EVERYDAY COMPLEXITY: A MIXED-METHODS STUDY OF HOUSEHOLD AND ENVIRONMENTAL DYNAMICS INFLUENCING SUSTAINABLE ADOPTION OF DECENTRALIZED WATER SYSTEMS IN PERI-URBAN NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA by Marianella Hernandez B.Sc., National Agrarian University – La Molina, 2005 M.B.A., Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, 2017 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA August 2025 © Marianella Hernandez, 2025 Abstract This study examines factors influencing the adoption of decentralized water systems (DWS) in peri-urban northern British Columbia (BC), focusing on household dynamics and gender roles. Addressing a gap in research on DWS adoption in this context, the study is timely given growing climate-related pressures on water availability and the need for alternative management approaches. Using a mixed-methods design combining a systematic literature review and a case study, the research identifies and analyzes DWS adoption factors. The review revealed eight commonly studied factors: gender, age, income, education, rural/urban setting, sensorial perceptions, attitude, and environmental concerns. These informed an online survey with closed and open-ended questions, completed by twelve DWS specialists and thirty-three peri-urban users in Prince George, BC, between September and December 2024. Thematic analysis showed these eight factors were reshaped by lived experiences, resulting in four emergent themes that better reflect the complexity of DWS adoption in periurban northern BC: sociocultural and economic context, DWS knowledge, environmental context, and perceived health risks. Findings reveal that adoption is shaped not only by technical or economic factors, but also household decision-making, gendered responsibilities, and concerns about water safety, affordability, and sustainability. The study highlights the need for inclusive implementation strategies that reflect gender roles, local knowledge, and environmental values, supporting socially grounded, resilient water management in rural and peri-urban communities facing climate and infrastructure challenges. ii Table of contents Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... ii Table of contents ...................................................................................................................... iii List of tables ...............................................................................................................................v List of figures ........................................................................................................................... vi Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................... vii Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................. viii Chapter One: Introduction .........................................................................................................1 1.1 Regional water resource pressures in BC ............................................................................1 1.2 BC rural communities' reliance on DWS .............................................................................3 1.3 Research on DWS adoption in the Global North .................................................................3 1.4 Role of gender in household technology adoption research ................................................5 1.5 Thesis outline .......................................................................................................................8 1.6 Scientific outcomes and outputs ........................................................................................9 Chapter Two: Literature review ...............................................................................................10 2.1 Peri-urban northern BC case study: Prince George ...........................................................10 2.2 Decentralized water systems in BC ...................................................................................13 2.3 The process of technology adoption ..................................................................................15 2.4 Household gender roles and expectations for decision-making ........................................18 Chapter Three: Methodology and methods..............................................................................22 3.1 Research approach .............................................................................................................22 3.1.1 Philosophical worldview: Constructivist paradigm .........................................22 3.1.2 Mixed-methods design .....................................................................................23 3.1.3 Case study focus ..............................................................................................24 3.2 Data collection and analysis ..............................................................................................25 3.2.1 Systematic literature review .............................................................................25 3.2.2 Online surveys .................................................................................................27 3.2.3 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................32 3.3 Research quality and ethics................................................................................................33 3.3.1 Validity and reliability in qualitative research .................................................33 3.3.2 Ethical considerations ......................................................................................35 3.4 Limitations .........................................................................................................................36 Chapter Four: Results ..............................................................................................................39 4.1 Research question one: Insights on factors that influence DWS adoption ........................39 4.1.1 Literature review findings ................................................................................39 4.1.2 Specialist survey findings ................................................................................41 4.2 Research question two: DWS adoption in northern BC ....................................................59 4.2.1 BC user survey findings ...................................................................................59 4.3 Comparison between specialist and user survey findings .................................................80 4.3.1 Likert-scale findings comparison.....................................................................80 4.3.2 Thematic analysis findings comparison ...........................................................82 4.4 Concluding thoughts ..........................................................................................................83 iii Chapter Five: Discussion .........................................................................................................86 5.1 Reframing of the original eight factors from the literature review ....................................86 5.2 Understanding the reframed DWS adoption factors ..........................................................86 5.2.1 Sociocultural and economic context ................................................................88 5.2.2 DWS Knowledge .............................................................................................95 5.2.3 Environmental context .....................................................................................98 5.2.4 Perceived health risks ....................................................................................101 5.2.5 Attitudes toward DWS adoption ....................................................................102 5.3 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................103 Chapter Six: Conclusions.......................................................................................................106 6.1 Summary of findings .......................................................................................................106 6.2 Contributions of this study ...............................................................................................109 6.3 Considerations and limitations......................................................................................... 110 6.4 Future research directions ................................................................................................ 112 6.5 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 114 References: ............................................................................................................................. 117 Appendix A: Research ethics course certificate.....................................................................130 Appendix B: Research ethics board letter of approval ..........................................................131 Appendix C: Specialist information letter and consent form.................................................132 Appendix D: User information letter and consent form ........................................................136 Appendix E: Specialist survey form ......................................................................................140 Appendix F: Users survey form .............................................................................................153 iv List of tables Table 2.1: Definitions, regulations, and jurisdictions related to DWS in BC ..........................13 Table 2.2: Technology adoption models .................................................................................16 Table 3.1: Keyword combination used in the systematic literature review .............................26 Table 4.1: Overview of the systematic review protocol and article selection process ............40 Table 4.2: Frequency of commonly included factors across selected articles ........................41 Table 4.3: Specialist sociodemographic characteristics ..........................................................42 Table 4.4: Specialist DWS experience characteristics .............................................................44 Table 4.5: Specialist Likert-scale responses about how strongly they agree or disagree with the proposed factors influencing DWS adoption at the household level .................................47 Table 4.6: Specialist Likert-scale responses about how strongly they agree or disagree with the influence of gender in the proposed factors affecting DWS adoption at the household level ..........................................................................................................................................48 Table 4.7: User sociodemographic characteristics ..................................................................60 Table 4.8: User DWS experience, type, and purpose ..............................................................62 Table 4.9: User Likert-scale responses about how strongly they agree or disagree with the proposed factors influencing DWS adoption in their households ...........................................67 Table 4.10: User Likert-scale responses about how strongly they agree or disagree with the influence of gender in the proposed factors affecting DWS adoption in their households .....68 Table 4.11: Comparison of specialist and user insights from open-ended questions about factors related to DWS adoption in households.......................................................................85 Table 5.1: Reframing of literature-identified adoption factors based on online survey analysis with specialists and users ........................................................................................................87 v List of figures Figure 1.1: Research visual summary ........................................................................................7 Figure 4.1: User responses about primary responsibility for common household tasks .........61 Figure 4.2: User decisions regarding buying, adopting, and maintaining DWS .....................64 Figure 4.3: Comparing specialist and user responses to adoption factors ...............................81 Figure 4.4: Comparing specialist and user responses to gender influence ..............................81 vi Abbreviations BC British Columbia BCWWA British Columbia Waste and Water Association BRICS Informal group of countries exhibiting rapid economic growth: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa (+ Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Indonesia, and United Arab Emirates) CEGEP Collège d'enseignement général et professionnel DWS Decentralized Water Systems include wells, septic tanks, rainwater collection systems, constructed wetlands, filters, greywater reuse systems, and others. WASH-T Water and Sanitation Holistic Technologies vii Acknowledgments I want to thank Dr. Flor (June) Garcia-Becerra for being there for me throughout my master’s journey. Her guidance, knowledge-sharing, encouragement, empathy, and friendship have been invaluable. I also want to thank Dr. Greg Halseth, my co-supervisor, for sharing his extensive experience and consistently guiding my research with patience, kindness, and timely feedback whenever I needed it. I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Zoe Meletis for always being willing to share her knowledge and guidance and for providing insightful feedback on my work every time. I am truly fortunate to have had all three of them on my supervisory committee. I would also like to express my sincere thanks to my external examiner, Dr. Gabrielle Daoust, for taking the time to review my work and for offering thoughtful feedback and valuable reflections during my thesis defence. I am also very grateful to my WASH-T research team for providing relevant feedback that helped me improve my research. Special thanks to the WASH-T specialist network for taking the time to read and respond to my survey and for sharing their knowledge. I also want to acknowledge the amazing support from the Prince George peri-urban communities who participated in my survey and contributed to my research with their invaluable experience with decentralized water systems. Finally, I want to thank my family (my team) and friends (my sisters) for being there for me every day and reminding me that I have got this and that there is so much more ahead, it is just the beginning. viii Chapter One: Introduction This study used an exploratory case study and a mixed methods approach to explore the adoption of decentralized water systems (DWS) in northern British Columbia (BC), with a focus on how gender roles influence household decision-making. This research took place in the context of climate change, increasing pressure on water resources and the communities that depend on them. It sought to investigate the social dynamics of technology adoption, particularly to identify key factors shaping household adoption of DWS in the Prince George, BC, case study. In this research, DWS refer to various household systems designed to manage water supply solutions for domestic purposes and are being considered here because they can offer alternatives to municipal or private corporate water systems, particularly in rural and semi-rural areas (Sha et al., 2024). A better understanding of the use of DWS and its barriers must be part of planning for a more resilient future in the climate crisis. 1.1 Regional water resource pressures in BC Canada ranks among the countries with the highest per capita water consumption (Janssen et al., 2021; Younis & Davies, 2023) and holds 20% of the worldwide freshwater availability (Agrawal et al., 2022). Due to its low population density, this perceived abundance can lead to an inaccurate notion of water availability (Younis & Davies, 2023). This flawed but popular perception about water resources highlights the importance of understanding regional water challenges as exemplified by the drought conditions in BC during 2023 and 2024, as they occur in social contexts. During the summer of 2023, 4 of 34 water basins in BC experienced the highest levels of provincial drought conditions (CBC News, 2023b). Drought adversely impacts 1 people and communities through reduced water availability, warmer river temperatures, and decreased groundwater levels (Climate Ready British Columbia, 2024). Additionally, on March 1st, 2024, the snowpack in the province was 34% below the average snow water equivalent of 472 millimeters for the same date between 1991 and 2000 (Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, 2024). Extreme events, both in temperature and rainfall, are predicted to become more frequent and intense (BC Agriculture & Food Climate Action Initiative, 2019). These are likely to affect access to water. According to the BC Agriculture and Food Climate Action Initiative (2019), the Bulkley-Nechako and Fraser-Fort George region’s climate forecasts predict notable rises in temperature variability in the coming decades. With a historical average variability of 1.6°C between 1971 and 2000, the region’s temperature is expected to increase by +3.2°C by 2050 and +5.3°C by 2080. Additionally, an anticipated 9.5% increase in average annual precipitation is expected by the 2050s. Extremely hot days are expected to become more frequent, rising from 31°C to 33°C by the 2050s and 36°C by the 2080s. Although some areas may experience modest decreases in snowfall due to persistent cold temperatures at higher elevations, the snow accumulation season is projected to decrease by approximately 38% by the 2080s, leading to earlier snowmelt and reduced snowmelt volume (BC Agriculture & Food Climate Action Initiative, 2019). These findings emphasize the need for proactive measures to manage BC’s water resources and climate resilience, which involves adaptive strategies that minimize disruption and promote sustainable opportunities in the face of ongoing environmental change (Denton et al., 2014). These climate-related pressures underscore the need for sustainable water management approaches that balance environmental, social, and economic priorities 2 (Elkington, 1998). Water management that strengthens climate resilience can support progress toward the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal #6 on clean water and sanitation (United Nations, 2023). 1.2 BC rural communities' reliance on DWS Water quality is also a pressing concern for residents of rural communities served by small water systems. Statistics Canada (2021) defines small population centres as areas with populations ranging from 1,000 to 29,999 and at least 400 people per square kilometer. A population area with an even lower density is defined as rural. In parts of BC, rural communities rely on water systems serving fewer than 500 people. Such systems comprise 90% of the province’s drinking water systems (Kaur & Janmaat, 2023). Hu et al. (2022) found that over 70% of BC’s rural and remote water systems are at high or medium risk of contamination, with smaller systems being particularly vulnerable (Pokhrel, 2019). These areas face challenges such as reliance on untreated surface water contamination, infectious diseases, limited funding, personnel shortages, capacity constraints, and aging distribution systems (Dunn et al., 2014; Galway, 2016; McFarlane & Harris, 2018). These issues highlight the need for comprehensive strategies to manage water quality effectively, particularly for communities not connected to centralized urban water infrastructure. 1.3 Research on DWS adoption in the Global North Research on DWS has explored the drivers and challenges in implementing these solutions in rural communities. Many studies are related to adopting DWS in rural areas in the Global South. For instance, Makopondo et al. (2020) highlighted the hurdles remote lodges and resorts in Kenya face in adopting constructed wetland technology. In Eastern Kenya, Recha 3 et al. (2015) also focused on determinants affecting the adoption of rainwater harvesting and conservation techniques in semi-arid regions. Research in India emphasizes the influence of social and cultural variables on the maintenance of constructed wetlands in rural communities (Friedrichsen et al., 2021). For example, Shanmugavel and Rajendran (2022) identify factors contributing to the adoption of rainwater harvesting for sustainable groundwater management. In Durban, South Africa, Sutherland et al. (2021) note the importance of social acceptance in implementing decentralized sanitation systems in periurban households. These studies highlight the diverse challenges and drivers influencing the adoption of DWS in different socio-cultural contexts of the Global South. The emphasis on DWS in the Global South can be explained in several ways. Firstly, in the Global North, water security, often perceived through Western models, is assumed to exist, with water being seen as universally available and manageable (Meehan et al., 2020). Secondly, the Global South has long faced significant challenges related to inadequate access to clean water and sanitation (Wutich et al., 2021), resulting in scholarly attention (Muzioreva et al., 2022). Finally, “development” related funding often prioritizes attention to water security issues in the Global South. For instance, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2018) reports the economic benefits of investing in water and sanitation services in the Global South. These factors highlight the imbalance in attention to DWS and emphasize the need for further research on the existing and potential adoption of decentralized systems in the Global North. In my study, adopting DWS is understood as including two components. The adoption process itself, followed by the use and operational processes that take place once the system is in place. Here, a system refers to a group of interconnected techniques, items, 4 or devices operating together. Therefore, a technology, solution, or household set of processes involving water and wastewater management is called a system in this resulting document. In the Global North, household water systems studied with an “adoption” approach are limited. Some examples include studies on stormwater management in the United States (Shin & McCann, 2018) and Poland (Boguniewicz-Zabłocka & Capodaglio, 2020); water conservation behaviour in China and Mexico (Khodadad et al., 2022; X. Li et al., 2018); and water reuse behaviour in the United States (Kandiah et al., 2017). On the other hand, researchers have studied household adoption processes in the Global North for various other technologies, such as smart home technology for energy saving in European countries (Broman Toft et al., 2014; Nikou, 2019); smart lock adoption in the United States (Mamonov & Benbunan-Fich, 2020); intention to use solar energy generation in Saudi Arabia (Bouaguel & Alsulimani, 2022); and solar technology acceptance in Poland (Zdonek et al., 2023). Insights from these bodies of work are essential to understanding the adoption processes for household water systems in the Global North. 1.4 Role of gender in household technology adoption research In studies analyzing household-related technology adoption in the Global North, gender emerges as a key sociodemographic variable. For instance, research on energy-related household technologies (Karytsas, Vardopoulos, et al., 2019; Michelsen & Madlener, 2017; Zdonek et al., 2023) claims that identifying as a woman often correlates with a negative impact on adoption processes. Examples include photovoltaic energy acceptance in Poland (Zdonek et al., 2023), residential heating systems adoption in Greece and Spain (Karytsas, Vardopoulos, et al., 2019), and the adoption of eCommerce and eBanking in Spain (Garín5 Muñoz et al., 2019). However, in some instances, such as internet adoption for health information in Mexico, researchers suggest that being a woman has a positive influence on use (Díaz de León Castañeda & Martínez Domínguez, 2021). Gender and the adoption of household water systems have been studied in limited ways, with respect to wastewater reuse. For instance, research in Saudi Arabia and the United States suggests that women are less likely than men to reuse treated wastewater for domestic uses (Abubakar & Mu’azu, 2022; Wester et al., 2015). These findings highlight that while the gender variable may correlate with technology adoption outcomes, there is a need for deeper research to understand how and why gender matters itself in these processes.. Few studies have explored gender beyond its role as a categorical or demographic variable in technology adoption. One notable example is a study on smart lock adoption in the United States, which focused on gender differences in the adoption process and found significant variations (Mamonov & Benbunan-Fich, 2020). The authors also aimed to understand how gender intersects with other technology adoption factors. These insights emphasize the importance of understanding gender roles in technology adoption. There is a need for distinct approaches to first research such influences more deeply, and then to address differences more effectively by using tailored approaches. Figure 1.1 provides a visual summary of this research. It begins by presenting two sets of issues that contribute to the problem under study. On the bottom left, the impacts of climate change and water resource challenges in rural BC are included. The right includes the limited research on DWS adoption in the Global North and existing studies on gender’s influence on household technology adoption. This study integrates insights from a systematic literature review and online surveys with DWS specialists and users in the 6 northern BC case study. Through this approach, this research has identified factors that play a key role in shaping DWS adoption in a northern BC context, with particular attention to how gender roles within households can inform decision-making around these systems. Figure 1.1 Research project components Source: Author The study addressed two research questions: 2. What insights can be obtained from the existing literature regarding variables influencing the adoption of household DWS, taking into account the role of gender? 3. How can these findings be applied to a northern BC context? To address the first research question, I conducted a systematic literature review that identified potential influential factors on DWS adoption in a Global North context. These factors included gender, age, income, education, rural/urban setting, sensorial perceptions, 7 attitude, and environmental concern. For the second research question, I used the identified factors from the literature to inform and design a survey for two target groups. The first target group consisted of DWS specialists from the Global North. I asked them about their perspectives based on their experience with DWS implementation and related work with household or community decision-makers. The second survey elicited user perspectives derived from their living experiences using DWS in their households. I adopted a constructivist paradigm for this study to explore how cultural and social factors might influence participant understandings of DWS and its adoption in a northern BC community. A constructivist approach emphasizes understanding the world through personal interpretations, focusing on the social and cognitive processes contributing to knowledge creation (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; O’Reilly & Kiyimba, 2015). Using a case study methodology, I investigated factors affecting DWS adoption in Prince George and its surrounding peri-urban areas, which are not connected to the city's water and sewage services. I also collected data from DWS experts at a greater scale (including respondents outside of Prince George, and international experts). This combined approach allowed for an in-depth exploration of adoption’s complexities and contextual influences (Hay & Cope, 2021; Yin, 2018) in terms of considering regional considerations and greater contexts. 1.5 Thesis outline This thesis is organized into six chapters. Chapter One introduces the research topic and research questions. The second chapter contains a literature review of technology adoption, household gender roles, and DWS. Chapter Three describes the methodology and methods used in my research. The fourth chapter presents the results. Chapter Five discusses the 8 research findings, and Chapter Six contains a summary of findings, contributions, considerations and implications, limitations, and ideas for future research. 1.6 Scientific outcomes and outputs - Research Strategic Initiatives Grant (RSIG) – UNBC, 2023. Title: “Sociotechnological adoption of household water and sanitation solutions in Northern BC through a gender perspective.” Amount granted: CA$1000.00. - UNBC - Three Minute Thesis (3MT) Competition, 2023. “Women’s relationship with water and its relevance in decision-making processes related to water and sanitation issues in rural and remote communities in Canada”. Prince George, BC. - Water and Waste Association (BCWWA), 2023. “Socio-technological adoption of onsite water and sanitation solutions from a gender perspective” [Presentation]. British Columbia 2023 Annual Conference, Penticton, BC. - UNBC - Three Minute Thesis (3MT) Competition, 2024. “Decentralized water and sanitation technology adoption and the role of gender in the adoption process”. Prince George, BC. - Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) of North America 30th Regular Session of the CEC Council, 2023. “Water and Sanitation Holistic Technologies Group Video” [Video]. Victoria, BC. 9 Chapter Two: Literature review This chapter contains four sections that provide a framework for my research. The first section introduces the peri-urban northern BC case study, focusing on the city of Prince George. The second section defines DWS framed within an integrated water resource management approach. The third section examines the process of technology adoption, with attention to theories and models relevant to household systems. The fourth section explores household gender roles and expectations for decision-making, emphasizing domestic activities related to the environment, including differences in environmental attitudes, perceptions of eco-friendly tasks, waste management ideas and practices, and water conservation and reuse. 2.1 Peri-urban northern BC case study: Prince George According to Statistics Canada (2025), BC’s population is estimated at 5,722,318 people. Around 50% of the population is concentrated in Metro Vancouver, and almost 20% more in the Capital Regional District, the Fraser Valley, and the Central Okanagan Regional Districts. Moreover, the population density in people per square kilometer varies from approximately 900 in Metro Vancouver to fewer than ten in BC’s more rural regional districts (Environmental Reporting BC, 2018). In contrast to the densely populated southern regions, northern BC is more sparsely settled, with an approximate population of 200,000 (Government of British Columbia, 2025a). Within this broader northern context, the peri-urban area of Prince George was selected as the specific case study site for primary data collection. Prince George is a medium-sized city in the Fraser-Fort George Regional District with a population of 76,708 10 (Statistics Canada, 2021a) and a population density of 242.2 people per square kilometer. The enumerated population of Prince George’s census agglomeration 1 was 89,490, according to the 2021 census (Statistics Canada, 2021a). Halseth (2010) emphasized the importance of the rural areas surrounding Prince George, which accounted for 15% of the census agglomeration population in 2006. He called this outlying part a rural fringe area, characterized by diverse land uses, including expansive rural residential developments and agricultural properties. By 2008, the rural fringe accounted for over 3,900 properties. Recent research refers to such rural-urban settlements as peri-urban areas (Alfie-Cohen & Garcia-Becerra, 2022; Sahana et al., 2023). These periurban areas are proximate to large urban centres but usually lack the typical services and facilities of urban areas (Capodaglio, 2017). These peri-urban zones, including those around Prince George, are the kind of areas where DWS could be adopted due to their distance from municipal service provision. As Halseth (2010) notes, the responsibility for managing planning and land issues in such outlying areas in Prince George falls to the Regional District of Fraser-Fort George. Halseth (2010) also raises concerns about the City of Prince George’s limited oversight of these peri-urban areas, which can cause gaps in infrastructure and service provision. Integrating these areas into urban planning processes could help to address these areas' needs. Peri-urban spaces contribute crucial resources and services like clean air and a biodiverse A census agglomeration is made up of one or more neighboring municipalities grouped around a core population centre with at least 10,000 people, based on previous census data. Surrounding municipalities are included if they show strong commuting ties to the core (Government of Canada, 2021). 1 11 environment to adjacent cities, further emphasizing the importance of integrating them into broader urban planning strategies (Alfie-Cohen & Garcia-Becerra, 2022). In a related context, recent data from the City of Prince George reported that approximately 95% of the city’s population relies on the municipal water system (City of Prince George, personal communication, February 2024). This estimation, derived from census block data and Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis of water service connections, emphasizes the central role of the city’s water network in meeting its residents’ needs. According to this data, however, at least three thousand people in the city do not have access to the city’s water supply services. Additionally, the difference between the enumerated population of Prince George’s census agglomeration and the city population is at least ten thousand people (Statistics Canada, 2021a). Therefore, by this calculation, approximately thirteen thousand people in the greater Prince George area are not connected to the municipal water supply services. This number includes more than two thousand properties with registered wells in the BC Groundwater Wells Database (Government of British Columbia, 2025b) 2. These figures underscore the importance of considering the challenges and needs of peri-urban areas in planning and infrastructure for climate-related resilience. The effects of climate change, such as drought conditions and water scarcity, have been evident in the last few years (Climate Ready British Columbia, 2024) and have affected Prince George. In 2023, the City received only 63% of the expected average precipitation, as reported at the airport meteorological station (Environment and Climate Change Canada, It is important to note that according to this source, registration in this database was voluntary before February 2016 (Government of British Columbia, 2025b) 2 12 2024). Additionally, in December 2023, a rural resident near Prince George relying on well water reported that their property well had dried up after ten years of living there (CBC News, 2023a). Such impacts reinforce the need to better understand DWS adoption. 2.2 Decentralized water systems in BC Scholars define decentralized or on-site wastewater solutions as household or communityscale treatment systems that complement municipal water supply with on-site greywater (spent domestic water) reuse systems. These systems involve collecting, treating greywater, and storing waste (Ma et al., 2015; Piratla & Goverdhanam, 2015; Yates, 2011). In BC, however, water systems are conceptually and jurisdictionally complex. Table 2.1 Definitions, regulations, and jurisdictions related to decentralized water systems in BC. Nº System Type 1 Small Water System 2 Wells (Private Water Systems) A water system serving fewer than 500 individuals, typically serving decentralized or rural areas (B.C. Reg. 200/2003) A private water system that extracts water from underground sources (aquifers) for domestic use (B.C. Reg. 253/2000). 3 Sewerage System A system used to treat and dispose of domestic sewage (B.C. Reg. 326/2004) 4 Septic Tank A watertight container used to receive and treat sewage by allowing solids to settle (B.C. Reg. 326/2004) Greywater Reuse Wastewater from bathtubs, showers, sinks, and laundry, excluding water from toilets (blackwater) or kitchen sinks. Can be treated for low-risk non-potable reuse, such as for irrigation, ornamental gardens, or toilet flushing (Government of British Columbia, n.d.). 5 Definition Regulations/ Legislation Jurisdiction in Charge Drinking Water Protection Act (B.C. Reg. 200/2003) Ministry of Health Groundwater Protection Regulation (B.C. Reg. 253/2022) Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy Sewerage System Regulation (B.C. Reg. 326/2004) Sewerage System Regulation (B.C. Reg. 326/2004) Health Information: Greywater Reuse (Government of British Columbia, n.d.) Ministry of Health Ministry of Health Ministry of Health Source: Adapted from Drinking Water Protection Regulation (2003); Groundwater Protection Regulation (2022); Sewerage System Regulation (2005); Government of British Columbia (n.d.) 13 Table 2.1 organizes system types, definitions, regulations, and jurisdictions responsible for their oversight. This table outlines the regulatory landscape in BC as it relates to DWS and is included as a reference, given that the focus of this study is on the household adoption of these systems. Maxwell (2015) posits that human beings have traditionally perceived stormwater and wastewater as “problems” to be disposed of, overlooking their potential as valuable resources. Water issues are also usually addressed in isolation rather than through a holistic approach that considers the interconnected nature of various water-related challenges (Maxwell, 2015), which limits creative, integrative approaches. Integrated Water Resources Management approaches (IWRM) promote multidisciplinary collaboration, financial resource optimization, and the inclusion of social and environmental values (Grigg, 2024). While there are different IWRM approaches in North America, one of the most recent and widely adopted is the One Water Vision. This approach promotes understanding water and wastewater as equally essential parts of a finite resource system (Marrero et al., 2022) and encourages holistic strategies that integrate all water sources and reduce waste (Grigg, 2024; Pokhrel et al., 2022). As a unified strategy, the One Water approach enhances resilience and reliability in water resource management, addressing the needs of both human communities and ecosystems (Dezfooli et al., 2023) 3. In alignment with this vision, my study used the 3 Examples of DWS in public spaces in BC (Hayek et al., 2022), include rainwater collection for laundry and toilet flushing, and blackwater treatment in Simon Fraser University Childcare Centre; composting toilets, and greywater reuse at the Eco-Sense residence in Victoria (International Living Future Institute, 2022), and onsite wastewater treatment for irrigation and toilet flushing at the Dockside Green Development community in Victoria (Bosa Development, 2024). While these examples illustrate the implementation and successful functioning of DWS public spaces in BC, my research focused instead on DWS at the household scale. 14 concept of decentralized water systems (DWS) to refer to various household systems designed to manage water supply solutions for domestic purposes. 2.3 The process of technology adoption The significance of innovation adoption is crucial, as the utility of a technology and its capacity for growth hinge on acceptance (Ullah et al., 2021). Acceptance is the initial phase in embracing technology and involves an individual’s attitudes toward technology. Technology adoption refers to the process of accepting, integrating, and embracing new technology (Granić, 2023). Researchers have employed various models to study and explain technology adoption (Table 2.2). For instance, the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) proposes that an individual’s behaviour is mainly determined by their attitude towards the behaviour and the subjective norms or perceived social influence of significant others (Granić, 2023). Building on this, the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) presents perceived behavioural control (PBC) as an additional element to the concepts of attitudes and subjective norms. Perceived behavioural control (PBC) relates to how easily people perceive it to perform a specific behaviour (Sharma & Mishra, 2014). Expanding on these theories, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) posits that the main predictor of technology use is the intention to use the technology, which is influenced by perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEU) (Hoque, 2016). Finally, the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) is a comprehensive model consolidating a number of theories (Sharma & Mishra, 2014). Technology adoption models go beyond the technology itself, involving a complex process shaped by user attitudes, personality, social influence, trust, and facilitating 15 conditions. These models encompass two distinct research areas: individual adoption and organizational adoption. Both contribute to understanding the broader phenomenon of mass adoption, which is referred to as the diffusion of technology (Sharma & Mishra, 2014). The complexity embodied within these approaches could explain why technology adoption models evolve more slowly than the pace of technological change. Various adoption models, including the TAM and the TPB, have been applied across different contexts to understand the factors influencing technology acceptance. TAM has been applied in studies about environmental-related technologies (Xu et al., 2021). Table 2.2 Technology adoption models Year Name Description 1975 Theory of reasoned action (TRA) TRA was developed to predict and understand behaviours and attitudes. The major predictor of an individual's behaviour is the behavioural intention. The individual’s Intention is determined by Attitudes (ATT) towards carrying out the behaviour and subjective norms (SN) or perceived social influence. 1989 Technology acceptance model (TAM) Developed from TRA. Proposes that an individual’s intention to use technology is influenced by perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEU) 1991 Theory of planned behaviour (TPB) Developed from TRA. Includes the perceived behavoiural control (PBC) to the concepts of ATT and SN from TRA. PBC refers to how easy or difficult an individual perceives performing the behaviour of interest. 2003 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) Developed as a consolidation of the constructs of eight models, including TRA, TAM, and TPB. Source: Adapted from Granić (2023); Hoque (2016); and Sharma and Mishra (2014) 16 Researchers have explored factors influencing the acceptance of decentralized technologies and systems across different contexts. In Poland, Zdonek et al. (2023) examined the acceptance of photovoltaic technology, while Bouaguel and Alsulimani (2022) investigated perceptions and attitudes toward photovoltaic systems in Saudi Arabia. Kopaei et al. (2021) explored variables affecting home composting intentions for sustainable waste management in Iran. In the field of DWS, the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) has been employed to understand adoption motivations. Shanmugavel and Rajendran (2022) studied factors driving the adoption of rainwater harvesting in India, while Shin and McCann (2018) investigated intentions to adopt stormwater management practices in the United States. In alignment with technology adoption models, the adoption of DWS also entails more than just technological considerations. It involves social dimensions that can influence their success and sustainability in the adopting community. Sutherland et al. (2021) agree that the effective implementation of water systems extends beyond their technical features. Societal acceptance plays a critical role in avoiding adoption failures. Murillo-Licea et al. (2019) define socio-technological adoption as a concept that evaluates how technologies meet user needs, emphasizing their long-term relationship with users. According to GarciaBecerra et al. (2021), integrating water systems into communities demands multi-stakeholder involvement, encompassing social, economic, and political considerations. These efforts involve addressing tangible infrastructure needs with attention to symbolic cultural aspects. At the household scale, adopting a DWS can resemble a community-level process. Since such systems are used collectively, decisions about purchase, operation, and maintenance are frequently taken jointly among household members. A study on waterrelated decision-making in Ghana found that choices about water supply were typically made 17 among household partners (Bisung & Dickin, 2021). Evidence from other fields supports this pattern: in the context of household energy systems, Hou et al. (2019) found that decisions to adopt clean cookstoves in China involved joint decision-making between partners. While such findings may not apply in every context or for every technology, they suggest that households can function like small communities when adopting shared systems. This assumption guides the approach in this study. 2.4 Household gender roles and expectations for decision-making As a socially constructed concept, gender is complex and occurs along a spectrum (Duarte et al., 2023; Levounis & Yarbrough, 2020). Before exploring the concept of household gender roles, I must acknowledge a major limitation found in related literature: most studies rely on a binary understanding of gender (male or female). This simplified approach fails to account for the diversity of gender identities. I apologize for this limitation and its reflection in my project, and I invite future research to develop more inclusive perspectives that reflect the full spectrum of gender. Gender norms are societal expectations based on perceived differences at birth and learned since childhood through interactions with family and peers. These norms are reinforced by institutions such as schools, workplaces, religious institutions, and the media. They are continually reproduced through everyday interactions, influencing how people express and interpret masculinity and femininity (Cislaghi & Heise, 2020), and other gender identities or expressions. Societal expectations contribute to the gender gap in formal/paid labour force participation outside of the household, with women’s global participation rate at 48.7% in 18 2023, compared to 73.0% for men (International Labour Organization, 2024). This gap is attributed to norms that assign women primary responsibility for unpaid caregiving, while men are expected to engage in paid work outside of the home. In Canada, where gender equity has improved in recent decades, the gap still remains: 61.6% of women currently participate in the labour force compared to 69.6% of men (Statistics Canada, 2025a). Despite this progress, gender roles remain relatively stable. Women in North America still spend nearly twice as much time on unpaid caregiving as men (Artz et al., 2022), and they continue to earn less, about 89 cents for every dollar earned by men in Canada as of 2022 (Statistics Canada, 2023). These societal expectations may influence how decentralized systems are adopted, as household responsibilities often remain gendered. This section draws upon a series of studies conducted in diverse contexts to consider how culturally-influenced gender roles can shape individuals' perceptions of environmentally-linked domestic activities. Notably, the differences in attitudes and behaviours between women and men appear to be driven more by gendered socialization than by inherent gender differences. In a broad context, Zelezny et al. (2000) conducted a study on gender differences in environmental attitudes. Considering 12 Latin American countries and the United States and Spain, they discovered that in 10 of them, women exhibited higher levels of environmental attitudes compared to men. The authors reported that women showed higher levels of socialization towards being considerate of others and socially responsible than men. In a different setting, research conducted in Italy on the relationship between water conservation and environmental concerns revealed that women tend to be more diligent in conserving water than men. This was explored by asking participants, "How often are you careful in not wasting water at home?" (Aprile & Fiorillo, 19 2017). Furthermore, Judkins and Presser (2008) examined the distribution of environmentally friendly household chores among 12 heterosexual married couples in a southeast United States metropolitan area. The study revealed that, overall, women tended to engage in more eco-friendly domestic tasks than their husbands. Specifically, they were more active in 80% of the ten eco-friendly tasks presented, such as recycling, energy and water saving, among others. Additionally, comparing the workload within each couple, it was found that in 11 out of the 12 couples, women took on a larger share of the eco-friendly domestic tasks. For DWS, some scholars suggest that gender can also be an important variable. For instance, in the United States, Wester et al. (2015) discovered that gender correlates significantly with emotional discomfort regarding wastewater reuse. Their research suggests that women experience more significant discomfort due to heightened sensitivity to health risks associated with water reuse. Research on attitudes toward wastewater recycling in Saudi Arabia suggested that women household heads are less likely than men to reuse treated wastewater for laundering (Abubakar & Mu’azu, 2022). A study in southern Spain investigating willingness to accept reused water for domestic purposes showed that men appear more willing to accept recycled water (López-Ruiz et al., 2021). In the context of household waste management, Agovino et al. (2023) conducted a study in Italy to examine the effect of unemployment on pro-environmental behavoiurs in the household. The results suggest that as women join the labour market, household tasks are more equally shared, leading to increased pro-environmental behaviours like recycling. This shared responsibility fosters collaboration on sustainable practices. Similarly, a study investigating factors influencing intentions for home composting in Iran discovered that women are more inclined to engage in home-based composting than 20 men. The findings of Kopaei et al. (2021) revealed that men scored notably lower than women across all aspects examined, including social norms, attitudes, perceived usefulness, and other components of the TPB and TAM. The authors suggest that women are more actively engaged in composting initiatives in similar contexts, driven by factors such as economic empowerment, community programs, or a stronger commitment to household management. Further, in a study on factors affecting the acceptance of domestic microgeneration technologies in Greece, the authors reported that gender was a significant factor (Karytsas, Vardopoulos, et al., 2019). Women usually play an active role in household energy supply and consumption and are more likely to choose domestic microgeneration systems. This is possibly due to their greater environmental concern, stemming from the belief that they could be more impacted by climate change or from a sense of responsibility to protect the environment for future generations (Karytsas et al., 2019). Across the studies, it stands out that gender roles have an influence on the adoption of various decentralized systems, particularly in household contexts. Gender norms often shape individuals’ perceptions and behaviours regarding decentralized practices. Studies show that women can be more engaged in environmentally conscious behaviours, such as water conservation, waste separation, and composting, probably due to their roles as primary caretakers and household managers. These gendered behaviours could be linked to societal expectations, where women are expected to manage household responsibilities, prevent health risks, and engage in environmental sustainability. Thus, gender roles can contribute to disparities in how different household systems are adopted. By considering this influence, researchers can develop more inclusive and effective strategies for promoting the adoption of DWS. 21 Chapter Three: Methodology and methods This chapter is structured around three core elements emphasized by Creswell and Creswell (2023) in designing a research plan: the philosophical worldview guiding the study, the chosen research design, and the methods used for collecting and analyzing data. It begins by presenting the research approach, including the mixed-methods strategy and case study focus, and then details the data collection and analysis procedures. The chapter concludes with considerations of research quality, ethics, and limitations. 3.1 Research approach 3.1.1 Philosophical worldview: Constructivist paradigm For this study, I chose the constructivist paradigm, which focuses on the influence of culture on an individual’s behaviour and understanding. This philosophical worldview affirms that actions are shaped not by objective reality, but by the meanings individuals give to them (O’Reilly & Kiyimba, 2015). As noted by Denzin and Lincoln (2011), and O’Reilly and Kiyimba (2015), constructivism promotes understanding the world through personal interpretations and emphasizes the social and cognitive processes that contribute to knowledge creation. My research questions aimed to explore the factors influencing the adoption of DWS, with a particular focus on gender roles. I drew insights from individuals’ experiences and social interactions with decentralized systems in a northern BC context. Additionally, my master’s training in qualitative and interdisciplinary research methods has shaped my interest in understanding people’s experiences and perspectives. As an immigrant, I recognize that my Latin American culture and traditions may differ significantly from those of a local 22 northern BC community. This understanding leads me to believe that a constructivist worldview would be especially effective in helping me explore and understand local culture and traditions, and how they might influence the adoption of DWS. 3.1.2 Mixed-methods design Qualitative research methods allow researchers to explore the human dimensions of a phenomenon, making them useful in examining questions about experience, meaning, perspective, and behaviour (Busetto et al., 2020; Tenny et al., 2024; Williams & Moser, 2019). They are typically used to collect or analyze text and image data, and researchers can apply a range of analytical techniques across distinct stages of data analysis (Creswell & Creswell, 2023). Unlike quantitative research, qualitative data is usually non-numeric and less structured, with emphasis on interpretative analysis. The data collection process is more flexible and inductive, allowing for deeper insights into the phenomena being studied (Guest et al., 2012). This study employed a mixed-methods design that combined a systematic literature review, online surveys containing quantitative and qualitative data, and thematic analysis to explore the factors influencing DWS adoption. The mixed-methods approach gathers and integrates qualitative and quantitative data to obtain insights from the combination of both (Creswell & Creswell, 2023). The process began with a systematic review of academic literature on the adoption of decentralized systems in the Global North. While not always specific to DWS, the review helped identify recurring themes that informed the development of the survey instruments. 23 For the online surveys, I targeted two participant groups: DWS specialists experienced in project implementation and DWS users in peri-urban Prince George, BC. These surveys were designed to capture both expert and user perspectives on the factors that influence DWS adoption at the household level. A thematic analysis of the responses allowed for the identification of key patterns and points of contrast between the two participant groups. This mixed-methods approach enabled a broader and more nuanced understanding of the factors shaping household decisions around DWS. 3.1.3 Case study focus A case study is a qualitative research methodology that investigates a single unit or a few units of a contemporary phenomenon to gain a deeper understanding of its complexities and the contextual factors that influence it (Hay & Cope, 2021). This approach is particularly useful for exploring “how” or “why” research questions, especially when there is limited control over behavioural events, and when the distinction between the phenomenon and its context is unclear or hard to separate (Yin, 2018). An exploratory case study is a flexible research method used to investigate phenomena in contexts without prior research. It often serves as a preliminary step toward developing future causal or explanatory studies (Mills et al., 2010). In case studies, the depth of investigation, rather than the number of cases, plays a crucial role in enhancing theoretical contributions (Takahashi & Araujo, 2019). For this research, I have chosen Prince George and its surrounding areas as the case study. As mentioned in Chapter Two, an average of thirteen thousand people are not connected to the city’s water supply system, including more than two thousand properties with registered wells. This case study aligns with my research interest in factors influencing 24 DWS adoption by households and how the context shapes this adoption (Hay & Cope, 2021; Yin, 2018). 3.2 Data collection and analysis This section describes the data collection and analysis methods used in the study. It outlines how the literature review and online surveys with specialists and users were designed and implemented, and explains the procedures followed to analyze participant responses. 3.2.1 Systematic literature review To inform the design of the specialist and user surveys, I conducted a systematic literature review 4 aimed at identifying factors influencing the adoption of decentralized systems, particularly at the household level and with attention to gender roles. The review followed a structured protocol adapted from Aromataris and Pearson (2014) including defined inclusion criteria, theme extraction, and synthesis. The review focused on five main thematic categories: gender variable inclusion, the type of technology or process, behavioural responses, explanatory factors, and householdlevel dynamics (see Table 3.1 for keyword combinations). While recognizing the broader gender spectrum, the review focused on binary gender categories, reflecting the structure of the existing literature. 4 Similar approaches have been followed by conducting systematic literature reviews to identify factors that affect e-learning users and evaluate adoption models in higher education studies (Mousa et al., 2020); to analyze the economic impact of artificial intelligence adoption across different sectors (Kabalisa & Altmann, 2021); and to synthesize current research on the adoption of automated financial robo-advisory services by young people (Manaf et al., 2023). These three studies follow a structured, systematic review approach to gather and synthesize existing research. The authors perform predefined protocols, with inclusion and exclusion criteria, as well as clear procedures for article selection and data analysis. 25 I used the Web of Science database to identify relevant peer-reviewed journal articles and reviews from 2013–2023 in environmental and social sciences. I chose a single database to maintain a manageable scope of data collection given the time and resource constraints of working as a sole researcher. After applying exclusion criteria and screening titles and abstracts, I retained 35 articles focused on decentralized technologies, such as water, energy, or waste systems, within the Global North and BRICS contexts. These articles were analyzed to identify common adoption factors, which were then used to shape the content of the surveys administered to DWS specialists and users. Table 3.1 Keyword combination used in the systematic literature review Gender Technology/system Behaviour/response OR gender OR technology OR adoption water technology female use feminine sanitation acceptance gender wastewater appropriation woman eco-technology intention sustainable technology attitude women off-grid solution operation decentralized solution implementation small scale solution willingness nature based solution satisfaction clean technology innovation smart internet recycling food waste reduction composting environmental behavior gardening Source: Author Factors Scale OR Socioeconomic OR household Demographic house Model home domestic residential 26 3.2.2 Online surveys An online survey is a data collection method in which individuals respond to a questionnaire distributed via the Internet (Andrade, 2020). Automated survey software and online platforms, along with email and social media outreach, make it possible to gather survey data quickly (Ball, 2019). Online surveys offer a number of advantages, including reductions in research costs, faster implementation, fewer transcription errors, and ease of data analysis (Wu et al., 2022). They also allow researchers to access geographically dispersed populations, enabling participants to complete surveys at their convenience. Additionally, the absence of an interviewer can encourage more honest responses, especially when dealing with sensitive topics (Ball, 2019; Braun et al., 2021). Furthermore, online surveys enable near-instant data availability, which allows for rapid analysis (Bickman et al., 2009). These advantages have influenced the design of survey instruments, optimized dissemination, and data management (Mei & Brown, 2018). Given the time and resource constraints of conducting this research as part of a master’s thesis, the online survey method also provided a practical and efficient way to reach geographically dispersed participants while managing the collected data. On the other hand, online surveys face several challenges that can impact data collection. For example, there is the risk of participants not completing the surveys and the difficulty of following up or clarifying respondents’ comments in real time (Siva Durga Prasad Nayak & Narayan, 2019). Other issues include the possibility of repeated submissions, limited access for participants without computer or Internet skills, and restrictions on questionnaire length and open-ended responses, particularly when using mobile devices, as reported by Siva Durga Prasad Nayak and Narayan (2019). Technical 27 difficulties, unclear instructions, and privacy concerns can further affect the accuracy and reliability of responses. Additionally, online surveys may be perceived as “junk mail”, impacting recruitment. Finally, response rates tend to be lower than with other survey methods, but incentives and multiple contact attempts can help improve participation (Fielding et al., 2019). While not all challenges can be fully addressed, I took several measures to minimize the disadvantages mentioned earlier. For this study, the online survey format was webresponsive, adapting to different screen sizes, and it was distributed via email to ensure easy access for participants. In line with UNBC Research Ethics Board requirements, an information letter outlining the research objectives and study details was provided for participants to review. Although no incentives were offered, participants were given the option to receive a summary report of the study’s findings. In an effort to reach potential respondents in the case study, neighbourhood community representatives of peri-urban Prince George areas were contacted through their social media groups. To facilitate the survey distribution among their group members, I sent personalized messages to these groups’ administrators asking them to post my survey link on their Facebook groups. Although I could not control that they effectively engaged in this process, group representatives answered my message and agreed to share my survey with their group members 5. More details about this interaction are described in section 3.2.2.2. Contacted community groups through social media: Beaverly, Bednesti-Norman Lake, Blackwater, Buckhorn, Chief Lake, Eastline, Haldi, Miworth, Ness Lake, North Kelly, Pineview, Salmon Valley, Shell-Glenn, Summit Lake, Tabor Lake, West Lake. 5 28 3.2.2.1 Specialist survey The identification of key factors influencing the adoption of decentralized systems was also obtained by surveying DWS implementation specialists. I conducted an anonymous online survey (Appendix E) to obtain their insights on the literature-based proposed factors that influence household adoption processes. I employed purposeful sampling to target specialists who had experience working with DWS users or community decision-makers. Additionally, I explored specialist perceptions of how gender roles could influence certain factors during the adoption process. Questions in the survey were designed as Likert-scale and open-ended, aiming to find in-depth descriptions and new understandings of the research topic from specialist experiences and perspectives in their own words (Braun et al., 2021). A preliminary list of around twenty specialists was compiled, drawing from previous UNBC outreach efforts conducted between 2023 and 2024. These efforts included various events held at UNBC to establish a global network and workgroup of water, sanitation, and hygiene experts. The focus of this network included nature-based solutions, circular cities/towns, small systems, socio-hydrological systems, and socio-technological transformations. Given the geographically dispersed nature of this network, I contacted the specialists online through email and via LinkedIn. Although specialists based in BC or Canada would have been ideal for contrasting with the case study realities, only a limited number matched this criterion, likely due to the constraints of the research team’s existing network. I also contacted the British Columbia Small Water Systems Community as part of the British Columbia Water and Waste Association (BCWWA) and the global Sustainable Sanitation Alliance (SuSanA) network to publish my online survey for specialists on their 29 websites. Both organizations included my survey post in their online newsletter in September 2024. In order to gain more respondents, I searched for additional specialists through LinkedIn and used keywords such as “decentralized water systems”, “on-site water solutions”, “off-grid water solutions”, “water reuse”, and “reclaimed water”. As I found more specialists in this field, I used the LinkedIn messaging service to contact them and send my survey in October 2024. According to Wu et al. (2022), sending online surveys to more participants does not necessarily result in higher response rates. However, reaching out to a focused and filtered specialist population, pre-contacting them, and sending reminders can produce a higher impact on the survey response rate (Wu et al., 2022). I found that the pre-contact messages, sent before the survey link message and reminders after, resulted in an email conversation with specialists, where they mentioned their willingness to answer the questionnaire. The specialists were asked to answer a questionnaire containing 25 questions in three main sections. Section I asked about their previous experience with DWS, Section II explored their perspectives on factors that influence DWS adoption at the household level, and Section III contained demographic questions. At the end of the questionnaire, a final question asked them to provide additional comments on matters not included in the previous questions. The data collection took place between September 9th and December 31st. By the end of December 2024, 24 respondents had clicked on the survey link, and 12 completed the questionnaire. This completion rate of 50% may have been due to the high number of questions included, and this issue is discussed in the limitations section of this chapter. 30 3.2.2.2 User survey – case study The aim of the second survey was to gain insights into factors that may influence DWS adoption in a northern BC context. For this purpose, I conducted an anonymous survey that targeted northern BC users of DWS located in Prince George and surrounding areas. In the first stage, I used a list of around ten contacts obtained through my professional WASH-T network. I asked them to answer the online survey, expecting them to provide additional contacts for a snowball sampling method. Snowball sampling is an effective method in studies where potential respondents are limited or difficult to reach. Typically, the initial participants in snowball sampling are chosen through convenience sampling rather than random selection (Baltar & Brunet, 2012). After obtaining only a couple of completed questionnaires, I decided to use the Facebook platform to reach out to users living in Prince George’s peri-urban areas not connected to the city’s water supply services. Based on Halseth’s (2010) list of 30 communities with developed properties in the city’s peri-urban area, I searched the Facebook group names of these communities. I found 15 with a private community group on this social media. Next, I asked their representatives to share or let me publish a post containing my survey link for their members. The answers were received minutes after the group representatives had confirmed that the link was published for their group members. Similar to the specialist survey, I explored user perceptions of how gender roles influence their household adoption process. Questions in the survey were designed as Likert-scale and openended, aiming to allow the participants to explain answers in detail for in-depth insights into key factors for DWS adoption. 31 The participants were asked to answer 29 questions in three main sections (Appendix F). Section I asked about their experience with DWS, Section II contained demographic questions about their personal and household profiles, and Section III explored their opinions of the factors that could influence DWS adoption in their households. The data collection was conducted between September 26th and December 31st, 2024. By the end of December 2024, 64 respondents had clicked on the survey link, and 33 had completed the questionnaire. Similar to the specialist survey, this drop rate of almost 50% could be explained by the questionnaire length. However, this is expanded on in the limitations section of this chapter. 3.2.3 Data Analysis Drawing from both the specialist and user surveys, the closed and open-ended questions produced an extensive dataset. These results were exported, and I organized them into separate spreadsheets for analysis. I analyzed closed-ended questions quantitatively, while the open-ended questions required thematic analysis, a qualitative method used to identify patterns and themes within the data (Braun et al., 2021; Sovacool et al., 2023). The SurveyMonkey online survey allowed for an automatic transcription of participant responses. This feature facilitated the review by organizing their answers per question and participant in separate Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Next, I familiarized myself with the material, took notes, and began developing codes by identifying patterns across responses. The codes informed the creation of broader themes or concepts that reflected shared meanings. I then reorganized the data by grouping participant answers under these common themes. This procedure followed the phases for thematic analysis outlined by Lester et al. (2020): preparing and organizing the data, transcribing it, familiarizing oneself with the data, coding, generating themes, and ensuring transparency throughout the analysis. 32 To compare and integrate findings from the specialist and user surveys, I compared both the Likert-scale and open-ended responses. Likert-scale results were summarized in comparative tables to identify areas of alignment or divergence across factors influencing DWS adoption. I used thematic coding for qualitative responses to extract shared and distinct patterns across groups. This integrative approach allowed me to contrast technical and experiential perspectives, highlighting how specialists’ views aligned with or differed from the lived experiences of local BC users. 3.3 Research quality and ethics This section outlines the measures taken to ensure the quality and ethical integrity of the research. It discusses how validity and reliability were addressed through the design and implementation of data collection tools, and describes the ethical procedures followed to comply with institutional and national research standards. 3.3.1 Validity and reliability in qualitative research In qualitative research, validity refers to the process by which a researcher ensures the accuracy of the findings through specific procedures. Certain procedures in research design can enhance the validity of the collected data. Guest et al. (2012) outlined seven steps that are especially useful when applying semi-structured methods: brainstorming ideas for topics and questions; drafting and phrasing the questions; sequencing them; estimating the time to answer; obtaining feedback; revising; and testing the questions. To enhance validity in this study, I incorporated these steps into the design of one of the main data collection tools, an online survey with semi-structured questions for both specialists and users of DWS. Although data collection procedures are discussed in detail in 33 Section 3.2, it is important to note that the survey’s development followed most of the steps outlined by Guest et al. (2012). While this was not a multi-researcher study, my supervisor and co-supervisor contributed to the phases of survey brainstorming, drafting, and sequencing phases. Additionally, members of the Water and Sanitation Holistic Technologies (WASH-T) research team and our network of DWS specialists provided feedback and supported testing during the later stages. Reliability in qualitative research refers to the extent to which the researcher’s approach remains consistent across different researchers and projects (Creswell & Creswell, 2023). In qualitative research, reliability is conceptualized as consistency rather than replicability. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) explain that, unlike in scientific research, where reliability is based on whether findings can be replicated, qualitative social science research emphasizes the importance of the results being consistent with the data collected. This means the objective is not to replicate the findings but to ensure they are coherent and aligned with the data. Strategies such as triangulation can help ensure this consistency. To strengthen the study’s validity and deepen the analysis, I applied a triangulation approach that drew from multiple data sources and types. The systematic literature review provided a foundational understanding of the factors influencing household adoption of decentralized systems. Building on this, the online surveys of DWS specialists and users offered distinct yet complementary perspectives. The survey design combined qualitative open-ended questions with quantitative items such as Likert scales and multiple-choice questions. By integrating specialist and user perspectives, the research enabled a more nuanced understanding of the adoption process. This approach reflects triangulation principles by using varied sources and methods to examine the phenomenon from multiple 34 angles, enhancing both credibility and analytical depth (Flick, 2018; Sandelowski, 2000; Turner et al., 2017). 3.3.2 Ethical considerations Research conducted in Canada involving human participants must comply with the TriCouncil Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS2). As part of this requirement, I completed the TCPS2: CORE 2022 course in June 2023 (Appendix A) and applied for approval from the Research Ethics Board (REB) at the University of Northern British Columbia (Appendix B). My REB application was approved on August 23, 2024. The questionnaire for both surveys was considered to involve “minimal risk” as defined by TCPS2. This means that the respondents were not exposed to topics or issues beyond those encountered in their daily lives. The questions aimed to gather insights based on their experience with DWS as part of their routine activities. Participation was anonymous; no names or personal information were collected, and demographic data were only used to describe the participant sample. Consent forms were included in the survey link and presented as the first section, ensuring informed consent was obtained prior to completing the survey. Additionally, an Information Letter within the survey link informed participants about the study’s purpose, potential risks and benefits, survey process, anonymity, and confidentiality. It provided contact information for any inquiries regarding the study or the questionnaire. 35 3.4 Limitations Limitations refer to constraints or weaknesses that may affect the scope, validity, or generalizability of research findings. Acknowledging these limitations is an essential part of ethical research practice, as it enhances transparency, transferability, and reproducibility (Ross & Bibler Zaidi, 2019). In this study, limitations emerged at different stages, from literature selection to data collection and participant engagement. Recognizing these constraints provides context for interpreting the results and highlights opportunities for improvement in future DWS adoption research. Scope of the literature review The systematic review targeted studies from the Global North and BRICS countries. While this focus helped align the survey factors with contexts broadly comparable to northern BC, it also excluded research from the Global South and other settings where DWS adoption dynamics may differ. Consequently, the literature-derived factors should not be assumed to represent all global contexts. Sampling and language in the specialist survey Specialist participants were recruited through purposive sampling within my professional networks (UNBC, the Prince George community, and social media). This convenience‐based approach, coupled with an English-only questionnaire, limited the diversity of respondents. As a result, the specialist insights may over-represent English-speaking professionals in the Global North and under-represent perspectives from other regions or linguistic backgrounds. 36 Survey design and completion: Specialist group Although the online instrument followed Guest et al.'s (2012) seven-step guidance for semistructured tools, its length, and the open-ended detail requested in the first section (“Experience with DWS”) may have discouraged participation. Half of the 24 invited specialists abandoned the survey, often within minutes of completing the consent form, suggesting that survey length and busy schedules possibly reduced completion rates and potentially biased the specialist dataset toward respondents who had more time or motivation to engage fully. Survey design and completion: User group A similar pattern to that of specialists appeared in the user survey: only 33 of 64 participants reached the final page. Many dropped out before the Likert-scale and open-ended items, implying that questionnaire length or structure deterred sustained engagement. Because incomplete cases were excluded from analysis, the final user sample may not fully represent the experiences of all peri-urban households approached. Additionally, the final sample showed a gender imbalance, with only 8 male respondents out of 33. This skew may limit the representativeness of male perspectives in the findings and warrants caution in interpreting any gender-related insights. Temporal constraints on data collection Both surveys were open for three months. This fixed window may have missed potential participants who were unavailable, offline, or unaware of the study during that period. Extending the administration period or using staggered reminders could improve response rates in future work. 37 Context-specific case study Findings are grounded in a single northern BC setting, peri-urban Prince George, where socio-economic conditions, gender roles, and environmental challenges are distinct. While the study offers transferable insights for similar contexts, caution is warranted when extrapolating results to other regions or urban settings with different institutional or cultural environments. 38 Chapter Four: Results The fourth chapter summarizes the findings of the systematic literature review and online surveys conducted with DWS 1) specialists and 2) users. Both target groups answered a questionnaire with three main sections: group demographics, experience with DWS, and Likert scale questions. The third section also included open-ended questions, allowing participants to explain how the presented factors influence DWS adoption. The findings in this chapter include both a summary of results and a thematic analysis of the qualitative responses. 4.1 Research question one: Insights on factors that influence DWS adoption The aim of research question one was to identify factors that could influence DWS adoption. To address this, I conducted a systematic literature review to identify potential factors that were relevant to the adoption of a variety of decentralized technologies in the Global North. These factors were then presented to DWS specialists and BC users through an online survey. 4.1.1 Literature review findings The literature review identified eight commonly studied factors relevant to research on technology adoption in decentralized systems: 1. Gender 2. Age 3. Income 4. Education 5. Rural/urban setting 6. Sensorial perceptions 7. Attitude 8. Environmental concern 39 The article selection process and filtering stages are summarized in Table 4.1, outlining the steps I took to refine the dataset from 305 initial articles to 35 relevant studies. Table 4.1 Overview of the systematic review protocol and article selection process. Stage Description Remaining articles Initial database search Web of Science (Clarivate, 2024), filters: 2013–2023, peerreviewed journal articles and reviews. 305 Title screening Excluded studies not related to household-level decentralized systems or environmental behaviours. 155 Abstract screening Applied the same exclusion criteria to abstracts. 57 Decentralized systems filter Focused on household-scale systems (energy, water, waste). 35 Geographic relevance filter Selected studies from the Global North and BRICS countries (aligned with BC context). 29 Factor extraction & analysis Analyzed for socio-demographic, and other factors relevant to system adoption. 28 Supplementary inclusion Added studies on water reuse and conservation systems (Google Scholar) to complement the main database review. 35 total Note: Seven relevant studies were added through targeted Google Scholar searches to address underrepresented topics such as water reuse and conservation. These were reviewed using the same inclusion criteria. Table 4.2 presents the factors most commonly examined in these studies and the frequency with which they were examined across the 35 final articles. Most of these studies focused on specific geographic populations and relied on representative sample surveys with predominantly closed-ended questions to explore the influence of selected factors or behaviours on household-level adoption. 40 Table 4.2 Frequency of commonly included factors across selected articles (n = 35) Articles % of reviewed Articles Gender 31 89% Age 27 77% Income / Wealth 18 51% Education 24 69% Rural / Urban Setting 7 20% Sensorial Perceptions 3 9% Attitude Environmental Concern 13 37% 12 34% Factor Source: Author Reducing over 50 identified factors to a manageable set for the survey design was a key objective. To do this, I grouped overlapping or infrequently mentioned factors into broader categories. For instance, “perceived health risks”, which appeared in studies about reclaimed and greywater reuse (Lemée et al., 2018; Massoud et al., 2018), was combined with “environmental concern”. For the online survey, I reframed the “income” variable as “wealth, income, or socioeconomic level” to reflect the varied ways economic factors are presented in the literature and to capture participants' broader perceptions of financial capacity, not just income, but also their sense of available resources or purchasing power. 4.1.2 Specialist survey findings Data collection took place between September 9th and December 31st, 2024. In total, 24 specialists clicked on the survey link, and 12 of them completed the questionnaire. 41 4.1.2.a Specialist demographics Of the 12 specialist respondents, six were men, five were women, and one preferred not to specify their gender. Most participants were between 35 and 54 years old (7 out of 12), with others distributed across younger and older age groups (Table 4.3). Table 4.3 Specialist sociodemographic characteristics Sociodemographic characteristics Gender Man Woman Prefer not to answer Other: “Citizen” Age (years) 19-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75 and over Prefer not to answer Country of residence United States Canada United Kingdom Sweden Switzerland Germany Burkina Faso Affiliation Academia Nonprofit Private sector Other % of full sample (n=12) 50 (6) 41.7 (5) 0 (0) 8.3 (1) 0 (1) 8.3 (1) 33.3 (4) 25 (3) 8.3 (1) 16.7 (2) 8.3 (1) 0 (0) 33.3 (4) 25 (3) 8.3 (1) 8.3 (1) 8.3 (1) 8.3 (1) 8.3 (1) 16.7 (2) 25 (3) 33.3 (4) 25 (3) Source: Specialist online survey 42 The specialists were geographically diverse, with most based in North America (United States and Canada). Although the target audience was primarily specialists from the Global North, one participant from Burkina Faso responded, expanding the perspectives included. Notably, over half of the respondents worked in the private or nonprofit sectors, with a smaller portion affiliated with academia. Table 4.3 summarizes these sociodemographic characteristics. 4.1.2.b Experience with DWS As shown in Table 4.4, 75% of specialists had more than six years of experience implementing DWS projects, with individual experience ranging up to 45 years. The rest of them had between one and five years of experience. One of them reported no experience in implementing DWS, but they had experience researching DWS projects. A total of 21 DWS projects were reported, with 38.1% of these still active at the time of the survey. Projects were primarily implemented in the Global North (71.4%), including countries such as Canada, Switzerland, and the United States, while a smaller proportion (28.6%) were located in the Global South, including Burkina Faso, Ghana, Malawi, and Dominica. The reported DWS projects included rainwater harvesting, pumps, wells, and others described in Table 4.4. When asked how many connections 6 were served by the DWS projects they worked with, seven projects corresponded to individual or single-household systems, six of them were small community-scale connections, and eight were large-scale connection projects. 6 Connections: Number of houses that are connected to a single DWS system 43 Table 4.4 Specialist DWS experience characteristics DWS Experience Value Years of experience with DWS (n=12 specialists) 1–5 years 6–10 years More than 10 years Other (e.g., Research only) 16.7% (2) 25.0% (3) 50% (6) 8.3% (1) Project activity status Active Projects Inactive or Completed Projects Regions of implementation Global North (e.g., Canada, Switzerland, USA) Global South (e.g., Burkina Faso, Ghana, Malawi, Dominica) (n=21 projects) 38.1% (8) 61.9% (13) (n=21 projects) 71.4% (15) 28.6% (4) Types of DWS systems reported Rainwater harvesting, solar/handpumps, wells and drain fields, greywater systems, constructed wetlands, urine-diverting dry toilets, trickling filters, earthworks, and sanitation projects Scale of projects (n=21 projects) Individual or single-household systems 33.3% (7) Small community-scale (≤ 60 connections) 28.6% (6) Large-scale (hundreds to thousands of connections or users) 38.1% (8) Source: Specialist online survey 4.1.2.c Likert-scale questions The findings of the Likert-scale section were organized along the eight literature factors proposed to the specialists to obtain insights based on their expertise in implementing DWS 44 systems (Table 4.5). Six of the eight proposed factors included an additional question examining how gender may influence the factors affecting DWS adoption (Table 4.6). These questions asked specialists whether they had observed differences in DWS adoption associated with the decision-makers’ gender. For example, whether individuals with similar education levels but different genders adopted DWS differently. An additional gender-related question about the rural/urban setting factor was not included, as that question already required contrasting different geographic contexts. Similarly, the question specifically addressing the gender factor did not require an additional gender-related question. Each Likert-scale question, along with the additional gender-related questions, included a text box below the multiple-choice options where respondents could justify or elaborate on their answers. The answers to these open-ended questions are reported in section 4.1.2.d. Table 4.5 presents Likert-scale responses from specialists regarding the influence of the eight proposed factors on DWS adoption. Gender and age were generally not viewed as strong influencing factors. For gender, 41.7% of respondents selected a neutral response, and for age, 58.3% neither agreed nor disagreed with its influence. Wealth, income, or socioeconomic level was considered moderately important, with 54.6% of respondents expressing agreement. Education received moderate support, with 58.4% of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing that it played a role in DWS adoption. The rural or urban setting was also perceived as a relevant factor, with 41.7% of specialists strongly agreeing that it influences adoption. Sensorial perceptions (such as taste, smell, or feelings of disgust) were seen as influential by 66.7% of specialists, indicating a strong perceived link with adoption behaviour. Attitude toward DWS adoption and environmental concern were the most widely supported factors, with 70% of specialists agreeing or strongly agreeing that 45 these aspects influence household decisions. Overall, specialists tended to emphasize sensorial perceptions, setting, and behavioural factors over demographic characteristics when evaluating household-level DWS adoption. As presented in Table 4.6, specialist Likert-scale responses indicate limited perception of gender-based influence across various household-level factors related to DWS adoption. For all six factors, most respondents selected “neither agree nor disagree,” suggesting uncertainty or perceived neutrality. Specifically, 58.3% of respondents were neutral about whether individuals of the same age adopt DWS differently depending on their gender, and 63.6% expressed neutrality on gender differences among individuals with similar socioeconomic levels. Likewise, 58.3% were neutral regarding education-related gender differences. Sensorial perceptions showed the highest level of neutrality (81.8%), attitude and environmental concern also had high neutrality rates (70%). Across all factors, agreement levels were low, and disagreement was not widespread, suggesting that gender is not generally viewed by specialists as a differentiating influence in DWS adoption. These findings suggest that specialists perceive minimal gender-based differentiation or feel that there is insufficient evidence to draw clear conclusions. 46 Table 4.5 Specialist Likert-scale responses about how strongly they agree or disagree with the proposed factors influencing DWS adoption at the household level Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 8.3% 25.0% 41.7% 0.0% 25.0% Do you consider that the adoption of decentralized water systems varies depending on the decision maker’s age? 8.3% 16.7% 58.3% 8.3% 8.3% Wealth, income, or socioeconomic level Does the decision maker’s wealth, income, or socioeconomic level impact the DWS adoption? 9.1% 45.5% 27.3% 0.0% 18.2% Education Does the decision maker’s education level or previous training impact the adoption of DWS? 16.7% 41.7% 33.3% 0.0% 8.3% Rural/urban setting Do you consider that the adoption of decentralized water systems varies depending on the implementation setting? 41.7% 25.0% 25.0% 0.0% 8.3% Sensorial perceptions Are sensorial perceptions (smell, taste, disgust) relevant determinants for DWS adoption in the household? 16.7% 50.0% 16.7% 0.0% 16.7% Attitude Does the household decision-maker’s attitude towards a DWS implementation influence the adoption of DWS? 30% 40% 20% 0% 10% Does the household decision-maker’s environmental concern influence the adoption of DWS? 30% 40% 10% 0% 20% Factor Questions Gender Generally, do you consider that the adoption of decentralized water systems varies depending on the decision-maker’s gender? Age Environmental concern Source: Author 47 Table 4.6 Specialist Likert-scale responses about how strongly they agree or disagree with the influence of gender in the proposed factors affecting DWS adoption at the household level. Gender influence on: Question Age Do decision-makers of similar ages lead DWS’s adoption differently depending on their gender? Wealth, income, or socioeconomic level For household decision-makers with similar wealth, income, or socioeconomic level, does the adoption of DWS differ among genders? For decision-makers with similar education levels or previous training, does the adoption of DWS differ among genders? Education Sensorial perceptions Do sensorial perceptions impact DWS adoption differently among genders? Attitude Does the attitude towards DWS adoption differ among household decision-makers’ genders? Environmental concern Does environmental concern differ among household decision-makers of different genders while implementing DWS? Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 0.0% 25.0% 58.3% 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% 18.2% 63.6% 9.1% 9.1% 8.3% 8.3% 58.3% 8.3% 16.7% 0.0% 9.1% 81.8% 0.0% 9.1% 0% 20% 70% 0% 10% 0% 10% 70% 0% 20% Source: Author 48 4.1.2.d Thematic analysis from specialist survey Three main themes were identified from the specialists’ survey analysis: Sociocultural and economic context, DWS Knowledge, and Environmental context. These themes and their sub-themes are described below. Sociocultural and economic context Most respondents stated that the adoption of DWS mostly depends on the social, cultural, and economic aspects of the adopting individuals or community where their implementation experience takes place. The diverse insights provided by the specialists can be subdivided into the subthemes of socially constructed gender roles, cultural context, and affordability for users. Gender roles The specialist’s answers to the open-ended survey questions suggest that gender roles in households can affect individuals' commitment to water-related tasks, systems, and decisionmaking processes. No doubt based on respondents' experiences across diverse settings, it was reported that women are often tasked with domestic duties such as laundry, water collection, and resource management. Such responses suggest that responsibilities can shape their engagement with and priorities regarding water supply and quality. The following insights illustrate how such roles can inform women’s involvement in water-related decision-making and the adoption of DWS technologies. Some specialists noted: Gender is an important consideration regarding the use of reclaimed or alternative water sources, but not because of gender, but because of cultural gender roles. For example, if more women are responsible for taking care of laundry for their families, it stands to reason that women would be more interested or concerned about water quality for laundry purposes than men would be. However, that does not mean that 49 women are more or less concerned about the general subject of decentralized water management (Respondent 04). In the contexts I have worked, women tend to take the lead when it comes to domestic water supply, but men might get involved at inception and other critical stages (Respondent 08). In my experience, women have been more open to adopting decentralized sanitation systems as long as the project has considered them or involved them in the decisionmaking phase. This is true when women are informed about the benefits of the system (Respondent 09). In many contexts, women may be more proactive in adopting water-saving technologies due to their roles in household resource management (Respondent 12). Two respondents also highlighted how gender roles and access shape participation in DWS training sessions, noting that information sessions are often primarily attended by men. This may reflect not a lack of interest from women, but time availability, caregiving responsibilities, or other considerations: Women are usually not involved in the operations and maintenance training or information sharing provided by implementors (Respondent 08). Women tend to be more involved in water collection, but often men will attend this type of training on their behalf (Respondent 09). These two specialists also noted the relevance of technology design, suggesting that DWS should be gender-specific. Users may be reluctant to adopt new technologies due to gendered concerns that are often shaped by societal norms and expectations: Technology adoption will often be male-centric (Respondent 08). In my experience working with women and decentralized sanitation systems, a common concern is the visibility of menstrual blood and materials within the sanitation system (Respondent 09). Some specialists suggested that financial control within the household or community may impact the adoption of DWS, and that this can intersect with gender and gender roles: 50 In the village water supplies I worked with, all financial officers were female. Obviously, they were more trusted by the communities for this task (Respondent 07). Costs and affordability may be key factors for DWS adoption, depending on who controls the household finances (Respondent 08). Depending on the context, if affordability is correlated to gender, then one could hypothesize that technology choice is not gender agnostic. I'm, however, not able to concretely assert if this is the case based on my experience (Respondent 11). From the specialists’ perspectives, it is not gender itself, but gender roles that may influence the adoption of DWS. Since women are often responsible for domestic tasks and water management, their concerns about water systems may reflect these roles. Alternatively, when men take on similar responsibilities, they may face comparable concerns. These roles may also influence women’s availability and motivation to participate in information or training sessions on DWS. Furthermore, their involvement in household or community resource management could suggest a connection to financial decision-making. However, the insights provided by the specialists were not detailed enough to establish a clear or consistent link between gender roles and financial control in DWS adoption. Cultural context Several specialists reported that cultural context can influence the adoption of DWS. In this case, the cultural contexts they are referring to are those specific to the communities the specialists have worked with. Specialists mentioned that users, influenced by habits and cultural practices, can find it challenging to change behaviours, such as having to separate organic and inorganic waste or moving to use only biological cleaning products. As noted by several specialists: Of course! This is something they want to do and might require some minor behaviour change, ie, greywater safe soaps, etc. (Respondent 03). 51 The decentralized water systems I install include a grease trap and biofilters. Thus, it is important to separate compost from wastewater. Most users, men and women, are accustomed to using water as a garbage carrier and find it difficult to establish a routine of keeping organic matter in a compost bucket and inorganic matter in a garbage bucket right next to the sink to keep organic and inorganic stuff out of the water (Respondent 10). When asked about the role of smell, taste, and disgust (sensory experiences and their impacts) influencing the adoption, specialists reported that understanding and addressing sensorial experiences are key for system adoption and for maintaining desired behaviours. One specialist noted: Yes, sensorial perception is relevant for DWS adoption. In my experience, the aversion to chlorine due to its strong odor and taste can indeed lead to undertreatment of rainwater, as households might reduce or skip disinfection steps to avoid the unpleasant sensory experience (Respondent 12). Sensory experiences, such as smell, could be influenced by cultural background (Arshamian et al., 2022; Parker et al., 2024). As described by specialists, the cultural context can influence DWS adoption, particularly in how cultural practices influence users’ behaviours. For example, how water is collected, consumed, or stored. When it comes to changing traditional routines, challenges can arise. Sensorial experiences, particularly odour, might also impact the adoption process, as users prioritize comfort over other benefits. The cultural background can shape sensorial preferences, affecting the willingness to adopt new technologies. Thus, cultural context factors are an important consideration for specialists when implementing solutions that need to align with local practices and perceptions. Affordability According to specialist answers, affordability emerged as a key theme in DWS adoption. They noted that households are more likely to adopt these systems when operational costs are lower than centralized alternatives or when centralized options are unavailable: 52 Good DWS systems are often nice to have for those who can afford them. Affordability is often a killer criterion (Respondent 02). I think home owners are accepting of decentralized alternatives especially when the operational costs are lower than centralized alternatives or centralized alternatives are not available (Respondent 05). Specialists commented that while wealthier households may more easily afford DWS technologies and their maintenance, lower-income families often turn to decentralized solutions due to necessity, particularly in areas with high water stress or expensive services: Users with more access to resources are typically the ones who raise concerns when something goes wrong with their sanitation systems. In this sense, the adoption and continued use of these systems have been more successful in wealthier households (Respondent 09). My experience suggests that when a neighborhood faces severe water stress or expensive water services (e.g., relying on private trucked water), households are more likely to adopt alternative, decentralized water technologies, such as rainwater harvesting (Respondent 12). The cost of building and maintaining systems like rainwater harvesting can be a barrier for users. However, specialists noted here that the water stress is motivating some people to reconsider the value of decentralized systems: The cost to build and maintain an integral rainwater system seems too high for most people because the public supply is so cheap. But the ongoing water crisis is encouraging some to reconsider it (Respondent 10). It's hard to say—while wealthier households are more likely to adopt these technologies due to affordability or access to financing, in many cases, it's the level of water stress (often associated with lower-income families) that pushes people to adopt alternative water solutions. Lower-income families often have much more experience with water reuse compared to affluent families, who are often comfortable with conventional municipal water services and do not value alternative water technologies (Respondent 12). Finally, specialists noted that lower costs and available financial support increase the likelihood of DWS adoption, especially for households with limited resources. Although the 53 initial cost can be a barrier, lower operational costs and external financial support could increase adoption, especially when centralized water options are unavailable or too costly. DWS Knowledge Several specialists mentioned that user DWS knowledge is a key theme for DWS adoption. According to their answers, this theme has been divided into three sub-themes: training, education, and experience. Training Engaging household decision-makers and ensuring they receive comprehensive information is essential for the DWS long-term success. Some specialists noted that workshops and ongoing support are key to empowering users and ensuring they understand both the benefits and the proper maintenance of decentralized systems: Training of the community in basic skills required for implementation and maintenance is a key factor (Respondent 08). I believe prior training and information sharing have a significant impact on the adoption of decentralized water systems, more than the level of education of the user itself. Successful adoption largely depends on whether users receive adequate information and training to operate the system (Respondent 09). In rainwater harvesting programs, adequate user training and follow-up delivered by the implementing agency are critical to user adoption (Respondent 12). Overall, the specialists suggest that regardless of user education level, targeted training on basic implementation and maintenance skills, along with effective information sharing, is fundamental to DWS adoption. 54 Education Education is critical in adopting DWS. According to specialists’ answers, knowledge about environmental impacts, system operations, and maintenance is a key factor. As noted by specialists: Educated people have a higher awareness of environmental aspects (Respondent 02). Unbiased knowledge and education obtained through grade-school, college/university and online sources of centralized and decentralized systems and applications, costs, operations, maintenance, etc. (Respondent 04). Educated individuals, especially those with technical knowledge, are more confident in adopting DWS. Education about the economic and technical aspects of DWS, as noted by specialists, supports informed decision-making: Technology affinity or technical understanding/increases the self-confidence of owning a DWS (Respondent 02). The decision to implement or not implement DWS is based primarily on accurate education and knowledge with respect to DWS from an economic and technical perspective, but most often from necessity if there is no centralized option or system (Respondent 04). These insights suggest that education not only shapes user perceptions of decentralized systems but also strengthens their ability to navigate choices and challenges related to implementation. Experience Some respondents consider experience to have a crucial role in adopting DWS. It was noted by specialists that familiarity with water management applications makes users more likely to adopt similar systems, while unfamiliar systems may face resistance due to a lack of experience or fear of unknown systems: 55 Familiarity, education. More familiar systems are more frequently adopted (well and septic tank vs. rainwater collection and composting toilet) (Respondent 01). Experience with water applications will be a factor, and if one age group or gender in a culture is more directly involved with a particular group of applications, they can be expected to be more affected and likely interested in changes to that application. But it is not inherently an age or gender bias (Respondent 04). If the user has a bad impression or experience with DWS, then the adoption of the system is difficult (Respondent 09). These reflections highlight that users’ prior exposure to water systems can shape their openness to adopting decentralized solutions. Environmental context The environmental context can shape both the need for and the adoption of DWS. Specialists emphasized that local environmental factors, including geography, natural resource availability, and broader environmental concerns, may influence how communities pursue decentralized solutions. Geographical context and resource considerations From the specialists’ answers, we can observe that the geographical context could influence DWS adoption. One respondent noted: The setting (context) determines the need for such systems and the objectives they need to fulfill. Factors include water availability, legal requirements, and existing infrastructure (Respondent 02). Some specialists with experience in rural and urban areas consider residents more likely to adopt these solutions due to necessity. They noted that: On our remote rural island, there is no centralized water or waste system, so by default all residents must adopt a decentralized system (well or rainwater collection for water and septic or composting toilet and greywater for waste) (Respondent 01). 56 Adoption is strongly influenced by necessity. If there is no other water supply or a centralized water management system is not adequately serving needs, then there will be a high rate of interest and adoption of decentralized water management regardless of an urban or rural location (Respondent 04). My experience suggests that when a neighborhood faces severe water stress or expensive water services (e.g., relying on private trucked water), households are more likely to adopt alternative, decentralized water technologies, such as rainwater harvesting (Respondent 12). On the other hand, wealthier areas may choose these systems for environmental or water security reasons. As one specialist noted, DWS adoption can occur regardless of resource availability or economic status: There are new home developers and homeowners in the West Point Grey area of expensive homes who have elected to implement rainwater harvesting for their homes despite the availability of centralized water. Similarly, there are less expensive homes in lower-income areas that also collect rainwater to water their gardens. Water supply and use span socioeconomic conditions (Respondent 04). Space availability in rural areas also facilitates easier implementation compared to urban settings. One respondent noted: Adopting decentralized solutions is generally easier in rural areas because more space is available for implementation. However, my experience with implementing decentralized sanitation systems in urban settings is limited (Respondent 09). Finally, local conditions, including financial capacity and municipal planning, may play a key role in determining DWS adoption. This was noted by one specialist who commented: In my experience, the choice of water supply systems depends on municipal planning, population density, and financial resources (Respondent 06). In rural areas, greater space availability and limited access to centralized services often make decentralized solutions more necessary and feasible. People in urban areas may face space limitations, but still adopt DWS due to water stress or high costs. People in wealthier areas 57 often choose DWS for environmental reasons. Local factors like water resources, municipal planning, and financial capacity can affect DWS adoption. Environmental concern Some specialists mentioned environmental concern as a key motivator for adopting DWS. Individuals with environmental awareness, especially those concerned about climate change and global warming, were more likely to adopt systems such as rainwater harvesting. As noted by some specialists: Environmental awareness increases the interest in sustainable or innovative systems (Respondent 02). In my experience, people interested in decentralized water systems are convinced environmentalists who are willing to find a way to install a decentralized water system and to adapt to the requirements such a system requires (Respondent 10). In our surveys, quite a few households reported that their motivation to join the rainwater harvesting program was concern over climate change, global warming, etc. And they are quite aware of the role of rainwater harvesting in mitigating climate change (Respondent 12). While this concern influences adoption for some, others may prioritize issues like usability and odour over environmental benefits: Yes, the environment is a concern, but users often prioritize other issues, such as odor and usability, over it (Respondent 09). Specialists also noted that gender can influence environmental awareness, with women expressing more concern about sustainability and the impact on local water resources: I haven't explored this in detail, but women often express more concerns about the environment, especially if there are rivers or water bodies near the community (Respondent 09). Yes, men and women tend to understand climate change in different ways and terms (Respondent 12). 58 Specialists mentioned that environmental concern motivates some individuals to adopt DWS, especially those aware of climate change. However, others may prioritize practical issues like usability and odour over environmental motivations. 4.2 Research question two: DWS adoption in northern BC The second research question aimed to identify factors influencing adoption from a northern BC user perspective. For this purpose, I conducted an online survey that presented the factors identified in the literature review to a group of residents of the Prince George case study. 4.2.1 BC user survey findings The data collection took place between September 26th and December 31st. During this period, 64 respondents clicked the survey link, and 33 completed the questionnaire. The findings reported in this section refer to the user demographics, distribution of household tasks, Likert-scale responses to the proposed factors influencing adoption, and thematic analysis of the open-ended responses. 4.2.1.a BC user demographics: Of the 33 user survey respondents, most were women (25 out of 33), and the majority were between 35 and 54 years old. Over half had a bachelor’s degree or higher, while others held college, trades, or high school qualifications. Nearly all participants were married or in common-law relationships, and over half reported having children in the household. Table 4.7 summarizes these sociodemographic characteristics. 59 Table 4.7 User sociodemographic characteristics Sociodemographic characteristics Gender Woman Man Prefer not to answer Other Age (years) 19-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75 and over Prefer not to answer Educational level No certificate, diploma, or degree High school diploma or equivalency certificate Apprenticeship or trades certificate, or diploma College, CEGEP, or other non-university certificate or diploma, and University certificate or diploma below a bachelor’s degree Bachelor’s degree or higher Other Prefer not to answer Marital status Married/common law Single Children in the household? Yes No % of full sample (n=33) 75.8 (25) 24.2 (8) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (1) 15.2 (5) 33.3 (11) 18.2 (6) 15.2 (5) 15.2 (5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (1) 3 (1) 12.1 (4) 27.3 (9) 54.6 (18) 6.1(2) 0 (0) 97 (32) 3 (1) 57.6 (19) 42.4 (14) Source: Users’ online survey 60 4.2.1.b User household chores responsibilities Part of the questionnaire focused on understanding which family members are responsible for general household chores. As previously seen in the specialist answers, user gender roles were a key theme emerging from their experiences with the implementation of DWS. Figure 4.1 User responses about primary responsibility for common household tasks Who is usually responsible for this task? Mostly done by Mostly done by Shared women (%) men (%) responsibility (%) Cleaning 53.1 3.1 43.8 Laundry 43.8 6.3 50 Cooking 50 3.1 46.9 Gardening 50 9.4 40.6 Childcare 43.8 0 56.3 Source: User online survey Responses from 33 users indicate that daily household tasks, such as cleaning, laundry, cooking, gardening, and childcare, are most often carried out by women or shared among family members, with men rarely reported as the primary person responsible. Cleaning, cooking, and gardening were most frequently done by women in about half of the households, while childcare was the most commonly shared task. Men were reported as mainly responsible for any of the listed tasks in a small minority of households (Figure 4.1). These findings suggest a gendered division of labour within the participants’ households. 61 4.2.1.c Experience with DWS Table 4.8 summarizes user experience with DWS, including the years of use, types of systems used, and their purpose in the household. Table 4.8 User DWS experience, type, and purpose User DWS Experience, types, and purpose Value Years living in their property 0–1 years 1–5 years 6–10 years More than 10 years Years of experience using DWS 0–1 years 1–5 years 6–10 years More than 10 years Types of DWS systems reported Wells Rainwater harvesting Septic system Lagoon or pond Filters/purification systems Pump (lake) Lake water treatment Cistern Greywater usage Landscape design System's purpose in the household General water supply /all house requirements Gardening Black and grey water disposal /treatment Livestock /animals/barn Drinking Cleaning Fire prevention (n=33 users) 3% (1) 30.3% (10) 27.3% (9) 39.4% (13) Source: Users’ online survey 3% (1) 27.3% (9) 30.3% (10) 39.4% (13) N° Reported (67) 28 14 8 7 4 2 1 1 1 1 N° Reported (58) 25 15 8 4 3 2 1 62 As shown in Table 4.8, over 66.7% of respondents had more than six years living in their current property, 30.3% had one to five years, and only one user reported less than one year living in their current house. Over 69.7% of users had more than six years of experience using DWS, 27.3% had one to five years, and one user reported less than one year of experience with DWS. Together, the 33 respondents reported using 67 DWS. The most used systems were wells (28), rainwater collection (14), septic tanks (8), and lagoons (7). I also asked participants to report the purpose of using these 67 systems at home. The most repeated answers were for general water supply and all house requirements, gardening, black and grey water disposal and treatment, as well as livestock/ animals and barn purposes. Cleaning and drinking were also mentioned among household DWS purposes. Additionally, I asked users how they managed the household’s decisions regarding buying, adopting, and maintaining DWS. Figure 4.2 shows that maintenance decisions were reported to be largely led by men. Buying and adopting decisions, however, were more balanced between household partners. Taken together, the responses in Figures 4.1 and 4.2 suggest a gendered pattern: women seem more responsible for routine domestic tasks, while men are more involved in technical maintenance decisions, such as those involving DWS. Shared responsibility appears more common in decisions regarding childcare and system adoption. However, these patterns should be interpreted with caution, as they are based on a small sample and may not be representative of household dynamics in this setting. 63 Figure 4.2 User decisions regarding buying, adopting, and maintaining DWS 100.0% 80.0% 18.8% 32.1% 37.9% 46.4% 34.5% 21.4% 27.6% Buying DWS Leading adoption DWS 60.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% Women Men 68.8% 12.5% Maintenance DWS Shared Source: Users’ online survey 4.2.1.d Likert-scale questions Similar to the specialists’ section, the findings of the Likert-scale section of the user survey were organized along the literature factors proposed to users. The aim of this survey section was to obtain user insights based on their experience with DWS adoption. Only seven of the eight factors proposed to the specialists were considered for the users’ questionnaire: gender, age, income, education, sensorial perceptions, attitude, and environmental concern (Table 4.9). The rural/urban setting factor was eliminated since the users’ survey was intended to analyze a single case study scenario. Similar to the specialist survey, five of the seven proposed factors included an additional question examining how gender may influence the factors affecting DWS adoption in the households (Table 4.10). These additional questions asked users whether they had observed differences in DWS adoption associated with the users’ gender. For example, whether family members in the household with similar education levels but different genders adopted DWS differently. In contrast with the specialist survey, the users’ survey did not include a gender-based question related to income, as it would have 64 been unclear for users to report potential gender differences in DWS adoption among individuals with similar income levels within the same household. Accordingly, the existing question on gender influence in adoption was sufficient without requiring an additional question. Each Likert-scale question included a text box below the multiple-choice options where respondents could justify or elaborate on their answers. The answers to these openended questions are reported in section 4.1.2.e. As shown in Table 4.9, Likert-scale responses from users indicate that gender and age were perceived as the least influential factors. A combined 57.3% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with gender influence, while 51.5% expressed similar views regarding age. Wealth, income, or socioeconomic level was viewed as more influential, with 46.9% of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing on its relevance, although 34.4% expressed disagreement. Responses related to education were divided, with 36.4% remaining neutral and 42.5% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing, suggesting uncertainty or differing opinions about its role. Sensorial perceptions (e.g., taste, smell) emerged as a notable influence, with 51.5% of users agreeing or strongly agreeing that it played a role in DWS adoption. Attitude toward adopting new technologies received limited support, with only 31.3% of users in agreement and 46.9% remaining neutral. Environmental concern was perceived as moderately influential, with 51.5% of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing that it influenced their decision. These findings suggest that users tend to place greater emphasis on perceptual and environmental factors than on demographic characteristics when considering DWS adoption. Table 4.10 presents user responses regarding whether gender influences various household factors related to DWS adoption. Overall, users did not widely perceive gender as 65 a significant differentiating factor. For age and education, 53.2% and 59.4% of respondents, respectively, disagreed or strongly disagreed that individuals of the same age or education level adopt DWS differently based on gender. A notable percentage also expressed neutrality for education (34.4%). Sensorial perception responses were more varied, with 21.2% agreeing, 54.5% disagreeing, and 24.2% remaining neutral, suggesting that while most do not perceive gender-based differences, a minority may observe them. Attitude toward DWS adoption showed the highest neutrality (45.5%), and only 15.2% agreed that it varied by gender. For environmental concern, 39.4% remained neutral, and 18.2% agreed or strongly agreed that gender plays a role. These findings reflect that most users either see little genderbased difference in DWS adoption or are uncertain about its influence. 66 Table 4.9 User Likert-scale responses about how strongly they agree or disagree with the proposed factors influencing DWS adoption in their households. Source: Users’ online survey Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree In my household, the gender of users has an influence on DWS adoption/use. 9.1% 6.1% 27.3% 30.0% 27.3% Age In my household, the users' age has an influence on DWS adoption/use. 0.0% 12.1% 36.4% 33.3% 18.2% Wealth, income, or socioeconomic level In my household, our wealth, income, or socioeconomic level has an influence on DWS adoption/use. 9.4% 37.5% 18.8% 18.8% 15.6% Education In my household, our level of education or training has an influence on DWS adoption/use. 9.1% 12.1% 36.4% 27.3% 15.2% Sensorial perceptions In my household, our sensorial perceptions (smell, taste, disgust) have an influence on DWS adoption/use. 12.1% 39.4% 21.2% 18.2% 9.1% Attitude In my household, our attitude towards the adoption of a new DWS has influenced its adoption/use. 12.5% 18.8% 46.9% 12.5% 9.4% Environmental concern In my household, our environmental concerns influence DWS adoption/use. 21.2% 30.3% 33.3% 3.0% 12.1% Factor Questions Gender 67 Table 4.10 User Likert-scale responses about how strongly they agree or disagree with the influence of gender in the proposed factors affecting DWS adoption in their households. Source: Users’ online survey Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree In my household, users of similar ages adopt/use DWS differently depending on their gender. 3.1% 12.5% 31.3% 34.4% 18.8% Education In my household, users with similar levels of education or training adopt/use DWS differently, depending on their gender. 0.0% 6.3% 34.4% 34.4% 25.0% Sensorial perceptions In my household, our sensorial perceptions (smell, taste, disgust) impact DWS adoption/use differently depending on the user's gender. 0.0% 21.2% 24.2% 33.3% 21.2% Attitude In my household, the attitude towards the adoption of a new DWS differs among genders. 0.0% 15.2% 45.5% 24.2% 15.2% Environmental concern In my household, environmental concerns differ among household users of DWS of different genders. 3.0% 15.2% 39.4% 24.2% 18.2% Gender influence on: Question Age 68 4.2.1.e Thematic analysis of user survey data The users’ answers to the survey contained four main themes: sociocultural and economic context, DWS knowledge, environmental context, and perceived health risks. These themes and their sub-themes are described below. Sociocultural and economic context Most of the user responses mentioned that the adoption of DWS depends mainly on the cultural and economic context in which they live. Because the question focused on the role of gender in the adoption, “gender roles” emerged as a particular sub-theme discussed below. The users gave in-depth comments from their experiences living in areas where centralized systems are not available. Gender roles The survey’s inclusion of questions about the household division of tasks and the role of gender in the adoption of DWS produced the contextual sub-theme of gender roles. The following responses highlight a gendered division of responsibilities and household interests regarding DWS. Women were often reported as taking the lead in tasks related to water management, especially gardening activities and environmental conservation efforts: Agree. Rainwater collection is primarily my undertaking as it supports my garden (Respondent 06). I am more committed to water collection for our garden but I am more of a gardener than he is, so not sure if this is water related for him or he just is less invested in the garden (Respondent 14). Strongly agree. I am much more environmentally conscious than my husband (Respondent 14). Staining affects the females on the house who hate the extra work it takes to clean it (Respondent 31). 69 At the same time, men are less involved or are tasked with technical or physical tasks, such as fixing issues or handling equipment that requires more strength. Several users noted: If there are ever concerns or issues with our well or water system, it is my partner who assesses and fixes the issues (Respondent 02). In our previous location, our water was not good. Smelly and not pure also stained toilets and clothing. I convinced my partner eventually to buy a water softener which had a very positive effect. He did not think it would work. At that time we also used a water distiller to purify the water for drinking. While this was effective the maintenance was an ongoing chore that my partner took on (Respondent 03). Strength- it is difficult for me to undo our filters. Needs more strength, typically held by men (Respondent 25). Some limitations to adoption are due to being less strong than my partner and needing help from him to implement. Since gardening and landscaping are my thing it is hard to implement my ideas by myself (Respondent 32). Some users pointed out that these roles may be influenced by personal interests and cultural roles more than gender: I think it’s less on gender and more on pre-conceived ideas/ how you were raised (Respondent 14). We are similar ages and I am the person who is committed to these systems, but it's hard to say if it's because of gender or because of interest and upbringing (Respondent 32). This is mostly because I am the person interested in food production and our water systems revolve around that (Respondent 32). Additionally, gender roles seem to play a role in adoption, with women expressing more concern for contamination risks and maintenance tasks. Some users noted: I opted for a calmat electronic anti-scale and rust water treatment system. I do think gender might have a role in it because I was motivated to have cleaner laundry (I do the laundry), cleaner bathrooms (I descale the bathrooms from calcium deposits), and softer hair (my husband doesn't care if his hair is soft; he doesn't dye it either so that's not a consideration for him) (Respondent 04). 70 My husband and sons tend to be less concerned about contamination and exposures. Part of this could be gender, part of this could just be the fact that I work in this area and understand health risks better (Respondent 25). Gender roles influence users’ adoption and management of DWS. Women often take the lead in tasks related to water management, according to respondents, while men are more likely to handle technical or physical tasks and to engage in maintenance. Some respondents noted that these roles might be influenced by personal interests or gender expectations. Women respondents expressed more concern about water quality and systems maintenance, while men indicated being less involved in these tasks. Collaborative decision-making In the open-ended questions about possible factors that could influence DWS adoption, I asked about gender differences in DWS adoption. I included parallel questions asking for the role of gender as an influencing factor for individuals of similar age and education, and if users had observed differences in sensorial perceptions, attitude, and environmental concern for different genders in their households. Several users repeatedly emphasized that they make joint decisions about their household systems: Neither of us have bachelors degrees, but we both regularly check our septic system (Respondent 05). Both happy and wanted to use DWS (Respondent 07). Both do the same amount of work and same types of dirty work (Respondent 07). Both wanted the system, maintain it, and are committed to using it properly (Respondent 07). We decide as a couple (Respondent 09). We both are committed to water preservation (Respondent 11). 71 We both desire quality water; therefore, it makes sense that our attitude contributes to our decisions to create quality water by whatever means necessary (Respondent 11). We both check on the septic system (Respondent 11). We both are on same page about water systems (Respondent 23). It was a joint decision, based on our understanding of public health (Respondent 25). We both have a similar attitude towards using and maintaining these systems (Respondent 32). We are equally on side with using the well (Respondent 33). Several respondents emphasized that decisions regarding DWS adoption and maintenance are made jointly between household partners. Both partners are typically involved in evaluating and maintaining systems. They share a commitment to water preservation and quality. Cultural context The responses under this sub-theme highlighted how personal and cultural factors, such as upbringing, sensory preferences, and past experiences can influence DWS choices. Many participants also reported preferring well water, often due to its taste or the familiarity of growing up with it. As mentioned by some users: Agree. I prefer well water taste and smell as I grew up on this property. Will avoid drinking city water due to taste (Respondent 01). Well water is potable, but we purchase drinking water (Respondent 27). When we purchased our house, it had a water softener. We opted not to spend the money maintaining and operating the water softener in part because we do not mind the taste of the well water (Respondent 29). Two users mentioned being motivated by unpleasant characteristics like smells or colours, which led them to invest in filtration systems: 72 Water was coloured and smelled a bit, which supported our choice to put in a filtration system. My oldest son and I are more sensitive to when our filters smell, compared to my husband and youngest son (Respondent 25). When our water is untreated all genders find it equally repulsive (Respondent 31). There are also differences in sensitivity to perceived water quality, with some individuals being more bothered by certain water characteristics (e.g., sulfur smells, contamination) than others. As noted by some users: My girlfriend is less likely to drink tap water than myself (Respondent 10). I would say that I find wastewater more gross than my husband, but we both use our systems similarly (Respondent 14). The water originally had a sulfur-type smell when we moved in. My partner changed the anode rod in the hot water tank and replaced the water filters to avoid the smell. The smell really bothered her, but I wasn't really bothered (Respondent 21). My husband is more sensitive to smells than I am in general so this might apply (Respondent 22). DWS choices may be influenced by personal preferences, such as the taste of well water. Others are motivated by characteristics like odours or colours, which led them to invest in DWS. Affordability According to users, affordability is a key factor in the adoption and maintenance of DWS. Several users commented that financial resources influence their ability to access or upgrade water systems, such as opting for their own well instead of sharing or dealing with expensive repairs: We currently share a well with one neighbour, if we had greater income, we would prefer to have our own well. If anything significant were to happen to our well, it would be a huge financial burden (Respondent 02). 73 We are fairly set up as we also have a large sand filter that does the whole house (Respondent 09). Our decision to switch to a separate well was highly influenced by our financial situation (Respondent 19). Most rural homes in this area have no choice but to be on a decentralized water system. Having a decent income is important because repairs to a system are very costly. Cost example: we will need to replace the aging lagoon system in the next 5 years and that will cost over $50,000 (Respondent 21). We have sufficient money to purchase and maintain a system for our house as well as one for gardening (Respondent 25). While some users can afford improvements like reverse osmosis systems or additional filtration, others rely on less costly solutions due to financial constraints: We are interested in adding additional filtration to our household system, but we both are annoyed with the hassle and cost of having a plumber come into put in the system (Respondent 21). We have neighbours who have lived with cisterns for many years while we were able to install a well as soon as we bought the property. We were able to save to purchase the reverse osmosis within a couple of years, while we know others who still purchase drinking water in town (Respondent 22). If money were no issue we would do much more (Tin roof, more water collection, pumps, grey water system). Currently we mostly use landscape design which is almost free (Respondent 32). Land affordability also impacts DWS use, as those who want to live in rural areas can usually afford these systems and install improved ones for their convenience. Home purchase price and lot size required DWS (Respondent 07). Purchasing bottled potable water and using lake water for other purposes would be less capital intensive but lacks convenience (Respondent 16). If you can afford to purchase or rent houses in our area, you, by default, must rely upon DWS (Respondent 29). Simply because we can afford an acreage, we are forced into having a well (Respondent 31). 74 Affordability is a critical theme for DWS adoption. Several respondents noted financial limitations in installing or upgrading systems. Those with more resources can afford improvements like separate wells or filtration systems, while others rely on more affordable solutions. High repair costs and living in rural areas impact financial decisions related to water systems. DWS Knowledge DWS Knowledge emerged as a key theme, with users noting how their background and experience impacted their DWS adoption: My background is in environmental science, and it was important to me to have the water tested prior to buying the house because I understand the risk factors. It was also important for us to have the lagoon system inspected prior to buying the home because I understand the costs (Respondent 21). It is a same-sex partnership household. My partner doesn't have a bachelor's degree, and she is less concerned about the water system, so I think education plays more of a role than gender (Respondent 21). We were happy to have a good well. We went deeper than some neighbours based on the advice of the professional digging the well, and it has worked out well for us (Respondent 22). I work in public health in the division that makes policy for drinking water and have education and experience in drinking water risks and management (Respondent 25). Some users found greater comfort with DWS due to past experiences, such as familiarity with rainwater storage and well maintenance. They also noted generational differences, suggesting that younger individuals may be less aware of water conservation: Experience with living on DWS is the main factor (Respondent 01). In a previous house we had a surface well system that the water was not "good". Our current well is excellent in taste and smell (Respondent 03). Both raised on DWS and wanted to return to that as adults (Respondent 07). 75 Still able to perform the maintenance of the system (Respondent 07). I am much more likely to store rainwater than my daughter (Respondent 12). My kids are less conscious about wasting water (Respondent 31). DWS Knowledge seems to play a significant role in the adoption and management of DWS. Respondents with backgrounds in fields like environmental science or public health often demonstrated greater concern for water quality and management. Past experiences, such as familiarity with DWS, also influence user confidence and comfort with these systems. Additionally, generational differences were mentioned, with younger individuals appearing less concerned about water conservation compared to older generations. Environmental context Participants often framed their DWS-related decisions considering their geographical context, resources, and environmental concerns, revealing how these aspects shape their water use practices. Geographical context and resource considerations This emerging sub-theme emphasizes that the adoption and use of DWS are significantly influenced by the geographic and infrastructural characteristics of living in rural areas. In these contexts, centralized water systems are often unavailable, making DWS the only viable option for water supply. Many respondents highlighted that their water systems, such as wells or spring-fed sources, came with the property or are used by necessity, and not by choice: There was no decision to be made because it's our only option for running water (Respondent 04). Decentralized water system is our only option on our rural property (Respondent 06). We use what we have and are not wasteful with our water (Respondent 09). 76 None, it was already in use. There is no other choice. We are rural, and no centralized system exists (Respondent 17). Living rurally means you essentially must have a DWS (Respondent 21). Our well was already in use when we bought the house (Respondent 23). There was no choice as no other system available (Respondent 24). None of us choose the DWS adoption/use. The DWS came with the house. There was no option or choice (Respondent 29). Where we live the only option for water is well water (Respondent 30). The location and availability of water sources, such as well water or rainwater, were crucial factors. Some users had concerns about water scarcity, water supply contamination, and aquifer depletion, which influenced their decisions to maintain or upgrade their systems: I am worried about the 30+ rusting vehicles in a neighboring yard potentially leaching toxins into our water supply. Additionally, aquifer depletion is a concern to me (Respondent 02). We tend to conserve water as much as possible, especially during the summer (Respondent 06). The quantity/ availability of aquifer water - supports the decision to have a well. However, being on a well I collect rainwater for the garden so as to not stress the well (Respondent 08). When our water dries up dig a deeper well (Respondent 23). Water systems are not optional- shared well for household use and rainwater collection to preserve use/environmental concerns (Respondent 27). As reported by users, DWS is often a necessity in rural areas due to the absence of centralized infrastructure. Many respondents indicated that their water systems were preexistent when they moved in and not a matter of choice. Concerns about water scarcity, contamination, and aquifer depletion seem to motivate residents to adopt conservation practices, such as using rainwater for gardens to preserve their wells. 77 Environmental concern Environmental concern emerged as a key motivator for DWS adoption among users. Several respondents emphasized their commitment to water conservation and reducing environmental impact: Very environmentally conscious. Wanted DWS to be more self-reliant and responsible (Respondent 07). We both feel strongly about water conservation because we care about our environment (Respondent 11). We chose to live rural for the quiet environment, self-sustaining nature of owning a large parcel of land (Respondent 11). I am quite conscious, especially about water consumption. It certainly affects my use (Respondent 14). Water systems are not optional- shared well for household use and rainwater collection to preserve use/environmental concerns (Respondent 27). Environmental concerns are the number one reason why we are doing this (Respondent 32). Some users indicate that women, in particular, tend to be more conscious of water preservation and contamination risks, though others believe that gender is not a significant factor: I would say that I'm more concerned about environmental issues and generally going about life with minimal negative impact on the land than my partner (Respondent 04). It is a same sex partnership household, both female and I have more concerns than my partner (Respondent 21). My husband and sons tend to be less concerned about contamination and exposures. Part of this could be gender, part of this could just be the fact that I work in this area and understand health risks better (Respondent 25). We all care equally. However, my daughter is less interested, but more likely because she's a teen than because she's a girl (Respondent 32). 78 Environmental concerns motivated many users to adopt DWS, particularly to promote water conservation and reduce environmental impact. Respondents emphasized the value of being self-reliant and resource preservation. Some also noted that women tend to be more conscious of water use and contamination risks, though others disagreed, seeing these concerns as more related to individual values than gender. Perceived health risks Perceived health risks are an important concern for users when it comes to their water supply and DWS. This factor was also identified in the literature review, as mentioned in section 4.1.1, but was grouped with environmental concern, due to its infrequent appearance across the reviewed studies. However, several respondents emphasized the importance of water quality, and many linked it with health risks: Both use the system, but there is no purification—the water is tested and meets the Canadian Standard for potable water as it comes out of the well (Respondent 06). Our water is pristine (Respondent 06). Our water is very clean (Respondent 09). We both desire quality water; therefore, it makes sense that our attitude contributes to our decisions to create quality water by whatever means necessary (Respondent 11). In my household, we both feel the same about the quality of water (Respondent 11). Lake water became suspect in the 2000’s due to unabated runoff of rainwater into the lake as a result of forests being killed by pine, spruce and fir beetles (Respondent 16). Cost is not a factor for me, health above all and next is self sufficiency (Respondent 20). We all were on board with the water system. Again, the only exception may be that my husband was more committed initially to the reverse osmosis but as an expression of care for his family (Respondent 22). The only thing I can think of that might be applicable here is that we did do research on long term use as well as having our water properly tested before using it. We have 79 a son with only one kidney so it was additionally important that the water be safe for him (Respondent 22). Our well water is odourless and clean. It is far nicer to drink than city water so I would not change (Respondent 24). Safety/health. I am more safety/health conscious (Respondent 25). Many respondents noted prioritizing water quality and safety in their households. Respondents emphasized testing and maintaining clean, safe water, particularly when health risks are involved, such as with vulnerable family members. While some expressed individual concerns, gender differences in attitudes toward water quality appeared minimal. 4.3 Comparison between specialist and user survey findings This section explores the key similarities and differences in how specialists and users perceive the factors influencing the adoption of DWS at the household level, based on the Likert-scale and open-ended responses. 4.3.1 Likert-scale findings comparison The comparison of Likert-scale responses highlights areas of both convergence and divergence between specialists and users regarding factors influencing household-level DWS adoption (Figure 4.3). The factors of gender and age were rated as having neutral influence by specialists, while users showed more disagreement about its role. Environmental concerns, sensorial perceptions, and income showed similar levels of agreement by both groups. Attitude and education were more influential by specialists than by users. These differences highlight a key disjuncture, with specialists drawing from broader project and policy context, and probably not being well informed as to the factors that really drive user everyday decision-making around DWS. The rural/urban context was assessed only by specialists and is, therefore, not included in the comparative graph. 80 Figure 4.3 Comparing specialist and user responses to adoption factors Level of agreement with the influence of factors: Gender 5 4 3 2 1 Environmental Concern Attitude Age Income/ Wealth / Socioeconomic Sensorial Perceptions Education Specialists Users Note: Average Likert scores (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree) Figure 4.4 Comparing specialist and user responses to gender influence Level of agreement with gender differences in DWS adoption factors: 5 Age 4 Environmental Concern 3 Education 2 1 Sensorial Perceptions Attitude Specialists Users Source: Author 81 A closer look at gender-related perceptions (Figure 4.4) provides further insights into how gender is viewed in relation to other factors influencing DWS adoption. Specialists and users expressed neutral and disagreeing opinions respectively, regarding gender differences in users of similar age, attitudes, sensorial perceptions, and education. The only area of similar response was the influence of gender on environmental concerns, where both groups rated it as neutral, suggesting that they perceive DWS decisions as less influence about gender roles within the household. For specialists this may reflect less direct experience or knowledge of gender dynamics in their training or their projects. Users showed more complexity. In the Likert-scale responses they downplayed the impact of gender dynamics. However, their open-ended responses clearly described how the gendered structure of household roles influenced DWS decision-making. These differences highlight the importance of designing future implementation strategies that build on the factors where users and practitioners align, while addressing areas of disconnect through further engagement. 4.3.2 Thematic analysis findings comparison Table 4.11 describes the key findings from the emerging themes on responses from specialists and users to open-ended questions. Both groups highlighted the importance of gender roles, cultural context, affordability, experience, and geographic factors in shaping DWS adoption. The table shows that alignment in perspectives was generally consistent on such themes. However, divergences were notable in other areas. Users more frequently described water-related responsibilities and decisions as collaborative and embedded in daily routines. On the other hand, specialists did not mention collaborative decision-making. Similarly, 82 perceived health risks were a major concern for users, who prioritize water safety and maintenance, while this factor is absent for specialists. This suggests a gap in how risks and responsibilities are conceptualized by practitioners versus the lived experiences of users. In the DWS knowledge theme, specialists and users are partially aligned. Specialists tended to emphasize formal education and technical expertise, and users often refered to personal experiences and familiarity with DWS. Both groups noted the importance of environmental concern, but users typically prioritized practicality and comfort, treating environmental sustainability as a secondary consideration. Overall, the alignment classification highlights where perspectives between users and specialists converge or differ, underscoring the importance of incorporating lived experiences into DWS planning. 4.4 Concluding thoughts The specialist and user surveys allowed me to ground-truth and identify key factors for DWS adoption, from themes in the literature to emerging themes. Specialists shared their inputs on gender roles, cultural context, and affordability as essential factors for DWS adoption. DWS Knowledge, expressed in terms of training, education, and experience, also emerged as a key theme. Affordability was highlighted as critical in motivating or hindering adoption. Finally, environmental context, including geographic factors and environmental concerns, was an important consideration when adopting these systems. In the case of DWS users in peri-urban northern BC, the user survey answers provided insights around themes similar to those advanced by the participating specialists. However, user responses to the additional gender-influence questions revealed a recurring theme of “collaborative decision-making” in how users adopted DWS. Through these 83 insights, users emphasized that household decisions around DWS are made jointly among partners. Additionally, “perceived health risks” also emerged as a critical theme for users in the case study and was linked to water quality. 84 Table 4.11 Comparison of specialist and user insights from open-ended questions about factors related to DWS adoption in households. Emerging themes Sub-themes DWS Knowledge Perceived health risks Source: Author Alignment Women often lead water-related tasks and show greater concern for quality, while men handle technical roles. Systems that feel unfamiliar or disrupt routines are less accepted; sensory comfort matters. Affordability Adoption is influenced by income and necessity. Lower operational costs and financial support may boost adoption. Barrier to adoption and maintenance. Financial resources determine the ability to upgrade or repair systems. Aligned Collaborative DecisionMaking Not emphasized. Joint decisions about DWS adoption and maintenance. Both partners are equally involved in evaluating and preserving water systems. Divergent Training Critical to long-term success; often more important than formal education. Education Higher education supports confidence and technical understanding. Cultural Context Experience Environmental Context User insights May affect domestic engagement, training access, household financial decisions, and DWS design. Habits, sensorial preferences, and routine influence adoption. Gender Roles Sociocultural and Economic Context Specialist insights Geographic Factors Familiarity leads to higher adoption; lack of experience causes hesitation. Necessity drives adoption in rural and water-stressed areas; space availability in rural settings facilitates easier implementation. Environmental Concern Motivated by climate awareness, though practicality sometimes prevails. Perceived health risks Not emphasized. Past experiences with DWS increase comfort, while generational differences show that younger individuals may be less concerned about water conservation. Some users with backgrounds in environmental science or public health tend to be more focused on water quality and system management. Adoption is often driven by the lack of centralized systems in rural areas; water scarcity and contamination concerns motivate conservation practices. Environmental concern is present but secondary to daily practical needs and comfort. Some prioritize water conservation and sustainability. Major concern. Strong focus on water quality and safety. Many prioritize testing and maintaining clean, safe water above other factors. Aligned Aligned Divergent Divergent Aligned Aligned Aligned Divergent 85 Chapter Five: Discussion This chapter explores how participants reframed the original adoption factors into four interconnected themes: sociocultural and economic context, DWS knowledge, environmental context, and perceived health risks, offering insights into the lived realities shaping DWS adoption in peri-urban northern BC. 5.1 Reframing of the original eight factors from the literature review While the survey responses to the closed-ended questions confirmed the relevance of some of the eight factors listed in section 4.1.1, particularly sensorial perceptions and income, participants often elaborated on their Likert-scale answers in more nuanced responses. Rather than addressing factors as static, participants reframed them based on their lived experiences. The result was the emergence of more complex themes. This divergence between predefined factors and emergent themes highlights how adoption is understood by these key informants. By examining these emerging themes in detail, the following section provides an interpretation of how users and specialists understand the adoption of DWS and how these perspectives may inform future DWS implementation and potential policy considerations in northern BC. 5.2 Understanding the reframed DWS adoption factors This section examines how the adoption of DWS is influenced by a set of interconnected and context-specific factors. Table 5.1 presents the original and reframed factors organized around four central themes: sociocultural and economic context, DWS knowledge, 86 Table 5.1 Reframing of literature-identified adoption factors based on online survey analysis with specialists and users Literature review factors Gender Reframed by specialists Reframed by users Emerging themes/ subthemes (across the survey analysis) Affects training access, design input, and financial decisions Roles in household tasks. Women prioritize quality, men handle tech Sociocultural and economic context/ gender roles Adoption is often a joint household decision between partners Sociocultural and economic context/ collaborative decision-making Age Neutral or secondary Younger users are less concerned about conservation DWS Knowledge/ experience Income Affordability for implementation and long-term use Affordability is a driver/barrier for adoption, repair, and upgrades Sociocultural and economic context/ affordability Education Helps with confidence and technical understanding Less relevant than training and experience DWS Knowledge/ education, training, and experience Rural/Urban Setting DWS is a key driver in areas with limited centralized infrastructure Not directly asked, but came up as ruralbased motivations in the survey Environmental context /geographic factors Strong concern for water quality and family health Perceived health risks Sensorial Perception Important for user acceptance and comfort Strong influence on system acceptability (taste, smell, etc.) Sociocultural and economic context/ cultural context Attitude Positive attitude tied to environmental motivation Less emphasized, sometimes neutral Environmental context/ environmental concern Environmental Concern DWS adoption is motivated by environmental awareness, but in some cases constrained by practicality Relevant for adoption. Some focus on sustainability Environmental context /environmental concern 87 environmental context, and perceived health risks. The discussion highlights their interconnection, shaping household decision-making. This discussion also examines how these dynamics vary between specialists and users. It offers insights into how DWS implementation and community realities may align. As shown in the previous chapter, specialists and users demonstrated similar levels of agreement on only three of the eight proposed factors based on the Likert-scale responses. This suggests a notable disconnect. While specialists often draw on broader project and policy frameworks, they may lack insight into the everyday priorities and contextual factors that shape user decision-making around DWS. The relevant themes for DWS adoption are discussed in this section with reference to participant inputs, priorities, and existing research, providing a foundation for future approaches to DWS adoption. 5.2.1 Sociocultural and economic context This theme captures how gender roles, cultural practices, and economic realities in user households may shape the decision to adopt DWS. While decentralized system adoption research often considers demographic factors such as gender or income in isolation, the reviewed literature recognizes that gender-related differences in research outcomes are explained by linking participants’ behaviours to household gender dynamics (Abubakar & Mu’azu, 2022; Agovino et al., 2023; Aprile & Fiorillo, 2017; Judkins & Presser, 2008; López-Ruiz et al., 2021; Wester et al., 2015; Zelezny et al., 2000). My research findings suggest that daily routines, household structures, and affordability are interconnected and influence household DWS adoption. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (2023) states that gender refers to “socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of girls, women, boys, 88 men, and gender diverse people.” This definition excludes biological attributes, which this institution defines as “sex”. It also mentions that gender “influences how people perceive themselves and each other, how they act and interact, and the distribution of power and resources in society” (Canadian Institutes of Health Research, 2023). In alignment with this definition, gender (as a socially constructed category) is expected to influence how tasks and responsibilities are divided, and decision-making is done in the context of DWS adoption. While only a few specialists and users agreed that “gender” directly affects DWS adoption, gender roles emerged as a key consideration, but in different ways between the two groups. The tendency among some participants to downplay the influence of gender may reflect what Peña and de les Valls (2024) describe as “gender blindness”: a failure to consider the differentiated roles, needs, and experiences shaped by gender norms. This blindness is often reinforced in technical disciplines like engineering, where university curricula historically overlook gender equity and the social dimensions of design. Similarly, Maloshonok et al. (2022) found that in engineering education, both students and faculty can reproduce gender stereotypes in subtle but persistent ways, with little training to challenge these patterns. Such gaps in awareness may contribute to overlooking how gender roles shape access to knowledge, task division, and engagement with DWS. Addressing these blind spots is not only a matter of design effectiveness, but also of social equity, aiming for systems that are inclusive and responsive to the needs of all household members, regardless of gender. Specialists acknowledged that gender roles could influence household responsibilities (cleaning, laundry, cooking), access to DWS training, DWS maintenance, and financial decision-making, as well as their concern for water quality and supply. Regarding DWS design, one specialist mentioned that it may influence adoption, given that technology is 89 usually “male-centric”. Research on gendered technology design highlights our over-reliance on male-centric products, such as phone sizes, bicycles, and imaging systems like magnetic resonance, which were primarily tested on male bodies (Cassioli et al., 2020). The authors argue that without diverse design teams, crucial factors like gender can be overlooked, leading to biased outcomes in technology. Specifically, in the sanitation field, researchers in India emphasized that ignoring users’ habits and practices can hinder the system’s usability. Schelbert et al. (2024), noted that, for example, women put in more effort than men to adopt squat toilets and recommend adjusting designs to better align with user practices. Users emphasized lived experiences: women were more commonly responsible for water-related tasks (cooking, cleaning, laundry, and gardening) and tended to express greater concern for water quality. On the other hand, according to survey responses, men often took on technical (maintenance) roles or physical tasks related to DWS. These findings mirror the results from the General Social Survey performed by Statistics Canada (2020). The data showed that laundry and cooking were mostly performed by women, while men led in outdoor work and repair tasks. Such patterns may also be shaped by factors like the urban/rural context. As observed by Quadlin and Doan (2018), “urban women spend less time on male-typed chores than rural or suburban women”, suggesting that physical environments may also influence gendered-task divisions. Some respondents highlighted that DWS adoption was not influenced by gender but by personal interests, upbringing, or socially constructed gender expectations. These observations highlighted the relevance of both labour divisions and task-related knowledge for DWS adoption in the case study. Both specialist and user answers described gender differences in DWS adoption by reframing this factor to the sub-theme of “gender roles”. They highlighted how community or 90 household dynamics are influenced by gender roles. These roles, particularly as shaped by household responsibilities, affect how individuals engage with DWS. These findings suggest that greater consideration of gender roles in both the design of technologies and their implementation is necessary to ensure more inclusive and effective adoption. Collaborative decision-making refers to how household decisions around DWS adoption and maintenance are shared between partners. While gender roles remain important, particularly in relation to task division, several users emphasized that decisions regarding DWS adoption were made collaboratively. These users described mutual responsibility, shared values around water preservation, and joint engagement in system maintenance. For example, respondents stated: “We decide as a couple” (Respondent 09), “It was a joint decision, based on our understanding of public health” (Respondent 25), and “Both wanted the system, maintain it, and are committed to using it properly” (Respondent 07). These responses suggest that DWS adoption is not only shaped by individual preferences or structural constraints but also by shared household dynamics. Similar to how gender roles and cultural context influence water-related behaviours, collaborative decision-making affect how water systems are chosen, implemented, and maintained. The collaborative aspect aligns with socio-technological adoption models discussed in Chapter Two, which recognize that technology uptake is most successful when embedded in collective social processes (Murillo-Licea et al., 2019; Sutherland et al., 2021). According to Garcia-Becerra et al. (2021), the social acceptance of water technologies requires both cultural integration and infrastructural needs to be met collaboratively. In this study, participants’ shared commitment to water preservation and long-term maintenance illustrates social acceptance of DWS. These findings suggest that successful DWS implementation 91 benefits from recognizing the household as a unit of collective decision-making. Planning should therefore consider not just individual attitudes or technical knowledge, but also how decisions are negotiated and shared among household members. In this study, “cultural context” refers to the everyday habits, routines, and preferences that influence how individuals interact with water systems. As highlighted by both specialists and users, these cultural elements may affect the willingness and ability to adopt DWS. Cultural context emerges as an active influence on behaviour and preferences toward system acceptability and use. Specialists emphasized how routines embedded in specific cultural settings could present challenges to DWS implementation. For example, changing behaviours like using water as a waste carrier, or adjusting to requirements such as separating organic matter or switching to greywater-safe cleaning products, can be difficult. These habits are often resistant to change, particularly when they conflict with familiar domestic routines. As one specialist noted, "Most users, men and women, are accustomed to using water as a garbage carrier and find it difficult to establish a routine of keeping organic matter in a compost bucket and inorganic matter in a garbage bucket" (Respondent 10). Additionally, sensorial perceptions such as aversion to smell and taste were identified as important components of cultural context. For example, specialists observed that aversion to chlorine’s strong odour or taste could lead to under-treatment of rainwater systems, even if disinfection is necessary. These findings are aligned with the water reuse literature, where sensory discomfort and disgust reactions have been shown to reduce acceptance of treated water (Chen et al., 2013; Massoud et al., 2018; Wester et al., 2015). 92 Similar to specialists, more than half of users also agreed that sensorial perceptions impact DWS adoption. In the open-ended questions, they noted that personal and cultural factors, such as upbringing and sensory preferences, could influence DWS choices. For example, the preference for well water or bottled water, for its taste or familiarity. Unpleasant characteristics like odours or colours can also motivate them to DWS adoption. Importantly, sensitivity to water quality varied between household members, in some cases along gender lines, suggesting not only individual but also socially-based differences in perception. These differences could be explained by the level of engagement with water-related domestic tasks, such as cooking, laundry, or cleaning. In sum, both specialists and users recognize that cultural context, through routine, sensory expectations, and life experiences, shapes how DWS technologies are perceived and adopted. These findings reframe the factor of sensorial perceptions as a subtheme of “cultural context”. DWS design and implementation should consider local preferences, routines, and sensory comfort for effectiveness and inclusion. The sub-theme of affordability highlights how financial capacity influences the decision to adopt and maintain DWS. Both specialists and users emphasized affordability as a key factor, shaping whether households could invest in installation, upgrades, or long-term operation. Prior research confirms how household income positively affects willingness to adopt residential systems (Karytsas, Polyzou, et al., 2019). In this study, wealthier households tended to pursue DWS for convenience or sustainability, while lower-income users often saw them as essential alternatives to limited or costly centralized services. Specialists noted that affordability often determines DWS viability. While lower operational costs may be appealing, the initial setup remains out of reach for many. 93 Nonetheless, some lower-income households are motivated by necessity, especially in areas facing high water stress or expensive municipal services. The factor of affordability has also been explored during the WASH-T research group event series named “Creating Decentralized and Holistic Water and Sanitation Solutions for Small Communities.” DWS experts and Prince George community members participated in these events held in May and September 2023. This event explored local perspectives regarding on-site water and sanitation solutions. The final report suggested that affordability is key to long-term adoption, with financial accessibility supporting widespread use and sustainability (GarciaBecerra, 2024). Accessing grants, fostering collaborations, and exploring entrepreneurial initiatives can help smaller communities overcome the economic challenges of adopting offgrid systems (Garcia-Becerra, 2024). Users confirmed that financial resources shape their water decisions. Some could afford private wells or filtration systems, while others relied on shared or lower-cost systems due to budget constraints. Several highlighted the high cost of repairs or replacements, such as a $50,000 lagoon system, as a significant burden. Even when there is interest in upgrades, the cost and hassle can delay adoption. In addition, land affordability indirectly affects DWS use. Many noted that buying in rural areas requires using decentralized systems, meaning only those who can afford land can access or improve DWS. Both groups pointed to the importance of external support to reduce barriers to adoption or upgrading. These insights suggest that affordability may shape who can access safe, resilient water systems and how those systems are designed. Affordability is a key subtheme that intersects with user motivations, land access, and water stress. External financial support, such as subsidies or low-interest loans, could play a critical role in improving access 94 to DWS, making them more accessible. The understanding of affordability as a barrier could also drive future research and innovation in more cost-effective DWS. Future decentralized system projects could use this insight to create strategies that address the economic challenges of adoption in rural and peri-urban areas. In sum, the sociocultural and economic context, including gender roles, cultural practices, affordability, and collaborative decision-making, shapes how households evaluate, adopt, and sustain DWS. Understanding these interconnected factors is essential for designing more inclusive and sustainable solutions. 5.2.2 DWS Knowledge The theme of DWS knowledge emerged as key to shaping DWS adoption. While specialists elaborated on how different forms of knowledge, such as training, education, and experience, intersect to support adoption, users mainly emphasized their own education and experience. Maintaining these three subthemes offers a framework to explore the different ways that knowledge enables user engagement with DWS. Specialists highlighted training as a powerful tool to support DWS adoption, especially when tailored to local users and delivered through practical, community-based approaches. Regardless of users’ formal education levels, access to training and information on system operation and maintenance was seen as a critical factor from a specialist perspective. Training not only fosters technical understanding but also builds user confidence in managing DWS over time. Previous literature has emphasized this point, showing that engagement, co-production, and knowledge-sharing can help overcome adoption barriers and foster long-term commitment (Vila-Tojo et al., 2024). Moreover, training appears to be 95 critical in rural and peri-urban contexts, especially when users lack prior exposure to DWS technologies. As Boothby et al. (2010) argue, the success of new technologies often depends on complementary investments in user skills and training, which can replicate the benefits of prior experience and support effective system management. It was also noted by specialists that including women in training processes may be strategic, particularly in contexts where gender roles and domestic tasks limit their access to technical knowledge. Overall, specialist responses suggest that training is strategic for successful DWS implementation. Users, however, did not mention training in their answers to the open-ended questions. They gave more attention to the subtheme of experience, which is discussed later in this section. Regarding education, both specialists and users noted its importance in DWS decision-making and adoption, though with different emphasis. Specialists noted that higher levels of education often correlate with greater awareness of environmental issues and increased confidence in adopting and managing DWS technologies. On the other hand, the aspect of education was mostly absent from the user open-ended questions, despite the postsecondary educational level of more than 90% of the case study users. Only one user explained that their academic background in environmental science influenced their decision to test water quality and inspect the lagoon system before purchasing their home (Respondent 21). This suggests that formal education is not seen as critical for users, but it may support informed decision-making by helping users assess the benefits and limitations of DWS. Specialists also noted that understanding economic and technical aspects, typically acquired through formal or professional education, can be critical in adoption decisions. This aligns with Bucciarelli et al. (2010), who argue that in rapidly evolving technological environments, only a workforce equipped with adequate education and training can manage and benefit 96 from new technologies, reinforcing the importance of investing in human capital to support effective system adoption. Prior experience with water systems emerged as another key subtheme, especially among users. The DWS knowledge factor presented in the survey was mostly linked to experience for users. Many respondents who had grown up using wells, septic tanks, or rainwater harvesting systems expressed comfort with DWS technologies. These users often associated experience with greater autonomy and familiarity, reducing barries to adoption. For example, users shared stories of returning to DWS in adulthood, emphasizing that earlier life experiences made them more confident in their ability to manage these systems. This association has been studied by Haryanto et al. (2016), who explain how childhood experiences accompanied by the memory of a specific mood can influence buying behaviour. Other specialists compared past and present experiences with different water sources to explain their preferences and expectations. Specialists also noted that familiarity with similar systems can facilitate adoption, while a lack of experience or negative past experiences can lead to reluctance or mistrust. Generational differences surfaced as well, with older users often demonstrating greater awareness of water conservation and maintenance needs. In a previous study about information technology adoption in the workplace, Morris and Venkatesh (2000) found that younger workers seemed to be more frequently motivated by technology productivity or effectiveness, while older individuals were influenced by the technology’s perceived ease of use. These generational differences suggest that motivations for adopting DWS may differ based on age and life stage. Additionally, knowledge shared through family or community networks could play an important role in shaping perceptions and building the confidence needed for successful system use. 97 Taken together, these subthemes reveal how knowledge is a dynamic factor in DWS adoption. Whether through formal education, training, or lived experience, the ability to understand, operate, and trust decentralized systems plays a crucial role in DWS adoption. Recognizing these different dimensions of knowledge can strengthen future DWS implementation strategies. 5.2.3 Environmental context The environmental context reflects how DWS adoption is shaped by the reality of the geographic location and the environmental concerns of users. Rather than fitting into a rural or urban categorization, adoption patterns reflect local resource conditions, infrastructure gaps related to water connections, exposure to, and perceptions of water-related risks. These conditions often make DWS a practical necessity rather than a choice. Environmental concern, especially around water conservation and self-reliance, seems an important motivator for engagement with DWS. This concern aligns with broader Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) principles, such as the One Water approach, which frames all water sources, including stormwater and wastewater, as components of a single, finite system rather than isolated issues (see Section 2.2). These holistic approaches promote integrated solutions that optimize resources while addressing social and environmental needs. At the same time, barriers such as cost, system complexity, and limited local expertise often restricted adoption, even when environmental motivations were strong. These constraints demonstrate how systemic or structural factors can undermine otherwise high levels of environmental awareness and intent. 98 The geographic context was a key sub-theme influencing DWS adoption. Both specialists and users emphasized that DWS systems were frequently installed not by preference, but due to local circumstances, whether gaps in water infrastructure, limited municipal service coverage, or property-specific conditions. This pattern aligns with broader sustainability research, where decentralized technologies, such as photovoltaic systems, are more commonly adopted in smaller towns or rural areas. For example, Zdonek et al. (2023) report similar trends for photovoltaic systems in Poland, while, Karytsas, Vardopoulos, et al. (2019) attribute greater adoption of residential microgeneration technologies in rural Southern Europe to fewer land-use constraints. Specialists frequently pointed out that DWS adoption was influenced by necessity in locations where centralized services are absent or inadequate. In rural or remote regions, residents often rely on wells, rainwater collection, or composting systems not by choice, but due to the lack of alternatives. The influence of geographic context is also reflected in urban contexts, particularly where residents face high water costs or service shortages. These conditions can raise their interest in DWS even within an urban context. Similarly, user responses illustrated that adoption was rarely a proactive decision but rather a reflection of available options. Many indicated that their systems came with the property and remained in use due to the absence of municipal alternatives. Water quality concerns, resource issues such as aquifer depletion, and the threat of contamination from nearby land uses further motivated users to conserve or complement existing resources with systems such as rainwater harvesting. Overall, both groups highlighted that local factors, such as legal frameworks, existing infrastructure, land characteristics, and economic conditions, interact to shape the feasibility 99 and necessity of DWS adoption. These findings suggest that adoption is less about a household’s geographic category and more about the environmental and infrastructural realities of where they are situated. Environmental concern was a significant factor influencing the adoption and use of DWS among specialists and users. This concern was often expressed in terms of resource conservation, climate change awareness, and self-reliance needs, especially in rural settings where households depend on their own water sources and show a higher sense of responsibility for their management. These motivations align with findings in the literature, where environmental concerns have been linked to higher rates of household water conservation and acceptance of reuse technologies such as greywater systems (Domènech & Saurí, 2010; Y. Li et al., 2022). These local environmental realities reflect broader regional climate change patterns, such as more frequent droughts, lower snowpack, and warming temperatures in the Prince George area (see Section 1.1). Such changes are linked to users’ concerns and formed part of the context in which DWS are increasingly seen as necessary. Specialists observed that individuals with strong environmental concerns are often more proactive in seeking sustainable water solutions, such as rainwater harvesting or other decentralized technologies. However, they also noted that while environmental concerns are influential, practical concerns like system usability or odour can take precedence for some users. Gender was also suggested by some users as a relevant influence in environmental concern, with some of them noting that women often express greater concern for waterrelated environmental issues, particularly when these affect household or community wellbeing. 100 Among users, environmental concern was closely linked to motivations around water conservation, water quality (linked to health risks), land stewardship, and reducing impact on water resources. Many participants emphasized a lifestyle of self-sufficiency and resource preservation, especially in the context of limited centralized services. This makes sense given the peri-urban area in which this project was conducted. This orientation seemed to stem not only from environmental concerns but also from necessity, reinforcing the connection between practical need and sustainable practice. Some users also highlighted gendered patterns in environmental concern, often noting that women express greater interest in waterrelated environmental issues, especially when linked to household or community well-being. However, these differences were frequently attributed to individual roles or experiences rather than gender alone. The theme of water quality, which was linked to health risks, will be discussed in a separate category due to its relevance for users. As climate projections for BC indicate ongoing shifts in precipitation, temperature, and water availability, environmental concern, both as a personal value and as a response to lived environmental changes, is likely to become an even more important factor in shaping DWS adoption and water governance strategies. These insights underscore the central role of environmental concern in shaping how people perceive and engage with DWS. As climate impacts grow, it is important to make this a key part of designing and promoting water solutions that fit local needs. 5.2.4 Perceived health risks Perceived health risks emerged as a significant concern among users in relation to the safety and quality of their household water supply. While not an emerging theme in specialists’ 101 responses, users consistently emphasized the need to maintain clean, potable water, particularly when using decentralized systems such as wells or surface water sources. These concerns often stem from local contamination risks, prior knowledge of pollution, or vulnerable household members with specific health needs. For many, ensuring water safety outweighed cost or convenience, aligning with findings from the literature where health risk perception has been shown to hinder public acceptance of water reuse systems (Domènech & Saurí, 2010; Lemée et al., 2018; Massoud et al., 2018). In this context, health concerns not only shaped attitudes toward DWS but also influenced maintenance and water testing practices, making them a motivator of responsible water management in peri-urban households. 5.2.5 Attitudes toward DWS adoption An attitude is a psychological response that reflects how individuals act based on their positive or negative emotions (Bouaguel & Alsulimani, 2022; Kopaei et al., 2021). It was reported in the literature review as a key factor for decentralized systems adoption, such as the intention to use solar energy for residential use in Saudi Arabia (Bouaguel & Alsulimani, 2022), household food waste management behaviour in Iran (Fami et al., 2019), home composting intentions in Iran (Kopaei et al., 2021), and recycled water use for household laundry in Australia (Chen et al., 2013). Although "attitude" was not frequently discussed on its own by respondents, it was closely related to environmental values, personal responsibility, and perceptions of risk, particularly among users. Several respondents described themselves as environmentally conscious or committed to sustainable living. These attitudes influenced their acceptance and use of DWS. Rather than a standalone factor, attitude appears to operate as an underlying 102 behaviour shaping how individuals engage with DWS through proactive maintenance, resource conservation, or system upgrades. This suggests that promoting supportive attitudes toward DWS may be most effective when tied to environmental awareness and personal relevance. For decision makers, this could translate into public education campaigns and community engagement. This should include not only technical information sharing but also highlight the local environmental benefits of DWS and how these systems align with residents’ values, especially in rural or peri-urban areas where self-reliance and land stewardship are already motivators. Programs that connect water use to broader environmental and health outcomes may strengthen public support for DWS adoption. 5.3 Conclusion My research aimed to answer two questions: 1) What insights can be obtained from the existing literature regarding the variables influencing the adoption of household systems, taking into account the role of gender? and 2) How can these findings be applied to a northern BC context? I pursued to answer these questions because water conservation, planning and management, and access to clean potable water are gaining global importance, particularly in light of climate-related pressures that are altering local water availability and reliability, even in regions like northern BC that are often perceived as water-secure. This is especially relevant for under-studied peri-urban areas of the Global North like Prince George as well, even though they are not typically the focus for water-related interventions. First, I turned to the literature to explore these questions. The literature review identified eight factors: gender, age, income, education, rural/urban setting, sensorial 103 perception, attitude, and environmental concern. These factors provided a foundation for exploring the adoption of DWS through online surveys to specialists and users. I had expected the literature to offer more insights into the adoption of water systems in the Global North, but this was an underexplored topic. Additionally, I had anticipated more information on how gender influences system adoption, especially in the Global North, but this connection also seemed understudied in this region. For the second research question, the survey results showed that the original literature-based factors were reframed into four broader, context-specific themes that better reflected the lived experience of users in peri-urban northern BC: sociocultural and economic context, DWS knowledge, environmental context, and perceived health risks. These emergent themes help bridge the gap between static variables and the case-study realities that shape technology adoption. In summary, the findings suggest that DWS adoption in peri-urban northern BC is driven by more than technical considerations. It seems influenced by intra-household characteristics and relationships, practical DWS knowledge, and environmental realities. Both participant groups suggest that gender roles, though not always explicitly acknowledged, shape responsibilities and decision-making around water quality and DWS adoption. Experiential DWS knowledge and affordability influence system choices more than formal education, and rural infrastructure gaps highlight the importance of self-sufficiency and trust in water quality. They also illustrate the importance of considering contextual factors in working to improve our understanding of DWS as one tool we can use for better household-level water access in a warming northern BC. 104 Understanding these interconnected factors, including the influence of gender and gender roles on related DWS interest, knowledge, adoption, use, and maintenance, is essential. Gender must be considered as we aim to improve sustainable water provision by designing systems that better align with both community values and practical needs. 105 Chapter Six: Conclusions This chapter brings together the key insights from the study to explain how and why DWS are adopted in northern British Columbia, particularly in peri-urban areas like Prince George. It interprets the main findings in relation to social, economic, and environmental factors, emphasizing how household dynamics, gender roles, and lived experiences influence adoption decisions. The chapter also outlines the study’s contributions to existing research, highlights practical implications for DWS implementation, and identifies directions for future research and policy development. 6.1 Summary of findings Using a mixed-methods approach that included a systematic literature review and online surveys with a mix of quantitative and qualitative questions, I identified eight factors commonly studied in decentralized systems adoption from the literature review. These findings informed the design of the surveys, which gathered insights from 12 specialists and 33 users of DWS. Four key themes and nine subthemes emerged from the thematic analysis. The shift from predefined individual-level factors to broader, interrelated themes highlights the importance of context, lived experience, and intra-household social dynamics in understanding DWS adoption. The sociocultural and economic context reveals that DWS adoption is not simply a technical decision but is shaped by how households organize everyday life. Financial capacity, routines, and shared values influence how systems are adopted and maintained. Under this theme, gender roles, collaborative decision-making, cultural context, and affordability emerged as key subthemes. Rather than reflecting only individual preferences, 106 adoption often resulted from joint decisions influenced by resource constraints and gendered responsibilities. Understanding gendered household tasks and how decisions are made collectively adds knowledge to DWS adoption in peri-urban northern BC. Cultural expectations around water quality, comfort, and technology use also played a role in the acceptability of different systems. This perspective shifts the focus from individuals to households as decision-making units, suggesting that adoption can be negotiated. The findings show that DWS knowledge is a complex contributor to DWS adoption. It is not limited to formal education but extends to practical experience and access to specific training. This understanding challenges implementation models that consider, for example, training as a standard aspect for adoption. In fact, for users, confidence in using, maintaining, or upgrading systems was often built through familiarity. The conceptualization of DWS knowledge as a theme that includes training, education, and experiences offers a more comprehensive view for adoption in rural and peri-urban contexts. Younger users were sometimes perceived as less concerned with long-term sustainability, pointing to the importance of knowledge transfer. Recognizing how prior experience builds familiarity and confidence, and how DWS knowledge already exists within households and communities, highlights the relevance of local learning processes. These insights contribute to projects that look to make DWS implementation more effective by tailoring strategies to community expertise and generational learning. The environmental context highlights how DWS adoption is shaped by the reality of the geographic location and the environmental concerns of users. Rather than fitting into a rural or urban categorization, adoption patterns reflect local resource conditions, infrastructure gaps related to water connections, exposure to, and perceptions of water-related 107 risks. In peri-urban northern BC, for example, users responded to changes in water reliability, linked to broader climate shifts, by prioritizing self-sufficiency and protective strategies. These conditions often make DWS a practical necessity rather than a choice. At the same time, environmental concern, especially around water conservation and self-reliance, seems an important motivator for engagement with DWS. However, barriers such as cost, practicality, and limited local expertise often restricted adoption, despite strong environmental motivations. These findings emphasize the need to design and promote DWS based on local environmental conditions and the concerns that motivate communities to use water sustainably. The emerging theme of health risks, which was practically an exclusive concern from users and with more emphasis from women, reveals how trust in water safety can shape user engagement with DWS. These concerns reflect not only individual priorities but also broader socially-based perceptions of vulnerability and responsibility. Users described monitoring water quality, investing in treatment, and making system choices based on contamination concerns or family health risks. Recognizing the perception of health-related risks as a key influence on system use and maintenance highlights the need for implementation strategies and policies that build user confidence, for example, through accessible monitoring tools and responsive expert or local government support. Interestingly, this theme was absent among specialists, indicating a perception gap that could be addressed through improved communication and user-informed system design. These concerns were particularly voiced by women, which points to the importance of examining gendered roles in DWS engagement. 108 These findings also show that gender roles are not just one factor among others, but part of a larger system that influences how people make decisions about water. Gender dynamics shape how responsibilities are shared, how risks to health are perceived, and how DWS knowledge and skills are passed on within households. For example, caregiving roles can lead to greater concern with water safety, while shared household tasks affect how systems are chosen and maintained. This means that gender influences not only the adoption of DWS but also how other factors like health, affordability, and environmental values play out in daily life. Understanding gender as something that cuts across these themes can help create more inclusive approaches to DWS design and policy. 6.2 Contributions of this study A central contribution is the reframing of adoption factors, shifting from standardized, individual-level determinants commonly found in the literature to a more nuanced understanding grounded in social and environmental realities. These themes emerged through direct engagement with both specialists and users and offer a framework for analyzing DWS adoption, use, and maintenance in ways that reflect how decisions are made and sustained over time. This study offers a new case study by focusing on northern BC, and a peri-urban setting with high reliance on DWS and limited academic attention. It illuminates user choices and perspectives when living with a limited water supply infrastructure. Choices such as investing in private wells, opting for cisterns, using bottled water, installing water purification systems, and collecting rainwater are all influenced by the factors identified in this study. Decisions, such as adopting multiple water sources or upgrading systems over time, reflect adaptive strategies that are often overlooked. The findings illustrate that DWS 109 adoption in this context is not just driven by external conditions but shaped by lived experiences, collective knowledge, household roles, and dynamics. This study offers insights into how gender roles influence water management practices in rural and peri-urban settings. These findings suggest that gendered divisions of labour and caregiving responsibilities can shape perceptions of water quality, health risk, and system maintenance, areas that should receive more attention in technical planning and policy around DWS. By including gender roles considerations in the analysis, this research points to the potential development of more inclusive and practical implementation strategies for household decentralized systems, not only for water but also for different decentralized technologies, such as energy-related ones. However, given the small sample size and limited time frame of this study, further research is needed to confirm and expand on these findings. Finally, the study reveals the importance of recognizing how multiple factors, including social, environmental, economic, and health-related, interact to shape DWS adoption. In the face of growing climate pressures such as droughts and wildfires, these insights provide a basis for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers to design water solutions grounded in the realities of household life that are also responsive and resilient over time and to changing circumstances. 6.3 Considerations and limitations While the findings provide meaningful insights into how users engage with DWS technologies, several considerations and limitations should be acknowledged when interpreting the results. In this section, I review some potential limitations and use these as a basis for suggestions about future research directions. 110 The literature review was confined to the context of the Global North and BRICS countries to identify relevant factors in similar settings to the case study. However, most sources were drawn from the Web of Science database. Broadening the review to include additional databases and grey literature would strengthen the foundation for understanding DWS adoption in diverse settings. Due to a lack of DWS-specific research in the Global North, many of the factors identified in the literature review were found in studies related to adjacent fields, such as household renewable energy, water reuse, and household waste sorting. While these offer useful parallels, future research would benefit from a re-framed DWS-specific review of the growing body of interdisciplinary literature on water systems. This could help identify adoption factors that are more directly related to DWS. One important limitation of this study was the small sample size, users (n=33) and specialists (n=12). Specialist recruitment was challenging despite efforts to contact them personally through different professional networks. Potential reasons for low participation may include the survey’s length, competing work obligations, or a perceived lack of direct benefit. These are relevant considerations for designing more accessible and engaging future specialist or expert surveys. Specialists were identified through purposive sampling, primarily by reaching out to contacts within the WASH-T research team network at UNBC. While this strategy successfully engaged knowledgeable participants, it may not reflect the full spectrum of DWS expertise across British Columbia or Canada. Future studies would benefit from broader recruitment strategies that include voices from policy circles, First Nations water stewards, and private sector system designers to capture a more diverse range of perspectives. 111 In the case of users, the exclusive reliance on an online survey format may have limited participation. Future studies could benefit from incorporating in-person interviews or focus groups facilitated through community representatives. This mixed-methods approach could achieve a more balanced and comprehensive sample. Another limitation involves gender representation within the user sample, where women made up 75% of respondents. While this provided valuable insight into the influence of gender roles on DWS adoption, it may have led to an overrepresentation of women’s perspectives. Additionally, the survey employed a binary understanding of gender, potentially excluding or misrepresenting the experiences of non-binary and gender-diverse individuals. Future research should strive for more inclusive methodologies that reflect the full range of gender identities and household roles present in diverse communities. Lastly, this research provides valuable insights into the factors influencing DWS adoption in peri-urban households in the Prince George area. While this aligns with the study’s aim of exploring DWS adoption in non-urban settings, it is a single case study that limits the generalizability of findings to other regions. Expanding future research to include urban centres, smaller municipalities, or First Nation communities would offer a more comprehensive picture of DWS users. Comparative studies across regions experiencing similar environmental pressures, such as droughts or wildfires, could also provide valuable insights into how local conditions shape adoption. 6.4 Future research directions Several future research directions stem from this work. One is to examine user perspectives on specific technologies, such as greywater reuse or composting toilets, with attention to local bylaws, public health guidance, and regulatory constraints. As noted in the literature 112 review, greywater reuse has been successfully implemented in some cities for purposes like gardening and cleaning (Abubakar & Mu’azu, 2022; Amaris et al., 2021; Domènech & Saurí, 2010; Lemée et al., 2018). Another potential future research area is to investigate community-scale or collective models of DWS management, especially in areas where individual household systems are costly or difficult to maintain. The affordability of DWS emerged across multiple themes, especially in relation to environmental context and household decision-making. Future research should explore affordability in more depth, examining financing models, cost-sharing scenarios, and policies that enable lower-income households to access, upgrade, or maintain decentralized systems. This could include comparative analyses of regions with differing financial and technical support levels to understand which mechanisms improve access. Researchers could also investigate how affordability perceptions differ by gender roles, and whether women or men are more likely to take on financial decision-making responsibilities in relation to DWS investments. In addition, future studies could benefit from conducting in-person surveys or interviews to deepen understanding of household experiences that may not be easily captured with online methods. In-person engagement could allow researchers to build more trust with participants, clarify questions in real time, and observe contextual details that shape DWS adoption. This approach may be particularly useful in rural and peri-urban areas where internet access is limited. Furthermore, future research should investigate how professional training, particularly in engineering and technical fields, can shape awareness of social dimensions such as gender. As discussed earlier, gender blindness in technology design and 113 implementation can limit inclusive adoption, especially when systems fail to reflect the roles, needs, and lived experiences of diverse users. New research could explore questions such as: How do training programs in technical professions address gendered perspectives in sustainability planning? How do gender norms influence perceived risk related to water quality and health? Beyond water systems, studying technology adoption through a sustainability approach has relevance across other sectors. As emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, smart infrastructure, and digital platforms shape how societies function, building effective relationships with these tools requires close attention to local contexts, user experiences, and values. This study reinforces the importance of interdisciplinary and context-sensitive approaches, not only for DWS, but other technology fields. A sustainability approach that balances social, economic, and environmental dimensions can help future research develop solutions that are technically viable and socially grounded. In the case of DWS, considering sociocultural and economic factors, affordability, DWS knowledge, environmental concerns and health risk perceptions will be key to supporting inclusive, longterm resilience. 6.5 Conclusion This research deepens understanding of how DWS are adopted in peri-urban northern British Columbia, showing that adoption is shaped not only by technical or economic factors, but also by household dynamics, lived experiences, and local concerns. By focusing on how decisions are made within households rather than relying solely on predefined variables, the study provides a more practical and socially informed view of DWS adoption. 114 Rather than treating users as passive recipients of technology, this research highlights their active role in adapting, maintaining, and choosing water solutions based on their specific needs, responsibilities, and environmental concerns. The presence of gendered labour divisions, affordability considerations, and environmental motivations reveals that DWS are not just technical installations but are deeply connected to social relationships, daily routines, and the ways households plan for the future. This perspective is particularly timely given climate-driven pressures on water resources in BC. What is exciting about this project is its demonstration that context matters: adoption is not simply about promoting a technology but about recognizing how people live with it. The findings challenge standard implementation models and call for more tailored, inclusive, and locally relevant strategies. For instance, understanding how affordability intersects with environmental values and health concerns can lead to more adequate policies that reduce barriers for low-income or underserved households. This study shows that while some gender roles appear defined in the handling of water-related tasks, decision-making can be shared among household partners. This suggests that gender roles are not fixed and can be negotiated and change over time or across households. Understanding this flexibility is important for DWS project strategies. For example, a DWS initiative could include joint training sessions for all adult household members, rather than targeting only one gender based on assumptions about who handles maintenance or water use. This approach would build shared knowledge and also shift daily responsibilities more equitably, improving user adoption and satisfaction. As water systems face growing pressure from climate change and infrastructure gaps, paying attention to household dynamics can lead to better, longer-lasting solutions. 115 By integrating user perspectives and highlighting how DWS knowledge and risk perceptions circulate within households and communities, this study builds a foundation for participatory approaches to water governance. Policymakers, practitioners, and researchers could codevelop solutions that reflect household realities and community strengths, especially in rural and peri-urban areas, navigating infrastructure gaps and climate uncertainty. In doing so, DWS initiatives can support broader efforts to strengthen climate resilience, particularly in regions like BC, where water systems could face increasing stress from environmental change. Ultimately, this research shows that sustainable water management is not just a technical challenge but a social one, and addressing it effectively requires engaging with the everyday lives of those who rely on decentralized systems. The adoption of DWS is deeply linked to sustainability, understood as the balance and integration of social, economic, and environmental dimensions. Social dynamics, including gender roles, shared decision-making, and community knowledge, shape how systems are adopted and maintained. Economic conditions, such as affordability and infrastructure access, determine what options are realistically available to households. Environmental motivations, particularly water availability, quality, and conservation values, also drive adoption. Advancing sustainable water management means designing strategies that are technically sound, socially responsive, and environmentally attuned, reflecting the lived realities and priorities of the communities they serve. 116 References: Abubakar, I. R., & Mu’azu, N. D. (2022). Household attitudes toward wastewater recycling in Saudi Arabia. Utilities Policy, 76, 101372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2022.101372 Agovino, M., Cerciello, M., & Musella, G. (2023). Economic cycle, labour market and proenvironmental behaviours. The case of separate waste collection in Italy. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 102, 107207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107207 Agrawal, N., Patrick, T., Davis, M., Ahiduzzaman, M., & Kumar, A. (2022). Analysis of Canada’s water use: Tracing water flow from source to end use. Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue Canadienne Des Ressources Hydriques, 47(1), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/07011784.2021.1994884 Alfie-Cohen, M., & Garcia-Becerra, F. Y. (2022). A multi-stakeholder participatory methodology to facilitate socio-ecological climate change vulnerability–adaptation– resilience strategies: Application of the Q Method. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 27(2), 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-021-09988-9 Amaris, G., Hess, S., Gironás, J., & Ortúzar, J. de D. (2021). Using hybrid choice models to capture the impact of attitudes on residential greywater reuse preferences. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 164, 105171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105171 Andrade, C. (2020). The Limitations of Online Surveys. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 42(6), 575–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/0253717620957496 Aprile, M. C., & Fiorillo, D. (2017). Water conservation behavior and environmental concerns: Evidence from a representative sample of Italian individuals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 159, 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.036 Aromataris, E., & Pearson, A. (2014). The Systematic Review: An Overview. AJN The American Journal of Nursing, 114(3), 53. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000444496.24228.2c Arshamian, A., Gerkin, R. C., Kruspe, N., Wnuk, E., Floyd, S., O’Meara, C., Garrido Rodriguez, G., Lundström, J. N., Mainland, J. D., & Majid, A. (2022). The perception of odor pleasantness is shared across cultures. Current Biology, 32(9), 2061-2066.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2022.02.062 Artz, B., Kaya, I., & Kaya, O. (2022). Gender role perspectives and job burnout. Review of Economics of the Household, 20(2), 447–470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-02109579-2 117 Ball, H. L. (2019). Conducting Online Surveys. Journal of Human Lactation, 35(3), 413– 417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890334419848734 Baltar, F., & Brunet, I. (2012). Social research 2.0: Virtual snowball sampling method using Facebook. Internet Research, 22(1), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662241211199960 BC Agriculture & Food Climate Action Initiative. (2019). Regional Adaptation Strategies: Bulkley-Nechako & Fraser-Fort George. BC Agriculture & Food Climate Action Initiative. www.bcagclimateaction.ca Bickman, L., Rog, D., Bickman, L., & Rog, D. (2009). Applied Research Design: A Practical Approach. In pages 3-43 & pages 3-43, The SAGE Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods (2nd ed.). Bisung, E., & Dickin, S. (2021). Who does what and why? Examining intra-household water and sanitation decision-making and autonomy in Asutifi North, Ghana. Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development, 11(5), 794–804. https://doi.org/10.2166/washdev.2021.039 Boguniewicz-Zabłocka, J., & Capodaglio, A. G. (2020). Analysis of Alternatives for Sustainable Stormwater Management in Small Developments of Polish Urban Catchments. Sustainability, 12(23), Article 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310189 Boothby, D., Dufour, A., & Tang, J. (2010). Technology adoption, training and productivity performance. Research Policy, 39(5), 650–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.02.011 Bosa Development. (2024). Dockside Green by Bosa. Dock Side Green. https://www.docksidegreen.com/sustainability/ Bouaguel, W., & Alsulimani, T. (2022). Understanding the Factors Influencing Consumers’ Intention toward Shifting to Solar Energy Technology for Residential Use in Saudi Arabia Using the Technology Acceptance Model. Sustainability, 14(18), Article 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811356 Braun, V., Clarke, V., Boulton, E., Davey, L., & McEvoy, C. (2021). The online survey as a qualitative research tool. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24(6), 641–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1805550 Broman Toft, M., Schuitema, G., & Thøgersen, J. (2014). Responsible technology acceptance: Model development and application to consumer acceptance of Smart Grid technology. Applied Energy, 134, 392–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.08.048 Bucciarelli, E., Odoardi, I., & Muratore, F. (2010). What role for education and training in technology adoption under an advanced socio-economic perspective? Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 573–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.199 Busetto, L., Wick, W., & Gumbinger, C. (2020). How to use and assess qualitative research methods. Neurological Research and Practice, 2(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42466-020-00059-z 118 Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (2023). What is gender? What is sex? CIHR. Government of Canada. https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48642.html Capodaglio, A. G. (2017). Integrated, Decentralized Wastewater Management for Resource Recovery in Rural and Peri-Urban Areas. Resources, 6(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources6020022 Cassioli, D., Di Marco, A., Di Mascio, T., Tarantino, L., & Inverardi, P. (2020). Is Really IoT Technology Gender Neutral? 2020 IEEE International Workshop on Metrology for Industry 4.0 & IoT, 324–328. https://doi.org/10.1109/MetroInd4.0IoT48571.2020.9138201 CBC News. (2023a). A residential drinking well in northern B.C. has run dry, prompting concerns amid unprecedented drought | CBC News. CBC. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/dry-wells-prince-george-1.7049881 CBC News. (2023b). Drought conditions at highest level in parts of B.C. as province warns of tightening water restrictions | CBC News. CBC. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-drought-update-july131.6905724 Chen, Z., Ngo, H. H., Guo, W., Wang, X. C., Miechel, C., Corby, N., Listowski, A., & O’Halloran, K. (2013). Analysis of social attitude to the new end use of recycled water for household laundry in Australia by the regression models. Journal of Environmental Management, 126, 79–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.04.012 Cislaghi, B., & Heise, L. (2020). Gender norms and social norms: Differences, similarities and why they matter in prevention science. Sociology of Health & Illness, 42(2), 407– 422. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13008 City of Prince George. (2024, February). Population supplied by central water supply and off-grid households [Personal communication]. Climate Ready British Columbia. (2024). Drought and water scarcity. British Columbia. https://climatereadybc.gov.bc.ca/pages/drought-water-scarcity Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (Sixth edition). SAGE Publications, Inc. Denton, F., Wilbanks, T. J., Abeysinghe, A. C., Burton, I., Qingzhu, G., Lemos, M. C., Masui, T., O’Brien, K. L., & Warner, K. (2014). Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development. In C. B. Field, V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, L. L. White, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, & S. MacCracken, Climate Change 2014 Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 1101–1131). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781107415379.025 Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th edition). SAGE Publications, Inc. 119 Dezfooli, D., Bolson, J., Arabi, M., Sukop, M. C., Wiersema, I., & Millonig, S. (2023). A Qualitative Approach to Understand Transitions toward One Water in Urban Areas across North America. Water, 15(14), Article 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15142499 Díaz de León Castañeda, C., & Martínez Domínguez, M. (2021). Factors Related to Internet Adoption and Its Use to Seek Health Information in Mexico. Health Communication, 36(13), 1768–1775. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1794552 Domènech, L., & Saurí, D. (2010). Socio-technical transitions in water scarcity contexts: Public acceptance of greywater reuse technologies in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55(1), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.07.001 Drinking Water Protection Regulation, Pub. L. No. B.C. Reg. 200/2003, 8 (2003). https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/200_2003 Duarte, M., Losleben, K., & Fjørtoft, K. (2023). Gender Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Academia: A Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Transformation. Routledge. Dunn, G., Bakker, K., & Harris, L. (2014). Drinking Water Quality Guidelines across Canadian Provinces and Territories: Jurisdictional Variation in the Context of Decentralized Water Governance. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11(5), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph110504634 Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. New Society Publishers. Environmental Reporting BC. (2018). Trends in B.C.’s Population Size & Distribution [Government]. State of Environment Reporting, Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, British Columbia, Canada.; Province of British Columbia. https://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/indicators/sustainability/bc-population.html Fami, H. S., Aramyan, L. H., Sijtsema, S. J., & Alambaigi, A. (2019). Determinants of household food waste behavior in Tehran city: A structural model. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 143, 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.12.033 Fielding, K. S., Dolnicar, S., & Schultz, T. (2019). Public acceptance of recycled water. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 35(4), 551–586. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2017.1419125 Flick, U. (2018). How to use triangulation and mixed methods in qualitative research: Practical issues. In Doing Triangulation and Mixed Methods (pp. 113–128). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529716634 Friedrichsen, C. N., Monroe, M. C., Daroub, S. H., & Wani, S. P. (2021). Yuck! Plural Valuation of Constructed Wetland Maintenance for Decentralized Wastewater Treatment in Rural India. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.564539 120 Galway, L. P. (2016). Boiling over: A Descriptive Analysis of Drinking Water Advisories in First Nations Communities in Ontario, Canada. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(5), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13050505 Garcia-Becerra, F. Y. (2024). Frontiers Champions: Final progress report (Creating Decentralized and Holistic Water and Sanitation Solutions for Small Communities, p. 8) [Final report]. University of Northern British Columbia. Garcia-Becerra, F. Y., Alfie Cohen, M., & Pérez Reyes, J. (2021). La adopción sociotécnica de los baños secos en una universidad pública de la Ciudad de México (un prototipo) | Sociedad y Ambiente. https://revistas.ecosur.mx/sociedadyambiente/index.php/sya/article/view/2394 Garín-Muñoz, T., López, R., Pérez-Amaral, T., Herguera, I., & Valarezo, A. (2019). Models for individual adoption of eCommerce, eBanking and eGovernment in Spain. Telecommunications Policy, 43(1), 100–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2018.01.002 Government of British Columbia. (2025a). Living and working in Northern B.C. [British Columbia]. Province of British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/careers-myhr/job-seekers/featuredcareers/living-working-northern-bc Government of British Columbia. (2025b, March 30). Groundwater Wells and Aquifers— Province of British Columbia. Government of British Columbia. https://apps.nrs.gov.bc.ca/gwells/?search=prince%20george&result_columns=wellTa gNumber,identificationPlateNumber,ownerName,streetAddress,legalLot,legalPlan,leg alDistrictLot,landDistrict,legalPid,diameter,finishedWellDepth&limit=10&offset=0& ordering=-well_tag_number&map_centre=54.177067,-123.455869&map_zoom=7 Government of British Columbia. (n.d.). Health Information: Greywater Reuse. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/waste-management/sewage/onsitesewerage-systems/what_is_grey_water.pdf Government of Canada, S. C. (2021). Dictionary, Census of Population, 2021 – Census metropolitan area (CMA) and census agglomeration (CA). Government of Canada. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/ref/dict/az/Definitioneng.cfm?ID=geo009 Granić, A. (2023). Technology Acceptance and Adoption in Education. In O. ZawackiRichter & I. Jung (Eds.), Handbook of Open, Distance and Digital Education (pp. 183–197). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2080-6_11 Grigg, N. S. (2024). Framework and Function of Integrated Water Resources Management in Support of Sustainable Development. Sustainability, 16(13), Article 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135441 Groundwater Protection Regulation, Pub. L. No. B.C. Reg. 253/202 (2022). https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/39_2016 121 Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied Thematic Analysis. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483384436 Halseth, G. (2010). Small Town Rural-Urban Fringes: Examples from Northern BC. In K. B. Beesley (Ed.), The Rural-Urban Fringe in Canada: Conflict and Controversy (pp. 64–87). Rural Development Institute - Brandon University. Haryanto, J. O., Moutinho, L., & Coelho, A. (2016). Is brand loyalty really present in the children’s market? A comparative study from Indonesia, Portugal, and Brazil. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4020–4032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.06.013 Hay, I., & Cope, M. (2021). Qualitative research methods in human geography (Fifth edition). Oxford University Press. Hayek, C., Lall, U., Becker, W., Knowles, P., & Faber, L. (2022). Implementing Onsite and Distributed Water Reuse Systems in the United States: Literature Review. The Water Research Foundation. Hoque, M. R. (2016). An empirical study of mHealth adoption in a developing country: The moderating effect of gender concern. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 16, 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-016-0289-0 Hou, B., Liao, H., Wang, J.-W., Wang, F., & Zhang, H. (2019). Cooking fuel decision-making and family structure: A field study in China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(23), 24050–24061. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05216-9 Hu, G., Mian, H. R., Abedin, Z., Li, J., Hewage, K., & Sadiq, R. (2022). Integrated probabilistic-fuzzy synthetic evaluation of drinking water quality in rural and remote communities. Journal of Environmental Management, 301, 13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113937 International Labour Organization. (2024). The impact of care responsibilities on women’s labour force participation. ILO. https://doi.org/10.54394/LPTT5569 International Living Future Institute. (2022). UniverCity Childcare Centre. International Living Future Institute. https://living-future.org/case-studies/univercity-childcarecenter/ Janssen, J., Radić, V., & Ameli, A. (2021). Assessment of Future Risks of Seasonal Municipal Water Shortages Across North America. Frontiers in Earth Science, 9. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2021.730631 Judkins, B., & Presser, L. (2008). Division of eco-friendly household labor and the marital relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(6), 923–941. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407508096701 Kabalisa, R., & Altmann, J. (2021). AI Technologies and Motives for AI Adoption by Countries and Firms: A Systematic Literature Review. Economics of Grids, Clouds, Systems, and Services, 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92916-9_4 Kandiah, V., Binder, A. R., & Berglund, E. Z. (2017). An Empirical Agent-Based Model to Simulate the Adoption of Water Reuse Using the Social Amplification of Risk Framework. Risk Analysis, 37(10), 2005–2022. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12760 122 Karytsas, S., Polyzou, O., & Karytsas, C. (2019). Factors affecting willingness to adopt and willingness to pay for a residential hybrid system that provides heating/cooling and domestic hot water. Renewable Energy, 142, 591–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.04.108 Karytsas, S., Vardopoulos, I., & Theodoropoulou, E. (2019). Factors Affecting Sustainable Market Acceptance of Residential Microgeneration Technologies. A Two Time Period Comparative Analysis (Greece). Energies, 12(17), Article 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12173298 Kaur, A., & Janmaat, J. (2023). Investigating the impacts of drinking water quality on house prices: A household production function approach. Water Resources and Economics, 41, 100213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wre.2022.100213 Khodadad, M., Sanei, M., Narvaez-Montoya, C., & Aguilar-Barajas, I. (2022). Climatic Hazards and the Associated Impacts on Households’ Willingness to Adopt WaterSaving Measures: Evidence from Mexico. Sustainability, 14(10), Article 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105817 Kopaei, H. R., Nooripoor, M., Karami, A., Ertz, M., Kopaei, H. R., Nooripoor, M., Karami, A., & Ertz, M. (2021). Modeling consumer home composting intentions for sustainable municipal organic waste management in Iran. AIMS Environmental Science, 8(1), Article Environ-08-01-01. https://doi.org/10.3934/environsci.2021001 Lemée, C., Navarro, O., Bulteau, G., & Fleury-Bahi, G. (2018). Personal Involvement in Greywater Reuse: A Study within a French Context. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 13(5), 457–465. http://www.ijese.net/makale_indir/IJESE_2057_article_5b5dbd2e3e2d4.pdf Lester, J. N., Cho, Y., & Lochmiller, C. R. (2020). Learning to Do Qualitative Data Analysis: A Starting Point. Human Resource Development Review, 19(1), 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484320903890 Levounis, P., & Yarbrough, E. (2020). Pocket Guide to LGBTQ Mental Health: Understanding the Spectrum of Gender and Sexuality: Vol. First edition. American Psychiatric Association Publishing. Li, X., Ding, A., Zheng, L., Anderson, B. C., Kong, L., Wu, A., & Xing, L. (2018). Relationship between design parameters and removal efficiency for constructed wetlands in China. Ecological Engineering, 123, 135–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.08.005 Li, Y., Wang, B., & Cui, M. (2022). Environmental Concern, Environmental Knowledge, and Residents’ Water Conservation Behavior: Evidence from China. Water, 14(13), Article 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14132087 López-Ruiz, S., Moya-Fernández, P. J., García-Rubio, M. A., & González-Gómez, F. (2021). Acceptance of direct potable water reuse for domestic purposes: Evidence from southern Spain. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 37(5), 772– 792. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2020.1799762 123 Ma, X. (Cissy), Xue, X., González-Mejía, A., Garland, J., & Cashdollar, J. (2015). Sustainable Water Systems for the City of Tomorrow—A Conceptual Framework. Sustainability, 7(9), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/su70912071 Makopondo, R. O. B., Rotich, L. K., & Kamau, C. G. (2020). Potential Use and Challenges of Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment and Conservation in Game Lodges and Resorts in Kenya. The Scientific World Journal, 2020, 9184192. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/9184192 Maloshonok, N., Vilkova ,Kseniia, & and Shcheglova, I. (2022). If I ignore it, maybe it will go away: How Russian engineering students perceive the gender inequality issue. European Journal of Engineering Education, 47(6), 1315–1334. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2023.2169107 Mamonov, S., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2020). Unlocking the smart home: Exploring key factors affecting the smart lock adoption intention. Information Technology & People, 34(2), 835–861. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-07-2019-0357 Manaf, S. M. A., Ismail, M. K. A., & Zakaria, S. (2023). Systematic Literature Review on Robo-Advisery Adoption towards Young People. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 8(SI15), Article SI15. https://doi.org/10.21834/ebpj.v8iSI15.5086 Marrero, L., Vanyo, K., Holmer, M., & Westphal, K. (2022). One Water Strategies Drive Water Reuse. Journal AWWA, 114(7), 71–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1964 Massoud, M. A., Kazarian, A., Alameddine, I., & Al-Hindi, M. (2018). Factors influencing the reuse of reclaimed water as a management option to augment water supplies. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 190(9), 531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-6905-y Maxwell, S. (2015). Market Outlook: One Water: The Need for More Holistic Thinking, Analysis, and Policymaking in Water on JSTOR. American Water Works Association, 107(3), 21–24. McFarlane, K., & Harris, L. M. (2018). Small systems, big challenges: Review of small drinking water system governance. Environmental Reviews, 26(4), 378–395. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2018-0033 Meehan, K., Jepson, W., Harris, L. M., Wutich, A., Beresford, M., Fencl, A., London, J., Pierce, G., Radonic, L., Wells, C., Wilson, N. J., Adams, E. A., Arsenault, R., Brewis, A., Harrington, V., Lambrinidou, Y., McGregor, D., Patrick, R., Pauli, B., … Young, S. (2020). Exposing the myths of household water insecurity in the global north: A critical review. WIREs Water, 7(6), 20. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1486 Mei, B., & Brown, G. T. L. (2018). Conducting Online Surveys in China. Social Science Computer Review, 36(6), 721–734. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439317729340 Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation: Vol. Fourth edition. Jossey-Bass. 124 Michelsen, C. C., & Madlener, R. (2017). Homeowner satisfaction with low-carbon heating technologies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 141, 1286–1292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.191 Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (2010). Exploratory Case Study. In Encyclopedia of Case Study Research (pp. 372–373). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412957397 Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. (2024). Snow Conditions and Water Supply Bulletin—Province of British Columbia [Provincial]. British Columbia; Province of British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-landwater/water/drought-flooding-dikes-dams/river-forecast-centre/snow-survey-watersupply-bulletin Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, V. (2000). Age Differences in Technology Adoption Decisions: Implications for a Changing Work Force. Personnel Psychology, 53(2), 375–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00206.x Mousa, A. H., Aljshamee, M., Mohammed, A. H., Mousa, S. H., Mousa, S. H., & Obaid, H. A. (2020). A systematic literature review: Measuring user acceptance models in elearning adopted in higher education institutes. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2290(1), 040021. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0027409 Murillo-Licea, D., Romero-Pérez, R., López-Ramírez, E., Murillo-Licea, D., Romero-Pérez, R., & López-Ramírez, E. (2019). La adopción social de tecnologías apropiadas en Chitejé de Garabato, Querétaro, México; un estudio exploratorio. Tecnología y ciencias del agua, 10(2), 35–77. https://doi.org/10.24850/j-tyca-2019-02-02 Muzioreva, H., Gumbo, T., Kavishe, N., Moyo, T., & Musonda, I. (2022). Decentralized wastewater system practices in developing countries: A systematic review. Utilities Policy, 79, 101442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2022.101442 Nikou, S. (2019). Factors driving the adoption of smart home technology: An empirical assessment. Telematics and Informatics, 45, 101283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.101283 OECD. (2018). Policy-Paper-Financing-Water-Investing-in-Sustainable-Growth.pdf. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/water/Policy-Paper-Financing-Water-Investing-in-SustainableGrowth.pdf O’Reilly, M., & Kiyimba, N. (2015). Sage Research Methods - Advanced Qualitative Research: A Guide to Using Theory - Theoretical issues in the qualitative paradigm. SAGE Publications, Ltd. https://methods.sagepub.com/book/mono/advancedqualitative-research/chpt/one-theoretical-issues-the-qualitativeparadigm?term=constructivism Parker, M., Spennemann, D. H. R., & Bond, J. (2024). Sensory and multisensory perception—Perspectives toward defining multisensory experience and heritage. Journal of Sensory Studies, 39(4), e12940. https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12940 125 Peña, M., & de les Valls, E. M. (2024). Inclusion of the gender equality sustainable development goal in engineering teaching and research. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26(10), 25007–25025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-036672 Piratla, K. R., & Goverdhanam, S. (2015). Decentralized Water Systems for Sustainable and Reliable Supply. Procedia Engineering, 118, 720–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.08.506 Pokhrel, S. R. (2019). Performance assessment of small water systems in British Columbia [University of British Columbia]. https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0378400 Pokhrel, S. R., Chhipi-Shrestha, G., Hewage, K., & Sadiq, R. (2022). Sustainable, resilient, and reliable urban water systems: Making the case for a ‘one water’ approach. Environmental Reviews, 30(1), 10–29. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2020-0090 Quadlin, N., & Doan, L. (2018). SEX-TYPED CHORES AND THE CITY: Gender, Urbanicity, and Housework. Gender and Society, 32(6), 789–813. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26597112 Recha, C. W., Mukopi, M. N., & Otieno, J. O. (2015). Socio-Economic Determinants of Adoption of Rainwater Harvesting and Conservation Techniques in Semi-Arid Tharaka Sub-County, Kenya. Land Degradation & Development, 26(7), 765–773. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2326 Ross, P. T., & Bibler Zaidi, N. L. (2019). Limited by our limitations. Perspectives on Medical Education, 8(4), 261–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-00530-x Sahana, M., Ravetz, J., Patel, P. P., Dadashpoor, H., & Follmann, A. (2023). Where Is the Peri-Urban? A Systematic Review of Peri-Urban Research and Approaches for Its Identification and Demarcation Worldwide. Remote Sensing, 15(5), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15051316 Sandelowski, M. (2000). Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Sampling, Data Collection, and Analysis Techniques in Mixed-Method Studies. Research in Nursing & Health, 23(3), 246–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-240X(200006)23:3<246::AIDNUR9>3.0.CO;2-H Schelbert, V., Kriwanek, L., Sakthivel, S. R., Kristoferitsch, L., Gründl, H., & Lüthi, C. (2024). How Women and Men Pee: Assessing Gender-Specific Urination Practices for a Comfortable Toilet Experience. Ergonomics in Design, 32(1), 5–12. https://doiorg.prxy.lib.unbc.ca/10.1177/10648046211044008 Sewerage System Regulation, Pub. L. No. B.C. Reg. 326/2004 (2005). https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/326_2004/ Sha, C., Shen, S., Zhang, J., Zhou, C., Lu, X., & Zhang, H. (2024). A Review of Strategies and Technologies for Sustainable Decentralized Wastewater Treatment. Water, 16(20), Article 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16203003 126 Shanmugavel, N., & Rajendran, R. (2022). Adoption of Rainwater Harvesting: A Dual-factor Approach by Integrating Theory of Planned Behaviour and Norm Activation Model. Water Resources Management, 36(8), 2827–2845. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269022-03179-0 Sharma, R., & Mishra, R. (2014, December 25). A Review of Evolution of Theories and Models of Technology Adoption. Indore Management Journal, 6(2), 17–29. https://www.iimidr.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/Volume6Issue2.pdf#page=21 Shin, D. W., & McCann, L. (2018). Analyzing differences among non-adopters of residential stormwater management practices. Landscape and Urban Planning, 178, 238–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.06.003 Siva Durga Prasad Nayak, M., & Narayan, K. A. (2019). Strengths and Weakness of Online Surveys. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 24(5), 31–38. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-2405053138 Sovacool, B. K., Iskandarova, M., & Hall, J. (2023). Industrializing theories: A thematic analysis of conceptual frameworks and typologies for industrial sociotechnical change in a low-carbon future. Energy Research & Social Science, 97, 102954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.102954 Statistics Canada. (2020, February 19). Family Matters: Splitting household tasks: Who does what? Government of Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-627-m/11627-m2020016-eng.htm Statistics Canada. (2021a). Focus on Geography Series, 2021 Census—Prince George (Census subdivision). Government of Canada. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/censusrecensement/2021/as-sa/fogsspg/page.cfm?lang=E&topic=1&dguid=2021A00055953023 Statistics Canada. (2021b, November 17). Dictionary, Census of Population, 2021—Table 1.13 Population centre size class values by province and territory, 2021 Census. Government of Canada. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/censusrecensement/2021/ref/dict/tab/index-eng.cfm?ID=T1_13 Statistics Canada. (2025a). Labour force characteristics by province, monthly, seasonally adjusted. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410028703 Statistics Canada. (2025b). Table 17-10-0009-01 Population estimates, quarterly. https://doi.org/10.25318/1710000901-eng Statistics Canada, S. C. (2023, March 20). Portrait of Women by the Relative Remoteness of their Communities, Series 4: Labour Characteristics. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/45-20-0002/452000022023001eng.htm?utm_source=chatgpt.com Sutherland, C., Reynaert, E., Dhlamini, S., Magwaza, F., Lienert, J., Riechmann, M. E., Buthelezi, S., Khumalo, D., Morgenroth, E., Udert, K. M., & Sindall, R. C. (2021). Socio-technical analysis of a sanitation innovation in a peri-urban household in Durban, South Africa. Science of The Total Environment, 755, 143284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143284 127 Takahashi, A. R. W., & Araujo, L. (2019). Case study research: Opening up research opportunities. RAUSP Management Journal, 55(1), 100–111. https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-05-2019-0109 Tenny, S., Brannan, J. M., & Brannan, G. D. (2024). Qualitative Study. In StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470395/ Turner, S. F., Cardinal, L. B., & Burton, R. M. (2017). Research Design for Mixed Methods: A Triangulation-based Framework and Roadmap. Organizational Research Methods, 20(2), 243–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115610808 Ullah, N., Mugahed Al-rahmi, W., & Alkhalifah, A. (2021). Predictors for Distributed Ledger Technology Adoption: Integrating Three Traditional Adoption Theories for Manufacturing and Service Operations. Production & Manufacturing Research, 9(1), 178–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/21693277.2021.1976963 United Nations. (2023). Take Action for the Sustainable Development Goals. United Nations Sustainable Development. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainabledevelopment-goals/ Vila-Tojo, S., Gómez-Román, C., & Sabucedo, J.-M. (2024). The role of information and participation in overcoming users’ initial reluctance: A case study of a decentralized wastewater treatment plant. Frontiers in Psychology, 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1445320 Wester, J., Timpano, K. R., Çek, D., Lieberman, D., Fieldstone, S. C., & Broad, K. (2015). Psychological and social factors associated with wastewater reuse emotional discomfort. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.01.003 Williams, M., & Moser, T. (2019). The Art of Coding and Thematic Exploration in Qualitative Research. International Management Review. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Art-of-Coding-and-ThematicExploration-in-Williams-Moser/c0a0c26ac41cb8beb337834e6c1e2f35b91d071d Wu, M.-J., Zhao, K., & Fils-Aime, F. (2022). Response rates of online surveys in published research: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 7, 100206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100206 Wutich, A., Jepson, W. E., Stoler, J., Thomson, P., Kooy, M., Brewis, A., Staddon, C., & Meehan, K. (2021). A Global Agenda for Household Water Security: Measurement, Monitoring, and Management. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 57(4), 530–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12926 Xu, Z., Ge, Z., Wang, X., & Skare, M. (2021). Bibliometric analysis of technology adoption literature published from 1997 to 2020. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 170, 120896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120896 Yates, M. V. (2011). On-Site Wastewater Treatment. In J. O. Nriagu (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Environmental Health (pp. 256–263). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-44452272-6.00046-5 128 Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications, Ltd. Younis, O., & Davies, E. G. R. (2023). A quantification and analysis of historical sectoral and regional water withdrawals in Canada. Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue Canadienne Des Ressources Hydriques, 0(0), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/07011784.2023.2224295 Zdonek, I., Mularczyk, A., Turek, M., & Tokarski, S. (2023). Perception of Prosumer Photovoltaic Technology in Poland: Usability, Ease of Use, Attitudes, and Purchase Intentions. Energies, 16(12), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16124674 Zelezny, L. C., Poh-Pheng Chua, & Aldrich, C. (2000). Elaborating on Gender Differences in Environmentalism: Journal of Social Issues. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 443–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00177 129 Appendix A: Research ethics course certificate 130 Appendix B: Research ethics board letter of approval 131 Appendix C: Specialist information letter and consent form Information letter and Consent Form Specialists Survey Spring-Fall 2024 Study title: “Socio-technological adoption of decentralized water systems in Northern British Columbia informed by household gender roles” Who is conducting this study? Marianella Hernandez, B.Eng., MBA (master’s student) Natural Resources and Environmental Studies Program University of Northern British Columbia Prince George, BC V2N 4Z9 mhernande@unbc.ca 250-301-7436 Co-supervisor: Dr. Greg Halseth, MA, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences Faculty of Environment University of Northern British Columbia Prince George, BC V2N 4Z9 Greg.halseth@unbc.ca 250-960-5826 My name is Marianella Hernandez, and I am a graduate student in the Natural Resources and Environmental Studies program (NRES) at the University of Northern British Columbia. I am researching the factors that influence the adoption of decentralized water systems in households, paying special attention to any differences based on the gender of the household decision-maker. I am interested in hearing from specialists with experience implementing these systems in the Global North. This research is being conducted through UNBC as part of my Master’s degree. The study findings will be shared with the participants in an Executive Summary report and will be reported on scientific channels (e.g., conferences and manuscripts). Why are you being asked to take part in this study? You have been asked to participate in this study due to your previous or current work with decentralized water and sanitation projects. Your knowledge and experience can provide valuable perspectives on how decentralized water systems are adopted at the household level. Thank you for considering this request. 132 Your participation in this study is voluntary. If you choose to take part in it, you can skip questions you are uncomfortable answering, or you can stop at any time. To be able to participate in this survey, you must be at least 18 years of age. How will the study be conducted? If you agree to participate, this is how the study will be conducted: I will send you an invitation with instructions to complete a survey with around 25 questions on SurveyMonkey. Your time dedication to this study, including information reading, giving participation consent, and survey completion, will take around 45 minutes. Risks to participating in the project By answering this questionnaire, you will not be exposed to topics that you will not otherwise be exposed to in your regular work activities with decentralized systems. There are no “wrong or “right” answers, as I seek answers based on your experience. The questions in this survey were designed with the criteria of minimal risk. They focus on the variables that influence the adoption of decentralized systems in the household, with attention to gender. We do not consider that any questions could harm you. However, please get in touch with one of the researchers if you have any concerns. As a reminder, participation is voluntary. You can skip answering questions you do not feel comfortable with and quit this survey anytime. You can also withdraw from this study at any time up to October 31, 2024, and have your data withdrawn. What are the benefits of participating in this survey? - This study will contribute to a better understanding of the adoption of decentralized water systems with attention to gender. The community of specialists in decentralized water systems may benefit from lessons and information in the resulting Executive Summary report and any other academic publications. Anonymity and confidentiality Your anonymity will be protected. Any information that could reveal your identity will not be shared in any way. All data and information collected from this questionnaire will be securely stored on encrypted hard drives in locked offices at UNBC. Personal identifiers (age, location, etc.) will be stored separately from the data. Demographic information (such as age and gender) will be only used to describe the participant sample and will not be linked to individual surveys. Participants will not be identified by name in any study reports. The collected information will be kept for ten years to allow for the completion of my thesis, conference participation, and possible academic and public publications. After that period, it will be securely destroyed by deleting and destroying all files. Data collected in this questionnaire will only be accessible to the research team composed of Marianella Hernandez (Researcher), June-Garcia Becerra (Supervisor), and Greg Halseth (CoSupervisor). Data gathered from these interviews will be used in my thesis, written reports, 133 articles, community outreach, and oral presentations. Any hired assistants who do data entry will sign a research confidentiality agreement. SurveyMonkey will host the questionnaire, and all data on this platform will be stored exclusively in Canada. SurveyMonkey will not have access to, nor the right to share or distribute, any questionnaire data, including participant information, questions, and responses. All data will be deleted from the SurveyMonkey platform within three months after the survey concludes. Study Results The study findings will be shared with the participants in an Executive Summary report. The study results will be shared in my graduate thesis and might be used in teaching. These results could also be published in journal articles, media articles, and books. The project could also be presented at academic and professional conferences and other meetings. Compensation This is a student self-funded project, and no monetary or other compensation is offered for completing this survey. Contact for information about the study For questions about this survey, please contact me at mhernande@unbc.ca or 250-301-7406. If you have any questions for my Co-Supervisor, please contact Dr. Greg Halseth at Greg.halseth@unbc.ca or 250-960-5826 Contact for concerns or complaints You may contact the UNBC Office of Research at 250 960 6735 or by e-mail at reb@unbc.ca for any concerns or complaints about your rights as a research participant and your experience while participating in this study. Marianella Hernandez Master’s student - Natural Resources and Environmental Studies Program mhernande@unbc.ca 250-301-7436 134 Participant consent (copy) This is a copy of the participant consent form. You do not need to complete this document now. When you start the online survey using the provided link, you will be asked to answer the following three yes/no questions. Participation in this study is completely voluntary. You have the option to decline involvement. If you choose to participate, you can withdraw at any point until October 31st,2024, without providing a reason. If you do choose to withdraw, all information you have provided will be withdrawn from the study. Your responses will confirm your consent to participate and that you have received a copy of this consent form for your records. CONSENT I have read the details presented in the information letter/consent form about the study. YES NO I have been given the chance to ask questions about my participation in this project and to obtain any additional information I needed. YES NO I understand that if I choose to participate in this project, I can withdraw at any time until October 31st,2024. YES NO 135 Appendix D: User information letter and consent form Information letter and Consent Form Survey for Northern British Columbia users Spring-Fall 2024 Study title: “Socio-technological adoption of decentralized water systems in northern British Columbia informed by household gender roles” Who is conducting this study? Marianella Hernandez B.Eng., MBA (master’s student) Natural Resources and Environmental Studies Program University of Northern British Columbia Prince George, BC V2N 4Z9 mhernande@unbc.ca 250-301-7436 Co-supervisor: Dr. Greg Halseth, MA, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences Faculty of Environment University of Northern British Columbia Prince George, BC V2N 4Z9 Greg.halseth@unbc.ca 250-960-5826 My name is Marianella Hernandez, and I am a graduate student in the Natural Resources and Environmental Studies program (NRES) at the University of Northern British Columbia. I am researching what influences people to use water and wastewater systems that aren’t connected to the main grid. It also examines whether these influencing factors differ based on the user’s gender. I am interested in hearing from household users who have adopted or used these types of systems in northern British Columbia. This research is being conducted through UNBC as part of my Master’s degree. The study’s findings will be shared with participants in an Executive Summary report and will be reported in scientific channels (e.g., conferences and manuscripts). Why are you being asked to take part in this study? You have been asked to participate in this study due to your experience using off-grid or decentralized water systems in areas located out of Prince George City. Your knowledge and expertise can provide valuable perspectives on how decentralized water systems are adopted at the household level. Thank you for considering your participation in this research. Your participation in this study is voluntary. If you choose to take part in it, you can skip questions you are uncomfortable answering or you can stop at any time. To be able to participate in this survey, you must be at least 18 years of age. 136 How will the study be conducted? If you agree to participate, this is how the study will be conducted: I will send you an invitation with instructions to complete a survey with around 25 questions on SurveyMonkey. Your time dedication to this study, including information reading, giving participation consent, and survey completion, will take around 45 minutes. Risks to participating in the project By answering this questionnaire, you will not be exposed to topics you will not otherwise be exposed to in your regular day-to-day activities with off-grid or decentralized systems. There are no “wrong” or “right” answers, as I seek answers based on your experience. The questions in this survey were designed with the criteria of minimal risk. They focus on the factors that influence the adoption of decentralized systems in the household, with attention to gender. We do not consider that any questions could harm you. However, please contact one of the researchers if you have any concerns. As a reminder, participation is voluntary. You can skip answering questions you feel uncomfortable with and quit this survey anytime. You can also withdraw from this study at any time up to October 31st, 2024. What are the benefits of participating in this survey? - This study will contribute to a better understanding of the adoption of decentralized water systems with attention to gender. The community of northern BC decentralized water systems users may benefit from lessons and information in the resulting Executive Summary report. Anonymity and confidentiality Your anonymity will be protected. No names will be collected in this survey or used for reporting. Any information that could reveal your identity will not be shared in any way. All data and information collected from this questionnaire will be securely stored on encrypted hard drives in locked offices at UNBC. Personal identifiers (age, location, etc.) will be stored separately from the data. Demographic information (such as age and gender) will be only used to describe the participant sample and will not be linked to individual surveys. The collected information will be kept for ten years to allow for the completion of my thesis, conference participation, and possible academic and public publications. After that period, it will be securely destroyed by deleting and destroying all files. Data collected in this questionnaire will only be accessible to the research team composed of Marianella Hernandez (Researcher), June-Garcia Becerra (Supervisor), and Greg Halseth (CoSupervisor). Data gathered from these interviews will be used in my thesis, written reports, and articles, community outreach, and oral presentations. Any hired assistants who do data entry will sign a research confidentiality agreement. SurveyMonkey will host the questionnaire, and all data on this platform will be stored exclusively in Canada. SurveyMonkey will not have access to, nor the right to share or distribute, 137 any questionnaire data, including participant information, questions, and responses. All data will be deleted from the SurveyMonkey platform within three months after the survey concludes. Study Results The study findings will be shared with the participants in an Executive Summary report. The study results will be shared in my graduate thesis and might be used in teaching. These results could also be published in journal articles, media articles, and books. The project could also be presented at academic and professional conferences and other meetings. Compensation This is a student self-funded project, and no monetary or other compensation is offered for completing this survey. Contact for information about the study For questions about this survey, please contact me at mhernande@unbc.ca or 250-301-7406. If you have any questions for my Co-Supervisor, please contact Dr. Greg Halseth at greg.halseth@unbc.ca or 250-960-5826 Contact for concerns or complaints You may contact the UNBC Office of Research at 250 960 6735 or by e-mail at reb@unbc.ca for any concerns or complaints about your rights as a research participant and your experience while participating in this study. Marianella Hernandez Master’s student - Natural Resources and Environmental Studies Program mhernande@unbc.ca 250-301-7436 138 Participant consent (copy) This is a copy of the participant consent form. You do not need to complete this document now. When you start the online survey using the provided link, you will be asked to answer the following three yes/no questions. Participation in this study is completely voluntary. You have the option to decline involvement. If you choose to participate, you can withdraw at any point until October 31st, 2024, without providing a reason. If you do choose to withdraw, all information you have provided will be withdrawn from the study. Your responses will confirm your consent to participate and that you have received a copy of this consent form for your records. CONSENT I have read the details presented in the information letter/consent form about the study. YES NO I have been given the chance to ask questions about my participation in this project and to obtain any additional information I needed. YES NO I understand that if I choose to participate in this project, I can withdraw at any time until October 31st, 2024. YES NO 139 Appendix E: Specialist survey form Decentralized water systems Participation in this study is completely voluntary. You have the option to decline involvement. If you choose to participate, you can withdraw at any point until November 30th, 2024, without providing a reason. If you do choose to withdraw, all information you have provided will be withdrawn from the study. Your responses will confirm your consent to participate and that you have received a copy of this consent form for your records. 1. I have read the details presented in the information letter/consent form about the study. Yes No 2. I have been given the chance to ask questions about my participation in this project and to obtain any additional information I needed. Yes No 3. I understand that if I choose to participate in this project, I can withdraw at any time until November 30th, 2024. Yes No 140 Decentralized water systems - survey for specialists – Section I Decentralized water systems (DWS): Household or community-scale supply or treatment systems that complement or replace municipal water systems and serve up to 500 individuals. They involve collecting, treating greywater, and storing waste. Examples may include wells, septic systems, water filtration or purification systems, onsite wastewater treatment systems, rainwater collection, etc. Adoption: The choice to fully integrate technological innovations into the household dynamics for all the family members as the most favorable option. Factors: Elements that positively or negatively affect the DWS adoption may include education, skills, gender, age, wealth, urban or rural settlement size, attitudes, environmental concerns, risks, barriers, and sensorial responses. Decision-maker: The household member or community representative responsible for leading the DWS adoption for the house or the community. 4. On average, how many years of experience do you have in decentralized water system projects? One to five years Six to ten years More than ten years Other (please specify) 5. Please list the latest decentralized water technologies or systems implemented during your experience and the location where this project was held. You can use generic technology, project, or location descriptions if you prefer to keep the information private. For each system, please include the number of connections served by the system (for 141 community systems serving more than one household), Location (City or community), Country, and let us know if you are currently working on this project. Example: System's name/Number of connectios/Location/Currently working on this project? Constructed wetland/ 1/ British Columbia, Canada/ Yes System´s name/ number of connections (if this is a community project)/ Location/ current project System´s name/ Number of onnections (if this is a community project)/ Location/ current project System´s name/ Number of connections (if this is a community project) / Location/ current project Additional comments (optional) Decentralized water systems - survey for specialists – Section II Please answer the following questions based on your experience implementing decentralized water systems in households/communities. (Please review the glossary for definitions and examples of factors.) Consider that the decision maker is the family member or community representative leading the DWS implementation for the household or the community. Most of the questions require you to contrast DWS adoption among households or decisionmakers, reflecting on differences driven by gender. 6. Generally, do you consider that the adoption of decentralized water systems varies depending on the decision-maker's gender? Please support your answer. 142 Example: Strongly agree In my experience with purification systems, men tend to be more committed than women to adopting new decentralized technologies that improve water treatment. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Please write your comments here 7. Do you consider that the adoption of decentralized water systems varies depending on the implementation setting? (for example, urban, rural, and peri-urban areas). Please support your answer. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 143 Please write your comments here 8. Do you consider that the adoption of decentralized water systems varies depending on the decision maker’s age? Please support your answer. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Please write your comments here 9. Do decision-makers of similar ages lead DWS’s adoption differently depending on their gender? Please support your answer. Example: Disagree In my experience, decision-makers around the age of 40 have successfully adopted DWS, regardless of gender. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree 144 Disagree Strongly disagree Please write your comments here 10. Are sensorial perceptions (smell, taste, disgust) relevant determinants for DWS adoption in the household? Please support your answer. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Please write your comments here 11. Do sensorial perceptions impact DWS adoption differently among genders? Please support your answer. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 145 Please write your comments here 12. Does the decision maker’s education level or previous training impact the adoption of DWS? Please support your answer. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Please write your comments here 13. For decision-makers with similar education levels or previous training, does the adoption of DWS differ among genders? Please support your answer. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 146 Please write your comments here 14. Does the decision maker’s wealth, income, or socioeconomic level impact the DWS adoption? Please support your answer. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Please write your comments here 15. For household decision-makers with similar wealth, income, or socioeconomic level, does the adoption of DWS differ among genders? Please support your answer. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Please write your comments here 147 16. Does the household decision-maker’s attitude towards a DWS implementation influence the adoption of DWS? Please support your answer. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Please write your comments here 17. Does the attitude towards DWS adoption differ among household decision-makers genders? Please support your answer. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Please write your comments here 18. Does the household decision-maker's environmental concern influence the adoption of DWS? Please support your answer. 148 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Please write your comments here 19. Does environmental concern differ among household decision-makers of different genders while implementing DWS? Please support your answer. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Please write your comments here 20. Please list factors that you consider key to impacting DWS adoption. You may use those used in the previous questions* or develop additional ones, such as risks or barriers you identified. You may rank them. Please describe how they impact the adoption. If not mentioned before, please explain how these factors differ or do not differ among household decision-makers genders. *Previously mentioned factors are gender, household setting, age, sensorial perceptions, education, 149 wealth, attitude, and environmental concern. Example: Factor / How does this factor impact the adoption? / does this factor differ depending on the decision maker’s gender? Maintenance costs / higher costs, lower adoption / Yes: In my experience, maintenance costs are more relevant to women, as they tend to be more able to afiord them Factor 1 / how does it impact the adoption/ does it differ depending on the decision's maker gender? Factor 2 / how does it impact the adoption/ does it differ depending on the decision's maker gender? Factor 3/ how does it impact the adoption/ does it differ depending on the decision's maker gender? Factor 4/ how does it impact the adoption/ does it differ depending on the decision's maker gender? Additional comments(optional) Decentralized water systems - survey for specialists: Section III 21. What is your age 19-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 150 65-74 75 and over Prefer not to answer 22. Select your gender Man Woman Prefer not to answer Self identified as: 23. What is your current location and country of residence: Location (city, province, or community): Country 24. What is your affiliation: Academia (Researcher, Professor, other) Nonprofit (Activist, NGO, other) Private sector (Industry, Consultancy, Industry Association, other) Other (please specify) 25. In this section, please add any comments about potential gender differences in adopting DWS that were not covered in the questions above. 151 Thank you for your time and commitment in answering this survey. Your answers will contribute to a better understanding of the adoption of decentralized water systems with attention to gender in northern British Columbia. After completing this survey, it will be analyzed with other participants' answers. An Executive Summary report with the study results will be sent to you after the analysis (2-3 months period). If you have any questions or concerns about this survey or the study, you can contact me at mhernande@unbc.ca or 250-301-7406. 152 Appendix F: Users survey form Participation in this study is completely voluntary. You have the option to decline involvement. If you choose to participate, you can withdraw at any point until October 31st, 2024, without providing a reason. If you do choose to withdraw, all information you have provided will be withdrawn from the study. Your responses and signature (or an email instead of a signature) will confirm your consent to participate and that you have received a copy of this consent form for your records. 1. I have read the details presented in the information letter/consent form about the study. Yes No 2. I have been given the chance to ask questions about my participation in this project and to obtain any additional information I needed. Yes No 3 I understand that if I choose to participate in this project, I can withdraw at any time until October 31st, 2024. Yes No Decentralized water systems (DWS): Small-scale water or treatment systems for homes or communities that either work alongside or replace city water systems and can serve up to 500 people. These systems could involve collecting, treating, and storing water and 153 wastewater. Examples may include wells, septic systems, water filtration or purification systems, onsite wastewater treatment systems, rainwater collection, etc. Adoption: : The decision by all family members to completely adopt new technology in the home as the best choice. Factors: Elements that affect the adoption of DWS may include education, skills, gender, age, wealth, whether people live in cities or the countryside, attitudes, environmental concerns, risks, and sensorial responses or how people react to things like smell or taste. Users: Household members that adopt/use the DWS Gender: A person’s identity as a man, woman, or non-binary person (a person who is not just a man or a woman). 4. On average, how long have you been living in your current property? Less than one year One to five years Six to ten years More than ten years 5. On average, for how long have you used decentralized water systems on your property? Less than one year One to five years Six to ten years More than ten years 6. Please list the decentralized water technologies or systems you use on your property. Example: 154 Rainwater collection / Gardening / 5 years System's name/ Objective / Years of operation System's name/ Objective / Years of operation System's name/ Objective / Years of operation Additional comments 7. What is your age 19-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75 and over Prefer not to answer 8. Select your gender Man Woman Prefer not to answer Self identified as: 155 9. What is your educational level? No certificate, diploma, or degree High school diploma or equivalency certificate Apprenticeship or trades certificate or diploma College, CEGEP, or other non-university certificate or diploma and University certificate or diploma below a bachelor’s degree Bachelor’s degree or higher Prefer not to answer Other (please specify) 10. What is your marital status? Married or living with a common-law partner Not married and not living with a common-law partner Prefer not to answer 11. Number of children in household and ages No children One child Two children Three or more children Prefer not to answer 156 Please insert the children's ages here. Additional household members related to you. Please provide generic names such as “Partner, son, daughter, etc.” and their age range. Sister, 30 Member 1, age Member 2, age Member 3, age Additional comments Example: 12. Which family member is usually responsible for the following household tasks? Please provide generic names such as “Partner, son, daughter, me, etc.”: Cleaning Laundry Cooking Gardening Childcare Additional comments 13. Which family member do you consider to be the decision-maker or person in charge of buying a decentralized water system in your household 14. Which family member do you consider to be the decision-maker or person in charge of 157 leading decentralized water system's adoption or use: 15. Which family member do you consider to be the decision-maker or person in charge of the maintenance of a decentralized water system: Please mark your preferred answer in the following statements according to your household members' experience adopting or using decentralized water systems. Most questions will ask you to explain, give examples, or reflect on the adoption process that the user’s gender could influence. 16. In my household, the gender of users has an influence on DWS adoption/use. Please support your answer. Example: Agree Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Please write your comments here 17. In my household, our wealth, income, or socioeconomic level has an influence on DWS adoption/use. Please support your answer. 158 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Please write your comments here 18. In my household, the users' age has an influence on DWS adoption/use. Please support your answer. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Please write your comments here 19. In my household, users of similar ages adopt/use DWS differently depending on their gender. Please support your answer Example: Agree committed to our rainwater collection system Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree 159 Strongly disagree Please write your comments here 20. In my household, our sensorial perceptions (smell, taste, disgust) have an influence on DWS adoption/use. Please support your answer Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Please write your comments here 21. In my household, our sensorial perceptions (smell, taste, disgust) impact DWS adoption/use differently depending on the user's gender. Example: Strongly agree partner to the smell of unpurified water. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 160 Please write your comments here 22. In my household, our level of education or training has an influence on DWS adoption/use. Please support your answer Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Please write your comments here 23. In my household, users with similar levels of education or training adopt/use DWS differently, depending on their gender. Example: • Disagree degrees, and we regularly check our septic Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 161 Please write your comments here 24. In my household, our attitude towards the adoption of a new DWS has influenced its adoption/use. Please support your answer. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Please write your comments here 25. In my household, the attitude towards the adoption of a new DWS differs among genders. Please support your answer. Example: Neither agree nor disagree My partner and I are equally committed to collection system because we both believe Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 162 Please write your comments here 26. In my household, our environmental concern influences DWS adoption/use. Environmental concerns could be air pollution, water pollution, garbage pollution, deforestation, climate change, etc. Please support your answer. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Please write your comments here 27. In my household, environmental concerns differ among household users of DWS of different genders. Please support your answer. Example: Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree 163 Strongly disagree Please write your comments here 28. Please use the spaces below to identify any ADDITIONAL FACTORS that you consider important to the adoption or use of DWS in your household. Please provide specific details for any factors that you consider are influenced by a user’s gender. Example: Cost / I consider that the cost of our filtration system influences its adoption or use / In my experience, the cost has been important for me but not for my female partner. Factor/ how does it impact the use or adoption/ does it differ depending on the user's gender? Factor/ how does it impact the use or adoption/ does it differ depending on the user's gender? Additional comments Thanks for participating Thank you for your time and commitment in answering this survey. Your answers will contribute to a better understanding of the adoption of decentralized water systems with attention to gender in northern British Columbia. After completing this survey, it will 164 be analyzed with other participants' answers. An Executive Summary report with the study results will be sent to you after the analysis (2-3 months period). If you have any questions or concerns about this survey or the study, you can contact me at mhernande@unbc.ca or 250-301-7406. 165