xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xlink http:www.w3.org1999xlink xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance
leader 00000nas 2200000Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 000000c19749999pautr p s 0 0eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a M39-00057
El uso del agua, disposicin de las aguas residuales, y las actitudes de conservacin del agua en la zona de Monteverde
Water use, wastewater disposal, and water conservation attitudes in the Monteverde zone
The residents of the zone of Monteverde, Costa Rica represent a wide array of demographics and other factors such as income, education level, town of residence, and water source, which may impact their water use, wastewater disposal, and water conservation attitudes. In order to study these relationships, a survey was conducted in four different Monteverde towns. The survey consisted of questions on demographic variables, water consumption patterns, methods of disposal, and water shortages, and lastly, addressed attitudes toward water conservation. Data were collected from 64 surveys and analyzed using regression analyses and chi-squared tests. Thirteen significant results and several trends were found. Income, education level, and location of residence played a significant role in several response variables such as water source protection and perceived water problems in Monteverde. The most significant trend, perhaps, came from Monteverde residents whose water comes from streams. This group of people was significantly unsatisfied with quality, quantity, and water source protection. They also perceived significant water problems in Monteverde and believed that the federal government was the responsible party for making needed improvements. Several people interviewed whose water is from streams were concerned with the health effects from these unprotected water sources, indicating a need for future studies.
Los residentes de la zona de Monteverde, Costa Rica representan un gran rango de caractersticas demogrficas y otros factores como ingresos, educacin, rea de residencia, y fuente de agua, que pueden afectar su consumo del agua, disposicin de las aguas residuales y las actitudes de la conservacin del agua. Para poder estudiar estas relaciones, se realiz una encuesta en cuatro pueblos diferentes de Monteverde. La encuesta consisti en preguntas sobre las variables demogrficas, patrones del consumo de agua, mtodo de tratamiento de residuos, la escasez de agua, y, por ltimo, actitudes dirigidas hacia la conservacin del agua.
Text in English.
Water quality--Costa Rica--Puntarenas--Monteverde Zone
Water quality management--Costa Rica--Monteverde Zone
Water conservation--Costa Rica
Calidad de agua--Costa Rica--Puntarenas--Zona de Monteverde
Manejo de la calidad del agua--Costa Rica--Zona de Monteverde
Conservacin del agua --Costa Rica
Tropical Ecology 2008
Ecologa Tropical 2008
t Monteverde Institute : Tropical Ecology
1 Water use, wastewater disposal, and water conservat ion attitudes in the Monteverde zone Jenna Rasmusson Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin Madison Abstract The residents of the zone of Monteverde, Costa Rica represent a wide array of demographics and other factors such as income, education level, town of re sidence, and water source, which may impact their w ater use, wastewater disposal, and water conservation at titudes. In order to study these relationships, a survey was conducted in four different Monteverde towns. The survey consisted of questions on demographic variables, water consumption patterns, methods of d isposal, and water shortages, and lastly, addressed attitudes toward water conservation. Data were col lected from 64 surveys and analyzed using regressio n analyses and chi-squared tests. Thirteen significa nt results and several trends were found. Income, education level, and location of residence played a significant role in several response variables suc h as water source protection and perceived water problem s in Monteverde. The most significant trend, perha ps, came from Monteverde residents whose water comes fr om streams. This group of people was significantly unsatisfied with quality, quantity, and water sourc e protection. They also perceived significant wate r problems in Monteverde and believed that the federa l government was the responsible party for making needed improvements. Several people interviewed wh ose water is from streams were concerned with the health effects from these unprotected water sources indicating a need for future studies. Resumen Los residentes de la zona de Monteverde representan un gran rango de caractersticas demogrficas y ot ros factores como ingresos, educacin, rea de residenc ia, y fuente de agua, que pueden afectar su uso de agua, y de los residuos. para poder estudiar estas relaci ones, se condujo una encuesta en 4 diferentes puebl os en Monteverde. La encuesta consisti en variables demo grficas, consumo de agua, mtodo de tratamiento de residuos, escasez de agua, y por ultimo actitud hac ia la conservacin de agua. Con el resultado de 64 encuestas se encontraron varias tendencias. La tend encia ms significativa viene de los residentes de Monteverde que reciben su agua de quebradas. Este g rupo est particularmente insatisfecho con la calid ad, cantidad, y proteccin de la fuente de agua. Percib en que hay un serio problema de agua en Monteverde y que el gobierno es responsable por hacer los arregl os necesarios. Introduction Developing countries around the world often face pr oblems involving water shortages, poor water quality, and lack of wastewater disposal Costa Rica is no exception. In 2005, the Costa Rican Aqueducts and Sewer System Institut e, or AyA, reported that 97% of wastewater was not treated before being discharged into rivers and streams (Welsh 2006). This means that black water (water containing human or agricultural waste) and grey water (water produced from cooking or washing cloth es) is being dumped onto land and potentially contaminating nearby water supplies (Da llas et al 2004). This is likely to increase with population growth and the booming tou rism industry that is now a significant force in Costa RicaÂ’s economy. Between 2003 and 2004 alone the number of foreign tourists visiting Costa Rica increased by 2 7%, and approximated 3.2 million people (Aylward et al 2004); with this came increasing demands on water supplies due to expanding construction and road building, as wel l as a larger number of people consuming water directly. At Monteverde, Costa Rica a thriving tourism industry is
2 putting strains on water sources, and as a result, community conflict and water shortages are taking place. The Monteverde zone is composed of 10 different to wns that encompass a wide range of demographics (Aylward et al 2004). Rural farms and small towns depend on MonteverdeÂ’s two largest industries; agriculture an d tourism. The latter is the largest part of the local economy, attracting over 250,000 peopl e per year, who come year round to see the unique biodiversity and protected areas. T he permanent community of some 5,000 residents, reflect diverse professions, incom e levels, and educational backgrounds, all of which can impact their attitudes and practic es surrounding water consumption, disposal and conservation. Income levels differ bec ause there are farmers as well as professionals and business owners in the tourism se ctor. Likewise, education levels vary because opportunities for schooling were limited un til recently. The first school did not open its doors until 1951, when the Quakers started the Monteverde Friends School and Costa Rican public schools opened sometime thereaft er. Therefore the older population of the zone may not have had an opportunity for eve n elementary schooling, whereas now it is common for young people to seek universit y degrees in the central valley (Monteverde Friends School, 2008). The source/supply system of water for home and far m use is also variable in the Monteverde zone. Water in Monteverde comes from thr ee different supply systems, all in which use different sources to provide water to var ious households. The first and most widely used water provider in Costa Rica is AyA. A yA is a public company that provides Costa Ricans with clean drinking water and hygienic sewage treatment systems (Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantaril lados 2007). Homeowners pay AyA for water maintenance and supply. In Monteverde, th e AyA system of Santa Elena provides water to the 10 different towns, all of it from springs. Basic monthly charges of 1,575 colones are charged per household and above b asic charges are determined based on both location (number of houses using the spring s) and how much water is being used. The second source/supply system of water comes fro m springs on private lands, which individuals tap and pipe to their homes or fa rms. A spring is defined as a flow of ground water emerging naturally onto the earth's su rface that is often used as a domestic water source within a community watershed (Province of British Columbia, 2007). This system involves local community aqueduct associations, which maintain the infrastructure of supply systems, meter water use, and collect tariffs, provide residents with access to private springs (Brown et al 2008). This system allows residents to take advantage of springs either on their property or ne arby; it is the optimal water access option, but can be expensive due to the infrastruct ure that must be created and maintained, requires special government concessions and permits, and possibly permission from landowners and the municipality to cross other properties with buried pipes. The third and final source/supply system of water i n Monteverde is from streams, and water is obtained through a system of installed pipes, which directly bring stream flow into individual households. Streams are any b ody of water confined within banks that has a detectable current (Province of British Columbia, 2007). Streams are exposed, and often unprotected, and may carry waste products from households and agriculture. In a 2008 survey of the Monteverde zone, the majority of household participants said that the rivers and streams in Monteverde were of Â“fairÂ” to Â“poorÂ” quality due to contamination, causing implications for household c onsumers (Brown et al 2008). Unfortunately, lower income households are forced t o use water from these streams, as
3 higher quality water or the AyA service may be too expensive or inaccessible. The main associated cost is the price of black rubber hose t hat is usually laid on the surface of the ground. In the Brown et al. 2008 survey, 55.5% of househol ds reported Â“occasionallyÂ” experiencing water shortages and 29.6% reported Â“us uallyÂ” having shortages at some point during the dry season (March-June) (Brown et al 2008. In a community that depends on biodiversity conservation for the ecotou rism industry, the importance and protection of water is clearly emphasized by the nu merous biological reserves and protected forests. Not only are these pristine are as attracting countless tourists and generating economic revenue, but they contain and p rotect the watershed, the original focus of the principal reserves. With already 97% of water in Costa Rica being disp osed of without being treated, it is very timely to see whether or not Monteverde is following the national trends. Is black water and grey water dumped into MonteverdeÂ’s water sources? Do people perceive problems with the supply or protection of their water? This study will focus on how demographic variables such as income and educat ion level affect water black and grey water disposal, water use and shortages, and c onservation attitudes. Relationships between water source and number of shortages will a lso be investigated as well as how different sources affect conservation attitude. Loc ation of residence and income may restrict the quality and quantity of water being co nsumed, education level may affect conservation attitudes, and household variation, ma y affect water shortages. Obviously in a community that is as diverse as Monteverde, di fferences in demographic factors and others will likely affect water consumption, wastew ater disposal, and conservation. Therefore, the point of this study is to decipher w hich are the most significant drivers behind the patterns. Methods n. In order to perform this study, a 36 question s urvey was developed modeling those performed by the World Health Organi zation, UNICEF, Environmental Protection Agency and several others concerning wat er quality and ecological footprints (Appendix 1). The survey was translated into Spani sh and focused on demographic variables as well as water source, disposal, use, a nd conservation attitudes. It was made specific to Monteverde by focusing on the observabl e characteristics of the region such as location, description of household (farm or typical home), income and education bracket, water source, and water disposal. Three income brac kets, the first from 0-300,000 colones, the second from 300,000-600,000, and final ly from 600,000 and up, were developed to analyze for differences. Four differe nt education levels were categorized by looking at last year completed. The four categorie s were: less than 6th grade, 6th grade, high school, and lastly university. Occupation was also separated into six different categories for analysis purposes by sorting various occupations into administrator, agriculture, ama de casa, self employed, service wo rk, and other categories. The head of the household was interviewed in the various neighb orhoods of four different towns in Monteverde; Cerro Plano, Caitas, San Luis, and San ta Elena. rn.-64 people in different households were interviewe d and data was analyzed using two different kinds of statistical a nalyses to access any correlation. In order to examine the relationship between two conti nuous variables, a regression analysis was used (sample size equals 64). The second test conducted was a contingency table of
4 analysis and chi-squared test. This test was used in order to analyze the relationship between two nominal variables (sample size is equal to the number of people surveyed). Nominal and continuous variables that were analyzed were chosen based on correlations of interest. Results A total of 64 surveys were completed, 21 in Cerro P lano, 12 in Caitas, 14 in Santa Elena, and 17 in San Luis. The mean age of people s urveyed was 35.4 years old, the mean monthly bill was 5,482 colones, and the averag e household size was 3.5 persons. Fifty-eight percent of people surveyed used septic tanks to treat black water, and 22% of people surveyed used septic tanks to treat grey wat er. All other results of survey questions can be found in Appendix 2. Regression analyses of number of people per househo ld were run in order to compare aspects of water use such as number of show ers per day, the number of days wash is done per week, and the monthly bill. The n umber of loads of wash done per week shows a significant, positive correlation (R2 = 0.103, p = 0.01, n = 64; Fig. 1). The number of showers per individual per day shows a si gnificant negative trend (R2= 0.117, p = 0.005, n = 64; Fig. 2). The Monthly bill showe d a positive trend as number in the household increased; however, this trend was not si gnificant (R2= 0.022, p= 0.246, n = 64; Fig. 3). The number of individuals in the hous ehold was also analyzed for correlation between aspects of water shortages. The number of months that a household experienced water shortages significantly increased as the numb er of individuals per household increased (R2 = 0.101, p = 0.009, n = 64; Fig. 4). 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 012345678 Number in household Number of days wash is done per week Figure 1. Number of days wash is done per week and the number of people per household. A significant positive correlation is sh own (R2 = 0.103, p = 0.01).
5 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 012345678 Number in household Number of showers per individual per day Figure 2. Correlation between the number of shower s per individual per day and the number of people in the household. A significant n egative trend is shown (R2= 0.117, p = 0.005). 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 012345678 Number in household Monthly Bill (colonoes) Figure 3. Monthly bill in Costa Rican colones and the number of people in the household. There is no significant trend (R2= 0.022, p= 0.246).
6 0 1 2 3 4 5 602468Number in household Number of Months that there are water shortages Figure 4. The number of months per year in which sh ortages are experienced and the number of people living in the household. A signifi cant positive correlation exists (R2 = 0.101, p = 0.009). Thirty-eight chi-squared tests were conducted in or der to analyze two nominal variables. Table 1 shows a compilation of all chi-squared test s conducted; significant results are shown in bold. The graphs that follow represent si gnificant results. Stars above responses denote the most significant contributors to the significant chi-squared values. Table 1. Chi-squared values for each nominal variab le comparison conducted in this study. Â“Response variableÂ” refers to the participan tsÂ’ answers to questions about themselves and their living conditions. Bold number s denote significant chi-squared values. Water comes from three different sources/supply sys tems in Monteverde. The first chisquared analysis looks at the four different towns and their source/means of supply of water. Cerro Plano and Caitas receive their water from all three systems. Santa Elena Response Variables Statistic Value Black Water Treatment Grey Water Treatment Perceived Problems Satisfied with Quality and Quantity Satisfied with Protection of Water Source Party Responsible for making water improvements Income Town Occupation Chi2= df= p= 6.25 5 0.282 2.08 5 0.782 3.40 5 0.639 3.02 5 0.697 8.15 5 0.148 18.06 15 0.259 Description of Household Chi2= df= p= 2.44 1 0.118 0.76 1 0.385 2.08 1 0.149 2.47 1 0.116 0.01 1 0.972 2.15 3 0.542 Water Source Chi2= df= p= 7.17 2 0.028 0.115 2 0.944 7.51 2 0.023 6.66 2 0.036 9.73 2 0.007 12.25 6 0.057 3.16 4 0.531 41.54 6 <.001 Income Chi2= df= p= 3.52 2 0.172 0.34 2 0.842 0.958 2 0.619 3.32 2 0.190 5.99 2 0.049 7.63 6 0.266 Education Level Chi2= df= p= 1.99 3 0.573 0.901 3 0.825 10.35 3 0.016 1.84 3 0.607 5.98 3 0.113 10.51 9 0.310 Town Chi2= df= p= 4.99 2 0.172 0.782 3 0.854 9.37 3 0.024 3.88 3 0.275 1.11 3 0.774 19.52 9 0.021
7 receives their water from exclusively AyA and San L uis receives their water only from springs and streams. These differences are not expl ained by chance (X2= 41.54, df = 6, p<0.001; Fig. 5). Figure 5. Observed and expected values for the dis tribution of water source/supply systems among four different towns in Monteverde. B oth observed and expected values are shown, the most significant values are noted wi th a star (n = 64, p < 0.001). Santa Elena receives there water from only AyA and San Lu is receives there water from only springs and streams. 0 5 10 15 20 25 YesNoYesNoYesNo AYASpringStream Water TreatedNumber of People Observed Expected Figure 6. Observed and expected values for the thre e different water sources/supplies in Monteverde compared with whether or not the individ ual treats black water. Â“YesÂ” signifies that a septic tank is used for black wate r treatment. The most significant result is from people whose water is from streams. They t reated their water more than was expected by chance (n = 64, p = 0.028). When looking at water source/supply system compared to black water treatment, the tendency to use black water septic tanks was higher than expected by chance among people using water from streams (X2= 7.17, df = 2, p = 0.028; Fig. 6) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20AYA Springs Streams AYA Springs Streams AYA Springs Streams AYA Springs Streams Cerro PlanoCanitasSanta ElenaSan Luis TownNumber of People Observed Expected
8 A significant correlation was exhibited when asked the question Â“are you satisfied with water quality and quantity?Â” People receiving wate r from streams were significantly unsatisfied with the quality and quantity of water that they were receiving (X2= 6.66, df = 2, p = 0.036; Fig. 7). A second question was asked regarding whether or not individuals were satisfied, but instead of quantity and quality this question regarded whether or not the individual was satisfied with water source prot ection. The first result looks at water source compared to whether or not the individual wa s satisfied. People receiving water from streams were significantly unsatisfied with wa ter source protection (X2= 9.73, df = 2, p = 0.007; Fig. 8). The second result compares income to whether or not the individual was satisfied with water source protection. People in the upper income category that were making over 600,000 colones per month were sig nificantly unsatisfied with water source protection (X2= 5.99, df = 2, p = 0.049; Fig. 9). Figure 7. Observed and expected values for water s ource/supply systems and whether or not people are satisfied with water quality and qua ntity. People who responded Â“NoÂ” and were receiving water from streams were significantl y unsatisfied with water quality and quantity in their homes (n = 64, p = 0.036). 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 YesNoYesNoYesNo AYASpringsStreams Water SourceNumber of People Observed Expected
9 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 YesNoYesNoYesNo AYASpringsStreams Water SourceNumber of People Observed Expected Figure 8. Observed and expected values for the thr ee different water sources/supply systems and whether or not the individual was satis fied with water source/system protection. People responding Â“NoÂ” that got their water from streams were significantly unsatisfied with source protection (n = 64, p = 0.0 07). Figure 9. Observed and expected values for three i ncome brackets that were used on the survey (in colones per month) and whether or not pe ople were satisfied with water source protection. People in the highest income bracket w ho were making over 600,000 colones per month and who responded Â“NoÂ” to this question w ere significantly unsatisfied with source protection (n = 64, p = 0.049) The question Â“Do you think that there are problems with water in Monteverde?Â” yielded three significant responses. The first dealt with education level. Individuals that had not successfully completed 6th grade thought that there were fewer water problems than was expected. On the other end of the spectrum, indivi duals who had completed university believed that there were more problems dealing with water than expected (X2= 10.35, df = 3, p = 0.016; Fig. 10). The second significant r esponse dealt, once again with where people were receiving there water from. People who were receiving there water from 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 YesNoYesNoYesNo 0-300,000300,000-600,000600,000+ IncomeNumber of People Observed Expected
10 streams thought that there were more water problems than was expected ((X2= 7.51, df = 2, p = 0.023; Fig. 11). The final significant resp onse to this question compared perceived water problems and location. People who lived in C erro Plano believed that there were fewer problems with water than was expected, while people in Caitas perceived more problems than was expected (X2= 9.38, df = 3, p = 0.025; Fig. 12). Figure 10. Observed and expected values for four e ducation level brackets used on the survey and whether or not each person falling into these four different brackets believed that there were water problems in Monteverde. Peop le who had not completed 6th grade in the first education bracket believed there were fewer problems in Monteverde than expected, while people who had finished University thought that there were significantly more problems with water in Monteverde than expecte d (n = 64, p = 0.016). Figure 11. Observed and expected values of Monteve rdeÂ’s three water source/supply system and the perceived water problems in Montever de. People who were receiving their water from streams believed that there were m ore problems than was expected (n = 64, p = 0.023). 0 5 10 15 20 25 YesNoYesNoYesNo AYASpringsStreams Water SourceNumber of People Observed Expected 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 YesNoYesNoYesNoYesNo Less than 6th Grade6th GradeHigh SchoolUniversity Education LevelNumber of People Observed Expected
11 Figure 12. Observed and expected values for the fo ur different towns in Monteverde and whether or not people within each town believed tha t there were water problems in Monteverde. People in Cerro Plano thought that the re were far fewer problems than expected, while people in Caitas believed that the re were significantly more problems than expected (n = 64, p = 0.025). The final question on the survey asked about who is responsible for improving water quantity, quality, and protection. Many individual s had no response to this question, because many people believed that water problems we re not prevalent in the Monteverde area. As a result, the sample size for this analys is is 40. Location played a significant role in this response. People living in Caitas believe d that farms had the most significant role in improving water, while people living in San ta Elena expected AyA to claim responsibility (X2= 19.52, df = 9, p = 0.021; Fig. 13). Water source /supply system also played a significant role in determining who the re sponsible party is for water improvement. People receiving water from streams b elieved that the government possessed the greatest responsibility for making im provements (X2= 12.25, df = 6, p = 0.057; Fig. 14). 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 YesNoYesNoYesNoYesNo Cerro PlanoCanitasSanta ElenaSan Luis TownNumber of People Observed Expected
12 Figure 13. Observed and expected values for the di fferent towns in Monteverde and who each location believed are responsible for improvin g water supply. Four different responses to this question were observed. People i n Caitas strongly believed that Farms were the responsible party for improving water supp ly, while in Santa Elena, AyA was suggested to be the responsible party (n = 40, p = 0.021). Figure 14. Observed and expected values for the th ree different water source/supply systems in Monteverde and who each of these systems believed was responsible for improving water. The most significant result came from people who got water from streams. They believed that the government had the most significant responsibility in improving MonteverdeÂ’s water problems (n = 64, p = 0.057). Discussion Results of this study show interesting relationship s between household size, location, income bracket, education level, and water source a nd patterns of water use, disposal, and conservation attitudes. The importance of household size is shown in various respects. Wash done per week positively correlated with an in creasing number of people per household (Figure 1), which is simply that with mor e people there are more clothes to wash. The next significant result dealt with the nu mber of showers taken per individual per day (Figure 2). As household size increased, t he number of showers per person decreased. This correlation could be explained by larger families may need to partition water more in order to avoid shortages as well as h igh monthly bills. The final significant result looks at the number of months th at a household experiences water 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14AYA Government Community Farms AYA Government Community Farms AYA Government Community Farms AYASpringsStreams Water SourceNumber of People Observed Expected 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7AYA Government Community Farms AYA Government Community Farms AYA Government Community Farms AYA Government Community Farms Cerro PlanoCanitasSanta ElenaSan Luis Observed Expected
13 shortages (Figure 4). The number of months that sh ortages are experienced increases with household size. Water is a necessity and as t he number of people increase, consumption of water will also increase. This coul d lead to more experienced monthly shortages; families with more members will need mor e water and when it is not available, the effects are ubiquitous. Out of the thirty-eight chi-squared tests conducte d, ten of them revealed significant relationships. The first significant re sult examines where people are receiving their water from each town that was interviewed (Fi gure 5). Interestingly enough, people living in Santa Elena were only receiving water fro m AyA, and people in San Luis were only receiving water from springs and streams. San ta Elena may be too populated and far from any springs and streams, while San Luis has ye t to be serviced by AyA due to its further distance and smaller population. Currently, an AyA aqueduct is being built in order to provide water in San Luis; this will have several effects on water use, disposal, and conservation attitudes in the future. The secon d result, dealing with black water treatment and water source may be significant due t o the idea that people that use streams as their water source may live closer to them in or der to better obtain water (Figure 6). Because of their close proximity to streams, these people may better recognize the consequences of disposing untreated water, and thus find it necessary to treat black water before disposing of it. The third set of significant responses deals with satisfaction of water quality, quantity, and source protection. The highest incom e bracket is significantly unsatisfied with water source protection and may exhibit these feelings for two different reasons (Figure 9). The first could result from having a h igher standard of living, thus making water source protection a perceived rather than act ual problem. The second reason may be to higher education level. People with higher e ducation are generally paid more Thus, the people who were unsatisfied with water source p rotection in upper income levels may be representing upper level education and as a resu lt possess more knowledge of water protection rules and regulations. The second group that was significantly unsatisfied with quantity, quality and source protection was the gro up receiving water from streams (Figures 7 and 8). While only 58% of people surveye d treated black water and 22% treated grey water, it is not surprising that these people are unsatisfied. A significant proportion of MonteverdeÂ’s black and grey water is being dumped on lands and into water supplies. Streams are carrying this contamin ation into peopleÂ’s homes, and causing unknown implications. The forth series of questions shows that the peopl e receiving water from streams strongly believe that there are water problems in M onteverde (Figure 11). These are the people that are most likely experiencing these prob lems and thus have directly been affected by the consequences of water issues. Educ ation also had a significant effect on the perceived problems of MonteverdeÂ’s water (Figur e 10). People who had not finished 6th grade may not have had the opportunity to learn ab out water issues. These people may also represent the older population in Montever de who did not have an opportunity to attend school. On the other end of the spectrum are people that successfully completed university. These people could have had the opport unity to learn about and investigate water problems in Monteverde. They therefore believ e that water problems are much more prevalent than expected. The final grouping t hat thought water problems were significant in Monteverde was those in different lo cations (Figure 12). People in Cerro Plano believe that there are far fewer water proble ms than expected, possibly because of different source and system infrastructure. The ma jority of people interviewed from
14 Cerro Plano received their water from AyA. Because AyA uses different springs for different locations, springs providing Cerro PlanoÂ’ s water supply may provide water more efficiently. Caitas, on the other hand, is a different story. People here believe that Monteverde is experiencing more water problems than expected. Caitas, which is much further from Santa Elena than Cerro Plano, may be experiencing problems because of farms. The final question on the survey showed that peopl e in Caitas believed that farms were responsible for improving water (Figure 13). People that responded in this manner were ones that did not own farms, but lived very close in proximity to them. They pointed out that farms are contaminating water supply and as a result are leading to health implications in the area. Future studies sh ould focus on what these contaminates are and in what ways they affect human health. If a correlation is found between contaminates and health risks than immediate incent ive would be taken to improve water quality. The other significant responses to the question of who is responsible for improving water problems came from Santa Elena. He re, where water comes solely from AyA, is where people suggest that this agency is pr imarily responsible for improving water problems. A second variable of water source/ supply system was also focused on (Figure 14). People using streams and experiencing problems with quantity, quality, and water protection believe that it is the federal gov ernmentÂ’s responsibility to better the water in Monteverde. People may have thought that it was the federal governmentÂ’s responsibility because of how large the water probl em is or how it involves several different parties. AyA may be contributing to prob lems, as well as farms, restaurants, hotels, and communities; therefore people may have responded in this manner in order to emphasize the changes that must occur to make impro vements. Residents in the Monteverde zone represent a wide array of demographics that are impacting their water use, wastewater disposal, and water conservation attitudes. As the zone continues to expand in population and number o f tourists more problems with water quality and quantity will most likely arise as more pressure is put on water supplies. Therefore, it is important to improve each of the t hree source and supply systems across all different demographic representations in order to improve current water problems as well as anticipate for those that may be experience d in the future. Acknowledgments I would like to first and foremost thank Karen Mast ers, whose guidance and support allowed me to successfully conduct this project. I would also li ke to thank Pablo Allen for all of his help with tr anslating surveys into Spanish and for creating statistical t emplates for my analyses. I would like to thank Mon cho Calderon, for your review and input and my classmat es for assisting me with the interviewing process. Special thanks to the people living in Monteverde f or giving me your time and welcoming me into your homes! Literature Cited Aylward, B., K. Allen, J. Echeverria, and J. Tosi. 2004. Sustainable ecotourism in Costa Rica: the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve. Biodiversity and Conservation 5: 315-343
15Brown, R., R. King, J. Papa, J. Seillac, and J. Syv ertsen. The Â“Culture of WaterÂ” in the Monteverde Zo ne: Perception of Water Use, Availability, and Behavio rs by Households and Hotels. 2008. Globalization and Public Health Fieldschool Dallas, S., B. Scheffe, and G. Ho. 2004. Reedbeds for greywater treatment; case study in Santa ElenaMonteverde, Costa Rica, Central America. Ecol. Eng 23: 55-61 Environmental Protection Agency. Greening EPA Glos sary. 2008. (SURVEY) Province of British Columbia. Glossary of Forestry Terms. 2007. Ministry of Forests Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarill ados. 2007. Lambert, Allan. Assessing non-revenue water and its components: a practical approach. 2003. IWA Task Force Monteverde Friends School. 2008. Redefining Progress-The Nature of Economics. Ecolog ical Footprint Quiz. 2008. http://www.myfootprint.org (SURVEY) United Nations Statistics Division. Social Indicato rs. 2007. Water Quality Questionnaire. (SURVEY) Welsh, Kristen. Assessing Access to Potable Water in Rural Communities in Costa Rica. 2006. MESc. World Health Organization. Costa Rica. 2001. World Health Organization/UNICEF Joint Monitoring P rogramme for Water Supply and Sanitation. Core questions on drinking water and sanitation for hou sehold surveys. 2006. WHO Library Cataloguing Geneva, Switzerland (SURVEY)
16 Appendix 1 Survey used to conduct household interviews. 1. Donde vive usted? Sa nta Elena Caitas Cerro Pla no San Luis 2. Cuantas personas viven en su casa? 3. Cuales son los ingresos mensuales de su hogar e n colones? 4. Que termino describe mejor la ubicacion de su h ogar? Barri ___________ (nombre) Finca 5. Cual es su nacionalidad? 6. Cuantos anos tiene Usted? 7. Cual fue el nivel mas alto de educacion que ust ed completo? Menos de 6th grado 6th grado Quinto ano de colegio Universidad 8. Cual es su trabajo? 9. Cual es la principal fuente de agua potable en su hogar? Naciente propia AYA Quebradas 10. En promedio cuanto es su cuenta mensual de agu a? 11. Trata usted el agua de alguna manera para hace rla potable? Si, de que forma No 12. Que tipo de inodoro utilizan en su hogar? Letrina Inodoro normal 13. Como trata las aguas negras en su casa? Tanque sptico Otra 14. Como trata las aguas grises en su casa? Tanque sptico Otra 15. Sus aguas negras y grises son separadas? 16. Comparte usted la facilidad de tratamiento con otras casas? 17. Cuantas duchas en total toma su familia por d a? 18. Cuantas comidas se preparan por dia en su casa ? 19. Cada cuanto se lava la ropa en su casa? 20. Cuantas cargas se hacen por lavada? 21. De que tamao es su lavadora? 22. Tiene usted un jardn? 23. De que tamao es su jardn? 24. Usted irriga su jardn? 25. Tiene una finca? 26. Cuantas hectreas usa para agricultura? 27. Que tipo de activadad agricola realiza Usted? 28. Cuantas hectreas de su finca irriga? 29. Cuantos meses al ano irriga? 30. En cuales meses del ano hay escases de agua? 31. Cuantos das en total hay escases de agua? 32. Cuantos horas por un dia hay escases de agua? 33. Usted cree que hay problemas de agua en Montev erde? 34. Esta usted satisfecho(a) con la calidad y cant idad de agua que usted recibe? 35. Esta usted satisfecho(a) con la proteccion que se le da a las fuentes de agua?
17 Si No, que hara para mejorarla? 36. Quien debera de ser responsable de hacer esta s mejoras? Appendix 2 Summary of survey responses reported by proportion of people interviewed. Sample size is 64 for questions 1-35 and 40 for question number 36. Some responses were not used due to uncertainty from the person being interviewe d. 1. Donde vive usted? Santa Elena Caitas Cerro Plano San Luis 22% 19% 33% 26% 2. Cuantas personas viven en su casa? 1. 11% 2. 17% 3. 25% 4. 19% 5. 15% 6. 8% 7. 5% 3. Cuales son los ingresos mensuales de su hogar e n colones? 0-300,000: 70% 300,000-600,000: 19% 600,000+: 11% 4. Que termino describe mejor la ubicacion de su h ogar? Barri ___________ (nombre) 80% Finca 20% 5. Cual es su nacionalidad? Costa Rica 86% Other 14% 6. Cuantos anos tiene Usted? Continuous Response Range: 15-68 years Mean: 35.4 years 7. Cual fue el nivel mas alto de educacion que ust ed completo? Ninguno 22% 6to grado 30% Quinto ano de colegio 25% Universidad 23% 8. Cual es su trabajo? 1 Administrator 8% 2 Agriculture 8% 3 Ama de Casa 23% 4 Self employed 14% 5 Service 34% 6 Other 13% 9. Cual es la principal fuente de agua potable en su hogar? Naciente propia 60% AYA 27% Quebradas 13% 10. En promedio cuanto es su cuenta mensual de agu a? Continuous Response Range: 0-10,000 colones Mean: 5,232 colones 11. Trata usted el agua de alguna manera para hace rla potable? Si, de que forma? 6% No 94%
1812. Que tipo de inodoro utilizan en su hogar? Letrina 0% Inodoro normal 100% 13. Como trata las aguas negras en su casa? Tanque sptico 58% Otra 42% 14. Como trata las aguas grises en su casa? Tanque sptico 22% Otra 78% 15. Sus aguas negras y grises son separadas? Si 22% No 78% 16. Comparte usted la facilidad de tratamiento con otras casas? Si 17% No 83% 17. Cuantas duchas en total toma su familia por d a? 1. 77% 2. 22% 3. 1% 18. Cuantas comidas se preparan por dia en su casa ? 0. 1% 1. 8% 2. 13% 3. 59% 4. 16% 5. 3% 19. Cada cuanto se lava la ropa en su casa? 0 5% 1 6% 2 41% 3 22% 4 2% 5 2% 6 0% 7 22% 20. Cuantas cargas se hacen por lavada? 0 5% 1 13% 2 25% 3 27% 4 27% 5 3% 21. De que tamao es su lavadora? Normal 59% Grande 41% 22. Tiene usted un jardn? Si 56% No 44% 23. De que tamao es su jardn? Responses not used due to inaccuracy and uncertain ty from interviewees. 24. Usted irriga su jardn? Si 40% No 60% 25. Tiene una finca? Si 27% No 73% 26. Cuantas hectreas usa para agricultura?
19 Responses not used due to inaccuracy and uncertain ty from interviewees. 27. Que tipo de activadad agricola realiza Usted? Coffee, banana, oranges, lemons, sugar cane, cattl e, yucca, beans, avocado 28. Cuantas hectreas de su finca irriga? Responses not used due to inaccuracy and uncertain ty from interviewees. 29. Cuantos meses al ano irriga? 0 50% 1 6% 2 13% 3 17% 4 2% 5 2% 30. En cuales meses del ano hay escases de agua? Responses not used due to inaccuracy and uncertain ty from interviewees. 31. Cuantos das en total hay escases de agua? Responses not used due to inaccuracy and uncertain ty from interviewees. 32. Cuantos horas por un dia hay escases de agua? Responses not used due to inaccuracy and uncertain ty from interviewees. 33. Usted cree que hay problemas de agua en Montev erde? Si 59% No 41% 34. Esta usted satisfecho(a) con la calidad y cant idad de agua que usted recibe? Si 89% No 11% 35. Esta usted satisfecho(a) con la proteccion que se le da a las fuentes de agua? Si 67% No, que hara para mejorarla? 23% 36. Quien debera de ser responsable de hacer esta s mejoras? AyA 38% Government 17% Community 35% Farm 10%