Analysis of the survey data: descriptive statistics

General characteristics

The sample includes 56% of women and 44% of men with an average age of 48 year old ranging from 18 to 89 year old. Overall, the different age and gender groups are close to the total population of the area – the largest discrepancy occurring for the relative importance of male and female in the sample as compared to the total population (male being over-represented overall in the sample). Most of the respondents have always lived in the area.

And the average household size is rather small (around 3 household members on average) ranging from single member households to a nine member household. The average monthly income per household in the area amounts to around 252 000 SIT per month equivalent to an average income per person per month of 80 000SIT (approximately 350 € per person per month).

About 84% of respondents live in a house while the remaining 16% live in flats. Three quarters of the people interviewed own their apartment or house. And most of the respondents have a garden, stressing the mainly rural character of the area. Overall, 22% of

population has only primary education with 60% have secondary education (general or technical) and 16% having gone to university.

Respondents’ perception of environmental issues

Most of interviewed people do consider environmental problems (local or global) as key problems for their living environment. However, they mainly refer to the causes of these problems (i.e. negative impacts from agriculture, industry or road transport and infrastructure) as illustrated in Figure 7 below. Overall, around 20% of the persons interviewed identified water issues as key priority problems for the Krska kotlina area – both in terms of water services (access to/quality of drinking water and sewage services) and in terms of overall management of water resources (problems of pollution, flooding…). Most of those who identified water as key priority issues listed it as the first priority for the area. Problems of air pollution and soil quality received little attention because of the rural nature of the case study area.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

waste water services (sewage and water supply) soils water pollution, floods... air pollution noise negative impacts of agriculture negative impacts of industries nuclear power station general socio- economic aspects and unemployment road traffic and road infrastructure general environmental issuess others

as 1st priority as 2nd priority as 3rd priority as 4th priority

Figure 7. Respondents’ perception of main problems in their living environment

A small percentage of respondents (19%) are very active in the field of environmental protection - being members of environmental Non-Government Organisations (NGOs), participating in specific environmental protection activities or supporting financially activities of environmental organisations.

How are respondents linked to water?

The Krska kotlina area offers a good connection rate to municipal drinking water supply networks. Around 95% of the respondents are connected to a public water supply, the remaining 5% being connected to small local networks developed around local springs, abstraction points. Out of those connected to a public water supply, a bit less than two third knows that drinking water comes from abstracted groundwater – while 10% believes that drinking water originates from surface water and 22% do not know the origin of their drinking water supply.

The connection to sewage networks is less developed, with only 42% of respondents being connected to public sewerage system. Out of those, 35% only know whether collected waste water is treated in a waste waster treatment plant or not. Inhabitants with sceptic tanks (58%

of the total sample) perform different intensity of management of their septic tank: two third empty their sceptic tanks regularly (more than once a year) with 15% emptying them less than once every two years.

On average, respondents pay a monthly water bill per household of 5 500 SIT. Water bills can be as high as 25 000 SIT per household. The average water bill per person is equal to 2 000 SIT per month.

Respondents “use” rivers, lakes and gravel pit lakes for leisure activities but at different levels according to the activity (see Figure 8). Their preferred activity is walking along rivers or lakes – two third of the sample walking along rivers and lakes more than once a year and 25% having regular walks (more than 10 times a year). Other activities such as fishing, swimming or practising nautical activities such as canoeing or rafting, are practised by only a third of the respondents and for most only once or twice a year.

0 How often do you use rivers, lakes in

Krka/Sava river basin for...

Figure 8. Respondents’ relation to rivers & lakes in the Krka and Sava river basins

Overall, and although 95% of the people are connected to municipal water supply networks, 19% of respondents have their own wells to pump groundwater. Out of them, 14% are using water from the wells for drinking water, 9% for other in-house uses like cleaning, washing clothes… 23% as water for animals, 63% for irrigation and watering gardens and 31% for outdoor uses like washing cars… And 36% of the wells are not in use – mainly because they are broken (68%) but also because their owners do not trust the quality of the abstracted water (15%).

Respondents’ perception of groundwater improvement programmes and willingness to pay

In Section IV of the questionnaire, information on groundwater situation in the Krška kotlina aquifer and to two scenarios of groundwater protection was provided to respondents. These descriptions were followed by questions on respondents’ perception of the situation in the aquifer, on the quality of the information provided to them, and on their willingness to contribute financially to the scenarios. Overall:

• Three quarters of the respondents had some knowledge of the current groundwater quality problems of the Krska kotlina aquifer.

• The majority of respondents agreed that the situation described to them in the questionnaire was correct and represented reality.

• 83% of the respondents considered scenario 1 as feasible and 63% were ready to contribute financially to the proposed programme of measures.

• Out of those, 55% saw scenario 2 as possible and 67% of them were prepared to contribute financially in addition to what they had offered for the first scenario.

• Around three-quarter of the respondents proposed to choose the water bill as the payment vehicle for their financial contribution – the remaining quarter proposing the creation of a separate bill or fund solely dedicated to financing the proposed program of groundwater improvement measures.

On average, respondents were willing to pay about 1 350 SIT per household per month for the first groundwater improvement scenario (restoring drinking water quality). Respondents who accepted to pay additionally for the second groundwater improvement scenario (restoring close to natural concentration) were willing to pay an additional 1 150 SIT per household per month. Proposed contributions ranged between 10 SIT and 5 000 SIT for the fist scenario and an additional 50 SIT to 5 000 SIT for the second scenario. The frequency distribution for the willingness to pay for each scenario are presented in 9 & 10.

Table 4. Respondents’ willingness to pay for the first and second groundwater improvement scenarios

Average Standard

deviation Min Max

Willingness to pay for the first

scenario 1 346 SIT 1 101 SIT 10 SIT 5 000 SIT Willingness to pay for the

second scenario (in addition to the amount proposed for

the first scenario

1 147 SIT 992 SIT 50 SIT 5 000 SIT

010203040Share of people [%]

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Willingeness to pay for the second scenario [SIT per month]

010203040Share of people [%]

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Willingeness to pay for the first scenario [SIT per month]

Figure 9 & 10. Willingness to pay for groundwater improvement scenarios (SIT per household per month)

There were different reasons explaining why groundwater resources should be protected and cleaned. Most respondents justify the need to protect groundwater resources because of direct use values. High importance is also given to the protection of groundwater resources for future generations. These results can be compared to reasons selected by respondents to explain why they accept to contribute financially to groundwater protection programmes.

The importance of direct uses and use for future generations is confirmed. However, respondents who agreed to contribute financially to the protection of groundwater resources mention in majority the protection of the aquifer as part of the nation’s patrimony as the first reason for groundwater protection – stressing some lack of coherence between responses.

The reasons explaining “no” answers to the willingness to pay questions were also investigated. “A too low income” was mentioned by more than half of the respondents unwilling to contribute financially. The fact that “groundwater has high value but I do not want to pay for it in principle” was mentioned by a quarter of the respondents