































   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 5, Issue 1, 2024 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. Christopher J. Eck, Assistant Professor of Agricultural Education, Oklahoma State University, 457 Agricultural Hall, 

Stillwater, OK 74078, chris.eck@okstate.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1645-3632 
2. Kevin Wagner, Professor of Plant and Soil Sciences and the Director or the Oklahoma Water Resources Center, 110 Noble 

Research Center, Stillwater, OK 74078, kevin.wagner@okstate.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9307-2799 
16 

 

Flowing Perceptions: Exploring Secondary Students’ 
Perceptions of Water 

 
C. J. Eck1, K. Wagner2 

 
 

Article History 
Received: October 4, 2023 
Accepted: March 14, 2024 
Published: March 18, 2023 
 
 
Keywords 
Theory of Planned Behavior; water 
education; survey research design  

Abstract 
Adolescents’ (i.e., high school students) opinions and preferences are 
important and less likely to be influenced by political and social norms, 
especially considering natural resource and climate related issues. 
Therefore, this study sought to identify and understand the perceptions 
of secondary students related to water issues and conservation practices 
utilizing a non-experimental survey research design. The majority (53.8%) 
of Oklahoma secondary students participating in this study believed 
water was of concern in the state. The primary water issues affecting 
Oklahoma according to secondary students (n = 93) were clean drinking 
water, water for agriculture, water for aquatic habitats, wastewater 
treatment improvement, and water quality monitoring to detect 
pollution improvement. Students’ perceptions of water quantity and 
quality varied across groups based on their primary source of drinking 
water (i.e., Private Supply, Bottled Water, Municipal Public Supply, or 
Rural Public Supply). It is imperative for water-related curriculum to be 
developed for delivery in secondary classrooms across the state. Future 
research should consider the perceptions of students nationwide related 
to water and natural resource conservation. 

mailto:chris.eck@okstate.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1645-3632
mailto:kevin.wagner@okstate.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9307-2799


Eck and Wagner  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.405   17 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
Water is an essential resource which has an increasing demand (Wertz & Layden, 2013), making 
the conservation of water a pivotal issue (Chaudhary et al., 2019; Hurd, 2006). Eighty percent of 
state water managers in 2014 predicted shortages of freshwater in their respective states over 
the next decade (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2014). These predictions were further 
projected by Warziniack et al. (2022) to continually increase across the U.S. by 2050 with both 
socioeconomic and climate-related changes playing primary roles. This concern is further 
exacerbated by only 3% of the water on earth being freshwater (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 
2020). In addition, groundwater only accounts for 0.62% of Earth’s water, some of which is 
beyond the reach of water extraction (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2020). When considering 
water usage, agriculture alone utilizes nearly 80% of the water in the U.S. (National Institute of 
Food and Agriculture, 2023), increasing the need for public education and engagement related 
to water conservation (Mulki et al., 2018), especially considering the increasing impact of 
climate change on water availability (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and 
Medicine, 2023).  
 
The public’s perceptions of water and conservation efforts have been investigated over the 
years in many states. The opinions and preferences of these demographics were important, but 
adolescents (i.e., high school students) are less likely to be influenced by political and social 
norms, especially considering natural resource and climate related issues (Flora et al., 2014; 
Stevenson et al., 2014). Balundė et al. (2020) found adolescents value environmental and 
climate related concerns with minimal traditional social norms, yet Perry et al. (2021) found 
social media and online communities to play a key role in influencing adolescent perceptions. 
Therefore, this study sought to identify the perceptions of secondary students related to water 
issues and conservation practices to better inform formal and informal educational practices 
related to water and agriculture.   
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
This study was undergirded by the theory of planned behavior (TPB), identifying the attitudes, 
perceptions, and beliefs related to water in Oklahoma (Ajzen, 1991). The attitude (favorable or 
unfavorable) and intentions toward a behavior can help researchers predict one’s actions 
(Ajzen, 1991), which in the case of this study relate to water usage and conservation efforts as 
the behavior. Although most secondary students are not at the age of decision making or voting 
yet, they are the future workforce and stewards of the United States; therefore, understanding 
their attitudes, intentions, and current behaviors is essential in considering the future needs of 
water related education and outreach. Ultimately, this study aligns with the United Nations 
(2015) goal of improving water quality, water use efficiency, and the integration of water 
management programs to achieve equitable access to safe drinking water for all by 2030, with 
an emphasis on understanding the perceptions and needs of primary consumers by 2030 (i.e., 
current secondary students). Within the context of this study, TPB can be further 
conceptualized with the value-belief-norm theory (Stern et al., 1999), which evaluates 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.405


Eck and Wagner  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.405   18 
 

normative considerations in relationship to an individual’s awareness of an environmental 
problem (i.e., water), their perception of making an impact on the issue, and personal norms 
associated with the problem (see Figure 1). 

 
Figure 1 

Conceptual Model of The Value-Belief-Norm Theory for Water Related Behaviors  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
In addition to the theory and conceptual model presented, this study was framed by the 
National Water Survey Needs Assessment Program, which began in the Pacific Northwest in 
2001 “to assess public aptitudes, attitudes, and actions relative to water issues” (Mahler et al., 
2013, p. 99). The factors measured through the National Water Survey Needs Assessment 
Program align with TPB (Ajzen, 1991) and the conceptual model presented (see Figure 1), 
leading the program to conduct studies in the Northeast, North-Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, 
Southeast, South-Central, and Midwest regions over time. The National Water Survey Needs 
Assessment Program focused on public perceptions, with the majority of respondents being 
over 50 years of age (Mahler et al., 2013). Considering future decisions regarding water needs, 
quality, and quantity will be heavily influenced by future generations, the perceptions of 
secondary students allow researchers to evaluate future water related behavior (Ajzen, 1991; 
Stern et al., 1999). Since the aim of the National Water Survey Needs Assessment is to establish 
a survey for baseline data collection on water issues on a state basis (Mahler et al., 2013), the 
survey was used for this study.  
 
  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.405


Eck and Wagner  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.405   19 
 

Purpose 
 
This study aims to determine the perceptions of water issues in Oklahoma from the standpoint 
of students enrolled in secondary schools across the state. Four research objectives guided this 
inquiry: 
1. Determine secondary students’ perceptions of primary water issues affecting Oklahoma. 
2. Identify the perceptions of water quantity and quality amongst Oklahoma secondary 

students. 
3. Identify the water conservation efforts of secondary students and their families in 

Oklahoma.  
4. Establish the primary areas of water related educational interest for secondary students in 

Oklahoma.  
 

Methods 
 
To evaluate secondary students’ perceptions of water issues across Oklahoma, a 43-item survey 
was adapted from the National Water Needs Assessment Program (Mahler et al., 2013). The 
survey questionnaire included four sections addressing perceptions of environmental issues 
(27-items, e.g. perceptions of water related issues), water issues (10-items, e.g. sources of 
water, water quantity, water quality, and pollutants), water knowledge (4-items, e.g. water 
usage and conservation), and learning preferences (2-items, e.g. interest in water education). In 
addition, five demographic questions were asked, including, sex, age, grade level, class 
enrollment, and school classification. The survey was evaluated for face and content validity 
(Privitera, 2020) appropriate to a secondary student demographic by two faculty members in 
agricultural education teacher preparation.  
 
There are roughly 257,000 eighth through twelfth grade students enrolled in Oklahoma public 
schools, although only about 60% of secondary schools have agricultural education programs in 
the state, reaching approximately 27,000 students (Oklahoma FFA Association, 2023). Two 
public school districts with agricultural education programs were randomly selected from each 
region of the state (i.e., Southeast, Southwest, Central, Northeast, and Northwest) with 
consideration given to school size classification (i.e., B, A, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, and 6A). Ten school 
superintendents were contacted to request participation from eighth through twelfth grade 
students in their district currently enrolled in agricultural education, environmental science, 
and/or earth science. Six of the superintendents responded to the request and agreed to 
distribute the survey questionnaire to their agricultural education, environmental science, and 
earth science teachers to request participation from their students using a Qualtrics survey 
questionnaire link. 
 
Although 168 surveys were submitted, only 93 were received complete and used for data 
analysis. The participants were 48.4% female (n = 45), spanning from eighth through twelfth 
grade, with 43% only enrolled in either earth science or environmental science, while the 
remaining 57% were enrolled in both science and agriculture class at their respective schools. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.405


Eck and Wagner  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.405   20 
 

Students from five of the school size classifications (i.e., B, A, 3A, 4A, and 6A) participated. 
Survey distribution was a limiting factor within this study as it relied on superintendent 
agreement, followed by distribution to teachers from the school site administrator, then the 
individual teachers requesting participation from their students. Considering this, the 
demographics align with the statewide average where 49% of eighth through twelfth grade 
students are female (Oklahoma Department of Education, 2023) and schools from the smallest 
(B) to the largest (6A) classification were represented.  
 
Data were analyzed using SPSS Version 28 for this survey research design study (Privitera, 
2020). Specifically, descriptive statistics (i.e., frequencies and percentages) were ran to answer 
the four research objectives.  
 

Findings 
 
The first research objective aimed to determine the primary water issues affecting Oklahoma as 
perceived by secondary students. Just over half (53.8%) of Oklahoma secondary students 
participating in this study believed water was of concern in the state and nearly 30% were 
unsure, while over 61% did not know what a watershed was.  

When participants were asked to rate 27 water issues on a four-point scale of agreement based 
on their perceived importance (i.e., 1 = not important, 4 = extremely important), clean drinking 
water was by far the most important issue followed by water for agriculture. Water 
transfer/sale of water rights and hypoxia were the lowest rated issues. The 27 water issues are 
provided in Table 1 with their corresponding percentage of agreement at each level (i.e., 1 = 
Not Important [NI], 2 = Somewhat Important [SI], 3 = Important [I], 4 = Extremely Important 
[EI]). 
   
  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.405


Eck and Wagner  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.405   21 
 

Table 1 
 
Importance of Water Issues to Secondary Students. (n = 93) 
 % 
Identified Issue NI SI I EI 
Clean drinking water 0.0 1.1 9.7 89.2 
Water for agriculture 1.1 4.3 24.7 69.9 
Water for aquatic habitat 1.1 9.7 24.7 64.5 
Improving wastewater treatment 0.0 7.6 34.8 57.6 
Improving water quality monitoring to detect  
     pollution 

0.0 12.9 31.2 55.9 

Clean rivers and lakes 0.0 7.5 38.7 53.8 
Improving agricultural practices 0.0 11.8 35.5 52.7 
Preserving agricultural land & open space 0.0 7.8 41.6 50.6 
Making water quality and quantity data available    
    to public 

1.1 16.1 33.3 49.5 

Preserving & restoring buffer zones & wetlands 1.1 20.4 29.0 49.5 
Residential water conservation 2.2 17.2 33.3 47.3 
Improving municipal practices 3.3 18.5 32.6 45.6 
Building new water storage structures (dams,   
     reservoirs) 

1.1 20.8 34.6 43.5 

Water for recreation 5.5 20.8 30.8 42.9 
Educating municipal officials 1.1 21.5 35.5 41.9 
Clean groundwater 3.3 21.5 33.3 41.9 
Water for household landscapes 12.9 21.5 25.8 39.8 
Water for municipal use 0.0 25.8 35.5 38.7 
Better management of shoreline access to prevent  
     erosion 

5.4 26.9 29.0 38.7 

Better management of recreational activities   
  (boating, fishing, ATVs) 

6.5 24.7 31.2 37.6 

Water for commerce/ industry/power 0.0 25.8 39.8 34.4 
Improving home and garden practices 6.5 20.4 38.7 34.4 
Involving citizens in collecting water quality  
     information 

8.6 19.4 37.6 34.4 

Treating storm water runoff 8.7 14.1 43.5 33.7 
Within state transfer/sale of water rights 7.5 25.8 34.4 32.3 
Hypoxia (Gulf dead zone) 16.1 33.3 18.3 32.3 
Interstate transfer/sale of water rights 6.5 30.4 37.0 26.1 

Note. Perception Scale: 1 = Not Important (NI), 2 = Somewhat Important (SI), 3 = Important (I), 4 
= Extremely Important (EI). 
 
Identifying the perceptions of water quantity and quality amongst Oklahoma secondary 
students was the second research objective. A large percentage of participants reported 
purchasing bottled water as their primary source of drinking water (46.2%), followed by 28.0% 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.405


Eck and Wagner  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.405   22 
 

utilizing their municipal public water supply, 18.3% drinking from their rural public water 
supply, and the remaining 7.5% utilizing a private supply (i.e., private well, river, pond, or lake). 
Most participants on a private water supply felt their home tap water was safe to drink (see 
Table 2). Approximately one-third of students who used bottled water as their primary source 
of drinking water felt their tap water was safe to drink (see Table 2), while over half of those on 
all other water supplies felt tap water was safe to consume. Most secondary students (>75%) 
perceived the quality of Oklahoma ground water as normal or better. Perceptions of surface 
water quality was much lower with a quarter to half of the student’s feeling quality was poor or 
worse (see Table 2). Water quantity was of concern by over half of the participants in three of 
the four groups, those on a private supply were not concerned with water quantity. Table 2 
outlines the percentages of responses related to water quality and quantity by primary drinking 
water source (i.e., private supply, bottled water, municipal public supply, or rural public supply). 
Most participants felt climate change would not change or increase their water availability, yet 
most students felt drought impacts would stay the same or increase (see Table 2).  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.405


Eck and Wagner  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.405   23 
 

Table 2 
 
Sources, Quality, and Quantity of Water  

Item %  
 PS  

(n = 7) 
BW  

(n =43)  
MPS  

(n = 26) 
RPS  

(n = 17) Total 
Do you feel that your home tap water (water from the sink) is safe to drink? 
     Yes 85.7 34.9 50.0 64.8 48.8 
     No 0.0 34.9 26.9 17.6 26.2 
     Unsure 14.3 30.2 23.1 17.6 25.0 
In your opinion, what is the quality of groundwater (sources of well water) in Oklahoma? 
     Excellent 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 1.2 
     Good 14.3 7.0 11.5 35.3 14.3 
     Normal 85.7 69.2 80.9 41.2 48.8 
     Poor 0.0 11.6 3.8 23.5 9.5 
     Unacceptable 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 1.2 
     Unsure 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 25.0 
In your opinion, what is the quality of surface waters (rivers, streams, lakes, channels, and wetlands) in 
Oklahoma? 
     Excellent 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 1.2 
     Good 14.3 14.0 11.5 41.2 16.7 
     Normal 28.6 41.9 46.2 35.3 40.5 
     Poor 57.1 25.6 38.5 17.6 31.0 
     Unacceptable 0.0 4.7 0.0 5.9 3.6 
     Unsure 0.0 9.1 3.8 0.0 7.1 
Do you consider water quantity (having enough water) as a problem in Oklahoma?  
     Definitely Not 0.0 4.7 7.7 0.0 3.6 
     Probably Not 71.4 23.3 23.1 35.3 30.1 
     Probably  14.3 25.6 38.4 35.3 26.5 
     Definitely Yes 0.0 38.9 23.1 23.5 26.5 
     Unsure 14.3 7.5 7.7 5.9 13.3 
What is the likelihood of Oklahoma suffering from a prolonged drought? 
     Increasing 28.6 53.4 15.4 53.0 51.2 
     Decreasing 0.0 4.7 3.8 17.6 6.0 
     Staying the same 57.1 23.3 57.7 11.8 20.2 
     Unsure 14.3 18.6 23.1 17.6 22.6 
Do you think that the amount of water in your area will change as a result of climate change? 
     Significant increase 14.3 25.6 26.9 5.9 18.3 
     Slight increase 28.6 27.9 38.5 47.0 29.3 
     No change 42.8 20.9 11.5 35.3 23.2 
     Slight decrease 14.3 16.3 19.3 11.8 22.0 
     Significant decrease 0.0 9.3 3.8 0.0 7.3 

Note. Quality and quantity of water responses is broken down by primary drinking water 
supply: Private Supply (PS), Bottled Water (BW), Municipal Public Supply (MPS), or Rural Public 
Supply (RPS).  
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.405


Eck and Wagner  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.405   24 
 

To further understand secondary student’s perceptions of water quality, they were asked to 
identify pollutants impacting surface and/or groundwater across Oklahoma. While around half 
of the participants were unsure (see Table 3) of what containments impacted water quality, 
almost 50% felt pesticides were an issue and over 40% felt pathogens, fertilizers, metals, and 
turbidity were issues. Oil and gas production was by far the number one practice identified as 
impacting rivers and lakes with almost two-thirds agreeing (see Table 3).  
 
Table 3 
 
Pollutants Impacting Surface or Groundwater in Oklahoma (n = 93) 

Item  f  % 
Pathogens (bacteria, viruses, germs)     
     Know it is not a problem  0  0.0 
     Suspect it is not a problem  7  7.5 
     Unsure  46  49.5 
     Suspect it is a problem  28  30.1 
     Know it is a problem  12  12.9 
Fertilizers      
     Know it is not a problem  0  0.0 
     Suspect it is not a problem  13  14.0 
     Unsure  40  43.0 
     Suspect it is a problem  28  30.1 
     Know it is a problem  12  12.9 
Heavy Metals (lead, arsenic, mercury)     
     Know it is not a problem  2  2.2 
     Suspect it is not a problem  5  5.4 
     Unsure  47  50.5 
     Suspect it is a problem  25  26.9 
     Know it is a problem  14  15.0 
Minerals (iron, manganese, calcium)     
     Know it is not a problem  7  7.5 
     Suspect it is not a problem  10  10.8 
     Unsure  49  52.7 
     Suspect it is a problem  19  20.4 
     Know it is a problem  8  8.6 
Pesticides     
     Know it is not a problem  2  2.2 
     Suspect it is not a problem  4  4.3 
     Unsure  41  44.1 
     Suspect it is a problem  34  36.5 
     Know it is a problem  12  12.9 
Salinity (water too salty)     
     Know it is not a problem  3  3.2 
     Suspect it is not a problem  16  17.2 
     Unsure  44  47.3 
     Suspect it is a problem  20  21.5 
     Know it is a problem  10  10.8 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.405


Eck and Wagner  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.405   25 
 

Item  f  % 
Pharmaceuticals (antibiotics, personal care products)      
     Know it is not a problem  5  5.4 
     Suspect it is not a problem  10  10.8 
     Unsure  47  50.5 
     Suspect it is a problem  20  21.5 
     Know it is a problem  11  11.8 
Petroleum Products/Bi-Products     
     Know it is not a problem  0  0.0 
     Suspect it is not a problem  6  6.5 
     Unsure  55  59.1 
     Suspect it is a problem  20  21.5 
     Know it is a problem  12  12.9 
Algae     
     Know it is not a problem  2  2.2 
     Suspect it is not a problem  14  15.1 
     Unsure  45  48.4 
     Suspect it is a problem  20  21.5 
     Know it is a problem  12  12.9 
Sediment     
     Know it is not a problem  1  1.1 
     Suspect it is not a problem  10  10.8 
     Unsure  57  61.3 
     Suspect it is a problem  15  16.1 
     Know it is a problem  10  10.8 
Turbidity (muddy water)     
     Know it is not a problem  4  4.3 
     Suspect it is not a problem  6  6.5 
     Unsure  42  45.2 
     Suspect it is a problem  20  21.5 
     Know it is a problem  21  22.6 
Practices Impacting River and Lake Pollution in Oklahomaa     
     Oil and gas production  58  62.4 
     Industrial practices  33  35.5 
     Erosion from roads/construction   31  33.3 
     Landfills  30  33.3 
     Agriculture – Crops  24  25.8 
     Septic systems  21  22.6 
     Agriculture - Animals  17  18.3 
     Wastewater treatment plants  17  18.3 
     Mining  17  18.3 
     New suburban development  16  17.2 
     Storm water runoff  15  16.1 
     Forestry (wood harvesting)  13  14.0 
     Runoff from home landscapes  12  12.9 
     Military bases  7  7.5 

Note. aParticipants could select all issues of interest.  
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.405


Eck and Wagner  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.405   26 
 

The third research objective aimed to understand the water conservation efforts of secondary 
students and their families in Oklahoma. Specifically, students were asked to identify behavioral 
changes either they or their family did to conserve/preserve water. Changes in yard watering 
habits was the top conservation effort; however only one-third had made these changes. Less 
than 25% of students indicated a change in the use of pesticides, fertilizers, or other chemicals, 
or had adopted new technologies. Table 4 provides five potential behavioral changes and the 
corresponding responses. Additionally, participants were asked to identify where they stood on 
environmental issues, where zero was total natural resource use, and 10 was total 
environmental protection. Over half (55.5%) of the students identified themselves in the middle 
(i.e., 4 to 6 on the 10-point scale), trying to find balance between usage of natural resources 
and environmental protection.  
 
Table 4 
 
Water Conservation Efforts (n = 93) 
Behavioral Change  f  % 
Changed how often you water your yard  33  35.5 
Changed your use of pesticides, fertilizers, or other chemicals  22  23.7 
Adopted new technologies (low flow showerheads, high   
     efficiency washing machines or dishwashers) 

 21  22.6 

Changed the way your yard is landscaped  16  17.2 
Pumped your septic system   14  15.1 

Note. Participants could select all issues of interest.  
 
To provide a new water source, research is investigating the treatment of produced water from 
oil and gas production. Secondary students’ most supported the reuse of produced water for 
agricultural production and to enhance stream flows; however, less than 50% supported these 
uses (see Table 5). Approximately one-third of students supported the use of produced water 
for drinking water or food production uses.  
 
Table 5 
 
Perceptions of Treatment and Reuse of Produced Water (n = 93) 
Item  f  % 
Support use for agricultural production (non-human use)  43  46.2 
Support discharge to rivers and streams to improve stream flow  37  39.8 
Use for drinking water  33  35.5 
Support use for industrial purposes  32  34.4 
Consume food produced with this water  29  31.2 

Note. Participants could select all issues of interest.  
 
The final research objective evaluated water related educational interests of secondary 
students across Oklahoma. Sixty-three percent have not participated in water related 
education, and the 37% percent who had, identified environmental science or oceanography 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.405


Eck and Wagner  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.405   27 
 

classes as the education received. Table 6 depicts interest in 18 water-related topics. Students 
were by far the most interested in fish and wildlife water needs, while less than one-third were 
interested in other water related topics (see Table 6).  
 
Table 6 
 
Learning Interest Related to Water Issues. (n = 93) 
Identified Issue  f  % 
Fish and wildlife water needs  41  44.1 
Beach/shoreline clean-up  28  30.1 
Restoring fish and aquatic habitat  27  29.0 
Protecting public drinking water supplies  27  29.0 
Home and garden landscaping  26  28.0 
Animal waste management  25  26.9 
Forest management and water issues  25  26.9 
Community actions concerning water issues  22  23.7 
Watershed management  21  22.6 
Produced water from oil production  21  22.6 
Irrigation management  20  21.5 
Stream restoration  20  21.5 
Grazing management  19  20.4 
Nutrient and pesticide management  19  20.4 
Water policy and economics  18  19.4 
Private well protection  16  17.2 
Septic system management  15  16.1 
Landscape buffers  11  11.8 

Note. Participants could select all issues of interest.  
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
Essential water issues were clean drinking water, water for agriculture, wastewater treatment 
improvement, clean rivers and lakes, and the preservation of agricultural land and open spaces, 
with more than 90% of participating secondary students feeling these were important or 
extremely important. Clean drinking water was the primary concern, aligning with previous 
research on other groups (Eck et al., 2020). Similarly, water for agriculture was also the second 
priority for college students in Oklahoma, while the public perceived it as the fourth most 
important issue (Chapagain et al., 2020). Considering the impact of agriculture in the state, the 
need to consider water for agriculture is imperative.  
 
Secondary students were generally unsure of the impacts of pollutants on surface and 
groundwater in the state. Perhaps this is a result of the lack of education related to water that 
participants reported, as 63% of students reported not receiving water education. Addressing 
this lack of knowledge is pivotal considering the necessity of water and its increasing demand 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.405


Eck and Wagner  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.405   28 
 

(Chaudhary et al., 2019; Hurd, 2006; Wertz & Layden, 2013). Awareness of the problems 
associated with water, coupled with the identified impact students’ personal decisions make on 
water quantity and quality (Stern et al., 1999) become driving forces in future water related 
behavioral changes (Ajzen, 1991; Stern et al., 1999). Considering the expressed interest in fish 
and wildlife water needs, water education programming could use this to generate engagement 
and establish awareness of water-related problems impacting rivers, lakes, and streams along 
with water sources and associated issues. Providing access to educational content could impact 
the future behaviors of students (Ajzen, 1991), especially considering their intention to find 
balance between natural resources and environmental protection, where problem awareness 
and outcome efficacy (see Figure 1) have been key predictors of behavioral change (Stern et al., 
1999).  
 
Perceptions of water quantity and quality varied across groups based on their source of 
drinking water (see Table 2). Perhaps these perceptions result from subjective norms (Ajzen, 
1991) established at home regarding water quantity and quality, or could it be that awareness 
of the problem and efficacy to impact the problem is lacking (Stern et al., 1999). Considering 
the age of most participants, the ability to implement water conservation efforts are limited 
(i.e., perceived behavioral control) as they are not the homeowner or decision maker. Although 
interest in the beneficial uses of produced water existed, significant differences between 
students and the public were observed, with the public primarily supporting the industrial use 
of produced water (Chapagain et al., 2020). Perhaps students feel their potential impact is 
limited (i.e., outcome efficacy) due to personal norms or moral obligations they feel from 
authoritative sources (Stern et al., 1999; van der Werff & Steg, 2016).  
 
Overall, students’ responses indicate a general care for the environment and water-related 
issues (i.e., biospheric values), yet awareness of the water related problems is lacking (Stern et 
al., 1999) considering water quality and quantity concerns in Oklahoma. Therefore, it is 
imperative for water-related curriculum to be developed for delivery across the state by 
agricultural teachers, science teachers, and Extension educators. Specifically, topics aligning 
with content standards in earth science, environmental science, and agricultural courses should 
be developed to further water education across content areas. To further the potential 
behavioral change, the curriculum should be grounded in agriculture as a context given its 
impact on the water supply and its clear connection to science, providing a concrete example to 
real-world problems (Ricketts et al., 2006; Swafford, 2018). Considering adolescent 
development, curriculum should also be scaffolded for different age brackets, as content 
related to career opportunities should be developed for seventh and eighth grade students 
given the impact of career related decisions at that point in adolescence (Reynolds, 1991; 
Steinberg, 2014). In addition, STEM enhanced curriculum is critical in grades five through eight 
to promote continual achievement and interest in science and math (Singh et al., 2002). Finally, 
curriculum focused on behavioral change (Ajzen, 1991) is ideal during the developmental 
period between adolescence and adulthood (Rice & Dolgin, 2008). Water resource centers, 
water associations, and the National Water Survey Needs Assessment Program should consider 
the findings of this study to help inform programming and educational outreach materials. 
Considering the target audience, social media networks and online outreach should be 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.405


Eck and Wagner  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.405   29 
 

prioritized to better align with the values and norms of adolescents, ultimately impacting 
behavioral change (Perry et al., 2021).  
 
Future research should consider the perceptions of students nationwide related to water and 
natural resource conservation. Additionally, research should evaluate the change in perceptions 
following the delivery of water-related curriculum and investigate the long-term impact of 
those perceptions and intentions on behaviors and career-related decisions.  
 

Acknowledgements 
 
C. J. Eck – conceptualization, methodology, investigation, writing – original draft; K. Wagner – 
validation, resources, writing – review and editing.  
 

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 

Balundė, A., Perlaviciute, G., & Truskauskaitė-Kunevičienė, I. (2020). Sustainability in youth: 
Environmental considerations in adolescence and their relationships to pro-
environmental behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(1), 1-13. 
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.582920 

Chapagain, B. P., Wagner, K. L., Joshi, O., & Eck, C. J. (2020). Perceived importance of water 
issue and factors affecting learning opportunities in Oklahoma. Journal of Water, 12(2), 
1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12020395 

Chaudhary, A. K., Warner, L. A., & Ali, A. D. (2019). Using perceived benefits to segment 
residential landscape irrigation users. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 38, 318–329. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.12.008 

Eck, C. J., Wagner, K., Chapagain, B., & Joshi, O. (2020). Post-secondary students’ perceptions of 
water issues and water-related educational interests. Journal of Extension, 58(3). 
https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.58.03.15  

Flora, J. A., Saphir, M., Lappé, M., Roser-Renouf, C., Maibach, E. W., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2014). 
Evaluation of a national high school entertainment education program: The alliance for 
climate education. Climatic Change, 127, 419–434.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-
014-1274-1 

Hurd, B. H. (2006). Water conservation and residential landscapes: Household preferences, 
household choices. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 31(2), 173–192. 
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40987314 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.405
https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.582920
https://doi.org/10.3390/w12020395
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.12.008
https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.58.03.15
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1274-1
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1274-1
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40987314


Eck and Wagner  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.405   30 
 

Mahler, R. L., Smolen, M. D., Borisova, T., Boellstorff, D. E., Adams, D. C., & Sochacka N. W. 
(2013). The national water survey needs assessment program. Natural Sciences 
Education, 42, 98–103. https://doi.org/10.4195/nse.2012.0025  

Mulki, S., Rubinstein, C., & Saletta, J. (2018) Texas’ water quality challenge and the need for 
better communication in an era of increasing water quality contamination events. Texas 
Water Journal, 9(1), 108–119. https://doi.org/10.21423/twj.v9i1 

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2023). Communities, climate 
change, and health equity: Lessons learned in addressing inequities in heat-related 
climate change impacts: Proceedings of a workshop–in brief. The National Academies 
Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/27204 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture. (2023, July 19). Water. U.S. Department of 
Agriculture. https://www.nifa.usda.gov/topics/water 

Oklahoma Department of Education. (2023). State public enrollment totals. 
https://sde.ok.gov/documents/state-student-public-enrollment 

Oklahoma FFA Association. (2023). About Oklahoma FFA foundation. 
https://www.okffa.org/about-foundation 

Perry, G. L., Richardson, S. J., Harré, N., Hodges, D., Lyver, P. O., Maseyk, F. J., Taylor, R., Todd, J. 
H., Tylianakis, J. M., Yletyinen, J., & Brower, A. (2021). Evaluating the role of social 
norms in fostering pro-environmental behaviors. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 
9(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.620125 

Privitera, G. J. (2020). Research methods for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Sage.  

Reynolds, A. J. (1991). The middle schooling process: Influences on science and mathematics 
achievement from the longitudinal study of American youth. Adolescence, 26(101), 132–
157. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2048469/ 

Rice, F. P., & Dolgin, K. G. (2008). The adolescent: Development, relationships, and culture (12th 
ed.). Allyn & Bacon.  

Ricketts, J. C., Duncan, D. W., & Peake, J. B. (2006). Science achievement of high school students 
in complete programs of agriscience education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47(2), 
48–55. https://doi/org/10.5032/jae.2006.02048 

Singh, K., Granville, M., & Dika, S. (2002). Mathematics and science achievement: Effects of 
motivation, interest, and academic engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 
95(6), 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670209596607 

Steinberg, L. (2014). Adolescence (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill.  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.405
https://doi.org/10.4195/nse.2012.0025
https://doi.org/10.21423/twj.v9i1
https://doi.org/10.17226/27204
https://www.nifa.usda.gov/topics/water
https://sde.ok.gov/documents/state-student-public-enrollment
https://www.okffa.org/about-foundation
https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.620125
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2048469/
https://doi/org/10.5032/jae.2006.02048
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670209596607


Eck and Wagner  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.405   31 
 

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of 
support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 
6(2), 81–97. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24707060 

Stevenson, K. T., Peterson, M. N., Bondell, H. D., Moore, S. E., & Carrier, S. J. (2014). 
Overcoming skepticism with education: Interacting influences of worldview and climate 
change knowledge on perceived climate change risk among adolescents. Climatic 
Change, 126, 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1228-7 

Swafford, M. (2018). STEM education at the nexus of the 3-circle model. Journal of Agricultural 
Education, 59(1), 297–315. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.01297 

United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. 
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20f
or%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (2020). Water facts: Worldwide water supply. Central California 
Area Office. https://www.usbr.gov/mp/arwec/water-facts-ww-water-sup.html 

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2014). Freshwater: Supply concerns continue, and 
uncertainties complicate planning. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-14-430 

Wagner, K. L., Eck, C. J., King, A. E. H., Joshi, O. (2021). Oklahoma’s perceptions, attitudes, and 
beliefs related to water resources and their management: A decade long look. Natural 
Sciences Education, 50(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nse2.20054 

van der Werff, E., & Steg, L. (2016). The psychology of participation and interest in smart energy 
systems: Comparing the value-belief-norm theory and the value-identity-personal norm 
model. Energy Research and Social Science, 22(1), 107–114. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.08.022 

Warziniack, T., Arabi, M., Brown, T. C., Froemke, P., Ghosh, R., Rasmussen, S., 
& Swartzentruber, R. (2022). Projections of freshwater use in the United States under 
climate change. Earth's Future, 10(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EF002222 

Wertz, J., & Layden, L. (2013). Troubled water: A deep dive into Oklahoma’s most precious 
resource. https://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/2013/02/27/troubled-water-a-deep-
dive-into-oklahomas-most-precious-resource/ 

 

© 2024 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/). 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i1.405
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24707060
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1228-7
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.01297
https://www.usbr.gov/mp/arwec/water-facts-ww-water-sup.html
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-14-430
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nse2.20054
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.08.022
https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EF002222
https://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/2013/02/27/troubled-water-a-deep-dive-into-oklahomas-most-precious-resource/
https://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/2013/02/27/troubled-water-a-deep-dive-into-oklahomas-most-precious-resource/

