Manuscript Click here to download Manuscript: REVISED MANUSCRIPT.doc
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
2 3 4
Click here to view linked References
REVISED MANUSCRIPT SUBMITTED BEFORE REVISED MANUSCRIPT FINAL ACCEPTANCE Title: Citizens’ perceptions on water conservation policies and the role of PUBLISHED social AT WATER RESOURCES capital MANAGEMENT, 2011, 25(2), 509-255
5
AUTHORS: Jones N.*, Evangelinos K., Polyzou E.
6
Department of Environment, University of the Aegean, 81100, Mytilene, Greece
7 8
*Dr. Nikoleta Jones, Corresponding author
9
Department of Environment
10
University of the Aegean
11
E-mail:
[email protected] ;
[email protected]
12
Tel.: +30 22510 36245, Fax: +30 22510 36205
13 14
Dr. Konstantinos Evangelinos
15
Lecturer of Environmental Management
16
Department of Environment
17
University of the Aegean
18
E-mail:
[email protected]
19 20
Dr. Petros Gaganis
21
Assistant Professor
22
Department of Environment
23
University of the Aegean
24
E-mail:
[email protected]
25 26
Ms. Eygenia Polyzou
27
Department of Environment
28
University of the Aegean
29
E-mail:
[email protected]
30 31 1
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
2
Citizens’ perceptions on water conservation policies and the role of social capital
3 4
Abstract
5 6
Planning and implementing environmental policies for the sustainable management of
7
water resources is a challenging task. In order to improve the effectiveness of these
8
policies it is essential to explore their social implications. The present article aims to
9
investigate environmental policies focusing on domestic water conservation and their
10
interconnection with social capital elements. In particular, by means of an empirical
11
study conducted in an insular community of Greece, citizens‟ perceptions are
12
explored concerning the restrictions imposed from different environmental policy
13
instruments for water consumption and their perceived level of effectiveness.
14
Furthermore, the influence of social capital parameters on these perceptions is
15
investigated. Aggregated indicators of social capital are estimated with Confirmatory
16
Factor Analysis measuring social and institutional trust, participation in social
17
networks and compliance with social norms. Through the results of ordinal regression
18
models it is evident that significant connections exist between elements of social
19
capital and perceptions of citizens towards water consumption policies.
20 21
Keywords: water consumption policies, non-economic social costs, social capital,
22
citizens‟ perceptions
23 24 25 2
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
1. Introduction
2 3
In the context of environmental policy there is an increasing demand for the
4
implementation of measures focusing on the conservation and protection of water
5
resources. At the household level, a variety of policies aiming to promote a shift in
6
citizens‟ behavior, in order to either minimize household water consumption or to
7
reduce the environmental impacts from household activities, have been implemented
8
by most countries.
9 10
The policy instruments used to influence household water consumption patterns can
11
be categorized into three broad groups: (i) economic instruments, (ii) regulatory
12
standards or limitations and (iii) social instruments. Economic market-based
13
instruments of often negative incentives are widely implemented in this field
14
(Johansson et al. 2002; Rogers et al. 2002; Bakker 2001; Randolph & Troy, 2008).
15
Indicative examples include the water consumption taxes, where higher levels of
16
consumption incur higher fees, and the removal of water subsidies. Although,
17
economic instruments are often assumed to be more cost efficient and less intrusive
18
than regulatory instruments, they do not always represent a sufficient step in
19
influencing household water consumption. For example, the successful uncoupling of
20
water consumption and economic growth at the household level in Germany and the
21
Netherlands is attributed more to information and appropriate technology than to user
22
fees (Geyer-Allély and Zacarias-Farah, 2002). Regulatory standards or limitations are
23
implemented especially in cases where there are significant drought problems or in
24
order to maintain a certain level of water quantity and quality (Bruch et al. 2007;
25
McKay and Moeller 2002). Regulatory standards are not considered effective because 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
1
are difficult to implement or enforce, thus most countries have generally preferred to
2
influence household consumption through imposing regulatory standards or
3
requirements further upstream in the product chain (e.g. building codes). Social or
4
communicative instruments can generally be described as tools influencing consumer
5
knowledge, environmental awareness, and willingness to act towards a sustainable
6
management of water resources (Syme et al. 2000). Indicative examples include
7
environmental education campaigns, seminars and the distribution of leaflets
8
promoting environmentally responsible behavior. Social instruments may also include
9
co-operative management frameworks which have been proposed aiming to support
10
citizens‟ and stakeholders‟ cooperation (Kumar 2000; Johnson et al. 2002). It is not
11
clear, however, whether policy instruments and public participation may also result in
12
behavior change by consumers. It is important to analyze how information and price
13
signals affect consumer preferences and to give more attention to the different
14
economic, demographic, and social drivers that influence household water
15
consumption (Geyer-Allély and Zacarias-Farah, 2002; Mosterta et al. 2008). Such an
16
approach will assist in identifying where policy is likely to be the most cost efficient,
17
equitable, and environmentally effective.
18 19
According to the relevant literature, citizens‟ environmental behavior in relation to
20
water consumption depends on several factors, connected with both social and
21
environmental aspects (Portnov & Meir, 2008; Jorgensen et al., 2009). Specifically,
22
regarding social factors, it has been proven that age is positively connected with water
23
consumption, thus older people tend to consume more water (Keshavarzi et al., 2006;
24
Levallois et al., 1998). Furthermore, women present higher consumption levels
25
although this behavior may be connected with their everyday household activities 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
1
(Corral-Verdugo et al., 2003). Income is also a significant parameter as it has been
2
claimed that lower income households consume less water and are more willing to
3
voluntarily reduce consumption (Gregory and Di Leo 2003; de Oliver, 1999; Corral-
4
Verdugo et al., 2003; Aitken et al. 1994; Portnov & Meir, 2008). Finally, it has been
5
observed that lower educational level is connected with lower water consumption
6
(Gregory and di Leo, 2003) while the size of the household is also an important
7
influential factor (Wentz and Gober, 2007).
8 9
Apart from the above connections, individuals‟ behavior is significantly connected
10
with the proposed changes imposed by a policy and the level of social acceptability
11
for these changes (Randolph & Troy, 2008; Menegaki et al., 2007). In this context, it
12
is important to investigate perceptions of citizens on the social costs of a proposed
13
environmental policy along with the factors influencing these perceptions. Recent
14
findings have highlighted that these perceptions will significantly depend on the
15
social capital of a community (Jones, 2010). Social capital elements have been
16
introduced in the literature of environmental policy for over a decade and have been
17
successfully utilized as explanatory factors in order to understand citizens‟ behavior
18
(Jorgensen et al., 2009) and their perceptions of environmental policies (Jones, 2010;
19
Jones et al., 2009). Social capital may be divided in four main factors: social trust,
20
institutional trust, social networks and compliance with social norms (Narayan &
21
Cassidy, 2001; van Oorschot et al., 2006; Jones, 2010). However, to date there are no
22
available studies connecting perceptions of water consumption policies with social
23
capital elements.
24
5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
1
The aim of the present paper is to investigate citizens‟ perceptions of water
2
conservation policies and the influence of social capital on these perceptions.
3
Specifically, citizens‟ opinions concerning social costs imposed from different
4
policies aiming to minimize water consumption are investigated in an insular
5
community of Greece. In addition, elements of social capital are utilized, as
6
explanatory factors for the perceived social costs of policy instruments. The paper
7
concludes by highlighting the importance of social capital parameters for the
8
formation of water consumption policies and the need to take them into consideration
9
during decision-making processes.
10 11
2. Social costs of environmental policies and the role of social capital
12 13
A significant parameter revealing citizens‟ attitudes towards an environmental policy
14
are the restrictions perceived from the implementation of the policy. These restrictions
15
may be characterized as the Non-Economic Social Costs (NESoCs) of environmental
16
policy instruments (Jones et al. 2009). They are defined as “the limitations imposed
17
on citizens during the application of an environmental policy in their everyday lives”
18
(Jones et al., 2009; Jones 2010). Indicative examples of these costs are the reduction
19
of water provision in case of drought and the limitation of activities in a protected
20
area of high biodiversity value. The term „non- economic‟ is utilized to distinguish it
21
from „social costs‟ analyzed in environmental economics literature (Coase 1960).
22
Higher restrictions, thus higher NESoCs, are expected from policies aiming to
23
significantly change the socio-political culture of a community and current habits.
24
Such policies refer mainly to market based instruments of negative incentives and also
25
environmental regulations. On the contrary, „softer‟ policy tools, based on voluntary 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
1
participation, are expected to impose lower restrictions (Jones et al. 2009; Jones,
2
2010). Examples of such instruments are market-based tools of positive incentives
3
(e.g. funding) and environmental education campaigns. Instruments imposing high
4
levels of social costs are expected to be accompanied by intense protests and the
5
unwillingness of citizens to cooperate with a proposed policy during its
6
implementation.
7 8
In order to better understand citizens‟ perceptions towards environmental policies and
9
specifically social costs, elements of social capital have been recently utilized as
10
explanatory parameters (Jones et al. 2009; Jones, 2010). Social capital refers to social
11
factors of a community significantly influencing the behavior of its members
12
regarding collective issues. In the relevant literature, four main dimensions of social
13
capital are identified (Coleman 1990; Putnam 1993): a. social trust, referring to trust
14
between individuals; b. institutional trust, referring to trust in institutions connected
15
with the functioning of a community (e.g. government, justice system); c. compliance
16
with social norms referring to the tendency among members of a community to
17
comply with norms for the protection of the common good (e.g. paying taxes) and d.
18
formal social networks referring mainly to the membership of individuals in
19
organized collectivities (e.g. Non-Governmental Organizations). Each of these factors
20
is connected with the social costs of environmental policies.
21 22
Social trust is linked with the belief that fellow citizens act for the protection of the
23
common good and in consequence influence individual behavior and habits
24
concerning natural resources and the level of acceptance of an environmental policy
25
(Pretty, 2003; Wagner and Fernandez-Gimenez 2008; Jorgensen et al., 2009). For 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
1
example, individuals who consider that their fellow citizens will comply with a new
2
environmental regulation concerning water consumption will perceive less social
3
costs from a proposed policy (Jones, 2010) and will be more willing to save water
4
(Jorgensen et al., 2009). Similarly, compliance with social norms is also a significant
5
parameter influencing citizens‟ perceptions and their tendency for environmentally
6
responsible behavior and water conservation practices (Corral-Verdugo and Frias-
7
Armenta 2006). The tendency of a community to act for the common good and
8
comply with formal and informal norms will also influence the level of social costs
9
perceived and also their decision to accept and cooperate with an environmental
10
policy (Jones et al., 2009). In addition, institutional trust is dependent on the
11
effectiveness of institutions (Kim 2005). High levels of trust may imply positive
12
perceptions concerning the effectiveness of a proposed environmental policy (Beierle
13
and Cayford 2002; Cvetkovich and Winter 2003; Jorgensen et al., 2009). Thus, during
14
the implementation of water conservation policies citizens will be less willing to save
15
water in the case that they do not trust the institution responsible for the
16
environmental management (Jorgensen et al., 2009). The above elements of social
17
capital are expected to influence citizens‟ perceptions especially in the case of highly
18
restrictive instruments (e.g. norms and regulations) (Jones et al., 2009; Jones, 2010).
19
This is mainly due to the dependence of these instruments on institutions functioning
20
as managing actors (e.g. government) and also due to the belief that fellow citizens
21
will comply with new regulations and free-riding incidents will remain at a low level.
22 23
Regarding social networks, these are connected with the level of environmental
24
awareness and activation of citizens also influencing attitudes towards environmental
25
policies (Cramb 2005; Wakefield et al. 2006). However, the type and density of these 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
1
networks may differentiate their influence. For example, the existence of clientelistic
2
networks or participation in groups promoting non-responsible environmental habits
3
may have negative implications. These structural elements of social capital are
4
expected to significantly influence perceptions for „softer‟ environmental policy
5
instruments (Jones et al. 2009). Less restrictive instruments may refer to
6
communicative tools, co-management projects or funding policies where high levels
7
of participation and environmental awareness are essential for their implementation
8
(Resurreccion 2006; Berkes 2009).
9 10
The above assumptions indicate that social capital may influence the perceived levels
11
of social costs of environmental policies. However, there are currently no available
12
empirical studies investigating these issues specifically for water conservation
13
policies. Consequently, an empirical study was conducted adopting a multi-
14
dimensional definition of social capital and investigating its influence on citizens‟
15
perceptions for different types of water conservation policies.
16 17 18
3. Methods
19 20
3.1.
Aim of research
21 22
Through an empirical study four main issues were investigated exploring citizens‟
23
perceptions of water consumption policies: a. current behavior and habits concerning
24
water consumption; b. non-economic social costs of water consumption policies and
25
exploration of their differences; c. citizens‟ perceptions of the effectiveness of the 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
1
proposed policies and their connection with non-economic social costs and d. the
2
influence of social capital parameters on these social costs.
3 4
3.2.
Description of Research Area
5 6
In order to investigate these issues an empirical survey was conducted in the city of
7
Mytilene which is the capital of Lesvos, an island situated in the North-Aegean Sea in
8
Greece. Its‟ estimated population, according to the 2001 census, is 29,000 inhabitants.
9
The management of water resources in the area is the responsibility of the local
10
authorities and in particular of the Municipality of Mytilene. Similar to other Greek
11
islands (e.g. Genius et al. 2008), the area currently faces drought problems, mainly
12
during the summer months where high temperatures are recorded (Mean annual
13
temperature: 17.6°, average temperature of the warmest month (July): 26.5°, average
14
annual rainfall: 682mm) (Dimitrakopoulos et al., 2006). To confront water shortages
15
during these periods, the authorities often suspend the water supply for approximately
16
two hours in different parts of the city. Furthermore, due to these measures, tanks
17
have been installed in most buildings of the area in order to store water. However, the
18
quality of the tank water may be significantly reduced depending on how long it
19
remains in the tank. Based on these circumstances it is essential to investigate
20
environmental policies that may encourage citizens to be more environmentally
21
responsible.
22 23 24
3.3.
Questionnaire and data analysis
25 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
1
A questionnaire was created and distributed to a representative sample of citizens to
2
explore their perceptions on water consumption policies. Four main sets of questions
3
were created. In the first part, demographic data of the sample were collected. In the
4
second section, habits of individuals concerning water consumption, were
5
investigated. These questions measured the frequency of the following actions:
6
„Turning off water while brushing teeth‟, „Reuse of towels‟, „Letting the tap run when
7
requiring cold water‟, „Having plants with low water needs‟ and „Washing car with a
8
hosepipe‟. All behaviors were measured on a 4 point Likert scale (1: Never, 2:
9
Sometimes, 3: Most times, 4: Always).
10 11
A third set of questions presented five potential policies aiming to minimize water
12
consumption. The selection of the specific policies was conducted to include different
13
types of instruments such as command and control, market-based or softer
14
instruments and explore differences of their NESoCs. Regarding command and
15
control tools, three policies were proposed: „Consumption limits depending on
16
number of household members‟, „Prohibition of washing cars with hosepipes‟ and
17
„Prohibition of washing external areas with hosepipe‟. Additionally, one market-based
18
instrument of negative incentives was included referring to a revenue tax. Finally, a
19
less restrictive instrument was presented concerning funding for improving water
20
systems in households in order to repair and avoid leaks. The restrictions were
21
measured on a 5 point Likert scale where 1 represented the lowest and 5 the highest
22
restrictions imposed from the proposed policies. In the same part of the questionnaire
23
the expected level of effectiveness of these policies was also investigated. This
24
investigation was conducted to observe possible connections of NESoCs with
11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
1
efficiency. These questions were measured on a four point Likert scale (1: Very
2
effective, 2: Quite effective, 3: Not very effective, 4: Not at all effective).
3 4
The final set of questions aimed to measure social capital. These variables were
5
included in the questionnaire in order to be utilized as explanatory factors for the
6
perceived social costs of the proposed environmental policies. They were divided in
7
four sections representing different elements of social capital. Furthermore, due to the
8
numerous variables utilized for the estimation of social capital parameters, an
9
Explanatory Factor Analysis was conducted aiming to concentrate these variables in
10
four factors. In the fragments, the Cronbach‟s alpha reliability indicator is provided.
11
Firstly, social trust was measured through three questions, according to the relevant
12
literature (Jones et al. 2008; Narayan and Cassidy 2001; Woodhouse 2006) („Most
13
people can be trusted or you can‟t be too careful‟, „Most people are fair or try to take
14
advantage of you‟ and „How much do you trust your neighbors) (Cronbach‟s alpha:
15
0.81). All questions were measured on a 0-10 Likert scale with lower valuations
16
representing lower levels of trust. Secondly, institutional trust was measured for the
17
Ministry of Environment and the European Union which are responsible for water
18
management in Greece and also for funding environmental projects (Cronbach‟s
19
alpha: 0.70). These questions were also measured on a 0-10 Likert scale with lower
20
valuations representing lower levels of trust. Thirdly, social networks were measured
21
through membership and voluntary participation in non-governmental organizations,
22
with dichotomous format questions (Cronbach‟s alpha: 0.60) (Beugelsdijk and van
23
Schaik 2005; Newton and Norris 2000; van Oorschot et al. 2006). Finally, compliance
24
with norms was investigated for two environmental issues connected with water
25
consumption (washing car and external places with a hosepipe, Cronbach‟s alpha: 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
1
0.72). The format of the question was: „How wrong do you regard the following
2
actions?‟ and were measured on a 5 point Likert scale where 1 represented
3
„completely justifiable‟ and 5 „completely unjustifiable‟ action.
4 5
3.4.
Sample
6 7
The questionnaire was completed through face-to-face interviews and a sampling
8
technique based on geographical criteria was implemented in order to contact
9
individuals from all areas of the city. The final sample of the survey was 152 with a
10
response rate of approximately 75%. From the sample, 43.2% were male and 56.8%
11
female (Table 1). Regarding educational level, highest percentages were observed
12
among citizens who have completed secondary and post-secondary education (Up to
13
14 years of education, 45.7%) followed by citizens who have completed 9 years of
14
education (15.9%). Regarding annual income level, most citizens are included in the
15
first and second category (up to €12,000: 39.9%; €12,000-€30,000: 40.5%; €30,000-
16
€60,000: 8.8%; over €60,000: 4.1%). Finally, the average age of the sample was 34
17
with the target group being citizens of 18-70 years of age. In order to assure the
18
representativeness of the sample the relevance of the sampled population was tested
19
throughout the survey with the characteristics of the real population based on the
20
available data from the 2001 census.
21 22
[Insert Table 1 about here]
23 24
4. Results
25 26
4.1.
Environmental behavior for water consumption 13
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
2
Several behaviors concerning water consumption were investigated during the survey.
3
From the results of the study (Table 2) it is observed that the highest frequency was
4
presented for „Turning off water while brushing teeth‟ and the lowest for „Having
5
plants with low water needs‟ (40.8 % and 12.5% respectively responded that they
6
always proceed to these actions). Furthermore, the majority of respondents declared
7
that they „always‟ or „most times‟ reuse towels (38.8% and 28.3% respectively) and
8
only 15.1% declared that they „always‟ let the tap run when requiring cool water‟. In
9
addition, 37.2% always wash their car with a hosepipe indicating a high frequency of
10
non-responsible environmental behavior.
11 12
In the second part of Table 2 mean scores of environmental behavior (measured on a
13
4-point Likert scale) are presented for different demographic categories. Statistically
14
significant positive correlations are presented between educational level and three
15
environmental behaviors: reuse of towels (r=2.77, p
