Drinking  Water  Survey  Report   Environmental  Studies  Senior  Seminar   Nadine  Souto,  College  Committee  on  Sustainability   Vassar  College,  November  2010           Table  of  Contents   Introduction  and  Summary..........................................................................................2   Analysis  of  Survey  Results............................................................................................2   Drinking  Water  Sources:  Tap  vs.  Bottled  Water.........................................................2   Locations  and  Frequency  of  Use.................................................................................3   Concerns  with  Fountain  Water...................................................................................4   Perceptions  of  Drinking  Fountains..............................................................................4   Room  for  Improvement..............................................................................................5   Conclusion  and  Recommendations..............................................................................7   Appendix  1:  Complaints  about  Specific  Fountains.............................................................9   Appendix  2:  Praise  for  Specific  Fountains........................................................................10   Appendix  3:  Selected  Comments  by  Topic.......................................................................11 Introduction  and  Summary:   As  part  of  a  larger  project  to  promote  tap  water  at  Vassar,  the  Environmental  Studies  senior   seminar  created  an  eight-­‐question  survey  on  drinking  water.  The  purpose  of  the  survey  was  to   provide  data  on  tap  and  bottled  water  consumption,  drinking  fountain  usage  patterns  and   users’  perceptions  of  drinking  fountains  at  Vassar.    A  URL  link  to  the  survey  was  sent  out  by  the   president  of  the  Vassar  Students’  Association  in  an  email  to  students  on  November  1st.  The   opportunity  to  win  a  gift  card  for  use  at  a  local  restaurant  provided  an  extra  incentive  for   participation.  By  the  end  of  the  week,  a  total  of  859  surveys  had  been  completed.     The  survey  showed  that  students  have  varying  perceptions  of  drinking  fountains  at  Vassar.  This   is  partly  due  to  the  fact  that  drinking  fountains  themselves  vary  greatly  in  design  and  quality.   Regardless,   the   survey   did   provide   valuable   information   on   students’   specific   needs   and   priorities  with  regard  to  drinking  fountains.  Prominent  among  them  are  the  need  for  increased   flow,  better  taste,  refrigeration  and  more  drinking  fountains  in  convenient  locations.  The  last   section  of  the  report  includes  a  list  of  recommendations  to  be  taken  into  consideration  by  the   Department   of   Buildings   and   Grounds,   Dining   Services   and   the   College   Committee   on   Sustainability.     Analysis  of  Survey  Results     Drinking  Water  Sources:  Tap  vs.  Bottled  Water     The  first  question  on  the  survey  asked  where  respondents  typically  get  their  drinking  water.  The   majority   of   respondents   (69.1%)   reported   drinking   from   water   fountains   (including   the   dispenser  at  ACDC),  while  only  27.3%  drank  bottled  water  (from  various  sources).  Meanwhile,   74.8%  reported  drinking  from  a  bathroom  sink  (both  with  and  without  filter).  Respondents   were  allowed  to  choose  more  than  one  option,  which  explains  why  the  percentages  add  up  to   more  than  100.       These  numbers  show  that  the  majority  of  respondents  (579  in  total)  are  drinking  fountain  users,   which  means  that  they  are  familiar  with  drinking  fountains  on  campus.  Most  importantly,  it   means  that  any  recommendations  and  subsequent  improvements  that  arise  from  this  survey   will  be  informed  by  the  true  needs  and  concerns  of  drinking  fountain  users.       The  fact  that  228  respondents  are  drinkers  of  bottled  water  means  that  these  results  can  also   yield  important  data  on  students’  reasons  for  choosing  bottled  water  instead  or  in  addition  to   tap  water.       Of  the  64  respondents  who  chose  ‘other’  as  a  source  of  drinking  water,  29  reported  drinking   from  a  kitchen  (not  bathroom)  sink  in  their  dorm  or  senior  apartment.  Four  of  them  specified   that  they  boil  or  filter  the  water  before  drinking.       2 Chart  1:  Drinking  water  sources         Question  number  three  addressed  students’  motivations  for  drinking  bottled  water.  77.9%  of   respondents  answered  ‘N/A’,  which  suggests  that  they  are  not  consumers  of  bottled  water.     Otherwise,  ‘convenience’  was  the  reason  most  often  cited  for  drinking  bottled  water  (15.3%  of   total  responses),  followed  by  ‘water  quality’  (11.7%)  and  ‘cleanliness’  (10.4%).  ‘Temperature’   was  the  least  common  response  (3.6%).  Out  of  the  19  respondents  who  chose  ‘other’,  six  cited   ‘taste’  as  their  main  reason.       Locations  and  Frequency  of  Use     Question   six   listed   all   the   different   types   of   locations   on   Vassar’s   campus   and   asked   respondents   to   identify   the   frequency   with   which   they   used   drinking   fountains   in   these   locations.  54.8%  of  respondents  reported  making  frequent  use  of  drinking  fountains  in  dorms   (see  table  1).  The  dorm  is  also  the  location  from  which  the  most  respondents  (34.2%)  reported   drinking  ‘multiple  times  a  day’.  Academic  Buildings  are  the  second  most  frequently  used  source   of  drinking  water.                   3 Table  1:  Percentage  of  users  making  ‘frequent  use’  of  drinking  fountains  by  location       Frequent  Use*   Dorm   54.8   Academic    Building   54   ACDC   44.6   Gym   43.4   College  Center   41.1   Library   36.4   *defined  by  author  as  sum  of  percentages  for  responses  ‘several  times  a  day’,  ‘once  a  day’  and  ‘once  every  few   days’       Concerns  with  Fountain  Water     Question  four  asked  about  sources  of  concern  with  regard  to  fountain  water.  Respondents   could   choose   from   four   categories   ‘cloudiness’,   ‘metals’,   ‘bacteria’   and   ‘byproducts   of   chlorination’.  ‘Metals’  was  the  category  with  the  most  affirmative  responses  (37.5%),  while   ‘bacteria’  had  the  least  (32%).  This  is  interesting  when  contrasted  with  open  responses  later  on,   among  which  can  be  found  more  concerns  with  cleanliness  than  with  metals.       More   than   half   of   all   respondents   (51.9%)   answered   ‘no’   to   concerns   about   ‘cloudiness’.   ‘Byproducts  of  chlorination’  was  the  issue  respondents  were  least  concerned  about  (41.1%   answered  ‘no’),  though  it  is  important  to  also  take  into  account  that  26.3%  of  respondents   answered   ‘I   don’t   know’   with   regard   to   this   issue.   In   general,   the   rate   of   ‘I   don’t   know’   responses  fluctuated  between  12.9%  (‘cloudiness’)  and  26.3%  (‘byproducts  of  chlorination’),   which  suggests  that  there  might  be  a  need  for  more  research  and  education  efforts  on  the  issue   of  Vassar  water.     Perceptions  of  Drinking  Fountains     In  question  five,  respondents  were  asked  to  rate  their  perception  of  different  aspects  of  Vassar   drinking  fountain  water  on  a  scale  of  1  to  5.    For  the  purpose  of  this  analysis,  options  1  and  2   have  been  grouped  together  to  signify  a  ‘bad’  perception,  while  4  and  5  have  been  grouped  to   suggest   a   ‘good’   perception.   Option   3   stands   alone   to   represent   a   neutral   perception   of   fountain  water.     Table  2:  Perceptions  of  fountain  water  by  category  in  percentages       Bad  (1/2)   Neutral  (3)   Good  (4/5)   Cleanliness   21.7   36.7   42.8   Temperature   20.0   31.5   49.3   Flow   25.1   32.1   44.1   Location*   33.2   29.7   39.8   *defined  in  survey  as  “easy  to  find  and  well  located”       4 The  category  respondents  had  the  worst  perception  of  was  ‘location’  (33.2%),  followed  by   ‘flow’  (25.1).  Conversely,  almost  half  (49.1%)  of  students  seemed  content  with  ‘temperature’.   The  category  most  rated  ‘neutral’,  meanwhile,  was  ‘cleanliness’.       Room  for  Improvement     Question  7  asked  respondents  to  indicate  what  aspects  of  drinking  fountains  can  be  improved.   51.3%  of  respondents  believe  that  cleanliness  could  be  improved,  while  50.1%  said  the  same   for  filtering.           Chart  2:  Areas  of  improvement  by  number  of  respondents       Eighty  respondents  also  selected  the  option  ‘other’  and  added  their  own  ideas  for  improvement   (see  table  3).  Prominent  among  them  is  the  desire  for  better  flow  (28  mentions),  as  well  as  the   need  for  drinking  fountains  in  Joss  (10),  better  taste  (10)  and  cleanliness  (10).     Table  3:  Ideas  for  improvement  by  frequency       Frequency     Improve  flow   28       Put  drinking  fountains  in  Joss   10     Better  taste   10     Improve  cleanliness   10     More  drinking  fountains   8     Install/Repair  cooling  systems   4     Make  water  less  cold   3     Install  bottle  spouts   2     5 The  last  question  asked  for  additional  comments.  Many  respondents  took  the  opportunity  to   express  their  most  urgent  concerns  here,  as  well  as  suggest  ideas  for  improvement.  Table  4   shows  these  comments  and  ideas  by  frequency.  Respondents  also  used  this  space  to  comment   on  specific  drinking  fountains,  whether  to  report  a  problem  or  express  their  satisfaction.  These   can  be  found  in  Appendixes  1  and  2.       The  most  common  request  here  was  for  drinking  fountains  to  be  installed  in  Joss  (27),  followed   by  a  call  for  free  drinking  water  to  be  made  available  in  the  Retreat  again  (16).  The  general   concern  about  insufficient  flow  and  cooling  also  figured  prominently  here.  And  although  only   one  person  asked  explicitly  for  filtering  systems  to  be  installed,  11  respondents  complained   about  “bad  taste”,  an  issue  that  could  be  dealt  with  through  filtration.     There  was  some  contradiction  with  regard  to  temperature.  13  respondents  complained  that   water  from  drinking  fountains  is  not  cold  enough,  while  7  others  believed  that  the  water  is   sometimes  too  cold.       Interesting  suggestions  arose  from  this  section,  such  as  the  possibility  of  installing  spouts  for   refilling   water   bottles   (5   mentions   altogether).   Appendix   3   lists   a   selection   of   comments   expressing  frequent  concerns  and  interesting  suggestions.       It  is  possible  that  there  is  some  overlap  between  the  concerns  voiced  in  the  last  question  and   those   articulated   in   the   comments   section   of   question   7.   Taken   together,   however,   both   sections  provide  a  general  idea  of  the  most  pressing  issues  to  be  addressed.     Table  4:  Concerns  and  ideas  by  frequency       Frequency   Put  fountains  in  Joss   27   Bring  back  dispenser  /  fix  faucet  at   Retreat   16   Insufficient  flow   14   Not  cold  enough   13   Bad  taste   11   Fountains  not  clean   7   Water  too  cold   7   Not  enough  fountains   5   More  fountains  in  Davison   4   Better  location/accessibility   3   Install  bottle  spouts   3               6 Conclusion  and  Recommendations     The   above   analysis   shows   that   students   at   Vassar   have   varying   perceptions   of   drinking   fountains  on  campus.  This  has  to  do  with  the  fact  that  respondents  have  different  standards   and  needs,  as  well  as  the  fact  that  Vassar  water  fountains  themselves  vary  greatly  in  design  and   quality.  Some  of  them  have  cooling  systems,  while  others  do  not.  Some  of  them  are  more  likely   to  be  clean  than  others.  Likewise,  some  are  easily  accessible  and  well-­‐located,  but  not  all  of   them  are.  The  purpose  of  this  survey  was  to  give  us  an  idea  of  students’  priorities  and  needs   when   it   comes   to   drinking   fountains   so   that   we   can   focus   our   efforts   and   resources   on   addressing  those  first.  It  certainly  has  been  helpful  in  that  respect.     Below  is  a  list  of  recommendations  to  ensure  that  students’  concerns  with  regard  to  drinking   fountains  are  addressed.     For  the  Department  of  Buildings  and  Grounds:      Take  note  of  specific  comments  in  Appendixes  1  and  2.  Substandard  drinking  fountains   should   be   improved   upon.   Good   fountains   should   be   taken   as   examples   of   ‘best   practices’  to  be  extended  to  drinking  fountains  elsewhere.    Specifically  address  the  issue  of  insufficient  flow  which  is  prevalent  all  over  campus.    Revise  cleaning  schedules  to  ensure  that  drinking  fountains  are  sanitized  regularly.    Consider  placing  maps  specifying  the  location  of  drinking  fountains  in  each  building.    Inform  students  about  what  steps  to  take  when  a  drinking  fountain  is  damaged  or   deficient.  This  can  be  accomplished  through  any  of  the  following  strategies:   • Signs  next  to  drinking  fountains   • All-­‐campus  emails   • Contacting  house  teams    Maintain  as  many  cooling  systems  as  possible.    Consider  adding  drinking  fountains  in  Joss  and  Davison.    Ensure  that  future  building  renovation  plans  include  drinking  fountains  (at  least  one  per   floor)  in  prominent  locations.    Consider   installing   filters   in   select   drinking   fountains   in   order   to   address   concerns   involving  taste  and  water  quality.    Consider  additional  improvements  to  facilitate  the  refilling  of  reusable  water  bottles  (i.e.   refill  spouts,  Brita  filters  in  sinks).     For  Dining  Services:      Assess  the  possibility  of  reinstalling  the  water  spigot  in  the  Retreat  to  allow  easier   access  to  cold,  tasty  drinking  water  and  discourage  bottled  water  consumption.     For  the  College  Committee  on  Sustainability:      Continue  to  monitor  the  quality  of  tap  water  at  Vassar.     7  Make  information  on  water  quality  available  to  the  college  community  through  any  or   all  of  the  following  strategies:   • Miscellany  News  articles   • All-­‐campus  emails   • Tabling   • Forums     8 Appendix  1:    Complaints  about  specific  fountains   Location  (Building,  floor)   Problem   Frequency               Residential  Houses           Jewett  (basement)   doesn't  work,  hard  to  find       Strong  (basement)   doesn't  work       Strong  (1)   insufficient  flow,  bad  taste   2   Strong  (3  south)   tastes  like  rubber   2   Main  (3  south)   insufficient  flow       Main  (4  north)   unspecfied       Main  (4  center)   lukewarm,  bad  taste       Noyes  (3)   not  cold  enough       Noyes  (4)   tastes  like  chlorine       Cushing  (2  west)   insufficient  flow       Lathrop  (1)   in  a  dusty,  cobwebby  corner       unfiltered,  no  refrigeration,  taps  direct   Lathrop  (2  north)   into  the  piping   3   Lathrop  (4)   broken       Lathrop  general   dirty   3   Raymond  (general)   unspecified   3               Academic  Buildings           Chicago  Hall  (basement)   doesn't  work   3   New  England  (1st  foor)   bad  taste       hard  to  find,  dirty  ,  insufficient  flow,   Rockefeller  Hall   unfiltered,  warm   11   Kenyon  Hall  (2nd  floor  across   bathrooms)   bad  taste       Kenyon  Hall  (dance  studios)   not  cold  enough       Kenyon  Hall  (near  volleyball  courts)   insufficent  flow       Center  for  Drama  and  Film  (3)   insufficent  flow   4   Old  Laundry  Building     warm       Olmsted  Hall  (3)   insufficent  flow       Library  (1)   bad  taste       Skinner  Hall  (in  front  of  music   library)   bad  taste,  insufficient  flow,  warm       Taylor  Hall  (2)     broken                   Other           Athletic  and  Fitness  Center  (by  the   track)   needs  maintenance       Walker  Field  House  (pool)   dirty   2     9 Appendix  2:  Praise  for  specific  fountains   Location  (Building,  floor)   Attribute   Frequency   Lathrop  (3)   cold       College  Center  (Retreat)   clean,  good  taste   3   Noyes  (3)   cold,  crisp       Athletic  and  Fitness  Center  (gym)   clean,  works  well,  good  taste,  accessible,  cold   7   Skinner  Hall   unspecified       Walker  Field  House   unspecified       ACDC   taste   3   Jewett  general   temperature   5   Sanders  Pysics   unspecified           10