Water. desalination + reuse

10 Barriers October 2017 Water Reuse: Drivers, Innovations and Public Perceptions Respondents were asked to rate five factors by how important they considered each one to be as a barrier to water reuse. Cost topped the list by some distance, scoring 3.56 out of a possible five, and suggesting that affordability is a critical factor in market growth. Overall, 60.75 per cent of respondents scored cost as either a "strong" or "very strong" barrier to water reuse. Cost was ranked particularly highly by respondents working in Asia Pacific, where it scored 3.69, and 67.44 per cent saw it as either a "strong" or "very strong" barrier. For those working in the Americas, cost as a barrier scored 3.6, and it was rated as either "strong" or "very strong" by 62.4 per cent. In second position, regulatory barriers (potable) scored 3.21 out of a possible five, suggesting a lack of clear and workable guidelines may be holding back reuse for drinking purposes in some situations. In this case, 49.83 per cent of respondents scored the factor as a "strong" or "very strong" barrier. Again respondents in the Americas and Asia Pacific gave the highest scores: Regulatory barriers (potable) were ranked as either "strong" or "very strong" by 55.55 per cent of respondents working in the Americas, and by 48.06 per cent in Asia Pacific. A‹er the top two positions, the scoring dropped away sharply, with factors more likely to be considered as a "mid-level", "weak", or "very weak" barrier. Regulatory barriers (non-potable) was in third place, scoring 2.83; technological barriers came fourth at 2.57; and in fi‹h place, religious barriers at 1.87. Technological barriers were ranked highest by those working in the Americas and Middle East and Africa (MEA). Among the respondents whose work focuses on the Americas, 31.63 per cent rated technology as a "strong" or "very strong" barrier, and for those working in MEA, it was 32.9 per cent. For religious barriers, the scoring was higher in Asia Pacific and MEA, although even for respondents in these markets it remained below three points, or "mid-level", on average. Religious barriers scored 2.02 out of a possible five for respondents in Asia Pacific, and 2.26 for those in MEA, and it was rated the least most significant barrier by all respondent groups. Respondents working in Europe scored religious barriers 1.66 out of a possible five for importance, and for those in the Americas it was 1.56. When asked what other barriers existed in their markets, respondents overwhelmingly reiterated cost, and issues concerning public perceptions (see page 18), as well as inadequate governance. • Cost was cited as the most significant barrier to water reuse • Technology is considered a bigger barrier by those working in the Americas, and Middle East and Africa • Religious barriers the least significant for all respondent groups Ranking of barriers to water reuse Barrier Score Cost barriers 3.56 Regulatory barriers (potable) 3.21 Regulatory barriers (non-potable) 2.83 Technological barriers 2.57 Religious barriers 1.87 Cost and regulation for potable water stand out as stronger barriers to reuse compared to regulation for non-potable reuse, technological barriers, and religious concerns How do you rate the following as barriers to water reuse in your markets to date? Barriers WHAT THE sCoREs MEAn 1 very weak barrier 2 weak barrier 3 mid-level barrier 4 strong barrier 5 very strong barrier All REspondEnTs: Americas 117, Asia pacific 129 MEA 155, Europe 97 Industrial 205, Municipal 186 Agricultural 51 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 Score Cost barriers Americas Industrial Asia Pacific Municipal MEA Europe Agricultural 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 Score 3.6 3.69 3.52 3.69 3.45 3.52 3.55 Score 3.56 by REgIon by sECToR 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 Score Regulatory barriers (non-potable) Americas Industrial Asia Pacific Municipal MEA Europe Agricultural 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 Score 2.97 2.77 2.88 3.12 2.7 2.78 2.77 Score 3.21 by REgIon by sECToR

• Cover