
































Microsoft Word - 107-Manuscript-1329-2-11-20210524.docx


 Wise et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 2, Issue 2, 2021 
  agdevresearch.org 

1. Austin Wise, Ph.D. Student, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 322 Bessey Hall, Lincoln NE 68588-0340, 

awise2@huskers.unl.edu,   https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9388-4946 
2. Donald Johnson, Professor, University of Arkansas, E108 AFLS Building, Fayetteville, AR 72701, dmjohnso@uark.edu,   

 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2592-654X  
3. George Wardlow, Professor and Head, University of Arkansas, E108 AFLS Building, Fayetteville, AR 72701, 

wardlow@uark.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000--0001-5701-8250 
4. Kathi Jogan, Instructor, University of Arkansas, 1120 W. Maple St., Fayetteville, AR 72701, kjogan@uark.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8884-0164  
36 

 

Predicting College Students’ Future Intentions to Engage in 
Public-Sphere Water Conservation Behaviors 

A. Wise1, D. Johnson2, G. Wardlow3
, K. Jogan4 

 
 

  

Abstract 

The purpose of this study was to describe selected college students’ (N = 252) perceptions of and 
future intentions (FI) to engage in public-sphere water conservation behaviors, and to determine if FI 
could be predicted by a single or linear combination of student demographic characteristics  and 
latent variables. A majority of respondents agreed a growing population will negatively affect water 
quantity (90.5%) and there is a need for water resource management (85.6%). A majority disagreed 
or strongly disagreed that they (53.4%), their family (57.1%), or their friends (67.5%) practiced water 
conservation, or that people in their hometowns were concerned about local water availability 
(78.1%). A majority agreed they would engage in four of five public-sphere water conservation 
behaviors in the future: support water conservation programs (86.4%), care more deeply about 
water conservation (81.2%), join a water conservation organization (79.2%), and vote for stricter 
water use laws (55.0%). Fewer than one-half agreed or strongly agreed they would donate money to 
support water conservation (45.8%). Responses to statements concerning water conservation were 
factor analyzed and two factors were extracted: lack of agency (LA) and subjective norms (SN). A 
linear combination of gender, LA, and SN explained 36.7% of the variance in FI.   
 
 
Keywords 
subjective norms, theory of planned behavior, environment  



Wise et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.107   37 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 

Earth’s surface is over 75% water, however only about 2.5% of that is freshwater and even less 
is available for human use (United States Geological Survey, 2018).  Certainly, freshwater is a 
valuable and limited resource. Thus, it is important to consider the conservation of such limited 
resources and to promote responsible use practices and policies (Chaudhary et al., 2017). 
 
Water conservation behaviors have been categorized as either private- or public-sphere 
behaviors (Stern, 2002). Private-sphere behaviors refer to actions taken to conserve water on 
an individual or household level, such as use of low-flow shower heads or installation of high 
efficiency toilets. Public-sphere water conservation behaviors refer to civic engagement in pro-
conservation actions designed to influence public policies relative to water conservation. Such 
behaviors include voting, membership in water conservation organizations, and support for 
water conservation policies (Stern, 2002).  
 
Older adults, females, persons living in single-family residences, and those holding more liberal 
political orientations are more likely to engage in private-sphere water conservation behaviors 
(Arnocky & Stroink, 2011; Chaudhary et al., 2018; Clark & Finley, 2007; Larson et al., 2011). 
Individuals with higher levels of education (Larson & Larch, 2010) and those with college majors 
in natural resources (Arnocky & Stroink, 2011) are more likely to engage in broader pro-
environmental public-sphere behaviors. Koehler and Koontz (2008) found males, those in 
careers related to the environment, those from rural areas, and those with higher levels of 
political involvement were more likely to be active in collaborative watershed groups, one type 
of public-sphere water conservation behavior.  
 
This research sought to identify predictors of college students’ future intentions (FI) to engage 
in public-sphere water conservation behaviors. This research is particularly important given the 
higher level of involvement by college graduates in voting and public policy advocacy (Brand, 
2010), two primary public-sphere behaviors (Stern, 2002).  
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 

The research was guided by the Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). The TPB 
attempts to predict and explain human behavior based on three determinants: attitude, 
subjective norms and perceived behavioral control (see Figure 1). Attitude refers to how 
favorable an individual’s opinion or evaluation is for a given behavior and as determined by the 
individual. Subjective norms refer to perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform the 
behavior, and perceived behavioral control refers to the perceived ease or difficulty of 
performing the target behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Within the context of this study, we sought to 
predict future intentions to engage in public-sphere water conservation behaviors. Respondent 
demographic characteristics (age, gender, academic classification, major, home community, 
and political orientation) previously found to be related to water conservation attitudes and 
behaviors were also included in the theoretical model. 



Wise et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.107   38 
 

Figure 1  
 
Model of Adapted Theory of Planned Behavior  

 
Note. Adapted from “The Theory of Planned Behavior,” by I. Ajzen, 1991, Organizational 
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. (https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-
5978(91)90020-T).
 
According to Pradhananga et al. (2015), “Socio-demographic characteristics such as age, 
income, and education provide important information about who [italics in original] commonly 
engages or does not engage in water resource decision making, but socio-demographics do not 
explain what [italics in original] motivates engagement” (p. 1602). This view was supported by 
Larson et al. (2011). Mancha and Yoder (2015) suggested that people’s intended behaviors 
were influenced by subjective norms. They concluded that if the people surrounding the 
respondent expected that individual to behave in a specific way then that was likely to 
influence any intentions that individual may have towards the environment. Among the few 
studies in this area, self-efficacy (Martinez & McMullin, 2004) and subjective norms (Fielding et 
al., 2008) were found to be strong predictors of public-sphere environmental behaviors. In one 
of the few studies testing these relationships specifically in the realm of water conservation, 
Pradhananga et al. (2015) found that subjective norms had a significant effect on landowners’ 
public-sphere water conservation behaviors. 
 

Purpose 
 

The purpose of this study was to assess undergraduate students’ perceptions of water 
conservation and their future intentions toward public-sphere water conservation behaviors.  
1. Describe students’ perceptions of selected aspects of water conservation;  
2. Identify and name the latent factor structure underlying students’ perceptions about 

selected aspects of water conservation; 
3. Describe students’ future intentions to engage in public-sphere water conservation 

behaviors;  
4. Determine the relationships between selected student demographic characteristics (age, 

gender, community type, academic classification, major, and political orientation), the 



Wise et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.107   39 
 

identified latent factors, and future intentions concerning public-sphere water conservation 
behaviors; and 

5. Determine if a single or linear combination of student demographic characteristics and 
identified latent factors could explain a significant (p  <  .05) portion of the variance in 
students’ future intentions concerning public-sphere water conservation behaviors.   

 
Methods 

 
The population for this study was the 27,559 undergraduate students enrolled at the University 
of Arkansas during the Spring 2020 term (University of Arkansas, 2019). Based on an anticipated 
effect size of f 2 = 0.15 and a statistical power of .95, an alpha of .05, and 10 potential 
predictors, the minimum sample size was calculated to be 172 subjects using G*Power 3.1.9.6 
(Faul et al., 2007).   
 
After university IRB approval, all undergraduate courses with enrollments of 30 students or 
higher were identified using a spreadsheet provided by the Registrar’s Office. Courses were 
then stratified as agriculture or non-agriculture courses based on their alpha codes, and 10 
courses were randomly selected from each stratum. Instructors of each selected course were 
contacted and asked to allow their students to participate. All courses switched to remote 
instruction due to the coronavirus pandemic within a week after this initial contact, and only six 
instructors agreed to participate. Additional non-random sampling procedures were used to 
ensure adequate responses to achieve the study objectives. Thus, due to circumstances 
dictated by the novel coronavirus pandemic, a randomly selected sample of students was not 
surveyed and no generalizations beyond these respondents are warranted. 
 
The survey instrument was developed by the researcher and refined during a cognitive 
interview with a University of Arkansas faculty member specializing in quantitative social 
science survey development. Face and construct validity were established by a panel of four 
faculty members with expertise in quantitative social science research and natural resource 
conservation. The survey contained three sections. Section one determined respondents’ 
agreement with 16 statements about water resources using a 1 to 4 Likert-type scale (1 = 
strongly disagree and 4 = strongly agree). Section two contained five items concerning 
respondents’ future intentions (FI) concerning public-sphere water conservation, measured on 
the same 1 to 4 Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree and 4 = strongly agree). These items 
were developed by the researchers based on Stern’s (2002) definition of public-sphere 
environmental behaviors. Section three contained six items to determine respondent 
demographic characteristics of age, gender, academic classification, major (agriculture or non-
agriculture), home community (rural or metro), and political orientation (very conservative to 
very liberal). The post-hoc coefficient alpha reliabilities for the two latent factors derived from 
Part one of the instrument were .73 and .75; the coefficient alpha reliability of Part two was 
.85.  
 
Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and ordinary least-squares multiple regression. 
Exploratory factor analysis with a promax rotation was used to identify latent constructs 



Wise et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.107   40 
 

underlying student responses to the 16 water use and conservation statements. The number of 
meaningful factors to retain was determined based on the scree plot of eigenvalues, the 
proportion of variance explained by each factor, and by the interpretability of the resulting 
factors (Hatcher, 1994). Factors were deemed interpretable if at least three items loaded on 
each factor (minimum loading = .40), the variables loading on each factor shared some 
conceptual meaning, and items loading on one factor had near-zero loadings on other factors 
(Hatcher, 1994).  Prior to multiple regression analysis, data were examined for outliers and 
influential observations and violations of assumptions of linearity of the predictor and criterion 
variables, multicollinearity, normality of residuals, and homogeneity of the variance of the 
residuals (Field and Miles, 2012). Two outliers were identified (studentized residuals > |3.0|) 
and removed from the data set (Field & Miles, 2012). Linearity of continuous predictors and the 
criterion variable was verified using bivariate scatterplots. Variance inflation factors of < 5. 0 
indicated the multicollinearity was not a threat (Field & Miles, 2012). The Shapiro-Wilk test was 
used to test the assumption of normality of residuals and results indicated this assumption was 
not violated, w = 0. 99, p = .13. Homogeneity of variance of the residuals was assessed by 
White’s test and the results indicated this assumption was not violated, χ2(18) = 20. 91, p = .28.   
 

Findings 
 

Of the students (N = 252) responding to this survey, 40.9% identified as male, 58.7% as female, 
and 0.4% did not disclose their gender identity. A slight majority of respondents were either 
freshmen (28.6%) or sophomores (30.6%), majoring in agriculture (56.8%), coming from rural 
(52.4%) areas, and identifying their political views as either conservative (32.3%) or very 
conservative (24.3%). The mean age of respondents was 20.38 years (SD = 2.25). A majority 
indicated they paid their own water bill, either as a separate bill (29.0%) or as part of their rent 
(29.0%).  
 
As shown in Table 1, more than one-half of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that a 
growing population will negatively affect water quantity (90.5%), there is a need for water 
resource management (85.6%), the respondent could easily reduce water use if they wanted 
(76.0%), that people they spend time with do not care whether the respondent conserved 
water or not (67.0%), that their personal water use had little impact on regional water quantity 
(54.7%), and that conserving water is easier for the respondent than for others. Conversely, 
more than one-half of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that they (53.4%), their 
family (57.1%), or their friends (67.5%) practiced water conservation, or that people in their 
hometowns were concerned about local water quantity (78.1%). Respondents disagreed or 
strongly disagreed they felt social pressure to conserve water (78.9%) or that the cost of water 
caused them to use less (74.6%). Almost one-half of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that 
freshwater was a quickly renewable resource (42.1%).  
 
 
 
 



Wise et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.107   41 
 

Table 1 
 
Student Agreement with Selected Statements Concerning Water Use and Conservation 
  Level of agreement 
 
Statement 

 
n 

Strongly 
disagree (%) 

Disagree 
(%) 

Agree 
(%) 

Strongly 
agree (%) 

A growing population will negatively 
affect water quantity 

252 2.0 7.5 56.8 33.7 

There is a need for water resource 
management  

251 10.8 3.6 44.6 41.0 

If I wanted to, I could easily cut 
down my water use 

250 2.4 21.6 61.6 14.4 

The people I spend time with do not 
care whether I conserve water 

252 3.6 29.4 59.1 7.9 

My water use has little impact on 
water quantity in my region 

252 7.9 37.3 46.8 7.9 

Conserving water is easier for me 
than for others 

252 4.8 44.4 42.1 8.7 

I am engaged in water conservation 251 8.4 45.0 39.4 7.2 
My family practices water 

conservation 
252 10.7 46.4 37.3 5.6 

Freshwater is a quickly renewable 
resource  

252 14.7 43.2 38. 1 4.0 

My friends practice water 
conservation 

252 13.9 53.6 30.6 2.0 

The cost of water causes me to use 
less in my daily life 

252 20.6 54.0 22.6 2.8 

It would make no difference if I 
conserved more household water 

252 54.2 35.5 8.4 2.0 

People in my hometown are 
concerned about local water 
quantity 

252 20.2 57.9 18.1 3.9 

I feel social pressure to conserve 
water 

251 19.1 59.8 17.5 3.6 

Water resource management is less 
important now than it was in the 
past 

252 39.3 44.4 11.9 4.4 

It would make no difference if 
everyone conserved more 
household water 

251 54.2 35.5 8.4 2.0 

 
Exploratory factor analysis identified two factors (see Table 2) that explained 93.0% of the 
variance in the original 16 items. Four items loaded on Factor 1, six items loaded on Factor 2, 
and six items did not load on any factor. Based on the highest loading items in each factor (Yong 



Wise et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.107   42 
 

and Pearce, 2013), the factors were named “lack of agency” (LA) and “subjective norms” (SN). 
The coefficient alpha reliability estimates for  LA and SN were .75 and .73, respectively.   
 
Table 2 
 
Summary of Items, Loadings, and Factor Reliabilities for the Two-Factor Solution for Agreement 
with Selected Statements Concerning Water Use and Conservation (n = 246) 
 Loading 
Item Factor 1 Factor 2 
Factor 1: Lack of Agency (coefficient alpha = .75)   
It would make no difference if everyone conserved more 

household water 
.86 .22 

It would make no difference if I conserved more household 
water 

.72 .08 

Water resource management is less important now than it was 
in the past 

.55 .01 

Freshwater is a quickly renewable resource .51 .06 
Factor 2: Subjective Norms (coefficient alpha = .73)   
My friends practice water conservation .03 .71 
My family practices water conservation .02 .68 
I feel social pressure to conserve water .19 .57 
I am engaged in water conservation -.24 .50 
People in my hometown are concerned about water quantity .18 .49 
Conserving water is easier for me than for others .03 .44 

Note. Factor loadings greater than .40 are shown in bold. 
 
Respondents were asked their level of agreement they would engage in five future public-
sphere water conservation behaviors. As shown in Table 3, over one-half of all respondents 
agreed or strongly agreed they would engage in four of the five public-sphere activities in the 
future: support water conservation programs (86.4%), care more deeply about water 
conservation (81.2%), join a water conservation organization (79.2%), and vote for stricter 
water use laws (55.0%). Slightly fewer than one-half agreed or strongly agreed they would 
donate money to support water conservation (45.8%).   
 
  



Wise et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.107   43 
 

Table 3  
 
Student Agreement They Will Participate in Public-Sphere Behaviors Related to Water 
Conservation in the Future 
  Level of agreement 
 
Behavior 

 
n 

Strongly 
disagree (%) 

Disagree 
(%) 

Agree 
(%) 

Strongly 
agree (%) 

Support water conservation 
programs 

251 2.4 11.2 66.9 19.5 

Care more deeply about water 
conservation 

251 2.4 16.3 64.1 17.1 

Join a water conservation 
organization  

251 3.2 17.5 64.1 15.1 

Vote for stricter water use laws 251 8.8 36.2 45 4 9.6 
Donate money to support water 

conservation 
251 6.8 47.4 38.6 7.2 

 
The five activities in Table 2 were summed and a mean score was calculated as an overall 
measure of future intentions (FI) to engage in public-sphere water conservation behaviors. The 
mean FI score was 2. 79 (SD = 0. 55) on a 1 to 4 scale, indicating overall agreement.  
 
As shown in Table 4, five variables were significantly (p  <  .05) correlated with FI. The 
descriptors proposed by Davis (1971) were used to characterize the magnitude of all 
correlations.  Political orientation and LA had significant, low negative correlations with FI, 
indicating that political conservatives and those with higher LA scores had lower FI scores. Age 
and SN had significant, low to moderate, respectively, positive correlations with FI, indicating 
that older students and students with higher SN scores had higher FI scores. The 
intercorrelations between potential predictor variables ranged from negligible to substantial. 
Classification and age were substantially correlated (as expected), and both had low negative 
correlations with LA. Political orientation had a significant low positive correlation with LA and 
with major. Finally, there was a low positive correlation between gender and LA.  No other 
correlations were statistically significant.  
 
  



Wise et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.107   44 
 

Table 4 
 
Intercorrelations between Demographic Characteristics, LA and SN Factors, and FI 
Variable X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 
Gender a (X1) 1.0 .07eNS -.23*** -.04eNS .31e*** .06fNS .17f** .08fNS -.13f* 
Classification b (X2)  1.0 .03eNS .00eNS -.05eNS .61g*** -.21g*** -.04gNS -.01gNS 
Major (X3)   1.0 .09eNS -.12e* -.04gNS .10gNS -.09gNS -.07gNS 
Community c (X4)    1.0 -.01fNS .01gNS -.01gNS -.01gNS .01gNS 
Political orient. d (X5)     1.0 -.08gNS .24g*** -.09gNS -.15g* 
Age (X6)      1.0 -.26h*** .06hNS .16h** 
LA (X7)       1.0 .05hNS -.29h*** 
SN (X8)        1.0 .49h*** 
FI (X9)         1.0 
a Coded as female = 0 and male = 1. b Coded as 0 = freshman of sophomore and 1 = junior or 
senior. c Coded as 0 = rural and 1 = metro. d Coded as 0 = not conservative and 1 = conservative.  
e phi coefficient. f point biserial correlation. g biserial correlation. h Pearson correlation.  
NSNot significant (p  >  .05). *p  <  .05. **p  <  .01. ***p  <  .001.  
 
The final objective sought to determine if a single or linear combination of student 
demographic characteristic or LA and SN factors could explain a significant (p  <  .05) portion of 
the variance in FI. Based on the results of bivariate analysis, gender, political orientation, age, 
LA, and SN were included as potential predictors in the regression equation.   
 
The regression model was significant, F(5, 241) = 28. 62, p  <  .001. Three variables, gender, LA, 
and SN entered into the model (see Table 5) and explained 36.7% of the variance in FI. The 
regression coefficients for both gender and LA were negative, indicating lower FI scores for 
males and respondents with higher LA scores. The positive regression coefficient for SN 
indicated respondents who higher  subjective norms related to water conservation also had 
higher FI scores. The Cohen’s f 2 of 0.58, represented a large effect size (Cohen, 1988). 
 
Table 5 
 
Regression Model Predicting FI from Political Orientation, Age, Gender, LA, and SN 
Variable df B SE t p 
Intercept 1 1.59 0.33 4.84 <.001 
Political orientation 1 0.01 0.06 0.09 .929 
Age 1 0.02 0.01 1.42 .157 
Gender 1 -0.15 0.06 -2.53 .012 
LA 1 -0.25 0.05 -4.86 <.001 
SN 1 0.60 0.06 10.10 <.001 

 
Squared semi-partial correlations were calculated for gender, LA, and SN to determine the 
amount of unique variance in FI accounted by for each predictor when controlling for the other 



Wise et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.107   45 
 

variables. These results indicated that SN (ΔR2 = .28) was the most robust single predictor of FI, 
followed by LA (ΔR2 = .08) and gender (ΔR2 = .02).  
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 

The population for this study was undergraduate students at the University of Arkansas during 
the Spring, 2020 academic semester. The accessible population included students in selected 
intact classrooms from either of two groups, agriculture courses and non-agriculture courses. 
Thus, the conclusions and recommendations from this study are limited to these respondents; 
caution should be used in generalizing to other groups. 
 
The majority of respondents agreed availability of water as a resource will be negatively 
affected by a growing population and there is need to manage water as a finite natural 
resource. Interestingly, respondents indicated that they could do a better job at water use 
management, but that people close to them seemed to not care about water conservation and, 
therefore, did not practice conservation. The respondents felt that their personal water usage 
had little impact on water quantity and that they felt little societal pressure to conserve water. 
Thus, neither personal agency nor subjective norms appeared to provide incentives to value  
private-sphere water conservation behaviors.   
 
When the students were asked if they would engage in future public-sphere water conservation 
behaviors, the majority indicated they would support water conservation programs, care more 
about water conservation, join a water conservation organization and support more strict 
water use legislation. Fewer than half of the respondents indicated that they would donate 
funds to support these efforts. Overall, these results indicate a fairly strong future intention to 
engage in public-sphere water conservation behaviors.  
 
Analyses regarding which factors most contributed to respondents’ FI regarding public-sphere 
water conservation revealed that gender, lack of agency, and subjective norms were significant 
predictors of FI, explaining 36.7% of the variance. The finding related to gender does not agree 
with Koehler and Koontz (2008), who found males were more likely to engage in one specific 
type of public-sphere behavior (active participation in a cooperative watershed group). 
However, because Koehler and Koontz did not control for level of political involvement in their 
analysis, their finding of greater male participation in cooperative watershed groups may simply 
reflect males’ higher level of involvement in local government entities (Leander et al., 2019), 
not a greater commitment to public-sphere water conservation behaviors. Further research is 
needed to better understand this relationship. 
 
Previous research (Chaudhary et al., 2018; Larson et al., 2011) has found a significant negative 
relationship between conservative political orientation and private-sphere water conservation 
behaviors. The findings of this study are consistent with these previous studies and extend this 
relationship into public-sphere water conservation behaviors; however, the observed 



Wise et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.107   46 
 

correlation was low (Davis, 1973) and political orientation did not enter into the regression 
equation.  
 
The construct, subjective norms, made the greatest positive contribution to these students’ FI 
to engage in public-sphere water conservation behaviors. This is consistent with previous 
research (Fielding et al., 2008; Pradhananga et al., 2015). According to Cislaghi and Heise 
(2018), determining the effects as opposed to the prevalence of social norms is important in 
guiding change-centered actions. This research established subjective norms as an important 
determinant of FI to engage in public-sphere water conservation behaviors.  
 
Lack of agency was a negative predictor of students’ FI to engage in public-sphere water 
conservation behaviors. Intuitively, this makes sense because belief that circumstances are 
immutable logically leads to decreased motivation to act. This is consistent with findings by 
Martinez and McMullin (2004) that self-efficacy was a strong predictor of public-sphere 
environmental behaviors. In the broader literature, this is also supported by Jian and Jeffres 
(2008) who found greater political agency was associated with higher levels of political 
involvement.  
 
If student attitudes and personal agency toward both private- and public-sphere water 
conservation behaviors can be positively affected during college, graduates are more likely to 
subsequently engage in these behaviors. One potential method of shaping these behaviors is by 
surrounding students with experiences and indicators that societal norms value water 
conservation behaviors. Providing on-campus experiences for students that clearly 
demonstrate positive societal norms about water conservation can provide the “focal points” 
(p. 1) around which subjective norms can be formed (Ensminger and Knight, 1997). In addition, 
publicizing positive outcomes of such initiatives may help to develop higher levels of personal 
and collective agency toward water conservation. To the extent this research informs practice, 
activities to promote water conservation behaviors among college students should focus on 
community-based interventions that shift subjective norms and agency towards water 
conservation. 
 

Acknowledgements 
 

This research was funded, in part, by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, 
Hatch project 1024473 and the University of Arkansas, Division of Agriculture. 
 

References 
 
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision 

Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T  
 
Andenoro, A. C., Baker, M., Stedman, N. L. P., & Weeks, P. P. (2016). Research priority 7: 

Addressing complex problems. In T. G. Roberts, A. Harder, & M. T. Brashears (Eds.). 



Wise et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.107   47 
 

American Association for Agricultural Education national research agenda: 2016–2020. 
Department of Agricultural Education and Communication. 

 
Arnocky, S., & Stroink, M. L. (2011). Variation in environmentalism among university students: 

Majoring in outdoor recreation, parks, and tourism predicts environmental concerns 
and behaviors. Journal of Environmental Education, 42(3), 137–151. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2010.516776  

 
Brand, J. E. (2010). Civic returns to higher education: a note on heterogeneous effects. Social 

Forces, 89(2), 417–433. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2010.0095  
 
Chaudhary, K. A., Lamm, A., & Warner, L. (2018). Using cognitive dissonance to theoretically 

explain water conservation intentions. Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(4), 194– 
210. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.04194  

 
Chaudhary, A. K., Warner, L., Lamm, A., Israel, G., Rumble, J., & Cantrell, R. (2017). Using the 

theory of planned behavior to encourage water conservation among extension clients. 
Journal of Agricultural Education, 58(3), 185–202. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2017.03185  

 
Cislaghi, B., & Heise, L. (2018). Theory and practice of social norms interventions: Eight common 

pitfalls. Global Health, 14(83), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-018-0398-x  
 
Clark, W. A., & Finley, J. C. (2007). Determinants of water conservation intention in 

Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria. Society and Natural Resources, 20(7), 613–627. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920701216552  

 
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence 

Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 
 
Davis, J. A. (1971). Elementary survey analysis. Prentice-Hall. 
 
Ensminger, J., & Knight, J. (1997). Changing social norms: common property, bridgewealth, and 

clan exogamy. Current Anthropology, 38(1), 1–24. 
 
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power 

analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research 
Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146  

 
Field, A., & Miles, J. (2012). Discovering statistics using SAS. Sage Publications, Ltd. 
 
Fielding, K. S., McDonald, R., & Louis, W. R. (2008). Theory of planned behavior, identity and 

intentions to engage in environmental activism. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 
28(4), 318–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.03.003  



Wise et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.107   48 
 

 
Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and 

structural equation modeling. SAS Institute, Inc. 
 
Koehler, B., & Koontz, T. M. (2008). Citizen participation in collaborative watershed 

partnerships. Environmental Management, 41(2), 143–154. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-007-9040-z 

 
Jian, G., & Jeffres, L. (2008). Spanning the boundaries of work: workplace participation, political 

efficacy, and political involvement. Communication Studies, 59(1), 35–50. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970701849370 

 
Larson, K. L., & Lach, D. (2010). Equity in urban water governance through participatory, place-

based approaches. Natural Resources Journal, 50(2), 407–430.   
https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1131&context=nrj  

 
Larson, K. L., Wutich, A., White, D., Munoz-Erickson, T. A., & Harlan, S. L. (2011). Multifaceted 

perspectives on water risks and policies: A cultural domains approach in a southwestern 
city. Human Ecology Review, 18(1), 75–87. 
https://asu.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/multifaceted-perspectives-on-water-
risks-and-policies-a-cultural- 

 
Leander D. K., Gourrier, A. G., Bernick, E. L., & Brekken, K. (2019). County governing boards: 

Where are all the women? Politics, Groups, and Identities, 7(1), 39–51. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2017.1304223 

 
Mancha, R. M., & Yoder, C. Y. (2015). Cultural antecedents of green behavioral intent: An 

environmental theory of planned behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 
145–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.06.005  

 
Martinez, T. A., & McMullin, S. L. (2004). Factors affecting decisions to volunteer in non-

governmental organizations. Environment and Behavior, 36(1), 112–126. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503256642  

 
Pradhananga, A. K., Davenport, M., & Olson, B. (2015). Landowner motivations for civic 

engagement in water resource protection. Journal of the American Water Resources 
Association, 51(6), 1600–1612. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12346  

 
Stern, P. C. (2002). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of 

Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175  
 
University of Arkansas. (2019). University of Arkansas student degree, enrollment and 

demographics [Data set]. https://oir.uark.edu/students/enrollment-reports/2020-
spring-report-v2.pdf  



Wise et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.107   49 
 

 
United States Geological Survey. (2018). Estimated use of water in the United States in 2015. 

(U.S. Geological Survey Circular No. 1441). https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/cir1441  
 
Yong, G., & Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: focusing on exploratory 

factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 9(2), 79–94. 
https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.09.2.p079  

 
 
 
 
 
© 2021 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 


