IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i11p5811-d559724.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Potentially Groundwater-Contaminating Ecological Disaster on Adolescents’ Bottled Water Consumption and Perceived Risk to Use Tap Water

Author

Listed:
  • Mykolas Simas Poškus

    (Institute of Psychology, Mykolas Romeris University, LT-08303 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Audra Balundė

    (Institute of Psychology, Mykolas Romeris University, LT-08303 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Lina Jovarauskaitė

    (Institute of Psychology, Mykolas Romeris University, LT-08303 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Goda Kaniušonytė

    (Institute of Psychology, Mykolas Romeris University, LT-08303 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Rita Žukauskienė

    (Institute of Psychology, Mykolas Romeris University, LT-08303 Vilnius, Lithuania)

Abstract

We compared the extent to which a potentially groundwater-contaminating ecological disaster affected adolescents’ bottled water consumption and perceived risk to use tap water. The affected group consists of 221 adolescents (56.6% were girls, M age = 15.44, SD age = 0.60), while the control group consisted of 156 adolescents (56.4% were girls, M age = 15.50, SD age = 0.55). The Comprehensive Action Determination Model that explains pro-environmental actions was used as a basis for the comparison of adolescents’ bottled water use, both on mean and model-path levels. Perceived risk of tap water use was compared among affected and control groups (i.e., quasi-experimental manipulation check). The affected group perceived tap water use as riskier than the control group, although the difference was marginal. The affected group also demonstrated significantly lower intention not to consume bottled water than the control. Interestingly, however, path-level comparisons indicated that affected adolescents were more effective in translating their perceived control over sources of clean drinking water into intention to consume tap water.

Suggested Citation

  • Mykolas Simas Poškus & Audra Balundė & Lina Jovarauskaitė & Goda Kaniušonytė & Rita Žukauskienė, 2021. "The Effect of Potentially Groundwater-Contaminating Ecological Disaster on Adolescents’ Bottled Water Consumption and Perceived Risk to Use Tap Water," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-17, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:11:p:5811-:d:559724
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/11/5811/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/11/5811/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nahui Zhen & Jon Barnett & Michael Webber, 2019. "Trust and the risk of consuming polluted water in Shanghai, China," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 55-66, January.
    2. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    3. Adam Burgess, 2019. "Environmental risk narratives in historical perspective: from early warnings to ‘risk society’ blame," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(9), pages 1128-1142, September.
    4. Hilde Iversen & TorbjØrn Rundmo, 2002. "Environmental concern and environmental behaviour among the Norwegian public," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(3), pages 265-279, July.
    5. van den Broek, Karlijn L. & Walker, Ian & Klöckner, Christian A., 2019. "Drivers of energy saving behaviour: The relative influence of intentional, normative, situational and habitual processes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 811-819.
    6. Albert Satorra & Peter Bentler, 2001. "A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 66(4), pages 507-514, December.
    7. Sunita Prugsamatz Ofstad & Monika Tobolova & Alim Nayum & Christian A. Klöckner, 2017. "Understanding the Mechanisms behind Changing People’s Recycling Behavior at Work by Applying a Comprehensive Action Determination Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-17, February.
    8. Suzanne Moffatt & Birgitt Hoeldke & Tanja Pless-Mulloli, 2003. "Local environmental concerns among communities in North-East England and South Hessen, Germany: the influence of proximity to industry," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(2), pages 125-144, March.
    9. Pigi A. Vangeli & Antonia Koutsidou & Alexandra Gemitzi & Konstantinos P. Tsagarakis, 2014. "Public perception for monitoring and management of environmental risk: the case of the tires' fire in Drama region, Greece," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(9), pages 1183-1206, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Olawole Fawehinmi & Mohd Yusoff Yusliza & Samuel Ogbeibu & M. Imran Tanveer & Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour, 2022. "Academic employees' green behaviour as praxis for bolstering environmental sustainable development: A linear moderated mediation evaluation," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(7), pages 3470-3490, November.
    2. Lina JovarauskaitÄ— & Audra BalundÄ— & Inga TruskauskaitÄ—-KuneviÄ ienÄ— & Goda KaniuÅ¡onytÄ— & Rita ŽukauskienÄ— & Mykolas Simas PoÅ¡kus, 2020. "Toward Reducing Adolescents’ Bottled Water Purchasing: From Policy Awareness to Policy-Congruent Behavior," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, December.
    3. Chun-Hsi Vivian Chen & Yu-Cheng Chen, 2021. "Assessment of Enhancing Employee Engagement in Energy-Saving Behavior at Workplace: An Empirical Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-18, February.
    4. Phu Nguyen-Van & Anne Stenger & Tuyen Tiet, 2021. "Social incentive factors in interventions promoting sustainable behaviors: A meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(12), pages 1-27, December.
    5. Qiao Liu & Qianhui Xu & Xin Shen & Bowei Chen & Sonia Sadeghian Esfahani, 2022. "The Mechanism of Household Waste Sorting Behaviour—A Study of Jiaxing, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-12, February.
    6. Park, Seong-Hee & Mahony, Daniel F. & Kim, Yukyoum & Kim, Young Do, 2015. "Curiosity generating advertisements and their impact on sport consumer behavior," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 359-369.
    7. Eisenbeiss, Maik & Blechschmidt, Boris & Backhaus, Klaus & Freund, Philipp Alexander, 2012. "“The (Real) World Is Not Enough:” Motivational Drivers and User Behavior in Virtual Worlds," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 4-20.
    8. Susanne Stoll-Kleemann & Philipp Franikowski & Susanne Nicolai, 2023. "Development and Validation of a Scale to Assess Moral Disengagement in High-Carbon Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-23, January.
    9. Serena L. Colombo & Salvatore G. Chiarella & Camille Lefrançois & Jacques Fradin & Antonino Raffone & Luca Simione, 2023. "Why Knowing about Climate Change Is Not Enough to Change: A Perspective Paper on the Factors Explaining the Environmental Knowledge-Action Gap," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-17, October.
    10. Zbigniew Bohdanowicz & Beata Łopaciuk-Gonczaryk & Jarosław Kowalski & Cezary Biele, 2021. "Households’ Electrical Energy Conservation and Management: An Ecological Break-Through, or the Same Old Consumption-Growth Path?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-21, October.
    11. Moody, Joanna & Zhao, Jinhua, 2019. "Car pride and its bidirectional relations with car ownership: Case studies in New York City and Houston," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 334-353.
    12. Wenyao Zhang & Ruzhi Xu & Yuan Jiang & Wei Zhang, 2021. "How Environmental Knowledge Management Promotes Employee Green Behavior: An Empirical Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-15, April.
    13. Yan Wah Leung & Sonny Rosenthal, 2019. "Explicating Perceived Sustainability-Related Climate: A Situational Motivator of Pro-Environmental Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-17, January.
    14. Wei-Ta Fang & Mei-Hsuan Huang & Bai-You Cheng & Rong-Jeo Chiu & Yi-Te Chiang & Chun-Wei Hsu & Eric Ng, 2021. "Applying a Comprehensive Action Determination Model to Examine the Recycling Behavior of Taipei City Residents," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-18, January.
    15. Mykolas Simas Poškus, 2020. "What Works for Whom? Investigating Adolescents’ Pro-Environmental Behaviors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-21, September.
    16. Siu Hing Lo & Gerard J.P. Van Breukelen & Gjalt-Jorn Y. Peters & Gerjo Kok, 2014. "Teleconference Use among Office Workers: An Interorganizational Comparison of an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior Model," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-20, February.
    17. Clot, Sophie & Grolleau, Gilles & Ibanez, Lisette, 2022. "Projection bias in environmental beliefs and behavioural intentions - An application to solar panels and eco-friendly transport," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    18. Steiner, Michael & Wiegand, Nico & Eggert, Andreas & Backhaus, Klaus, 2016. "Platform adoption in system markets: The roles of preference heterogeneity and consumer expectations," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 276-296.
    19. Mai, Robert & Niemand, Thomas & Kraus, Sascha, 2021. "A tailored-fit model evaluation strategy for better decisions about structural equation models," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    20. Marco Batista & Marta Leyton-Román & Ruth Jiménez-Castuera, 2022. "Validity and Reliability of the Portuguese Version of the Healthy Lifestyle Questionnaire—EVS III," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-13, January.

    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:11:p:5811-:d:559724. 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.