσει. Έτσι, αδυνατούμε να υποβάλουμε ουσιαστικά συγγράμματα μέσα στα πλαίσια των υφιστάμενων και κατάλληλων συνεδρίων (που συχνά ορίζουν τις καταληκτικές ημερομηνίες υποβολής συγγραμμάτων 9 μήνες πριν την υλοποίηση του συνεδρίου). Αυτή η ιδιαιτερότητα δύναται να μας ωθήσει, εν καιρώ, σε αίτηση για χρονική παράταση του έργου, ούτως ώστε να μπορέσουμε να ολοκληρώσουμε μια πιο επιτυχή διάχυση των αποτελεσμάτων του έργου. English Summary The project seeks to highlight the potential for wastewater reuse, identify the areas of concern, and examine the most important factors that affect wastewater reuse, among different possible user groups. Main factors that are considered in this study include psychological, social, economic, and health. Recommendations and guidelines for the application of a strategic plan for wastewater reuse in Cyprus are envisioned. To achieve the aforementioned objectives, actions proposed include 1) literature review of the current water reuse situation in Cyprus and worldwide practises, 2) the development of a survey questionnaire, 3) data collection and analysis, 5) and the development of an Action Plan. The project officially started on November 1st, No serious problems were faced during the project, and its progress is deemed as satisfactory. Further to the continuous coordination among partners, and following the recruitment of research assistants, project partners focused on specific tasks, as described below. Frederick Research Center (HO) coordinated the whole effort, and successfully completed the following tasks: 1) Coordinated the project's website, 2) organized and coordinated a stakeholder's workshop in which ideas as to the current situation on water reuse in Cyprus were exchanged and that led to the formulation of task 3) - i.e. the development of a Questionnaire. 4) developed a sampling methodology scheme (alongside PA2), 5) assisted in the training of a 6

9 survey team that was to conduct the survey among the public, farmers and water experts, 6) monitored the progress of the survey and the collection of data from more than 1000 participants, 7) participated in the statistical analysis and interpretation of survey results, 8) prepared the manuscript of a review paper on water reuse practices worldwide (to be submitted for publication within the next month), 9) prepared a synopsis report that details the existing legal structure, policy, and practices regarding water reuse in Cyprus, and 10) submitted a scientific article on the study findings, which has been accepted for presentation to an international conference (presentation to be delivered by PA1). The Water Development Department (PA1) 1) participated in project coordination meetings, 2) participated and contributed to the first Stakeholder's meeting, 3) contributed information to the synopsis report on the current water reuse practices and legal structure in Cyprus (as well as provided review comments on the report), and 4) contributed to discussions on the interpretation of survey results. Cyprus University of Technology (PA2) 1) participated in project coordination meetings, and 2) participated and contributed to the first Stakeholder's meeting, 3) assisted in the development of a sampling methodology scheme (assisted by the HO), 4) led the effort of the statistical analysis of survey results. Certain problems were encountered during the project, that mainly dealt with the collection of data (especially concerning the category of "Water Experts"), but all was resolved in reasonable time, leading to a positive result. A more significant problem that we have been facing is difficulty in identifying appropriate, and significant, Conferences that could cater to our results / papers. One of the difficulties stems from the fact that our analysis of data has yet to be completed and deadlines for conference papers are at least 9 months prior to the event, thus making it exceptionally difficult for us to write a meaningful paper that could be successfully submitted to such Conferences. This difficulty may necessitate a future request for a 3-month time-extension to the project, so that we can better serve the Dissemination actions envisioned for the project. 7

10 Α.3. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION (up to 1500 words per WP) Work Package Title WP1: Project Management Partner Code HO PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4 Personmonths per Partner (according to the Contract) Personmonths Worked per Partner Work Package Objectives The objectives of WP1, as described in Annex I of the Contract, are the following: 1. Organization of all participants to ensure that 1) all work packages are completed on schedule, 2) all required progress reports are submitted on time and 3) results are published and disseminated in a timely fashion. 2. Organize the distribution of funds to the Partners. 3. Manage the website established to disseminate results and enhance collaboration among the various groups. Work Description The responsibility for the project coordination was undertaken by Frederick Research Center, the host organization, which was responsible to organize, monitor the project s process and manage that all deliverables and reports are submitted on time. Activities / Tasks Completed To meet the aforementioned objectives, for this Work Package, the following activities have been completed (here reported in temporal sequence): 1. The role of each partner organization was defined and representatives of the HO, PA1, and of PA2 were identified to serve on the Steering Committee of the project, whose role was to help coordinate and oversee the overall effort. The three steering committee members were Dr. Christos Anastasiou (HO), Ms. Lia Georgiou (PA1), and Dr. Nicos Middleton (PA2). 2. Upon commencement of the project, the Steering Committee had its first official meeting, on November 15, The meeting took place at conference room of 8

11 Frederick University. The agenda and the minutes of this meeting (Deliverable 5) are provided in Appendix B2.2. In brief, this meeting reiterated the roles of each team on the project, and elucidated the rules and regulations that govern the project (according to RPF's Guide for Project Management). Further, a time schedule for the first half of the project was prepared. Ideas were exchanged on items that required immediate attention. The need for effective collaboration among partners was emphasized. Last, but of utmost importance, the procedure for receiving the first project installment of funds was defined. 3. Funds were distributed to partner organizations, based on their participation effort percentages, and based on their immediate needs for equipment purchase, etc. Evidence of these transactions is provided in Appendix B1.1 of this report. 4. A rigorous search for research assistants at the HO and at PA2 took place. The internal procedures of the respective organizations were strictly followed in this search. Mr. Petros Grafias was selected, by Dr. Anastasiou, to serve to the post at the HO and Dr. Demetris Lamnisos was selected, by Dr. Middleton, to work on the project with PA2. The Curriculum Vitae of both researchers mentioned above are provided in Appendix B1.2. Further, the Work Contracts for both researchers, Mr. Grafias and Dr. Lamnisos, are provided in Appendix B The 6 - month Progress Report to RPF was prepared and submitted on May 15, This report, and its pertinent deliverables, was listed as Deliverable 1 in the project contract, and it is provided in Appendix B2.1 of this report. 6. The 2nd Official Steering Committee Meeting was held on October 31, 2012 at the Conference Room of Frederick University. The agenda and the minutes of this second coordination meeting (Deliverable 6) are provided in Appendix B2.3. In brief, this second meeting tackled pressing and outstanding issues in the project, one of which was the fruitful completion of the Interim Report (i.e. this document), it discussed various problems encountered by each partners, and outlined possible problems anticipated. Also it is set a data analysis plan and reminders are given for the upcoming deliverables, especially for conference participation among partners for which is needed early registration and abstracts should be sent. By the end of the meeting it was cleared what steps are being taken by everyone, during the project, to fulfill their obligations. 7. The Interim Report for the project (Deliverable 2) was prepared, and hereby submitted. Problems Encountered Certain problems were encountered during the project, however none of these relate to the Management of the Project. 9

12 Problems encountered mainly dealt with the collection of data (especially concerning the category of "Water Experts"), but all was resolved in reasonable time, leading to a positive result. A more significant problem that we have been facing is difficulty in identifying appropriate, and significant, Conferences that could cater to our results / papers. One of the difficulties stems from the fact that our analysis of data has yet to be completed and deadlines for conference papers are at least 9 months prior to the event, thus making it exceptionally difficult for us to write a meaningful paper that could be successfully submitted to such Conferences. This difficulty may necessitate a future request for a 3-month time-extension to the project, so that we can better serve the Dissemination actions envisioned for the project. Deliverables Completed Deliverables D1. Progress Report Month 6 D2. Interim Report Month 12 D5. Agenda and Minutes for 1 st steering committee coordination meeting Month 3 D6. Agenda and Minutes of 2 nd steering committee coordination meeting Month 12 Remaining Deliverables D3. Progress Report Month 18 D4. Final Report Month 24 D7. Agenda and Minutes of 3 rd steering committee coordination meeting Month 18 10

13 Work Package Title WP2: Dissemination and Exploitation of Results Partner Code HO PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4 Personmonths per Partner (according to the Contract) Personmonths Worked per Partner Work Package Objectives The objective of WP2, as described in Annex I of the Contract, is the following: 1. The host organization and all partners will ensure that results from the proposed work will be widely disseminated to both the scientific community and to the public (i.e. stakeholders from governmental agencies, NGOs, farmers, the lay public, engineering associations, etc.). Work Description Degree of Work Package Objectives Implementation The project's teams have taken appropriate action and measures to achieve the best, possible, dissemination of their work, up to date, thus ensuring the better exploitation of project s results. Specifically, the following tasks, towards the dissemination and exploitation of results, have been completed: 1. A website, devoted to the project has been prepared and posted on the web (Deliverable 16). The URL for the project's website is The web-site contains all of the key information of the project (funding agencies, objectives, research team, etc.), and it is updated periodically with every major development during the project. Further, the website was used for collection of data during our survey. Specifically, through the website, water experts could complete the questionnaire that we developed in the project. Information was gathered in a database and forwarded for incorporation to the otherwise obtained data for analysis. The management of the website is done by an external company, in conjunction with Dr. Anastasiou. Screen captures of the website are provided as attachments to this report in Appendix B Under dissemination activities, Dr. Anastasiou has participated and gave an oral scientific presentation in the NOVIWAM Conference / Workshop that was held on 11

14 October 15, 2012 in Limassol, Cyprus. The topic of the presentation was on water reuse practices in Cyprus and in the methodology development of our project. The conference / workshop was attended by water experts from Cyprus as well as by people from various countries across the EU, through webinar facilities. The agenda of workshop and presentation of Dr. Anastasiou are attached to this report in Appendix B2.5 (Deliverable 10). The aforementioned PowerPoint presentation is also available online (webinar link - a. Further, an additional presentation on a similar topic (specifically it was entitled "Σύγχρονες Πρακτικές Ανακύκλωσης Νερού στην Κύπρο " was given under the umbrella of the Seminar Series of the Department of Civil Engineering on December 6, 2012, which is open to the public, to students, to faculty and invited members of scientific community. An invitation to that event, listing the aforementioned presentation is also attached in Appendix B2.5 of this report. 3. A manuscript of a review paper on water reuse practices worldwide has been completed. This paper focuses on the findings of WP3. The manuscript of this paper (Deliverable 8) is attached to this report in Appendix B An abstract of a paper to be presented to the CEST2013 Conference, that is to take place in Athens, Greece in September 2013 has been submitted (attached in Appendix B2.5) and has been accepted for oral presentation. The presentation is scheduled to be delivered by a representative of PA1 (i.e. the Water Development Department). Up to date, the members of the Frederick Research Center (HO) team were primarily involved. However, the teams of PA1 and PA2 have contributed ideas to the website and to the publication, and will soon be engaged further in the subsequent tasks of this WP. A difficulty that we have been facing stems from the fact that our analysis of data has yet to be completed and deadlines for conference papers are at least 9 months prior to the event, thus making it exceptionally difficult for us to write a meaningful paper that could be successfully submitted to such Conferences. This difficulty may necessitate a future request for a 3-month time-extension to the project, so that we can better serve the Dissemination actions envisioned for the project. 12

15 Deliverables Completed Deliverables D8. Manuscript of a review paper on water reuse practices worldwide. (WP 3) Month 10 D10. Scientific Presentation in Conference 1 Dr. Anastasiou or Research Associate of HO Current Practices in Cyprus + Methodology Development Month 12 D16. Project Website Month 3 Remaining Deliverables D9. A manuscript of a paper that will be presenting the main findings of the survey. (WP 7) Month 24 D11. Scientific Presentation in Conference 2 Dr. Anastasiou or Research Associate of HO Final Results of Study Action Plan Month 24 D12. Scientific Presentation in Conference 3 Dr. Middleton or Research Associate of PA2 Statistical Methodology and Results Month 22 D13. Scientific Presentation in Conference 4 A participating officer from the WDD (PA1) Incorporation of Study findings in the policies of the Government Month 24 D14. Stakeholder seminar (for dissemination of Action Plan) Month 24 D15. Public Lecture final dissemination event (Informative event for lay audiences) at a National Level Month 22 D17. An Action Plan Report. Month 24 13

16 Work Package Title WP3: Literature Review on Water Reuse Measures and Mechanisms / Review of the Current Situation of Water Reuse in Cyprus (including Stakeholder Workshop 1) Partner Code HO PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4 Personmonths per Partner (according to the Contact) Personmonths Worked per Partner Work Package Objectives The objectives of WP3, as described in Annex I of the Contract, are the following: 1. To review the international literature on issues of water reuse, including usage data and implementation mechanisms for water reuse programs worldwide. 2. To review current legislation and current situation concerning wastewater treatment and reuse in Cyprus. 3. To provide a synopsis report of the existing water reuse situation in Cyprus. 4. To organize and conduct a workshop that will aim at soliciting the opinions and experience of key stakeholders on the issue of water reuse in Cyprus. Work Description - Degree of Work Package Objectives Implementation Significant progress has been achieved in this work package and, essentially, all Deliverables have been completed. To achieve these, 1. Initially an extensive literature review has been carried out to identify similar surveys tools (questionnaires) which have been developed and used on the topic of water reuse perceptions worldwide. In addition, survey methodologies followed towards that end were identified and analyzed. More than 80 journal publications (dating within the past 7 years) were identified, sorted and reviewed during the completion of this effort. A prioritization and modification of the existing survey instruments and methodologies and adaptation of these to the current situation in Cyprus ensued. This resulted in the completion of the first draft of our survey instrument (i.e. questionnaire). 14

17 2. To reinforce the procedure of finalization of our survey instrument, a workshop (Stakeholder Workshop 1) was conducted on January 25, Invitations for participation to this workshop were send to more than 30 key stakeholder organizations in Cyprus (including relevant Governmental Departments and Services, Professional Organizations, NGOs, Municipalities, Sewerage Boards, and Academics). The invitation was accompanied by the workshop's agenda, detailed information on our project, and preliminary information that would assist in participants getting better prepared for significant contributions during the workshop. During the event, a presentation given by Dr. C. Anastasiou informed participants (amounting to more than 30) of the central topic of the project, its envisioned methodology, expected results, and it also introduced the first draft of our survey instrument. During the discussion that followed (chaired and steered by Dr. C. Anastasiou, of the HO, and N. Middleton, of PA2), the opinions of participants (stemming from their hands-on experience in Cyprus) were solicited during that event, as shown in minutes and summary report in Appendix B2.9 (Deliverable 20). Some of the key results of this workshop were 1) the reinforcement of our recent-most (and often unpublished) knowledge on the topic of water reuse in Cyprus, 2) attainment of feedback for the finalization of our survey instrument, as well as 3) attainment of suggestions on the enhancement of our survey methodology. Photographic records and participants list are included in Appendix B2.8 (Deliverable 19). 3. In addition the "Synopsis report of the existing legal structure, policy and practice regarding water reuse in Cyprus" (Deliverable 18) was completed. This report has received a thorough review by at least three members of the Water Development Department (i.e. PA1) as well as colleagues from the academic community of Frederick Research Center (HO) and Frederick University. The final report is attached in Appendix B2.7. Methodology and Results This work package (WP3) can be divided into two distinct activities, 1. Review of the international literature on water reuse practices worldwide 2. Review of the current situation in Cyprus and Enhancement of our knowledge base through a stakeholder workshop These activities were also closely associated to WP2 (i.e. Dissemination activities) and to WP4 (i.e. the development of our Survey instrument / questionnaire) 15

18 Review of the international literature on water reuse practices worldwide A systematic review of the international bibliography took place. This review started by a diagonal examination of the secondary literature (i.e. textbooks), in a way that we ensured that we would not neglect basic elements of the water reuse field. Cross-referencing of the primary literature sources of textbooks gave us guidance of our subsequent sources. Our review of the primary literature (i.e. journal papers) focused on sources derived from within the past 7 years. An initial identification of, literally, thousands of relevant titles was filtered to about 80 primary literature sources that were subsequently more carefully reviewed. The topics of our review focused more on 1) water reuse perceptions studies, 2) water reuse policies and implementation mechanisms, and to a lesser degree on 3) water reuse practices and technologies. The review of the primary literature extended further to academic / journal publications and it included official (most often governmental) sources from various countries in the world (the most useful information was identified in sites from the USA, Australia, and the EU). Essentially, our review corroborated, to a large degree, our initial belief that water reuse has been a major issue and in widespread practice in many countries that are much less waterstressed than Cyprus, and in countries that are much less technologically- and economicallyadvanced than ours. A multitude of policies and implementation mechanisms have been employed worldwide with more or less success. The over compassing element of various water reuse programmes was the fact that all depended on the effective participation of the country's / region's populace. The tangible product of our international literature review was the completion of a manuscript of a Review Paper on Worldwide Water Reuse Practices (Deliverable 8 - attached in Appendix B2.4). Review of the current situation in Cyprus Although much information has been available to us on current water management practices in Cyprus, as well as on future directions, much of the information relating to the specific topic of water reuse was interspersed in such public documents as the "River Basic Management Plan for Cyprus", and in various presentations and brief reports (i.e. yearly reports of the Water Development Department and Sewerage Boards). This information often proved to be incomplete, lacked detail, and in some cases inaccurate (when compared to recent-most 16

19 developments). Therefore, our efforts focused on the consolidation of dispersed information, the enhancement of our information (via such activities as the Stakeholder's Workshop 1) and through a thorough review of our "Synopsis report of the existing legal structure, policy and practice regarding water reuse in Cyprus" (Deliverable 18 - Appendix B2.7) by officers (and project participants) of the Water Development Department (PA1). Specifically, the input of the Head of the Division of Wastewater and Reuse of the WDD, Ms. Lia Georgiou, proved invaluable to the whole process of quality assurance for our report. Some of the key elements of our findings include the fact that water reuse in Cyprus is currently well on its way (with the legal structure being in place), having increased from 14 million cubic meters in 2009 to a total of 18 million cubic meters of wastewater being treated in The vast majority of this treated wastewater quantity is currently used in irrigation (almost 80%), in groundwater recharge (Ezousa Aquifer in Paphos), in reservoir water augmentation (Polemidia Dam in Limassol), while about 10% of the total effluent ends up discharged to the sea. Sea discharge is mainly attributed to the lack of appropriate infrastructure to deliver this product to end-users (i.e. farmers) or is limited to instances where treated effluent quality may not meet certain standards (which are stricter than in most countries worldwide), or in instances when irrigation water may not be in immediate need (i.e. winter months period). Despite consensus being that there is no problem in currently absorbing treated effluent in Cyprus (farmers have been successfully convinced of the benefits of recycled wastewater), concerns for the future have been expressed, especially when considering the fact that the quantity of treated effluent is anticipated to rise to 65 million cubic meters per year by the year 2015 and to 85 MCM per year by the year Deliverables Completed Deliverables D18. A synopsis report that will detail the existing legal structure, policy, and practice regarding water reuse in Cyprus Month 7 D19. Stakeholders Workshop 1 Month 7. D20. Workshop # 1 minutes and meeting summary report. Month 8. 17

20 Work Package Title WP4: Development of Survey Questionnaire Partner Code HO PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4 Personmonths per Partner (according to the Contact) Personmonths Worked per Partner Work Package Objectives. The main objective of WP4, as described in Annex I of the Contract, is the following: To develop survey questionnaires that will cater specifically to the water reuse reality of Cyprus that will assist in answering key questions relating to perception regarding water reuse in Cyprus. Work Description - Degree of Work Package Objectives Implementation The work completed under this work package was significant, and at the same time some of the most challenging in the project, that to a large degree dictates the success of our overall effort. Despite the fact that all partners contributed to the completion of this effort, the involvement of the HO and PA2 were the most significant. PA2 involvement was crucial since the character that the questions in the survey instrument attained will largely judge the subsequent data analysis methodology. Questionnaires were prepared and were used to solicit the opinions / perceptions of important stakeholders of a water reuse program. Affected individuals included farmers, water experts from private organizations and agencies as well as related governmental entities, and the general public. The demographic characteristics of the sampled population, their education and income levels, as well as the social status of these individuals were considered. Three target group categories were identified for the purposes of this research; farmers, the general public, water management experts and institutions. The farmers questionnaire was applied to the agriculture related individuals in a representative agricultural communities. The general public s questionnaire was applied to households in both rural communities as well as in urban settings. The expert s questionnaire was applied to the persons in the private sector who specialize in water resource management or in wastewater treatment and reuse, or to Government officials, including elected and designated individuals, academics, interested NGOs and other concerned entities. The character and content of the questionnaire for each target group category was modified according to the characteristics of the group investigated. In essence, despite sharing 18

21 many common elements and questions, three separate questionnaires, each catering to a specific target group (i.e. farmers, experts, and the public), were prepared. The completion of this work package revolved around the following three axes: 1. Incorporation of literature review elements into the development of the base of the questionnaire 2. Development of the first draft of the questionnaire 3. Finalization of the survey instrument / questionnaire Incorporation of literature review elements into the development of the base of the questionnaire After sifting through information from the primary literature, related to similar studies completed worldwide, we identified the main elements to be included in the questionnaire. Specifically, the questionnaires were divided into distinct sections; general information / demographics, public health, social elements, economics, knowledge and awareness public awareness and trust in the institutional framework. Questions were carefully structured so that the resulting analysis will generally follow standard statistical approaches. Specifically, to allow necessary variability in responses, questions did not simply reflect an agreement Vs disagreement dichotomy (i.e. Yes/No) but can measure the level of agreement with statements such as You feel you know enough about wastewater treatment technologies on a scale of possible answers ranging, for example, from 1 = I strongly disagree to 5 = I strongly agree, or phrased accordingly to fit the situation. In this first stage, a set of more than 150 possible questions was developed for further processing. Development of the first draft of the questionnaire A first draft of the questionnaire was developed, after reducing the number of questions to a much lower and manageable number (i.e. 40). These questions were reworded after deliberation between the HO and PA2. These questions were then presented to PA1, who offered their own input, before sharing the draft questionnaire with other stakeholders during Stakeholder Meeting 1. During this meeting, expert stakeholders offered opinions and suggestions from the perspective of their respective fields of expertise. They expressed their recommendations on what questions will be included or avoided in the questionnaire, as well as the formulation of questions, specific terms and possible answers. Key opinions and suggestions of stakeholders were incorporated during the second phase of the questionnaire development. 19

22 Finalization of the survey instrument / questionnaire Before the finalization of the questionnaire, the instrument was tested among a small group of people (primarily members of the academic community of Frederick University and their respective family members) to fine-tune such aspects as appropriateness of question wording (i.e. how well each question could be understood), duration for the completion of the questionnaire (in either private structured interviews or electronically over or the project's website), and final adjustments were made. The questionnaire was finalized (Deliverable 21) after final review from all partners (PA1 & PA2) and can be found attached to this report in Appendix B2.10. Methodology and Results The methodology used was described in detail in the immediately previous section of this report that introduced the work completed within the frame of Work Package 4. Essentially, it should be noted that the methodology envisioned in the proposal of the project was not only followed, but it was further enhanced by the addition of quality control elements such as the initial testing of the questionnaire, as described above. The results of this Work Package were three separate questionnaires, each targeting a different stakeholder group; farmers, water experts, and the general public. The questionnaires targeting the general public and farmers were headed off by two "screening questions" that sought to identify whether respondents knew anything on the topic of recycled wastewater and water reuse. After the screening questions, a brief introduction to the project followed, which was delivered by interviewers / field workers during data collection. Following this introduction, the questionnaires were structured as follows: Questionnaire for the General Public: A total of 42 questions were included (including demographics). Seven of those questions revolved were included under the section of "Education / knowledge", another seven questions came under the category of "economics", eight questions were under the category of "social / cultural practices", nine questions under "trust in processes and institutions", and, finally, 12 elements concerned demographic information gathering. Questionnaire for Farmers: A total of 47 questions were included (including demographics). Eight of those questions revolved were included under the section of "Education / knowledge", another six questions 20

23 came under the category of "economics", nine questions were under the category of "social / cultural practices", 12 questions under "trust in processes and institutions", and, finally, 12 elements concerned demographic information gathering. Questionnaire for Water Experts: The questionnaire for experts did not include the "screening questions" used in the prior target groups. Instead, an introduction to the projected headed the questionnaire. A total of 46 questions were included (including demographics). Eight of those questions revolved were included under the section of "Education / knowledge", another eight questions came under the category of "economics", nine questions were under the category of "social / cultural practices", eight questions under "trust in processes and institutions", and, finally, 13 elements concerned demographic information gathering. Although all three questionnaires shared such common elements / questions as "which is the following water saving methods do you consider as the most significant", or "I would pay more to avoid the use of recycled water", each questionnaire had significant differences. For instance, such questions as "I would prefer recycled wastewater if I were sure that my products would be able to sell with no problems to consumers" obviously pertain to the farmer's questionnaire, and such questions as "I believe that recycled water has been adequately incorporated into the water budget of the country" pertain to water experts. Finally, it should be pointed out that certain questions were designed to "repeat" in a way that would better ensure that respondents were not answering randomly. For instance, the question "Θα αγόραζα προϊόντα τα οποία παρασκευάζονται με τη χρήση ανακυκλωμένου νερού", under the category of "Social / Cultural Practices" is somehow repeated / mildly rephrased as "Θα αγόραζα προϊόντα τα οποία παρασκευάζονται με τη χρήση επεξεργασμένων λυμάτων", under the category of "trust in processes and institutions". Such questions also were meant to test such concepts as the effect that a certain term could have on respondents (i.e. "recycled water" Vs. "treated wastewater") The questionnaires (Deliverable 21) can be found attached to this report in Appendix B2.10. Deliverables Completed Deliverables D21. Survey Questionnaire. Month 8 21

24 Work Package Title WP5: Collection of Data (Survey) Partner Code HO PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4 Personmonths per Partner (according to the Contact) Personmonths Worked per Partner Work Package Objectives The objectives of WP5, as described in Annex I of the Contract, are the following: To collect the data for the subsequent statistical analysis that will answer key questions relating to perception regarding water reuse in Cyprus Work Description - Degree of Work Package Objectives Implementation Deliverable 22 has also been in progress, so after consultation with Project s Partners a sampling scheme was prepared. The final sampling methodology explains in more details, how urban and rural sampling key locations have been selected as shown in Appendix B2.11. Despite the fact that the actual collection of data was outsourced to a company, the sampling methodology was specified by our project team (almost exclusively defined by PA2 and the HO). This methodology is described in great detail in the subsequent section of this report, and in even more detail in Appendix B2.11. Further, the HO and PA2 supervised the training of field workers, to ensure that the delivery of the structured interviews / questionnaires would be carried out correctly. About 1100 (100 more than initially proposed / envisioned) questionnaires have been completed from all target groups (General Public, Farmers and Experts). The HO received the completed questionnaires from the company, verified completeness of work agreed, and modified the softcopy of the data received according to specific coding templates suggested by PA2, who are to statistically analyze the data (WP6). One of the main issues that encountered in WP5 is the fact that the HO had to become more actively engaged in the collection of information from the "water experts" target group, since the company employed was faced with very low response rates. Personal contacts had to be employed by the HO, and the task was thus successfully completed. 22

25 Methodology and Results In order to cover the important stakeholders of a water reuse program, the questionnaires designed in WP4 were distributed, as planned in the original proposal, to three distinct population groups, using in each case a different sampling and data collection approach, as detailed further down. These group were (a) farmers (N=100), (b) water experts from private organizations, agencies or related governmental entities (N=100) and (c) the general public (N=800). In the case of the last group (the general public), it was important to juxtapose the potentially differing perceptions among populations residing in urban and rural environments. It is of note that many of the previously published studies in the literature on public perceptions of water reuse restricted their investigations to a single city or even community. In this case, an overall quota of 70:30 (i.e. a split of the overall sample into 560 Vs 240 people from urban and rural areas respectively) was a priori decided to approximately reflect the urban-rural distribution of the population in Cyprus. The recently published figures recorded in the latest census of the population confirm that in 2011, a proportion of 67.4% of the population resided in urban and 32.6% in rural areas of the island. Different sampling methods were adopted in order to sample study participants from each of the three groups under investigation (i.e. purposive & snowballing in the case of experts, convenience & snowballing in the case of farmers and cluster & quota sampling in the case of the general public). In more detail, in the case of water experts, a list of eligible participants either as named individuals or entities (along with contact details) was initially compiled by the research team. In the case of entities (i.e. Government Departments or Agencies), contact was made in order to gather the names and details of their self-elected or designated representatives. Eligibility criteria included: academics, officials from related Government Departments/ Boards/ Agencies or members of related organized professionals groups e.g. engineers, NGO officials etc with expertise in water resource management or in wastewater treatment and reuse. The initial draft of the list was further extended during the first stakeholder meeting based on the participants additional suggestions and recommendations. In order to keep a good response rate, a flexible distribution & return scheme was adopted whereby the survey questionnaire was distributed to eligible participants either via electronic or postal mail (with free-post envelops) or by office visits based on (a) the contact details that were available in each case and (b) according to the participants own preferences. The questionnaires were accompanied by pertinent instructions 23

26 while reminders (by or phone calls) were sent out to encourage participation one and two weeks later. In addition, the questionnaire was posted on the project's website (along with instructions) and further distribution of the survey questionnaire within the group via snowballing was encouraged. In the absence of a sampling frame, a convenience sampling technique had to be adopted in the case of farmers. The research team attended meetings arranged by various organised farmer groups where questionnaires were distributed, completed and returned before the end of the meeting. Furthermore, in order to meet the required minimum sample size, field workers visited communities that were randomly selected from a list of farming communities on the island where they distributed questionnaires to eligible individuals they encountered either in public places or by visiting their farms. Snowballing within the group was also encouraged, whereby participants in the survey could designate other potentially eligible participants. In the case of polling opinions from the general public, the participants were approached and interviewed either in frequented public places in the case of urban areas or after door-to-door sampling of households in the case of rural areas. Due to the length and complexity of the final form of the questionnaire, a telephone survey was deemed inappropriate. It should also be noted that unlike self-completion used with in the case of other two groups, interviewing was deemed more appropriate in the case of the general public. Furthermore, unlike rural areas for which door-to-door was suitable due the small size of these communities, with the aim of achieving a wider geographic coverage amongst the urban populations, a different sampling approach was adopted. Sampling in randomly selected public places ( key-locations ) likely to be frequented by people irrespective of whether they live in the local area (such as large supermarkets and home stores) was preferred to a door-to-door approach. It was thought that this approach was more likely to result in a more socio-economically representative sample rather than restricting the urban sample to specific streets/neighbourhoods, even if those were randomly selected, since their residents are likely to be homogeneous in terms of the socio-demographic characteristics. Thus, multistage cluster sampling was performed where locations or communities (in urban and rural areas respectively) were selected in the first stage and people within these clusters in the second stage. Using stratification by district and rural/urban classification, we randomly selected (a) 16 Church districts from metropolitan areas (e.g. 6 across the Nicosia municipalities, 4 from Limassol and two from each of the other three districts to roughly represent their population sizes in the final samples) and (b) 10 rural communities (i.e. an equal number of 2 from each of the five districts). 24