How Durham Canada Cut Water Use With Door-to-Door Student Ambassadors

Durham Region, Ontario Canada had a math problem. The population was growing at 3% annually with water consumption growing at 6% annually. 

Peak summer demand was straining treatment capacity, with lawn irrigation driving irrigation spikes. Durham sent student ambassadors door-to-door with rain gauges and commitment cards. 82% of homeowners signed on and water use dropped 32% compared to control neighborhoods.

The CBSM Approach

Community-Based Social Marketing identifies actual barriers to behavior change. What genuinely stops people from acting, not what they say they care about. Then it removes those specific obstacles: misconceptions, inconvenience, social pressure, habit.

Unlike education campaigns that assume information changes behavior, CBSM addresses the friction between intention and action.

What They Actually Did

The Student Ambassador Model

Durham created Water Efficient Durham in partnership with a local university, hiring summer students to go door-to-door in targeted neighborhoods. 

They chose areas with a history of high summer water use and students worked in pairs, making four visits per household over the summer season.

The student model worked for several reasons:

• Summer employment lined up with peak water use season. 
• University partnerships provided trained, enthusiastic workers at lower cost than professional staff. 
• Students came across as helpful, not pushy. 
• Pairs provided safety, credibility, and efficiency.

The Four-Touch Campaign

After testing different approaches, Durham settled on four visits per household in 2000.

Visit 1 – Introduction: Students introduced themselves and the program. They handed out two brochures: one about Durham Region’s Water Efficient Demonstration Garden, another covering general water-saving tips. This visit built the relationship.

Visit 2 – Tools and Goal: Students explained the main goal: water your lawn no more than 1 inch per week, including rain. They gave out rain gauges and brochures explaining how to measure.

Visit 3 – Reminders: Students left a water reminder tag for the outdoor faucet and the Household Guide to Water Efficiency, a 60-page book. The faucet tag gave homeowners a visual nudge right where they made the watering decision.

Visit 4 – Commitment: Students asked homeowners to sign a written promise to limit watering to 1 inch per week. Homeowners signed with students watching (not “conserve water” but a specific, measurable behavior).

The Measurement System

Durham used a clever measurement approach. They reduced water supply to one water main and installed a meter that logged every gallon flowing to homes. They tracked temperature and rainfall data to figure out which water came from irrigation versus rain.Then they compared their target area to similar neighborhoods where students didn’t visit.

Homeowners didn’t know they were being measured separately from regular billing. This prevented people from changing behavior just because they knew they were being watched.

The Results

82% of contacted homeowners signed commitments. Water use dropped 32% compared to control areas. That equated to 215 liters (55 gallons) less per household on peak days.

The program cost $45 per household in 2000, totaling roughly $58,000 for about 1,300 households. A cost benefit analysis from the city calculated that supplying that much water through infrastructure expansion would have cost $86 per household per day.

Follow-up monitoring in 2001 showed a problem. Durham measured the same areas the next summer without telling people. The 32% reduction stuck on weekends but not weekdays. Summer 2001 was much drier and hotter than 2000, which partly explained why weekday watering crept back up.

How to Replicate This

Use Students, Not Mailers or Volunteers. Personal contact creates accountability that postcards can’t match. Students are non-threatening, cost less than staff, and are available during peak water use season. University partnerships provide the workforce. Durham tried volunteers in 2001 and it failed. Recruiting volunteers took more work than having students do the outreach.

Build to the Ask With Four Visits. Don’t request commitment on first contact. Build relationship first (visit 1), give tools (visit 2), create reminders (visit 3), then get written commitment (visit 4). The sequence matters. One-visit campaigns get lower participation.

Give Physical Tools. Rain gauges let homeowners measure the 1 inch per week target. Faucet tags remind them at the moment of decision. Research shows written commitments work better than verbal ones, especially when someone witnesses the signing.

Budget Reality. $45 per household in 2000 for four visits. By 2002, improvements cut costs to $24 per household by having students knock on doors proactively and use Palm Pilots to eliminate paperwork time. Coverage almost tripled to 3,000 homes.

Plan for Persistence. Weekend behavior lasted better than weekday. Consider follow-up campaigns in later years or automated reminders during dry periods.

Your Next Step

Partner with a local university for summer students. Budget 2-4 students for 500-1,000 households over 8-10 weeks at $45-90 per household. Find your highest water use neighborhoods from billing data.

Calculate what supplying 55 gallons per household per peak day costs at capacity. That’s your ROI ceiling if you match Durham’s results. Set up baseline measurement and control areas before launching.

Sources and Methodology

This case study draws from research conducted by the Regional Municipality of Durham’s Water Efficient Durham program, detailed in Doug McKenzie-Mohr’s Community-Based Social Marketing case study database. Program results analysis appears in the UNC Environmental Finance Center’s 2016 overview of CBSM water conservation campaigns.

The 2000 campaign targeted approximately 1,300 households in Durham Region’s highest water-use neighborhoods during a 20-day peak summer period when water treatment facilities operated at or near capacity. The program was part of Durham’s broader Water Efficient Durham initiative, which had previously replaced 8,200 toilets with lower-flow versions.