Advertisement

Hydrogeology Journal

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 285–295 | Cite as

Assessment of agricultural groundwater users in Iran: a cultural environmental bias

  • Saeid Salehi
  • Mohammad ChizariEmail author
  • Hassan Sadighi
  • Masoud Bijani
Report

Abstract

Many environmental problems are rooted in human behavior. This study aimed to explore the causal effect of cultural environmental bias on ‘sustainable behavior’ among agricultural groundwater users in Fars province, Iran, according to Klockner’s comprehensive model. A survey-based research project was conducted to gathering data on the paradigm of environmental psychology. The sample included agricultural groundwater users (n = 296) who were selected at random within a structured sampling regime involving study areas that represent three (higher, medium and lower) bounds of the agricultural-groundwater-vulnerability spectrum. Results showed that the “environment as ductile (EnAD)” variable was a strong determinant of sustainable behavior as it related to groundwater use, and that EnAE had the highest causal effect on the behavior of agricultural groundwater users. The adjusted model explained 41% variance of “groundwater sustainable behavior”. Based on the results, the groundwater sustainable behaviors of agricultural groundwater users were found to be affected by personal and subjective norm variables and that they are influenced by casual effects of the “environment as ductile (EnAD)” variable. The conclusions reflect the Fars agricultural groundwater users’ attitude or worldview on groundwater as an unrecoverable resource; thus, it is necessary that scientific disciplines like hydrogeology and psycho-sociology be considered together in a comprehensive approach for every groundwater study.

Keywords

Groundwater sustainable behavior Cultural environmental bias Socio-economic aspects Agriculture Iran 

Evaluation des utilisateurs des eaux souterraines pour l’agriculture en Iran: un biais environnemental culturel

Résumé

De nombreux problèmes environnementaux sont enracinés dans le comportement humain. Cette étude a pour objectif d’explorer l’effet de causalité du biais environnemental culturel sur le comportement durable parmi les utilisateurs des eaux souterraines pour l’agriculture dans la province de Fars en Iran, selon le modèle global de Klockner. Un projet de recherche axé sur des enquêtes a été réalisé afin de recueillir des données sur le paradigme de la psychologie de l’environnement. L’échantillon comprenait des utilisateurs d’eau souterraine pour l’agriculture (n = 296) qui ont été sélectionnés au hasard au sein d’un mode d’échantillonnage structuré impliquant des zones d’étude qui représentent trois bornes (supérieures, moyennes et inférieures) du spectre de vulnérabilité agriculture-eaux souterraines. Les résultats ont montré que la variable « environnement extensible (EnE) » était un déterminant fort du comportement durable en ce qui concerne l’utilisation des eaux souterraines, et que l’EnE avait le plus haut effet causal sur le comportement des utilisateurs d’eaux souterraines pour l’agriculture. Le modèle ajusté a expliqué une variance de 41% du « comportement durable des eaux souterraines ». Sur la base des résultats, les comportements durables des eaux souterraines des utilisateurs de l’eau souterraine pour l’agriculture ont été affectés par des variables de la norme personnelle et subjective et qu’ils sont influencés par les effets de causalité de la variable « environnement extensible (EnE)». Les conclusions reflètent le comportement des usagers des eaux souterraines à des fins agricoles de Fars, ou la vision globale sur les eaux souterraines en tant que ressource irrécupérable; ainsi, il est. donc nécessaire que les disciplines scientifiques, comme l’hydrogéologie et la psycho-sociologie soient considérées ensemble dans une approche globale pour chaque étude hydrogéologique.

Evaluación de los usuarios del agua subterránea agrícola en Irán: un sesgo ambiental cultural

Resumen

Muchos problemas ambientales están enraizados en el comportamiento humano. El objetivo de este estudio fue explorar el efecto causal del sesgo ambiental cultural sobre el “comportamiento sostenible” entre los usuarios de agua subterránea agrícola en la provincia de Fars, Irán, según el modelo integral de Klockner. Se llevó a cabo un proyecto de investigación basado en relevamientos para reunir datos sobre el paradigma de la psicología ambiental. La muestra incluyó a usuarios de agua subterránea agrícola (n = 296) que fueron seleccionados al azar dentro de un esquema de muestreo estructurado que incluía áreas de estudio que representan tres límites (más altos, medios y más bajos) del espectro de vulnerabilidad del agua subterránea agrícola. Los resultados mostraron que la variable “fragilidad ambiental” (EnAE) era un fuerte determinante del comportamiento sostenible en relación con el uso del agua subterránea y que el EnAE tenía el mayor efecto causal en el comportamiento de los usuarios de las aguas subterráneas agrícolas. El modelo ajustado explicó una variación del 41% del “comportamiento sostenible del agua subterránea”. Con base en los resultados, se observó que las conductas sostenibles de las aguas subterráneas de los usuarios agrícolas estaban afectadas por variables personales y subjetivas y que estaban influenciadas por los efectos ocasionales de la variable “fragilidad ambiental (EnAD)”. Las conclusiones reflejan la actitud de los usuarios de las aguas subterráneas agrícolas de Fars o su visión del mundo sobre las aguas subterráneas como un recurso irrecuperable; Por lo tanto, es necesario que las disciplinas científicas como la hidrogeología y la psico-sociología sean consideradas juntas en un enfoque integral para cada estudio de aguas subterráneas.

伊朗农业地下水用户评价:文化环境的偏见

摘要

许多环境问题植根于人类行为。本研究目的就是根据Klockner’s综合模型探索文化环境偏见对伊朗Fars省农业地下水用户“持续的行为”的影响。进行了基于调查的研究项目,获取了环境心理学范例的数据。样品包括涉及到的研究区内结构采样体制随机选取的农业地下水用户(n = 296),这些研究区代表三个(高、中、低)农业-地下水-脆弱性光谱段。结果显示,“环境作为可塑的”的变量是持续行为很强的决定因素,因为它与地下水利用相关,环境可塑性对于农业地下水用户的行为有最大的影响。调整过的模型解释了“地下水持续行为”41%的变量。根据研究结果,发现农业地下水用户的地下水持续行为受到个人的和主观标准变量的影响,并且发现,也受到“环境作为可塑性”变量的影响。结论反映了Fars省农业地下水用户对地下水作为不可恢复资源的态度和世界观,因此,有必要在地下水研究的综合方法中,把学科诸如水文地质学和社会心理学结合一起考虑。

Avaliação dos usuários agrícolas de águas subterrâneas no Irã: uma tendência ambiental cultural

Resumo

Muitos problemas ambientais estão enraizados no comportamento humano. Este estudo visou explorar o efeito causal da tendência cultural ambiental sobre “comportamentos sustentáveis” entre usuários agrícolas de aguas subterrâneas na província de Fars, Irã, de acordo com o modelo detalhado de Klockner. Um projeto de investigação à base de questionários foi realizado para recolher dados sobre o paradigma de psicologia ambiental. A amostra incluiu usuários de águas subterrâneas (n = 296) escolhidos de forma aleatória num regime de amostragem estruturado envolvendo áreas de estudo que representam três (elevado, médio e baixo) gamas do espectro agricultura-água subterrânea-vulnerabilidade. Resultados demonstraram que a variável “ambiente como flexível (ACF)” é um forte determinante de comportamentos sustentáveis quando estes estão ligados ao uso de águas subterrâneas, e que ACF tem o maior efeito causal no comportamento de usuários agrícolas de águas subterrâneas. O modelo ajustado explicou 41% da variância de ‘comportamentos para sustentabilidade das águas subterrâneas’. Com base nos resultados, determinou-se que os comportamentos para a sustentabilidade das águas subterrâneas de usuários agrícolas de águas subterrâneas são afetados por variáveis normativas pessoais e subjetivas e que estes são influenciáveis por efeitos causais da variável “ambiente como flexível (ACF)”. As conclusões refletem a atitude e visão do mundo dos usuários agrícolas de águas subterrâneas de Fars em como a água subterrânea é um recurso irrecuperável; assim, é necessário que disciplinas científicas como a hidrogeologia e psicossociologia sejam consideradas em conjunto numa abordagem abrangente em quaisquer estudos de águas subterrâneas.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge Dr. Kurosh Rezaei-Moghaddam for commenting and the contributions of the reviewers and editors too.

References

  1. Abbasian AR, Chizari M, Bijani M (2017) Farmers’ views on the factors inhibiting the implementation of soil conservation practices [The case of Koohdasht Township, Iran]. J Agric Sci Technol (JAST) 19(4):797–807Google Scholar
  2. Abrahamse W, Steg L (2009) How do socio-demographic and psychological factors relate to households’ direct and indirect energy use and savings? J Econ Psychol 30:711–720.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2009.05.006
  3. Ajuhari Z, Isa S, Aziz A (2016) Promoting Pro-environmental Behavior in Ecotourism Destination. Regional Conference on Science, Technology and Social Sciences (RCSTSS 2014), pp.1023–1039.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1458-1_92
  4. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
  5. Ajzen I (2005) Attitudes, personality, and behavior (2nd. Edition). Milton-Keynes, England: Open University Press/McGraw- HillGoogle Scholar
  6. Alessa L, Kliskey A, Lammers R, Arp C, White D, Hinzman L, Busey B (2008) The arctic water resources vulnerability index: an integrated assessment tool for community resilience and vulnerability with respect to freshwater. Environ Manag 42:523–541.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9152-0
  7. Bagozzi RP, Yi Y (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. J Acad Market Sci 16(1):74–94.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327
  8. Bamberg S, Möser G (2007) Twenty years after Hines Hungerford and Tomera: a new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. J Environ Psychol 27:14–25.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002
  9. Beardsley T (1993) Never give a sucker an even break. Sci Am 269:22.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1093-22
  10. Bell PA, Greene TC, Fisher JD, Baum A (2001) Environmental psychology, 5th edn. Wadsworth, Belmont, CAGoogle Scholar
  11. Best H (2010) Environmental concern and the adoption of organic agriculture. Soc Nat Resour 23:451–468.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920802178206
  12. Bijani M, Hayati D (2015) Farmers’ perceptions toward agricultural water conflict: the case of Doroodzan Dam Irrigation Network Iran. J Agric Sci Technol (JAST) 17(3):561–575Google Scholar
  13. Bijani M, Ghazani E, Valizadeh N, Fallah Haghighi N (2017) Pro-environmental analysis of farmers’ concerns and behaviors towards soil conservation in Central District of Sari County, Iran. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 5(1):43–49.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.03.001
  14. Brown LR, Flavin C (1999) A new economy for a new century. In: Starke L (ed) State of the world, a Worldwatch Institute report on progress toward a sustainable society. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Carlson JE, Schnabel B, Beus CE, Dillman DA (1994) Changes in the soil conservation attitudes and behaviours of farmers in the Palouse and Camas prairies: 1976–1990. J Soil Water Conserv 49:493–500Google Scholar
  16. Chaminé HI (2015) Water resources meet sustainability: new trends in environmental hydrogeology and groundwater engineering. Environ Earth Sci 73(6):2513–2520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clayton S, Myers G (2015) Conservation psychology: understanding and promoting human care for nature, 2nd edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
  18. Corral-Verdugo V (2010) The psychological dimensions of sustainability. In: Valentín J, Gamez L (eds) Environmental psychology: new developments. Nova, New York, pp 63–89Google Scholar
  19. Corral-Verdugo V, Carrus G, Bonnes M, Moser G, JBP S (2008) Environmental beliefs and endorsement of sustainable development principals in water conservation: toward a new human interdependence paradigm scale. Environ Behav 40(5):703–725.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916507308786
  20. Custodio E (2002) Overexploitation, what does it mean? Hydrogeol J 10(2):254–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Daly HE (1990) Toward some operational principles of sustainable development. Ecol Econ 2:1–6Google Scholar
  22. Douglas M (1978) Cultural bias (occasional paper no. 35). Royal Anthropological Institute, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Douglas M, Wildavsky A (1982) Risk and culture: an essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. University of California Press, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  24. FAO (2015) FAO statistical yearbook. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  25. Fleming A, Vanclay F (2010) Farmer responses to climate change and sustainable agriculture: a review. Agr Sustain Dev 30:11–19.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/agro/2009028
  26. Foster S, Garduno H, Evans R, Olson D, Tian Y, Zhang W, Han Z (2004) Quaternary Aquifer of the North China Plain: assessing and achieving groundwater resource sustainability. Hydrogeol J 12:81–93.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10040-003-0300-6
  27. Gefen D, Straub DW, Boudreau M (2000) Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Commun Assoc Info Syst 4(7):1–78Google Scholar
  28. Gifford R (2014) Environmental psychology matters. Annu Rev Psychol 65:541–579.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115048
  29. Gifford R, Kormos C, McIntyre A (2011) Behavioral dimensions of climate change: drivers responses barriers and interventions. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 2(6):801–827.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wcc.143
  30. Gleeson T, Alley WM, Allen DM, Sophocleous MA, Zhou Y, Taniguchi M, VanderSteen J (2012) Towards sustainable groundwater use: setting long-term goals back casting and managing adaptively. Ground Water 50(1):19–26.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2011.00825.x
  31. Grendstad G, Selle P (1997) Cultural theory postmaterialism and environmental attitudes. In: Ellis RJ, Thompson M (eds) Culture matters: essays in honor of Aaron Wildavsky. Westview, Boulder, CO, pp 151–168Google Scholar
  32. Harland P, Staats H, Wilke HAM (1999) Explaining pro-environmental intention and behavior by personal norms and the TPB. J Appl Soc Psychol 29:505–528.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00123.x
  33. Heath Y, Gifford R (2002) Extending the TPB: predicting the use of public transportation. J Appl Soc Psychol 32:2154–2189.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02068.x
  34. Howley P, Yadav L, Hynes S, Donoghue CO, Neillc SO (2014) Contrasting the attitudes of farmers and the general public regarding the ‘multifunctional’ role of the agricultural sector. Land Use Policy 38:248–256.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.11.020
  35. Ives CD, Kendal D (2014) The role of social values in the management of ecological systems. J Environ Manag 144:67–72.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.05.013
  36. Jones RE, Dunlap R (1992) The social bases of environmental concern: have they changed over time? Rural Sociol 57:28–47.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.1992.tb00455.x
  37. Jöreskog K, Sörbom D (1983) LISREL: analysis of linear structural relations by the method of maximum likelihood, 2nd edn. National Educational Resources, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  38. Jöreskog K, Sörbom D, Du Toit S, Du Toit M (2001) LISREL 8: new statistical features. Scientific Software, Lincolnwood, ILGoogle Scholar
  39. Klöckner CA (2013) A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behavior: a meta-analysis. Glob Environ Chang 23:1028–1038.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.014
  40. Kulkarni H, Vijay-Shankar PS, Deolankar SB, Shah M (2004) Groundwater demand management at local scale in rural areas of India: a strategy to ensure water well sustainability based on aquifer diffusivity and community participation. Hydrogeol J 12:184–196.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10040-004-0320-x
  41. Lindenberg S, Steg L (2007) Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. J Soc Issues 63:117–137.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00499.x
  42. Lokhorst AM, Van Dijk J, Staats H, Van Dijk E, De Snoo G (2010) Using tailored information and public commitment to improve the environmental quality of farm lands: an example from the Netherlands. Hum Ecol 38:113–122.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10745-009-9282-x
  43. Ministry of Energy (2012) Iran’s groundwater resources at the end of 2010–2011 water year. Ministry of Energy, TehranGoogle Scholar
  44. Napier TL, Brown DE (1993) Factors affecting acceptance and continued usage of soil conservation practices in developing societies: a diffusion perspective. Agric Ecosys Environ 36:127–140.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-8809(91)90010-U
  45. Narasimhan TN (2009) Groundwater: from mystery to management. Environ Res Lett 4(3):1–11.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/3/03500
  46. Onwezen MC, Antonides G, Bartels J (2013) The norm activation model: an exploration of the functions of anticipated pride and guilt in pro-environmental behaviour. J Econ Psychol 39:141–153.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2013.07.005
  47. Price JC, Leviston Z (2014) Predicting pro-environmental agricultural practices: the social psychological and contextual influences on land management. J Rural Stud 34:65–78.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.10.001
  48. Price JC, Walker IA, Boschetti F (2014) Measuring cultural values and beliefs about environment to identify their role in climate change responses. J Environ Psychol 37:8–20.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.10.001
  49. Quinn C, Burbach ME (2008) Personal characteristics preceding pro-environmental behaviours that improve surface water quality. Great Plains Res 18:103–114Google Scholar
  50. Rezaei-Moghaddam K, Salehi S (2010) Agricultural specialists’ intention toward precision agriculture technologies: integrating innovation characteristics to technology acceptance model. Afr J Agric Res 5(11):1191–1199.  http://dx.doi.org/10.5897/AJAR09.506
  51. Salehi S (2016) An environmental psychology analysis of influential actors regarding groundwater resources sustainability in Fars Province. PhD Thesis, Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran, IranGoogle Scholar
  52. Salehi S, Rezaei-Moghaddam K (2009) Comparing the feasibility of using structural equation to using variable rate irrigation technology in Fars and Khuzestan provinces. J Econ Agric Dev 23(2):21–35Google Scholar
  53. Sanderson MR, Curtis AL (2016) Culture climate change and farm-level groundwater management: an Australian case study. J Hydrol 536:284–292.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.02.032
  54. Schwartz SH (1977) Normative influences on altruism. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic, New York, pp 221–279Google Scholar
  55. Schwartz SH, Howard JA (1981) A normative decision making model of altruism. In: Ruston JP, Sorrentino RM (Eds.) Altruism and helping behavior. Social, personality, and developmental perspectives. Hillsdale, Lawrence Erlbaum, pp 189–211Google Scholar
  56. Schwartz SH (1992) Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in experimental social psychology 25:1–65Google Scholar
  57. Scott BA, Amel EL, Koger SM, Manning CM (2015) Psychology for sustainability, 4th edn. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  58. Shiri S, Bijani M, Chaharsoughi Amin H, Noori H. Soleymanifard A (2011) Effectiveness evaluation of the axial plan of wheat from expert supervisors’ view in Ilam Province. World Appl Sci J 14 (11):1724–1729Google Scholar
  59. Siebert S, Burke J, Faures JM, Frenken K, Hoogeveen J, Doll P, Portmann FT (2010) Groundwater use for irrigation: a global inventory. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci J 14:63–1880.  http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess-14-1863-2010
  60. Steg L, Sievers NV (2000) Cultural theory and individual perceptions of environmental risks. Environ Behav 32(2):250–269.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00139160021972513
  61. Steg L, Vlek C (2009) Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J Environ Psychol 29:309–317.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
  62. Stern PC (2000) New environmental theories: towards a coherent theory of environmentally significant behaviour. J Soc Issues 50(3):65–84.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175
  63. Sulemana I, James Jr HS (2014) Farmer identity ethical attitudes and environmental practices. Ecol Econ 98:49–61.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.12.011
  64. Tansey J, O’riordan T (1999) Cultural theory and risk: a review. Health Risk Soc 1(1):71–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Thompson M, Ellis R, Wildavsky A (1990) Cultural theory. Westview, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  66. UN-WCED (United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987) Our common future. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (document A/42/427), Bruntland Commission, vol 4. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  67. Vlek C, Steg L (2007) Human behavior and environmental sustainability: problems driving forces and research topics. J Soc Issues 63(1):1–19. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00493.x
  68. Wildavsky A, Dake K (1990) Theories of risk perception: who fears what and why? Deadalus 119(4):41–60Google Scholar
  69. Wutich A, Brewis A, Sigurdsson S, Stotts R, York AM (2013) Fairness and the human right to water: a preliminary cross-cultural theory. In: Wagner JR (ed) The social life of water. Berghahn, New York, pp 220–238Google Scholar
  70. Yazdanpanah M, Hayati D, Zamani G (2012) Application of cultural theory in analysis of attitudes and activities toward water resource conservation: the case of agricultural Jehad-E-Keshavarzi staffs in Bushehr Province. Iran Agric Exten Educ J 7(2):1–18Google Scholar
  71. Zektser IS, Everett LG (2006) Ground water resources of the world and their use. National Ground Water Association, Westerville, OHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, College of AgricultureTarbiat Modares University (TMU)TehranIran

Personalised recommendations