Access to this full-text is provided by Frontiers.
Content available from Frontiers in Psychology
This content is subject to copyright.
Frontiers in Psychology 01 frontiersin.org
The role of information and
participation in overcoming users’
initial reluctance: a case study of
a decentralized wastewater
treatment plant
SergioVila-Tojo , CristinaGómez-Román * and
Jose-ManuelSabucedo
CRETUS, Department of Social Psychology, Basic Psychology and Methodology, Faculty of
Psychology, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
Decentralized wastewater treatment systems are a potential solution to the water
crisis. However, in addition to advanced technology, successful implementation of
these systems requires broad public willingness to use them. This paper presents
the results of a three-phase psychosocial intervention with the users of a business
building where a decentralized wastewater treatment plant was installed. The
intervention, motivated by complaints from users due to their lack of knowledge
about the existence of the plant, aimed at understanding and improving users’
perceptions of the building’s decentralized system. In the first phase, weconducted
a focus group with a sample of workers (n = 6) to understand their knowledge and
perception of the building’s decentralized wastewater treatment system. Once
the main obstacles and facilitators were identified, wedesigned a second phase
where a group of employees (n = 46) were exposed to environmental priming to
improve attitudes toward the decentralized plant installed in the building. Finally,
in the third phase, a bidirectional informative session was proposed, conducted by
experts, to another group of workers (n = 25). Findings suggest that implementing
specific psychosocial strategies, such as promoting environmental awareness and
providing informative sessions, along with incorporating potential users throughout
the process, contributes to better acceptance of the decentralized wastewater
treatment plant. This work presents a real case in a pilot plant that can serve as
a guide for addressing psychosocial resistance in similar projects.
KEYWORDS
acceptance, decentralized wastewater treatment systems, psychosocial intervention,
social perception, attitudes, priming
1 Introduction
The installation of decentralized plants is proposed as a solution to the problem of
water scarcity and water quality worldwide (Lens etal., 2005; Roefs etal., 2017). This
type of system follows a circular economy principle for water reuse. It starts separating
wastewater from the source, which allows the application of specific treatments that
purify the water. Subsequently, the resulting water is reused for non-potable and potable
purposes, depending on the treatment administered. However, despite the advantages
and guarantees of this type of systems, people can bereluctant to use it, especially if they
perceived any inconveniences in its installation or functioning (Brouwer etal., 2015; Ellis
etal., 2021).
OPEN ACCESS
EDITED BY
Giuseppe Carrus,
Roma Tre University, Italy
REVIEWED BY
Sara Manca,
Università di Cagliari, Italy
Lorenza Tiberio,
Roma Tre University, Italy
*CORRESPONDENCE
Cristina Gómez-Román
cristina.gomez@usc.es
RECEIVED 07 June 2024
ACCEPTED 22 October 2024
PUBLISHED 05 November 2024
CITATION
Vila-Tojo S, Gómez-Román C and Sabucedo
J-M (2024) The role of information and
participation in overcoming users’ initial
reluctance: a case study of a decentralized
wastewater treatment plant.
Front. Psychol. 15:1445320.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1445320
COPYRIGHT
© 2024 Vila-Tojo, Gómez-Román and
Sabucedo. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The
use, distribution or reproduction in other
forums is permitted, provided the original
author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are
credited and that the original publication in
this journal is cited, in accordance with
accepted academic practice. No use,
distribution or reproduction is permitted
which does not comply with these terms.
TYPE Original Research
PUBLISHED 05 November 2024
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1445320
Vila-Tojo et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1445320
Frontiers in Psychology 02 frontiersin.org
An example of this is the Porto do Molle Business Center in
Nigrán, Galicia, Spain (case study), which accommodates 200–300
employees in coworking spaces for start-up companies. is building
was, at that time, one of the few in Spain to operate with a decentralized
system and, therefore, not rely on an external wastewater treatment
plant for wastewater treatment. e building’s decentralized plant
separates grey water from black water, which makes it possible, on the
one hand, to reuse the water from the sinks for ushing the toilets. On
the other hand, through anaerobic treatment of the sewage, two
by-products are obtained: (a) nutrients for fertilizer production
(Bisschops etal., 2019) and (b) biogas as an energy source (Hao
etal., 2019).
Despite its innovative design and sustainable contribution to the
building, most workers, especially new hires, were unaware of its
existence. ese workers became aware of the decentralized system
following a technical problem that resulted in the emission of
unpleasant odors. Although the problem did not compromise health,
it caused signicant discomfort among the workers who expressed
concerns about the decentralized plant. ose negative perceptions
toward the plant would have been caused by the high uncertainty
associated with the lack of understanding of the technology. In this
context, epistemic demand is activated, that is the need to seek
information to resolve uncertainty (Sabucedo etal., 2020).
In order to reduce the uncertainty associated with the incident,
we propose an intervention based on three theoretical axes: (a)
knowledge, (b) trust and (c) participation. Following the foundations
of the knowledge decit model, providing information with the aim
of increasing knowledge about the decentralized plant can contribute
to reduce uncertainty and increasing positive attitudes (Bauer etal.,
2007; Gustafson and Rice, 2016). However, considering that
discomfort about the plant installation had already been expressed,
simply increasing knowledge might not besucient (Schultz, 2002).
In this sense, it is necessary to consider who and how the information
is presented. e selection of trustworthy agents for the audience and
the way in which the information is framed is a fundamental aspect
for the message to be persuasive (Meyer, 1988). Moreover, it is
necessary to actively involve workers (Wibeck, 2014) by facilitating a
space that would allow them to openly express their concerns and
generate a trust environment for greater permeability of the
information provided.
On this basis, the intervention consisted of three sequential
phases. In the rst phase, a focus group explored workers’ knowledge
and perceptions about the building’s decentralized wastewater
treatment system. Based on the results of this initial approach, a
second phase was carried out with another group of workers, who
participated in an experiment using environmental priming to
improve attitudes toward the decentralized treatment system installed
in the building. Finally, weevaluated how a bidirectional informative
session led by experts aected users’ perceptions of the
decentralized plant.
2 Phase 1. Approaching workers’
perceptions of the plant
e decentralized plant at the business center is not the only case
facing public resistance. In other jurisdictions, reuse projects have
even failed due to this social rejection (Hurlimann and Dolnicar, 2010;
Brouwer et al., 2015). For this reason, the starting point of the
intervention in this building was to explore the extent to which
psychosocial facilitators and barriers identied in other contexts were
also present in this specic context (Gómez-Román etal., 2020;
Hurlimann and Dolnicar, 2010; Mankad and Tapsuwan, 2011).
An unpleasant appearance or smell in the building, as in this case,
can inuence the formation of health risk perceptions (Etale etal.,
2020; Fielding etal., 2018) and trigger negative emotional reactions
related to fear or disgust that hinder acceptance, such as the well-
known “yuck factor” (Po etal., 2003). is may lead people to reject
decentralized plants if they perceive the system or the quality of the
treated water as threatening their safety or that of their families
(Fielding etal., 2018).
Beyond this relevant issue, other psychosocial factors can lead
people to position themselves in favor or against these decentralized
plants. Not being aware of a water scarcity problem may result in the
perception that the decentralized plant is unnecessary, and thus
reduce the level of acceptance (Fielding etal., 2018). Even recognizing
the problem and the appropriateness of the plant to tackle it, people
also consider other costs and benets associated with decentralized
plants before accepting it. e perception of high installation and
maintenance costs could lead to low acceptance (Mankad, 2012);
whereas the perception of high environmental and economic benets
would increase acceptance (Domènech and Saurí, 2010; Koetse, 2005).
It should benoted that the formation of perceptions and emotions
is largely grounded in our social exchanges (Jaspal and Breakwell,
2014). When the proposal to reuse water comes from an in-group
member, acceptance increases as there is greater credibility and trust
between the actors (Ross etal., 2014; Schultz and Fielding, 2014).
Moreover, if their use is perceived as a common practice (descriptive
social norm) and approved (injuctive norm) by society, individuals are
more likely to be inclined to adopt and endorse these systems
(Lamichhane and Babcock, 2013; Liu etal., 2022).
In summary, dierent factors have been identied as inuencing
the acceptance of decentralized wastewater treatment systems. To nd
out whether these barriers and facilitating factors are also present in
the building users, wedesigned a focus group with several workers to
nd out their reactions to the installed plant in the building.
2.1 Materials and methods
2.1.1 Participants and procedure
e focus group included six building workers with dierent
proles: management, building, maintenance and housekeeping,
cleaning, and building user companies. e group was composed of
three men and three women, with ages ranging from 25 to 60 years.
is variability allows us to obtain dierent perspectives and identify
overlaps between the dierent proles, which is valuable evidence
contributing to the results’ validity (Bowen, 2008; Watts etal., 2017).
Our decision to limit the focus group to a maximum of six
participants was guided by the recommendations of Krueger and
Casey (1994) and Morgan (1997). is approach was chosen to
maintain the quality of the discussion, as larger groups can lead to
increased moderator intervention and participant inhibition, thereby
compromising the richness of the data.
e focus group was conducted in a room within the building.
Participants were invited to take part in a study focusing on the
Vila-Tojo et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1445320
Frontiers in Psychology 03 frontiersin.org
business center. Prior to starting, they were provided with a clear
understanding of the study’s objective, privacy policy, and data
protection measures. To ensure their full understanding and
agreement, participants were asked to sign an informed consent form,
thereby conrming their voluntary participation in the study.
An expert moderator facilitated the focus group session, which
lasted approximately an hour and a half. e session followed a
standardized script to gather accurate information (see
Supplementary material). To start the conversation, the moderator
began by asking about environmental concerns in the area. en,
questions were asked about participants’ knowledge of the water
problem in the region and the building’s decentralized wastewater
treatment technology. Participants were then asked to identify the
potential advantages and disadvantages they believed could result
from implementing this system and to evaluate their satisfaction with
the decentralized wastewater treatment plant installed in the building.
2.1.2 Data analysis
is work constitutes primary qualitative research, for which a
thematic analysis approach was adopted (omas and Harden, 2008;
Cruzes and Dyba, 2011) to identify, analyze, and report patterns
(themes) in the data, coded segment by segment (Cruzes and Dyba,
2011). is means that each part of the text is individually examined
to identify signicant elements, which are then assigned codes that
allow for systematic categorization and organization of the
information. rough this coding process, it is possible to detect
relevant patterns and themes throughout the discussion (Cruzes and
Dyba, 2011). e thematic analysis of the focus group was conducted
using Atlas.ti 9 soware. e data analysis method is broken down
into three phases: (1) coding, (2) enhancing coding reliability, and (3)
synthesis. e process of each phase is detailed in
Supplementary material.
2.2 Results and discussion of phase 1
Participants expressed psychosocial barriers similar to those
observed in other contexts of acceptance of decentralized wastewater
treatment systems (Mankad, 2012; Singh etal., 2014; Simha and
Ganesapillai, 2017). Specically, the qualitative analysis of the data
resulted in the proposal of three central categories: (a) knowledge, (b)
advantages, and (c) disadvantages (see Figure1).
e “knowledge” category highlights two points of interest. On
one hand, users do not consider there to bea water quantity or quality
problem in the area. e lack of perception of a water problem that
requires a solution leads users to view changing existing systems as
unnecessary, resulting in greater resistance to decentralized plants
(Gómez-Román etal., 2020; Nancarrow etal., 2010). On the other
hand, participants referred to know the existence of the technology
used in the decentralized plant of the building. However, since the
plant became known due to the initial technical incident mentioned
earlier, awareness of its existence could berelated to high uncertainty
(Yates and Stone, 1992).
Users articulated more disadvantages than advantages regarding
the decentralized plant, revealing their discomfort with the technology,
similar to what was found in other projects (Domènech and Saurí,
2010). ey voiced concerns about the maintenance demands of the
plant (Mankad, 2012; Mankad etal., 2010); but the primary drawback
was the odors (Haddad etal., 2018), one of the consequences of the
technical incident in the building’s plant. e emotional reaction of
disgust associated with odors functions as a protective mechanism,
prompting individuals to oppose the stimulus that is perceived as a
pollutant, thereby increasing the rejection of the plant (Rozin
etal., 2015).
e focus group also highlighted “social disadvantages.”
Participants emphasized the general population’s (and building users)
lack of preparation to undertake the necessary changes to implement
these new technological systems (Moglia et al., 2011; Rygaard
etal., 2014).
Despite the verbalized disadvantages, users also pointed out
arguments in favor of the decentralized plant, mainly highlighting its
added value compared to centralized plants: reduced operating costs
and simplicity of system implementation (Ho and Anda, 2006). ey
also acknowledged the positive environmental impact the system can
have. is suggests that the pro-environmental message has permeated
the moral schemas of the population (Lewis etal., 2019; Poortinga
etal., 2019). Despite the perceived environmental advantages, users
indicated that social agreements are necessary before implementing
decentralized systems. In this sense, they consider it crucial to
emphasize the environmental contribution of the plant so that users
feel part of the solution and express greater social support for the
decentralized system (Gómez-Román et al., 2020; Mankad
etal., 2010).
Given the existence of negative perceptions among users, partly
attributable to the uncertainty produced by how they learned about
the system (technical incident), Phase 2 proposes an intervention in
which information is provided to improve attitudes toward the
decentralized plant.
3 Phase 2. Priming environmental
concern to improve acceptance
Providing specic information about the technology can help
eliminate doubts and reservations that users may have about the plant.
However, the mere provision of data may be insucient. It is
necessary to consider how that information is presented and
integrated into the “common sense” or pre-existing social frameworks
(Gramsci, 1971).
e results from the focus group indicate that users perceive one
of the plant’s main strengths to beits positive environmental impact.
In this sense, the activation and accessibility of environmental
concerns can positively inuence attitudes, emotions, and behaviors
toward decentralized plants, thereby increasing their acceptance
(Gómez-Román et al., 2021). is accessibility can be achieved
through priming. By exposing users to information about well-known
environmental problems, these concerns become more accessible,
thereby aecting subsequent attitudes and decisions regarding the
decentralized plant (Jonas and Sassenberg, 2006; Custers and Aarts,
2010; Scheufele and Tewksbury, 2007).
Our research not only focuses on activating environmental
concerns through priming but also considers the impact of the
unilaterality/bilaterality of the arguments presented about
decentralized plants. Unilateral arguments highlight the advantages,
while bilateral arguments provide a balanced view by including both
positive and negative aspects of the technology.
Vila-Tojo et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1445320
Frontiers in Psychology 04 frontiersin.org
e evidence on which type of argument—unilateral or bilateral—
is more eective remains inconclusive, as several factors may inuence
its impact (Allen, 1991). Unilateral messages, which present only the
positive aspects of an argument, tend to bemore direct and eective,
especially when the audience is unfamiliar with an issue. In contrast,
bilateral messages (i.e., including advantages and acknowledging
disadvantages) may reinforce the credibility of the source and increase
condence in the veracity of the message, if users already have a
formed opinion on the issue. us, they can appreciate the complexity
and honesty of acknowledging dierent points of view (Petty and
Cacioppo, 1986).
In this regard, the objective of this phase is to understand the
eect of environmental priming and the presentation of unilateral or
bilateral information on the perception of business center workers
regarding the decentralized wastewater treatment system (based on
Gómez-Román et al., 2021). e main hypothesis is that
environmental priming will positively inuence the perception of the
building’s decentralized plant. Additionally, public perception of
decentralized plants is expected to bemore favorable when only the
advantages of these installations are presented. However, weanticipate
a signicant interaction between environmental priming and the type
of information presented about the plants. Specically, in the absence
of environmental priming, public perception will bemore negative
when discussing disadvantages than when only advantages are
presented. Conversely, in the condition with environmental priming,
we expect the perception of decentralized plants to be similar
regardless of whether advantages alone or both advantages and
disadvantages are presented.
3.1 Materials and methods
3.1.1 Participants and design
A total of 46 workers from the Porto de Molle building
participated in this second phase (70.6% men, M
age
= 41.06,
SD = 10.24). e experimental design was a 2 (priming: environmental
priming vs. company piracy) × 2 (information: advantages vs.
advantages and disadvantages).
3.1.2 Procedure
Recruitment was conducted by two researchers who approached
workers in person, going door-to-door throughout the building to
ask for their collaboration in a university-led research study.
Participants were provided with a link to an online questionnaire
on Qualtrics, which they could complete at their convenience on
their own devices. e researchers were not present while the
participants lled out the survey, ensuring privacy during the
process. In the introductory section of the questionnaire,
participants were informed about the condentiality and anonymity
of their responses, and the data protection policy was
clearly outlined.
Participants were required to provide informed consent.
Subsequently, each participant was randomly assigned to one of the
experimental conditions. To prepare them for the procedure,
participants were rst given an example topic along with three
questions to familiarize themselves with the format. is introductory
step served as the initial priming manipulation. It was followed by the
presentation of the informational text, which constituted the other
experimental manipulation. Finally, participants were asked questions
related to the installation of the decentralized plant.
3.1.2.1 Environmental priming vs. company piracy
e environmental priming consisted of two phases to make the
environmental problem accessible. First, the experimental group read
a text about the consequences of climate change (see
Supplementary material). Second, participants had to respond to the
following statements: (a) “I consider these environmental problems to
be…” (from 1 = not serious at all to 9 = very serious), (b) “Addressing
these environmental problems is” (from 1 = not urgent at all to 9 = very
urgent) and (c) “As a citizen, Ishould bemore involved in solving
these environmental problems” (from 1 = totally disagree to
9 = totally agree).
FIGURE1
Qualitative analysis of the focus group at the business center.
Vila-Tojo et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1445320
Frontiers in Psychology 05 frontiersin.org
e control condition consisted of a text about piracy in
companies. is topic was selected because it is neutral with respect
to environmental issues, yet relevant to the business context and
capable of engaging the interest of workers. By choosing a topic that
could generate attention without introducing environmental biases,
weensured that any observed eects could beattributed specically
to the environmental priming, rather than general attitudes or
engagement elicited by an unrelated, random topic. Similarly to
experimental condition participants had to respond to three questions
expressing their opinions on the severity, urgency of the problem, and
citizen involvement.
3.1.2.2 Advantages vs. advantages and disadvantages
Once the priming was introduced, participants were informed
that they would beanswering the research questions. A text about the
wastewater treatment plant installed in the building’s basement was
presented. In the “advantages” condition, only the advantages of the
decentralized plant were provided, while in the “advantages and
disadvantages” condition, both the advantages and disadvantages were
presented (see Supplementary material for complete information).
3.1.2.3 Priming control
At the end of the questionnaire, participants were asked to answer
the following open-ended question: “What do you think is the
objective of this research?” is statement allowed us to identify
whether or not participants were aware of the experimental
manipulation, and if they were, their responses were not included in
the analysis (Bargh, 2006; Furnham, 1986). e review of the
responses to the open-ended question suggests that no participant
identied the manipulation or the study’s objective. Participants
typically mentioned that the study aimed to understand their
perceptions and opinions about the decision to install a plant in the
building or to provide information about the existing water treatment.
ey did not explicitly or implicitly refer to the eect that the rst task
of the questionnaire (priming) might have on the second part of the
study (acceptance of the decentralized plant).
3.1.3 Measures
All the measures were adapted from the study of Gómez-Román
etal. (2021).
3.1.3.1 Attitudes toward decentralized plants
Attitudes were measured using a 9-point semantic dierential
scale consisting of eight items. Participants had to rate to what extent
the installation of the decentralized plant in the building was: (a)
very bad – very good, (b) dislike it very much – like it very much, (c)
very negative – very positive, (d) very unnecessary – very necessary,
(e) very useless – very useful, (f ) very unacceptable – very acceptable,
(g) very inappropriate – very appropriate, (h) very harmful – very
benecial (α = 0.97, ω = 0.97).
3.1.3.2 Strength of attitudes
e measure consisted of three items in which participants were
asked to respond about the opinions they had just given regarding the
installation of the decentralized plant in the building: (a) “How
convinced are youabout your opinions on the decentralized plant?”
(from 1 = not at all convinced to 9 = very convinced), (b) “How
condent are youin your opinions about the decentralized plant?”
(from 1 = no condence to 9 = a lot of condence), and (c) “If in a
conversation someone disagreed with your opinion about the
installation of the decentralized plant, do youthink youwould change
your opinion?” (from 1 = very easily to 9 = very dicultly) (α = 0.91,
ω = 0.91).
3.1.3.3 Emotions
Participants were asked to indicate to what extent the installation
of the plant in the building made them feel (from 1 = nothing to 9 = a
lot): worried, disgusted, angry, fearful, helpless (negative emotions:
α = 0.84, ω = 0.84); and relieved, proud, optimistic, enthusiastic,
comfortable (positive emotions: α = 0.72, ω = 0.68).
3.1.3.4 Behavioral intention
e measure consisted of ve items in which participants were
asked to respond to the following questions: (a) “If youhad to choose
between this decentralized plant in the building or the traditional
centralized system used by the other buildings in Porto de Molle,
would youchoose the decentralized plant installed in the building?”
(from 1 = strongly disagree to 9 = strongly agree), (b) “If youhad been
able to vote for the installation of this decentralized plant in the
building, how would youhave voted?” (from 1 = totally against to
9 = totally in favor), (c) “Would youhave campaigned in favor of the
installation of this decentralized plant in the building?,” (d) “Would
yourecommend installing decentralized plants in other buildings
similar to the business center?,” and (e) “If youhad the necessary
nancial resources, would youinstall a decentralized plant in the
building/house where youlive?.” Items c, d, and e were answered on a
scale from 1 = denitely not to 9 = denitely yes. e internal
consistency indices for the ve items were: α = 0.90, ω = 0.89.
3.2 Results and discussion of phase 2
To evaluate whether environmental priming and information
(unilateral and bilateral) improved workers’ perceptions of the
building’s decentralized plant, weconducted an univariate analysis of
variance for each dependent variable (Levene’s test for homogeneity
was not signicant, as detailed in Supplementary material). Table1
shows the detailed results of the eects of environmental priming,
information, and their interaction. e results show that participants
in the environmental priming condition exhibited more positive
attitudes, greater strength in their attitudes, more positive emotions,
fewer negative emotions, and greater behavioral intention (similar to
Gómez-Román etal., 2021). However, in this study with workers, the
priming eect was signicant only for attitudes (F = 5.89, p = 0.020,
η2 = 0.123).
Regarding the information (unilateral vs. bilateral), participants
who read both the advantages and disadvantages of the plant showed
fewer positive attitudes, less strength in these attitudes, fewer positive
emotions, more negative emotions, and less behavioral intention.
However, the eect was signicant only for the strength of attitudes
(F = 5.73, p = 0.021, η
2
= 0.120). ese ndings contrast with the results
found in hypothetical contexts, where presenting the disadvantages
alongside the advantages results in less acceptance overall (Gómez-
Román etal., 2021). No signicant interaction between environmental
priming and the information provided is found in the case study
context either.
Vila-Tojo et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1445320
Frontiers in Psychology 06 frontiersin.org
In summary, although the observed trends among workers point
to their greater disposition toward the plant when only advantages are
provided in the environmental priming condition, most of the eects
are not signicant. ere are three reasons that may explain these
ndings. First, although the number of participants is considerable
given the total number of workers in the building, it is still a small
sample size. Second, the life stage and characteristics of workers in a
business center are dierent from those samples commonly used in
experimental studies, such as students, that do nd signicant eects
(Gómez-Román etal., 2021). In this sense, and at least in the specic
TABLE1 Univariate analysis: simple eects and interaction of priming and information on acceptance.
Variable Condition Condition level n M SD F p η2
Attitudes Priming Control 23 7.42 1.40 5.89 0.020 0.123
Environmental 23 8.23 0.81
Information Advantages 25 8.03 1.28 1.93 0.172 0.044
Advantages + disadvantages 21 7.59 1.09
Priming X Information Control Advantages 13 7.63 1.61 0.001 0.978 0.001
Advantages + disadvantages 10 7.16 1.10
Environmental Advantages 12 8.46 0.60
Advantages + disadvantages 11 7.98 0.96
Attitudes
strength
Priming Control 23 6.97 1.21 1.38 0.246 0.032
Environmental 23 7.35 1.43
Information Advantages 25 7.56 1.22 5.73 0.021 0.120
Advantages + disadvantages 21 6.68 1.32
Priming × information Control Advantages 13 7.49 1.16 0.595 0.445 0.014
Advantages + disadvantages 10 6.30 0.95
Environmental Advantages 12 7.64 1.32
Advantages + disadvantages 11 7.03 1.55
Negative
emotions
Priming Control 23 3.14 1.50 1.88 0.178 0.043
Environmental 23 2.49 1.62
Information Advantages 25 2.78 1.78 0.038 0.847 0.001
Advantages + disadvantages 21 2.85 1.34
Priming × information Control Advantages 13 3.14 1.75 0.036 0.850 0.001
Advantages + disadvantages 10 3.14 1.18
Environmental Advantages 12 2.40 1.81
Advantages + disadvantages 11 2.58 1.48
Positive
emotions
Priming Control 23 5.71 1.30 3.50 0.068 0.077
Environmental 23 6.35 0.93
Information Advantages 25 6.08 1.27 0.121 0.730 0.003
Advantages + disadvantages 21 5.98 1.05
Priming × information Control Advantages 13 5.77 1.38 0.001 0.977 0.001
Advantages + disadvantages 10 5.64 1.26
Environmental Advantages 12 6.40 1.11
Advantages + disadvantages 11 6.29 0.73
Behavioural
intention
Priming Control 23 7.04 1.75 0.577 0.452 0.014
Environmental 23 7.41 1.35
Information Advantages 25 7.33 1.74 0.278 0.601 0.007
Advantages + disadvantages 21 7.10 1.33
Priming × information Control Advantages 13 7.00 2.12 0.486 0.489 0.011
Advantages + disadvantages 10 7.08 1.21
Environmental Advantages 12 7.68 1.19
Advantages + disadvantages 11 7.11 1.50
Vila-Tojo et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1445320
Frontiers in Psychology 07 frontiersin.org
case of decentralized plants, webelieve it is necessary to becautious
about generalizing the results of student samples to the general
population (Hanel and Vione, 2016). ird, in contrast to hypothetical
situations, in the business center where the plant was already installed,
users had experienced certain associated problems. In each context,
the personal relevance of the plant to the participants is dierent;
therefore, the degree of information permeability in users’ attitudes is
also expected to vary.
Exploring these trends in a real context contributes to the
knowledge base on the social acceptance of decentralized wastewater
treatment plants. It highlights the importance of considering the
applicability of results according to the context. Overall, the results
emphasize the importance of considering how content is presented.
e rst contact with information about a new technology establishes
an interpretative framework that guides the formation of perceptions
and decision-making (Rogers, 2003), and the results suggest that
environmental priming remains an element that promotes favorable
attitudes toward decentralized treatment plants, even among workers
who initially expressed reservations about the installed plant.
4 Phase 3. A bidirectional information
session with experts to improve
acceptance
e results of the previous phase indicate that making
environmental issues accessible through priming improves workers’
attitudes toward decentralized treatment plants. However, it’s
important to note that priming capacity is limited in fostering positive
emotions, reducing negative emotions, and increasing behavioral
intention. In contexts with high uncertainty, lack of knowledge, and
novelty, such as the case study (due to problems arising from technical
failure), protection mechanisms against potential threats are activated
(Albers, 2012; Slovic etal., 2004). In this sense, the mere association
of the plant as a solution to an environmental problem may not
be sucient to modify emotional variables, such as fear, and
behavioral variables, such as verbalizing discomfort, associated with
decentralized plants. erefore, adequately communicating the
procedures, benets, and risks of the decentralized plant can help
improve understanding (Fischho et al., 1993). In this way, the
information could facilitate a change in risk perceptions and
associated negative emotional reactions (Vila-Tojo et al., 2024).
However, while the content of the information is relevant, its
interpretation by the public relies more on who and how the
information is presented (Entman, 1993).
Trust in the source is key in forming positive or negative
perceptions (Ryu et al., 2018). e observable and inferred
characteristics of the source, such as competence and intentionality,
are crucial for the message’s eectiveness (Milburn, 1991; Perlo,
1993; Twyman et al., 2008). In this context, experts, especially
scientists, are perceived as credible and trustworthy sources (Cologna
and Siegrist, 2020), making them particularly persuasive (Mey er,
1988). While competence-based trust is relevant, intentionality-based
trust, linked to the source’s honesty and integrity, has a greater
inuence on the acceptance of new technologies (Liu etal., 2020). is
underscores the importance of selecting communicators who possess
the necessary technical knowledge and are seen as authoritative and
trustworthy sources.
In addition to the characteristics of the source, interactive
communication and the opportunity for dialogue are important for
building trust and credibility. Allowing questions and encouraging
discussions creates a more engaging and trustworthy environment
(Brashers, 2001). Research shows that interactive participation
signicantly improves acceptance of new technologies by addressing
concerns and providing real-time clarication (Van den Hoo and De
Ridder, 2004; Venkatesh etal., 2003).
Consequently, the third phase of the intervention seeks to
establish a bidirectional communicative environment aimed at
improving users’ perceptions of the decentralized plant. On the one
hand, the high reliable source emphasizes environmental issues and
presents information about the plant. On the other hand, users can
address their doubts and discuss on topics related to the decentralized
plant. With these premises, an informative session (workshop) was
designed for all Porto de Molle workers who wished to attend.
4.1 Materials and methods
4.1.1 Participants
In the workshop, 25 workers from the business center participated.
However, not all of them agreed to complete the questionnaire.
Consequently, the nal sample consisted of 20 participants (65% men,
Mage = 40.56, SD = 9.11). Most of the participants had been working in
the building for less than 1 year (less than 6 months = 20%, between
6 months and 1 year = 40%, between 1 and 2 years = 10%, more than
2 years = 30%).
4.1.2 Procedure
e workshop took place in the business center building. e
building’s management sent an email invitation to participate in the
session, indicating that the workshop would provide information
about the new decentralized plant in the building. A pre-post test
intervention was conducted. First, the baseline perception of the
decentralized plant installed in the building was measured. Data was
collected via a questionnaire before the workshop began. ese
questions were also asked at the end of the session to nd out if there
had been a change in attitudes.
e data collection process was structured, with the pre-test
questionnaire divided into three parts: an introduction, information
about the plant, and questions about its acceptance. e post-test
questionnaire, administered aer the workshop, was similar to the
pre-test, allowing participants to reevaluate their responses and
provide additional sociodemographic data.
A technical professional attended the session, providing
information on the technology and operation of the decentralized
plant. A social psychologist also took part in the session, going
in-depth on the aspects of sustainability linked to the implementation
of this new technology. At the end of the presentations, participants
ask questions and discuss with the experts about the
information received.
4.1.3 Measures
4.1.3.1 Attitudes toward decentralized plants
Attitudes were measured using a 9-point semantic dierential
scale consisting of three items. Participants had to rate to what extent
Vila-Tojo et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1445320
Frontiers in Psychology 08 frontiersin.org
the installation of the decentralized plant in the building was: (a) very
bad – very good, (b) very unnecessary – very necessary, (c) very
unacceptable – very acceptable (α = 0.92, ω = 0.92).
4.1.3.2 Emotions
Participants were asked to indicate to what extent the installation
of the plant in the building made them feel (from 1 = nothing to 9 = a
lot): worried, disgusted, (negative emotions: r = 0.764, p < 0.001); and
relieved, proud (positive emotions: r = 0.824, p < 0.001).
4.1.3.3 Behavioral intention
Participants were required to respond to items a and d from phase
2. at is, whether they would choose the decentralized plant installed
in the building (from 1 = strongly disagree to 9 = strongly agree) and if
they would recommend installing the decentralized plant in other
buildings with similar characteristics to the business center (from
1 = denitely not to 9 = denitely yes) (r = 0.849, p < 0.001).
4.1.3.4 Change of opinion
In order to nd out whether the participants recognized a change
of opinion in their attitudes aer receiving the information, weasked
them whether they considered that their opinion of the decentralized
plant had changed aer the information session (dichotomous: no or
yes). If so, they were asked to indicate whether their opinion had
improved or worsened (from 1 = much worse to 9 = much better).
Finally, they were asked to answer the following open-ended question:
“If youhave changed your opinion, what arguments/information have
caused this change?”
4.2 Results and discussion of phase 3
e study’s objective was to examine whether a bidirectional
informative session about the operation of the decentralized plant and
its added value as a solution to an environmental problem could
improve users’ perception of the decentralized plant installed in
their building.
e results indicate that the workshop signicantly aected the
perception of the plant (see Table 2). Specically, the participants
showed a more favorable attitude toward the plant, a reduction in
negative emotions, and an increase in both positive emotions and
behavioral intention. In this sense, the ndings indicate that providing
detailed and contextualized information, along with opportunities for
interactive participation, signicantly improves technology acceptance
(Brashers, 2001; Hou et al., 2021; Ranney and Clark, 2016; Ta ube
etal., 2021).
Overall, the participants stated that their opinion of the
decentralized wastewater treatment plant had improved (M = 7.40,
DT = 1.18). Among the reasons participants cited for their change in
opinion, they highlighted the positive environmental impact of the
technology, including water savings, nutrient recovery, and
environmental value. Additionally, they emphasized the positive
impression generated by the technical information, practical examples,
and the novelty of the technology. Specically, the reasons provided
by participants suggest that not all types of information are eective.
In particular, scientic-technical information communicated by
reliable experts allows users to understand the benets and operation
of the plant and to resolve the discomfort and uncertainty associated
with it (Liu etal., 2020).
However, a limitation of this study is the low participation in the
workshop, with only 10% of the building’s workers attending.
Additionally, we do not control for possible overlap between
participants across phases. is means that some individuals may have
been exposed to the dierent phases, potentially inuencing their
responses. Despite this, the consistent positive eects observed in
Phase 3 suggest that the workshop was eective, either on its own or
through an accumulated eect from exposure across multiple phases.
Moreover, since the evaluation of attitudes in Phase 3 was conducted
immediately aer the intervention, wedo not know the stability of this
change in perception in the long term. As a consideration for future
studies, conducting follow-ups at dierent times aer the intervention
would beinteresting to verify whether the positive attitude toward the
technology is maintained over time and explore strategies to increase
participation in these informational events.
5 General discussion and conclusion
Society faces an urgent climate challenge to which wemust
respond (Wyss etal., 2021). Although technological solutions have
already tried to address environmental problems, weshould remember
that their implementation is conditional on the support received at the
political and social level (Dimitrov, 2020; Lahsen and Turnhout,
2021). Decentralized wastewater treatment plants do not always have
such citizen support. Overcoming the citizen reluctance requires the
design of intervention strategies that consider the barriers detected in
each specic context. In this study, wepresent an intervention carried
out in a business center, which is of particular interest due to the
discomfort generated by a technical failure in installing the
decentralized wastewater treatment plant (of whose existence users
were unaware). In this intervention, uncertainty was addressed
through the mitigation of the associated epistemic demand (Sabucedo
etal., 2020). In new and unknown situations, people need information
that allows them to position themselves and make decisions.
is scenario led us to propose a rst phase that consists of a focus
group that would allow us to identify the main barriers associated with
the plant and initiate a communication channel with users. e results
showed a negative perception of the plant similar to works in other
contexts (Koetse, 2005; Mankad and Tapsuwan, 2011; Rygaard etal.,
2014). e participants’ verbalization of more disadvantages than
advantages allow for three observations. First, there is a strong
TABLE2 Mean dierences between pre-test and post-test on the
acceptance variables.
Variable Pre-test Post-
test
t p Cohen’s
d
M SD M SD
Attitudes 6.28 0.89 7.90 0.71 −6.34 <0.001 0.81
Negative
emotions 5.45 1.28 2.42 1.37 7.23 <0.001 1.32
Positive
emotions 5.05 1.41 7.25 1.25 −5.21 <0.001 1.34
Behavioural
intention 6.00 1.27 7.83 0.89 −5.27 <0.001 1.10
Vila-Tojo et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1445320
Frontiers in Psychology 09 frontiersin.org
psychological distance (Keller etal., 2022). Users recognize the value
of the decentralized plant in solving environmental problems.
However, at the same time, they do not perceive a problem in the area,
making the plant seem unnecessary to them. Second, the opinion
about the cost–benet of the plant is not uniform; users verbalize
concern about the cost of maintaining the plant while recognizing its
low operating cost and ease of installation (Ho and Anda, 2006).
ird, the “yuck factor” is one of the main variables associated with
users’ discomfort, related to concerns about the smell and color of the
water (Rozin etal., 2015; Wester etal., 2016).
With these observations, weproposed a second phase to activate
environmental concerns and provide information about the plant’s
advantages and disadvantages that would alleviate discomfort and
uncertainty. e ndings showed that activating environmental
concern (through priming) is related with higher attitudes toward the
technology. However, priming eect on negative emotions, positive
emotions and behavioral intention was not signicant. In this regard,
it is important to consider the ongoing debate about the replicability
of priming experiments (Chivers, 2019; Rohrer etal., 2019).
erefore, in the third phase, weopted to design a workshop
based on trust in the source and focused on informing about the
plant’s properties and its capacity to solve a concerning environmental
problem. e perception and emotions associated with the plant
improved signicantly aer the informational session. is change
underscores how framing is an important element for persuasion
(Benford and Snow, 2000), especially in contexts of uncertainty, such
as the case at hand. In such situations, people are more receptive to
messages that alleviate their uncertainty, especially if they come from
reference groups (Schultz and Fielding, 2014). In this sense, the
workshop results showed, as has been pointed out many times in the
literature, the signicant role of scientists as a source of trust for
environmental issues (Cologna and Siegrist, 2020). Due to their
training and experience, they are seen as reliable and objective experts,
increasing public receptivity to the information presented (Meyer,
1988). However, wemust remember that they also need to align the
presented information with the real expectations and concerns of the
public (Sawyer and Ball, 1981). is matter is particularly relevant
because scientists are not the only reference group for users. Other
trusted agents could capitalize on discontent and channel uncertainty
toward positions and actions contrary to the decentralized system. In
future studies, it would beadvisable to explore the eect of the
interaction of dierent sources of inuence on the acceptance of
plants. For example, the intervention was coordinated by university
proles that generally receive positive public evaluations. Such an
academic context could have inuenced the favorable response of the
building users (Sanz-Menéndez and Cruz-Castro, 2017).
Alongside the contributions of the use of reliable sources to
transmit technical and environmental information, this third phase
also emphasizes the relevance of active user participation to alleviate
uncertainty. Receiving information passively can have a reduced eect
if it is not accompanied by other techniques (Schultz, 1998). In
contrast, interactive interventions allow for the expression of opinions
and provide spaces for discussion to foster acceptance. On the one
hand, they contribute to the decision not being perceived as externally
imposed. On the other hand, they increase commitment to the
decisions made (Lewin, 1943; Jans, 2021).
The intervention presented in this work indicates that the
acceptance of decentralized plants, as with other behaviors,
depends on the beliefs developed during social interaction (Jaspal
and Breakwell, 2014). Therefore, it is important to incorporate
(potential) users throughout the entire process, from beginning
to end, with the aim of weaving complicity between promoters
and users and generating a climate of co-responsibility regarding
the plant. This participatory approach helps to prevent the
emergence of psychosocial resistance and can also alleviate
existing doubts and misgivings about the operation of
decentralized plants. Engaging community members from the
outset fosters ownership, making them more likely to support the
adoption of such technologies, as they feel heard and actively
involved in the decision-making process.
While this study focused on a business center, the intervention
protocol can beadapted to other settings, such as residential areas or
dierent cultural contexts. For example, in residential communities,
the focus group phase could beadapted into neighborhood meetings
to address local concerns, and the workshop could include more
context-specic examples that make the benets of decentralized
systems relatable. Implementing this protocol in diverse cultural
settings would also require careful attention to local norms, trust in
authorities, and perceptions of water reuse (Vila-Tojo etal., 2022).
Tailoring the intervention to address these factors would enhance
acceptance, making the ndings more generalizable across
dierent contexts.
Data availability statement
e raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will
bemade available by the authors without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
e studies involving humans were approved by Santiago de
Compostela bioethics committee (PSY-1819-S-0218). e studies
were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and
institutional requirements. e participants provided their written
informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
SV-T: Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original dra,
Writing – review & editing. CG-R: Conceptualization, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original dra, Writing
– review & editing. J-MS: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition,
Methodology, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
e author(s) declare that nancial support was received for the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. is research
has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020
research and innovation program (No. 730285) and from the Galician
Department of Education, University, and Professional Training
(grant number ED431B 2019/07), and from the Spanish Ministry of
Vila-Tojo et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1445320
Frontiers in Psychology 10 frontiersin.org
Science, Innovation, and Universities through the D-PATTERN
project (PID2023-150071OB-I00). e authors belong to the Galician
Competitive Research Group COSOYPA (GPC2022 GI-1456), and to
the Cross-Disciplinary Research Center in Environmental
Technologies (CRETUS) (AGRUP2015/02). ese programs are
supported by the European Regional Development Fund of the
European Union (ERDF).
Conflict of interest
e authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or nancial relationships that could
beconstrued as a potential conict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent those of their aliated organizations,
or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product
that may beevaluated in this article, or claim that may bemade by its
manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
e Supplementary material for this article can befound online
at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1445320/
full#supplementary-material
References
Albers, M. J. (2012). Human-information interaction and technical communication:
concepts and frameworks. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Allen, M. (1991). Meta-analysis comparing the persuasiveness of one-sided and
two-sided messages. West. J. Speech Commun. 55, 390–404. doi:
10.1080/10570319109374395
Bargh, J. A. (2006). What have webeen priming all these years? On the development,
mechanisms, and ecology of nonconscious social behavior. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 36,
147–168. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.336
Bauer, M. W., Allum, N., and Miller, S. (2007). What can welearn from 25 years of
PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Underst. Sci. 16,
79–95. doi: 10.1177/0963662506071287
Benford, R. D., and Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: an
overview and assessment. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 26, 611–639. doi: 10.1146/annurev.
soc.26.1.611
Bisschops, I., Kjerstadius, H., Meulman, B., and van Eekert, M. (2019). Integrated
nutrient recovery from source-separated domestic wastewaters for application as
fertilisers. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 40, 7–13. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.06.010
Bowen, G. A. (2008). Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: a research note.
Qual. Res. 8, 137–152. doi: 10.1177/1468794107085301
Brashers, D. E. (2001). Communication and uncertainty management. J. Commun. 51,
477–497. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02892.x
Brouwer, S., Maas, T., Smith, H., and Frijns, J. (2015). Trust in water reuse: review
report on international experiences in public involvement and stakeholder collaboration.
DEMOWARE, 1–47.
Chivers, T. (2019). What's next for psychology's embattled eld of social priming.
Nature 576, 200–202. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-03755-2
Cologna, V., and Siegrist, M. (2020). e role of trust for climate change mitigation
and adaptation behaviour: a meta-analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 69:101428. doi: 10.1016/j.
jenvp.2020.101428
Cruzes, D. S., and Dyba, T. (2011). Recommended steps for thematic synthesis in
soware engineering. In 2011 International symposium on empirical soware
engineering and measurement (pp. 275–284).
Custers, R., and Aarts, H. (2010). e unconscious will: how the pursuit of goals
operates outside of conscious awareness. Science 329, 47–50. doi: 10.1126/
science.1188595
Dimitrov, R. S. (2020). Empty institutions in global environmental politics. Int. Stud.
Re v. 22, 626–650. doi: 10.1093/isr/viz029
Domènech, L., and Saurí, D. (2010). Socio-technical transitions in water scarcity
contexts: public acceptance of greywater reuse technologies in the metropolitan area of
Barcelona. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55, 53–62. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.07.001
Ellis, S. F., Savchenko, O. M., and Messer, K. D. (2021). Mitigating stigma
associated with recycled water. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 104, 1077–1099. doi: 10.1111/
ajae.12256
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: toward clarication of a fractured paradigm. J.
Commun. 43, 51–58. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
Etale, A., Fielding, K., Schäfer, A. I., and Siegrist, M. (2020). Recycled and
desalinated water: Consumers' associations, and the inuence of aect and disgust
on willingness to use. J. Environ. Manag. 261:110217. doi: 10.1016/j.
jenvman.2020.110217
Fielding, K. S., Dolnicar, S., and Schultz, T. (2018). Public acceptance of recycled water.
Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 35, 551–586. doi: 10.1080/07900627.2017.1419125
Fischho, B., Bostrom, A., and Quadrel, M. J. (1993). Risk perception and
communication. Annu. Rev. Public Health 14, 183–203. doi: 10.1146/annurev.
pu.14.050193.001151
Furnham, A. (1986). Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personal.
Individ. Dier. 7, 385–400. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(86)90014-0
Gómez-Román, C., Lima, L., Vila-Tojo, S., Correa-Chica, A., Lema, J., and
Sabucedo, J. M. (2020). “Who cares?” e acceptance of decentralized wastewater
systems in regions without water problems. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17:9060.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph17239060
Gómez-Román, C., Sabucedo, J.-M., Alzate, M., and Medina, B. (2021). Environmental
concern priming and social acceptance of sustainable technologies: the case of
decentralized wastewater treatment systems. Front. Psychol. 12:12. doi: 10.3389/
fpsyg.2021.647406
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. London: Lawrence and
Wishart.
Gustafson, A., and Rice, R. E. (2016). Cumulative advantage in sustainability
communication: unintended implications of the knowledge decit model. Sci. Commun.
38, 800–811. doi: 10.1177/1075547016674320
Haddad, B., Heck, N., Paytan, A., and Potts, D. (2018). “Social issues and public
acceptance of seawater desalination plants” in Sustainable desalination handbook: plant
selection, design and implementation. ed. V. Gnaneswar-Gude (Oxford, United
Kingdom: Butterworth-Heinemann), 505–525.
Hanel, P. H. P., and Vione, K. C. (2016). Do student samples provide an accurate
estimate of the general public? PLoS One 11:e0168354. doi: 10.1371/journal.
pone.0168354
Hao, X., Wang, X., Liu, R., Li, S., van Loosdrecht, M. C. M., and Jiang, H. (2019).
Environmental impacts of resource recovery from wastewater treatment plants. Water
Res. 160, 268–277. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2019.05.068
Ho, G., and Anda, M. (2006). Centralised versus decentralised wastewater systems in
an urban context: the sustainability dimension. In M. Beck and A. Speers (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 2nd IWA leading-edge conference on sustainability (pp. 80–89).
Sydney. IWA Publishing.
Hou, C., Wen, Y., Liu, X., and Dong, M. (2021). Impacts of regional water shortage
information disclosure on public acceptance of recycled water — evidence from China’s
urban residents. J. Clean. Prod. 278:123965. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123965
Hurlimann, A., and Dolnicar, S. (2010). When public opposition defeats alternative
water projects – the case of Toowoomba Australia. Water Res. 44, 287–297. doi:
10.1016/j.watres.2009.09.020
Jans, L. (2021). Changing environmental behavior from the bottom up: the formation
of pro-environmental social identities. J. Environ. Psychol. 73:101531. doi: 10.1016/j.
jenvp.2020.101531
Jaspal, R., and Breakwell, G. M. (Eds.) (2014). Identity process theory: identity, social
action and social change. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Jonas, K., and Sassenberg, K. (2006). Knowing what to do: response behavior
activation from social category primes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90, 709–721. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.709
Keller, E., Marsh, J. E., Richardson, B. H., and Ball, L. J. (2022). A systematic review of
the psychological distance of climate change: towards the development of an evidence-
based construct. J. Environ. Psychol. 81:101822. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101822
Koetse, E. (2005). e implementation of DESAR concepts in two projects in Germany.
Available at: http://www.switchurbanwater.eu/outputs/pdfs/W4-1_GEN_PHD_
Implementation_of_DESAR_concepts_in_two_projects_in_Germany_-_Koetse.pdf
Vila-Tojo et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1445320
Frontiers in Psychology 11 frontiersin.org
Krueger, R. A., and Casey, M. A. (1994). Focus groups: a practical guide for applied
research. 2nd Edn. ousand Oaks, California, USA: Sage.
Lahsen, M., and Turnhout, E. (2021). How norms, needs, and power in science
obstruct transformations towards sustainability. Environ. Res. Lett. 16:025008. doi:
10.1088/1748-9326/abdcf0
Lamichhane, K. M., and Babcock, R. W. (2013). Survey of attitudes and perceptions
of urine-diverting toilets and human waste recycling in Hawaii. Sci. Total Environ. 443,
749–756. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.11.039
Lens, P., Zeeman, G., and Lettinga, G. (Eds.) (2005). Decentralised sanitation and
reuse: concepts, systems and implementation. London, UK: IWA Publishing.
Lewin, K. (1943). e problem of changing food habits: report of the committee on
food habits 1941–1943. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US).
Lewis, G. B., Palm, R., and Feng, B. (2019). Cross-national variation in determinants of
climate change concern. Environ. Polit. 28, 793–821. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2018.1512261
Liu, L., Bouman, T., Perlaviciute, G., and Steg, L. (2020). Eects of competence-and
integrity-based trust on public acceptability of renewable energy projects in China and
the Netherlands. J. Environ. Psychol. 67:101390. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101390
Liu, X., Chen, S., Guo, X., and Fu, H. (2022). Can social norms promote recycled water
use on campus? e evidence from event-related potentials. Front. Psychol. 13:818292.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.818292
Mankad, A. (2012). Decentralised water systems: emotional inuences on resource
decision making. Environ. Int. 44, 128–140. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2012.01.002
Mankad, A., and Tapsuwan, S. (2011). Review of socio-economic drivers of
community acceptance and adoption of decentralised water systems. J. Environ. Manag.
92, 380–391. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.037
Mankad, A., Tucker, D., Tapsuwan, S., and Greenhill, M. P. (2010). Qualitative
exploration of beliefs, values, and knowledge associated with decentralised water
supplies in South East Queensland communities. Urban Water Security Research
Alliance Technical Report No. 25. City East, Queensland, Australia: Urban Water
Security Research Alliance.
Meyer, P. (1988). Dening and measuring credibility of newspapers: developing an
index. Journal. Q. 65, 567–574. doi: 10.1177/107769908806500301
Milburn, M. A. (1991). Persuasion and politics: the social psychology of public
opinion. Pacic Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Moglia, M., Sharma, A., Alexander, K., and Mankad, A. (2011). Perceived performance
of decentralised water systems: a survey approach. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply. 11:
516–526. doi: 10.2166/ws.2011.081
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. 2nd Edn. ousand Oaks,
California, USA: Sage.
Nancarrow, B. E., Porter, N. B., and Leviston, Z. (2010). Predicting community
acceptability of alternative urban water supply systems: a decision making model. Urban
Water J. 7, 197–210. doi: 10.1080/1573062X.2010.484500
Perlo, R. M. (1993). e dynamics of persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Petty, R. E., and Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). “e elaboration likelihood model of
persuasion,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. ed. E. L. Berkowitz (New
York: Academic Press), 19, 123–205.
Po, M., Kaercher, J. D., and Nancarrow, B. E. (2003). Literature review of factors
inuencing public perceptions of water reuse. Adelaide, SA, Australia: CSIRO Land and
Water, Technical Report 54/03. Available at: https://www.clearwatervic.com.au/user-data/
research-projects/swf-les/16-laying-the-foundation-for-condent-barrier-free-water-
conservation-and-reuse-literature-review.pdf
Poortinga, W., Whitmarsh, L., Steg, L., Böhm, G., and Fisher, S. (2019). Climate
change perceptions and their individual-level determinants: a cross-European analysis.
Glob. Environ. Chang. 55, 25–35. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.01.007
Ranney, M. A., and Clark, D. (2016). Climate change conceptual change: scientic
information can transform attitudes. Top. Cogn. Sci. 8, 49–75. doi: 10.1111/tops.12187
Roefs, I., Meulman, B., Vreeburg, J., and Spiller, M. (2017). Centralised, decentralised or
hybrid sanitation systems? Economic evaluation under urban development uncertainty and
phased expansion. Water Res. 109, 274–286. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2016.11.051
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diusion of innovations. 5th Edn. New York: Free Press.
Rohrer, D., Pashler, H., and Harris, C. R. (2019). Discrepant data and improbable
results: an examination of Vohs, Mead, and Goode (2006). Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 41,
263–271. doi: 10.1080/01973533.2019.1624965
Ross, V. L., Fielding, K. S., and Louis, W. R. (2014). Social trust, risk perceptions and
public acceptance of recycled water: testing a social-psychological model. J. Environ.
Manag. 137, 61–68. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.01.039
Rozin, P., Haddad, B., Nemero, C., and Slovic, P. (2015). Psychological aspects of the
rejection of recycled water: contamination, purication and disgust. Judgm. Decis. Mak.
10, 50–63. doi: 10.1017/S193029750000317X
Rygaard, M., Godskesen, B., Jørgensen, C., and Homann, B. (2014). Holistic
assessment of a secondary water supply for a new development in Copenhagen,
Denmark. Sci. Total Environ. 497-498, 430–439. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.07.078
Ryu, Y., Kim, S., and Kim, S. (2018). Does trust matter? Analyzing the impact of trust
on the perceived risk and acceptance of nuclear power energy. Sustain. For. 10:758. doi:
10.3390/su10030758
Sabucedo, J. M., Alzate, M., and Gómez-Román, C. (2020). “Extremismos e
secesionismo em contextos de crise. O movimiento indrosependentista na Catalunha/
Espanha” in Psicología Dos Extremismos Políticos. eds. D. U. Hur and J. M. Sabucedo
(Petrópolis, Brazil: Editora Vozes), 16–41.
Sanz-Menéndez, L., and Cruz-Castro, L. (2017). La investigación en España: Las
actitudes de empresas, gobiernos y ciudadanos. El Observatorio Social de la Fundación
"la Caixa". Available at: https://elobservatoriosocial.fundacionlacaixa.org/es/-/la-
investigacion-en-espana-las-actitudes-de-empresas-gobiernos-y-ciudadan-1
Sawyer, A. G., and Ball, D. (1981). Statistical power and eect size in marketing
research. J. Mark. Res. 18, 275–290. doi: 10.1177/002224378101800302
Scheufele, D. A., and Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda-setting, and priming:
the evolution of three media eects models. J. Commun. 57, 9–20. doi:
10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00326.x
Schultz, P. W. (1998). Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: a
eld experiment on curbside recycling. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 21, 25–36. doi: 10.1207/
s15324834basp2101_3
Schultz, P. W. (2002). “Knowledge, information, and household recycling: examining
the knowledge-decit model of behavior change” in New tools for environmental
protection: education, information, and voluntary measures. eds. T. Dietz and P. C. Stern
(Washington, DC: National Academies Press), 67–82.
Schultz, T., and Fielding, K. (2014). e common in-group identity model enhances
communication about recycled water. J. Environ. Psychol. 40, 296–305. doi: 10.1016/j.
jenvp.2014.07.006
Simha, P., and Ganesapillai, M. (2017). Ecological sanitation and nutrient recovery
from human urine: how far have wecome? A review. Sustain. Environ. Res. 27, 107–116.
doi: 10.1016/j.serj.2016.12.001
Singh, N. K., Kazmi, A. A., and Starkl, M. (2014). A review on full-scale decentralized
wastewater treatment systems: techno-economical approach. Water Sci. Technol. 71,
468–478. doi: 10.2166/wst.2014.413
Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., and MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis
and risk as feelings: some thoughts about aect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal.
24, 311–322. doi: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00433.x
Taube, O., Ranney, M. A., Henn, L., and Kaiser, F. G. (2021). Increasing people's
acceptance of anthropogenic climate change with scientic facts: is mechanistic
information more eective for environmentalists? J. Environ. Psychol. 73:101549. doi:
10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101549
Thomas, J., and Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of
qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 8:45. doi:
10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
Twyman, M., Harvey, N., and Harries, C. (2008). Trust in motives, trust in
competence: separate factors determining the eectiveness of risk communication.
Judgm. Decis. Mak. 3, 111–120. doi: 10.1017/S1930297500000218
Van den Hooff, B., and De Ridder, J. A. (2004). Knowledge sharing in context:
the influence of organizational commitment, communication climate, and CMC
use on knowledge sharing. J. Knowl. Manag. 8, 117–130. doi:
10.1108/13673270410567675
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., and Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of
information technology: toward a unied view. MIS Q. 27, 425–478. doi:
10.2307/30036540
Vila-Tojo, S., Sabucedo, J. M., Andrade, E., and Gómez-Román, C. (2024). A
perceptive-emotional model of behavioural intention to consume food grown with
nutrients recovered from wastewater. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 202:107386. doi: 10.1016/j.
resconrec.2023.107386
Vila-Tojo, S., Sabucedo, J.-M., Andrade, E., Gómez-Román, C., Alzate, M., and
Seoane, G. (2022). From scarcity problem diagnosis to recycled water acceptance: a
perceptive-axiological model (PAM) of low and high contact uses. Water Res.
217:118380. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2022.118380
Watts, L. L., Todd, E. M., Mulhearn, T. J., Medeiros, K. E., Mumford, M. D., and
Connelly, S. (2017). Qualitative evaluation methods in ethics education: a
systematic review and analysis of best practices. Account. Res. 24, 225–242. doi:
10.1080/08989621.2016.1274975
Wester, J., Timpano, K. R., Çek, D., and Broad, K. (2016). e psychology of recycled
water: factors predicting disgust and willingness to use. Water Resour. Res. 52,
3212–3226. doi: 10.1002/2015WR018340
Wibeck, V. (2014). Enhancing learning, communication and public engagement about
climate change: some lessons from recent literature. Environ. Educ. Res. 20, 387–411.
doi: 10.1080/13504622.2013.812720
Wyss, A. M., Berger, S., Baumgartner, T., and Knoch, D. (2021). Reactions to
warnings in the climate commons. J. Environ. Psychol. 78:101689. doi: 10.1016/j.
jenvp.2021.101689
Yates, J. F., and Stone, E. R. (1992). “e risk construct” in Risk-taking behavior. ed. J.
F. Yates (Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons), 1–25.
Content uploaded by Sergio Vila-Tojo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sergio Vila-Tojo on Nov 08, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
