IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i9p4677-d541401.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Resistance to Change and Perceived Risk as Determinants of Water-Saving Intention

Author

Listed:
  • Francisco J. Sarabia-Sanchez

    (Center for Innovation and Business Development, Universidad Miguel Hernández, 03202 Elche, Spain)

  • Isabel P. Riquelme

    (Department of Economic and Financial Studies, Universidad Miguel Hernández, 03202 Elche, Spain)

  • Juan Manuel Bruno

    (Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, X5000HRV Córdoba, Argentina)

Abstract

Both the academic literature and global organizations have emphasized the need for responsible water consumption, as stated in Sustainable Development Goal 12. However, individuals’ water-saving behaviors in their current state are not enough. This situation entails a resistance to change (RC) in consumer habits and a lack of perceived risk of scarcity. The novelty of this study lies in examining the influence of RC (through its emotional, cognitive, and confidence components) and perceived risk on water-saving intention. Interviews ( n = 384) were conducted in the southeast Mediterranean area of Spain by interviewers using a paper-and-pencil questionnaire. The results of the structural equation modeling show that the perceived risk and the components of cognitive rigidity and negative emotions exert a direct influence on water-saving habits and an indirect influence on water-saving intention. None of the components of RC directly influence intention, and a lack of confidence in the outcomes of water saving does not influence water-saving habits or water-saving intention. In addition to the results obtained, the novelty of the work lies in the idea that in order to influence the perception of the risk of water scarcity through awareness campaigns, it is better to use an emotional message rather than showing facts or information because this does not drive water-saving behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Francisco J. Sarabia-Sanchez & Isabel P. Riquelme & Juan Manuel Bruno, 2021. "Resistance to Change and Perceived Risk as Determinants of Water-Saving Intention," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:9:p:4677-:d:541401
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/9/4677/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/9/4677/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Heidenreich, Sven & Kraemer, Tobias, 2015. "Passive innovation resistance: The curse of innovation? Investigating consequences for innovative consumer behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 134-151.
    2. Carla Rodriguez-Sanchez & Francisco J. Sarabia-Sanchez, 2020. "Does Water Context Matter in Water Conservation Decision Behaviour?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-16, April.
    3. Paul Slovic, 1999. "Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk‐Assessment Battlefield," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 689-701, August.
    4. Jingling Chen & Rob van Tulder & Tao Eric Hu & Thorben Kwakkenbos, 2020. "Why People Do Not Keep Their Promise: Understanding the Pro-Environmental Behavior in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-18, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mina Khodadad & Mohsen Sanei & Christian Narvaez-Montoya & Ismael Aguilar-Barajas, 2022. "Climatic Hazards and the Associated Impacts on Households’ Willingness to Adopt Water-Saving Measures: Evidence from Mexico," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-17, May.
    2. Carolina Sánchez & Enrique Carlos Bianchi & Carla Rodriguez-Sanchez & Franco Sancho-Esper, 2024. "Are advertising campaigns for water conservation in Latin America persuasive? A mixed-method approach," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 21(2), pages 341-369, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Roxanne E. Lewis & Michael G. Tyshenko, 2009. "The Impact of Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk and the Public Reaction to Mad Cow Disease in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 714-728, May.
    2. Wang, Fei & Yuan, Yu & Lu, Liangdong, 2021. "Dynamical prediction model of consumers’ purchase intentions regarding anti-smog products during smog risk: Taking the information flow perspective," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 563(C).
    3. Ma, Jie & Tse, Ying Kei & Wang, Xiaojun & Zhang, Minhao, 2019. "Examining customer perception and behaviour through social media research – An empirical study of the United Airlines overbooking crisis," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 192-205.
    4. Pam A. Mueller & Lawrence M. Solan & John M. Darley, 2012. "When Does Knowledge Become Intent? Perceiving the Minds of Wrongdoers," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 859-892, December.
    5. Yan, Jubo & Kniffin, Kevin M. & Kunreuther, Howard C. & Schulze, William D., 2020. "The roles of reason and emotion in private and public responses to terrorism," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 778-796.
    6. Patrick Krieger & Carsten Lausberg, 2021. "Entscheidungen, Entscheidungsfindung und Entscheidungsunterstützung in der Immobilienwirtschaft: Eine systematische Literaturübersicht [Decisions, decision-making and decisions support systems in r," Zeitschrift für Immobilienökonomie (German Journal of Real Estate Research), Springer;Gesellschaft für Immobilienwirtschaftliche Forschung e. V., vol. 7(1), pages 1-33, April.
    7. Jared LeClerc & Susan Joslyn, 2015. "The Cry Wolf Effect and Weather‐Related Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 385-395, March.
    8. B. J. M. Ale, 2005. "Tolerable or Acceptable: A Comparison of Risk Regulation in the United Kingdom and in the Netherlands," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 231-241, April.
    9. Nel, Jacques & Boshoff, Christo, 2021. "“I just don't like digital-only banks, and you should not use them either†: Traditional-bank customers' opposition to using digital-only banks," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    10. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    11. Agustin Robles Morua & Kathleen E. Halvorsen & Alex S. Mayer, 2011. "Waterborne Disease‐Related Risk Perceptions in the Sonora River Basin, Mexico," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 866-878, May.
    12. Tim Slack & Vanessa Parks & Lynsay Ayer & Andrew M. Parker & Melissa L. Finucane & Rajeev Ramchand, 2020. "Natech or natural? An analysis of hazard perceptions, institutional trust, and future storm worry following Hurricane Harvey," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 102(3), pages 1207-1224, July.
    13. John D. Graham & John A. Rupp & Olga Schenk, 2015. "Unconventional Gas Development in the USA: Exploring the Risk Perception Issues," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(10), pages 1770-1788, October.
    14. William J. Burns & Ellen Peters & Paul Slovic, 2012. "Risk Perception and the Economic Crisis: A Longitudinal Study of the Trajectory of Perceived Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 659-677, April.
    15. Liu, Peng & Xu, Zhigang & Zhao, Xiangmo, 2019. "Road tests of self-driving vehicles: Affective and cognitive pathways in acceptance formation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 354-369.
    16. Joseph Conti & Terre Satterfield & Barbara Herr Harthorn, 2011. "Vulnerability and Social Justice as Factors in Emergent U.S. Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1734-1748, November.
    17. Jocelyn Raude & Patrick Peretti-Watel & Jeremy Ward & Claude Flamand & Pierre Verger, 2018. "Are Perceived Prevalences of Infection also Biased and How? Lessons from Large Epidemics of Mosquito-Borne Diseases in Tropical Regions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(3), pages 377-389, April.
    18. Heidenreich, Sven & Killmer, Jan F. & Millemann, Jan A., 2022. "If at first you don't adopt - Investigating determinants of new product leapfrogging behavior," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    19. Peng Liu & Run Yang & Zhigang Xu, 2019. "How Safe Is Safe Enough for Self‐Driving Vehicles?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 315-325, February.
    20. Sven Heidenreich & Katrin Talke, 2020. "Consequences of mandated usage of innovations in organizations: developing an innovation decision model of symbolic and forced adoption," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 10(3), pages 279-298, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:9:p:4677-:d:541401. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.