Warner Research

The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension
Competence for Rural Innovation and Transformation
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raee20
Amplifying the Theory of Planned behavior with

connectedness to water to inform impactful water
conservation program planning and evaluation
Laura A. Warner & John M. Diaz
To cite this article: Laura A. Warner & John M. Diaz (2020): Amplifying the Theory of
Planned behavior with connectedness to water to inform impactful water conservation
program planning and evaluation, The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, DOI:
10.1080/1389224X.2020.1844771
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2020.1844771
Published online: 17 Nov 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 15
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=raee20
THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2020.1844771
Amplifying the Theory of Planned behavior with

connectedness to water to inform impactful water
conservation program planning and evaluation
a b
Laura A. Warner and John M. Diaz
a
Department of Agricultural Education and Communication, Center for Land Use Efficiency, University of
Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA; bDepartment of Agricultural Education and Communication, Gulf Coast
Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Plant City, FL, USA
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Purpose: The purpose was to examine whether connectedness to Received 23 June 2020
water could improve the predictive power of the Theory of Accepted 13 October 2020
Planned Behavior on outdoor water conservation intentions.
KEYWORDS
Methodology: We adapted the well-established Connectedness to Behavioral intention;
Nature Scale to measure connectedness to water. Using connectedness to nature;
quantitative survey data from 3,596 residents, we used multiple connectedness to water;
regression to examine relationships between the connectedness Theory of Planned behavior;
to water construct and Theory of Planned Behavior variables. water conservation
Findings: Connectedness to water increased the predictive power
of the Theory of Planned Behavior and importantly, exceeded the
predictive power of any of the theory’s individual variables.
Practical Implications: An improved understanding of factors
relate to water conservation intentions provides new insight into
outdoor water use. Connectedness to water may support
engagement in many environmentally responsible behaviors. This
construct represents a potential impact for water conservation
programs in household and agricultural contexts, and potential
evaluation tool. Program planners and evaluators may use the
new scale a valuable tool for developing reasonable activities and
objectives as well as evaluating outcomes of water conservation
education programs.
Theoretical Implications: Viewed through the lens of the Theory
of Planned Behavior, an understanding of people’s emotional
connections to water explains intentions to protect water better
than attitude, perceived behavioral control, or subjective norms.
Connectedness to water may also provide a valuable measure of
attitudinal centrality.
Originality/Value: This is the first study to examine connectedness
to water in any conservation context.
CONTACT Laura Warner lsanagorski@ufl.edu Department of Agricultural Education and Communication, Uni-
versity of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32601
© 2020 Wageningen University
2 L. A. WARNER AND J. M. DIAZ
Introduction
Water crises are among the top five most impactful risks on a global scale (World Econ-
omic Forum 2020). Four billion people around the world are faced with severe water
scarcity for at least one month per year (World Water Assessment Programme 2020).
Given concerning statistics such as these, agricultural extension professionals have an
opportunity to help various sectors, including agriculture producers and consumers, to
reduce their water use. There is a need to advance the diffusion of water conservation
behaviors at the household level, and agricultural extension professionals are positioned
to help drive the necessary changes.
Globally there is significant attention being paid to the reduction of household stresses
on water resources (Randolph and Troy 2008). Many agricultural extension professionals
around the world have developed household water conservation education programs to
help people adopt technologies and practices to save water. Unfortunately, identifying
appropriate objectives and measuring the outcomes and impacts of large-scale water con-
servation programs is especially challenging (Kumar Chaudhary et al. 2017a). It is both
difficult and important to assess whether these types of programs lead to behavioral and
conditional changes (Syme, Nancarrow, and Seligman 2000). However, broad-scale
THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 3
change cannot be realized without bringing in psychological approaches to understand-

ing factors that influence these types of behaviors (Eisenhauer et al. 2016; Warner et al.
2016; Wauters and Mathijs 2013).
Changing behavior and the Theory of Planned behavior

The complexity of current water issues challenges extension and other types of conserva-
tion professionals on a global scale to drive change among various audiences. These pro-
fessionals can use theories of planned change as a framework to integrate an audience’s
behavioral intricacies during program planning to develop an intentional and deliberate
approach to driving change (Harder, Lamm, and Strong 2009; Taylor-Powell and Boyd
2008). One such theory that has been successfully applied to household water behaviors is
the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB, Ajzen 1991; Kumar Chaudhary et al. 2017b; Lam
1999; Shaw et al. 2011; Trumbo and O’Keefe 2005; Warner et al. 2015). The TPB explains
behavioral intent is a product of one’s attitude toward, perceived behavioral control
(PBC) over, and subjective norms surrounding the behavior (Ajzen 1991). According
to the TPB, extension audiences are more likely to aspire towards conserving water
when they believe the outcomes of conserving water will be positive, believe they have
the ability to conserve, and perceive adequate social support for conservation.
The TPB has been tested in over 4,000 studies across many contexts, including edu-
cational research and environmental protection and is among the most used in the
social and behavioral sciences (Bosnjak, Ajzen, and Schmidt 2020). In just one of
these, Kumar Chaudhary et al. (2017b) reported that of the TPB variables, subjective
norms and perceived behavioral control, predicted about 25% of the variability in
respondents’ intent to conserve water outside the home. In an agricultural setting, this
theory is considered to be among the most used and established psychological
approaches to explaining adoption of conservation agriculture techniques (Engler,
Poortvliet, and Klerkx 2019, 75A; Wauters and Mathijs 2013).
Despite its many strengths, criticisms of the TPB cite how the framework ignores
additional factors that may influence behaviors (Chang, Tsai, and Yeh 2014; Hall,
Turner, and Kilpatrick 2019), and in recent revisions to the TPB (Fishbein and Ajzen
2010), the authors embrace the notion that there are a multitude of background factors
that could potentially influence an individual’s underlying beliefs that ultimately shape
their attitudes towards relevant behaviors. Marandu, Moeti, and Joseph (2010) shared
this assertion when concluding, from their study examining the connection between atti-
tudes and norms with residential water conservation in Botswana, that there was a high
likelihood of additional factors influencing conservation behaviors. Ajzen himself asserted
additional predictor variables may be included if they ‘capture a significant proportion of
the variance in intention or behavior after the theory’s current variables have been taken
into account’ (1991, 199). In the realm of environmental behaviors, some have described
the TPB as omitting moral drivers encompassed by the Value-Belief-Norm theory, includ-
ing biospheric values, or the belief that nature is worthy of protection (Engler, Poortvliet,
and Klerkx 2019; Stern 2000). In terms of behavior change and environmental actions
more broadly, as well as specifically in the household or agricultural water conservation
context, there is an opportunity to evaluate the influence that various background or
moral factors have on behavioral intention and change. Such factors may complement
the main predictive components of the TPB (attitudes, subjective norms, and PBC) and
help extension professionals to better predict and ultimately diffuse behaviors. For
example, Sambodo and Nuthall (2010) examined bargaining processes among Indonesian
subsistence farmers, reporting the addition of this construct improved on the TPB’s utility
for understanding improved paddy-prawn system adoption processes. Other potential
factors that may be considered include: ‘age, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, edu-
cation, nationality, religious affiliation, personality, mood, emotion, general attitudes and
values, intelligence, group membership, past experiences, exposure to information, social
support and coping skills’ (Fishbein and Ajzen 2010, 24).
Changing environmental behaviors and the role of connectedness to

nature
When examining environmental practices, one potential background factor that is worth
exploring is an individual’s connectedness to nature (CTN), because this paradigm
encompasses an individual’s past experiences with nature as well as their general attitudes
and values surrounding nature. Leopold (1949) initially introduced the concept of a
moral responsibility to protect nature, by explaining, ‘when we see land as a community
to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect’ (viii). Today, CTN has
been used to explain many pro-environmental behaviors that apply to agricultural exten-
sion and education and is operationalized as the extent to which people feel like a part of
the natural world (Mayer and Frantz 2004). When exploring this phenomenon, emphasis
is placed on ‘understanding how people identify themselves with the natural environ-
ment and the relationships they form with nature’ (Restall and Conrad 2015, 264). Fun-
damentally, people who feel more connected to nature are less likely to harm the
environment since they essentially view nature as an extension of themselves. We
believe CTN could potential offer the biospheric values (i.e. belief that nature is
worthy of protection) that has been cited as missing from the TPB when applied to
environmental issues (Engler, Poortvliet, and Klerkx 2019).
Research suggests that an important relationship exists between people’s feeling of
connectedness to nature and their disposition to take action to protect it (Brügger,
Kaiser, and Roczen 2011; Dutcher et al. 2007; Frantz and Mayer 2014; Mackay and
Schmitt 2019; Mayer and Frantz 2004). A number of studies suggest connectedness is
a driver for behavior which has resulted in instruments developed to measure this con-
struct including the Connectedness to Nature Scale (Frantz and Mayer 2014), the Con-
nection to Nature Index (Cheng and Monroe 2010) the Nature Relatedness Scale (Nisbet,
Zelenski, and Murphy 2009), and the Inclusion of Nature in Self Scale (Schultz 2002).
While all of the measures above have good psychometric properties and converge on
the same central factors (Tam 2013), we decided to focus on the Connection to
Nature Scale (CNS) because it is firmly based on the concept of land ethic and is intended
to measure a person’s sense that they are emotionally connected, equal members of the
natural world (Frantz and Mayer 2014).
Frantz and Mayer (2014) reviewed three case studies that used the CNS framework as
an evaluation tool finding a ‘strong positive relationship between self-reported ERB
(environmentally responsible behavior) and connectedness to nature’ (88). Frantz
et al.’s study (as cited in Mayer and Frantz 2004) found dorm residents with higher
CNS-R (a version of CNS developed for children) scores decreased electricity use more
after receiving real-time feedback about their electricity use, compared to those with
lower CNS-R scores. A recent comprehensive meta-analysis of 92 CTN studies
confirmed not only a strong relationship between CTN and pro-environmental behaviors,
but evidence a causative relationship exists between the two (Mackay and Schmitt 2019).
According to Frantz and Mayer (2014) increases in participants’ CTN should be con-
sidered as goal and CTN can serve as an ‘important assessment tool’ (88) for programs
designed to promote environmentally-responsible behaviors. Unfortunately, CTN has
been used sparingly in agricultural and extension contexts. In one promising example,
research among Australian farmers revealed a positive association between CTN and
protection of native vegetation on private farmland (Gosling and Williams 2010).
Theimer and Ernst (2013) explored the influence of three U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
environmental education programs, reporting consistent increases in participants’
CTN following the programs. Despite the power of CTN in understanding environ-
mental behavior and behavior change, a search of the literature reveals minimal appli-
cation of this concept in extension educational contexts, and no such use among a
consumer audience pertaining to water conservation or other environmental behaviors.
Connectedness to water
One potential criticism of the CTN literature is the lack of inclusion of water as part of
natural world construct. The CNS makes explicit references to plants, animals, and soils
(i.e. rocks and shells) to measure an individual’s connection to nature but does not
include any references to water. This does not align with the natural world construct
initially provided by Leopold (1949) that explained that people belong to a community
consisting of plants, animals, soils and water, which he collectively called ‘the land’
(204). We wanted to explore this missing link and undertook the study presented here
to explore how measurement of people’s relationships with and emotional connections
to water could possibly improve upon the TPB (Ajzen 1991) to predict landscape
water conservation intentions.
Belleville (2014) described how people in modern society experience disconnects from
water in that we ‘tend to see the water-driven ‘environment’ as a place apart from our-
selves – a place maybe in need of tinkering, exploiting, or even restoring’ (6). Following
the tenets of CTN (i.e. when people feel connected to nature they are inclined to protect
it), one could argue that when people feel connected to water, they are more likely to
protect it. Connectedness to water (CTW) has recently been explored as a way to
focus the connection to nature construct and provides rationale for exploring the para-
digm to better understand behaviors to protect water resources. White et al. (2016) pio-
neered this line of inquiry with an exploration into how connections to blue space (i.e.
water) relate to pro-environmental behaviors in the United Kingdom. They found that
those individuals that lived closer to the coast and had more exposure to water
engaged in more pro-marine behaviors (i.e. decreased plastic use and did not litter) to
protect the integrity of water bodies. Similarly, Warner, Diaz, and Kumar Chaudhary
(2018) discovered citizens who lived in more urban parts of the state of Florida,
United States, were less engaged in landscape water conservation practices, suggesting
the existence of a disconnect with local water bodies. In addition, Warner, Diaz, and
Gusto (2019) found residents who spent more time around different types of water
bodies were more likely to use fertilizer practices that minimized detrimental effects
on water quality, suggesting engaging people with water could be an avenue to more
pro-environmental behaviors. While each of the above-mentioned studies demonstrated
how contact with water related to more pro-environmental behaviors or their antece-
dents (Warner, Diaz, and Kumar Chaudhary 2018, 2019; White et al. 2016), none
measured or manipulated the emotional connection to nature that is critically important
to taking action to protect it (Mackay and Schmitt 2019). Further potential for exploring
this paradigm can be gleaned from Raeisi, Masoud, and Chizari’s (2018) study of agricul-
tural producers in Iran, from which they concluded environmental emotions (operatio-
nalized to include environmental values, beliefs, norms, perceptions, and motivations)
were the missing link to the path to conserving groundwater.
Need for the current study

Calls have been made to better understand how people relate to water and how these
relationships translate to protecting it to inform more impactful program planning,
delivery, and evaluation (Warner, Diaz, and Kumar Chaudhary 2018, 2019; White
et al. 2016). The TPB’s constructs (Ajzen 1991) have successfully revealed significant
relationships between an individual’s beliefs and their water conservation behaviors
(Kumar Chaudhary et al. 2017b; Lam 1999; Shaw et al. 2011; Trumbo and O’Keefe
2005; Warner et al. 2015).
As we describe above, the TPB is extremely well-supported by many studies of pro-
environmental behaviors (Eisenhauer et al. 2016), and yet there remains room for
improvement and modifications to include additional predictor variables (Ajzen 1991).
It is possible that an individual’s CTW is one of the factors that is missing in measuring
the behavioral intention to adopt water conservation practices. For this reason, an
exploration was needed to assess how CTW might be integrated into the TPB as a poten-
tial framework agricultural extension program planners and evaluators could use to
understand outdoor water conservation behavioral intentions and ultimately behavior
(see Figure 1).
Additionally, while factors explaining water protective behaviors may be understood
better than before, the availability of tools for planning for and evaluating behavior
Figure 1. Conceptual model integrating the Theory of Planned Behavior and Connectedness to Water
to explain water conservation behavioral intent.
change lags behind. Since the availability of formative evaluations of water conservation
campaigns are very limited (Kumar Chaudhary et al. 2017a; Syme, Nancarrow, and Selig-
man 2000) and literature shows that using connection to nature as an assessment tool for
environmental education program is appropriate (Frantz and Mayer 2014), we designed
an inquiry to evaluate whether CTW could be measured and how this construct might
relate to behavioral intent. Even though the various instruments for measuring connec-
tions to nature have been proven to be useful (i.e. Cheng and Monroe 2010; Frantz and
Mayer 2014), we believe that by not explicitly measuring CTW, there is an important
piece of the puzzle missing to help agricultural extension program planners and evalua-
tors explain and understand landscape water conservation intentions. We hypothesized
that CTW would increase the TPB’s predictive power on water conservation intentions.
Study context
Coastal locations with large populations are among those places that can be most affected
by water scarcity (Bischel et al. 2011). Once such example is the state of Florida, which
uses more water than all but three other states in the United States (Dieter et al. 2018).
Over the past 20 years concerns have increased about managing water resources in
Florida due to recurrent droughts and increasing competition among different sectors
(Obeysekera et al. 2017). Many residents in the state desire lush lawns and landscapes
year-round and are willing to direct substantial resources to maintaining their yards,
often leading to waste of these resources (Baum, Dukes, and Miller 2005; Kumar
Chaudhary et al. 2017a). Most of the water applied as landscape irrigation is potable
(Kjelgren, Rupp, and Kilgren 2000), making the waste of this limited resources of critical
concern. In the state of Florida, extension education is offered through the United States
land-grant university-based model (Swanson, Bentz, and Sofranko 1997). While agricul-
tural extension systems vary greatly from country to country, many extension systems
exist with goals of promoting technology transfer (Swanson, Bentz, and Sofranko
1997), and this study may be applicable for these types of organizations, especially
when water is among their priority issues.
Materials and methods

Purpose and objectives
The purpose of this research was to explore how CTW might improve the TPB’s ability to
predict landscape water conservation intentions to support agricultural extension pro-
gramming and evaluation for residential audiences. Specific objectives were to: 1) evalu-
ate the relationship between CTW and TPB variables pertaining to residential water
conservation; and 2) evaluate whether CTW increases the predictive power of the TPB.
Procedure
This study was part of a larger multi-year examination of Florida citizens’ landscape
practices and perceptions. We used a researcher-developed electronic survey instrument
to collect the data and all of the measures were adapted from well-established
instruments. The research protocol was reviewed and approved as exempt by the [Field
masked for review] Institutional Review Board.
Participants and sample size

We used a professional survey sampling company (Qualtrics, Provo, Utah) to access a
nonprobability sample comprised of 3,596 Florida citizens. Potential respondents were
contacted by the company and provided with an opportunity to opt-in to the study
panel. We selected this sampling approach because we wanted to target individuals
who were not affiliated with (and therefore biased toward or against) our extension
system and who were not engaged in the study because of a specific interest in water. Par-
ticipants who completed the study were compensated by the company.
Our target sample size was approximately 1,100 given a 95% confidence level, assump-
tion of maximum heterogeneity in the population (or 50/50 split on responses), a +/−3%
margin of error, and a state population of 21 million (Dillman, Smyth, and Christian
2009; U.S. Census Bureau 2018). After a population exceeds 1 million there is little
increase in the sample size needed for the given precision level (Dillman, Smyth, and
Christian 2009). Since we wanted to randomly assign participants to other topical ques-
tion groups to answer additional research questions outside the scope of this study, we
targeted a larger sample.
We collected CTW data (objective one) from 3,596 respondents, after which they were
randomly assigned to the topical groups. The questions presented to the water conserva-
tion (n = 1,173) group pertain to objectives one and two of the current study. Sample sizes
should also take planned analyses into consideration. Given that sample size of 1,000 is
considered excellent for principle components analysis (PCA; Field 2018), and even 500
is considered adequate under poor conditions (Tabachnick and Fidell 2018), our sample
size met and exceeded the needs of our planned analyses.
Measures
Variables included CTW, attitude toward landscape water conservation, PBC over land-
scape water conservation, subjective norms surrounding landscape water conservation,
and landscape water conservation behavioral intent (see Table 1). Attitude and PBC
indexes consisted of a series of semantic differential scale items adapted from Warner,
Diaz, and Kumar Chaudhary (2018; See Appendices A & B). Subjective norms consisted
of a series of Likert-type scale items which were adapted from Kumar Chaudhary et al.
(2017b) and Warner, Diaz, and Kumar Chaudhary (2018; See Appendix C). All variables
were scaled so their theoretical range was from −2 (low) to 2 (high). Therefore, attitude,
PBC, and subjective norms indexes approaching 2 would represent positive attitudes,
strong PBC, and strong perceived subjective norms, respectively.
Behavioral intent was an index consisting of 12 specific water conservation behaviors
to which respondents could indicate their likelihood of adoption. If a respondent indi-
cated not applicable to more than half of the items (i.e. seven or more), we excluded
them from the analyses; if a respondent indicated not applicable to less than half of
the items, we calculated their behavioral intent index value by taking the mean of
responses to which they did not indicate not applicable. The 12 water conservation
Table 1. Study variables and descriptions.

Cronbach’s
Name Description and range M SD alpha
CTW scale Mean of responses to 14 Likert-type scale items .41 .58 .82
adapted from Mayer and Frantz (2004). Response
choices included strongly disagree (−2), somewhat
disagree (−1), neither disagree nor agree (0),
somewhat agree (1), strongly agree (2).
CTW (Concise connectedness to Mean of responses to 11 Likert-type scale items .50 .75 .90
water scale; CCWS)a adapted from Mayer and Frantz (2004). Response
choices included strongly disagree (−2), somewhat
disagree (−1), neither disagree nor agree (0),
somewhat agree (1), strongly agree (2).
Attitude toward landscape water The mean of responses to six semantic differential 1.52 .77 .90
conservation items (i.e. good … bad). There were five bubbles
between each of six sets of words. The bubble
closest to the most negative word was coded as −2
and the bubble closest to the most positive word
was coded with a 2.
Perceived behavioral control over The mean of responses to five semantic differential 1.17 1.02 .92
landscape water conservation items (i.e. possible for me … not possible for me).
There were five bubbles between each of six sets of
words. The bubble closest to the most negative
word was coded as −2 and the bubble closest to
the most positive word was coded with a 2.
Subjective norms surrounding The mean of responses indicating how much .48 .99 .93
landscape water conservation respondents agreed with four statements (i.e. most
of the people who are important to me expect me to
conserve water in my yard). Response choices
included strongly disagree (−2), disagree (−1),
neither disagree nor agree (0), agree (1), strongly
agree (2).
Landscape water conservation The mean of responses indicating how likely .37 .96 .92
intent index respondents were to adopt one of 12 water
conservation behaviors in the future (i.e. convert
lawn (turfgrass) areas to landscaped beds).
Response choices included very unlikely (−2),
unlikely (−1), undecided (0), likely (1), very likely (2),
and not applicable. If a respondent indicated not
applicable to more than half of the items their
response was considered incomplete and excluded
from data analysis.
a
The results of the PCA led to revision the instrument, generating a Concise Connectedness to Water Scale (CCWS), which
was used in subsequent analyses.
behaviors (Eliminate irrigated areas in my landscape; Turn off zone(s) or cap irrigation

heads for established woody plants; Convert lawn (turfgrass) areas to landscaped beds;
Replace high-water plants with drought-tolerant plants; Replace high-volume irrigated
areas with low-volume irrigation; Install smart irrigation controls (such as soil moisture
sensors (SMS) or an evapotranspiration device (ET)) so irrigation will not turn on when
it is not needed; Calibrate my sprinklers; Use a rain gauge to monitor rainfall for redu-
cing/skipping irrigation; Use a rain barrel or cistern; Use different irrigation zones/zone
run times based on plants’ irrigation needs; Seasonally adjust irrigation times; Follow
watering restrictions imposed by local government and/or water management districts)
represent some of the most commonly available landscape water conservation technol-
ogies and practices available to residents in the state of Florida, as reported by Kumar
Chaudhary et al. (2017a; 2017b). A behavioral intent value near −2 would represent
an absence of intent to adopt water conservation practices in the future while a behavioral
intent value near 2 would represent strong intent to adopt water conservation practices in
the future.
We developed a CTW scale by modifying the CNS so it was specific to water. For
example, a CNS statement ‘I often feel part of the web of life’ (Mayer and Frantz 2004,
513) was modified to read I often feel part of the water cycle. The statement ‘I often
feel disconnected from nature’ (Mayer and Frantz 2004, 513) was modified to read I
often feel disconnected from the water around me. Respondents were prompted to
answer how they honestly felt and informed there were no right or wrong answers.
The question stem also informed respondents that the water around you refers to the
lakes, rivers, canals, streams, oceans, springs, and stormwater ponds that you may see.
We considered intent to engage in a suite of water conservation behaviors collectively,
given the value of considering similar pro-environmental behaviors together (Kneebone,
Fielding, and Smith 2018) as well as the likelihood that individual behaviors in such ‘tech-
nology clusters’ (Rogers 2003, 249) may promote the adoption of others.
We controlled for Common Method Variance (CMV) by defining potentially ambig-
uous terms, using simple items, protecting respondents’ identify and clearly communi-
cating the measures in place to ensure confidentiality, and by separating measurement
of the constructs with other variables not related to one another (Tehseen, Ramayah,
and Sajilan 2017). Prior to using the survey instrument with the new CTW scale, we
asked a number of individuals to participate in an expert panel review process to establish
face and content validity (Vaske 2008). We included seven individuals with the following
expertise: outreach educators with extensive experience educating the public about water
issues, agricultural communication and extension faculty members, evaluation special-
ists, the director of a large landscape best practices program, an urban landscape research
specialist, and an agricultural education and communication graduate student. The panel
was tasked with ensuring the language was appropriate and clear, and we used their
suggested modifications to further refine the individual items.
Data analysis
To reduce potential errors associated with non-probability sampling (i.e. coverage and
response bias), we used a combination of quota sampling and post-stratification weight-
ing (Baker et al. 2013; Kalton and Flores-Cervantes 2003; Lamm and Lamm 2019). We
targeted a quota sample with biological sex proportionate to the Florida’s makeup
according to the 2010 United States Census. Then, we further weighted the responses
to match the county population density (rural-urban continuum code), ethnicity, race,
sex, and age group, so individual responses from underrepresented groups could
count as more than one while responses from overrepresented groups would count as
less than one. The items in the initial CTW scale were adequately reliable, as estimated
with an overall Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach 1951) value of .82 (Kline 1998). Removal of
two of the items would have reduced the reliability of the scale (see Table 2). We used
SPSS Statistics for Macintosh, version 26 (Armonk, N.Y., USA) for all data analyses.
We ran PCA and applied the Kaiser criterion, extracting components with eigenvalues
of 1 or greater (Field 2018), which resulted in two components with 11 items on the first
and 3 items on the second. Our first component explained 42.7% of the variance and the
second explained another 10.1%. We also inspected the scree plot which confirmed a
Table 2. Reliability analyses of CTW scale items.

Item total Cronbach’s alpha if
M SD correlation removed
I often feel a sense of oneness with the water around me. .28 1.10 .62 .80
I think of the water around me as a community to which I belong. .55 1.05 .65 .80
I appreciate the plants and animals that live in the water around 1.24 .84 .51 .81
me.
I often feel disconnected from the water around me.a .61 1.04 .24 .83
I think of humans as part of the water cycle. .47 1.07 .56 .80
I feel a kinship with the animals and plants that live in the water .56 1.03 .69 .80
around me.
I feel as though I belong to the water around me as equally as it .25 1.06 .73 .79
belongs to me.
I have a deep understanding of how my actions affect the water .73 1.00 .55 .81
around me.
I often feel part of the water cycle. .17 1.06 .68 .80
I feel that everyone and everything connected to the water .34 1.05 .66 .80
around me shares a common energy.
Like a drop of water can be part of the ocean, I am connected to .30 1.07 .75 .79
the water around me.
When I think of my place related to the water around me, I -.16 1.02 -.33 .86
consider myself to be at the top of an order that exists in
nature.a
I often feel like I am only a small part of the natural world around .29 1.12 .37 .82
me, and that I am no more important than the water in the
streams or the fish in the rivers.
My wellbeing is independent of the welfare of the water around -.02 1.26 -.08 .86
me.a
Note. Variables were coded on a 5-point scale from Strongly disagree (−2) to Strongly agree (2). aVariables previously
reverse-coded.
two-component solution (Field 2018). Upon further inspection of the second component
(see Table 3), we found the three items were the previously reverse-coded items, and with
this being their main commonality, it did not make logical sense for them to comprise a
Table 3. Summary of CTW scale principle components analysis with oblique direct oblimin rotation
results (N = 3,596).
Component loadings
Component Component
Question one two
I often feel a sense of oneness with the water around me. .698 .172
I think of the water around me as a community to which I belong. .723 .238
I appreciate the plants and animals that live in the water around me. .551 .404
I often feel disconnected from the water around me.a .224 .743
I think of humans as part of the water cycle. .669 -.114
I feel a kinship with the animals and plants that live in the water around me. .770 .095
I feel as though I belong to the water around me as equally as it belongs to me. .830 -.047
I have a deep understanding of how my actions affect the water around me. .670 .021
I often feel part of the water cycle. .807 -.167
I feel that everyone and everything connected to the water around me shares a .797 -.158
common energy.
Like a drop of water can be part of the ocean, I am connected to the water around .854 -.084
me.
When I think of my place related to the water around me, I consider myself to be at -.440 .397
the top of an order that exists in nature. a
I often feel like I am only a small part of the natural world around me, and that I am .450 -.115
no more important than the water in the streams or the fish in the rivers.
My wellbeing is independent of the welfare of the water around me.a -.159 .596
Eigenvalue 5.978 1.412
Percent variance 42.699 10.083
a
indicates items not retained for analysis.
second factor. Further, while the reliability of these individual items was quite good,
removing them would slightly increase the reliability of the scale overall.
Upon removing the three reverse-coded items the scale reliability increased from .82
to .90. We reran PCA with the remaining 11 items, which resulted in a one-factor sol-
ution which explained 52.2% of the overall variance. We created a revised 11-item
Concise Connectedness to Water Scale (CCWS; see Appendix D), which we used to
measure CTW and for the remaining analyses.
We examined relationships between the TPB variables and CTW using Pearson’s
correlations. Values exceeding .10 were interpreted as small while those exceeding
.30 and .50 were interpreted as moderate and large, respectively (Cohen 1988). The
absence of any correlations of greater than .9 among the variables provided evidence
that CMV was not an issue in our dataset (Bagozzi, Yi, and Phillips 1991). We used
hierarchical linear regression to evaluate how adding CTW might increase the TPB’s
predictive power on water conservation behavioral intent. To run this analysis, we
input attitude, PBC, and subjective norms into a first block and then added CTW
to the second block.
Results
Objective one: evaluate the relationship between the CTW and TPB factors
pertaining to residential water conservation
All correlations were significant (see Table 4). The degree of associations ranged from
small to moderate. The strongest overall correlation was between attitude and perceived
behavioral control. Behavioral intent was most strongly associated with CTW among the
variables under study.
Objective two: evaluate whether CTW increases the predictive power of the TPB
Because all correlations with the outcome variable (behavioral intent) were significant, all
variables were included in the regression models. Both multiple linear regression models
were significant (see Table 5). When considered alone, the TPB variables predicted about
15% of the variance in behavioral intent. Attitude was not significant, and one-unit
increases in PBC or subjective norms corresponded to .241- and .253-unit increases in
behavioral intent, respectively, when other variables were held constant (see Table 6).
Adding CTW to the model increased the model’s explanation of variation in behavioral
intent by about 5%. The second model is associated with a smaller AIC value which
further validates it as a better fit for the data.
Table 4. Correlation matrix.

ATT PBC SN CTW BI
1. Attitude (ATT) -
2. Perceived behavioral control (PBC) .53** -
3. Subjective norms (SN) .21** .30** -
4. Connectedness to water (CTW) .16** .26** .39** -
5. Behavioral intent (BI) .15** .30** .32** .35** -
Note. ** significant at p ≤ .001. All variables measured on a scale from −2 to 2.
Table 5. Results of hierarchical multiple regression of behavioral intent predicted by TPB and
connectedness to water.
Model R2 R2 change F Akaike information criterion (AIC) P
Model 1** .151 .151 59.000 −238.063 < .001
Model 2** .196 .045 60.386 −289.782 < .001

Note. ** significant at p ≤ .001. Model 1 = core TPB variables (attitude, perceived behavioral control, subjective norms).
Model 2 = Model 1 + CTW.
While attitude remained nonsignificant in the second model, the addition of CTW
decreased the predictive power of both PBC and subjective norms. An examination of
the effect sizes revealed CTW had the strongest association with intent; with every
one-unit increase in CTW, behavioral intent increased by about one-third of a unit.
Discussion
Using data from people living in a particularly water-stressed coastal state, the study pre-
sented here served as a response to the current lack of adequate evaluation and program
planning frameworks available for agricultural extension water conservation programs
(Kumar Chaudhary et al. 2017a; Syme, Nancarrow, and Seligman 2000). Researchers
have demonstrated the TPB’s utility in understanding water conservation behaviors
and authentically explaining residents’ and farmers’ adoption processes (Lam 1999;
Shaw et al. 2011; Trumbo and O’Keefe 2005; Warner et al. 2015; Wauters and Mathijs
2013) but the addition of CTN or CTW had not yet been evaluated. Given the value
of incorporating additional variables when they can improve the TPB’s predictive
power (Ajzen 1991) along with recent developments connecting blue space exposure
to water protection behaviors (Warner, Diaz, and Gusto 2019; White et al. 2016), incor-
porating CTW along with the TPB was a logical next step.
When added into the multiple linear regression model, CTW (measured using CCWS)
increased the predictive power of the TPB. Perhaps the inclusion of CTW offers a critical
moral driver needed when applying the TPB to pro-environmental behavior. Most
importantly, when the TPB variables were held constant, CTW had the strongest
relationship with behavioral intent, with greater predictive power than that of subjective
norms or PBC. Of the core TPB variables, subjective norms are often the best predictor of
behavioral intent (Kumar Chaudhary et al. 2017b; Syme, Nancarrow, and Seligman
2000), and we found it intriguing that CTW was a more powerful predictor than this con-
struct. Based upon its performance and ability to explain behavioral intent, CTW
Table 6. TPB and CTW variable coefficients from hierarchical multiple regression of behavioral intent.
Predictor Model 1 Model 2
(β) B (β) B
Attitude -.042 -.050 -.044 -.053
Perceived behavioral control .249** .241** .212** .204**
Subjective norms .255** .253** .180** .178**
CTW .231** .300**
Note. ** significant at p ≤ .001. Reported β are standardized regression coefficients and B are unstandardized regression
coefficients.
Figure 2. Final model integrating the Theory of Planned Behavior and Connectedness to Water to
explain water conservation behavioral intent.
improved the predictive power of the TPB, and should be considered jointly with the
theory (see Figure 2). Notably, CTW impairs the predictive power of subjective norms
and PBC, suggesting a person’s relationship with and internal emotional connection to
water is potentially more important than perceptions of their ability to conserve or per-
ceived external expectations from important others.
Even when the variables were considered on their own through correlations CTW had
the strongest relationship with intent. Attitude is removed from the final model because
it does not significantly explain intent, although this does not appear to relate to CTW,
given that attitude is not statistically significant in the first model. Similarly, attitude has
proven to be unrelated to intent among a similar audience (Kumar Chaudhary et al.
2017b).
The CWS seems to be an effective measure of attitudinal centrality, or the significance
of an attitude within a person’s psychological structure (Eaton and Visser 2008) for the
topic of water conservation. More central attitudes are typically more correlated with one
another, more intensely felt, and more consistent with a person’s underlying belief
system (Judd and Krosnick 1982). CTW could possibly be considered a measure of atti-
tudinal centrality to better understand the core water-related belief frameworks of exten-
sion participants. Further, attitudinally-based models are more predictive of behavior if
the attitude is central (Perry, Gillespie, and Lotz 1976). For example, while they did not
explicitly measure CTN or CTW, Raeisi, Masoud, and Chizari (2018) reported environ-
mental emotions had a significant influence on protection of groundwater resources
among Iranian farmers.
Based upon its performance and ability to improve upon the TPB, CTW is a robust
measure of intent to engage in landscape water conservation. The findings of the
current study align with the many others that have demonstrated how CTN relates to
pro-environmental behaviors (Brügger, Kaiser, and Roczen 2011; Dutcher et al. 2007;
Frantz and Mayer 2014; Mackay and Schmitt 2019; Mayer and Frantz 2004). Further,
the current inquiry examining CTW supports recent findings by others who reported
more exposure to water relates to protecting it (i.e. through more pro-marine behaviors,
White et al. 2016; and household-level actions to protect water quality, Warner, Diaz, and
Gusto 2019), but importantly, extends this research by going beyond contact with water
and measuring the emotional connection to water. Given that water ‘lives inside of us, lit-
erally and otherwise’ (Belleville 2014, 6), CTW may be interminably linked to human
behaviors.
Implications for agricultural extension water conservation programs and local

policies
Regardless of organizational structure, there is an enduring need for diverse extension
systems to improve the quality of extension interactions and increase audience partici-
pation in the program development process (Azadi and Filson 2009). The adoption of con-
servation practices is a continuous process that takes place in the context of a relationship
between individuals (e.g. household decision-makers, farmers, etc.) and social systems
which include policymakers and extension systems (Engler, Poortvliet, and Klerkx
2019). The psycho-social behavioral approach has not been fully applied to agricultural
and extension research contexts (Wauters and Mathijs 2013) yet offers significant potential
to explain clients’ actions and ultimately improve on the extension services offered. Agri-
cultural extension program planners and evaluators working on water conservation edu-
cation programs might benefit from incorporating CTW as a programmatic outcome.
Based upon its performance and ability to explain behavioral intent, we suggest incorpor-
ating the CCWS into the extension and policy program planning and evaluation toolbox.
While our study was situated within the United States land-grant university-based exten-
sion model, we believe there are implications for the many extension systems and individ-
uals who operate within the water protection community worldwide, especially when
technology transfer is among their goals. Extension program planners may find using
the CCWS to learn about their audience as they design a program can help them understand
people’s relationships to water to establish reasonable activities and target appropriate out-
comes. A program serving an audience that scores very low on the CCWS might incorpor-
ate activities to raise concerns about the value of water and awareness of the value of local
water bodies. One reasonable goal in this case might be to increase the audience’s knowl-
edge about the local watershed. In contrast, a program serving an audience that scores very
high on the CCWS might provide opportunities to learn how to operate specific water-
saving technologies or how to influence water conservation practices or policies within a
community. Reasonable outcomes for a program in this instance might center on adoption
of water-saving technologies or writing letters to local government representatives.
Policymakers might consider setting policies and supporting initiatives that help resi-
dents develop meaningful connections to water. Agricultural extension professionals can
play a role in educating decision-makers and supporting policies that nurture CTW. In
the broader agricultural context, local policymakers might establish policy strategies to
increase CTW given that farmers are more motivated by local policies and closer peers
over those at a larger geographic scale (Fisher et al. 2018; Wauters and Mathijs 2013).
Alternatively, agricultural extension professionals may need to measure and possibly
further develop CTW among policymakers so that they will then develop policies and
initiatives to increase CTW and promote conservation.
Globally, many agricultural extension professionals deliver household water conserva-
tion education programs to help people adopt irrigation technologies and practices to
save water, but these types of program are especially difficult to evaluate (Kumar
Chaudhary et al. 2017a), especially given the importance of assessing whether they
lead to behavioral and conditional changes (Syme, Nancarrow, and Seligman 2000).
Increasing CTW may be a strategy to increase attitudinal centrality. In tandem with
its utility for program planning, CCWS may be used as an evaluation tool to measure
increases in CTW throughout a program. Now that a baseline of CCWS has been estab-
lished in the state of Florida, program planners in this location can also compare their
audience to other state citizens. Similarly, agricultural extension professionals elsewhere
in the world can use the tool to measure a baseline CTW condition and track potential
changes among an audience.
While the problem addressed here within was outdoor/landscape household water
use, agricultural extension professionals are encouraged to apply CTW to water issues
programming for other audiences. Given the concern over the agricultural sector’s use
of water (Raeisi, Masoud, and Chizari 2018) international extension education efforts
address many water issues with agricultural producers as well, such as helping farmers
to adopt correct irrigation scheduling technologies to increase water use efficiency
(Maheshwari and Plunkett 2015). The TPB offers value to issues ranging from under-
standing Tasmanian dairy farmers’ intent to use extension services (Hall, Turner, and
Kilpatrick 2019) to reduced tillage and buffer strips among farmers in Belgium
(Wauters and Mathijs 2013). Potential application of CTW may look different when
used in different water contexts and extension systems. Maheshwari and Plunkett
(2015) described a failure to design extension programs tailored to the needs of individ-
ual farmers as a barrier to irrigation technology adoption, and we believe CTW could
play a role in tailoring these types of extension programs. In some places, farmers’ inter-
action with extension may be primarily with field extension professionals, and the lack of
such individuals or a preference for learning from other farmers may prevent interactions
with extension at all (Hall, Turner, and Kilpatrick 2019; Sambodo and Nuthall 2010). In
these cases, CTW could possibly be used to determine how extension can prioritize
limited human resources and could be embedded into social learning opportunities.
Perhaps farmer discussion groups could be developed so individuals scoring across a
range of CTW scores could be grouped together. In cases where farmer-to-farmer exten-
sion is used (Fisher et al. 2018). CTW may be one criterion used to select lead farmers.
For example, those farmers with the highest CTW scores might be selected and trained to
help promote water conservation technologies.
The Concise connectedness to water scale

The three reverse-coded CTW scale items did not perform quite as well as the other
items, which is consistent with their counterparts in the CNS (Mayer and Frantz
2004). It may be possible that understanding the concepts in the scale requires a some-
what high level of cognition on part of the respondent and conceptualizing some of the
ideas as well as translating reverse-coded items was overtaxing for some individuals.
Without the three removed items, the resulting CCWS performed well. The CCWS pro-
vided valuable utility and added insight into water conservation intentions, especially as
an addition to the TPB. There is, however, an opportunity to modify and improve upon
this scale.
Future research and limitations

This study is limited by the use of a purposive sample, although the combination of quota
sampling and post-stratification weighting minimize the potential errors associated with
this approach. It would be ideal to conduct a future replication of this study with random
sampling. The use of self-reported behavioral intentions is another limiting factor, intro-
ducing the potential for future researchers to relate CTW to actual, observed behaviors.
We used behavioral intent as opposed to observed or reported adopted practices
because our interest lies with understanding the potential to change behaviors.
However, there are limitations to using intent; namely, there is typically a discrepancy
between the number of individuals who intend to adopt a behavior and those who actu-
ally do so (Fishbein and Ajzen 2010; Hall, Turner, and Kilpatrick 2019). Even so, devel-
oping behavioral intent within a social system remains a key component of achieving
long-term behavior change that is highly pertinent to agricultural extension pro-
fessionals, and for this reason many behavioral models use intent as a determinant of
behavior change (Ajzen 1991; Fishbein and Ajzen 2010; Kollmuss and Agyeman
2002). Collecting both independent and dependent variables from our sample could
have introduced some CMV (Tehseen, Ramayah, and Sajilan 2017), which presents an
opportunity to strengthen this work in future replications. For example, using observed
behaviors or even metered water consumption data would be promising ways to collect
the dependent variable, although there would be unique limitations to these approaches.
In our study we used collective intent to engage in a number of water conservation
practices, considering that ‘the adoption of one new idea may trigger the adoption of
others’ (Rogers 2003, 249). While there is value in considering the behaviors collectively
as a technology cluster, it is important to consider that drivers and barriers may differ
among different classes of behavior (i.e. maintenance, curtailment, and efficiency; Knee-
bone, Fielding, and Smith 2018; Lam 1999) and even among each specific behavior
(McKenzie-Mohr 2011). For this reason, future research should more precisely
examine subgroups or individual behaviors. Similarly, our measures of attitude, per-
ceived behavioral control, and subjective norms were general in nature, focusing on
measuring each of these constructs relevant to using good irrigation practices to
reduce water versus specific behaviors. The general nature of these constructs could
have reduced the strength of their relationship with behavioral intent (Heberlein and
Black 1976). Our approach provided valuable initial insight, and it would be advisable
to measure the variables specific to an individual behavior and with shared target,
action, context, and time elements (Ajzen 1991). For example, researchers might
explore the relationship between attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and subjective
norms pertaining to replacing half of a household’s irrigated turfgrass with drought tol-
erant plants in the next six months with behavioral intent to replace half of a household’s
irrigated turfgrass with drought tolerant plants in the next six months.
While we chose to focus solely on the TPB and CTW in our analysis, there are also
many factors that could provide additional insight into people’s propensity to adopt
water conservation measures. For example, Kumar Chaudhary et al. (2017b) reported
past conservation behaviors were the most important predictor of water conservation
intent in a model that included TPB variables. Hannibal, Sansom, and Portney (2019)
found those who lived in places with higher levels of drought were more likely to
adopt practices to save water but only to the extent that these behavior changes did
not represent a large financial cost. Following their line of inquiry, it would be interesting
to replicate the current study using measures of individuals’ perceived or experienced
drought. It might also be interesting to subdivide our suite of conservation behaviors
into those requiring lesser or greater time or financial costs, and those which result in
lesser or greater amounts of water saved. Others have reported different water sources
may support or prevent engagement in water conservation (Ternes 2017; Warner,
Kumar Chaudhary, and Krimsky 2020). Others (Eisenhauer et al. 2016; Kumar Chaudh-
ary et al. 2017b) have reported sociodemographic and other variables such as age, sex,
and past water conservation behaviors support intentions to conserve water. Such vari-
ables should be included in future research to provide a deeper understanding of conser-
vation practices along with CTW.
Future research should also explore whether CTW changes over time, how much it
fluctuates, and how it might improve as a result of an extension intervention. Next,
additional study is needed to examine whether there are greater increases in water con-
servation behaviors among people with higher CTW scores following an intervention
compared to people with lower CTW scores.
It would also be advantageous to explore whether increases in CTW correspond to
increases in behavioral intent. The exploration of a causal relationship linking increases
in CTW to increases in water conservation behavioral outcomes would be exceptionally
valuable (Heimlich 2010; Mackay and Schmitt 2019).
A next research step would be to collect both CTW and CNS data from an audience
and compare the two measures. Based upon the known positive relationships between
contact with water and protecting it (or, lack of contact with water and less likelihood
of protecting it), it may be that disconnects from water may be even greater than discon-
nects from nature. For this reason, the existence of CTW and CTN as potentially separate
constructs needs to be explored. Confirmation would provide an exceptional level of pre-
cision that agricultural extension program planners and evaluators could use to under-
stand intentions to conserve water or engage in other pro-environmental behaviors. A
weakness in some of the experimental CTN literature is the lack of identity manipulation
in favor of exposing people to nature (Mackay and Schmitt 2019). For this reason, excep-
tional opportunity exists to go beyond increasing people’s contact with water and exper-
imentally increase their actual CTW.
Conclusion
We modified the well-established CTN scale and developed a reliable means of measur-
ing CTW to explore how this construct could improve our understanding of residents’
intent to engage in outdoor water conservation. Using quantitative survey methodology,
we collected CTW along with the core TPB variables (attitude, perceived behavioral
control, and subjective norms) to explore the potential power of combining these two
lenses to predict behavioral intent. CTW improved upon the TPB-only regression
model and it exceeded the predictive power of any of the TPB’s variables, presenting
exceptional utility for understanding landscape water conservation intent. The need to
understand factors related to residents’ intentions to protect water resources will con-
tinue to require significant attention, and both agricultural extension researchers and
practitioners may find value in exploring water conservation behaviors using CTW.
The issues surrounding the availability of water resources will continue to require sig-
nificant attention. Agricultural extension programs are positioned to be part of the sol-
ution for conserving these resources but program planners and evaluators must
understand how to tailor programming to ensure it is able to achieve the extent of behav-
ior change necessary. Agricultural extension program planners and evaluators face bar-
riers in the lack of adequate tools to guide the development of appropriate activities and
objectives. Based upon proven linkages between CTN and pro-environmental behaviors
along with recent advances into connections with water, we developed a Concise Con-
nectedness to Water Scale. The resulting instrument was highly reliable and presents
potential utility for planning and evaluating water-related agricultural extension
programs.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the University of Florida Center for Landscape Conservation and
Ecology and the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch project 1018367. We
thank the UF/IFAS Statistical Consulting Service for their review of our data analysis protocol.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This work was supported by University of Florida Center for Landscape Conservation and
Ecology: [Grant Number n/a]; USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture: [Grant
Number Hatch project 1018367].
Notes on contributors
Laura Warner is an Associate Professor and Extension Specialist at the University of Florida. She
conducts focused audience research to drive natural resources behavior change campaigns and her
Extension program develops behavior change and evaluation competencies among those working
on water and natural resources issues.
John Diaz is an Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist at the University of Florida. His
Extension program primarily focuses on competency building in program development and
evaluation.
ORCID
Laura A. Warner http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2784-6666
John M. Diaz http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2787-8759
References
Ajzen, I. 1991. “The Theory of Planned Behavior.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 50 (2): 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
Azadi, H., and G. Filson. 2009. “Comparative Study of Agricultural Extension Systems: A Systemic
View.” Outlook on Agriculture 38 (4): 337–347. doi:10.5367/000000009790422133.
Bagozzi, R. P., Y. Yi, and L. W. Phillips. 1991. “Assessing Construct Validity in Organizational
Research.” Administrative Science Quarterly 36 (3): 421–458. doi:10.2307/2393203.
Baker, R., J. M. Brick, N. A. Bates, M. Battaglia, M. P. Couper, J. A. Dever, and R. Tourangeau.

2013. Report of the AAPOR task force on non-probability sampling. American Association for
Public Opinion Research. Accessed 11 June 2019. https://www.aapor.org/Education-
Resources/Reports/Non-Probability-Sampling.aspx.
Baum, M. C., M. D. Dukes, and G. L. Miller. 2005. “Analysis of Residential Irrigation Distribution
Uniformity.” Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 131 (4): 336–341. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9437(2005)131:4(336).
Belleville, B. 2014. The Peace of Blue. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.
Bischel, H. N., G. L. Simon, T. M. Frisby, and R. G. Luthy. 2011. “Management Experiences and
Trends for Water Reuse Implementation in Northern California.” Environmental Science and
Technology 46 (1): 180–188. doi:10.1021/es202725e.
Bosnjak, M., I. Ajzen, and P. Schmidt. 2020. “The Theory of Planned Behavior: Selected Recent
Advances and Applications.” Europe’s Journal of Psychology 16 (3): 352–356. doi:10.5964/
ejop.v16i3.3107.
Brügger, A., F. G. Kaiser, and N. Roczen. 2011. “One for all? Connectedness to Nature, Inclusion of
Nature, Environmental Identity, and Implicit Association with Nature.” European Psychologist
16 (4): 324–333. doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000032.
Chang, L. H., C. H. Tsai, and S. S. Yeh. 2014. “Evaluation of Green Hotel Guests’ Behavioral
Intention.” In Advances in Hospitality and Leisure 10, 75–89. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
Cheng, J. C. H., and M. C. Monroe. 2010. “Connection to Nature: Children’s Affective Attitude
Toward Nature.” Environment and Behavior 44 (1): 31–49. doi:10.1177/0013916510385082.
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cronbach, L. J. 1951. “Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests.” Psychometrika 16:
297–334. doi:10.1007/bf02310555.
Dieter, C. A., M. A. Maupin, R. R. Caldwell, M. A. Harris, T. I. Ivahnenko, J. K. Lovelace, N. L.
Barber, and K. S. Linsey. 2018. Estimated use of water in the United States in 2015 (U.S.
Geological Survey Circular 1441). https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1441.
Dillman, D. A., J. D. Smyth, and L. M. Christian. 2009. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys:
The Tailored Design Method. 3rd ed. Toronto, Alberta, Canada: Wiley & Sons.
Dutcher, D. D., J. C. Finley, A. E. Luloff, and J. B. Johnson. 2007. “Connectivity with Nature as a
Measure of Environmental Values.” Environment and Behavior 39 (4): 474–493. doi:10.1177/
0013916506298794.
Eaton, A. A., and P. S. Visser. 2008. “Attitude Importance: Understanding the Causes and
Consequences of Passionately Held Views.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2 (4):
1719–1736. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00125.x.
Eisenhauer, B. W., J. M. Brehm, N. Stevenson, and J. Peterson. 2016. “Changing Homeowners’
Lawn Care Behavior to Reduce Nutrient Runoff.” Society & Natural Resources 29 (3): 329–
344. doi:10.1080/08941920.2015.1062946.
Engler, A., P. M. Poortvliet, and L. Klerkx. 2019. “Toward Understanding Conservation Behavior
in Agriculture as a Dynamic and Mutually Responsive Process Between Individuals and the
Social System.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 74 (4): 74A–80A. doi:10.2489/jswc.74.
4.74A.
Field, A. 2018. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications,
Inc.
Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 2010. Predicting and Changing Behavior. New York, NY: Routledge.
Fisher, M., S. T. Holden, C. Thierfelder, and S. P. Katengeza. 2018. “Awareness and Adoption of
Conservation Agriculture in Malawi: What Difference Can Farmer-to-Farmer Extension
Make?” International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 16 (3): 310–325. doi:10.1080/
14735903.2018.1472411.
Frantz, C. M., and F. S. Mayer. 2014. “The Importance of Connection to Nature in Assessing
Environmental Education Programs.” Studies in Educational Evaluation 41: 85–89. doi:10.
1016/j.stueduc.2013.10.001.
Gosling, E. G., and J. H. Williams. 2010. “Connectedness to Nature, Place Attachment and
Conservation Behaviour: Testing Connectedness Theory among Farmers.” Journal of
Environmental Psychology 30 (3): 298–304. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.005.
Hall, A., L. Turner, and S. Kilpatrick. 2019. “Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour Framework to
Understand Tasmanian Dairy Farmer Engagement with Extension Activities to Inform Future
Delivery.” Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 3: 195–210. doi:10.1080/1389224X.
2019.1571422.
Hannibal, B., L. Sansom, and K. E. Portney. 2019. “The Effect of Local Water Scarcity and Drought
on Water Conservation Behaviors.” Environmental Sociology 5 (3): 294–307. doi:10.1080/
23251042.2018.1519882.
Harder, A., A. Lamm, and R. Strong. 2009. “An Analysis of the Priority Needs of Cooperative
Extension at the County Level.” Journal of Agricultural Education 50 (3): 11–21. doi:10.5032/
jae.2009.03011.
Heberlein, T. A., and J. S. Black. 1976. “Attitudinal Specificity and the Prediction of Behavior in a
Field Setting.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 33: 474–479. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.
33.4.474.
Heimlich, J. E. 2010. “Environmental Education Evaluation: Reinterpreting Education as a
Strategy for Meeting Mission.” Evaluation and Program Planning 33 (2): 180–185. doi:10.
1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.07.009.
Judd, C. M., and J. A. Krosnick. 1982. “Attitude Centrality, Organization, and Measurement.”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42 (3): 436–447. https://web.stanford.edu/dept/
communication/faculty/krosnick/docs/1982/1982%20Attitude%20centrality,%20organization,
%20and%20measurement.pdf.
Kalton, G., and I. Flores-Cervantes. 2003. “Weighting Methods.” Journal of Official Statistics 19 (2):
81–97. Accessed 26 October 2018. https://www.scb.se/contentassets/ca21efb41fee47d293bbee5
bf7be7fb3/weighting-methods.pdf.
Kjelgren, R., L. Rupp, and D. Kilgren. 2000. “Water Conservation in Urban Landscapes.”
HortScience 35 (6): 1037–1040. Accessed 14 May 2019. http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/
content/35/6/1037.full.pdf+html.
Kline, P. 1998. The new Psychometrics. Science, Psychology and Measurement. London, UK:
Routledge.
Kneebone, S., K. Fielding, and L. Smith. 2018. “Its What you do and Where you do it: Perceived
Similarity in Household Water Saving Behaviors.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 55: 1–
10. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.10.007.
Kollmuss, A., and J. Agyeman. 2002. “Mind the gap: Why do People act Environmentally and
What are the Barriers to pro-Environmental Behavior?” Environmental Education Research 8
(3): 239–260. doi:10.1080/13504620220145401.
Kumar Chaudhary, A., L. A. Warner, T. Borisova, S. Galindo-Gonzalez, M. D. Dukes, W. Wilber,
and A. Harder. 2017a. “Developing a Statewide Water Conservation Evaluation Instrument.”
Journal of Extension 55 (5). Accessed 26 October 2018. https://www.joe.org/joe/2017october/
a5.php.
Kumar Chaudhary, A., L. A. Warner, A. J. Lamm, G. D. Israel, J. N. Rumble, and R. Cantrell.
2017b. “Using the Theory of Planned Behavior to Encourage Water Conservation among
Extension Clients.” Journal of Agricultural Education 58 (3): 185–202. doi:10.5032/jae.2017.
03185.
Lam, S. P. 1999. “Predicting Intentions to Conserve Water from the Theory of Planned Behavior,
Perceived Moral Obligations and Perceived Water Right.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology
29 (5): 1058–1071. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00140.x.
Lamm, A. J., and K. W. Lamm. 2019. “The use of Nonprobability Sampling Methods in
Agricultural and Extension Education Research.” Journal of International Agricultural and
Extension Education 26 (1): 52–59. doi:10.5191/jiaee.2019.26105.
Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac: With Essays on Conservation from Round River.
New York: Ballantine Books.
Mackay, C. M. L., and M. T. Schmitt. 2019. “Do People who Feel Connected to Nature do More to
Protect it? A Meta-Analysis.” Environmental Psychology 65: 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.
101323.
Maheshwari, B. L., and M. Plunkett. 2015. “Best Practice Irrigation Management and Extension in
Peri-Urban Landscapes – Experiences and Insights from the Hawkesbury–Nepean Catchment,
Australia.” The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 21 (3): 267–282. doi:10.1080/
1389224X.2014.927376.
Marandu, E. E., N. Moeti, and H. Joseph. 2010. “Predicting Residential Water Conservation Using
the Theory of Reasoned Action.” Journal of Communication 1 (2): 87–100. doi:10.1080/
0976691X.2010.11884774.
Mayer, F. S., and C. M. Frantz. 2004. “The Connectedness to Nature Scale: A Measure of
Individuals’ Feeling in Community with Nature.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (4):
503–515. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. 2011. Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to Community-Based
Social Marketing. Gabriola Island, British Columbia: New Society Publishers.
Nisbet, E. K., J. M. Zelenski, and S. A. Murphy. 2009. “The Nature Relatedness Scale: Linking
Individuals’ Connection with Nature to Environmental Concern and Behavior.” Environment
and Behavior 41 (5): 715–740. doi:10.1177/0013916508318748.
Obeysekera, J., W. Graham, M. C. Sukop, T. Asefa, D. Wang, K. Ghebremichael, and B. Mwashote.
2017. “Implications of Climate Change on Florida’s Water Resources.” In Florida’s Climate:
Changes, Variations, & Impacts, edited by E. P. Chassignet, and J. J. Jones, 83–124.
Gainesville, FL: Florida Climate Institute.
Perry, R. W., D. Gillespie, and R. Lotz. 1976. “Attitudinal Variables as Estimates of Behavior: A
Theoretical Examination of the Attitude-Action Controversy.” European Journal of Social
Psychology 6 (2): 227–243. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420060206.
Raeisi, A., B. Masoud, and M. Chizari. 2018. “The Mediating Role of Environmental Emotions in
Transition from Knowledge to Sustainable use of Groundwater Resources in Iran’s
Agriculture.” International Soil and Water Conservation Research 6: 143–152. doi:10.1016/j.
iswcr.2018.01.002.
Randolph, B., and P. Troy. 2008. “Attitudes to Conservation and Water Consumption.”
Environmental Science & Policy 11: 441–455. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2008.03.003.
Restall, B., and E. Conrad. 2015. “A Literature Review of Connectedness to Nature and its Potential
for Environmental Management.” Journal of Environmental Management 159: 264–278. doi:10.
1016/j.jenvman.2015.05.022.
Rogers, E. M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Sambodo, L. A. A. T., and P. L. Nuthall. 2010. “A Behavioural Approach to Understanding Semi-
Subsistence Farmers’ Technology Adoption Decisions: The Case of Improved Paddy-Prawn
System in Indonesia.” Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 16 (2): 111–129.
doi:10.1080/13892241003651373.
Schultz, P. W. 2002. “Inclusion with Nature: The Psychology of Human-Nature Relations.” In
Psychology of Sustainable Development, edited by P. Schmuck and W. P. Schultz, 61–78.
Boston, MA: Springer.
Shaw, B. R., B. Radler, R. Chenoweth, P. Heiberger, and P. Dearlove. 2011. “Predicting Intent to
Install a Rain Garden to Protect a Local Lake: An Application of the Theory of Planned
Behavior.” Journal of Extension 49 (4): 4FEA6. Accessed 11 June 2019. https://www.joe.org/
joe/2011august/pdf/JOE_v49_4a6.pdf.
Stern, P. C. 2000. “Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior.” Journal of
Social Issues 56 (3): 407–424.
Swanson, B. E., R. P. Bentz, and A. J. Sofranko. 1997. Improving Agricultural Extension: A Reference
Manual. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Accessed 14
September 2020. http://www.fao.org/docrep/W5830E/w5830e00.htm.
Syme, G. J., B. E. Nancarrow, and C. Seligman. 2000. “The Evaluation of Information Campaigns
to Promote Voluntary Household Water Conservation.” Evaluation Review 24 (6): 539–578.
doi:10.1177/0013916514543683.
Tabachnick, B. G., and L. S. Fidell. 2018. Using Multivariate Statistics. 6th ed. Boston, MA:
Pearson, Inc.
Tam, K. P. 2013. “Concepts and Measures Related to Connection to Nature: Similarities and
Differences.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 34: 64–78. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.01.004.
Taylor-Powell, E., and H. H. Boyd. 2008. “Evaluation Capacity Building in Complex
Organizations.” In Program Evaluation in a Complex Organizational System: Lessons from
Cooperative Extension. New Directions for Evaluation 120, edited by M. T. Braverman, M.
Engle, M. E. Arnold, and R. A. Rennekamp, 55–69.
Tehseen, S., T. Ramayah, and S. Sajilan. 2017. “Testing and Controlling for Common Method
Variance: A Review of Available Methods.” Journal of Management Sciences 4 (2): 142–168.
doi:10.20547/jms.2014.1704202.
Ternes, B. 2017. “Groundwater Citizenship and Water Supply Awareness: Investigating Water-
Related Infrastructure and Well Ownership.” Rural Sociology 83 (2): 347–373. doi:10.1111/
ruso.12179.
Theimer, S., and J. Ernst. 2013. “Fostering “Connectedness to Nature” Through U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Education and Outreach Programming: A Qualitative Evaluation.” Applied
Environmental Education & Communication 11 (2): 79–87. doi:10.1080/1533015X.2012.751281.
Trumbo, C. W., and G. J. O’Keefe. 2005. “Intention to Conserve Water: Environmental Values,
Reasoned Action, and Information Effects Across Time.” Society and Natural Resources 18
(6): 573–585. doi:10.1080/08941920590948002.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2018. 2018 QuickFacts. Accessed 16 October 2018. https://www.census.gov/
quickfacts/FL.
Vaske, J. J. 2008. Survey Research and Analysis: Application in Parks, Recreation, and Human
Dimensions. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.
Warner, L. A., J. M. Diaz, and C. Gusto. 2019. “Exploring Blue Space as a Tool for Promoting Good
Fertilizer Practices among Florida Residential Fertilizer Users.” Journal of Applied
Environmental Education and Communication 19 (3): 274–286. doi:10.1080/1533015X.2019.
1586597.
Warner, L. A., J. M. Diaz, and A. Kumar Chaudhary. 2018. “Informing Urban Landscape Water
Conservation Extension Programs Using Behavioral Research.” Journal of Agricultural
Education 59 (2): 32–48. doi:10.5032/jae.2018.02032.
Warner, L. A., A. Kumar Chaudhary, and L. Krimsky. 2020. “Water Source as a Driver of
Landscape Irrigation Conservation Behavior: A Statewide Florida Study.” Journal of Water
Resources Planning and Management 146 (8): 04020061. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.
0001238.
Warner, L. A., A. J. Lamm, J. N. Rumble, E. Martin, and R. Cantrell. 2016. “Classifying Residents
who use Landscape Irrigation: Implications for Encouraging Water Conservation Behavior.”
Environmental Management 58 (2): 238–253. doi:10.1007/s00267-016-0706-2.
Warner, L. A., J. Rumble, E. Martin, A. J. Lamm, and R. Cantrell. 2015. “The Effect of Strategic
Message Selection on Residents’ Intent to Conserve Water in the Landscape.” Journal of
Agricultural Education 56 (4): 59–74. doi:10.5032/jae.2015.04059.
Wauters, E., and E. Mathijs. 2013. “An Investigation Into the Socio-Psychological Determinants of
Farmers’ Conservation Decisions: Method and Implications for Policy, Extension and
Research.” The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 19 (1): 53–72. doi:10.1080/
1389224X.2012.714711.
White, M. P., S. Pahl, B. W. Wheeler, L. E. F. Fleming, and M. H. Depledge. 2016. “The ‘Blue Gym’:
What Can Blue Space do for you and What Can you do for Blue Space?” Journal of the Marine
Biological Association of the United Kingdom 96 (1): 5–12. doi:10.1017/S0025315415002209.
World Economic Forum. 2020. The Global Risks Report 2020. World Economic Forum: Geneva,
Switzerland. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risk_Report_2020.pdf.
World Water Assessment Programme. 2020. The United Nations World Water Development
Report 2020: Water and Climate Change. New York, NY: United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://www.unwater.org/publications/world-water-
development-report-2020/ (May 5, 2020).
Appendices
Appendix A
Attitudes toward water conservation scale
Please indicate your attitude toward the phrase ‘Using good irrigation practices is … ’ Each line has
a different set of adjectives to gather your opinions.
Using good irrigation practices is …
1. Good ο ο ο ο ο Bad
2. Important ο ο ο ο ο Unimportant
3. Foolish ο ο ο ο ο Wise
4. Beneficial ο ο ο ο ο Harmful
5. Positive ο ο ο ο ο Negative
6. Unnecessary ο ο ο ο ο Necessary
Appendix B
Perceived behavioral control over water conservation scale
Please indicate how you feel about the phrase ‘Using good irrigation practices is … ’ Each line has a
different set of adjectives to gather your opinions.
Using good irrigation practices is …
1. Possible for me ο ο ο ο ο Not possible for me

2. Easy for me ο ο ο ο ο Not easy for me
3. In my control ο ο ο ο ο Not in my control
4. Up to me ο ο ο ο ο Not up to me
5. Practical for me ο ο ο ο ο Not practical for me
Appendix C
Subjective norms surrounding water conservation scale
Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements.
Neither
Strongly Somewhat disagree nor Somewhat Strongly
Question disagree disagree agree agree agree
1. The people who are important to me ο ο ο ο ο
expect me to minimize my use of water
when taking care of my lawn/landscape
expect me to conserve water in my yard
expect that I will not waste water when
taking care of my lawn/landscape
expect that I will take care of my
landscape using the smallest amount of
water possible
Appendix D
Concise connectedness to water scale (CCWS)
Using the following scale, answer how you honestly feel. There are no right or wrong answers.
The water around you refers to the lakes, rivers, canals, streams, oceans, springs, and storm-
water ponds that you may see.
Neither
Strongly Somewhat disagree nor Somewhat Strongly
Question disagree disagree agree agree agree
1. I often feel a sense of oneness with the ο ο ο ο ο
water around me.
2. I think of the water around me as a ο ο ο ο ο
community to which I belong.
3. I appreciate the plants and animals that ο ο ο ο ο
live in the water around me.
4. I think of humans as part of the water ο ο ο ο ο
cycle.
5. I feel a kinship with the animals and ο ο ο ο ο
plants that live in the water around me.
6. I feel as though I belong to the water ο ο ο ο ο
around me as equally as it belongs to me.
7. I have a deep understanding of how my ο ο ο ο ο
actions affect the water around me.
8. I often feel a part of the water cycle. ο ο ο ο ο
9. I feel that everyone and everything ο ο ο ο ο
connected to the water around me shares
a common energy.
10. Like a drop of water can be part of the ο ο ο ο ο
ocean, I am connected to the water
around me.
11. I often feel like I am only a small part of ο ο ο ο ο
the natural world around me, and that I
am no more important than the water in
the streams or the fish in the rivers.

Warner Research

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Warner Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension

Competence for Rural Innovation and Transformation

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raee20

Amplifying the Theory of Planned behavior with

Laura A. Warner & John M. Diaz

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2020.1844771

Published online: 17 Nov 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Amplifying the Theory of Planned behavior with

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

change cannot be realized without bringing in psychological approaches to understand-

Changing behavior and the Theory of Planned behavior

Changing environmental behaviors and the role of connectedness to

Need for the current study

Materials and methods

Participants and sample size

Table 1. Study variables and descriptions.

behaviors (Eliminate irrigated areas in my landscape; Turn oﬀ zone(s) or cap irrigation

Table 2. Reliability analyses of CTW scale items.

Table 4. Correlation matrix.

Model 2** .196 .045 60.386 −289.782 < .001

Implications for agricultural extension water conservation programs and local

The Concise connectedness to water scale

Future research and limitations

Baker, R., J. M. Brick, N. A. Bates, M. Battaglia, M. P. Couper, J. A. Dever, and R. Tourangeau.

1. Possible for me ο ο ο ο ο Not possible for me

You might also like