Environmental Management

, Volume 58, Issue 2, pp 238–253 | Cite as

Classifying Residents who use Landscape Irrigation: Implications for Encouraging Water Conservation Behavior

  • Laura A. WarnerEmail author
  • Alexa J. Lamm
  • Joy N. Rumble
  • Emmett T. Martin
  • Randall Cantrell


Large amounts of water applied as urban irrigation can often be reduced substantially without compromising esthetics. Thus, encouraging the adoption of water-saving technologies and practices is critical to preserving water resources, yet difficult to achieve. The research problem addressed in this study is the lack of characterization of residents who use urban irrigation, which hinders the design of effective behavior change programs. This study examined audience segmentation as an approach to encouraging change using current residential landscape practices. K-means cluster analysis identified three meaningful subgroups among residential landscape irrigation users (N = 1,063): the water considerate majority (n = 479, 45 %), water savvy conservationists (n = 378, 36 %), and unconcerned water users (n = 201, 19 %). An important finding was that normative beliefs, attitudes, and perceived behavioral control characteristics of the subgroups were significantly different with large and medium practical effect sizes. Future water conservation behaviors and perceived importance of water resources were also significantly different among subgroups. The water considerate majority demonstrated capacity to conserve, placed high value on water, and were likely to engage in behavior changes. This article contributes to the literature on individuals who use residential landscape irrigation, an important target audience with potential to conserve water through sustainable irrigation practices and technologies. Findings confirm applicability of the capacity to conserve water to audience segmentation and extend this concept by incorporating perceived value of water resources and likelihood of conservation. The results suggest practical application to promoting residential landscape water conservation behaviors based on important audience characteristics.


Audience segmentation Behavior change Residential landscape water conservation Social marketing Theory of planned behavior Urban irrigation 



Funding for this research was provided by the University of Florida Center for Landscape Conservation and Ecology.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical approval and informed consent

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study


  1. Abrahamse W, Steg L, Vlek C, Rothengatter T (2007) The effect of tailored information, goal setting, and tailored feedback on household energy use, energy-related behaviors, and behavioral antecedents. J Environ Psychol 27:265–276. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreasen AR (2006) Social marketing in the 21st century. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks Google Scholar
  4. Baker R, Brick JM, Bates NA, Battaglia M, Couper MP, Dever JA et al (2013) Report of the AAPOR task force on non-probability sampling. American Association for Public Opinion Research. Accessed 21 Mar 2015
  5. Bickman L (1972) Environmental attitudes and actions. J Soc Psychol 87:323–324. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1972.9922533 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blaine TW, Clayton S, Robbins P, Grewal PS (2012) Homeowner attitudes and practices towards residential landscape management in Ohio, USA. Environ Manag 50:257–271. doi: 10.1007/s00267-012-9874-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blasius J, Mühlichen A (2010) Identifying audience segments applying the “social space” approach. Poetics 38:69–89. doi: 10.1016/j.poetic.2009.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burns RP, Burns R (eds) (2008) Cluster analysis. In: Business research methods and statistics using SPSS. Sage, London, pp 552–567Google Scholar
  9. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum, NJGoogle Scholar
  10. Corral-Verdugo V, Bechtel RB, Fraijo-Sing B (2003) Environmental beliefs and water conservation: an empirical study. J Environ Psychol 23:247–257. doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00086-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deshpande S, Lee NR (2013) Social marketing in India. SAGE Response, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  12. Endter-Wada J, Kurtzman J, Keenan SP, Kjelgren RK, Neale CMU (2008) Situational waste in landscape watering: residential and business water use in an urban Utah community. J Am Water Resour Assoc 44:902–920. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2008.00190.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farag FA, Neale CMU, Kjelgren RK, Endter-Wada J (2011) Quantifying urban landscape water conservation potential using high resolution remote sensing and GIS. Photogramm Eng Rem Sens 11:1113–1120. doi: 10.14358/PERS.77.11.1113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferguson BK (1987) Water conservation methods in urban landscape irrigation: an exploratory overview. J Am Water Resour Assoc 23:147–152. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.1987.tb00794.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Florida Water StarSM (2015) About Florida Water StarSM. Accessed 12 Dec 2015
  16. Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ Program (FFL) (2015) About Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ program. Accessed 12 Dec 2015
  17. Fraenkel JR, Wallen NE (2008) How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Glenn DT, Endter-Wada J, Kjelgren R, Neale CMU (2015) Tools for evaluating and monitoring effectiveness of urban landscape water conservation intervention programs. Landsc Urban Plan 139:82–93. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grunig JE (1989) Publics, audiences and market segments: Segmentation principles for campaigns. In: Salmon CT (ed) Information campaigns: managing the process of social change. Sage Publications, Newberry Park, pp 199–228Google Scholar
  20. Haley MB, Dukes MD (2012) Validation of landscape irrigation reduction with soil moisture sensor irrigation controllers. J Irrig Drain E-ASCE 138:135–144. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000391 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haley M, Dukes M, Miller G (2007) Residential irrigation water use in Central Florida. J Irrig Drain E-ASCE 133:427–434. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2007)133:5(427) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hayden L, Cadenasso ML, Haver D, Oki L (2015) Residential landscape aesthetics and water conservation best management practices: homeowners perceptions and preferences. Landsc Urban Plan 144:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hine DW, Reser JP, Phillips WJ, Cooksey R, Marks ADG, Nunn P, Watt SE, Bradley GL, Glendon AI (2013) Identifying climate change interpretive communities in a large Australian sample. J Environ Psychol 36:229–239. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.08.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huck SW (2012) Reading statistics and research, 6th edn. Pearson Education, BostonGoogle Scholar
  25. Israel GD, Easton JO, Knox GW (1999) Adoption of landscape practices by Florida residents. HortTechnology 9:262–266. Accessed 6 Jan 2015
  26. Jenkins V (1994) The lawn: a history of an American obsession. Smithsonian Books, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  27. Jonas K (2007) Semantic differential. In: Baumeister R, Vohs K (eds) Encyclopedia of social psychology. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 854–856. doi: 10.4135/9781412956253.n503 Google Scholar
  28. Kilgren DC, Endter-Wada J, Kjelgren RK, Johnson PG (2010) Implementing landscape water conservation in public school institution settings: a case for situational problem solving. J Am Water Resour As 46:1205–1220. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2010.00486.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kim JN (2011) Public segmentation using situational theory of problem solving: Illustrating summation method and testing segmented public profiles. Prism 8. Accessed 12 Mar 2015
  30. Kim JN, Shen H, Morgan S (2011) Information behaviors and problem chain recognition effect: applying situational theory of problem solving in organ donation issues. Health Commun 26:171–184. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2010.544282 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kjelgren R, Rupp L, Kilgren D (2000) Water conservation in urban landscapes. HortScience, 35:1037–1040. Accessed 12 Apr 2015
  32. Kollmus A, Agyeman J (2002) Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res 8:239–260. doi: 10.1080/13504620220145401 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kotler P, Roberto EL (1989) Social marketing: strategies for changing behavior. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Kronrod A, Grinstein A, Wathieu L (2012) Go green! Should environmental messages be so assertive? J Mark 76:95–102. doi: 10.1509/jm.10.0416 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Krumpal I (2013) Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review. Qual Quant 47:2025–2047. doi: 10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kummu M, Ward PJ, de Moel H, Varis O (2010) Is physical water scarcity a new phenomenon? Global assessment of water shortage over the last two millennia. Environ Res Lett 5:1–10. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/5/3/034006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lai PH, Sorice MG, Nepal SK, Cheng CK (2009) Integrating social marketing into sustainable resource management at Padre Island National Seashore: an attitude-based segmentation approach. Environ Manag 43:985–998. doi: 10.1007/s00267-009-9293-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lam SP (2006) Predicting intention to save water: theory of planned behavior, response efficacy, vulnerability, and perceived efficiency of alternative solutions. J Appl Soc Pychol 36:2803–2824. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00129.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Larson KL, Casagrande D, Harlan SL, Yabiku ST (2009) Residents’ yard choices and rationales in a desert city: social priorities, ecological impacts, and decision tradeoffs. Environ Manag 44:921–937. doi: 10.1007/s00267-009-9353-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lee NR, Kotler PA (2011) Social marketing: influencing behavior for good, 4th edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  41. Lefebvre RC (2001) Theories and models in social marketing. In: Bloom PN, Gundlack GT (eds) Handbook of marketing and society. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 506–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lehman PK, Geller ES (2004) Behavior analysis and environmental protection: accomplishments and potential for more. Behav Soc Issues 13:13–32. doi: 10.5210/bsi.v13i1.33 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Levy B, Sidel VW (2011) Water rights and water fights: preventing and resolving conflicts before they boil over. Am J Public Health 101:778–780. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2010.194670 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Maddaus L, Maddaus M, Maddaus W, Matyas C (2014) Pursuing more efficient water use: the history and future of water conservation in the United States. J Am Water Works Ass 106:150–163. doi: 10.5942/jawwa.2014.106.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Leiserowitz A (2009) Global warming’s six Americas 2009: an audience segmentation analysis. Yale Project on climate change. Accessed 20 May 2015
  46. Majumdar I, Teeter L, Butler B (2008) Characterizing family forest owners: a cluster analysis approach. For Sci 54:176–184. Accessed 13 Apr 2015
  47. Martini NF, Nelson KC, Dahmus ME (2014) Exploring homeowner diffusion of yard care knowledge as one step toward improving urban ecosystems. Environ Manag 54:1223–1236. doi: 10.1007/s00267-014-0368-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Maupin, MA, Kenny, JF, Hutson, SS, Lovelace, JK, Barber, NL, Linsey, KS (2014) Estimated use of water in the United States in 2010. US Geological Survey Circular. Accessed 20 Jan 2015
  49. McDermaid KK, Barnstable DC (2001) Step-by-step guide to conducting a social profile for watershed planning. Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Accessed 29 Jan 2015
  50. McKenzie-Mohr D, Schultz PW (2014) Choosing effective behavior change tools. Soc Mark Q 20:35–46. doi: 10.1177/1524500413519257 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McKenzie-Mohr D, Lee NR, Schultz PW, Kotler P (2012) Social marketing to protect the environment. SAGE, Thousand OaksCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Monaghan P, Ott E, Wilber W, Gouldthorpe J, Racevskis L (2013) Defining audience segments for Extension programming using reported water conservation practices. J Ext 51. Article 6FEA8. Accessed 20 Jan 2015
  53. Mosler HJ, Tamas A, Tobias R, Rodríguez TC, Miranda OG (2008) Deriving interventions on the basis of factors influencing behavioral intentions for waste recycling, composting, and reuse in Cuba. Environ Behav 40:522–544. doi: 10.1177/0013916507300114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Newton JD, Newton FJ, Turk T, Ewing MT (2013) Ethical evaluation of audience segmentation in social marketing. Eur J Mark 47:1421–1438. doi: 10.1108/EJM-09-2011-0515 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Padowski JC, Jawitz JW (2012) Water availability and vulnerability of 255 large cities in the United States. Water Resour Res 48:12. doi: 10.1029/2012WR012335 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Petrzelka P (2012) Absentee landowners in the great lakes basin: who they are and implications for conservation outreach. Soc Nat Resour Int J 25:821–832. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2011.626511 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Postel SL (2000) Entering an era of water scarcity: the challenges ahead. Ecol Appl 10:941–948. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[0941:eaeows];2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rea LM, Parker RA (1992) Designing and conducting survey research. Jossey-Boss, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  59. Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  60. Salmon O, Brunson M, Kuhns M (2006) Benefit-based audience segmentation: a tool for identifying nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) owner education needs. J For 104:419–425. Accessed 21 Jan 2015
  61. Shaw B (2010) Integrating temporally oriented social science models and audience segmentation to influence environmental behaviors. In: Kahlor L, Stout P (eds) Communicating science: new agendas in communication. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, pp 109–130Google Scholar
  62. Shober AL, Denny GC, Broschat TK (2010) Management of fertilizers and water for ornamental plants in urban landscapes: Current practices and impacts on water resources in Florida. HortTechnology 20:94–106. Accessed 20 Jan 2015
  63. Slater MD (1995) Choosing audience segmentation strategies and methods for health communication. In: Maibach E (ed) Designing health messages: approaches from communication theory and public health practice. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 186–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. SPSS (2013) SPSS for Windows, Release 22. SPSS, Inc., ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  65. St. Hilaire RS (2009) The residential urban landscape as a frontier for water conservation. Proteus 26:13–16Google Scholar
  66. St. Hilaire RS, Arnold MA, Devitt DA, Hurd BH, Lesikar BJ, Lohr VI, Martin CA, McDonald GV, Morris RL, Pittenger DR, Shaw DA, Wilkerson DC, Zoldoske DF (2008) Efficient water use in residential urban landscapes. HortScience 43:2081–2092Google Scholar
  67. Steg L, Vlek C (2009) Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J Environ Psychol 29:309–317. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stern PC (2000) Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues 56:407–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Syme GJ, Nancarrow BE, Seligman C (2000) The evaluation of information campaigns to promote voluntary household water conservation. Eval Rev 24:539–578. doi: 10.1177/0013916514543683 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Taylor-Powell E, Boyd HH (2008) Evaluation capacity building in complex organizations. New Dir Eval 2008:55–69. doi: 10.1002/ev.276 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tourangeau R, Smith TW (1996) Asking sensitive questions: the impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Public Opin Q 60:275–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Trumbo CV, O’Keefe GJ (2001) Intention to conserve water: environmental values, planned behavior, and information effects: a comparison of three communities sharing a watershed. Soc Nat Resour 14:889–899. doi: 10.1080/089419201753242797 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. United States Census Bureau (2014) Florida passes New York to become nation’s third most populous state, census bureau reports. Accessed 12 Dec 2015
  74. United States Census Bureau (2015) State and county quick facts. Accessed 12 Dec 2015
  75. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2014) Segmentation analysis. Accessed 12 Mar 2015
  76. University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) (2011) Shaping solutions for Florida’s future: The University of Florida extension roadmap 2013–2023. Accessed 10 Dec 2015
  77. Warner LA (2015) Evaluating horticultural site visits and individual teaching activities in extension. J Ext 53. Article 4COM2. Accessed 12 Sept 2015
  78. Warner LA, Murphrey TP (2015) An examination of the framework of social marketing to achieve environmental sustainability in international agricultural and extension education. J Int Agr Ext Educ 22:20–36Google Scholar
  79. Weems G, Onwuegbuzie A (2001) The impact of midpoint responses and reverse coding on survey data. Meas Eval Couns Dev 34:166–176.,uid&db=tfh&AN=5542020&site=ehost-live. Accessed 20 Jan 2015
  80. Williams AP, Seager R, Abatzoglou JT, Cook BI, Smerdon JE, Cook ER (2015) Contribution of anthropogenic warming to California drought during 2012–2014. Geophys Res Lett 42:6819–6828. doi: 10.1002/2015GL064924 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura A. Warner
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Alexa J. Lamm
    • 1
    • 3
  • Joy N. Rumble
    • 1
    • 3
  • Emmett T. Martin
    • 3
  • Randall Cantrell
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural Education and CommunicationUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Center for Landscape Conservation and EcologyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  3. 3.Center for Public Issues EducationUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  4. 4.Department of Family, Youth, and Community SciencesUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations