Saving Water in the Literature From 2021 To 2024


Cruz García-Lirios1*, José Marcos Bustos Aguayo2

  1. Autonomous University of Mexico City, Mexico

  2. National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico

*Correspondence
Cruz García-Lirios
Autonomous University of Mexico City, Mexico
Email: bundestappen@gmx.es

Received: 16 April, 2024; Accepted: 24 July, 2024; Published: 26 July, 2024

Citation: Cruz, García-Lirios and Aguayo J.M.B. “Saving Water in the Literature From 2021 To 2024.” J Glob Entrep Manage (2024): 113. DOI: 10.59462/JGEM.2.2.113

Copyright: © 2024 Cruz García-Lirios. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Keywords

• Sustainable Development • Salary • Waste • Water Savings

Introduction

The availability of freshwater in the world varies considerably depending on the region and the available water resources [1]. About 70% of the Earth’s surface is covered by water, but only about 2.5% is freshwater, and most of that water is trapped in glaciers and ice caps [2]. Fresh Water Resources: Fresh water is found in rivers, lakes, groundwater and glaciers. However, only about 30% of this resource is easily accessible for use by humans. Geographic Distribution: The availability of freshwater varies significantly by region [3]. Some areas, such as parts of South America, Canada, Russia, and northern Europe, have abundant freshwater resources [5]. Meanwhile, other regions, such as parts of Africa, the Middle East and South Asia, are facing water shortages [5]. Climate Change and Water Stress: Climate change is affecting the availability of freshwater due to phenomena such as drought, melting glaciers and altered precipitation patterns [6]. This has increased water stress in many regions, exacerbating water scarcity [7]. Water Consumption: Population growth and industrial development have increased the demand for fresh water [8]. Agriculture is one of the largest consumers of water, followed by domestic use and industry [9]. Water Management: Sustainable water management is essential to ensure the continued availability of this vital resource. Strategies such as water conservation, reuse and wastewater treatment, as well as the implementation of more efficient technologies, are key to addressing water scarcity [10]. International Agreements and Conflicts: The availability of freshwater can also generate tensions between countries that share water resources, which has led to the signing of international agreements for the shared management of river basins and the resolution of conflicts [11]. Comprehensive Water Management (IAM) is a holistic approach that seeks to address water-related challenges in a comprehensive manner, considering social, economic and environmental aspects [12]. This theory recognizes the interconnection between the different uses of water and the need for coordinated and sustainable management of water resources [13]. Integrated Approach: Considers all aspects related to water, such as supply, quality, distribution, efficient use, risk management and protection of aquatic ecosystems [13]. Promotes coordination between different sectors and actors involved in water management [14]. Participation and Governance: Involves various actors, such as governments, local communities, non-governmental organizations and the private sector, in making decisions about water management [15]. It encourages transparency, accountability and public participation in the planning and implementation of waterrelated policies Sustainability: [16] Seeks to guarantee the availability of water for present and future generations, considering the conservation of water resources, the protection of water quality and the minimization of environmental impact [17]. Demand Focus: Prioritizes the efficient use of water and demand management through practices [18] such as water conservation, reuse, recycling, and the adoption of more efficient technologies [19]. Hydrographic Basin Approach: Recognizes the importance of managing water at the hydrographic basin level, considering the interrelationship between the different aquatic systems within a basin [20]. Adaptation to Climate Change: Considers the impact of climate change on water resources and develops strategies to adapt to changes in precipitation patterns, melting glaciers and other climate-related phenomena [21]. Comprehensive Water Management is essential to address the global challenges of water scarcity, ensure an adequate and equitable supply of freshwater, and preserve aquatic ecosystems. Its implementation requires the collaboration and commitment of multiple stakeholders at local, national and international levels [22]. The objective of this work was to establish the neural structure of learning related to water saving in a town in central Mexico.

Are there significant differences between the theoretical structure with respect to the empirical observations of this work?

Hypothesis. Given that the policies of confinement and distancing of people impacted the water supply to residences, significant differences are expected between the theoretical structure with respect to empirical observations [22].

Method

An exploratory, transversal and psychometric work was carried out with a sample of 100 students (M = 22.21 SD = 2.3 years and M = 7’893-00 SD = 789’00 monthly income) assigned to the internship and professional service system in institutions and public health organizations in central Mexico.

Self-Report was used, which includes four aspects related to 1) Water consumption at home, 2) Water use habits, 3) Awareness and education, 4) Attitudes and commitments. All questions were coded according to the distance or proximity of the global and local per capita average, which ranges around 250 cubic liters per day per person. Sphericity and adequacy [x2 = 1650.058 153 df) p = 0.001; KMO = 0.78] of the instrument allowed the analysis of validity which ranges between

Respondents were contacted via email. They were guaranteed the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses through a contract document. They were informed about their functions and responsibilities, as well as the non-remuneration for their responses to the questionnaire. They were told the objective of the study and the social and scientific responsibility of the project. Focus groups were organized to discuss the concepts and the Delphi technique for evaluating the items. The surveys were administered at the public university facilities.

The data were captured and processed in JASP version 18. The estimated coefficients allowed the hypothesis to be tested. Values close to unity were assumed as evidence of a dependency relationship between the variables, as well as non-rejection of the hypothesis that establishes significant differences between the theoretical structure and the observed structure.

Results

The eigenvalues suggest that the largest percentage of the total variance is explained by four variables. That is, water saving is explained from four questions related to the frequency of water use, the installation of technology, reuse and water collection. In this sense, the instrument used can be considered and reconfigured from indicators of these four variables.

Consequently, the factor structure of water saving is explained by three factors and their corresponding observable variables. The first factor related to water consumption includes indicators 4, 11, 13, 16 and 17. The second factor referring to consumption habits includes variables 6, 10 and 14. The third factor referring to awareness and education includes the indicators 9 and 15.

Consequently, the factor structure of water saving is explained by three factors and their corresponding observable variables. The first factor related to water consumption includes indicators 4, 11, 13, 16 and 17. The second factor referring to consumption habits includes variables 6, 10 and 14. The third factor referring to awareness and education includes the indicators 9 and 15.

The adjustment and residual coefficients [x2 = 458.268 (102 df) p = 0.001; TLI = 0.654; RMSEA = 0.199] indicate non-rejection of the hypothesis regarding the differences between theoretical relationships and empirical observations.

Discussion

The contribution of this work to the state of the art lies in the establishment of a structural model in which the factors and indicators that explain the total variance of water savings are explored. The results demonstrate the prevalence of nine indicators distributed in three factors. In relation to the reviewed literature, the theoretical structure includes four factors that are related to 17 indicators [23] Consequently, the hypothesis of significant differences between the theoretical structure and the empirical structure is not rejected. The implications of this finding in future research suggest the reduction of the theoretical model and its adjustment to three factors and nine indicators. This issue is indicative that water savings are explained with observations after the health crisis [24]. In this sense, it is recommended to include the factors and indicators that explain the variance of savings and its prediction from sociodemographic, socioeconomic and sociocultural factors.

Conclusion

The objective of this work was to establish the differences between the theoretical structure with respect to the observed structure. The findings suggest the adjustment of the theoretical model to three factors and nine indicators which explain the greatest percentage of the variance relative to self-reported water savings in the sample. The literature consulted indicates that there are four factors and 17 variables that explain local water savings, but the results of this study differ and recommend a reduction. Consequently, the hypothesis is not rejected and the reduction of factors and indicators reflecting consumption, use and scarcity awareness is recommended.

References

  1. Kalbusch, Andreza, Elisa Henning, Miqueias Paulo Brikalski and Felipe Vieira De Luca et al. “Impact of coronavirus (COVID-19) spread-prevention actions on urban water Lüdtke, Deike U., Robert Luetkemeier, Michael Schneemann, and Stefan Liehr. “Increase in daily household water demand during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany.” Water. 3 (2021): 260.
  2. Campos, Marcus André Siqueira, Sofia Leão Carvalho, Sandra Kurotusch Melo, Giovanna Bueno Fernandes Reis Gonçalves and Jéssica Rodrigues dos Santos et al. “Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on water con- sumption behaviour.” Water Supply. 8 (2021): 4058-4067.
  3. Tleuken,  Aidana,    Galym    Tokazhanov, Aray-Bibi Serikbay and Kuanysh Zhalgasbayev et al. “House- hold water and energy consumption changes during covid-19 pandemic lockdowns: Cases of the kazakh- stani cities of almaty, shymkent, and atyrau.” Build- ings. 12 (2021): 663.
  4. Othman Ahmed, Kaywan. “Impact of COVID-19 pan- demic on hand washing process and water consump- tion.” Eurasian j. sci. eng. 1 (2021): 228-245.
  5. Abu-Bakar, Halidu, Leon Williams, and Stephen H. Hallett. “Quantifying the impact of the COVID-19 lock- down on household water consumption patterns in England.” NPJ Clean Water. 1 (2021): 13.
  6. Dzimińska, Paulina, Stanisław Drzewiecki, Marek Ruman, Klaudia Kosek and Karol Mikołajewski et al. “The use of cluster analysis to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on daily water demand patterns.” Sustainability. 11 (2021): 5772.
  7. Nemati, Mehdi, and Dat Tran. “The impact of COVID-19 on urban water consumption in the United States.” Water 14, no. 19 (2022): 3096.
  8. Feizizadeh, Bakhtiar, Davoud Omarzadeh, Zahra Ronagh and Ayyoob Sharifi et al. “A scenario-based approach for urban water management in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and a case study for the Tabriz metropolitan area, Iran.” Sci Total Environ or STOTEN (2021): 148272.
  9. Zechman Berglund, Emily, Nathalie Thelemaque, Lauryn Spearing and Kasey M. Faust et al. “Water and wastewater systems and utilities: Challenges and opportunities during the COVID-19 pandemic.” J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag5 (2021): 02521001.
  10. Cominato, C., J. Sborz, A. Kalbusch, and E. Henning. “Water demand profile before and during COVID-19 pandemic in a Brazilian social housing complex.” Heliyon. 8 (2022).
  11. Cahill, Joseph, Claire Hoolohan, Rob Lawson, and Alison L. Browne. “COVID◻19 and water demand: A review of literature and research evidence.” Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Water. 1 (2022): e1570.
  12. Pesantez, Jorge E., Faisal Alghamdi, Shreya Sabu and G. Mahinthakumar et al.” Sustainable Cities and Society. (2022): 103520.
  13. Almulhim, Abdulaziz I., and Yusuf A. Aina. “Under- standing household water-use behavior and consump- tion patterns during COVID-19 lockdown in Saudi Ara-bia.” Water. 3 (2022): 314.
  14. Elmaslar Özbaş, Emine, Özcan Akın, Sinan Güney- su, H. Kurtuluş Özcan, and Atakan Öngen. “Chan- ges occurring in consumption habits of people during COVID-19 pandemic and the water footprint.” Envir- on. Dev. Sustain. 6 (2022): 8504-8520.
  15. Garcia, Celso, Bartolomé Deyà-Tortella, Jorge Loren- zo-Lacruz and Enrique Morán-Tejeda et al. “Zero tour- ism due to COVID-19: an opportunity to assess water consumption associated to tourism.” J. Sustain. Tour. 8 (2023): 1869-1884.
  16. Changklom, Jiramate, Tas Surasaranwong, Praewa Jowwongsan and Surachai Lipiwattanakarn et al. “Im- pact of COVID-19 on monthly water consumption on a tropical tourism island: case study of Phuket.” Water Supply. 3 (2022): 3419-3430.
  17. Roidt, Mario, Christopher M. Chini, Ashlynn S. Still- well, and Andrea Cominola. “Unlocking the impacts of COVID-19 lockdowns: Changes in thermal electricity generation water footprint and virtual water trade in Europe.” Environ. Sci. Technol. or ES. 9 (2020): 683-689.
  18. Kazak, Jan K., Szymon Szewrański, Tomasz Pilawka and Katarzyna Tokarczyk-Dorociak et al. “Changes in water demand patterns in a European city due to restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.” De- salin. Water Treat (2021): 1-15
  19. Zecchini, Marco, Alessandra Anna Griesi, Ioannis Chatzigiannakis and Dimitrios Amaxilatis et al. “Iden- tifying water consumption patterns in education build- ings before, during and after COVID-19 lockdown per- iods.” pp. 335-340. IEEE, 2021.
  20. Jia, Xuexiu, Khurram Shahzad, Jiří Jaromír Klemeš, and Xiaoping Jia. “Changes in water use and waste- water generation influenced by the COVID-19 pan- demic: A case study of China.” J. Environ. Manag. (2022): 115024.
  21. Ahmed, Kaywan Othman, Ata Amini, Kourosh Dad- khah, Jamil Bahrami, Mohammad Reza Kavianpour, Elham Kamal Hama Rahim, Niga Mawlood Ahmed, Salim Heddam, and Shiva Mafakheri. “Assessment of Hygiene Practices, Awareness, and Water Consump- tion Regarding Covid-19 Among Children in a Refugee Camp.” Matern Child Health J. 3 (2024): 545-556.
  22. Abulibdeh,  Ammar.  “Spatiotemporal  analysis  of water-electricity consumption in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic across six socioeconomic sec- tors in Doha City, Qatar.” Applied Energy (2021): 117864.
  23. Alvisi, Stefano, Marco Franchini, Chiara Luciani, Irene Marzola, and Filippo Mazzoni. “Effects of the COVID-19 lockdown on water consumptions: North- ern Italy case study.” J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag.11 (2021): 05021021.