Keywords

1 Introduction

The water footprint (WF), an indicator of water use based on consumption, provides useful information about the usage of water by individuals and communities that can lead to more sustainable utilization of water resources [1]. The concept of WF was developed by Hoekstra και Hung in 2002 [2] to have a consumption-based indicator of water use that contains more information than traditional indicators of water consumption, such as water pollution caused by human activities [1]. WF has gained popularity among scientists, policymakers, and the public because it can inform a wide audience about water-related issues and future sustainability [3].

Since WF appears to be a useful indicator, it is important that everyone, but especially the new generations, know about it in order to make adequate environmentally conscious decisions regarding the consumption of products/services and water management. The ecological and carbon footprint, which are analogues to the WF concept [4], have attracted much more attention in educational approaches in universities [e.g., 5–9]. On the other hand, similar efforts for WF are much fewer [e.g., 10–13]. To our knowledge, there is only one study that deals exclusively with the perceptions of university students on WF, namely Çamur et al. [14].

The current paper attempts to partially fill this gap by examining higher education students’ perceptions of WF. It seeks to highlight their comprehension of the WF concept and suggest ways to enhance their understanding if needed.

The research questions (RQ) underlying this study are as follows:

  • RQ1: How do university students perceive the impact of their daily activities on their WF?

  • RQ2: How can they be classified based on these perceptions?

  • RQ3: What are the ways to improve their understanding of WF so that they can make more environmentally conscious choices in their daily lives?

The results of this study (even though they are the preliminary results of a larger study) are significant on a personal and governmental level. First of all, they provide insight into the youngest adult members of society and their perceptions of their behavior on their WF. Secondly, they provide a basis for government officials to reform school curricula based on related research results on a primary, secondary, or higher education level.

2 Literature Review

While there are numerous papers regarding the WF, the majority of them lay on its methodology. Specifically, most of them are not pedagogically focused but aim to calculate the WF of products, territories, and countries [e.g., 15]. As for research on WF and education, there are only a handful of studies (to our knowledge) that focus on teaching university students the concept of WF [e.g., 10–13]. The aim of these studies is to make students aware of the impacts of their daily activities on water resources by calculating their WF and suggesting ways to change their behavior to reduce these impacts [10, 11]

The study by Çamur et al. [14] is the only study exclusively aimed at assessing university students’ perceptions of the WF concept. They found a lack of knowledge about water resources and water consumption and found that students who know about WF have a more environmentally friendly attitude. There is also a study by Bilgin et al. [16] that aimed to measure the knowledge level of university students (n = 446) about global warming and climate change and all the environmental footprints, including WF. They reported that students generally had little or no knowledge about any of the environmental footprints.

3 Methods

An online questionnaire adapted specifically for this purpose based on a previous ecological footprint study [17] modified for the aim and objectives of this study was used. Data were collected from 694 university students who met criteria for participation. These criteria were to (a) study at a higher education institution in Greece (therefore, snowball sampling was utilized), (b) have access to the internet, and (c) give consent for the use of the collected data. The question analyzed in this paper refers to students’ perceptions of the impact of certain “uses” or behaviors on their personal WF. Specifically, after providing with a definition of the WF and its difference compared to carbon footprint, university students were requested to indicate how they perceived the impact of five presented actions on their personal WF. These five actions-statements were the following: conserving water at home, conserving water outdoors, using a gasoline-powered car, conserving electricity, and purchasing new clothes. These five actions were selected due to existing prior research that documents ecological footprint perceptions [e.g., 17]. The answers were given on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = decreases it a lot, 2 =  decreases it a little, 3 = somewhat decreases it, 4 = neither increases nor decreases it, 5 = somewhat increases it, 6 = increases it a little, 7 = increases it a lot). Data analysis included descriptive statistics (frequencies, mean scores, standard deviation), hierarchical, and K-means cluster analysis.

Based on the aforementioned data collection method a sample of 694 university students were obtained, in the majority males (58.1%), 18–27 years old, single (95.8%), living in urban areas (72.0%) and having a personal net monthly income below < 600.00€ (57.9%).

4 Results

4.1 Impact of Actions on Personal Water Footprint

As Table 1 displays (in descending order of MS), university students do not consider that these five behaviors increase in essence their WF, since no MS > 4.51 (i.e., tending to somewhat increase their WF). Therefore, the results reveal that all behaviors are perceived as neutral (“neither increases, nor decreases” their WF). Moreover, the results reveal that the two actions that they perceived as the most harming to the environment and simultaneously increases their WF (MS > 4.00) is using a gasoline-powered car (MS = 4.44, std = 1.67) and purchasing new clothes (MS = 4.30, std = 1.57), still falling in the “neither increases, nor decreases it” range. The other three measures, water conservation at home (MS = 3.90, std = 2.03), water conservation outdoors (MS = 3.90, std = 2.05), and electricity conservation (MS = 3.94, std = 1.84), also fall into the “neither increases, nor decreases it” zone. Therefore, there is a concentration around the 4-point answer of the Likert-type scale.

Table 1 Perception of the impact of actions on personal WF
Full size table

4.2 Segmentation Based on Perceptions About the Water Footprint

Segmentation was performed using at first hierarchical cluster analysis in order to have a first insight of the numbers of clusters based on participants behavior. Subsequently the K-means cluster analysis was performed, and a range of clusters were tested in order to provide with meaningful groups [18], resulting in a two-cluster solution. Table 2 displays the two derived segments, the number of participants per cluster (N), the Final Cluster Centers (FCC), and the results of the ANOVA tests (F-statistic and p-value). ANOVA tests (F) showed that the two segments differed in all cases (p < 0.001).

Table 2 Segments based on perceptions of the impact of actions on personal WF
Full size table

The first cluster: “Overly sensitive” (N = 313) believe that all the actions that were presented to them increases their WF (FCC: 4.74–5.74). They perceive that “conserving water at home” and “conserving water outdoors” are the two actions that increase their personal WF the most (FCC = 5.74 for both). They also believe that using a gasoline-powered car, saving electricity, and purchasing new clothes somewhat increases their personal WF (FCC range: 4.74–5.28).

The second cluster: “Somewhat knowledgeable” (N = 381) understand that conserving water at home and outdoors decreases their WF (FCC = 2.39 and FCC = 2.38 respectively). The members of this group as compared to the first cluster have a better understanding of actions that impact on their WF, and for so are named “Somewhat knowledgeable”.

5 Discussion

Overall, university students perceive that the impact of the five presented actions-behaviors neither increases nor decreases their personal WF, thus revealing that they lack knowledge of what in reality impacts it. These findings are in line with the findings of Çamur et al. [14], who reported that the university students who participated in their study have a lack of knowledge about water resources and water consumption.

By grouping university students with similar behavior, two distinctive groups were formed, namely the “Overly sensitive” and the “Somewhat knowledgeable”. The «Overly sensitive» group seems to not understand the concept of WF since water conservation is considered by them the most harmful. On the other hand, purchasing new clothes which has a high negative impact on WF is considered by them as the least harmful. Therefore, a necessity of educating these students arises. As to the “Somewhat knowledgeable” group, they seem to better understand what the WF is and what impacts it, as they understood that conserving water indoors and outdoors decreases their WF. Though, they presume that using a gasoline-powered car also lowers their WF, which is not the case because fuels like gasoline have a high WF. As Stephan and Crawford [19] point out there are other ways of transportation (e.g., bicycle, bus, and train), that decrease personal WF in comparison to travelling with a gasoline-powered car. This group also perceived that conserving energy and purchasing clothes “neither increases, neither decreases” their personal WF, which is also a misconception. Electrical energy has a very high WF [20], as does the purchase of new clothing [21], so energy conservation decreases, and the purchase of new clothing increases personal WF. Therefore, this group also has a lot of room for improvement, as they cannot fully distinguish between actions that reduce their WF and those that increase it.

Çamur et al. [14] found that the students that had a prior knowledge of the concept of WF had more environmentally friendly attitudes towards water use. The pedagogical approaches developed to date that target the WF concept attempt to make students aware of the impacts of their everyday activities on water resources. This is accomplished by calculating their WF with online WF calculators and suggesting ways to change their behavior to reduce those impacts [10, 11].

The findings of this study suggest that sustainability education for university students and younger generations needs to be improved and that policy makers need to more fully incorporate sustainability and environmental education issues into university and school curricula. In addition, there is a need for intensive social marketing campaigns through various channels that engage students, such as social media and online communities [22]. These educational efforts, marketing campaigns, and incentives would enable new generations to better manage their behavior in relation to their WF in their daily lives and consequently when visiting tourist destinations.

6 Conclusions and Limitations

This study had as its aim to explore university students’ perceptions of the impact of their daily activities on their WF and especially for five presented actions-behaviors. This was realized through field research with 694 students. The results revealed that there is lack of knowledge regarding the impact of their behavior on their WF. Additional objective was to group the university students with similar perceptions. This was achieved through a segmentation analysis that resulted in two student groups, namely the “Overly sensitive” and the “Somewhat knowledgeable”. The last objective was to provide with suggestions for increasing awareness of everyday behavior on their WF, which was provided on educational and governmental basis.

Therefore, the results of the present study are significant on a personal and governmental level since it offers information about the youngest adult citizens and their perceptions of their behavior on their WF. Additionally, it offers a foundation for policy makers to reorganize school curricula on a primary, secondary, or higher education level with aim to provide better sustainability education.

This study is subject to a number of limitations due to time and economic constraints. First, due to the nature of the study (exploratory—preliminary results), the subject requires further research. In addition, the targeted sample was university students and not the general population, so a non-probability sample was used and generalizations to the general population cannot be made. However, these limitations may prompt future research to validate the results of this exploratory study.

Ethical Approval

“There are no ethical issues involved in the processing of the questionnaire data used in the study. The necessary consent has been obtained by the persons involved, and the anonymity of the participants has been secured. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the International Hellenic University research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards”.