This article was downloaded by: [University of York]On: 08 October 2014, At: 07:37Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Society & Natural Resources: AnInternational JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usnr20

Determinants of Water ConservationIntention in Blagoevgrad, BulgariaWilliam A. Clark a & James C. Finley ba Cooperative Studies , Southwest University Neofit Rilski ,Blagoevgrad, Bulgariab School of Forest Resources , The Pennsylvania State University ,University Park, Pennsylvania, USAPublished online: 15 Jun 2007.

To cite this article: William A. Clark & James C. Finley (2007) Determinants of Water ConservationIntention in Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria, Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal, 20:7,613-627, DOI: 10.1080/08941920701216552

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920701216552

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Determinants of Water Conservation Intentionin Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria

WILLIAM A. CLARK

Cooperative Studies, Southwest University Neofit Rilski,Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria

JAMES C. FINLEY

School of Forest Resources, The Pennsylvania State University,University Park, Pennsylvania, USA

Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria, has faced frequent water shortages during the past decade,but little effort has been made to encourage or implement water conservation amonghousehold water users. We employ the theory of planned behavior (TBP) as a theor-etical framework in evaluating determinates of intention to implement a set of spe-cific water conservation behaviors among Blagoevgrad residents. In addition to theTPB variables, we consider the effects of sociodemographics, environmental atti-tudes, information possession, and concern over future shortages on water conser-vation intention. The analysis is based on 728 questionnaires collected during thesummer of 2003. The TPB variables all showed positive and significant correlationwith water conservation intention. Self-perceived knowledge of climate change wasalso significantly related to intention. Environmental attitudes and concern overfuture shortages were significant but relatively weak determinants.

Keywords Bulgaria, theory of planned behavior, water conservation

This article examines determinants of intention to conserve water among residents ofBlagoevgrad, Bulgaria. The World Resources Institute (2000) estimates Bulgaria’sannual per capita internal renewable water resources at 2188 cubic meters, whichis less than half the European average (Gerasimov et al. 2000). Additionally,Bulgaria has among the highest annual per capital water withdrawal rates in Europe.Bulgarian water suppliers, rather than encouraging water conservation, have used‘‘water regimes’’ (shutting off the water supply for extended periods of time) asthe primary means of reducing usage during water shortages. During the summerand fall of 2000, approximately 15% of Bulgarians lived with these severe waterrestrictions (Ilieva 2001). In the Blagoevgrad region, most residents had access towater only a few hours per day during this time.

Received 10 August 2005; accepted 17 September 2006.Research for this study was conducted under a grant from the U.S. Fulbright

Commission. Much appreciation goes to Hristo Dyulgerov, director of the BlagoevgradViK (Water and Sewer Company), who provided valuable assistance and access to data.

Address correspondence to James C. Finley, School of Forest Resources, The PennsylvaniaState University, 302 Forest Resources Bldg., University Park, PA 16870, USA. E-mail:fj4@psu.edu

Society and Natural Resources, 20:613–627Copyright # 2007 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0894-1920 print/1521-0723 onlineDOI: 10.1080/08941920701216552

613

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

7:37

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Bulgarian water managers have favored building additional supply and storagecapacity (dams, reservoirs, and water transfer infrastructure) while largely ignoringwater conservation as a means of managing local water supplies. This is a holdoverfrom the former communist regime in which natural resources, such as water, wereviewed as free commodities available for extensive exploitation and consumption(Georgieva 1993; Pavlinek and Pickles 2000; Dainov 2000). However, constructionof a new reservoir for Blagoevgrad is unlikely in the near future due to financialand environmental concerns. A comprehensive water conservation program couldaid in reducing demand, help the community avoid restrictive water regimes, andpostpone or eliminate the need to construct yet another dam. Alitchkov and Kostova(1996) demonstrate the potential to greatly reduce domestic water consumption inBulgaria by adopting water conservation measures. Unfortunately, most Bulgarianshave had little exposure to water conservation information and few communities haveimplemented comprehensive water conservation programs (Clark and Wang 2003).For example, although reduced-flow toilets and shower heads are available locally,few households have installed them. Among those we surveyed, only 13.1% hadinstalled low-flow shower heads and only 6.6% had toilets designed to use less water.

Study Area

Bulgaria is located in the southeastern corner of Europe (Figure 1). Blagoevgrad isapproximately 100 km south of the Bulgarian capital, Sofia, on the major highway

Figure 1. Location of Bulgaria in Europe.

614 W. A. Clark and J. C. Finley

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

7:37

08

Oct

ober

201

4

and rail line connecting the capital with Greece. With a population of 71,000(National Statistics Institute 2005), it is the cultural, economic, and administrativecenter of the Pirin region of Bulgaria. The city is approximately 400 m above sealevel and occupies the lower reaches of the Blagoevgradska Bistritsa River watershed(234 km2) a short distance above its confluence with the Struma River.

With the exception of Blagoevgrad itself and a few small villages, most of thewatershed is covered by forests and alpine meadows. Lying on the western slopeof the Rila Mountains, the upper reaches of the watershed attain an elevation of justover 2600 m above sea level. The city has a continental climate with mild winters andwarm summers. Average annual precipitation is about 555 mm in the city butaverages over 1000 mm in the mountains above the city.

Blagoevgrad’s water supply system relies heavily on winter snow accumulationin the mountains and the subsequent runoff. Over 70% of the annual precipitationin the Rila Mountains occurs as snow (Knight and Staneva 1996). Blagoevgradobtains most of its water supply from surface intakes in the upper reaches of theBistritsa River and its tributaries. Climatic factors assert a large influence on thecity’s water supply. Lack of snow in the winter or rapid melting in the spring can leadto serious water shortages. High evapotranspiration accompanied by low precipi-tation has contributed to water supply problems in the past. Diversion of water fromthe watershed for hydroelectric production, high losses from the water supply net-work, and lack of water conservation measures have also contributed to shortages.

The Water Supply Sector

Legislation concerning water supply in Bulgaria has been in a constant state of fluxsince the fall of communism in 1989. In March 2004 the national governmentendorsed a new draft law regulating water supply and sewer service. The law tookeffect in January 2005 and includes the creation of a national water regulator (anindependent commission reporting to the council of ministers). The primary func-tions of the water regulator are to monitor water and sewer utilities and set pricesfor services. The new law also clarifies ownership of water company assets (as eithermunicipal or state) and provides for increased municipal ownership.

Two government ministries share responsibility for the water and sewage sectorin Bulgaria. The Ministry of Environment and Water (MEW) is responsible for theentrance and exit of water from the supply network (from extraction until purifi-cation and for discharge of waste water). The Ministry of Regional Developmentand Public Works (MRDPW) oversees the operations of the water and sewer com-panies (transfer, storage, and distribution of water). Currently there are 50 domesticwater supply companies in Bulgaria. Twenty are 100% owned by local municipalgovernments, 16 are under joint ownership (51% state and 49% municipal), 13are 100% state owned (the Blagoevgrad Water Company is one of these), and thereis 1 private concession (in Sofia). Further privatization of water companies inBulgaria has been suspended as of 2001 (Paskalev 2001). However, the newest waterlaw allows for more flexibility in the division of ownership between the state andmunicipalities. It is anticipated that municipal ownership of water supply companieswill increase with a corresponding reduction in state ownership (Peneveska 2003).

The Blagoevgrad Water Company supplies water for household, business, andindustrial use. Currently, 57% of the water supplied by the water company isconsumed by households (National Institute of Statistics 2005). There are separate

Determinants of Water Conservation Intention 615

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

7:37

08

Oct

ober

201

4

institutional structures and sources for agricultural water. This study focuses ondomestic water consumption.

The majority of housing in Blagoevgrad consists of multiple family apartmentbuildings (in our sample 72% lived in apartments and 28% lived in houses). Nearlyall households have individual water meters. As of June 2004, water was billedat a flat rate of approximately 35 cents per cubic meter. Nearly all the water inBlagoevgrad is delivered by gravity flow, making it among the least expensive inBulgaria. The mean monthly household water consumption in our sample was12.2 cubic meters and the median monthly household income was about $210.

Conceptual Framework

Water conservation is often viewed as a proenvironmental behavior. Since the earlydays of the modern environmental movement, a vast amount of research spanning avariety of disciplines has sought to understand why people embrace environmental-ism. Stern (2000, 411) defines environmentalism in behavioral terms as ‘‘the propen-sity to take actions with proenvironmental intent.’’ Studies on environmentalisminclude those investigating specific behaviors such as recycling, energy and waterconservation, and the use of mass transit, as well as studies considering broadtheories of environmentalism.

Generally speaking, research on determinants of environmentalism divides intotwo major branches: those focusing on sociodemographic factors and those focusingon values, attitudes, and beliefs (Dietz et al. 1998). In general, sociodemographicfactors are seen as asserting their influence as they affect a person’s proenvironmen-tal attitudes. Widely varied sociodemographic determinants of environmentalismhave been considered, the most common being age, education, income, and gender.These factors are interrelated to varying degrees and with more fundamental valueorientations. Age is often related negatively to environmentalism (Scott and Willits1994; Gamba and Oskamp 1994), while education and income are generally posi-tively related (Kemmelmeier et al. 2002). The effects of gender are not as clear. Sternet al. (1993) found that gender had a significant overall effect on environmentalbehavioral intention, but when value orientation was controlled for, the effect ofgender is reduced to nonsignificance. A cross-cultural study of proenvironmentalattitudes in 22 nations found the effects of gender to be weak and inconsistent(Kemmelmeier et al. 2002). In research spanning 14 countries, Zelezny et al. (2000)used the revised New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale (Dunlap et al. 2000) to mea-sure general environmental attitudes, and Thompson and Barton’s (1994) scale tomeasure value-based environmental attitudes. Their research indicated that overall,females are more proenvironmental than men in both attitudes and behavior, butwhen analyzed by country this pattern was not universal.

Researchers have proposed a wide range of models incorporating a variety offactors in various combinations to predict environmentalism: efficacy factors (thebelief that it is possible to carry out a given action) and attitudinal factors (Axelrodand Lehman 1993); position on environmental issues (Theodori and Luloff 2002);environmental awareness, emotions, perceived control, and personal philosophicalvalues (Grob 1995); antisocial behavior (Corral-Verdugo et al. 2003); knowledge,attitudes, and motivation (Gamba and Oskamp 1994); gender and environmentalawareness and knowledge (Schahn and Holzer 1990); worldview and environmental

616 W. A. Clark and J. C. Finley

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

7:37

08

Oct

ober

201

4

experiences (Finger 1994); responsibility (Kaiser and Shimoda 1999); and proenvir-onmental competency (Corral-Verdugo 2002), to mention but a few.

The literature relating to environmental values and attitudes is immense andoften inconsistent and ambiguous. Nevertheless, there is wide agreement that under-standing the role of values and attitudes is an important aspect of natural resourcemanagement. Axelrod and Lehman state (1993, 149), ‘‘Investigating the psychologi-cal antecedents of individuals’ reactions to environmental concern is vital as weattempt to better understand the factors that guide individual choice regardingenvironmentally-responsible behavior.’’

The vast majority of research on environmental values and attitudes has beenconducted in the West and its applicability to non-Western contexts remains a ques-tion. Proenvironmentalism is influenced by subjective cultural factors (Inglehart1995). Although some efforts have been made to compare levels of general environ-mentalism among various cultures (e.g., Franzen 2003), research on environmentalvalues and attitudes in Bulgaria has been very limited, especially as applied tospecific target behaviors such as water conservation.

Water Conservation Determinants

Numerous studies have investigated determinants of support for household waterconservation. Watkins (1974) developed a water concern scale incorporating severalattitudinal measures. Bruvold (1979) focused on two variables, perceived seriousnessof the drought and belief that conservation measures should be practiced long-term,in predicting both per capita water consumption and adoption of water conservationbehaviors. Dziegielewski (1994) included belief in the seriousness of a water shortage,knowledge of the potential savings, and the perception that conservation measuresare equitable, among important determinants for support of household water con-servation. In examining determinants of retrofitting homes for water conservation,Cameron and Wright (1990) considered information possession, perceived benefit,and attitude toward conservation.

Many studies include water price as a determinant of domestic water consump-tion (cf. Terrebonne 2005 for a review). Generally speaking, most research indicateswater demand is fairly inelastic (Dalhuisen et al. 2003; Pint 1999). Research onenergy use has generally found that nonfinancial factors, such as values and atti-tudes, have a greater impact on consumption patterns than financial factors (Buttel1987). While economic incentives clearly affect resource consumption, by themselvesthey may not be enough to bring about the desired change in behavior (Gardner andStern 1996). This article focuses on nonmarket determinants of water conservationintention. A better understanding of the nonfinancial factors influencing an indivi-dual’s water consumption will allow water mangers to produce more effective waterconservation campaigns (Gregory and Di Leo 2003).

This study employs the theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen 1988; 1991) inseeking to predict intention to engage in water conservation behavior in Blagoev-grad, Bulgaria. In the TPB, the proximal determinant of a given behavior is beha-vioral intention (BI). The TPB includes three predictors of behavioral intention:attitude toward the given behavior (ACT), subjective norm (SN), and perceivedbehavioral control (PBC). Within the context of the TPB, Conner and Armitage(1998) described attitudes as an individual’s overall evaluation of a given behaviorand subjective norms as a person’s belief about whether other people (such as

Determinants of Water Conservation Intention 617

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

7:37

08

Oct

ober

201

4

friends, neighbors, or relatives) whose opinions are valued think he or she shouldengage in the specified behavior. PBC measures an individual’s perception of howeasy or difficult a given behavior is to perform (Ajzen 1991), and it is closely relatedto the concept of self-efficacy. The TPB thus postulates that behavior under voli-tional control is best predicted by behavioral intention, which in turn is guidedby an individual’s attitude toward the specific behavior, personal beliefs about thenormative expectation of others, and perception of how difficult it is to performthe action.

Researchers seeking to increase the predictive ability of the original TPB modeloften add variables to the core three (cf. Conner and Armitage 1998 for a review).Ajzen (1991, 199), the person most identified with the TPB, considers the theory‘‘open to the inclusion of additional predictors if it can be shown that they capturea significant proportion of the variance in intention or behavior after the theory’scurrent variables have been taken into account.’’

Trumbo and O’Keefe (2001; 2005) evoked the TPB to predict water conservationintention and behavior in three communities on the California-Nevada border. Inaddition to the three core TPB variables, they include sociodemographics, environ-mental values, and information effects. Their model accounted for 27% of the vari-ance in behavioral intention, with the core TPB variables making up 67% of thattotal.

Lam (1999) used a modified TPB model to separately predict intention to reducewater usage and intention to install water-saving appliances in Taiwan. In additionto the standard TPB variables, he included perceived moral obligation and perceivedwater rights in his model. The TPB explained 41% of the variance in intention toreduce usage and 24% of the variance in intention to install water-saving appliances.The inclusion of the additional variables was not significant in the intention toreduce water use model, and had a small but significant contribution to the intentionto install water-saving appliances model.

Our study adds sociodemographics, environmental attitudes, informationpossession, and concern over future water shortages to the standard TPB variablesin seeking to explain intention to implement water conservation measures.

Methods

After conducting a series of key informant interviews and focus groups, a survey wasconducted to collect quantitative data for our regression models. Conditions inBlagoevgrad were not conducive to either telephone or mail-in surveys; thereforewe employed a drop-off=pick-up survey method. We arranged with the local watercompany to have their meter readers personally deliver questionnaires to a randomsample of Blagoevgrad’s approximately 27,000 households (domestic water subscri-bers). The water company’s policies and computer system did not allow the gener-ation of a random sample in advance. Instead, the meter readers were instructedto use a systematic sampling procedure to deliver questionnaires to every nth house-hold on their routes where n is the number of surveys to be distributed divided by thenumber of households on the route. Since each meter reader is responsible for aparticular region of the city, we were assured no neighborhoods would be omittedin the survey. Distribution and collection of questionnaires occurred between June10 and 20, 2003. The meter readers are well known to residents and normally havemonthly contact with the households on their routes. We provided two incentives to

618 W. A. Clark and J. C. Finley

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

7:37

08

Oct

ober

201

4

bolster participation and response rate. The meter readers were compensated 1.50leva (about 90 cents) for each completed survey they returned, and respondents wereentered into a drawing for three cash prizes: 100, 50, and 25 leva (about $60, $30, and$15). These incentives, along with the salience of water issues in the community andthe novelty of a public opinion survey (which is uncommon in Bulgaria), contributedto a high completion and return rate. Of the 750 surveys distributed, 728 werereturned for a 97% response rate. During a postsurvey debriefing, the meter readersindicated that fewer than 10 persons refused to participate in the survey.

Variable Measurement

The dependent variable, intention to conserve water (BI), was created by calculatingthe mean score of seven questionnaire items concerning water conservation beha-viors (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .70). We asked respondents to indicate how likely (on a5-point Likert scale from very unlikely to very likely) they were to adopt the followingwater saving activities during the coming year: taking shorter showers or usingless bath water; replacing dripping faucets and repairing plumbing leaks in theirhome; sweeping terraces and steps instead of washing them with water; replacingexisting shower heads and toilets with modern fixtures specifically designed to use lesswater; not flushing the toilet after every use; using the washing machine moreefficiently (only running it with a full load); and turning off the tap while brushingteeth.

A strict application of the TPB requires that the questionnaire constructs forACT, SN, and PBC are ‘‘defined in terms of exactly the same elements’’ as question-naire items for BI (Ajzen 2002, 2). For example, if a questionnaire item for BI reads,‘‘I intend to take shorter showers in the coming year,’’ the corresponding ACT, SN,and PBC items should be, ‘‘I believe it would be good to take shorter showers in thecoming year,’’ ‘‘people important to me feel I should take shorter showers in thecoming year,’’ and ‘‘I believe it would be easy to take shorter showers in the comingyear.’’ We did not maintain such strict compatibility among the variables. Instead,our measures of ACT, SN, and PBC were more generalized than our BI measure(cf. Kaiser and Gutscher 2003).

Attitude toward water conservation (ACT) was the mean score of six items:making an effort to save water is an indication of good upbringing and culture; Ibelieve it is important to conserve water; it is important to always conserve waterto avert water shortages; if each household reduces the amount of water it uses byjust a little, it will make a big difference for the community; people should use nomore water in the home than is necessary; and I feel a moral obligation to use watercarefully (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .75). These items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale(strongly disagree to strongly agree).

The PBC variable incorporated six items (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .69): there isnothing ordinary citizens can do to avoid a water shortage in the city; there is noneed to reduce water consumption in our household; the things we do to save wateraround the house do not make a significant difference for the community; it wouldbe better to find new sources of water for the city, than for people to reduce theamount of water they use; until the leaks in the water supply network are repaired,there is little sense in trying to reduce water consumption at home; and it would bevery difficult for my household to reduce the amount of water we use.

Determinants of Water Conservation Intention 619

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

7:37

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Subjective norm (SN) was measured by a single item: people I know think waterconservation is important (measured on a 5-point scale from strong disagree tostrongly agree).

In addition to the TPB variables, we included measures of sociodemographics,environmental attitudes, possession of information related to water issues, and watershortage concern. Seven sociodemographic variables were included in the analysis:gender, age, education, income, family size, type of residence (single family houseor apartment), and presence or absence of a garden. Nominally scaled variables weredummy coded for inclusion in the regression model (gender: 0 ¼ male, 1 ¼ female;residence type: 0 ¼ apartment, 1 ¼ house; existence of a garden: 0 ¼ yes, 1 ¼ no).

We used 10 of the 15 items in the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale(Dunlap et al. 2000) to measure environmental attitudes. Factor analysis of the 10items yielded 2 factors. The first factor, ‘‘dominance over nature’’ (Cronbach’salpha ¼ .70), included five items: the balance of nature is strong enough to cope withthe impacts of modern industrial nations; humans have the right to modify thenatural environment to suit their needs; human ingenuity will insure that we donot make the earth unlivable; humans will eventually learn enough about how natureworks to be able to control it; and humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature.Agreement (high scores) with these indicates rejection of the NEP. The secondfactor, ‘‘potential for ecological disaster’’ (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .57), included fouritems: humans are severely abusing the environment; if things continue on theirpresent course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe; whenhumans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences; and the bal-ance of nature is very delicate and easily upset. The NEP items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree). One item, ‘‘the earthhas plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them,’’ did notstrongly fit in either factor and was dropped from the analysis.

Three variables connected with information possession were created. The firsttwo were derived from a factor analysis of seven survey items in which respondentsindicated how informed they were concerning: water supply issues in Blagoevgrad,global warming, climate change, wastewater treatment in Blagoevgrad, water conser-vation methods, new water-saving devices and appliances for the home, and plansfor building a reservoir for Blagoevgrad. A 5-point scale was applied ranging from‘‘not at all informed’’ to ‘‘very well informed.’’ Factor analysis of the seven itemsproduced two clear factors. The first factor, ‘‘information about local waterresources,’’ included five items (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .80). The second factor, ‘‘cli-mate change and global warming information,’’ included two items (Cronbach’salpha ¼ .82). In both cases, the mean score was used as a composite variable, withhigher scores indicating respondents were more informed.

Information access was derived from a questionnaire item asking respondents(yes or no) whether they had obtained water conservation information during theprevious 2 years from any of the following eight sources: the local municipality,the Ministry of Environment and Water, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs),the local water company, radio or television, newspapers, the Internet, or friendsand families. The composite variable was constructed by summing all yes responsesand thus had a range of zero to eight.

A single item, ‘‘How concerned are you that Blagoevgrad will face watershortages in the next five years?,’’ was used to measure concern over future shortagesand was scored on a 5-point scale from 1, not at all concerned, to 5, very concerned.

620 W. A. Clark and J. C. Finley

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

7:37

08

Oct

ober

201

4

The intention to conserve water variable (BI) was regressed against our set ofexplanatory variables. All model variables were entered simultaneously in fiveblocks: sociodemographics, environmental attitudes, information variables, concernover future shortages, and the TPB variables.

Results

Each variable block added significantly to the overall model. Nonsignificantvariables were eliminated from the model in a backward-stepwise manner until onlyvariables relating significantly to intention to conserve water remained. The finalreduced model had an R2 of .268. Details of the full and reduced models are shownin Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The part correlation, when squared, provides a directmeasure of the proportion of the variance in the dependent variable accounted for byadding the given independent variable to those already entered in the multipleregression formula (Cohen and Cohen 1975; cf. Connelly et al. 2003).

In the first block (sociodemographics), age, education, residence type, and pres-ence of a garden were significantly related to intention to implement water conser-vation measures. Gender, income, and family size did not add significantly to themodel. Greater age, lower education, living in a house, and not owning a gardenwere associated with an intention to conserve water. Most previous research suggestsage relates negatively and education relates positively to proenvironmentalism(Klineberg et al. 1998; Theodori and Luloff 2002). However, in the Bulgarian con-text, water conservation may be viewed as an economizing method rather than anexpression of environmental concern. Franzen (2003), in his analysis of data fromthe 2000 International Social Survey Program (ISSP), demonstrated that environ-mental concern was highly positively correlated with gross national product(GNP) per capita, which is relatively low in Bulgaria. Of the 26 nations includedin the ISSP, Bulgaria had the lowest environmental concern score. Many olderBulgarians live on meager pensions and are diligent to economize wherever they can.

Of the two dimensions of environmental attitudes in the second block, onlydominance over nature was significant when statistical controls for the other vari-ables were included. The positive relationship between dominance over nature andintention to conserve water is interesting in that normally stronger acceptance ofan environmental worldview (i.e., the view that humans should not have dominanceover nature) is positively related to an intention to conserve a natural resource suchas water. Again, the reversal of this trend may indicate respondents do not viewwater conservation as an expression of environmental concern. It has also been sug-gested that the belief humans have dominion over nature could foster stewardship ofresources (Kanagy and Willits 1993; Scott and Willits 1994). Similarly, belief indominance over nature could empower people to take action in controlling the useof a natural resource such as water.

The third block contained three measures of information possession. In the mul-tivariate analysis, only information on climate change and global warming was sig-nificantly related to intention to conserve. In fact, this variable had the largest partialeffect in the reduced model. In general, the more informed respondents consideredthemselves regarding climate change and global warming, the more likely they wereto indicate an intention to implement water conservation behaviors.

The fourth block contained a single variable measuring concern over futurewater shortages. Increasing concern was positively and significantly related to

Determinants of Water Conservation Intention 621

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

7:37

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Ta

ble

1.

Biv

ari

ate

an

dm

ult

iple

corr

ela

tio

n-r

egre

ssio

na

na

lysi

so

fth

ere

lati

on

ship

of

inte

nti

on

toco

nse

rve

wa

ter

to1

6v

ari

ab

les

(N¼

51

0)

Mu

ltip

lere

gre

ssio

n=

corr

ela

tio

na

na

lysi

s

Ind

epen

den

tv

ari

ab

les

Biv

ari

ate

rP

art

corr

ela

tio

nfr

om

tota

lm

od

elS

ign

ific

an

ceo

fp

art

corr

ela

tio

nR

2ch

an

ge

for

blo

cka

Blo

ck1

:S

oci

od

emo

gra

ph

ics

Gen

der

�.0

59

.01

3.7

29

.05

1A

ge

.23

4���

.14

6<

.00

1E

du

cati

on

�.1

37��

�.0

90

.01

9H

ou

seh

old

inco

me

�.0

17

.00

7.8

62

Fa

mil

ysi

ze.0

18

.03

5.3

68

Res

iden

cety

pe

.05

6.1

00

.00

9G

ard

en.0

72

.10

3.0

07

Blo

ck2

:E

nv

iro

nm

enta

la

ttit

ud

esH

um

an

do

min

an

ceo

ver

na

ture

.17

3���

.14

5<

.00

1.0

22

Po

ten

tia

lfo

rec

olo

gic

al

dis

ast

er.1

25��

.04

3.2

68

Blo

ck3

:In

form

ati

on

effe

cts

Wa

ter

reso

urc

ek

no

wle

dg

e.1

81���

.02

5.5

09

.04

0C

lim

ate

cha

ng

ek

no

wle

dg

e.2

30���

.16

8<

.00

1N

um

ber

of

info

sou

rces

.05

6�

.03

7.3

31

Blo

ck4

:C

on

cern

ov

ersh

ort

ag

esC

on

cern

ov

erfu

ture

sho

rta

ges

.16

6���

.08

6.0

25

.00

7B

lock

5:

Th

eory

of

pla

nn

edb

eha

vio

rA

ttit

ud

eto

wa

rdw

ate

rco

nse

rva

tio

n.3

04���

.15

9<

.00

1.0

96

Per

ceiv

edb

eha

vio

ral

con

tro

l.1

37��

.16

4<

.00

1S

oci

al

no

rm.2

22���

.12

3.0

01

Mo

del

R2

.27

2(p<

.00

1)

No

te.S

ign

ific

an

cein

dic

ate

db

y� p¼

.05

,��

p¼

.01

,a

nd��� p¼

.00

1.

a R2

for

blo

ckw

hen

test

eda

ga

inst

the

full

mo

del

.

622

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

7:37

08

Oct

ober

201

4

intention to conserve water. However, its effect was relatively weak, with an R2

change value of only .010 in the reduced model.The three components of the TPB made up the final block. Each of these variables

added significantly and positively to the model. Together, they accounted for slightly lessthan 10% of the variation in intention to implement water conservation measures (BI).

Conclusions

Household water conservation could contribute to the amelioration of watershortages in Blagoevgrad, but overall, water suppliers have not encouraged waterconservation measures. This study indicates a potential readiness on the part of resi-dents to adopt water conservation behaviors. However, the link between intentionsand actual behavior is often weak and inconsistent (Gregory and Di Leo 2003;Kaiser and Gutscher 2003). Additional research is necessary to more fully under-stand what intervening variables may be significant in bridging the gap betweenintention to conserve water and actual adoption of water saving behaviors.

The strength of self-reported awareness of climate change and global warming asa predictor of intention to implement water conservation measures was unantici-pated. Climate change is a regional or global issue with local impacts. It appears thatthose with this broader perspective are more likely to implement water conservationmeasures. Helping people understand the possible ramifications of climate change onlocal water supplies could encourage water conservation efforts in the Blagoevgradregion. Further study of the link in people’s minds between climate change, andavailability of local water resources may prove useful.

Table 2. Reduced regression model. Intention to conserve water regressed on 10variables (N ¼ 539)

Independent variablesby blocks

Part correlationfrom

total model

Significanceof part

correlationR2 changefor blocka

Block 1: SociodemographicsAge .159 < .001Education �.090 .016Residence type .088 .018Garden .098 .008 .052

Block 2: Environmental attitudesHuman dominance over nature �.146 < .001 .021

Block 3: Information effectsClimate change knowledge .206 < .001 .042

Block 4: Concern over shortagesConcern over future shortages .099 .008 .010

Block 5: Theory of planned behaviorAttitude toward water conservation .174 < .001Perceived behavioral control .164 < .001Social norm .124 .001 .098

Model R2 .268 (p < .001)

aR2 for block when tested against the full model.

Determinants of Water Conservation Intention 623

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

7:37

08

Oct

ober

201

4

The TPB variables (ACT, SN, and PBC) all showed positive and significant cor-relation with intention to conserve water. Absolute scores of questionnaire itemsmeasuring attitude toward water conservation were relatively high, while those forperceived behavioral control tended to be low. Overall, residents have positive atti-tudes toward water conservation, but feel ineffectual in applying water conservationmeasures. In developing a water conservation program for Blagoevgrad, attemptsshould be made to increase PBC among water users (cf. Trumbo and O’Keefe2001). Providing residential water users with information and instruction aboutpractical ways of reducing wasteful water consumption in the home and creatingopportunities for public input in local water management decision-making are likelyto increase the perception of self-determination. Although the government’s latestwater strategy includes provisions designed to promote greater public involvement,this area warrants more attention. A joint statement by several leading environmen-tal NGOs in Bulgaria cited the need for greater public education and involvementconcerning water resources issues and called for increased public opinion researchin the country (Hauser 2001). Environmental NGO leaders in Blagoevgrad haveindicated an interest in promoting water conservation, but lack the finances.

This study provides only a preliminary examination of attitudes toward waterconservation among water consumers in Bulgaria. The percent of variation in BIaccounted for by the TPB in this study is considerably less than the average(39%) reported by Armitage and Conner (2001) in their meta-analytic review ofthe TPB across a wide variety of behaviors, and is also less than values obtain inother studies of water conservation using the TPB (Lam 1999; Trumbo and O’Keefe2001; 2005). This may be partly explained by our failure to observe strict correspon-dence among the TPB variables. However, it is likely that much of the unaccountedfor variation could be explained by yet undiscovered determinants. As previouslynoted, there is a dearth of research on environmentalism in general and water con-servation in particular in Bulgaria. Given the significant historical and cultural dif-ferences between Bulgaria and Western societies, there is need for further research inthis area. One issue warranting further investigation is the interplay among environ-mental values, normative values, and economic incentives in stimulating waterconservation.

References

Ajzen, I. 1988. Attitudes, personality and behavior. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behav. Hum. Decision Pro-

cesses 50:179–211.Ajzen, I. 2002. Constructing a TpB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considera-

tions. http://www.people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf (accessed 20 Jun2005).

Alitchkov, D. and I. Kostova. 1996. Possibilities for water conservation in Bulgaria. GeoJour-nal 40(4):421–429.

Armitage, C. and M. Conner. 2001. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-ana-lytic review. Br. J. Social Psychol. 40:471–499.

Axelrod, L. and D. Lehman. 1993. Responding to environmental concerns: What factorsguide individual action? J. Environ. Psychol. 13:149–159.

Bruvold, W. 1979. Residential response to urban drought in Central California. WaterResources Res. 15(6):1297–1304.

Buttel, F. 1987. New directions in environmental sociology. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 13:465–488.

624 W. A. Clark and J. C. Finley

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

7:37

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Cameron, T. and M. Wright. 1990. Determinants of household water conservationretrofit activity: A discrete choice model using survey data. Water Resources Res.26(2):179–188.

Clark, W. and G. Wang. 2003. Conflicting attitudes toward inter-basin water transfers inBulgaria. Water Int. 28(1):79–89.

Cohen, J. and P. Cohen. 1975. Applied multiple regression=correlation analysis for the beha-vioral sciences, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Connelly, N., T. Brown, and D. Decker. 2003. Factors affecting response rates to naturalresource—Focused mail surveys: Empirical evidence of declining rates over time. SocietyNat. Resources 16:541–549.

Conner, M. and C. Armitage. 1998. Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review andavenues for further research. Journal of Applied Psychology 28:1429–1464.

Corral-Verdugo, V. 2002. A structural model of proenvironmental competency. Environmentand Behavior 34(4):531–549.

Corral-Verdugo, V., M. Frias-Amenta, and D. Gonzalez-Lomelf. 2003. On the relationshipbetween antisocial and anti-environmental behaviors: An empirical study. PopulationEnviron. 24(3):273–285.

Dainov, E. 2000. Rivers too cannot do without NGOs. In Partnership for integrated waterresources management in Central and Eastern Europe—Bulgaria, 38–40. Sofia, Bulgaria:Central and Eastern European Technical Advisory Committee of Global Water Partnership.

Dalhuisen, J., R. Florax, H. de Groot, and P. Nijkamp. 2003. Price and income elasticities ofresidential water demand: A meta-analysis. Land Econ. 79(2):292–308.

Dietz, T., P. Stern, and G. Guangnano. 1998. Social structures and social psychological basesof environmental concern. Environ. Behav. 30(4):450–471.

Dunlap, R., K. Van Liere, A. Mertig, and R. Jones. 2000. Measuring endorsement of the newecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. J. Social Issues 56(3):425–442.

Dziegielewski, B. 1994. The drought is real: Designing a successful water conservation cam-paign. In Efficient water use. UNESCO=ORCYT, Montevideo, Uruguay. Available athttp://www.unesco.org.uy/phi/libros/efficient_water/windice.html (accessed January15, 2003).

Finger, M. 1994. From knowledge to action? Exploring the relationship between environmen-tal experiences, learning, and behavior. J. Social Issues 50(3):141–160.

Franzen, A. 2003. Environmental attitudes in international comparison: An analysis of theISSP surveys 1993 and 2000. Social Sci. Q. 84(2):297–308.

Gamba, R. and S. Oskamp. 1994. Factors influencing community residents’ participation incommingled curbside recycling programs. Environ. Behav. 26(5):587–612.

Gardner, G. and P. Stern. 1996. Environmental problems and human behavior. Boston: Allynand Bacon.

Georgieva, K. 1993. Environmental policy in a transitional economy: The Bulgarian example.In Environment and democratic transition, Policy and politics in Central and EasternEurope, eds. A. Vari and P. Tamas, 67–87. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.

Gerasimov, S., N. Ilieva, and N. Genov. 2000. Demographic and social change. InGlobal change and Bulgaria, eds. M. Staneva, C. G. Knight, T. Hristov, and D. Mishev,259–289. University Park, PA, and Sofia, Bulgaria: CIRA and Bulgarian Academy ofScience.

Gregory, G. and M. Di Leo. 2003. Repeated behavior and environmental psychology: Therole of personal involvement and habit formation in explaining water consumption.J. Applied Social Psychol. 33(6):1261–1296.

Grob, A. 1995. A structural model of environmental attitudes and behavior. J. Environ.Psychol. 15:209–220.

Hauser, R. 2001. Challenges to public participation in water management in Bulgaria. Presen-tation at conference on public participation, NGOs and the water framework directive

Determinants of Water Conservation Intention 625

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

7:37

08

Oct

ober

201

4

in Central and Eastern Europe. World Wildlife Federation and the Global WaterPartnership. Budapest, Hungry, March 9–10.

Ilieva, N. 2001. The program of the Bulgarian government for mandatory measuresduring conditions of tendency for drought. In Bulgarian. (

) WaterAction ( ) 1=2:4–11.

Inglehart, R. 1995. Public support for environmental protection: Objective problems and sub-jective values in 43 countries. Polit. Sci. Polit. 28:57–72.

Kaiser, F. and H. Gutscher. 2003. The proposition of a general version of the theory ofplanned behavior: Predicting ecological behavior. J. Appl. Social Psychol. 33(3):586–603.

Kaiser, F. and T. Shimoda. 1999. Responsibility as a predictor of ecological behaviour.J. Environ. Psychol. 19:243–253.

Kanagy, C. and F. Willits. 1993. A ‘‘greening’’ of religion? Some evidence from a Pennsylvaniasample. Social Sci. Q. 74:674–683.

Kemmelmeier, M., G. Krol, and Y. Kim. 2002. Values, economics, and proenvironmental atti-tudes in 22 societies. Cross-Cultural Res. 36(3):256–285.

Klineberg, S., M. McKeever, and B. Rothenbach. 1998. Demographic predictors of environ-mental concern: It does make a difference how it’s measured. Social Sci. Q. 79(4):735–753.

Knight, C. G. and M. Staneva. 1996. The water resources of Bulgaria: An overview. GeoJour-nal 40(4):347–362.

Lam, S. 1999. Predicting intentions to conserve water from the theory of planned behavior,perceived moral obligation, and perceived water right. J. Appl. Social Psychol.29(5):1058–1071.

National Statistics Institute. 2005. Statistical yearbook. Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria: National Stat-istical Institute, Blagoevgrad District Bureau.

Paskalev, A. 2001. Fourth seminar: Private participation in water supply and sewage services,3–14. Bulgarian National Association of Water Quality (BNAWQ). Sofia, Bulgaria.

Pavlinek, P. and J. Pickles (Eds.). 2000. Environmental transitions: Transformation and ecologi-cal defense in Central and Eastern Europe. New York: Routledge.

Peneveska, V. 2003. Current status of water sector restructuring in Bulgaria. Working paper forEU Intermediaries Research Project. http://www.irsnet.de/intermediaries.

Pint, E. 1999. Household responses to increased water rates during the California drought.Land Econ. 75(2):246–266.

Schahn, J. and E. Holzer. 1990. Studies of individual environmental concern: The role ofknowledge, gender and background variables. Environ. Behav. 22(6):767–786.

Scott, D. and F. Willits. 1994. Environmental attitudes and behavior, a Pennsylvania survey.Environ. Behav. 26(2):239–260.

Stern, P. 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. SocialIssues 56(3):407–424.

Stern, P., T. Dietz, and L. Kalof. 1993. Value orientations, gender and environmental concern.Environ. Behav. 25(3):322–348.

Terrebonne, R. 2005. Residential water demand management programs: A selected review of theliterature. Working Paper 2005–002. Georgia Water Planning and Policy Center workingpapers 2005 series. Albany, GA.

Theodori, G. and A. Luloff. 2002. Position on environmental issues and engagement in proen-vironmental behavior. Society Nat. Resources 15:471–482.

Thompson, S. and M. Barton. 1994. Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward theenvironment. J. Environ. Psychol. 14:149–157.

Trumbo, C. and G. O’Keefe. 2001. Intention to conserve water: Environmental values,planned behavior, and information effects. A comparison of three communities sharinga watershed. Society Nat. 14:889–899.

626 W. A. Clark and J. C. Finley

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

7:37

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Trumbo, C. and G. O’Keefe. 2005. Intention to conserve water: Environmental values, rea-soned action, and information effects across time. Society Nat. 18:573–585.

Watkins, G. 1974. Developing a ‘‘water concern’’ scale. J. Environ. Educ. 5(4):54–58.World Resources Institute. 2000. World resources, 2000–2001: People and ecosystems, The

fraying web of life. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Zelezny, L., P. Chua, and C. Aldrich. 2000. Elaborating on gender differences in environment-

alism. J. Social Issues 56(3):443–457.

Determinants of Water Conservation Intention 627

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

7:37

08

Oct

ober

201

4