Hydrogeol J DOI 10.1007/s10040-017-1634-9

REPORT

Assessment of agricultural groundwater users in Iran: a cultural environmental bias Saeid Salehi 1 & Mohammad Chizari 1 & Hassan Sadighi 1 & Masoud Bijani 1

Received: 13 December 2016 / Accepted: 29 June 2017 # Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Abstract Many environmental problems are rooted in human behavior. This study aimed to explore the causal effect of cultural environmental bias on ‘sustainable behavior’ among agricultural groundwater users in Fars province, Iran, according to Klockner’s comprehensive model. A survey-based research project was conducted to gathering data on the paradigm of environmental psychology. The sample included agricultural groundwater users (n = 296) who were selected at random within a structured sampling regime involving study areas that represent three (higher, medium and lower) bounds of the agricultural-groundwater-vulnerability spectrum. Results showed that the Benvironment as ductile (EnAD)^ variable was a strong determinant of sustainable behavior as it related to groundwater use, and that EnAE had the highest causal effect on the behavior of agricultural groundwater users. The adjusted model explained 41% variance of Bgroundwater sustainable behavior^. Based on the results, the groundwater sustainable behaviors of agricultural groundwater users were found to be affected by personal and subjective norm variables and that they are influenced by casual effects of the Benvironment as ductile (EnAD)^ variable. * Mohammad Chizari [email protected] Saeid Salehi [email protected] Hassan Sadighi [email protected] Masoud Bijani [email protected] 1

Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, College of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modares University (TMU), Tehran 1497713111, Iran

The conclusions reflect the Fars agricultural groundwater users’ attitude or worldview on groundwater as an unrecoverable resource; thus, it is necessary that scientific disciplines like hydrogeology and psycho-sociology be considered together in a comprehensive approach for every groundwater study. Keywords Groundwater sustainable behavior . Cultural environmental bias . Socio-economic aspects . Agriculture . Iran

Introduction Environmental sustainability was raised as a key issue for human societies during the late twentieth century and has continued into the early twenty-first century (e.g., UNWCED 1987; Daly 1990; Custodio 2002; Vlek and Steg 2007; Shiri et al. 2011; Chaminé 2015; Bijani et al. 2017). Conventional modern agriculture is being severely criticized because of various environmental issues such as soil erosion, soil and water contamination/pollution, usage of surface-water and groundwater resources with high abstraction and low crop productivity, aquifer depletion, excessive use of chemical inputs at farm level, and risk to the sustainability of water resources. Environmental and natural resources degradation has also been attributed to traditional agricultural production methods (Price and Leviston 2014; Abbasian et al. 2017). Agricultural practices have environmental, aesthetic and social implications (Howley et al. 2014). Due to increasing concerns for environmental degradation caused by agricultural activities (Sulemana and James 2014), the concept of sustainability has entered into the agriculture sector and the paradigm of Bsustainable agriculture^ has been adopted. Over the past

Hydrogeol J

few years, society has aimed to introduce and develop proenvironmental approaches. Many environmental scholars and theorists believe that a large proportion of the environmental crisis is a Btragedy of the commons^ (Beardsley 1993), and that the major cause of environmental problems is rooted in human behavior and can be solved by understanding this behavior (Corral-Verdugo 2010; Gifford 2014; Clayton and Myers 2015). In other words, environmental problems are actually problems of human behavior (Scott et al. 2015). Therefore, conducting social and behavioral research to ensure environmental sustainability and to improve the human/environment relationship is crucial (Vlek and Steg 2007). The socio-economic and psychological characteristics of farmers’ behavior play a key role in agricultural change; research shows that their attitude towards the natural environment influences their behavior (Napier and Brown 1993; Best 2010) and influences their decision to adopt measures to protect the environment (Carlson et al. 1994; Quinn and Burbach 2008). Trying to explain the environmental concerns in terms of standard demographic variables is generally not well explained (Jones and Dunlap 1992). The emergence of proenvironmental behaviors and the impact of personal and social beliefs and norms have been analyzed in a large number of theoretical frameworks including theBtheory of planned behavior^ (TPB; Ajzen 1991), Btheory of basic values^ (TBV; Schwartz 1992), Bnorm activation model^ (NAM; Schwartz 1977), Bvalue-belief-norm theory^ (VBNT; Stern 2000), Bcultural theory of risk^ (CTR; Douglas 1978; Douglas and Wildavsky 1982) and BKlockner’s comprehensive model^ (Klöckner 2013). Environmental psychology is an emerging interdisciplinary field that deals with the interplay and interaction between human beings and their surrounding environment (Bell et al. 2001; Gifford et al. 2011). The role of culture as a pattern of beliefs, values, norms and social attitudes is shared among individuals (Vlek and Steg 2007). Cultural theory (CT) is one of the theories that presents a way of thinking about the changes in the norms and values (Price et al. 2014). CT originated from anthropological research launched by Mary Douglas (Douglas 1978) and developed by Douglas and Wildavsky (1982), and has been important in the discussion on risk perception and risk interpretation (Wildavsky and Dake 1990; Dake 1991). Over recent years, CT has evolved as an important framework for understanding how groups in society interpret the risk (Tansey and O’riordan 1999) and this theory is one of the collective rationality theories (Douglas 1978; Thompson et al. 1990). Thompson et al. (1990) introduced cultural bias (refers to shared values and belief), social relations (refers to patterns of interpersonal relations) and ways of life (a combination of cultural bias and social relations) as the three components of CT. Several studies have shown that cultural bias is associated with environmental consciousness and concern (Steg and

Sievers 2000; Grendstad and Selle 1997). Conflicting cultural beliefs and values affect what people choose to do in response to challenging public discourse (Douglas and Wildavsky 1982; Wildavsky and Dake 1990); hence, different social groups may have different assessments of environmental risks (Steg and Sievers 2000). Based on cultural theory (CT), Price et al. (2014) designed an effective worldview model of pro-environmental behavior in order to determine the role of cultural values and beliefs in response to climate changes. In this extended Bcultural theory^ model, by turning the polarized perpendicular scale of the cultural theory’s grid-group framework to a simple polarized scale, they introduced two prospectives of fatalism and individualism in terms of the Benvironment as elastic (EnAE)^ to justify destructive behaviors, and hierarchism and egalitarianism perspectives in the form of Benvironment as ductile (EnAD)^ in order to further justify environmental protection under Bcultural environmental biases (CEB)^. EnAE is comprised of arguments that justify individual freedoms over collective action to conserve the environment. EnAD is comprised of arguments that justify collective action to conserve the environment over individual freedoms. There are negative relationships between the constructs of this bipolar scale so that they have decreasing effect on each other. The two dimensions of environmental worldviews identified here may represent arguments used to justify pro- and antienvironmental behavior (Price et al. 2014). Price et al. (2014) tested the CEB scale (single bipolar scale of environment as elastic-ductile) among a sample of 5,081 persons in Australia. The results showed that an individual’s perception of EnAE and EnAD as two exogenous variables affects their pro-environment intention and behaviors. In this regard, the EnAE decreases and EnAD increases, both directly and indirectly, pro-environment intention and behaviors. Research has found that many empirical studies have been conducted to test cultural theory at an individual level, focusing on the relationship between cultural biases and perception of risk and environmental concerns (Steg and Sievers 2000), and during recent years, the number of water-based studies with regard to the cultural theory has increased—for example, Yazdanpanah et al. (2012), Wutich et al. (2013) and Sanderson and Curtis (2016) conducted studies with a focus on water using cultural theory to understand Bconflicting opinions^ about the society and conservation of water resources. Yazdanpanah et al. (2012) study on the use of the cultural theory in analyzing practices and perspectives toward water conservation in the agricultural sector showed that four worldviews of the cultural theory are important predictors of agricultural water conservation behavior. While there is an increasing pressure on farmers to support environmental protection practices, factors affecting their proenvironmentalist behavior are poorly understood (Fleming and Vanclay 2010). There is a growing recognition that proor anti-environmental behavior depends on the way that people think about the environment (Ives and Kendal 2014). On

Hydrogeol J

the other hand, individuals are in defiance of social norms when they see the violation of other norms (Steg and Vlek 2009). On the other hand, human behaviors emerge in the form of three types of cognitive processes, including the nature of the process, adherence to cultural context, and informed decisions (Douglas 1978; Douglas and Wildavsky 1982; Thompson et al. 1990); therefore, conducting a study to determine individuals’ cultural perspectives is of the essence. As one of the manifestations of the environment, water is recognized as the most important factor in the rapidly changing world (Alessa et al. 2008). The problem of water shortage and poor water quality for human consumption is one of the major environmental challenges being faced in the twentyfirst century (Brown and Flavin 1999) and water is the most significant agricultural input, especially in arid and semi-arid farm lands, including in the Middle East and Iran (Salehi and Rezaei-Moghaddam 2009). It is estimated that about 90% of global water consumption is used in agriculture and irrigated lands (Siebert et al. 2010). Globally, 65% of groundwater is used for drinking water, 20% for irrigation and livestock, and 15% for industry and mining. The use of groundwater is a major contribution to agricultural production via irrigated agriculture in many parts of the world: India (89%), Spain (80%), Argentina (70%), America (68%), Australia (67%), Greece (58%), China (54%) and Japan (23%; Zektser and Everett 2006). In Iran, the agriculture sector consumes more than 92% of the renewable water resources (FAO 2015), and more than 90% of groundwater resources (Salehi 2016). Therefore, in the twenty-first century, attention is focused on the challenge of achieving groundwater resource sustainability (Gleeson et al. 2012), especially given concerns over global climate change and serious groundwater depletion in a number of basins worldwide (Narasimhan 2009). The creation of a negative balance in Iran’s aquifers and overexploitation of groundwater for decades has downgraded the water quality. During 1964–2012, the groundwater levels (water table) of Iran fluctuated by up to 18 m (Ministry of Energy 2012). Fars province is a southern province of Iran and has the highest number of agricultural wells (11.3%) and also the highest depletion of groundwater resources by volume (Ministry of Energy 2012). Groundwater resources supply more than 71% of the water used in the agriculture sector (Fars Regional Water Company 2013, unpublished report) and 61.7% of dug wells are for agricultural use; consequently, the province includes a significant population of farmers who have the potential to affect the groundwater resources. Thus, Fars province is a good location to study the causal effects of farmers’ cultural-environmental orientation related to sustainable use of groundwater resources. The theoretical framework of this study was based on Klockner’s comprehensive model (Klöckner 2013) and the cultural environmental bias (CEB) scale as an environmental worldview described by Price et al.

(2014; Fig. 1). The conceptual definitions of variables in the theoretical framework are presented in Table 1.

Materials and methods Salehi (2016) assessed and ranked 102 groundwater study areas (as hydrogeological units at regional scale) of Fars province based on his Bagricultural groundwater vulnerability index^ (AGWVI) and using the multi-criteria decision-making TOPSIS (technique for order of preferences by similarity to the ideal solution) technique. Consequently, the Salehi (2016) study derived an agricultural groundwater vulnerability spectrum. The higher, medium and lower bounds of the vulnerability spectrum were found at Farashband, Darian and Sadegh-Abad study areas, respectively (Fig. 2). A cross-sectional survey was used to collect data using a questionnaire. Data to test the model were gathered among a number of agricultural groundwater users (NAGWU = 1,224) in the three groundwater study areas, during spring 2016. The present study sample consisted of a random subset of these users (nAGWU = 296). Questionnaires were completed through face-to-face interviews with AGWU. Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the reliability for each scale and its value ranged from 0.6 to 0.79 (Table 2). In each case (variable), the reliability exceeds the threshold value of 0.60 (Bagozzi and Yi 1988). Data were analyzed by path analysis using the structural equation modeling (SEM) technique and using the SPSS v.23 and AMOS v.23 statistical software. A SEM type approach is appropriate to deal with the fit of the theoretical model to observed data.

Results and discussion Descriptive statistics The sample consisted of 296 agricultural groundwater users (AGWU) in the higher (87), medium (167) and lower (42) bounds of the agricultural groundwater vulnerability spectrum of Fars province. The mean age and the mean job experience of respondents were 39.8 and 19 years of farming experience, respectively. The AGWU’s place of residence was recorded: 241 people living in rural areas and 52 living in the cities. The literacy level among participants was also recorded: 24 people illiterate, 227 with a school-level diploma and 45 with higher education. In terms of groundwater delivery (and hence frugality with respect to groundwater use), the questionnaire revealed that 75% of respondents were using pipes to transport water to the fields, 44% were using pressurized irrigation methods and 47% were using the drip (tape) irrigation method. The ownership and/or management of agricultural wells operates on a small-group and individual farmer basis, and involves the shared use groundwater

Hydrogeol J Fig. 1 Research model

resources (as opposed to the collective management of canals and springs); the sample included 100 individual ownerships, 118 collective (two or more) ownerships, and 71 joint ownerships of agricultural wells.

coefficient between the variables and the goodness-of-fit of the model. In the structural model, path coefficients and the coefficient of determination (R2) are estimated (Gefen et al. 2000; Jöreskog et al. 2001).

Structural equation modeling

Measurement model

The proposed research model involved measured variables using a path analysis technique based on structural equation modeling (SEM). The SEM examines both measurement and structural models for the research model variables. In the measurement model, endogenous consistency of the model is assessed and the results of this study yield a correlation

The statistical relations between variables, according to their interval scale, were measured using Pearson’s correlation coefficient and the results are presented in Table 2. The statistical relationship between the EnAE and EnAD variables with social norm (SN), were significant at 0.01 and 0.05 respectively. Correlation analysis was undertaken for two mediating

Table 1

Conceptual definitions of the study variables

Variable

Conceptual definition

Reference

Sustainable behavior (BEH)

There are four types of sustainable behavior: Pro-environmental: the purposeful and effective actions which respond to social and individual requirements and that result in the conservation of the physical environment. Frugal: a decreased level of consumption or austere behaviors intended at diminishing the impact of human behavior on the availability and renewability of natural resources. Altruistic: a motivational state aimed at increasing others’ wellbeing or a tendency to maximize others’ benefits with little or null interest in gains for oneself. Equity: justice according to natural law or right; specifically, freedom from bias or favoritism. Something that is equitable Perceived probability or subjective probability for a given behavior Moral commitment to do or refrain from certain actions One’s perception of the ease or difficulty of performing a specific behavior An individual’s norms and assumptions about others’ expectations of certain behaviors that a person wants or does not want to be done The ecosystem is described as resilient and able to bounce back from both damage and efforts to protect it The ecosystem is described as altered by human activity and unable to bounce back from damage or efforts to protect it

Corral-Verdugo 2010

Intention (INT) Personal norm (PN) Perceived behavioral control (PBC) Social norm (SN) Environment as elastic (EnAE) Environment as ductile (EnAD)

Ajzen 1991 Schwartz and Howard 1981 Ajzen 1991 Ajzen 1991 and 2005 Price et al. 2014 Price et al. 2014

Hydrogeol J

Fig. 2 a–b Groundwater study areas in Fars province of Iran and classification of their vulnerability (Salehi 2016). The higher, medium and lower bounds are at Farashband, Darian and Sadegh-Abad, respectively

variables—behavioral intention (INT) and personal norm (PN)—in the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and the norm activation model (NAM), as well as analysis of two exogenous variables—social norm (SN) and perceived behavioral control (PBC)—with the variable Bgroundwater sustainable behavior^ for the AGWU. These correlation analyses showed that an approximately equal correlation exists between endogenous (SNr = 0.35, PBCr = 0.37) and mediating (INT r = 0 . 4 8 , PN r = 0 . 4 6 ) variables with Bgroundwater sustainable behavior^ (see Table 2). In this regard, the correlation coefficients for PBC and SN with INT and PN (SN, PBC → INT, PN) showed that there was a stronger relationship between SNr = 0.50 with INT, compared to PBCr = 0.32. There was also a stronger relationship between the PBCr = 0.47 with PN, compared to the SNr = 0.40. The results of the model fitting are presented in Table 3. As

shown, the goodness-of-fit model values are appropriate, compared to standard proposed values. Structural model The path coefficients between variables are shown in Table 4. According to the research model, hypothesized EnAD and EnAE endogenous variables have direct casual effects on social norm (SN). SEM analysis showed that the path coefficients of EnAE (γ = 0.32, p < 0.01) are much higher than those of EnAD (γ = 0.05, p > 0.05) and so EnAE has a much stronger effect; this also explains the 11% SN variance (SMC = 0.11). Based on the research model, the PBC variable is affected by the social norm (SN) indigenous variable and direct and indirect causal effects of the EnAE and EnAD exogenous

Hydrogeol J

Fig. 2 continued.

variables. The SN had most direct causal effect on the PBC variable (β = 0.38), and the direct effect of the EnAE variable with a path coefficient 0.29 was stronger than the direct effect of EnAD with path coefficient 0.14. It should be noted that all the coefficients were statistically significant at p < 0.01. An interesting point is that there are indirect causal effects of the EnAE and EnAD variables on PBC through the mediating variable social norm (SN). The indirect effect of EnAD γ = 0.12 was stronger than the indirect effect of

EnAEγ = 0.02. Overall, the casual effect of EnAE and EnAD variables on PBC were 0.26 and 0.31, respectively. In total, 30% of the variance for the mediating PBC variable can be explained by the proposed fitted variables (SMC = 0.30). Based on the research model, it is hypothesized that the EnAE, EnAD, SN, and PBC variables have casual effects on the personal norm (PN) indigenous variable. The results showed that three variables—PBCβ = 0.31, SN β = 0.14 and EnADγ = 0.39—have direct effect on PN, and the EnAE, EnAD and SN variables have indirect causal effect on PN. In total, the casual effects of variables affecting the PN could explain 40% of its variance (Table 4). As can be observed, the EnAD variable had the strongest causal effect on the AGWU’s personal norm (PBC β = 0.31, SN β = 0.26, EnAEγ = 0.10, EnADγ = 0.52 → PNSMC = 0.40). The causal effect of CEB, including EnAE and EnAD as well as the variable of Klockner’s comprehensive model including PBC, SN and PN, on the intention toward the groundwater sustainable behavior (INT) variable was investigated. The results indicate that SN, PN and EnAE variables had significant direct effect on INT. The results of the indirect causal effect of variables on INT contained important points (Table 4). First, although EnAD has no direct causal effect on INT, its indirect causal effect (γ = 0.28) is stronger than the direct causal effect of EnAE as a component of CEB theory with path coefficient 0.13. Second, the indirect effect of PBC (βIndirect = 0.10) is small, but it was far stronger than its negative direct effect (βDirect = −0.04). Thirdly, as shown in Table 4, with regard to the total direct and indirect effects, SN with path coefficient 0.46 had the strongest causal effect on the AGWU’s intention toward groundwater sustainable behavior. To summarize, research variables can explain 35% of variance for this mediating variable (SMC = 0.35). Based on research, the variable Bgroundwater sustainable behavior^ was a dependent variable and it was supposed that all variables have a direct causal effect on this variable. Statistical analysis of the structural model showed that the components of CEB theory—including EnAD and EnAE and two mediating variables of the NAM and TPB model,

Table 2

Correlation coefficients between the variables of the model. See Table 1 for definitions

Variable

No. of items

Likert scale range

Cronbach’s alpha

Mean

SD

BEH

INT

PN

PBC

SN

BEH INT PN PBC SN

19 4 5 4 4

1–3 1–6 1–6 1–6 1–6

0.74 0.79 0.76 0.62 0.60

44.72 18.61 25.97 19.72 20.20

5.02 3.98 2.91 2.93 2.99

1 0.48** 0.46** 0.37** 0.35**

1 0.47** 0.32** 0.50**

1 0.47** 0.40**

1 0.45**

1

2.30

**

**

**

**

EnAD EnAE

5 4

SD standard deviation **p < 0.01

1–6 1–6

0.61 0.63

25.19 12.55

3.84

0.53

**

0.20

0.30 0.19**

0.51 0.18**

0.27 0.31**

0.32** 0.05

EnAD

EnAE

1 0.01

1

Hydrogeol J Table 3

Fitness values for the study model

Goodness-of-fit index

χ2/df

Criteriaa Results for this study

1
>0.05

≤0.9

≤0.9

≤0.9

≤0.9

≤0.9

≤0.9

x < 0.08

1.759

0.118

0.992

0.952

0.985

0.972

0.993

0.993

0.051

p-value

GFI

AGFI

NFI

NNFI

CFI

IFI

RMSEA

χ2 /df chi-squared test/degrees of freedom, GFI goodness-of-fit index, AGFI adjusted goodness-of-fit index, NFI norm fit index, NNFI non-norm fit index, CFI comparative fit index, IFI incremental fit index, RMSEA root mean square error of approximation a

Jöreskog and Sörbom 1983; Jöreskog et al. 2001; Gefen et al. 2000

i.e. personal norm and intention—have direct causal effect on the AGWU’s groundwater sustainable behavior. As results had shown, the direct effects of the CEB component (i.e. EnADγ = 0.40, p<0.01 and EnAEγ = 0.14, p < 0.01) are stronger than the direct effects of the mediating variables, i.e. intention and personal norm (INTβ = 0.29, p < 0.01, PNβ = 0.10, p > 0.05). As can be seen in Table 3, indirect path coefficients varied from 0.05 to 0.16 and the variable of social norm (SN) has the strongest indirect causal effect on the groundwater sustainable behavior. In general, the total direct and indirect impacts of affecting variables on AGWU’s groundwater sustainable behavior ranges from 0.05 to 0.53 and these variables can predict 41% variation in groundwater sustainable behavior (SMC = 0.41). However, the greatest causal effects are related to the variables of EnAD and behavioral intentions with path coefficients 0.53 and 0.29, respectively. According to the results, the fitted model could explain 41% of the variance in AGWU’s groundwater sustainable behavior. This finding is significant due to multidimensionality of behavior and the hydrogeological, cultural, climatic, and agricultural differences and conditions of taking groundwater from aquifers located in the study areas. In fact, it is comparable to the results of the pro-environmental behavioral and attitudinal modeling and agricultural water studies conducted by Corral-Verdugo et al. (2008) and Rezaei-Moghaddam and Salehi (2010). The results showed that the variable EnAD is the most affecting factor in determining AGWU’s groundwater sustainable Table 4 Variable

Path coefficients of the variables affecting endogenous variables of the model. See Fig. 3 Path coefficients Direct effect

EnAE EnAD SN PBC PN INT SMC (R2)

behaviors. Thus, it can be inferred that the farmers in Fars province believe that the conditions of groundwater aquifers, imposed as the result of AGWU’s behaviors, bear irreversible changes and they would not be recovered. In other words, this conclusion reflects the AGWU’s desperate attitude or worldview on groundwater as an unrecoverable resource. As far as the model is concerned, it can be observed that EnAD compared to the EnAE variable, in addition to the dependent variable behavior, directly and indirectly and with more intensity, affects the antecedent variables affecting behavior, including intention, personal norms, social norms and PBC, and, in all cases, their path coefficients are stronger and more meaningful. This result is consistent with results obtained by Price et al. (2014), stating that people with higher EnAD and lower EnAE show higher levels of pro-environmental behaviors. At the same time, the interaction between ductility bias and EnAE emphasizes the importance of both aspects. Furthermore, as far as the definitions of EnAD and EnAE are concerned, it can be concluded that, based on the farmers’ perspective, in the case of continuity of groundwater changes caused by the farmers’ activities, the resources would not return to their initial conditions and the subsequent treatment activities (such as artificial recharging projects, implementing balancing projects, controlled harvesting and not taking water from the aquifer, limiting agriculture, changes in cropping pattern) also would not be helpful. In other words, farmers have realized the risk of the groundwater resources status, and it is important that some measures are taken in this regard.

Indirect effect

Total effect

SN

PBC

PN

INT

BEH

SN

PBC

PN

INT

BEH

SN

PBC

PN

INT

BEH

0.05 0.32** -

0.29** 0.14** 0.38** -

0 0.39** 0.14** 0.31** -

0.13* 0 0.39** −0.04 0.31** -

0.14** 0.40** 0 0 0.10 0.29** -

-

0.02 0.12 0 -

0.10 0.13 0.12 0 -

0.04 0.28 0.07 0.10 0 -

0.06 0.13 0.16 0.05 0.09 0 -

0.05 0.32 0.11

0.31 0.26 0.38 0.30

0.10 0.52 0.26 0.31 0.40

0.17 0.28 0.46 0.06 0.31 0.35

0.20 0.53 0.16 0.05 0.19 0.29 0.41

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01

Hydrogeol J

Fig. 3 Structural equation modeling (SEM)’s path analysis of the research model. * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01

On the other hand, based on TPB (Ajzen 1991), the variable of intention (INT) has the same role as the variable personal norm in NAM (Schwartz 1977) and it is mediating the relationship between other variables and the dependent variable behavior. It is also evident that SN and PBC are structures of their mutual contingency. Analysis of the views and interpretations about these two theories represent TPB as a rational model and NAM as a theory based on moral and altruistic behaviors (Lindenberg and an Steg 2007; Abrahamse and Steg 2009; Onwezen et al. 2013). In this study, the results were: (1) due to the significant path coefficients for the variables of intention and personal norm with groundwater sustainable behavior, AGWU’s groundwater sustainable behavior is driven by their behavioral intentions rather than their personal norms; (2) AGWU’s behavioral intentions are directly affected by normative variables (i.e. SN and PN); (3) AGWU’s behavioral model follows the TPB not the NAM (therefore, the research fitted behavioral model is a comprehensive model, which is consistent with studies employing composite NAM and TPB as a theoretical framework, and the variable personal norm explains more of the variance for the variable of intention and, consequently, the behavior variable; see Harland et al. 1999; Onwezen et al. 2013; Ajuhari et al. 2016; Klöckner 2013); and (4) the direct effect of SN on INT (in contrast to PBC) is related to the significant direct effect of EnAD on SN. The results of this study in terms of effectiveness of two constructs of CEB theory on intention and groundwater sustainable behavior are in line with the results obtained by Price et al. (2014) with an exception that the effects of EnAE on intention of groundwater sustainable behavior is not diminished; however, similar to the Price et al. (2014) study, the

EnAE effect is weaker than the effect of the EnAD variable. Lack of direct causal effect of PBC and PN from the NAM on groundwater sustainable behavior is in line with the findings of Abrahamse and Steg (2009). Furthermore, in this study, the direct effect of PN from NAM on INT from TPB is consistent with the findings of the study conducted by Harland et al. (1999) and Klöckner (2013) and inconsistent with Heath and Gifford (2002). The study’s fitted model was in line with an integrated approach, considering behavior as a combination of prosocial and pro-self-motivations (Bamberg and Möser 2007; Stern 2000), and supports the dominant theoretical frameworks to study environmental behavior (groundwater sustainability behavior); therefore, state agricultural development and training organization and private counseling services should pay attention to social-psychological factors of AGWU to whom they are serving. Identifying AGWU’s worldview, norms and attitudes are necessary to improve quantitative and qualitative conditions of groundwater resources on the one hand, and fitting and improving services to the target group on the other hand. In other words, taking into consideration the psychological problems of groundwater sustainability can be effective in the admissions process of compensative and modifying groundwater programs, or even preventative groundwater programs. The results also show the importance of considering social and psychological characteristics in providing extension services to AGWU. Therefore, it is suggested that in addition to technical and underlying factors being effective in designing groundwater-related mediations, AGWU’s psychological and social non-technical factors also should be in these treatments by agricultural water stakeholders, including the Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of

Hydrogeol J

Agriculture. Since the agriculture sector is under pressure due to various environmental problems such as soil erosion, soil and water contamination, high usage of surface-water and groundwater resources with high yield and low productivity, aquifer depletion, practical and excessive chemical inputs at farm level, unsustainability of resources and so on, agriculture extension intervention programs on groundwater sustainability must have an appropriate response to exogenous social pressures and environmentalists; hence, focus should be on changing the AGWU’s values, beliefs and motivations as farm managers toward conventional farming. In drought conditions, water scarcity, especially surfacewater shortages for agriculture, will be a major problem and will generally provoke water conflict among water users, as Bijani and Hayati (2015) mentioned; water scarcity also causes AGWU to compensate water requirements by also using groundwater resources. In the event of continued drought, groundwater vulnerability increases due to overdraft and aquifer depletion; thus, it is necessary to educate the farmers regarding the consequences. In addition to contributing to understanding the factors influencing the sustainability of groundwater in agriculture, there is a possibility to design social-psychological theoretical concepts and research opportunities in the field of groundwater sustainability. Foster et al. (2004) mentioned that the hydrogeological and psychological diagnosis of groundwater resource issues, and that the identified strategies to improve groundwater resource sustainability and hydrogeological conditions, community participation and the status of groundwater usage, are both important in evolving strategies on Bdemandside^ groundwater management (Kulkarni et al. 2004). With regard to varying degrees of groundwater vulnerability caused by agricultural activities, as well as varying hydrogeological, climate, social, cultural, and environmental conditions, in each groundwater study area, there should be a requirement to design and run a hydrogeological-psychological model. As mentioned before, in environmental psychology, the impact of human behavior and behavioral characteristics such as values, beliefs, norms, and attitudes on the environment are studied. Therefore, efforts made to change the attitudes and behavior of individuals often rely on information provided, and feedback is one of the information gathering techniques often being used in psychological research. Feedback management involves preparing individuals with information about their current behavior. Another information-gathering technique is to provide appropriate information on an individuals’ personal needs (Lokhorst et al. 2010). Therefore, based on the findings of this study, it is recommended that state water stakeholders, including the Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of Agriculture in Iran, pay special attention to holding training programs (individual, group, collective and indirect training) in accordance with the AGWU’s age, level of education and literacy.

Conclusions The findings of this study suggest that AGWU’s groundwater sustainable behavior is predicted by their cultural environmental bias as an environmental worldview, and backgrounds and changes in pro-groundwater behavior are driven by the AGWU’s individual cultural environmental bias. The findings suggest that those higher in Benvironment as ductile^ bias than Benvironment as elastic^ bias demonstrate the farmers’ belief that their collective behavior, in order to affect progroundwater behavior, is more important than their individual behaviors. The AGWU’s worldview and norms are important in making decisions for agricultural groundwater sustainability intention and behavior. Norms variables such as personal and social norms, are the most important direct predictors of the AGWU’s agricultural groundwater sustainability intention. In order to achieve agricultural groundwater sustainability, it is necessary that scientific disciplines like hydrogeology and psycho-sociology be considered together in a comprehensive approach for every groundwater study. Acknowledgements We acknowledge Dr. Kurosh Rezaei-Moghaddam for commenting and the contributions of the reviewers and editors too.

References Abbasian AR, Chizari M, Bijani M (2017) Farmers’ views on the factors inhibiting the implementation of soil conservation practices [The case of Koohdasht Township, Iran]. J Agric Sci Technol (JAST) 19(4):797–807 Abrahamse W, Steg L (2009) How do socio-demographic and psychological factors relate to households’ direct and indirect energy use and savings? J Econ Psychol 30:711–720. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.joep.2009.05.006 Ajuhari Z, Isa S, Aziz A (2016) Promoting Pro-environmental Behavior in Ecotourism Destination. Regional Conference on Science, Technology and Social Sciences (RCSTSS 2014), pp.1023–1039. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1458-1_92 Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91) 90020-T Ajzen I (2005) Attitudes, personality, and behavior (2nd. Edition). Milton-Keynes, England: Open University Press/McGraw- Hill Alessa L, Kliskey A, Lammers R, Arp C, White D, Hinzman L, Busey B (2008) The arctic water resources vulnerability index: an integrated assessment tool for community resilience and vulnerability with respect to freshwater. Environ Manag 42:523–541. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s00267-008-9152-0 Bagozzi RP, Yi Y (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. J Acad Market Sci 16(1):74–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ BF02723327 Bamberg S, Möser G (2007) Twenty years after Hines Hungerford and Tomera: a new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of proenvironmental behaviour. J Environ Psychol 27:14–25. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002 Beardsley T (1993) Never give a sucker an even break. Sci Am 269:22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1093-22

Hydrogeol J Bell PA, Greene TC, Fisher JD, Baum A (2001) Environmental psychology, 5th edn. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA Best H (2010) Environmental concern and the adoption of organic agriculture. Soc Nat Resour 23:451–468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 08941920802178206 Bijani M, Hayati D (2015) Farmers’ perceptions toward agricultural water conflict: the case of Doroodzan Dam Irrigation Network Iran. J Agric Sci Technol (JAST) 17(3):561–575 Bijani M, Ghazani E, Valizadeh N, Fallah Haghighi N (2017) Proenvironmental analysis of farmers’ concerns and behaviors towards soil conservation in Central District of Sari County, Iran. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 5(1):43–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr. 2017.03.001 Brown LR, Flavin C (1999) A new economy for a new century. In: Starke L (ed) State of the world, a Worldwatch Institute report on progress toward a sustainable society. Norton, New York Carlson JE, Schnabel B, Beus CE, Dillman DA (1994) Changes in the soil conservation attitudes and behaviours of farmers in the Palouse and Camas prairies: 1976–1990. J Soil Water Conserv 49:493–500 Chaminé HI (2015) Water resources meet sustainability: new trends in environmental hydrogeology and groundwater engineering. Environ Earth Sci 73(6):2513–2520 Clayton S, Myers G (2015) Conservation psychology: understanding and promoting human care for nature, 2nd edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK Corral-Verdugo V (2010) The psychological dimensions of sustainability. In: Valentín J, Gamez L (eds) Environmental psychology: new developments. Nova, New York, pp 63–89 Corral-Verdugo V, Carrus G, Bonnes M, Moser G, JBP S (2008) Environmental beliefs and endorsement of sustainable development principals in water conservation: toward a new human interdependence paradigm scale. Environ Behav 40(5):703–725. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/0013916507308786 Custodio E (2002) Overexploitation, what does it mean? Hydrogeol J 10(2):254–277 Daly HE (1990) Toward some operational principles of sustainable development. Ecol Econ 2:1–6 Douglas M (1978) Cultural bias (occasional paper no. 35). Royal Anthropological Institute, London Douglas M, Wildavsky A (1982) Risk and culture: an essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA FAO (2015) FAO statistical yearbook. FAO, Rome Fleming A, Vanclay F (2010) Farmer responses to climate change and sustainable agriculture: a review. Agr Sustain Dev 30:11–19. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1051/agro/2009028 Foster S, Garduno H, Evans R, Olson D, Tian Y, Zhang W, Han Z (2004) Quaternary Aquifer of the North China Plain: assessing and achieving groundwater resource sustainability. Hydrogeol J 12:81–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10040-003-0300-6 Gefen D, Straub DW, Boudreau M (2000) Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Commun Assoc Info Syst 4(7):1–78 Gifford R (2014) Environmental psychology matters. Annu Rev Psychol 65:541–579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213115048 Gifford R, Kormos C, McIntyre A (2011) Behavioral dimensions of climate change: drivers responses barriers and interventions. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 2(6):801–827. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1002/wcc.143 Gleeson T, Alley WM, Allen DM, Sophocleous MA, Zhou Y, Taniguchi M, VanderSteen J (2012) Towards sustainable groundwater use: setting long-term goals back casting and managing adaptively. Ground Water 50(1):19–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584. 2011.00825.x

Grendstad G, Selle P (1997) Cultural theory postmaterialism and environmental attitudes. In: Ellis RJ, Thompson M (eds) Culture matters: essays in honor of Aaron Wildavsky. Westview, Boulder, CO, pp 151–168 Harland P, Staats H, Wilke HAM (1999) Explaining pro-environmental intention and behavior by personal norms and the TPB. J Appl Soc Psychol 29:505–528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999. tb00123.x Heath Y, Gifford R (2002) Extending the TPB: predicting the use of public transportation. J Appl Soc Psychol 32:2154–2189. http://dx. doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02068.x Howley P, Yadav L, Hynes S, Donoghue CO, Neillc SO (2014) Contrasting the attitudes of farmers and the general public regarding the ‘multifunctional’ role of the agricultural sector. Land Use Policy 38:248–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.11.020 Ives CD, Kendal D (2014) The role of social values in the management of ecological systems. J Environ Manag 144:67–72. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.05.013 Jones RE, Dunlap R (1992) The social bases of environmental concern: have they changed over time? Rural Sociol 57:28–47. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.1992.tb00455.x Jöreskog K, Sörbom D (1983) LISREL: analysis of linear structural relations by the method of maximum likelihood, 2nd edn. National Educational Resources, Chicago Jöreskog K, Sörbom D, Du Toit S, Du Toit M (2001) LISREL 8: new statistical features. Scientific Software, Lincolnwood, IL Klöckner CA (2013) A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behavior: a meta-analysis. Glob Environ Chang 23:1028– 1038. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.014 Kulkarni H, Vijay-Shankar PS, Deolankar SB, Shah M (2004) Groundwater demand management at local scale in rural areas of India: a strategy to ensure water well sustainability based on aquifer diffusivity and community participation. Hydrogeol J 12:184–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10040-004-0320-x Lindenberg S, Steg L (2007) Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. J Soc Issues 63:117–137. http://dx. doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00499.x Lokhorst AM, Van Dijk J, Staats H, Van Dijk E, De Snoo G (2010) Using tailored information and public commitment to improve the environmental quality of farm lands: an example from the Netherlands. Hum Ecol 38:113–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10745-0099282-x Ministry of Energy (2012) Iran’s groundwater resources at the end of 2010–2011 water year. Ministry of Energy, Tehran Napier TL, Brown DE (1993) Factors affecting acceptance and continued usage of soil conservation practices in developing societies: a diffusion perspective. Agric Ecosys Environ 36:127–140. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/0167-8809(91)90010-U Narasimhan TN (2009) Groundwater: from mystery to management. Environ Res Lett 4(3):1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ 4/3/03500 Onwezen MC, Antonides G, Bartels J (2013) The norm activation model: an exploration of the functions of anticipated pride and guilt in proenvironmental behaviour. J Econ Psychol 39:141–153. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.joep.2013.07.005 Price JC, Leviston Z (2014) Predicting pro-environmental agricultural practices: the social psychological and contextual influences on land management. J Rural Stud 34:65–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jrurstud.2013.10.001 Price JC, Walker IA, Boschetti F (2014) Measuring cultural values and beliefs about environment to identify their role in climate change responses. J Environ Psychol 37:8–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvp.2013.10.001 Quinn C, Burbach ME (2008) Personal characteristics preceding proenvironmental behaviours that improve surface water quality. Great Plains Res 18:103–114

Hydrogeol J Rezaei-Moghaddam K, Salehi S (2010) Agricultural specialists’ intention toward precision agriculture technologies: integrating innovation characteristics to technology acceptance model. Afr J Agric Res 5(11):1191–1199. http://dx.doi.org/10.5897/AJAR09.506 Salehi S (2016) An environmental psychology analysis of influential actors regarding groundwater resources sustainability in Fars Province. PhD Thesis, Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran, Iran Salehi S, Rezaei-Moghaddam K (2009) Comparing the feasibility of using structural equation to using variable rate irrigation technology in Fars and Khuzestan provinces. J Econ Agric Dev 23(2):21–35 Sanderson MR, Curtis AL (2016) Culture climate change and farm-level groundwater management: an Australian case study. J Hydrol 536: 284–292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.02.032 Schwartz SH (1977) Normative influences on altruism. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic, New York, pp 221–279 Schwartz SH, Howard JA (1981) A normative decision making model of altruism. In: Ruston JP, Sorrentino RM (Eds.) Altruism and helping behavior. Social, personality, and developmental perspectives. Hillsdale, Lawrence Erlbaum, pp 189–211 Schwartz SH (1992) Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in experimental social psychology 25:1–65 Scott BA, Amel EL, Koger SM, Manning CM (2015) Psychology for sustainability, 4th edn. Routledge, New York Shiri S, Bijani M, Chaharsoughi Amin H, Noori H. Soleymanifard A (2011) Effectiveness evaluation of the axial plan of wheat from expert supervisors’ view in Ilam Province. World Appl Sci J 14 (11):1724–1729 Siebert S, Burke J, Faures JM, Frenken K, Hoogeveen J, Doll P, Portmann FT (2010) Groundwater use for irrigation: a global inventory. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci J 14:63–1880. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/ hess-14-1863-2010 Steg L, Sievers NV (2000) Cultural theory and individual perceptions of environmental risks. Environ Behav 32(2):250–269. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/00139160021972513

Steg L, Vlek C (2009) Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J Environ Psychol 29: 309–317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004 Stern PC (2000) New environmental theories: towards a coherent theory of environmentally significant behaviour. J Soc Issues 50(3):65–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175 Sulemana I, James Jr HS (2014) Farmer identity ethical attitudes and environmental practices. Ecol Econ 98:49–61. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.ecolecon.2013.12.011 Tansey J, O’riordan T (1999) Cultural theory and risk: a review. Health Risk Soc 1(1):71–90 Thompson M, Ellis R, Wildavsky A (1990) Cultural theory. Westview, Boulder, CO UN-WCED (United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987) Our common future. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (document A/42/ 427), Bruntland Commission, vol 4. Oxford University Press, New York Vlek C, Steg L (2007) Human behavior and environmental sustainability: problems driving forces and research topics. J Soc Issues 63(1):1– 19. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00493.x Wildavsky A, Dake K (1990) Theories of risk perception: who fears what and why? Deadalus 119(4):41–60 Wutich A, Brewis A, Sigurdsson S, Stotts R, York AM (2013) Fairness and the human right to water: a preliminary cross-cultural theory. In: Wagner JR (ed) The social life of water. Berghahn, New York, pp 220–238 Yazdanpanah M, Hayati D, Zamani G (2012) Application of cultural theory in analysis of attitudes and activities toward water resource conservation: the case of agricultural Jehad-E-Keshavarzi staffs in Bushehr Province. Iran Agric Exten Educ J 7(2):1–18 Zektser IS, Everett LG (2006) Ground water resources of the world and their use. National Ground Water Association, Westerville, OH