Dear Editor,
We saw an increase in hostility occur in Vancouver over the last summer. The hostility began as water reservoir levels plummeted during the unusually dry season. This led to a divide between two types of people: those who conserve, and those who don’t. The reservoir, which provides purified drinking water for the region, reached a Stage 3 water restriction.
While most citizens of this beautiful city obliged to the new demands, there were those that chose to go against the grain.
However, it did not take long for a group of citizens to dedicate their efforts to expose the water thieves among us. It is at this point that we find ourselves in a little bit of a pickle, or otherwise known as a social dilemma. When a group has access to a public good it is up to that group to collectively monitor their own individual consumption so that there is enough of the good for everyone.
The group took to Facebook and created a page named “Grassholes”, the name by which they call the water restriction delinquents. The page invited Vancouverites to post pictures of the members of their communities that were engaging in Grasshole-like behaviour. These actions result in increased hostility, by both sides of the spectrum, as while as a greater divide between two groups of people that could preferably be united with the same goal.
Perhaps there is a better method of how to approach those who are cleaning with pressure washers, sporting lush green lawns, or exposing themselves as a Grasshole by the water stains around edges of fences, or sidewalks. Research has shown that those who do not comply in a social dilemma typically advocate for “pro-self” rather than “pro-social”.
But, we can’t blame them! After all, we do live in the western part of the world. Our societies are fundamentally geared towards working for ourselves, the individual, rather than working together to achieve a common goal, collectively.
We can use what a few experiments have taught us (as well as our parents, and teachers); communication is the key! Studies have shown that using face-to-face communication can significantly increase a person’s willingness to cooperate.
Instead of using distant, and hostile methods of trying to prevent our neighbours from watering their lawns, it could be much more effective to simply try to have a constructive conversation. The city could also use a different approach, such as having representative go door-to-door to provide information, or small-scale community information sessions.
Currently the procedure is to issue a fine up to $250. This can increase hostility, and decrease the likelihood that an individual will decide to stop watering their lawn. To increase the chance that all Vancouverites will adopt the attitude that conserving water is better, it is essential that we use a more effective method.
Shelby Lebel
Richmond
