Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T11:49:08.396Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Attitudes toward water resilience and potential for improvement

Part of: Fostering Water Resilience in the Anthropocene

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2023

Julia Baird Open the ORCID record for Julia Baird [Opens in a new window] ,
Gillian Dale Open the ORCID record for Gillian Dale [Opens in a new window]  and
Gary Pickering Open the ORCID record for Gary Pickering [Opens in a new window]
Julia Baird*
Affiliation:
Environmental Sustainability Research Centre, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada Department of Geography and Tourism Studies, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada Sustainability Research Centre, University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia
Gillian Dale
Affiliation:
Environmental Sustainability Research Centre, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada Department of Biological Sciences, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada
Gary Pickering
Affiliation:
Environmental Sustainability Research Centre, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada Sustainability Research Centre, University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia Department of Biological Sciences, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada Department of Psychology, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada
*
Corresponding author: Julia Baird; Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Non-technical summary

There is a global water crisis, brought on by human actions. The ways we make decisions about water must transform to solve it. We focused on the attitudes that people in society hold toward water to understand how close or far away we are from a broadly accepted worldview that supports this transformation (what we call ‘water resilience’). We found that, across six countries in the Global South and North, attitudes showed moderate support for water resilience. Many people also showed potential to increase their support.

Technical summary

Water in the Anthropocene is threatened. Water governance aligned with the complex, dynamic, and uncertain nature of social–ecological systems (a ‘water resilience’ paradigm) is needed, and requires transformative change. We queried the potential for transformative change from the perspective that societal worldviews/paradigms offer an important leverage point for system change. Our study aimed to identify attitudes about water resilience and the extent to which there was potential for greater endorsement of water resilience. We surveyed individuals in six countries using vignettes to determine their level of water resilience endorsement (n = 2649). Overall water resilience endorsement was moderate (M = 2.86 out of 4). In some countries, a vignette related to a personally relevant water issue resulted in higher water resilience endorsement. More than half of the respondents held the potential for greater water resilience endorsement. Those with the greatest potential were younger, had children, considered religion more important, were more likely to live in urban areas, and lived in the same area for 10+ years. These findings provide guidance how to engage with the public (e.g. age-specific or parent-focused framing) to potentially increase societal water resilience endorsement.

Social media summary

General public in six countries moderately supports water resilience to address the water crisis, with room to improve.

Keywords

human behaviorpoliciespolitics and governance
Type
Research Article
Information
Global Sustainability , Volume 6 , 2023 , e23
Check for updates
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

1. Introduction

Water, the ‘bloodstream of the biosphere’ (Ripl, Reference Ripl2003), is increasingly in crisis, both in terms of quality and availability for ecological and human well-being. The human activities that continue and increase in the Anthropocene are wreaking havoc on natural and social systems and for water in particular (Rockström et al., Reference Rockström, Falkenmark, Allan, Folke, Gordon, Jägerskog, Kummu, Lannerstad, Meybeck, Molden, Postel, Savenije, Svedin, Turton and Varis2014). Our global systems are dependent on water and its regulatory and supporting functions, as well as its direct necessity for humans and other living entities to survive (Falkenmark et al., Reference Falkenmark, Wang-Erlandsson and Rockström2019), and there is increasing recognition of the interconnectedness between water and many other issues (e.g. biodiversity loss, extreme weather events, and human health and livelihoods) (IPBES, Reference Díaz, Settele, Brondízio, Ngo, Guèze, Agard, Arneth, Balvanera, Brauman, Butchart, Chan, Garibaldi, Ichii, Liu, Subramanian, Midgley, Miloslavich, Molnár, Obura, Pfaff, Polasky, Purvis, Razzaque, Reyers, Roy Chowdhury, Shin, Visseren-Hamakers, Willis and Zayas2019; IPCC, Reference Masson-Delmotte, Zhai, Pörtner, Roberts, Skea, Shukla, Pirani, Moufouma-Okia, Péan, Pidcock, Connors, Matthews, Chen, Zhou, Gomis, Lonnoy, Maycock, Tignor and Waterfield2018; Sköld, Reference Sköld2022; WEF, 2021; WHO, 2018). In the 2021 World Economic Forum Global Risks Report the top two risks in terms of likelihood are both closely linked to water (Sköld, Reference Sköld2022; WEF, 2021). The approaches we used in the past and continue to use to govern water (i.e. decision-making and direction setting for on-the-ground actions) are not sufficient in this era of complexity, uncertainty, and change (Baird & Plummer, Reference Baird and Plummer2021).

It is now more apparent than ever that to survive this escalating crisis, we need to increase the resilience of our water resources and governance. One important way in which water resilience can be built is through water governance that is aligned with a social–ecological resilience perspective (Folke, Reference Folke2006; Folke et al., Reference Folke, Biggs, Norström, Reyers and Rockström2016; Lebel et al., Reference Lebel, Anderies, Campbell, Folke, Hatfield-Dodds, Hughes and Wilson2006). We use Folke et al.'s (Reference Folke, Biggs, Norström, Reyers and Rockström2016) definition of social–ecological resilience and apply it to water systems in particular: ‘the capacity to adapt or transform in the face of change in social–ecological systems, particularly unexpected change, in ways that …support human well-being’ where well-being is considered a ‘good quality of life’. Several definitions of water resilience exist (see, e.g. Rodina, Reference Rodina2019) and there are critiques of how resilience is defined in systems where water is a focus (e.g. Dewulf et al., Reference Dewulf, Karpouzoglou, Warner, Wesselink, Mao, Vos, Tamas, Groot, Heijmans, Ahmed, Hoang, Vij and Buytaert2019). We use Folke et al.'s (Reference Folke, Biggs, Norström, Reyers and Rockström2016) definition as this study approaches water as a focal point but considers the broader social–ecological system resilience around it in general terms that allow for elaboration along multiple dimensions – in our case by using resilience ‘principles’ set out by Biggs et al. (Reference Biggs, Schlüter, Biggs, Bohensky, BurnSilver, Cundill, Dakos, Daw, Evans, Kotschy, Leitch, Meek, Quinlan, Raudsepp-Hearne, Robards, Schoon, Schultz and West2012).

Seven principles for building social–ecological resilience that are relevant to governance have been identified by Biggs et al. (Reference Biggs, Schlüter, Biggs, Bohensky, BurnSilver, Cundill, Dakos, Daw, Evans, Kotschy, Leitch, Meek, Quinlan, Raudsepp-Hearne, Robards, Schoon, Schultz and West2012, Reference Biggs, Schlüter and Schoon2015) (see Supplementary Table S1 for more information about each principle). The principles identify important considerations with regard to (1) the social–ecological system (i.e. intertwined social and ecological systems): maintaining diversity and redundancy (P1), managing connectivity (P2), and monitoring slow variables and feedbacks (P3); and; (2) governance in particular: broadening participation (P5), encouraging learning and experimentation (P6), and promoting polycentric governance (P7). The final principle is ‘fostering an understanding of social–ecological systems as complex adaptive systems’ (P4), and this principle acts as the connection between the two sets of principles (i.e. principles 1–3 focused on the social–ecological system and principles 5–7 focused on the governance system) described in Biggs et al.'s (Reference Biggs, Schlüter, Biggs, Bohensky, BurnSilver, Cundill, Dakos, Daw, Evans, Kotschy, Leitch, Meek, Quinlan, Raudsepp-Hearne, Robards, Schoon, Schultz and West2012) work.

Water resilience represents a paradigm, or a set of ideas and beliefs about the nature of the system (Baird et al., Reference Baird, Plummer, Dale, Kapeller, Mallette, Feist and Kataoka2020b; Schoeman et al., Reference Schoeman, Allan and Finlayson2014). Paradigms and associated personal mindsets or worldviews – as a foundation from which a system arises – feature as an important leverage point for system change (Abson et al., Reference Abson, Fischer, Leventon, Newig, Schomerus, Vilsmaier, Von Wehrden, Abernethy, Ives, Jager and Lang2017; Meadows, Reference Meadows1999). Our conceptualization of mindset is consistent with definitions from positive psychology that align mindset and worldview (French, Reference French2016). In the leverage points literature, paradigms, worldviews, and mindsets have been used interchangeably (e.g. Meadows, Reference Meadows1999; O'Brien, Reference O'Brien2019). We believe it is worthwhile to acknowledge how these terms have been treated and apply the term ‘worldview’ throughout the paper hereafter for simplicity. Shifts in paradigms/worldviews/mindsets fall within the ‘personal (or individual) sphere’ of system transformation (O'Brien, Reference O'Brien2019). We approach the question of how to build water resilience from this perspective of personal/individual alignment with the water resilience worldview, recognizing that improved alignment offers a potentially powerful leverage point for system change.

To undertake this exploratory work, we focused on attitudes (i.e. evaluations of the ‘degree of favorableness of unfavorableness with respect to a psychological object’) (Ajzen & Fishbein, Reference Ajzen and Fishbein2000, p. 2) toward water resilience. This focus reflects scholarship that identifies attitudes as strongly influenced by worldviews (Ballew et al., Reference Ballew, Goldberg, Rosenthal, Gustafson and Leiserowitz2019; Hedlund-de Witt et al., Reference Hedlund-de Witt, De Boer and Boersema2014) and provided us with an approach to assess the status quo of a broader societal water resilience worldview and potential for shifts toward a more fulsome water resilience worldview. Accordingly, our aim was to understand the attitudes of individuals across multiple countries in the Global South and North about the governance of water resilience – drawing from Biggs et al.'s (Reference Biggs, Schlüter, Biggs, Bohensky, BurnSilver, Cundill, Dakos, Daw, Evans, Kotschy, Leitch, Meek, Quinlan, Raudsepp-Hearne, Robards, Schoon, Schultz and West2012, Reference Biggs, Schlüter and Schoon2015) social–ecological resilience principles. Further, we aimed to understand the extent to which there is potential for these attitudes to be shifted.

2. Literature review

There is increasing acknowledgment of the role that individuals and their ‘inner worlds’ play in fostering broader system change and transformation, both in relation to water resilience specifically (Baird et al., Reference Baird, Dale and Farhad2020a) and social–ecological systems more broadly (e.g. Ives et al., Reference Ives, Freeth and Fischer2020; O'Brien, Reference O'Brien2019). How we think about the system of which we are a part, our worldviews and related attitudes about these systems, influence the governance options that we see as feasible and desirable (Ballew et al., Reference Ballew, Goldberg, Rosenthal, Gustafson and Leiserowitz2019; Bohensky et al., Reference Bohensky, Evans, Anderies, Biggs, Fabricius, Biggs, Schlüter and Schoon2015). Various bodies of literature have approached this topic differently and deserve some elaboration. As authors, we approach the promise of the individual and their attitudes for realizing water resilience as a dominant paradigm from training and experience in psychology and sustainability science. Sustainability scientists – specifically the subset who have worked with the concept of leverage points – have described the worldview, paradigm, or mindset as part of the ‘inner worlds’ of individuals (Ives et al., Reference Ives, Freeth and Fischer2020), the personal sphere (O'Brien, Reference O'Brien2019), and the ‘intent’ of the system, that is, ‘the underpinning values, goals, and world view of actors that shape the emergent direction to which a system is oriented’ (Abson et al., Reference Abson, Fischer, Leventon, Newig, Schomerus, Vilsmaier, Von Wehrden, Abernethy, Ives, Jager and Lang2017, p. 32), among others. A statement by Ives et al. (Reference Ives, Freeth and Fischer2020, p. 211) about a sustainability science orientation describes the broad approach taken to the study of individual internal factors: ‘the term is broad and inclusive, so as to invite exchange of ideas and insights from across academic disciplines’.

While we appreciate a broad and inclusive approach, we seek a middle ground between precision and inclusivity in this study. Accordingly, we have accepted the broader use of the term ‘worldview’ as a way to describe the water resilience paradigm. However, we are precise about our use and measurement of attitudes in this study – defined as, evaluations of the ‘degree of favourableness of unfavourableness with respect to an [attitudinal] object’ (Ajzen & Fishbein, Reference Ajzen and Fishbein2000, p. 2; Henderson et al., Reference Henderson, De Liver and Gollwitzer2008). Thus, we consider our work on attitudes as aligned with sustainability science understandings of, and discussions about, worldviews and individual (or personal) leverage points. We acknowledge that the leverage points literature describes the specific leverage point of interest here as ‘the shared idea in the minds of society…constitute that society's paradigm’ (Meadows, Reference Meadows1999) and our aim in expanding this study to multiple countries is to begin to understand societal trends in water resilience endorsement. Further, in measuring attitudes, we acknowledge that attitudes encompass properties of both content and strength. Here, we focus on content of attitudes – the overall evaluation of an object – and not strength (the persistence and influence on behavior that the attitude exerts) (Henderson et al., Reference Henderson, De Liver and Gollwitzer2008).

2.1 Relationship between individual and societal worldviews

We focus our attention on individual attitudes and how they manifest or affect changes at broader, societal levels. This is a complex relationship, mediated by many potential variables that influence system change. Transformation to sustainable water governance (e.g. through water resilience) requires a whole-of-society approach (Bennett et al., Reference Bennett, Blythe, Cisneros-Montemayor, Singh and Sumaila2019; Frantzeskaki et al., Reference Frantzeskaki, Dumitru, Anguelovski, Avelino, Bach, Best, Binder, Barnes, Carrus, Egermann, Haxeltine, Moore, Mira, Loorbach, Uzzell, Omann, Olsson, Silvestri, Stedman and Rauschmayer2016; Naito et al., Reference Naito, Zhao and Chan2022). Individuals offer opportunities and demand radical innovations including calling for new ways of governing (e.g. through changed regulation/political change), can have major impacts when in positions of power, and build internal momentum that has cascading implications for broader society and governance (Adger et al., Reference Adger, Arnell and Tompkins2005; Bamberg et al., Reference Bamberg, Fischer and Geiger2021; Geels & Schot, Reference Geels, Schot, Schot, Grin and Rotmans2010; Meadows, Reference Meadows1999; O'Brien, Reference O'Brien2015).

A first step to engaging the lever of attitudes (as representations of worldviews) for broader system transformation is to understand to what extent they already align with endorsement (i.e. a positive, supportive attitude) for the water resilience paradigm, and whether there is room to shift attitudes toward greater endorsement. We build on foundational work in Canada and the United States by Baird et al. (Reference Baird, Dale and Farhad2020a) that found water resilience endorsement was relatively high, but varied based on several individual factors. In our study (Baird et al., Reference Baird, Dale and Farhad2020a) we identified specific individual factors that predicted lower water resilience endorsement. However, we did not collect data to assess the potential for greater water resilience endorsement. This study aims to assess water resilience endorsement and potential greater endorsement in an international study of six countries, using a sample of individuals from each.

3. Methods

Data collection occurred in July 2020 using an online questionnaire developed and presented via the Qualtrics platform and administered via a third-party data provider, Dynata. Respondents were members of the Dynata research pool, and were compensated for their time with Dynata credits that could be exchanged for gift cards. The questionnaire was administered in six countries where English was a main language for communication: Australia, Canada, India, South Africa, United Kingdom, and the United States. We aimed to represent countries in both the Global North and South. Each of the six countries experiences a range of water issues, from droughts/water scarcity to infrastructure to pollution issues (Boretti & Rosa, Reference Boretti and Rosa2019; UNESCO, 2012; United Nations, 2023). We collected at least 350 responses per country, and oversampled to try and achieve this target. Responses that took less than 5 minutes to complete (cut-off based on the minimum time to complete estimated during pilot testing of the questionnaire) or for which <70% of the vignette questions were completed were removed, leaving 2649 retained for analysis (Australia: 452; Canada: 447; India: 380; South Africa: 344; United Kingdom: 474, the United States: 470). Questionnaires were subjected to localization by a Dynata expert for India and South Africa to ensure that the language and references (e.g. education levels, income ranges, spelling of certain words) were consistent with the context in those countries. Prior to completing the study, participants were required to provide written, informed consent. The study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Board at Brock University and conducted in accordance with Canadian Tri-Council guidelines.

3.1 Questionnaire

We adapted an instrument to measure the extent to which individuals endorse the seven principles of social–ecological resilience (Baird et al., Reference Baird, Dale and Farhad2020a; Biggs et al., Reference Biggs, Schlüter, Biggs, Bohensky, BurnSilver, Cundill, Dakos, Daw, Evans, Kotschy, Leitch, Meek, Quinlan, Raudsepp-Hearne, Robards, Schoon, Schultz and West2012, Reference Bohensky, Evans, Anderies, Biggs, Fabricius, Biggs, Schlüter and Schoon2015), using vignettes as a tool to accommodate the complexity of the principles (Finch, Reference Finch1987; Obasi et al., Reference Obasi, Baird, Dale and Pickering2023). A total of three vignettes were developed, each of which contained a short text-based description of a situated water issue: flooding, drought, or overfishing focused on surface and irrigation water (source not identified) (see Table 1 for the vignettes). Each vignette was followed by a series of 10 associated multiple-choice questions. The 10 questions were associated with the seven resilience principles identified above. As each of the first three water resilience principles (maintaining diversity and redundancy, managing connectivity, and slow variables and feedbacks) have both an ecological and a social dimension, we developed two questions for each of these principles. While social–ecological systems are indeed intertwined, there are more specific ecological or social dimensions within them. We decided to combine them at the analysis stage to recognize that the principles were not ‘just’ ecological or social, but represented both.

Table 1. Vignettes presented to respondents

There were four options possible for each multiple-choice question. The four options corresponded to different ‘levels’ of resilience endorsement, from none to full endorsement. Respondents could choose as many options as they agreed with, and were asked to rank the options they selected, if multiple, for each question in terms of their preference for them (see Box 1). For example, if a respondent selected two options of the four possible, those two options would be ranked in terms of the most preferred (first) and least preferred (last). In situations where respondents selected only one option response for a question, no ranking was needed. An example of a vignette and question is provided in Box 1. Vignettes received by respondents were randomized so that 1/3 of respondents received a vignette that aligned with a water issue that they had personally experienced (determined as described below), while the other 2/3 of respondents received a randomly assigned vignette. At the end of the questionnaire section focused on the vignettes, respondents were asked to rate the difficulty in responding to them (1 = extremely difficult; 5 = extremely easy).

Box 1. Example vignette and response schematic (text in italics not shown to participants)

Vignette presented to respondent:

A record-breaking dry year caused by an extended period of below-normal rainfall has occurred. The drought was represented by intense heat, as well as low levels of soil moisture, surface water, and water for irrigation (supplemental water provided to crops). The drought significantly affected local agricultural crop production. Even farmers who had access to irrigation to maintain crop quality had difficulty keeping up with demand. Researchers suggest that continued extreme weather may result in less rain and more drought in the coming years. Many farmer organizations are working in collaboration with the government to reduce the impacts of drought on their crops.

Question presented to respondent in relation to the vignette (selected question focuses on the ‘Broaden Participation’ Principle (P6):

Given the predictions that droughts will last longer and be more severe over time, a drought task force is suggested as a way to create a plan for the future. Who should be involved in the task force, and to what extent? (Select all statements that you agree with)

  • □ Include representatives of government agencies who have a focus on agriculture and water. The task force should ask for information from different groups (e.g. farmer associations, businesses). However, final decisions on a plan would be made solely by the government representatives. (1 = no resilience endorsement)

  • □ Include representatives of government agencies who have a focus on agriculture and water. The task force should ask for information from different groups (e.g. farmer associations, businesses) and should invite them to participate in some aspects of plan development, but final decisions on the plan would be made solely by the government representatives. (2 = low resilience endorsement)

  • □ Include representatives of government agencies who have a focus on agriculture and water. Other groups (e.g. farmer associations, businesses) should participate in all parts of plan development. Final decisions on the plan would be made by the entire task force. (3 = moderate resilience endorsement)

  • □ Include representatives of government agencies who have a focus on agriculture and water and other groups (e.g. farmer associations, businesses). All participants should be provided with what they need (e.g. training, other support) to actively participate. Final decisions on the plan would be made by the entire task force. (4 = full resilience endorsement)

For those who chose more than one statement they agreed with (see part 1 in schematic below), respondents were asked to rank them in terms of preference (part 2 in schematic below). For example, if a respondent chose statements 2, 3, and 4 above, they were provided with those same statements in the next question and asked to put them in order from most preferred (moved to the top of the list) to least preferred (moved to the bottom of the list) (see schematic below). The most preferred option was used as their individual ‘score’ for that principle. So, if statement 3 was ranked as their most preferred as in our example, that respondent's score for that principle was ‘3’.

Individuals were asked to identify up to three water-related crises from within a list of five (rising water temperatures, demand [i.e. availability of water], drought, flooding, waterborne diseases/parasites, and pollution/contamination) that had affected their local waterways, and to rank their selections based on their impact (1 = greatest impact on local water source). This allowed us both to assign either a relevant (1/3rd) or less relevant (2/3rd) vignette, which in turn allowed us to examine whether the underlying importance placed on water impacted their resilience endorsement (i.e. if the vignette was personally salient, did that affect endorsement?).

Respondents were asked a series of additional questions. Demographic questions included age (in years), sex (female, male, or other), political affiliation (rated on a seven-point scale from ‘very left wing’ to ‘very right wing’) (note that this was revised as needed to account for different understandings within countries of ‘left’ and ‘right’ in politics), area (urban, suburban, or rural), years residing in area (increments of 5 years), highest level of education (from no high school diploma to a master's degree or higher), whether or not they had children, and religious importance (on a seven-point scale from not at all important to extremely important). Participants also responded to a series of questions to assess a number of psychological traits, including locus of control, self-efficacy, empathy, and resistance to change; however, these data are part of a different study and thus are not presented here. These questions were asked after the vignettes, and before the demographic questions in the questionnaire. See the questionnaire in the Supplementary Material for the specific order.

The decision to include questions of political affiliation and religious importance was based on findings from previous studies in water resilience attitudes that identified these variables as significant predictors of water resilience endorsement in Canada and the United States (Baird et al., Reference Baird, Dale and Farhad2020a). This previous study did not assess potential for attitude shifts, used a different measure of water resilience endorsement, and was more narrowly geographically scoped. Here, we extend and expand that work.

3.2 Analysis

Water resilience principles scores were subjected to a confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate the extent to which the data adhered to a two-factor solution (see Supplementary Table S2 and Figure S1). Principles 1–4 formed the first factor (the focus on the social–ecological system) and principles 5–7 formed the second factor (focus on governance).

The quantitative data were analyzed in IBM® SPSS. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Scheffe post-hoc tests or independent-samples t-tests with Bonferroni corrections (as appropriate) were used for comparisons that included continuous variables (i.e. resilience endorsement, age, religious importance, and political affiliation). We also use a hierarchical regression analysis to determine whether demographic differences predicted potential for improvement in resilience endorsement scores. For any analysis based on sex, only those who identified as female or male were included as the number of respondents identifying otherwise was very small (n = 3). For analyses based on age, participants who indicated either no age or an impossible age (e.g. 234) were not included. Finally, only those participants who completed at least 7/10 questions on the vignette measure were included in the overall analyses.

4. Results

4.1 Respondent demographics and water issues

There were 2643 respondents who completed a sufficient proportion of the vignette questions to be included in the analysis. The attributes of the respondents are provided in Table 2, both overall (n = 2649) and as a function of country. Note that the number of respondents who completed each demographic question varied and thus the totals for each attribute differ.

Table 2. Respondent demographics (proportions, means, and standard deviations) both overall and by country

a Religious importance ranges from 1 (not at all important) to 7 (extremely important).

bPolitical affiliation spans from 1 (very left-wing) to 7 (very right-wing).

Respondents identified similar problems affecting local water bodies, and ranked them similarly, when provided with a list of options. Assessed by country, respondents in all countries except Australia ranked pollution as the most impactful (while Australians ranked ‘drought’ most impactful and ‘pollution’ second). ‘Demand’ was ranked second most impactful in most countries, except in Australia as noted and Canada, where ‘disease’ was ranked second.

4.2 Water resilience endorsement

Figure 1 shows the mean responses and response distribution for each of the seven resilience principles (combining the responses to the two questions [ecological and social] for each of the first three principles into a single principle value). The mean water resilience endorsement overall (for all six countries combined) was 2.87 (SD = 0.51) on a scale of 1 (no endorsement) to 4 (full endorsement). When calculated by country (Figure 2), a one-way ANOVA with a Scheffe post-hoc showed that there was a significant difference in mean resilience endorsement among countries, F(5, 2643) = 4.88, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.01, such that resilience scores from India were marginally, but statistically, lower than South Africa and the United Kingdom (M diff = −0.17 and −0.13 for South Africa and the United Kingdom, respectively). To understand what principles contributed to these differences, the individual principle scores were examined and compared for each country (see Supplementary Table S3). Principle descriptions are provided in the Supplementary material for reference (see Supplementary Table S1). Principles (P) 1 and 4 showed significant between-country differences in endorsement, such that South Africa endorsed P1 more than Australia and the United States, F(5, 2623) = 4.46, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.01 (M diff = 0.26 and 0.23 for Australia and the United States, respectively), and the United States endorsed P4 more than India, F(5, 2514) = 3.37, p = 0.005, η 2 = 0.01 (M diff = 0.24). In addition, both P3, F(5, 2632) = 2.50, p = 0.03, η 2 = 0.01, and P7, F(5, 2475) = 3.31, p = 0.006, η 2 = 0.01, differed as a function of country; however, there were no significant differences in the post-hoc analysis.

Figure 1. Boxplot showing distributions and minimum/maximum scores for each of the seven resilience principles, as well as the overall (mean) resilience endorsement score (N = 2144).

Figure 2. Boxplot showing distributions and minimum/maximums for the overall (mean) resilience endorsement scores as a function of country (N = 2644).

4.3 Relationships between resilience endorsement scores and other variables

Respondents rated the difficulty of responding to the vignettes as 2.91 out of 5 (SD = 1.13; where 5 is ‘extremely easy’), which roughly corresponds to the rating of ‘neither easy nor difficult’. There was a relationship between respondents' overall resilience endorsement scores and their difficulty rating for the vignettes, such that as difficulty scores increased, resilience scores also increased, F(4, 2624) = 17.95, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.03; a relationship that was consistent across all countries except South Africa, F(4, 347) = 1.95, p = 0.102, η 2 = 0.02. There was no relationship between the number of vignette questions completed and the difficulty rating of the task (all p's >0.06).

There was an effect of receiving a vignette that illustrated a water issue that individuals had personally experienced, t(2647) = 3.58, p < 0.001, d = 0.15, such that individuals who received a personally salient vignette (M = 2.91, SD = 0.50; N = 974) had a slightly higher overall resilience score than those who were randomly assigned a vignette (M = 2.84, SD = 0.51; N =1675). However, a series of Bonferroni-corrected (new α = 0.008) independent samples t-tests showed that the difference in resilience scores as a function of whether participants received a personally salient vignette was significant only for participants from India, t(392) = 2.85, p = 0.005, d = 0.29, and the United States, t(467) = 3.05, p = 0.002, d = 0.31, although Canada approached significance, t(474) = 2.44, p = 0.015, d = 0.23. No other countries showed a difference in resilience score as a function of whether the vignette was personally salient (all t's <1.8, all p's >0.07).

Finally, resilience endorsement was associated with a few demographic variables, although these findings were inconsistent across countries. For instance, Canadian females had higher resilience scores than did Canadian males, F(1, 445) = 5.62, p = 0.018, η 2 = 0.01, but this difference was not found in any other country. There was also a small effect of the type of area in which South African participants lived, F(2, 345) = 4.07, p = 0.018, η 2 = 0.02, such that participants who lived in suburban areas had higher resilience scores than did participants who lived in urban areas. Finally, whether or not participants had completed a university degree was associated with resilience scores in both India, F(1, 380) = 4.80, p = 0.03, η 2 = 0.013, and the United States, F(1, 459) = 11.43, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.024, but whereas higher education was associated with higher resilience scores in India, it was associated with lower resilience scores in the United States. No other demographics were associated with resilience endorsement. Note that for the purposes of these analyses, the ‘years in area’ and ‘highest education’ variables were recoded as binary variables [‘less than 10 years’ vs. ‘10+ years’ for years in area; ‘no university’ vs. ‘university’ for highest education]. Country was coded using dummy variables such that Australia = 1, Canada = 2, India = 3, South Africa = 4, United Kingdom = 5, and United States = 6.

4.4 Preference rankings and potential for improvement

For those vignette questions where respondents chose multiple statements with which they agreed, they ranked those statements in terms of preference. The preference rankings provide rich data with which to understand the demonstrated potential of respondents for greater resilience endorsement. We focus here on those respondents who selected more than one statement for at least three of the 10 principle questions and, when ranking the statements, ranked lower resilience endorsement statements as more preferred than higher resilience endorsement statements. For example, if a respondent selected statements 2, 3, and 4 (as in Box 1) and ranked the statements in the following order: statement 3 as their most preferred, statement 4 as their next most preferred, and statement 2 as their least preferred, they were included in the analysis because statement 4 (full resilience endorsement) was ranked lower than 3 (moderate resilience endorsement). We will refer to this situation as ‘potential for greater resilience endorsement’ hereafter.

We found that 1642 respondents (62%) indicated in at least one of those questions (i.e. for one of the resilience principles) potential for greater resilience endorsement. The frequency with which respondents indicated potential for greater resilience endorsement by principle is presented in Table 3. All principles showed respondents' potential to shift preferences based on this interpretation. Between 11 and 30% of those responses included the fullest expression of resilience statement in those selected by the respondent, but it was not chosen as the most preferred.

Table 3. Frequency of responses that indicated potential for greater resilience endorsement by principle and the frequency and percentage of those responses that included the statement that represents the fullest expression of the principle

To further explore this finding, a ‘potential for improvement’ score was calculated for each participant by summing the number of questions (out of 10) on which the participant showed room for improvement (as described above). Scores ranged from 0 (i.e. no questions on which the participant ranked lower resilience endorsement statements as more preferred than higher resilience statements) to 10 (i.e. participant ranked a lower resilience statement as more preferred than a higher resilience statement on every question), with a mean potential for improvement score of 2.29 (SD = 2.48). We then conducted a hierarchical regression analysis to determine whether demographic differences predicted potential for improvement scores (see Table 3).

Because demographics differed as a function of country (see Table 2), we entered country into the first step of the regression. This allowed us to examine the predictive power of our demographic variables unconfounded by country. Each of the remaining demographic variables (sex, age, type of area, years in area, highest education, children, religious importance, and political affiliation) were entered as predictors into the second step of the regression, with potential for improvement scores as the criterion. Each of the demographic predictors, apart from sex and political affiliation, explained significant, unique variance in potential for improvement (see Table 4) such that well-educated participants who were younger, lived in urban areas, lived in the same area for 10+ years, had children, and rated religion as more important had greater potential for improving their resilience endorsement scores.

Table 4. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis examining predictors of potential for improving resilience endorsement

Significant predictors are denoted by an asterisk (* or **). N = 2496.

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.001.

5. Discussion

Water resilience is a desirable paradigm, or worldview, to address the escalating global water crisis. We posit that moving toward societal alignment with this worldview requires an understanding of endorsement and the latent potential for greater water resilience endorsement, which we measured at the individual level through attitudes. Previous research has indicated that water resilience endorsement among the general population in Canada and the United States is generally relatively high (Baird et al., Reference Baird, Dale and Farhad2020a). We found the same in this much larger and geographically diverse study, with a mean around ‘moderate’ resilience endorsement when aggregating all responses across six countries (between which there were only small differences). To illustrate what ‘moderate water resilience endorsement’ represents, we can use the example question from Box 1. In that vignette, where a severe drought is threatening agricultural viability and a task force is being assembled, moderate endorsement would result in broadening participation in the task force that ‘includ[es] representatives of government agencies who have a focus on agriculture and water. Other groups (e.g., farmer associations, businesses) should participate in all parts of plan development. Final decisions on the plan would be made by the entire task force’. While the full resilience endorsement option from that vignette includes aspects of equity and access for all task force members, the option representing moderate resilience endorsement is highly supportive of broadening participation and creating an inclusive and participatory governance system.

Moderate water resilience endorsement is a good indication that there is substantive alignment with a water resilience worldview. Further, there is measured potential for attitude shifts in favor of greater water resilience endorsement. Attitudes are one piece of the system transformation puzzle. Attitudes influence individuals' actions (Ajzen et al., Reference Ajzen, Fishbein, Lohmann, Albarracín, Albarracin and Johnson2018), and depending on their individual, political, and collective agency (e.g. through actions from voting aligned with their attitudes to activism to formal engagement in decision making processes/governance where possible) (Bandura, Reference Bandura2000; O'Brien, Reference O'Brien2015; Vogel & O'Brien, Reference Vogel and O'Brien2021), broader transformation is possible.

There is still room to improve water resilience endorsement, and our questionnaire design allowed us to identify the extent to which there is potential for improvement. We allowed respondents to choose multiple statement options in relation to the vignette questions they were asked, and to rank selected statements in order of preference. This design provided richer quantitative data (general agreement and preferences) as a basis to formulate assessments of opportunity for greater resilience endorsement in individuals. We feel that this approach, using general agreement and preferences in a two-step process, holds promise as sustainability scientists engage more deeply with the ‘inner worlds’ of individuals (Ives et al., Reference Ives, Freeth and Fischer2020), and specifically attitude-based research. It recognizes that attitudes may be broad, have variability, and that preference rankings support individuals in thinking through and organizing their attitudes.

The preference ranking activity and analysis identified that more than 60% of respondents showed potential for greater resilience endorsement for at least one resilience principle, and about 40% showed that potential for three or more principles. This indicates that there is substantive room to potentially shift attitudes upward, toward greater water resilience endorsement. The principles all showed relatively similar frequencies for how many respondents demonstrated potential for greater resilience endorsement for that principle (ranging from 534 for P1: diversity and redundancy – ecological to 687 for P2: connectivity – social). Further, between 11 and 30% of those respondents who showed potential for greater resilience endorsement selected the statement that expressed resilience in the fullest way, but that statement was not ranked as most preferred. This provides additional evidence that there is cause to believe that greater societal water resilience endorsement is possible through a shift in attitudes.

By pooling data across six countries in the Global South and North and controlling for country-specific effects, we found predictors of the potential to shift attitudes that transcend country of residence. Those who demonstrated the greatest potential for greater resilience endorsement were younger and viewed religion as more important (though specific religions were not queried), in addition to being more likely to live in an urban area, more likely to have resided in the same area for 10+ years, more likely to be highly educated, and more likely to have children. Attitudes toward the environment are malleable: studies in environmental and behavioral psychology have shown that attitudes can be shifted through various approaches, including gain/loss framing, compassion framing, and celebrity endorsement (Lu & Schuldt, Reference Lu and Schuldt2016; Olmedo et al., Reference Olmedo, Milner-Gulland, Challender, Cugnière, Dao, Nguyen, Nuno, Potier, Ribadeneira, Thomas-Walters, Wan, Wang and Veríssimo2020; Spence & Pidgeon, Reference Spence and Pidgeon2010). From this characterization of those who hold the most potential for greater resilience endorsement, future research can focus on testing attitude-shifting interventions, such as those identified above, focusing on the factors that best predict that potential. For example, previous studies related to climate change attitudes have shown that many of the same demographic factors as were found in this study are associated with climate change skepticism and variations in pro-environmental behaviors, including age (where older adults were more skeptical; Poortinga et al., Reference Poortinga, Whitmarsh, Steg, Böhm and Fisher2019), religiosity (where different religious groups show differences in climate change beliefs and behaviors in relation to those with no religious belief; Morrison et al., Reference Morrison, Duncan and Parton2015), and education level (those with less education were more skeptical; Zhou, Reference Zhou2015). Further, organizations and agencies that work internationally, as well as those that work at other levels and have a mandate or mission for system change/transformation can draw on these findings as key points of entry to engage the public and shift attitudes.

While attitudes supported moderate resilience endorsement, and the potential for even stronger endorsement by the majority of the respondents in this study, it is important to situate these results within the broader literature and ongoing discussion about the relationship between attitudes and behaviors, individual agency, and the design of our study. The results here indicate that attitudes reflect moderate endorsement of water resilience. While attitudes are one factor that is a direct determinant of behavioral intention, we recognize that the relationship between attitudes and behavior is complex, with multiple stages and influence from many factors (e.g. the transtheoretical model of change [Abrash Walton et al., Reference Abrash Walton, Nageotte, Heimlich and Threadgill2022]; theory of planned behavior [Ajzen, Reference Ajzen1991]). Attitudinal intensity has been shown to influence behavior; strong attitudes are related to more pro-environmental behavior (Casaló & Escario, Reference Casaló and Escario2018). Further, past empirical work has differed in its findings about the relationship between attitudes and behavior/behavioral intention in the context of sustainability, and especially around the importance of the role attitudes play in behavior/behavioral intent (Heimlich & Ardoin, Reference Heimlich and Ardoin2008). Further exploration of the relationships between strength of attitudes and behavioral intention (and behavior) in relation to water resilience endorsement is needed.

The finding that receiving a vignette that was related to a water issue experienced personally was correlated with a higher overall water resilience endorsement score in some countries, and not others, is worth exploring further. A personally relevant water issue may evoke a stronger connection to the vignette through personal experience and/or sense of place. Previous research has demonstrated relationships between personal experiences with extreme weather – including flooding – and environmental attitudes (e.g. Demski et al., Reference Demski, Capstick, Pidgeon, Sposato and Spence2017; Wong-Parodi and Rubin, Reference Wong-Parodi and Rubin2022). Likewise, sense of place – the ‘meaning or importance of a place based on human experience, social relationships, emotions, and thoughts’ – has been linked to pro-environmental attitudes as well as behaviors, including environmental stewardship (Budruk et al., Reference Budruk, Thomas and Tyrrell2009; Chapin III & Knapp, Reference Chapin and Knapp2015, p. 39). Further, Devine-Wright (Reference Devine-Wright2013) emphasizes that local relevance does not mean that more distant events are less relevant to an individual, lending support to the salience of a non-localized vignette to respondents in this study.

Respondents for this study did not necessarily include any individuals with formal decision-making authority. However, the role of individuals of all levels of agency in system-level transformations for sustainability is increasingly being developed and emphasized in the sustainability science literature (e.g. Benessaiah and Eakin, Reference Benessaiah and Eakin2021; Naito et al., Reference Naito, Zhao and Chan2022; Scoones et al., Reference Scoones, Stirling, Abrol, Atela, Charli-Joseph, Eakin, Ely, Pereira, Priya, van Zwanenberg and Yang2020). Creating the conditions, through enabling attributes of individuals that underlie structures and systems, is one piece of a larger puzzle that can mobilize broad change (Scoones et al., Reference Scoones, Stirling, Abrol, Atela, Charli-Joseph, Eakin, Ely, Pereira, Priya, van Zwanenberg and Yang2020). Further, structural and individual behavioral changes can be mutually supportive (Leiserowitz et al., Reference Leiserowitz, Kates and Parris2006). Of course, this is not to discount that individuals ultimately hold varying agency, depending on structural and systemic factors, and focusing on those who hold disproportionate influence over decision-making in systems is an important future research direction.

This study had limitations associated with its design and approach to data collection. First, we relied on a third-party data provider to collect responses from their bank of registered respondents. These individuals often complete multiple questionnaires per day and are paid to do so. This may have provided an incentive for respondents to complete the questionnaire as quickly as possible, or complete the minimum required for it to be considered complete. Samples for each country were not always representative of their populations with respect to age or level of education and thus extrapolating to the broader population in each country is not possible. Questions were not mandatory (as per our ethics requirements) and many respondents skipped multiple questions or completed the questionnaire so quickly that there was no possible way they read and considered their responses. We reviewed response times and response patterns to remove as many of these types of responses as possible, but this still may have impacted the quality of data collected. Related to this, the vignettes used, while offering the benefits of context and nuance to the questions about the resilience principles, may have been cognitively demanding for respondents to complete. Accordingly, the quality of responses, reliant on consideration of all options and selecting and ranking those the respondent agreed with, may not have been thoughtfully completed in all cases. The approach we used did not allow for exploration of the role of context and cultural differences among countries/regions.

Finally, we acknowledge that the separation of social and ecological dimensions for the first three principles is somewhat artificial given that the principles represent aspects of social–ecological systems. We continue to consider other methodological approaches (qualitative or mixed methods designs) to assessing water resilience endorsement in such a way that it is both accommodating of the complexity of the concept and appropriate for large sample sizes.

Future research could focus on specific countries and the cultural and contextual nuances in each, as country-level factors have been shown to be important (and potentially complex) for people's attitudes related to climate change and skepticism in multi-national research (e.g. Smith et al., Reference Smith, Kim and Son2017; Tranter and Booth, Reference Tranter and Booth2015). Other promising avenues of study include identifying other potential individual-level factors that influence water resilience endorsement, drawing from broader policy endorsement research, which is diverse in its application and findings (e.g. climate change mitigation policy endorsement affected by compassion [Lu and Schuldt, Reference Lu and Schuldt2016]; environmental public policy endorsement affected by nostalgia and future optimism [Kwan et al., Reference Kwan, Cheng and Tsang2017]; climate change policy endorsement associated with risk perception [Smith and Mayer, Reference Smith and Mayer2018]).

6. Conclusion

Water resilience is a promising approach to address the increasing complexity and uncertainty of this Anthropocene era. Individuals and their inner worlds, including worldviews, mindsets, and attitudes (Abson et al., Reference Abson, Fischer, Leventon, Newig, Schomerus, Vilsmaier, Von Wehrden, Abernethy, Ives, Jager and Lang2017; Baird et al., Reference Baird, Dale and Farhad2020a; Ives et al., Reference Ives, Freeth and Fischer2020; O'Brien, Reference O'Brien2019), have been a particular focus by sustainability science scholars. Baird et al. (Reference Baird, Dale and Farhad2020a) identified water resilience endorsement as one approach to study individual-level factors in support of ultimately realizing a water resilience paradigm at a whole system level. This study, conducted across six countries representing the Global South and North, shows that water resilience endorsement is moderate overall. We find that there is ‘room to improve’ and that, for all principles, there is potential from a substantive subset of the respondents for greater water resilience endorsement, presenting opportunities to explore and test approaches to realize this shift at a societal level. Respondents who showed a lower or greater potential for water resilience endorsement differed with respect to age and religiosity, such that individuals who were younger and viewed religion as more important showed greater potential for improving their resilience attitudes. The type of area in which participants lived and length of residence in a given area, education level, and whether respondents had children were also significant predictors of potential for improvement. Using this demographic information to design interventions that target attitudinal shifts is an important next step in this research agenda. Further, those who received a more personally salient vignette (i.e. a vignette that related to a water issue the respondent had personally experienced) scored more highly on their water resilience endorsement in some countries. This represents another potential pathway for building water resilience – using specific water issues as a basis for these efforts. In addition to considering interventions to build water resilience endorsement, consideration of the permanency of these attitudes, experimental approaches to identify other factors that may mediate or moderate the relationship between water resilience endorsement and behavior, and expanding the geographical scope of water resilience endorsement assessments to more countries around the globe present important future research directions.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2023.23.

Acknowledgments

We thank those who participated in this research and Sherman Farhad and Oluseyi Obasi for valuable insights in the planning phase of the study.

Author contributions

J. B., G. D., and G. P. conceptualized and designed the study. G. D. collected and analyzed the data. J. B., G. D., and G. P. interpreted the results. J. B. and G. D. wrote the article. J. B., G. D., and G. P. revised the article.

Funding statement

The Environmental Sustainability Research Centre provided funding for data collection. J. B.'s participation in this research was supported in part by the Canada Research Chairs program.

Competing interests

None.

Data availability

Data used to produce the figures are available as the Supplementary material. The full dataset used in this study remains in use for further analysis and is available from the corresponding author by request.

References

Abrash Walton, A., Nageotte, N. L., Heimlich, J. E., & Threadgill, A. V. (2022). Facilitating behavior change: Introducing the transtheoretical model of behavior change as a conservation psychology framework and tool for practitioners. Zoo Biology, 41(5), 386–397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abson, D. J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U., Von Wehrden, H., Abernethy, P., Ives, C. D., Jager, N. W., & Lang, D. J. (2017). Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio, 46(1), 30–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adger, W. N., Arnell, N. W., & Tompkins, E. L. (2005). Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Global Environmental Change, 15(2), 77–86. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2000). Attitudes and the attitude–behavior relation: Reasoned and automatic processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 11(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M., Lohmann, S., & Albarracín, D. (2018). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In Albarracin, D. & Johnson, B.T. (Eds.), The Handbook of Attitudes (Vol. 1: Basic Principles, pp. 197–255). Routledge.Google Scholar
Baird, J., Dale, G., & Farhad, S. (2020a). Individual differences predict endorsement of water resilience. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baird, J., & Plummer, R. (Eds.). (2021). Water resilience: Management and governance in times of change. Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baird, J., Plummer, R., Dale, G., Kapeller, B., Mallette, A., Feist, A., & Kataoka, Y. (2020b). The emerging scientific water paradigm: Precursors, hallmarks and trajectories. WIREs Water, 8(1), e1489. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballew, M. T., Goldberg, M. H., Rosenthal, S. A., Gustafson, A., & Leiserowitz, A. (2019). Systems thinking as a pathway to global warming beliefs and attitudes through an ecological worldview. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(17), 8214–8219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bamberg, S., Fischer, D., & Geiger, S. M. (2021). The role of the individual in the great transformation toward sustainability. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benessaiah, K., & Eakin, H. (2021). Crisis, transformation, and agency: Why are people going back-to-the-land in Greece? Sustainability Science, 16(6), 1841–1858.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bennett, N. J., Blythe, J., Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Singh, G. G., & Sumaila, U. R. (2019). Just transformations to sustainability. Sustainability, 11(14), 3881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., Biggs, D., Bohensky, E. L., BurnSilver, S., Cundill, G., Dakos, V., Daw, T. M., Evans, L. S., Kotschy, K., Leitch, A. M., Meek, C., Quinlan, A., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Robards, M. D., Schoon, M. L., Schultz, L., & West, P. C. (2012). Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 421–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., & Schoon, M. L. (Eds.) (2015). Principles for building resilience: Sustaining ecosystem services in social–ecological systems. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohensky, E. L., Evans, L. S., Anderies, J. M., Biggs, D., & Fabricius, C. (2015). Principle 4 – foster complex adaptive systems thinking. In Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., & Schoon, M. L. (Eds.), Principles for building resilience: Sustaining ecosystem services in social–ecological systems (pp. 142–173). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boretti, A., & Rosa, L. (2019). Reassessing the projections of the world water development report. NPJ Clean Water 2, 15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41545-019-0039-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budruk, M., Thomas, H., & Tyrrell, T. (2009). Urban green spaces: A study of place attachment and environmental attitudes in India. Society and Natural Resources, 22(9), 824–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casaló, L. V., & Escario, J. J. (2018). Heterogeneity in the association between environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behavior: A multilevel regression approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, 155–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapin, F. S. III, & Knapp, C. N. (2015). Sense of place: A process for identifying and negotiating potentially contested visions of sustainability. Environmental Science & Policy, 53, 38–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demski, C., Capstick, S., Pidgeon, N., Sposato, R. G., & Spence, A. (2017). Experience of extreme weather affects climate change mitigation and adaptation responses. Climatic Change, 140, 149–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Devine-Wright, P. (2013). Think global, act local? The relevance of place attachments and place identities in a climate changed world. Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 61–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewulf, A., Karpouzoglou, T., Warner, J., Wesselink, A., Mao, F., Vos, J., Tamas, P., Groot, A. E., Heijmans, A., Ahmed, F., Hoang, L., Vij, S., & Buytaert, W. (2019). The power to define resilience in social–hydrological systems: Toward a power-sensitive resilience framework. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 6(6), e1377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falkenmark, M., Wang-Erlandsson, L., & Rockström, J. (2019). Understanding of water resilience in the Anthropocene. Journal of Hydrology X, 2, 100009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finch, J. (1987). The vignette technique in survey research. Sociology, 21(1), 105–114. doi: 10.1177/0038038587021001008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16, 253–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folke, C., Biggs, R., Norström, A. V. Reyers, B., & Rockström, J. (2016). Social–ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecology and Society, 21(3), 41. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08748-210341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frantzeskaki, N., Dumitru, A., Anguelovski, I., Avelino, F., Bach, M., Best, B., Binder, C., Barnes, J., Carrus, G., Egermann, M., Haxeltine, A., Moore, M.-L., Mira, R. G., Loorbach, D., Uzzell, D., Omann, I., Olsson, P., Silvestri, G., Stedman, R., & Rauschmayer, F. (2016). Elucidating the changing roles of civil society in urban sustainability transitions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 22, 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, R. P. II (2016). The fuzziness of mindsets: Divergent conceptualizations and characterizations of mindset theory and praxis. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 24(4), 673–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2010). The dynamics of transitions: A socio-technical perspective. In Schot, J., Grin, J., & Rotmans, J. (Eds.), Transitions to sustainable development: New directions in the study of long term transformative change (pp. 9–102). Routledge.Google Scholar
Hedlund-de Witt, A., De Boer, J., & Boersema, J. J. (2014). Exploring inner and outer worlds: A quantitative study of worldviews, environmental attitudes, and sustainable lifestyles. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 37, 40–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heimlich, J. E., & Ardoin, N. M. (2008). Understanding behavior to understand behavior change: A literature review. Environmental Education Research, 14(3), 215–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, M. D., De Liver, Y., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2008). The effects of an implemental mind-set on attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(3), 396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IPBES (2019). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Díaz, S., Settele, J., Brondízio, E. S., Ngo, H. T., Guèze, M., Agard, J., Arneth, A., Balvanera, P., Brauman, K. A., Butchart, S. H. M., Chan, K. M. A., Garibaldi, L. A., Ichii, K., Liu, J., Subramanian, S. M., Midgley, G. F., Miloslavich, P., Molnár, Z., Obura, D., Pfaff, A., Polasky, S., Purvis, A., Razzaque, J., Reyers, B., Roy Chowdhury, R., Shin, Y. J., Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., Willis, K. J., & Zayas, C. N. (Eds.). IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 56pp. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3553579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IPCC (2018). Summary for policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D., Skea, J., Shukla, P. R., Pirani, A., Moufouma-Okia, W., Péan, C., Pidcock, R., Connors, S., Matthews, J. B. R., Chen, Y., Zhou, X., Gomis, M. I., Lonnoy, E., Maycock, T., Tignor, M., & Waterfield, T. (Eds.). https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/Google Scholar
Ives, C. D., Freeth, R., & Fischer, J. (2020). Inside-out sustainability: The neglect of inner worlds. Ambio, 49(1), 208–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kwan, C., Cheng, S. Y., & Tsang, A. S. (2017). The effect of societal nostalgia on future optimism and public policy endorsement. ACR North American Advances, 45, 725–726.Google Scholar
Lebel, L., Anderies, J. M., Campbell, B., Folke, C., Hatfield-Dodds, S., Hughes, T. P., & Wilson, J. (2006). Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leiserowitz, A. A., Kates, R. W., & Parris, T. M. (2006). Sustainability values, attitudes, and behaviors: A review of multinational and global trends. The Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31, 413–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, H., & Schuldt, J. P. (2016). Compassion for climate change victims and support for mitigation policy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 192–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.01.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meadows, D. (1999). Leverage points: Places to intervene in a system. The Sustainability Institute.Google Scholar
Morrison, M., Duncan, R., & Parton, K. (2015). Religion does matter for climate change attitudes and behaviour. PLoS ONE, 10, e0134868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naito, R., Zhao, J., & Chan, K. M. A. (2022). An integrative framework for transformative social change: A case in global wildlife trade. Sustainability Science, 17, 171–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Obasi, O., Baird, J., Dale, G., & Pickering, G. J. (2023). An approach to measuring individual endorsement of social–ecological resilience of water systems. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 18, 100249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, K. (2015). Political agency: The key to tackling climate change. Science, 350(6265), 1170–1171. doi: 10.1126/science.aad0267CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Brien, K. (2019). Is the 1.5°C target possible? Exploring the three spheres of transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 31, 153–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olmedo, A., Milner-Gulland, E. J., Challender, D. W. S., Cugnière, L., Dao, H. T. T., Nguyen, L. B., Nuno, A., Potier, E., Ribadeneira, M., Thomas-Walters, L., Wan, A. K. Y., Wang, Y., & Veríssimo, D. (2020). A scoping review of celebrity endorsement in environmental campaigns and evidence for its effectiveness. Conservation Science and Practice, 2(10), e261. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poortinga, W., Whitmarsh, L., Steg, L., Böhm, G., & Fisher, S. (2019). Climate change perceptions and their individual-level determinants: A cross-European analysis. Global Environmental Change, 55, 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripl, W. (2003). Water: The bloodstream of the biosphere. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 358(1440), 1921–1934.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rockström, J., Falkenmark, M., Allan, T., Folke, C., Gordon, L., Jägerskog, A., Kummu, M., Lannerstad, M., Meybeck, M., Molden, D., Postel, S., Savenije, H. H. G., Svedin, U., Turton, A., & Varis, O. (2014). The unfolding water drama in the Anthropocene: Towards a resilience-based perspective on water for global sustainability. Ecohydrology: Ecosystems, Land and Water Process Interactions, Ecohydrogeomorphology, 7(5), 1249–1261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodina, L. (2019). Defining ‘water resilience’: Debates, concepts, approaches, and gaps. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 6(2), e1334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoeman, J., Allan, C., & Finlayson, C. M. (2014). A new paradigm for water? A comparative review of integrated adaptive and ecosystem based water management in the Anthropocene. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 30(3), 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2014.907087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scoones, I., Stirling, A., Abrol, D., Atela, J., Charli-Joseph, L., Eakin, H., Ely, A., Pereira, L., Priya, R., van Zwanenberg, P., & Yang, L. (2020). Transformations to sustainability: Combining structural, systemic and enabling approaches. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 42, 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sköld, M. (2022). Water can reduce global risks. SIWI, January 21, 2022. https://siwi.org/latest/water-can-reduce-global-risks/Google Scholar
Smith, E. K., & Mayer, A. (2018). A social trap for the climate? Collective action, trust and climate change risk perception in 35 countries. Global Environmental Change, 49, 140–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, T. W., Kim, J., & Son, J. (2017). Public attitudes toward climate change and other environmental issues across countries. International Journal of Sociology, 47(1), 62–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spence, A., & Pidgeon, N. (2010). Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 656–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tranter, B., & Booth, K. (2015). Scepticism in a changing climate: A cross-national study. Global Environmental Change, 33, 154–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNESCO. (2012). The United Nations World Water Development Report 4: Managing water under uncertainty and risk: Executive Summary. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000217175Google Scholar
United Nations. (2023). The United Nations World Water Development Report 2023: Partnerships and cooperation for water. UNESCO, Paris.Google Scholar
Vogel, C., & O'Brien, K. (2021). Getting to the heart of transformation. Sustainability Science, 17, 653–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WEF. (2021). The Global Risks Report 2021, 16th Edition. World Economic Forum, ISBN: 978-2-940631-24-7. http://wef.ch/risks2021Google Scholar
WHO. (2018). Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Strategy 2018–2025. Geneva: World Health Organization (WHO/CED/PHE/WSH/18.03). https://www.who.int/health-topics/water-sanitation-and-hygiene-washGoogle Scholar
Wong-Parodi, G., & Rubin, N. B. (2022). Exploring how climate change subjective attribution, personal experience with extremes, concern, and subjective knowledge relate to pro-environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions in the United States. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 79, 101728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, M. (2015). Public environmental skepticism: A cross-national and multilevel analysis. International Sociology, 30, 61–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Vignettes presented to respondents

Figure 1

Table 2. Respondent demographics (proportions, means, and standard deviations) both overall and by country

Figure 2

Figure 1. Boxplot showing distributions and minimum/maximum scores for each of the seven resilience principles, as well as the overall (mean) resilience endorsement score (N = 2144).

Figure 3

Figure 2. Boxplot showing distributions and minimum/maximums for the overall (mean) resilience endorsement scores as a function of country (N = 2644).

Figure 4

Table 3. Frequency of responses that indicated potential for greater resilience endorsement by principle and the frequency and percentage of those responses that included the statement that represents the fullest expression of the principle

Figure 5

Table 4. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis examining predictors of potential for improving resilience endorsement

Supplementary material: File

Baird et al. supplementary material 1

Baird et al. supplementary material
Download Baird et al. supplementary material 1(File)
File 107.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Baird et al. supplementary material 2

Baird et al. supplementary material
Download Baird et al. supplementary material 2(File)
File 78.9 KB
Supplementary material: File

Baird et al. supplementary material 3

Baird et al. supplementary material
Download Baird et al. supplementary material 3(File)
File 144.7 KB