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 conservation 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 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 s hortages, and lastly, addressed attitudes toward water conservation. Data were collected from 64 surv eys 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 protecti on. 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 effe cts from these unprotected water sources, indicating a need for future studies. Resumen Los residentes de la zona de Monteverde representan un gran rango de caracterÃsticas demogrÃ¡ficas y otros factores como ingresos, educaciÃ³n, Ã¡rea de residencia, y fu ente de agua, que pueden afectar su uso de agua, y de los residuos para poder estudiar estas relaciones, se condujo una encuesta en 4 diferentes pueblos en Monteverde. La encuesta consistiÃ³ en variables demogrÃ¡ficas, consumo de agua, mÃ©todo de tratamiento de residuos, escasez de agua, y por ultimo actitud hacia la conservaciÃ³n de agua. Con el resultado de 64 encuestas se encontraron varias tendencias. La tendencia mÃ¡s significativa viene de los residentes de Monteverde que reciben su agua de quebradas. Est e grupo estÃ¡ particularmente insatisfecho con la calidad, cantidad, y protecciÃ³n de la fuente de agua. Perciben que hay un serio problema de agua en Monteverde y que el gobierno es responsable por hacer los arreglos necesarios. Introduction Developing cou ntries around the world often face problems involving water shortages, poor water quality, and lack of wastewater di sposal. Costa Rica is no exception. In 2005, the Costa Rican Aqueducts and Sewer System Institute, or AyA, reported that 97% of wastewa ter 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 clothes is being dumped onto land and pote ntially contaminating nearby water supplies Dallas et al . 2004. This is likely to increase with population growth and the booming tourism 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 27%, 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 well as a larger number of people consuming wa ter 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 d ifferent towns that encompass a wid e range of demographics Aylward et al , 2004. Rural farms and small towns depend on MonteverdeÂ€s two largest industries; agriculture and tourism. The latter is the largest part of the local economy, attracting over 250,000 people per year, who come year round to see the unique bi odiversity and protected areas. The permanent community of some 5,000 residents, reflect diverse professions, income levels, and educational backgrounds, all of which can impact their attitudes and practices surrounding water con sumption, disposal and conservation. Income levels differ because there are farmers as well as professionals and business owners in the tourism sector. Likewise, education levels vary because opportunities for schooling were limited until recently. The f irst school did not open its doors until 1951, when the Quakers started the Monteverde Friends School and Costa Rican public schools opened sometime thereafter. Therefore the older population of the zone may not have had an opportunity for even elementary schooling, whereas now it is common for young people to seek university degrees in the central valley Monteverde Friends School , 2008. The source /supply system of water for home and farm use is also variable in the Monteverde zone. Water in Monteverde comes from three different supply syste ms, all in which use different sources to provide water to various households . The first and most widely used water provider in Costa Rica is AyA. AyA is a public company that provides Costa Ricans with clean drink ing water and hygienic sewage treatment systems Instituto Costarricense de Acued uctos y Alcantarillados 2007. Homeowners pay AyA for water maintenance and supply. In Monteverde, the 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 basic charges are determined based on both location n umber of houses using the springs and how much water is being used. The second source /supply system of water comes from springs on private lands, which individuals tap and pipe to their homes or farms . A spring is defined as a flow of ground water emerging naturally onto the earth's surface that is often used as a domestic water source within a community w atershed Province of British Columbia, 2007. This system involves l ocal 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 nearby; it is the optimal water access option, but can be expensive due to the infrastructure that must be created and maintained, requires special governm ent 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 in Monteverde is from st reams, and water is obtained through a system of installed pipes, which directly bring stream flow into individual households . Streams are any body of water confined within banks that has a detectable current Province of British Columbia, 2007. Streams are e xposed, 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 ÂfairÂ‚ to ÂpoorÂ‚ quality due to contamination, causing implication s for household consumers Brown et al . 2008. Unfortunately, lower income households are forced to 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 bl ack rubber hose that is usually laid on the surface of the ground. In the Brown et al. 2008 survey, 55.5% of households reported ÂoccasionallyÂ‚ experiencing water shortages and 29.6% reported ÂusuallyÂ‚ 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 ecotourism industry, the importance and protection of water is clearly emphasized by the numerous biological reserves and protected forests. Not only are th ese pristine areas attracting countless tourists and generating economic revenue, but they contain and protect the watershed, the original focus of the principal reserves. With already 97% of water in Costa Rica being disposed of without being treated, i t 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 h ow demographic variables such as income and education level affect water black and grey water disposal, water use and shortages, and conservation attitudes. Relationships between water source and number of shortages will also be investigated as well as ho w different sources affect conservation attitude. Location of residence and income may restrict the quality and quantity of water being consumed, education level may affect conservation att itudes, and household variation , may affect water shortages. Obvio usly in a community that is as diverse as Monteverde, differences in demographic factors and others will likely affect water consumption, wastewater disposal, and conservation . Therefore, the point of this study is to decipher which are the most significan t drivers behind the patterns. Methods FIELD METHODS . In or der to perform this study, a 36 question survey was developed modeling those performed by the World Health Organization, UNICEF, Environmental Protection Agency and several others concerning w ater quality and ecological footprints Appendix 1 . The survey was translated into Spanish and focused on demographic variables as well as water source, disposal, use, and conservation attitudes. It was made specific to Monteverde by focusing on the obse rvable 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 brackets , the first from 0 300,000 colones, the second from 300,000 600,000 , and finally from 600,000 and up, were developed to analyze for differences. F our different education levels were categorized by looking at last year completed. The four categories were: less than 6 th grade, 6 th 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 work, and other categories. The head of the household was interviewed i n the various neighborhoods of four different towns in Monteverde; Cerro Plano, CaÃ±itas , S an Luis, and Sant a Elena. ANALYTICAL METHODS . 64 people in different households were interviewed and data was analyzed using two different kinds of statistical anal y ses to access any correlation. In order to examine the relationship between two continuous 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 6 4 surveys were completed, 21 in Cerro Plano, 12 in CaÃ±itas, 14 in Santa Elena, and 17 in San Luis. The mean age of people surveyed was 35.4 years old, the mean monthly bill was 5,482 colones, and the average household size was 3.5 persons. Fifty eight perc ent of people surveyed used septic tanks to treat black water, and 22% of people surveyed used septic tanks to treat grey water. All other results of survey questions can be found in Appendix 2. Regression analyses of number of people per household were ru n in order to compare aspects of water use such as number of showers per day, the number of days wash is done per week, and the monthly bill. The number of loads of wash done per week shows a significant, positive correlation R 2 = 0.103, p = 0.01, n = 64 ; Fig. 1. The number of showers per individual per day shows a significant negative trend R 2 = 0.117, p = 0.005, n = 64; Fig. 2. The Monthly bill showed a positive trend as number in the household increased; however, this trend was not significant R 2 = 0.022, p= 0.246, n = 64; Fig. 3. The number of individuals in the household was also analyzed for correlation between aspects of water shortages. The number of months that a household experienced water shortages significantly increased as the number of individuals per household increased R 2 = 0.101, p = 0.009, n = 64; Fig. 4. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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 si gnificant positive correlation is shown R 2 = 0.103, p = 0.01 .
5 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Number in household Number of showers per individual per day Figure 2. Corr elation between the number of showers per individual per day and the number of people in the household. A significant negative trend is shown R 2 = 0.117, p = 0.005 . 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Number in household Monthly Bill colonoes Figure 3. Monthly bill in Costa Rican colones and the number of people in the househ old. There is no significant trend R 2 = 0.022, p= 0.246 .
6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8 Number in household Number of Months that there are water shortages Figure 4. The number of months per y ear in which shortages are experience d and the number of people living in the household . A significant positive correlation exists R 2 = 0.101, p = 0.009 . Thirty eight chi squared tests were conducted in order to analyze two nominal variables. Table 1 shows a compilation of all chi squared tests c onducted ; significant results are shown in bold . The graphs that follow represent significant results. Stars above responses denote the most significant contributors to the significant chi squared values. Table 1. Chi squared values for each nominal variable comparison conducted in this study. ÂResponse variableÂ‚ refers to the participantsÂ€ answers to question s about themselves and their living conditions. Bold numbers denote significant chi squared values. Water c omes from three different sources/supply systems in Monteverde. The first chi squared analysis looks at the four different towns and their source/means of supply o f water. Cerro Plano and CaÃ±itas receive their water from all three systems . Santa Elena Response Variable s Statistic Value Black Water Treatment Grey Water Treatment Perceived Problems Satisfied with Quality and Quantity Satisfied with Prot ection 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 r eceive s their water from exclusively AyA and San Luis receive s their water only from springs and streams. These differenc es are not explained by chance X 2 = 41.54, df = 6, p<0.001; Fig. 5. Figure 5. Observed and expected values for t he distribution of water source/supply systems among four different towns in Monteverde. Both observed and expected values are shown, the most significant values are noted with a star n = 64, p < 0.001 . Santa Elena receives there water from only AyA and Sa n Luis receives there water from only springs and streams. 0 5 10 15 20 25 Yes No Yes No Yes No AYA Spring Stream Water Treated Number of People Observed Expected Figure 6. Observed and expected values for the three different water sources/supplies in Monteverde compared with whether or not the individual treats black water. ÂYesÂ‚ signifies that a septic tank is used for bla ck water treatment. The most significant result is from people whose water is from streams. They treated 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 X 2 = 7.17, df = 2, p = 0.028; Fig. 6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 AYA Springs Streams AYA Springs Streams AYA Springs Streams AYA Springs Streams Cerro Plano Canitas Santa Elena San Luis Town Number of People Observed Expected
8 A significant correlation was exhibited when asked the question Âare you satisfi ed with water quality and quantity?Â‚ People receiving water from streams were significantly unsatisfied with the quality and quantity of water that they were receiving X 2 = 6.66, df = 2, p = 0.036; Fig. 7 . A second question was asked regarding whether o r not individuals were satisfied, but instead of quantity and quality, this question regarded whether or not the individual was satisfied with water source protection. The first result looks at water source compared to whether or not the individual was sa tisfied. People receivin g water from streams were significantly unsatisfied with water source protection X 2 = 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 significantly unsatisfied with water source protection X 2 = 5.99, df = 2, p = 0.049; Fig. 9 . Figure 7. Observed and expected value s for wa ter source /supply systems and whether or not people are satisfied with water quality and quantity. People who responded ÂNoÂ‚ and were receiving water from streams were significantly unsatisfied with water quality and quantity in their homes n = 64 , p = 0.036. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Yes No Yes No Yes No AYA Springs Streams Water Source Number of People Observed Expected
9 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Yes No Yes No Yes No AYA Springs Streams Water Source Number of People Observed Expected Figure 8. Observed and expected values for the three d ifferent water sources /supply systems and whether or not the individual was satisfied with water source /system protection. People responding ÂNoÂ‚ that got their water from streams were significantly unsatisfied with source protection n = 64, p = 0.007. Figure 9. Observed and expected values for three income brackets that were used on the survey in colones per month and whether or not people were s atisfied with water source protection. People in the highest income bracket who were making over 600,000 colones per month and who responded ÂNoÂ‚ to this question were significantly unsatisfied with source protection n = 64, p = 0.049 The question ÂDo 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 6 th grade thought that there were fewer water problems than was expect ed. On the other end of the spectrum, individuals who had completed university believed that there were more problems dealing with water than expected X 2 = 10.35, df = 3 , p = 0.016; Fig. 10 . The second significant response dealt, once again with where p eople were receiving there water from. People who were receiving there water from 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Yes No Yes No Yes No 0-300,000 300,000-600,000 600,000+ Income Number of People Observed Expected
10 streams thought that there were more water problems than was expected X 2 = 7.51, df = 2, p = 0.023; Fig. 11 . The final significant response to this question compared perc eived water problems and location. People who lived in Cerro Plano believed that there were fewer problems with water than was expected, while people in CaÃ±itas perceived more problems than was expected X 2 = 9 .38, df = 3, p = 0.025; Fig. 12 . Figure 10. Observed and expected values for four education 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. People who had not compl eted 6 th 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 expected n = 64, p = 0 .016. Figure 11. Observed and expected values of MonteverdeÂ€s three water source/supply system and the perceived water problems in Monteverde. People who were receivin g their water from streams believed that there were mor e problems than was expected n = 64, p = 0.023. 0 5 10 15 20 25 Yes No Yes No Yes No AYA Springs Streams Water Source Number of People Observed Expected 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Less than 6th Grade 6th Grade High School University Education Level Number of People Observed Expected
11 Figure 12. Observed and expected values for the four different towns in Monteverde and whether or not people within each town believed that there were water problems in Mon teverde. People in Cerro Plano thought that there were far fewer problems than expected, while people in CaÃ±itas believed that there were significantly more problems than expected n = 64, p = 0.025. The final question on the survey asked about who is r esponsible for improving water quantity, quality, and protection. Many individuals had no response to this question, because many people believed that water problems were not prevalent in the Monteverde area. As a result, the sample size for this analysi s is 40. Location played a significant role in this response. People living in CaÃ±itas believed that farms had the most significant role in improving water, while people living in Santa Elena expected AyA to claim responsibility X 2 = 1 9.52, df = 9, p = 0. 021; Fig. 13 . Water source /supply system also played a significant role in determining who the responsible party is for water improvement. People receiving water from streams believed that the government possessed the greatest responsibility for making improvements X 2 = 1 2.25, df = 6, p = 0.057; Fig. 14 . 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Cerro Plano Canitas Santa Elena San Luis Town Number of People Observed Expected
12 Figure 13. Observed and expected values for the different towns in Monteverde and who each location believed are responsible for improving water supply. Four diff erent responses to this question were observed. People in CaÃ±itas strongly believed that Farms were the responsible party for improving water supply, 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 three different water source /supply system s in Montever de and who each of these systems believed was responsible for improving water. The most significant result came from people who got wate r 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 relationships between household size, location, inco me bracket, education level, and water source and 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 increasing number of people per h ousehold Figure 1, which is simply that with more people there are more clothes to wash. The next significant result dealt with the number of showers taken per individual per day Figure 2. As household size increased, the 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 high monthly bills. The final significant result looks at the number of months that a household experiences water 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 AYA Government Community Farms AYA Government Community Farms AYA Government Community Farms AYA Springs Streams Water Source Number of People Observed Expected 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 AYA Government Community Farms AYA Government Community Farms AYA Government Community Farms AYA Government Community Farms Cerro Plano Canitas Santa Elena San Luis Observed Expected
13 sh ortages Figure 4. The number of months that shortages are experienced increases with household size. Water is a necessity and as the number of people increase, consumption of water will also increase. This could lead to more experienced monthly shorta ges; families with more members will need more water and when it is not available, the effects are ubiquitous. Out of the thirty eight chi squared tests conducted, ten of them revealed significant relationships. The first significant result examines whe re people are receiving their water from each town that was interviewed Figure 5. Interestingly enough, people living in Santa Elena were only receiving water from AyA, and people in San Luis were only receiving water from springs and streams. Santa El ena may be too populated and far from any springs and streams, while San Luis has yet 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 second result, dealing with black water treatment and water source may be significant due to the idea that people that use streams as their water source may live closer t o them in order 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 income bracket is significantly unsatisfied with water source protection and may exhibit these feelings for two different reasons F igure 9. The first could result from having a higher standard of living, thus making water source protection a perceived rather than actual problem. The second reason may be to higher education level. People with higher education are generally paid mor e Thus, the people who were unsatisfied with water source protection in upper income levels may be representing upper level education and as a result possess more knowledge of water protection rules and regulations. The second group that was significantly unsatisfied with quantity, quality and source protection was the group receiving water from streams Figures 7 and 8. While only 58% of people surveyed 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 contamination into peopleÂ€s homes, and causing unknown implications. The forth series of questions shows that the people receiving water from streams strongly believe that there are water problems in Monteverde Figure 11. These are the people that are most likely experiencing these problems and thus have directly been affected by the consequences of water issue s. Education also had a significant effect on the perceived problems of MonteverdeÂ€s water Figure 10. People who had not finished 6 th grade may not have had the opportunity to learn about water issues. These people may also represent the older populat ion in Monteverde 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 opportunity to learn about and investigate water problems in Monteverde . They therefore believe that water problems are much more prevalent than expected. The final grouping that thought water problems were significant in Monteverde was those in different locations Figure 12. People in Cerro Plano believe that there are f ar fewer water problems than expected, possibly because of different source and system infrastructure. The majority of people interviewed from
14 Cerro Plano received their water from AyA. Because AyA uses different springs for different location s , springs providing Cerro PlanoÂ€s water supply may provide water more efficiently. CaÃ±itas , on the other hand, is a different story. People here believe that Monteverde is experiencing more water problems than expected. CaÃ±itas , 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 people in CaÃ±itas believed that farms were responsible for improving water Figure 13. People that responded in this manner were ones t hat 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 should 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 incentive would be taken to improve water quality. The other significant responses to the question of who is responsible for improving wat er problems came from Santa Elena. Here, where water comes solely from AyA, is where people suggest that this agency is primarily 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 pr otection believe that it is the federal government Â€s responsibility to better the water in Monteverde. People may have thought that it was the federal governmentÂ€s responsi bility because of how large the water problem is or how it involves several different parties . AyA may be contributing to problems, as well as farms, restaurants, hotels, and communities; therefore people may have responded in this manner in order to emph asize the changes that m ust occur to make improvements. 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 of tourists more problems with water quality and quantity will most lik ely arise as more p ressure is put on water supplies . Therefore, it is important to improve each of the thr ee source and supply systems across all differ ent demogra phic representations in order to improve current water problems as well as anticipate for those that may be experienced in the future. Acknowledgments I would like to first and foremost thank Karen Masters, whose guidance and support allowed me to succe ssfully conduct this project. I would also like to thank Pablo Allen for all of his help with translating surveys into Spanish and for creating statistical templates for my analyses. I would like to thank Moncho Calderon, for your review and input and my classmates for assisting me with the interviewing process. Special thanks to the people living in Monteverde for giving me your time and welcoming me into your homes! Literature Cited Aylward, B., K. Allen , J. Echeverria, and J. Tosi. 200 4 . Sustainab le ecotourism in Costa Rica: the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve. Biodiversity and Conservation 5: 315 343
15 Brown, R., R. King, J. Papa , J. Seillac , and J. Syvertsen. The ÂCulture of WaterÂ‚ in the Monteverde Zone: Perception of Water Use, Availability, and Behaviors 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 Elena M onteverde, Costa Rica, Central America. Ecol. Eng 23: 55 61 Environmental Protection Agency. Greening EPA Glossary. 2008. SURVEY Province of British Columbia. Glossary of Forestry Terms. 2007. Ministry of Fores ts Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. 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. Ecological Footprint Quiz. 2008. http://www.myfootprint.org SURVEY United Nations Statistics Division. Social Indicators . 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 Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. C ore questions on drinking wat er and sanitation for household surveys. 2006. WHO Library Cataloguing Geneva, Switzerland SURVEY
16 Appendix 1 Survey used to conduct household inter views . 1. Â¿ Donde vive usted? Santa Elena CaÃ±itas Cerro Plano San Luis 2. Â¿ Cuantas personas viven en su casa? 3 . Â¿ Cuales son los ingresos mensuales de su hogar en colones? 4 . Â¿ Que termino describe mejor la ubicacion de su hogar? BarriÃ³ ___________ nombre Finca 5 . Â¿ Cual es su nacionalidad? 6 . Â¿ Cuantos anos tiene Usted ? 7 . Â¿ Cual fue el nivel mas alto de educacion que usted completo? Menos de 6th grado 6 th grado Quinto ano de colegio U niversidad 8 . Â¿ Cual es su trabajo? 9 . Â¿ Cual es la principal fuente de agua potable en su hogar? Naciente propia AYA Quebradas 10 . Â¿ En promedio cuanto es su cuenta mensual de agua? 11 . Â¿ Trata usted el agua de alguna manera para hacerla potable? Â¿ Si, d e que forma No 12 . Â¿ Que tipo de inodoro utilizan en su hogar? Letrina Inodoro normal 13 . Â¿ Como trata las aguas negras en su casa? Tanque sÃ©ptico Otra 14 . Â¿ Como trata las aguas grises en su casa? Tanque sÃ©ptico Otra 15 . Â¿ Sus aguas negras y grises son separadas? 16 . Â¿ Comparte usted la facilidad de tratamiento con otras casas? 17 . Â¿ Cuantas duchas en total toma su familia por dÃa ? 18 . Â¿ Cuantas comidas se preparan por dia en su casa? 19 . Â¿ Cada cuanto se lava la ropa en su casa? 20 . Â¿ C uantas cargas se hacen por lavada? 21 . Â¿ De que tamaÃ±o es su lavadora? 22 . Â¿ Tiene usted un jardÃn ? 23 . Â¿ De que tamaÃ±o es su jardÃn ? 24 . Â¿ Usted irriga su jardÃn ? 25 . Â¿ Tiene una finca? 26 . Â¿ Cuantas hectÃ¡reas usa para agricultura? 27 . Â¿ Que tipo de activadad ag ricola realiza Usted? 28 . Â¿ Cuantas hectÃ¡reas de su finca irriga? 29 . Â¿ Cuantos meses al ano irriga? 3 0 . Â¿ En cuales meses del ano hay escases de agua? 31 . Â¿ Cuantos dÃas en total hay escases de agua? 32 . Â¿ Cuantos horas por un dia hay escases de agua ? 33 . Â¿ Us ted cree que hay problemas de agua en Monteverde? 34 . Â¿ Esta usted satisfechoa con la calidad y cantidad de agua que usted recibe ? 35 . Â¿ Esta usted satisfechoa con la proteccion que se le da a las fuentes de agua? Si Â¿ No, que harÃa para mejorarla? 3 6 . Â¿ Quien deberÃa de ser responsable de hacer estas mejoras?
17 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 unc ertainty from the person being interviewed. 1. Â¿Donde vive usted? Santa Elena CaÃ±itas Cerro Plano San Luis 22% 19% 33% 26% 2. Â¿Cuantas personas viven en su casa? 1. 11% 2. 17% 3. 25% 4. 19% 5. 15% 6. 8% 7. 5% 3. Â¿Cuales son los ingresos mensuales de su hogar en colones? 0 300,000: 70% 300,000 600,000: 19% 600,000+: 11% 4. Â¿Que termino describe mejor la ubicaciÃ³n de su hogar? BarriÃ³ ___________ nombre 80% Finca 20% 5. Â¿Cual es su nacionalidad? Costa Rica 86% Other 14% 6. Â¿Cuantos anos tiene Usted? Continuous Response Range: 15 68 years Mean: 35.4 years 7. Â¿Cual fue el nivel mas alto de educaciÃ³n que usted completo? Ninguno 22% 6 to grado 30% Quinto ano de colegio 25% Universidad 23% 8. Â¿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. Â¿Cual es la principal fuente de agua potable en su hogar? Naciente propia 60% AYA 27% Quebradas 13% 10. Â¿En promedio cuanto es su cuenta mensual de agua? Continuous Response Range: 0 10,000 colones Mean: 5,232 colones 11. Â¿Trata usted el agua de alguna manera para hacerla potable? Â¿Si, de que forma? 6% No 94% 12. Â¿Que tipo de inodoro utilizan en su hogar? Letrina 0% Inodoro normal 100%
18 13. Â¿Como trata las aguas negras en su casa? Tanque sÃ©ptico 58% Otra 42% 14. Â¿Como trata las aguas grises en su casa? Tanque sÃ©ptico 22 % Otra 78% 15. Â¿Sus aguas negras y grises son separadas? Si 22% No 78% 16. Â¿Comparte usted la facilidad de tratamiento con otras casas? Si 17% No 83% 17. Â¿Cuantas duchas en total toma su familia por dÃa? 1. 77% 2. 22% 3. 1 % 18. Â¿Cuantas comidas se preparan por dÃa en su casa? 0. 1% 1. 8% 2. 13% 3. 59% 4. 16% 5. 3% 19. Â¿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. Â¿Cuantas cargas se hacen por lavada? 0 5% 1 13% 2 25% 3 27% 4 27% 5 3% 21. Â¿De que tamaÃ±o es su lavadora? Normal 59% Grande 41% 22. Â¿Tiene usted un jardÃn? Si 56% No 44% 23. Â¿De que tamaÃ±o es su jardÃn? Responses not used due to inaccuracy and uncertainty from interviewees. 24. Â¿Usted irriga su jardÃn? Si 40% No 60% 25. Â¿Tiene una finca? Si 27% No 73% 26. Â¿Cuantas hectÃ¡reas usa para agricultura? Responses not used due to inaccuracy and uncertainty from in terviewees. 27. Â¿Que tipo de actividad agrÃcola realiza Usted? Coffee, banana, oranges, lemons, sugar cane, cattle, yucca, beans, avocado
19 28. Â¿Cuantas hectÃ¡reas de su finca irriga? Responses not used due to inaccuracy and uncertainty from interviewee s. 29. Â¿Cuantos meses al ano irriga? 0 50% 1 6% 2 13% 3 17% 4 2% 5 2% 30. Â¿En cuales meses del ano hay escases de agua? Responses not used due to inaccuracy and uncertainty from interviewees. 31. Â¿Cuantos dÃas en total hay escase s de agua? Responses not used due to inaccuracy and uncertainty from interviewees. 32. Â¿Cuantos horas por un dÃa hay escases de agua? Responses not used due to inaccuracy and uncertainty from interviewees. 33. Â¿Usted cree que hay problemas de agua en M onteverde? Si 59% No 41% 34. Â¿Esta usted satisfechoa con la calidad y cantidad de agua que usted recibe? Si 89% No 11% 35. Â¿Esta usted satisfechoa con la protecciÃ³n que se le da a las fuentes de agua? Si 67% Â¿No, que harÃa para mejorarla? 23% 36. Â¿Quien deberÃa de ser responsable de hacer estas mejoras? AyA 38% Government 17% Community 35% Farm 10%