SRA-E Lisbon 2017

Access to safe drinking water and a resilient water system is one of the most important preconditions for a well-functioning society. A lack of clean water constitutes a threat to peoples’ health and the possibility for countries to prosper. One source to problems is scarcity of water, but even where there is no scarcity it is necessary to prevent and manage risks. For example, the consequences of climate change such as flooding or bacteria in the water sources has been identified as a major hazard as well as inferior infra-structure or poor maintenance. Most risks are transboundary, meaning that they are not limited to a jurisdictional or geographical area, but instead transgress boundaries. In order to manage risks, it is therefore necessary that the decision making entities (often local governments) are willing to engage in collective action instead of acting out of self-interest. This may for example mean that municipalities support each other with funding or competence in promoting the common good. An important prerequisite for collective action is that measures are seen as legitimate by the citizens; if not, they may be less willing to contribute with financing. Our previous research show that citizens are perceived by decision makers as uninterested and not very knowledgeable when it comes to drinking water, which is considered problematic in order to generate support for necessary measures. The aim of this study is to investigate if and in that case how citizens’ support for drinking water risk management is conditioned by information concerning risks. We use the case study of the Göta River water system in Sweden, that serves as drinking water supply for 700.000 people in several local municipalities. This water system provides a paradigmatic case of transboundary risk. We use an innovative method consisting of web survey experiments in order to frame drinking water risks in different ways: How is citizens’ support and willingness to financial contribution affected by information concerning existing risks? How is willingness affected by information concerning the varying capabilities of local municipalities to handle risks? In case of contamination of the water in upstream municipalities, downstream municipalities are affected which may make it necessary to support upstream municipalities in order to prevent risks and promote the common good. Is this kind of collective action supported by citizens and does it vary depending on residency? The study systematically compares how citizens respond in upstream and downstream municipalities