Public attitudes toward urban water sustainability transitions: a multi-city survey in the western United States

  • Dave D. WhiteEmail author
  • Eleanor K. Rauh
  • Abigail Sullivan
  • Kelli L. Larson
  • Amber Wutich
  • Danielle Linthicum
  • Veronica Horvath
  • Krista L. Lawless
Original Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Sustainability Transitions, Management, and Governance


This article presents an integrated theoretical model, drawing from sustainability transition research and attitude theory, to explain public perceptions of urban water sustainability transitions and public support for transformational water-management strategies. We test the model with empirical data from a random-sample residential survey in three cities in the western United States dependent on Colorado River water: Phoenix, Arizona, Denver, Colorado, and Las Vegas, Nevada. As one of the most heavily managed and over-allocated transboundary river systems in the world, sustainable water management of the Colorado River is critical to the future of the region. Cities face increasing pressure on water resources as population, development, and uncertainty about the future increase. While a growing number of scholars focus on sustainability transitions, a few studies focus explicitly on the role of the public as fundamental actors. This is despite the acknowledgement that public support may constrain or enable transitions and that major societal changes will affect the public in numerous and critical ways. We hypothesize that environmental orientation, procedural knowledge, perceived personal responsibility, trust in government, and socio-economic resources predict public perceptions of the need for transitions and public support for transformational water-management strategies. We use ANOVA to identify differences between cities, and confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling to evaluate the conceptual model. Results provide partial support for the hypothesized model and the findings replicate across cities. The findings suggest several policy implications for basin-wide and city-scale water management in the Colorado River basin.


Attitude theory Climate change Colorado River Water resource management Transformations 



This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant no. SES-1462086.


  1. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211Google Scholar
  2. Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1977) Attitude-behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychol Bull 84(5):888–918. Google Scholar
  3. Ajzen I, Fishbein M (2000) Attitudes and the attitude-behavior relation: reasoned and automatic processes. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 11(1):1–33. Google Scholar
  4. American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) (2016) Standard definitions: final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. 9th ed.
  5. American National Election Studies (2016) Survey questions.
  6. Anderson WM (2012) New ecological paradigm (NEP) scale. In: Spellerberg IF (ed) The Berkshire encyclopedia of sustainability: measurements, indicators, and research methods for sustainability. Berkshire Publishing Group, Great Barrington, pp 260–262Google Scholar
  7. Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) (2014) A strategic vision for water supply sustainability.
  8. Ault TR, Mankin JS, Cook BI, Smerdon JE (2016) Relative impacts of mitigation, temperature, and precipitation on 21st-century megadrought risk in the American Southwest. Sci Adv 2(10):e1600873. Google Scholar
  9. Avelino F (2011) Power in transition: empowering discourses on sustainability transitions. Erasmus University, Rotterdam. Google Scholar
  10. Avelino F, Wittmayer JM (2016) Shifting power relations in sustainability transitions: a multi-actor perspective. J Environ Policy Plan 18(5):628–649. Google Scholar
  11. Bennett NJ (2016) Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management. Conserv Biol 30(3):582–592. Google Scholar
  12. Bennett NJ, Dearden P (2014) Why local people do not support conservation: community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand. Mar Policy 44:107–116. Google Scholar
  13. Bicket M, Vanner R (2016) Designing policy mixes for resource efficiency: the role of public acceptability. Sustainability 8(4):366. Google Scholar
  14. Bos JJ, Brown RR (2012) Governance experimentation and factors of success in socio-technical transitions in the urban water sector. Technol Forecast Soc Change 79(7):1340–1353. Google Scholar
  15. Bouckaert G, Van de Walle S (2003) Comparing measures of citizen trust and user satisfaction as indicators of ‘good governance’: difficulties in linking trust and satisfaction indicators. Int Rev Adm Sci 69(3):329–343Google Scholar
  16. Brown RR, Farrelly MA, Loorbach DA (2013) Actors working the institutions in sustainability transitions: the case of Melbourne’s stormwater management. Glob Environ Change 23(4):701–718. Google Scholar
  17. Castle SL, Thomas BF, Reager JT, Rodell M, Swenson SC, Famiglietti JS (2014) Groundwater depletion during drought threatens future water security of the Colorado River basin. Geophys Res Lett 41(16):5904–5911. Google Scholar
  18. Chappin EJ, Ligtvoet A (2014) Transition and transformation: a bibliometric analysis of two scientific networks researching socio-technical change. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 30:715–723. Google Scholar
  19. Chen X, Peterson MN, Hull V, Lu C, Lee GD, Hong D, Liu J (2011) Effects of attitudinal and sociodemographic factors on pro-environmental behaviour in urban China. Environ Conserv 38(1):45–52. Google Scholar
  20. Child M, Breyer C (2017) Transition and transformation: a review of the concept of change in the progress towards future sustainable energy systems. Energy Policy 107:11–26. Google Scholar
  21. Chilvers J, Longhurst N (2016) Participation in transition: reconceiving public engagements in energy transitions as co-produced, emergent and diverse. J Environ Policy Plann 18(5):585–607. Google Scholar
  22. Christensen NS, Wood AW, Voisin N, Lettenmaier DP, Palmer RN (2004) The effects of climate change on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River basin. Clim Change 62:337–363Google Scholar
  23. Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) (2015) Colorado’s water plan. Denver: Colorado Water Conservation Board.
  24. Cook BI, Ault TR, Smerdon JE (2015) Unprecedented 21st century drought risk in the American southwest and central plains. Sci Adv 1(1):e1400082. Google Scholar
  25. de Haan FJ, Rotmans J (2018) A proposed theoretical framework for actors in transformative change. Technol Forecast Soc 128:275–286. Google Scholar
  26. De Haan FJ, Rogers BC, Frantzeskaki N, Brown RR (2015) Transitions through a lens of urban water. Environ Innov Soc Transit 15:1–10. Google Scholar
  27. Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2014) Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  28. Domènech L, Saurí D (2010) Socio-technical transitions in water scarcity contexts: public acceptance of greywater reuse technologies in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona. Resour Conserv Recycl 55(1):53–62. Google Scholar
  29. Dunlap RE (1998) Lay perceptions of global risk: public views of global warming in cross-national context. Int Soc 13(4):473–498. Google Scholar
  30. Dunlap R, Jones R (2002) Environmental concern: conceptual and measurement issues. In: Dunlap R, Michelson W (eds) Handbook of environmental sociology. Greenwood, London, pp 482–524Google Scholar
  31. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD, Mertig AG, Jones RE (2000) New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J Soc Issues 56(3):425–442. Google Scholar
  32. Elzen B, Wieczorek A (2005) Transitions towards sustainability through system innovation. Technol Forecast Soc Change 72(6):651–661Google Scholar
  33. Enders CK, Bandalos DL (2001) The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Struct Equ Model 8(3):430–457Google Scholar
  34. Farrelly M, Brown R (2011) Rethinking urban water management: experimentation as a way forward? Glob Environ Change 21(2):721–732. Google Scholar
  35. Fischer LB, Newig J (2016) Importance of actors and agency in sustainability transitions: a systematic exploration of the literature. Sustainability 8(5):476. Google Scholar
  36. Frisk E, Larson KL (2011) Educating for sustainability: competencies practices for transformative action. J Sustain Educ 2:1–20Google Scholar
  37. Gearey M, Jeffrey P (2006) Concepts of legitimacy within the context of adaptive water management strategies. Ecol Econ 60(1):129–137. Google Scholar
  38. Geels FW (2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res Policy 31(8–9):1257–1274. Google Scholar
  39. Geels FW (2005) Co-evolution of technology and society: the transition in water supply and personal hygiene in the Netherlands (1850–1930)—a case study in multi-level perspective. Technol Soc 27(3):363–397. Google Scholar
  40. Geels FW (2006) The hygienic transition from cesspools to sewer systems (1840–1930): the dynamics of regime transformation. Res Policy 35(7):1069–1082. Google Scholar
  41. Geels FW (2010) Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Res Policy 39(4):495–510. Google Scholar
  42. Geels FW (2011) The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: responses to seven criticisms. Environ Innov Soc Transit 1(1):24–40. Google Scholar
  43. Geels FW (2014) Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: introducing politics and power into the multi-level perspective. Theory Cult Soc 31(5):21–40Google Scholar
  44. Geels FW, Schot J (2007) Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res Policy 36(3):399–417. Google Scholar
  45. Gober P (2013) Getting outside the water box: the need for new approaches to water planning and policy. Water Resour Manag 27(4):955–957Google Scholar
  46. Gober P (2018) Building resilience for uncertain water futures. Palgrave Macmillan, ChamGoogle Scholar
  47. Gonzalez P, Garfin GM, Breshears DD, Brooks KM, Brown HE, Elias EH, Gunasekara A, Huntly N, Maldonado JK, Mantua NJ, Margolis HG, McAfee S, Middleton BR, Udall BH (2018) Southwest. In: Reidmiller DR, Avery CW, Easterling DR, Kunkel KE, Lewis KLM, Maycock TK, Stewart BC (eds) Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, vol II. U.S. Global Change Research, Washington, DC. Google Scholar
  48. Grin J, Rotmans J, Schot J (2010) Transitions to sustainable development: new directions in the study of long term transformative change. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Groves RM, Fowler FJ Jr, Couper MP, Lepkowski JM, Singer E, Tourangeau R (2011) Survey methodology, vol 561. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  50. Hartley TW (2006) Public perception and participation in water reuse. Desalination 187(1–3):115–126. Google Scholar
  51. Heberlein TA (2012) Navigating environmental attitudes. Conserv Biol 26(4):583–585. Google Scholar
  52. Hölscher K, Wittmayer JM, Loorbach D (2017) Transition versus transformation: what’s the difference? Environ Innov Soc Transit 27(1):1–3Google Scholar
  53. Hölscher K, Avelino F, Wittmayer JM (2018) Empowering actors in transition management in and for cities. In: Frantzeskaki N, Hölscher K, Bach M, Avelino F (eds) Co-creating sustainable urban futures. Future City, vol 11. Springer, Cham, pp 131–158Google Scholar
  54. Howe PD, Mildenberger M, Marlon JR, Leiserowitz A (2015) Geographic variation in opinions on climate change at state and local scales in the USA. Nat Clim Change 5(6):596–603. Google Scholar
  55. Hu LT, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J 6(1):1–55. Google Scholar
  56. Huijts NM, Molin EJ, Steg L (2012) Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: a review-based comprehensive framework. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16(1):525–531. Google Scholar
  57. Hundley N (2009) Water and the west: the Colorado River compact and the politics of water in the American West. University of California Press, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  58. Hurlimann A, Dolnicar S (2010) When public opposition defeats alternative water projects–the case of Toowoomba Australia. Water Res 44(1):287–297. Google Scholar
  59. Hurlimann A, Dolnicar S (2016) Public acceptance and perceptions of alternative water sources: a comparative study in nine locations. Int J Water Resour Dev 32(4):650–673. Google Scholar
  60. Itaoka K, Saito A, Akai M (2005) Public acceptance of CO2 capture and storage technology: a survey of public opinion to explore influential factors. Greenh Gas Control Technol 7(1):1011–1019. Google Scholar
  61. Kaiser FG, Ranney M, Hartig T, Bowler PA (1999) Ecological behavior, environmental attitude, and feelings of responsibility for the environment. Eur Psychol 4(2):59Google Scholar
  62. Kline RB (2005) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  63. Kollmuss 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(3):239–260. Google Scholar
  64. Kuzdas C, Wiek A, Warner B, Vignola R, Morataya R (2014) Sustainability appraisal of water governance regimes: the case of Guanacaste, Costa Rica. Environ Manag 54(2):205–222. Google Scholar
  65. Larson KL (2010) An integrated theoretical approach to understanding the sociocultural basis of multidimensional environmental attitudes. Soc Nat Res 23(9):898–907. Google Scholar
  66. Larson KL, Casagrande D, Harlan SL, Yabiku ST (2009a) Residents’ yard choices and rationales in a desert city: social priorities, ecological impacts, and decision tradeoffs. Environ Manag 44(5):921–937. Google Scholar
  67. Larson KL, White DD, Gober P, Harlan S, Wutich A (2009b) Divergent perspectives on water resource sustainability in a public–policy–science context. Environ Sci Policy 12(7):1012–1023. Google Scholar
  68. Larson KL, Ibes DC, White DD (2011) Gendered perspectives about water risks and policy strategies: a tripartite conceptual approach. Environ Behav 43(3):415–438. Google Scholar
  69. Lienert J, Monstadt J, Truffer B (2006) Future scenarios for a sustainable water sector: a case study from Switzerland. Environ Sci Technol 40(2):436–442. Google Scholar
  70. Loorbach D, Frantzeskaki N, Thissen W (2011) A transition research perspective on governance for sustainability. In: Jaeger C, Tàbara J, Jaeger J (eds) European research on sustainable development. Springer, Berlin, pp 73–89. Google Scholar
  71. Loorbach D, Frantzeskaki N, Avelino F (2017) Sustainability transitions research: transforming science and practice for societal change. Ann Rev Environ Resour 42:599–626. Google Scholar
  72. Markard J, Raven R, Truffer B (2012) Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of research and its prospects. Res Policy 41(6):955–967. Google Scholar
  73. McClanahan TR, Abunge CA (2016) Perceptions of fishing access restrictions and the disparity of benefits among stakeholder communities and nations of south-eastern Africa. Fish Fish 17(2):417–437. Google Scholar
  74. Meadowcroft J (2009) What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions. Policy Sci 42(4):323Google Scholar
  75. National Research Council (2007) Colorado River Basin water management: evaluating and adjusting to hydroclimatic variability. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  76. Olsson P, Galaz V, Boonstra W (2014) Sustainability transformations: a resilience perspective. Ecol Soc 19(4):1. Google Scholar
  77. Rip A, Kemp R (1998) Technological change. In: Rayner S, Malone EL (eds) Human choice and climate change—resources and technology. Battelle Press, Columbus, pp 327–399Google Scholar
  78. Rivera A, Unibazo J, Leon P, Vásquez-Lavín F, Ponce R, Mansur L, Gelcich S (2017) Stakeholder perceptions of enhancement opportunities in the Chilean small and medium scale mussel aquaculture industry. Aquaculture 479:423–431. Google Scholar
  79. Rotmans J, Kemp R, Van Asselt M (2001) More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. Foresight 3(1):15–31. Google Scholar
  80. Russell S, Fielding K (2010) Water demand management research: a psychological perspective. Water Resour Res 46(5):w05302. Google Scholar
  81. Schultz PW, Zelezny L (1999) Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: evidence for consistency across 14 countries. J Environ Psychol 19(3):255–265. Google Scholar
  82. Schultz PW, Nolan JM, Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V (2007) The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychol Sci 18(5):429–434. Google Scholar
  83. Schwartz SH, Bilsky W (1987) Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. J Personal Soc Psychol 53(3):550–562Google Scholar
  84. Shove E, Walker G (2010) Governing transitions in the sustainability of everyday life. Res Policy 39(4):471–476. Google Scholar
  85. Smith A, Stirling A (2010) The politics of social-ecological resilience and sustainable socio-technical transitions. Ecol Soc 15(1):11Google Scholar
  86. Smith A, Stirling A, Berkhout F (2005) The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Res Policy 34(10):1491–1510. Google Scholar
  87. Southern Nevada Water Authority (SWNA) (2015) Water resource plan 2015.
  88. Steg L, Vlek C (2009) Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J Environ Psychol 29(3):309–317. Google Scholar
  89. Steg L, Perlaviciute G, van der Werff E (2015) Understanding the human dimensions of a sustainable energy transition. Front Psychol 6:805. Google Scholar
  90. Stern PC, Dietz T, Guagnano GA (1995) The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological context. Environ Behav 27(6):723–743. Google Scholar
  91. Stolee G, Caton S (2018) Twitter, Trump, and the base: a shift to a new form of presidential talk? Signs Soc 6(1):147–165. Google Scholar
  92. Sullivan A, White DD, Larson KL, Wutich A (2017) Towards water sensitive cities in the Colorado River basin: a comparative historical analysis to inform future urban water sustainability transitions. Sustainability 9(5):761. Google Scholar
  93. Sullivan A, White DD, Hanemann M (2019) Designing collaborative governance: insights from the drought contingency planning process for the lower Colorado River basin. Environ Sci Policy 91:39–49. Google Scholar
  94. Thogersen J (2009) The motivational roots of norms for environmentally responsible behavior. Basic Appl Soc Psychol 31(4):348–362. Google Scholar
  95. Turner RA, Fitzsimmons C, Forster J, Mahon R, Peterson A, Stead SM (2014) Measuring good governance for complex ecosystems: perceptions of coral reef-dependent communities in the Caribbean. Glob Environ Change 29:105–117. Google Scholar
  96. Udall B, Overpeck J (2017) The twenty-first century Colorado River hot drought and implications for the future. Water Resour Res 53(3):2404–2418. Google Scholar
  97. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR) (2012) Managing water in the West: Colorado River Basin water supply and demand study executive summary.
  98. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR) (2018a) Another dry year in the Colorado River Basin increases the need for additional state and federal actions.
  99. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR) (2018b) Colorado River system 5-year projected future conditions.
  100. U.S. Department of Interior (USDOI), Bureau of Reclamation (2000) Colorado river interim surplus criteria: final environmental impact statement, vol 1. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  101. Van den Bergh JC, Truffer B, Kallis G (2011) Environmental innovation and societal transitions: introduction and overview. Environ Innov Soc Transit 1(1):1–23. Google Scholar
  102. Walker G, Cass N (2007) Carbon reduction, ‘the public’ and renewable energy: engaging with socio-technical configurations. Area 39(4):458–469. Google Scholar
  103. Webb EL, Maliao RJ, Siar SV (2004) Using local user perceptions to evaluate outcomes of protected area management in the Sagay Marine Reserve, Philippines. Environ Conserv 31(2):138–148. Google Scholar
  104. White DD, Keeler LW, Wiek A, Larson KL (2015) Envisioning the future of water governance: a survey of central Arizona water decision makers. Environ Pract 17(1):25–35. Google Scholar
  105. Whitfield SC, Rosa EA, Dan A, Dietz T (2009) The future of nuclear power: value orientations and risk perception. Risk Anal 29(3):425–437. Google Scholar
  106. Wiek A, Larson KL (2012) Water, people, and sustainability—a systems framework for analyzing and assessing water governance regimes. Water Resour Manag 26(11):3153–3171. Google Scholar
  107. Wittmayer J, Avelino F, van Steenbergen F, Loorbach D (2016) Actor roles in transition: insights from sociological perspectives. Environ Innov Soc Transit. 24:45–56. Google Scholar
  108. Wu L (2012) Exploring the new ecological paradigm scale for gauging children's environmental attitudes in China. J Environ Eduac 43(2):107–120. Google Scholar
  109. Ziegler A (2017) Political orientation, environmental values, and climate change beliefs and attitudes: an empirical cross country analysis. Energy Econ 63:144–153. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Decision Center for a Desert City, Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.School of Community Resources and Development Arizona State UniversityPhoenixUSA
  3. 3.Environmental Resilience InstituteIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  4. 4.School of SustainabilityArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  5. 5.School of Geographical Sciences and Urban PlanningArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  6. 6.School of Human Evolution and Social ChangeArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  7. 7.School for the Future of Innovation in SocietyArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations