Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Warner Research
Warner Research
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
Article views: 15
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
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).
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
6 L. A. WARNER AND J. M. DIAZ
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.
Figure 1. Conceptual model integrating the Theory of Planned Behavior and Connectedness to Water
to explain water conservation behavioral intent.
THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 7
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.
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
8 L. A. WARNER AND J. M. DIAZ
instruments. The research protocol was reviewed and approved as exempt by the [Field
masked for review] Institutional Review Board.
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
THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 9
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
THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 11
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.
12 L. A. WARNER AND J. M. DIAZ
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 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
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.
14 L. A. WARNER AND J. M. DIAZ
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.
THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 15
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.
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
18 L. A. WARNER AND J. M. DIAZ
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
THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 19
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.
20 L. A. WARNER AND J. M. DIAZ
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.
22 L. A. WARNER AND J. M. DIAZ
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.
THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 23
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).
24 L. A. WARNER AND J. M. DIAZ
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 …
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
2. The people who are important to me ο ο ο ο ο
expect me to conserve water in my yard
3. The people who are important to me ο ο ο ο ο
expect that I will not waste water when
taking care of my lawn/landscape
4. The people who are important to me ο ο ο ο ο
expect that I will take care of my
landscape using the smallest amount of
water possible
THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 25
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.