Bottled-Water Consumption and Disposal in Herat,Afghanistan

Abstract

Poor water quality drives bottled-water consumption (BWC) in developing countries if affordable, while plastic-bottle disposal exacerbates global environmental problems. This article presents data on drinking-water attitudes, norms and behaviours of 380 residents randomly surveyed in Herat, Afghanistan. Structural equation modelling found attitudes and norms affected drinking-water and plastic-disposal behaviours. Regression models explained 60 % of future BWC-intention variance. Education, perceived behavioural control and household size positively affected BWC. Most believed BWC supports healthy lifestyles. Residents believed they could act pro-environmentally, yet threw away bottles, rather than recycling or reusing them, and thus endorsed BWC. Findings reveal that pro-environmental government policy, regulation and education are necessary to counter BWC advertising and overcome structural factors inhibiting safe and secure municipal drinking-water supply. Improved water governance and municipal infrastructure are urgently required to meet UN sustainability development goals to reduce infant mortality rates, improve waste and water supply management, and provide water security in Afghanistan.

Keywords

Drinking water environmental sociology plastic pollution sustainability development

Introduction

Afghanistan is a nation beset by policy and governance challenges. Poverty, water and food insecurity, gender inequality and an inability ‘for the Afghan people to live in dignity and safety’ due to the Taliban (News Bites, 2023) thwart social, economic and environmental sustainability (UNEP, 2023). Despite a predominance of natural science, political, humanitarian and military research about Afghanistan, there is still a dearth of social–environmental research. This article is a beginning to address such gaps. It provides empirical data that policymakers, educators and governments can use to improve the health and well-being of Afghans and the environment. By sociologically investigating drinking-water (tap and bottled) and plastic-bottle disposal behaviours resulting from bottled-water consumption (BWC) in Herat, the random social survey data of the city’s residents inform global SDGs advocating improved water governance and regulatory frameworks of volatile organics (i.e., plastics) (Bouhlel et al., 2023; UNEP, 2023). Herat was chosen because of its comparatively higher ‘safe’ water supply rates compared to rural counterparts (Leslie 2015). Yet its residents are dependent on bottled drinking water.

Literature Review

Afghanistan is one of the least-developed countries the United Nations designates as facing critical levels of safe and available drinking water. According to the Global Water Security 2023 Assessment report (MacAlister et al., 2023), Afghanistan ranks in the top eight Asia-Pacific countries without basic sanitation critical to the supply of safe drinking water. The United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) has long documented that unsanitary water and water-borne diseases increase infant mortalities. Diarrhoeal disease remains the second greatest cause of death for Afghan children (aged five and younger) due to unsanitary conditions (UNICEF Afghanistan, 2023). Global comparisons found Afghanistan among the top 25 most-affected countries experiencing water-related deaths in 2019 (MacAlister et al., 2023). In 2020, the country had no wastewater treatment and scored the lowest worldwide on water governance implementation (MacAlister et al., 2023). Thus, it is important to address the issue of Afghanistan’s water crisis.

Alongside international aid organization and governmental programmes, bottled-water industries provide a temporary solution for Afghanistan’s drinking-water problems. Growing water scarcity, pollution and insufficient governmental provision of water infrastructure and management in war-torn areas increased the reliance on private water trading to meet household needs (Brati et al., 2019). Privatized activities included purchasing drinking water from mobile tankers, subscribing to local private water supply companies and/or buying bottled water (Kazemi, 2018).

Herat’s drinking water and associated environmental issues exist amidst a global bottled-water industry worth $283.01 billion that is forecasted to increase by 7% by 2030 (Grand View Research, 2022). Bottled-water growth may hamper global SDG achievement, waste management and safe drinking-water supply. Internationally, the industry is criticized for capitalizing on human health concerns at the expense of environmental degradation from plastic pollution (BMC, 2020; Crystal Beverage Company, 2022). Global research documents the widespread environmental degradation, and human health risks from plastic bottled-water production, consumption and disposal (Altraeconomia, 2018; Fedi et al., 2021; Ragusa & Crampton, 2021; Saylor et al., 2011). Bottled-water industries spend copiously on advertising to persuade consumers that their products are superior to tap water (Etale et al., 2018; Hu et al., 2011; Ward et al., 2009). A global pro-environmental challenge, therefore, is convincing government and consumers to prioritize clean tap-water provision and consumption (Qian, 2018; Saylor et al., 2011).

Sociologically, gender, location, risk and trust concerns, and localized issues, particularly taste, affect tap-water quality perceptions (Doria, 2006; Jakus et al., 2009; Levêque & Burns, 2018; Levy & Shrapnel, 2014; Viscusi et al., 2015). Water quality science rarely informs public drinking-water perceptions (Ragusa & Crampton, 2021). Individual BWC decision-making, however, varies between developing and developed countries (Bouhlel et al., 2023; Miller, 2006). In developed countries, BWC occurs largely for lifestyle reasons, in contrast to developing countries where consumption occurs largely due to the lack of safe drinking water (Ballantine et al., 2019). Hence, consumer research undertaken in the developed world is unsuitable to advance knowledge and inform practice, where drinking water poses severe health risks, such as in Afghanistan. This article offers the first investigation of BWC and plastic bottled-water disposal in Herat. By applying the theory of planned behaviour (TPB), it furthers knowledge about factors guiding individuals’ use of bottled water and disposal to progress SDG and human–environmental health.

Environmental science research (Singh et al., 2022) is limited in its study of Afghanistan in natural resource management reviews or examination of social behaviours affecting environmental management, particularly BWC. Scientific investigations have focused on disasters, particularly earthquakes (Ansari et al., 2023), military governance and war consequences (Bobkin, 2022; Dearing, 2022). Occasionally, positive ecological impacts are reported from anthropogenic changes in Afghanistan. For example, the ‘Normalised Difference Water Index’ improved from reduced anthropogenic activities in Kabul during its 2020 COVID-19 lockdown (Ahmadi et al., 2022). Similarly, international environmental sustainability efforts (e.g., reducing global greenhouse gas emissions through energy-efficient building design) revealed pro-environmental change in Afghanistan (Ahady et al., 2022). With Kabul’s forecasted population (Forouhar & Hristovski, 2012) and plastic waste (UNEP, 2023) growth having materialized, there is a continuing need for pro-environmental research. This is particularly urgent given the burgeoning e-waste problem, which lacks policy or regulation (Forti et al., 2020), and further threatens water safety.

Groundwater contamination is a key environmental issue and a major concern facing policymakers managing Afghanistan’s urban development (Jawadi et al., 2022). Improved drinking-water quality requires that contamination sources be reduced. There is a lot of research on nitrate pollution from agricultural and heavy metal contamination (Jawadi et al., 2022; Shakeri et al., 2022), but not much about how to tackle the pollution of groundwater and drinking-water resources by single-use plastics. Plastic pollution’s global relevance to policymakers is prominent. Yale University’s ‘environmental performance index’ (EPI) scorecard cited Afghanistan among the ‘laggards in environmental performance’ in 180 countries analysed, attributing its poor score nearly entirely to ‘weak governance’ (Wolf et al., 2022a).

Changing measurements illustrate shifting global environmental imperatives. In 2022, the EPI introduced ‘recycling’ and ‘plastic pollution’ in measurements to address volatile organics and promoted a ‘closed-loop economy’ for solving global environmental problems. ‘Waste management’ and ‘water’ are two of four key indicators EPI uses to measure environmental health. These correspond to three policy objectives: Environmental health, ecosystem vitality and climate change (Wolf et al., 2022b). This article furthers these international policy priorities. By presenting primary social research data about BWC and disposal in Herat, it is hoped that governance, attitudinal and behavioural change will receive support to achieve SDG goals (UN, 2023).

Methodology

As the first investigation to be conducted in Herat on this subject, this research is insightful for policymakers and practitioners. Despite its relatively high altitude and therefore expected cleaner water, burgeoning BWC levels exacerbate environmental pollution and household costs and remain under-researched. Further, a history of institutionalized corruption and government water supply ownership has produced inefficient systems managed by unqualified staff (Leslie, 2015). Internationally funded improvements marginally extended water provision, with research advocating greater regulation and governance to promote sustainable drinking-water supply, consumption and waste management despite 72% of residents reporting ‘safe water’ access (Leslie, 2015).

To expand knowledge about this socio-environmental problem, a quantitative research design was employed to collect primary survey data investigating if attitudes, social norms and behavioural practices affect BWC and plastic disposal. The theoretically informed questionnaire followed social research method protocols for data collection and analysis (Neuman, 2011). All Herat residents over 15 years of age were eligible to participate. The research complied with the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan’s Ministry of Higher Education ethics protocols, and all participants gave informed consent prior to participating. Cochran’s (1977) sample size formula was applied to obtain a representative sample of the research population, 470,128 residents (Statistical Center Afghanistan, 2020). Using stratified random sampling, primary and secondary sampling units were selected in Herat’s 15 districts. Eight randomly chosen districts formed the primary sampling unit. Next, households were selected randomly from the primary unit to constitute the secondary sampling unit. This sampling framework produced a final sample of 380 residents surveyed in 2020.

TPB (Ajzen, 1985; 1991; Ajzen & Madden, 1986) is one of two key theories internationally used to understand contemporary consumer behaviour (Ashraf et al., 2019; Borusiak et al., 2021; Chatterjee & Barbhuiya, 2021; Qian, 2018; Wang et al., 2018). This theory was chosen due to the importance of social factors such as attitude and norms on intention and behaviour, especially water consumption. The second is TPB’s predecessor, ‘theory of reasoned action’ (TRA) (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1975). TRA’s limitation is failure to recognize that consumption hinges upon structural factors (e.g., access and opportunity) that affect subjective perceptions with decision-making and action-taking. TPB overcomes TRA’s limited focus by including structural factors affecting subjective perceptions about behaviour (i.e., capacity to make purchasing decisions) (Ajzen, 1991). According to Galati et al. (2022), ‘perceived behavioural control [PBC] is people’s awareness of their ability to perform and complete a given behaviour, and it is affected by external factors, such as the availability of resources and the knowledge of the behaviour’ (Ahmad et al., 2016; Madden et al., 1992; Valle et al., 2005).

The strengths of the TPB have not been applied to bottled-water research (Xu & Lin, 2018), despite Guo et al. (2021) arguing that TPB is theoretically suitable to investigate BWC and environmental intentions in developing countries. This study employs TPB to research BWC and its consequences (e.g., plastic disposal) by incorporating PBC (i.e., capacity to act pro-environmentally) in a structurally challenged research location such as Herat. This expands the focus of prior TPB research, namely, workplace behaviour (Greaves et al., 2013) and demonstrates TPB’s utility for investigating environmental intentions, private BWC and relationships between toxic plastic-bottle disposal and human ecological health, topics researchers advocate as urgent (Kumar et al., 2022).

The model in Figure 1 was used to test five research hypotheses from the survey data collected from the items in Table 1.

Figure 1.

Source: Ajzen and Madden (1986).

Table 1.

TPB Model Variables, Dimensions and Items: Means, Standard Deviations, Scale Reliability, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Factor Loadings.

Variables, Dimensions and Items	Mean	SD	λ	AVE	CR	α
Attitudes
Health and safety dimension (α = 0.81)
BW contains vitamins and minerals that are good for my health.	4.02	0.99	0.74	0.51	0.92	0.85
Drinking BW is part of a healthy lifestyle.	4.03	0.93	0.84
BW is safer for children, the elderly and those with compromised immune systems.	4.04	0.87	67
Taste dimension (α = 0.67)
BW tastes better than tap water.	3.85	1.1	0.73
More time and money should be spent on making tap water taste better.	3.85	1.07	0.69
Advertising and marketing dimension (α = 0.72)
Advertisements have influence over the amount and types of BW I drink.	3.64	1.07	0.75
I often see advertisements for BW.	3.5	1.09	0.71
Preferences dimension (α = 0.70)
I use tap water when the conditions for buying BW are not provided.	3.56	1.11	0.65
I always prefer BW, even if tap water is available.	3.28	1.28	0.70
Subjective norms
My family think that I should consume BW water rather than tap water.	3.61	1.28	0.85	0.73	0.75	0.90
My close friends think that I should purchase and consume BW rather than consume tap water.	3.45	1.26	0.90
Most people who are important to me think I should consume BW rather than tap water.	3.63	1.17	0.84
Perceived behavioural control
If I want, I can behave consistently with environmental protection.	1.72	0.80	0.77	0.54	0.83	0.77
I am sure I can do some activities that conserve the environment.	4.19	0.81	0.70
I feel I can have complete control over what protects the environment.	4.07	0.84	0.71
Usually, I am in a position to be pro-environmental.	4.04	0.83	0.78
BWC intentions
I intend to purchase and consume BW next time because of its positive environmental contribution.*	3.67	1.29	0.83	0.69	0.80	0.90
I plan to purchase and consume more BW rather than tap water.	3.45	1.34	0.94
I will consider switching from tap water to BW for ecological reasons.*	2.57	1.3	0.83
I tend to purchase and consume more famous brands of BW.	3.24	1.39	0.72
BWC behaviour
How much is your individual BWC?	2.06	1.26	0.57	0.52	0.86	0.80
How much is your household BWC?	1.98	1.36	0.51
How often do you drink BW?	1.77	1.47	0.73
How many bottles of water did you drink in the past day?	0.68	1.05	0.78
How many bottles of water did you drink in the past week?	1.21	1.45	0.93
On average, how much money do you spend on BW each week?	1.22	1.38	0.78

Note: SD = standard deviation; AVE = average variance extracted; BW = bottled water; CR = composite reliability; λ = factor loading. *Item is reverse-coded.

H₁: Attitudes positively affect future BWC intentions.

H₂: Subjective norms positively affect BWC intentions.

H₃: PBC positively affects BWC intentions.

H₄: Intentions positively affect BWC behaviour.

H₅: PBC positively affects BWC behaviour.

Four independent variables (answer options strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 5) were created. The first independent variable, attitudes, had four dimensions (health and safety, taste, advertising and marketing, and preferences). Health and safety contained three items, while taste, advertising and marketing and preferences each contained two items. The second independent variable, subjective norms, was measured using three items testing for potential effects of ‘family’, ‘friends’ and ‘important people’ on residents’ drinking-water attitudes. The third independent variable, PBC, contained four items. This variable examined residents’ perceived ability to generally behave pro-environmentally. Anti-environmental items were reverse-coded. The fourth independent variable, BWC intentions, contained four items that measured behavioural intentions towards drinking water.

The dependent variable, BWC behaviour, contained six items. Answer options ranged from 0 = not at all to 4 = always for: How much is your individual and household BWC? How often do you drink bottled water? These ranged from 0 = never to 4 = daily. How many bottles of water did you drink in the past day and the past week? Ranged from 0 = no consumption to 4 = more than 4 litres. On average, how much money do you spend on bottled water each week? Ranged from 0 = none to 4 = more than $2.

To test the dimensionality of BWC behaviour, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and CFA were conducted. Results found one common factor. The EFA, through Varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization, obtained a one-factor solution that accounted for 79% of explained variance (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin = 0.736, df = 15, sig. = 0.000). This was larger than the 60% threshold recommended by Finch (2019). All six items had factor loadings greater than 0.50 (0.51–0.93) as recommended by Kaiser (1996). The one-factor six-item CFA model was estimated using AMOS 22. Results showed all items loaded highly on their corresponding factors. The CFA revealed factor loadings of all constructs were significant (sig. = 0.001) and above 0.50, the minimum threshold value. The six items also showed an adequate overall model fit to the data (CMIN/df = 3.1, goodness-of-fit index [GFI] = 0.91, comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.93, normed fit index [NFI] = 0.91, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.075).

The variable water bottle disposal behaviour measured methods respondents used to dispose of their plastic waste. Answer options ranged from 0 = infrequently to 4 = most frequently. Means, standard deviations and correlations were obtained for the independent variable PBC, which measured pro-environmental perceptions. Sex, age, household size, income and education were control variables. The value labels for sex were 1 = male, 2 = female. Age and education were continuous variables using biological age and years of formal education. Income was measured as monthly total family income. Household size equalled the total number of cohabiting family members. All variables were created as additive scales which, as recommended by Esposito Vinzi et al. (2010), had high internal consistency (α > 0.70; CR > 0.70). Discriminant validity was tested by exploring the AVE between a construct and its measures. AVE indices were higher than 0.50, as recommended by Rodgers and Pavlou (2003). Finally, a first-order CFA for the scales revealed factor loadings for all items were significant (factor loadings > 0.50) and showed good fit indices for all scales (Byrne, 2016).

Open-ended data were coded and analysed using SPSS, version 22. Means and standard deviations for independent and dependent variables were calculated. Linear regression analysis was used to determine the degree of impact for control variables (age, household size, income and education) and independent variables (attitudes, subjective norms, PBC and intentions). Linear regression results were reported as standardized coefficients (beta coefficients). Finally, structural equation models were run using Amos, version 22. Simultaneous testing was applied to measure the direct and indirect effects of the independent variables on the dependent variable, BWC behaviour. This article presents statistically significant results to answer the research question: Controlling for demographics, do TPB factors (PBC, attitudes and/or subjective norms) significantly explain Herat residents’ BWC purchasing intentions and drinking-water behaviours? The results are discussed apropos their contribution to Afghanistan’s forecasted expansion of private water trading (due to climate change, population growth and government deregulation) and the human–environmental hazards that plastic production and disposal pose to achieving SDGs, including those for water (UN, 2023).

Results

Demographically, 67% of the sample was male and 33% female. The mean age was 26.5 years, and the mean level of formal education was six years. Household monthly income average was $310.70, and the average household size was four family members. CFA results (Table 2) show that most residents had favourable bottled-water attitudes, agreeing that ‘BW [bottled water] contains vitamins and minerals that are good for my health’ and ‘drinking BW is part of a healthy lifestyle’. The sample moderately agreed that advertisements influenced ‘the amount and types of BW I drink’, and they ‘often see advertisements for BW’. Residents believed bottled water tasted ‘better’ than Herat’s tap water, and most thought ‘more time and money should be spent on making tap water taste better’. Bottled water was preferred slightly over tap water, which was used only where bottled water was unavailable. Further, subjective norms revealed family, friends and ‘important people’ advocated that residents consume bottled water. Table 2 shows the means for all independent and dependent variables.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations for Independent and Dependent Variables.

Variables	Mean	SD	Min–Max	1	2	3	4	5
1. Attitudes	33.73	6.5	12–45	1
2. Subjective norms	10.68	3.4	3–15	0.69**	1
3. Perceived behavioural control	14.04	1.73	4–20	0.20**	0.15**	1
4. BWC intentions	12.94	2.64	4–20	0.70**	0.70**	0.18**	1
5. BWC behaviour	8.63	5.6	0–24	0.10	0.07	0.11**	0.11**	1

Note: SD = standard deviation; Min–Max = minimum and maximum scores. *P <.05, **P <.01.

A positive significant relationship emerged between the dependent variable, BWC behaviour and PBC (Table 2). Model 1 (Table 3) shows that subjective norms and three dimensions of attitudes (taste, advertising and marketing, and preferences) positively affected future BWC intentions.

Table 3.

Standard Regression Coefficients: Independent Variables’ Effect on BWC Intentions.

Model 2	Model 1
		Independent variables
0.42**	0.41**	Subjective norms
0.04	0.05	Perceived behavioural control
		Attitudes
0.07	0.07	Health and safety
0.08*	0.09*	Taste
0.14*	0.13*	Advertising and marketing
0.22**	0.23**	Preferences
		Control variables
0.06		Age
0.09*		Education
0.02		Income
0.03		Family members
0.61	0.60	R ²
0.60	0.59	Adjusted R²
47.95**	77.7**	F value
380	380	N

Note: *P <.05, **P <.01.

Model 1 explained approximately 59% of the variance. When control variables were added (model 2), the coefficients of subjective norms and the dimension of advertising and marketing for attitudes increased, while coefficients for the attitudes’ dimensions of taste and preference decreased. The control variable education significantly affected BWC intentions. Adding all control variables increased the adjusted R-squared value from 59% to 60 %. Figure 2 depicts the structural equation model results for the dependent variable, BWC behaviour.

Figure 2.

Note: *P <.05, **P <.01.

BWC intentions (beta = 0.11, sig. = 0.030) and PBC (beta = 0.09, sig. = 0.045) had the largest influence on reported BWC behaviour. Subjective norms (beta = 0.59, sig. = 0.000) and attitudes (beta = 0.31, sig. = 0.000) indirectly affected BWC behaviour by positively affecting BWC intentions. Values for subjective norms and attitudes were 0.06 and 0.03, with the structural models showing an acceptable fit to the data (CMIN/df = 2.8, GFI = 0.93, CFI = 0.91, NFI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.070).

Lastly, Table 4 shows residents’ bottled-water disposal behaviours. Results show more residents ‘throw away’ (3.06), rather than ‘refill and reuse’ (1.94) or ‘recycle’ (1.69).

Table 4.

Plastic Water Bottle Disposal Behaviour.

BW Disposal Behaviour	Mean	Standard Deviation	Minimum	Maximum	Perceived Behavioural Control Correlation Coefficient
Throw away	3.06	1.20	0	4	0.017
Recycle	1.69	1.51	0	4	0.21**
Refill and reuse	1.94	1.41	0	4	0.18**

Note: *P <.05, **P <.01.

Significant correlations (P = .01) with PBC emerged for refilling/reusing and recycling plastic bottles.

Discussion

This article contributes to the first investigation of tap and bottled-water attitudes and behaviours, particularly plastic-bottle disposal and perceived capacity to ‘control’ pro-environmental behaviour in Herat, Afghanistan. It further demonstrates TPB is a useful theory to measure the potential that attitudes have in affecting future levels of BWC. It is a beginning in addressing TPB’s international absence in water research (Xu & Lin, 2018), including social research, beyond investigating online BWC behaviours in China (Guo et al., 2021). It also illustrates TPB’s suitability for future environmental sustainability and tap water research by providing foundational data for policy and practice change.

Literature asserts that BWC reduction is imperative for human–environmental health. In the developing world, poor infrastructure, deregulation, lack of governance and poor management thwart public health goals for water security and reduced exposure to water-borne illnesses caused by the ‘politicization of public water’ (Francisco, 2014; Pacheco-Vega, 2019). The survey results here may further inform UNEP (2023) and UN (2023) environmental and water SDGs in a post-conflict nation. Prior research highlights that municipally provided tap water is inadequate, lacks safety testing and varies in quality (Brati et al., 2019; Kazemi, 2018; Tomas, 2015). Survey results show Herat’s residents moderately prefer bottled to tap water because of taste, perceiving bottled water as safer for vulnerable populations, and as part of healthy lifestyles as it contains ‘vitamins and minerals’ good for health. These results evidence attitudinal misperceptions about bottled water, furthering UN research in documenting the ‘misleading perception that bottled water is an unquestionably safe drinking water source’ (Bouhlel et al., 2023, p. 2).

Safe sanitation is critical for ensuring safe drinking water (MacAlister et al., 2023) and reducing childhood mortality from water-borne diseases in Afghanistan (UNICEF, 2023). Prior philanthropic survey research found that Herat residents considered tap water ‘safe’ (Leslie, 2015), while toxicological analysis showed contamination (Ebner et al., 2018). Disparities between perceived water safety and scientific evidence persist. This article further shows that residents believe they can act pro-environmentally (by exhibiting high PBC) if they reside where the United Nations (2023), WHO (2017, 2018) and World Bank (2019) show that high environmental degradation exists from waste mismanagement, plastic pollution, water contamination and inferior water supply infrastructure.

It is vital for future bottled-water research to explore how attitudes and intentions affect tap water behaviour to offset industry promotion (Etale et al., 2018; Hu et al., 2011; Ward et al., 2009). Reducing BWC is a priority for policymakers to counter Afghanistan’s growing privatized water market (Brati et al., 2019; Kazemi, 2018) and governance of insufficient waste treatment facilities leaching highly toxic heavy metals and plastic into groundwater supply (MacAlister et al., 2023). Global plastic reduction requires that consumers prioritize drinking clean tap water (Qian, 2018; Saylor et al., 2011). This necessitates that good infrastructure and governance must exist to ensure the provision of a safe water supply.

Attitudes, subjective norms and PBC positively influenced residents’ BWC intentions to buy more bottled water. In turn, BWC intentions positively influenced BWC behaviours. Structural equation modelling and regression analysis found that Herat displays global attitudinal biases; namely, that bottled water is preferable, safer and healthier than tap water, tastes better and is endorsed socially. Results further document the influence of social norms on BWC as positively and indirectly influencing future BWC intentions (Etale et al., 2018; Saylor et al., 2011). The preference and intent of residents to increase BWC counters international agency and government initiatives that prioritize governmental provision of safe tap water and minimize reliance on bottled-water industries to solve governance and structural problems. Fostering pro-environmentalism around drinking water thus remains problematic.

Nevertheless, TPB’s application illustrates applied and theoretical utility for explaining BWC behaviours and PBC to act pro-environmentally. External (i.e., structural and normative) and internal (i.e., attitudinal) factors affect BWC behaviour. Reducing single-use plastic in Herat requires concerted policymakers’ and government attention. BWC intentions and PBC had the greatest influence on BWC behaviours, adding to international BWC research (Ahmad et al., 2016; Galati et al., 2022; Valle et al., 2005; Xu & Lin, 2018). Attitudes positively predicted BWC intentions, with consumers specifically believing that bottled water is preferable, ‘tastes better’ or observing ‘advertising and marketing’. This supports the basis of this research (Trumbo & O’Keefe, 2005; van der Linden, 2013; Xu & Lin, 2018) and adds to the literature on the subject (Díez et al., 2018; Parag & Roberts, 2009).

To advance UNEP’s SDGs (2023), substantial economic investment is needed to address plastic pollution. Safe alternatives beyond bottled water are required in the developing world (World Bank, 2019). Significant correlations between PBC and disposal behaviour further the research (Xu & Lin, 2018) and demonstrate some pro-environmentalism. Afghanistan’s low ranking in global assessments of environmental indicators, especially water (Wolf et al., 2022a, 2022b), however, suggests that recommended ‘closed-loop’ economies (EPI, 2022) require international support to reduce BWC reliance, plastic waste and landfill contamination.

It was found that education and household size significantly increased BWC. Higher-educated individuals in poorer countries display less trust in tap water quality and, thus, higher consumption of alternatives to ensure safety (Aslani et al., 2021; Qian, 2018). Government mistrust and water management corruption encourage BWC. Higher-income countries’ presumed tap-water quality (Colburn & Kavouras, 2021; Onufrak et al., 2014; Ragusa & Crampton, 2021; van Erp et al., 2014) fails to dissuade BWC, including in the United States (Reynolds et al., 2008; Zivin et al., 2011). ‘A clear need for systematic analyses of Herat city water to develop plans for water quality and safety improvement and management’ because ‘municipal drinking-water exceeded safe levels of nitrates, phosphates, and E. coli from sources including agricultural production, sewerage, and septic tanks’ (Ebner et al., 2018, p. 1467). Regardless of perception and location, safety testing for all potable water is urgently required to reduce drinking-water contamination risks globally. Social research identifying factors affecting drinking-water quality misperceptions is urgently needed to inform education, policy and practice initiatives aimed at changing entrenched sociocultural norms and tackling environmental and public health consequences derived from unsafe drinking water.

Conclusions

This study has several limitations that could be addressed in future research. These include creating behavioural controls, expanding attitudinal measurement and reproducing the study in other areas, ideally collecting a nationally representative sample of Afghanistan society. Longitudinal data collection may also document BWC patterns over time and including filtered tap water may expand alternatives to BWC.

Despite these limitations, this article makes contributions to the literature on the use of bottled water as an empirical test of TPB in a large sample. A significant finding was that elements of TPB are significantly correlated with BWC in Afghanistan as one of the least-developed countries. Our regression models found approximately 60% of variance for future BWC intentions explained by subjective norms and attitudes. BWC attitudes and behaviours have sizeable, negative public health and environmental implications. BWC and plastic disposal are individual behaviours reflecting broader sociocultural norms, governance and politics. Herat’s residents reported industry advertising informed their attitudes and most believed BWC supports ‘healthy lifestyles’. Most residents ‘agreed’ they could be ‘pro-environmental’, yet threw away, rather than recycled, plastic bottles. This result can be due to lacking infrastructure or knowledge in the least-developed countries. Results show bottled water is a consumer product highly influenced by social and infrastructural factors.

These findings offer valuable social research data that further international tap and bottled-water policy and research knowledge. Bottled water offers a temporary alternative where poor municipal drinking water exists. BWC increases with household wealth and is an expensive commodity that cannot replace investment in safe municipal water provision. Increased BWC also increases Herat’s plastic waste management costs. Thus, tap water infrastructure and education may be more cost-effective than increased BWC in longer term, an approach that would support Afghanistan in achieving SDG-6, sustainable water and sanitation management. Finally, since BWC intentions and PBC were the most significant influencers of behaviour, increasing environmental and public health campaigns about plastic education may counter industry marketing. Collectively, these initiatives may alter subjective norms and attitudes necessary to change behaviour, as an expansive TPB literature details.

Footnotes

Author Contributions

All authors substantially contributed to the research design, data collection, analysis/intellectual content and approved publication of the final version.

Data Availability

Data supporting findings are available on request from the first author and not publicly available due to ethics restrictions.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Ethics Approval

All procedures and methodology were approved by the Education Dean and Student Affairs Vice Chancellor of Eshraq Higher Education Institute, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Ministry of Higher Education, No. 1356, confirmed in the 23 October 2023 signed and sealed letter.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

References

Ahady

, Dev

, & Manda

(2022). Solar radiation control passive strategy for reduction of heating and cooling energy use in arid climate. Indoor and Built Environment, 31(4), 955–971.

Ahmad

A. R.

, Soon

N. K.

, Saiman

S. S.

, & Yusoff

R. M.

(2016). The impact of knowledge transfer program on Malaysian higher education strategic planning. Information, 19(7), 2797–2801.

Ahmadi

, Sahak

A. S.

, Ayoobi

A. W.

, Pekkan

, Inceog˘lu

, & Karsli

(2022). Application of GIS-based AHP model for the impact assessment of COVID-19 lockdown on environment quality: The case of Kabul city, Afghanistan. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 51, 439–452.

Ajzen

(1985). From intentions to actions. In Kuhl

& Beckmann

(Eds.), Action control (pp. 11–39). Springer.

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

Ajzen

, & Fishbein

(1975). A bayesian analysis of attribution processes. Psychological Bulletin, 82(2), 261–277.

Ajzen

, & Madden

T. J.

(1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(5), 453–474.

Altraeconomia

(2018). Un’anomalia tutta Italiana. Bottled Waters, 1, 1–24.

Ansari

, Zaray

A. H.

, Rao

K. S.

, Jain

A. K.

, Hashmat

P. A.

, Ikram

M. K.

, & Wahidi

A. W.

(2023). Reconnaissance surveys after June 2022 Khost earthquake in Afghanistan: Implication towards seismic vulnerability assessment for future design. Innovative infrastructure Solution, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-023-01077-x

10.

Ashraf

M. A.

, Joarder

M. H. R.

, & Ratan

S. R. A.

(2019). Consumers’ anti-consumption behavior toward organic food purchase. British Food Journal, 121(1), 104–122.

11.

Aslani

, Pashmtab

, Shaghaghi

, Mohammadpoorasl

, Taghipour

, & Zarei

(2021). Tendencies towards bottled drinking water consumption. Health Promotion Perspectives, 11(1), 60–68.

12.

Ballantine

P. W.

, Ozanne

L. K.

, & Bayfield

(2019). Why buy free? Exploring perceptions of bottled water consumption and its environmental consequences. Sustainability, 11(3), 757.

13.

BMC. (2020). Bottled water market report. Beverage Marketing Corporation.

14.

Bobkin

N. N.

(2022). The end of the war in Afghanistan. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 92(4), S331–S339.

15.

Borusiak

, Szymkowiak

, Pierański

, & Szalonka

(2021). The impact of environmental concern on intention to reduce consumption of single-use bottled water. Energies, 14(7), 1985.

16.

Bouhlel

, Köpke

, Mina

, & Smakhtin

(2023). Global bottled water industry. United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health.

17.

Brati

M. Q.

, Ishihara

M. I.

, & Higashi

(2019). Groundwater level reduction and pollution in relation to household water management in Kabul, Afghanistan. Sustainable Water Resources Management, 5(3), 1315–1325.

18.

Byrne

B. M.

(2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Routledge.

19.

Chatterjee

, & Barbhuiya

M. R.

(2021). Bottled water usage and willingness to pay among Indian tourists. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 21(5), 531–549.

20.

Cochran

W. G.

(1977). Sampling techniques. John Wiley & Sons.

21.

Colburn

A. T.

, & Kavouras

S. A.

(2021). Tap water consumption and perceptions in United States Latinx adults. Nutrients, 13(9), 2999.

22.

Crystal Beverage Company. (2022). History of bottled water. https://www.myownwater.com/blog/history-of-bottled-water

23.

Dearing

M. P.

(2022). Military order in Afghanistan. Routledge.

24.

Díez

J. R.

, Antigüedad

, Agirre

, & Rico

(2018). Perceptions and consumption of bottled water at the University of the Basque Country. Showcasing tap water as the real alternative towards a water-sustainable university. Sustainability, 10(10), 3431.

25.

Doria

M. F.

(2006). Bottled water versus tap water. Journal of Water and Health, 4(2), 271–276.

26.

Ebner

P. D.

, Deering

, Mojadady

, Rahimi

, Amini

, Popal

, Eshaqzai

, Barak

, Amini

, Azizi

, Morshid

, Mohammadi

, Rahimi

, McNamara

, & Oliver

H. F.

(2018). Capacity building through water quality and safety analyses in Herat, Afghanistan. Journal of Food Protection, 81(9), 1467–1471.

27.

Environmental Performance Index (EPI) (2022). Yale University’s environmental performance index. Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy. https://epi.yale.edu/

28.

Esposito Vinzi

, Chin

W. W.

, Henseler

, & Wang

(2010). Handbook of partial least squares. Springer.

29.

Etale

, Jobin

, & Siegrist

(2018). Tap versus bottled water consumption. Appetite, 121, 138–146.

30.

Fedi

, La Barbera

, De Jong

, & Rollero

(2021). Intention to adopt pro-environmental behaviors among university students of hard and soft sciences. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 22(4), 766–779.

31.

Finch

W. H.

(2019). Exploratory factor analysis. Sage.

32.

Forouhar

, & Hristovski

K. D.

(2012). Characterizations of the municipal solid waste stream in Kabul, Afghanistan. Habitat International, 36(3), 406–413.

33.

Forti

, Baldé

C. P.

, Kuehr

, & Bel

(2020). The global e-waste monitor 2020. United Nations University.

34.

Francisco

J. P. S.

(2014). Why households buy bottled water. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(1), 98–103.

35.

Galati

, Alaimo

L. S.

, Ciaccio

, Vrontis

, & Fiore

(2022). Plastic or not plastic? Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 179, 106060.

36.

Grand View Research. (2022). Global bottled water market report. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/press-release/global-bottled-water-market

37.

Greaves

, Zibarras

L. D.

, & Stride

(2013). Using the theory of planned behavior to explore environmental behavioral intentions in the workplace. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34(1), 109–120.

38.

Guo

, Tan

C. L.

, Wu

, Peng

, Ren

, & Chiu

C. H.

(2021). Determinants of intention to purchase bottled water based on business online strategy in China. The role of perceived risk in the theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(20), 10729.

39.

, Morton

L. W.

, & Mahler

R. L.

(2011). Bottled water. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8(2), 565–578.

40.

Jakus

P. M.

, Shaw

W. D.

, Nguyen

T. N.

, & Walker

(2009). Risk perceptions of arsenic in tap water and consumption of bottled water. Water Resources Research, 45(5). https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007427

41.

Jawadi

H. A.

, Iqbal

M. W.

, Naseri

, Farahmand

, Azizi

A. H.

, & Eqrar

M. N.

(2022). Nitrate contamination in groundwater of Kabul Province, Afghanistan. Journal of Mountain Science, 19, 1274–1291.

42.

Kaiser

C. P.

(1996). Individual, social, and economic determinants of employee absence. The Journal of Business and Economic Studies, 3(2), 1–21.

43.

Kazemi

(2018). Blue gold: The quest for household water in Kabul city. https://reliefweb.int/report/afghanistan/blue-gold-quest-household-water-kabul-city

44.

Kumar

, Manna

, Padha

, Verma

, Sharma

, Dhar

, Ghosh

, & Bhattacharya

(2022). Micro(nano)plastics pollution and human health. Chemosphere, 298, 134267.

45.

Leslie

(2015). Political and economic dynamics of Herat. United States Institute of Peace.

46.

Levêque

J. G.

, & Burns

R. C.

(2018). Drinking water in West Virginia (USA). Journal of Water and Health, 16(5), 827–838.

47.

Levy

G. S.

, & Shrapnel

W. S.

(2014). Quenching Australia’s thirst. Nutrition and Dietetics, 71(3), 193–200.

48.

MacAlister

, Baggio

, Perera

, Qadir

, Taing

, & Smakhtin

(2023). Global water security 2023 assessment. United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health.

49.

Madden

T. J.

, Ellen

P. S.

, & Ajzen

(1992). A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and the theory of reasoned action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(1), 3–9.

50.

Miller

(2006). Bottled water. Texas State University-San Marcos.

51.

Neuman

W. L.

(2011). Social research methods. Pearson.

52.

News Bites Pty Ltd. (2023, March 16). High speed two (HS2) limited: Statement on Afghanistan.

53.

Onufrak

S. J.

, Park

, Sharkey

J. R.

, & Sherry

(2014). The relationship of perceptions of tap water safety with intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and plain water among US adults. Public Health Nutrition, 17(1), 179–185.

54.

Pacheco-Vega

(2019). (Re)theorizing the politics of bottled water. Water insecurity in the context of weak regulatory regimes. Water, 11(4), 658.

55.

Parag

, & Roberts

J. T.

(2009). A battle against the bottles. Society and Natural Resources, 22(7), 625–636.

56.

Qian

(2018). Bottled water or tap water? Water, 10(1), 59.

57.

Ragusa

A. T.

, & Crampton

(2021). (In)conveniently disposable. International Journal of Environmental Science and Development, 12(8), 249–254.

58.

Reynolds

K. A.

, Mena

K. D.

, & Gerba

C. P.

(2008). Risk of waterborne illness via drinking water in the United States. In Whitacre

D. M.

(Ed.), Reviews of environmental contamination and toxicology (pp. 117–158). Springer.

59.

Rodgers

, & Pavlou

(2003). Developing a predictive model. Graduate School of Management, University of California.

60.

Saboor

, Amarkhel

A. K.

, Hakimi

, Bain

, & Luyendijk

(2021). Inclusion of water quality testing in the Afghanistan living conditions survey and status of bacteriological contamination of drinking water in 10 provinces of Afghanistan. Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development, 11(4), 600–611.

61.

Saylor

, Prokopy

L. S.

, & Amberg

(2011). What’s wrong with the tap? Environmental Management, 48(3), 588–601.

62.

Shakeri

, Hosseini

, Mehr

M. R.

, & Barmaki

M. D.

(2022). Groundwater quality evaluation using water quality index (WQI) and human health risk (HHR) assessment in Herat aquifer, west Afghanistan. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 28(7), 711–733.

63.

Singh

, Verma

, Singh

, Ahamad

, & Batalhão

A. C. S.

(2022). Waste management and resource recycling in the developing world. Elsevier.

64.

Statistical Center Afghanistan. (2020). Statistical yearbook. Statistical Center Publication.

65.

Tomas

(2015). Household drinking water insecurity. Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit.

66.

Trumbo

C. W.

, & O’Keefe

G. J.

(2005). Intention to conserve water. Society and Natural Resources, 18(6), 573–585.

67.

UNICEF. (2023). Afghanistan WASH: Water, sanitation and hygiene. United Nations. https://www.unicef.org/afghanistan/wash-water-sanitation-and-hygiene

68.

UNICEF Afghanistan. (2023). WASH: Water, sanitation and hygiene. United Nations. https://www.unicef.org/afghanistan/wash-water-sanitation-and-hygiene

69.

United Nations. (UN). (2023). Sustainability development goals. https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal6

70.

United Nations Environmental Programme. (UNEP). (2023). Where we work. https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/disasters-conflicts/where-we-work/afghanistan

71.

Valle

P. O. D.

, Rebelo

, Reis

, & Menezes

(2005). Combining behavioral theories to predict recycling involvement. Environment and Behavior, 37(3), 364–396.

72.

van der Linden

(2013). Exploring beliefs about bottled water and intentions to reduce consumption. Environment and Behavior, 47(5), 526–550.

73.

van Erp

, Webber

W. L.

, Stoddard

, Shah

, Martin

, Broderick

, & Induni

(2014). Demographic factors associated with perceptions about water safety and tap water consumption among adults in Santa Clara County California 2011, Preventing Chronic Disease, 11, E98.

74.

Viscusi

W. K.

, Huber

, & Bell

(2015). The private rationality of bottled water drinking. Contemporary Economic Policy, 33(3), 450–467.

75.

Wang

, Wang

, Li

, & Zhao

(2018). Extending the theory of planned behavior to understand consumers’ intentions to visit green hotels in the Chinese context. International Journal of Contemporary Hos Ansari, A., Zaray, A. H., Rao, K. S., Jain, A. K., Hashmat, pitality Management, 30(8), 2810–2825.

76.

Ward

L. A.

, Cain

O. L.

, Mullally

R. A.

, Holliday

K. S.

, Wernham

A. G. H.

, Baillie

P. D.

, & Greenfield

S. M.

(2009). Health beliefs about bottled water. BMC Public Health, 9(1), 196.

77.

Wolf

M. J.

, Emerson

J. W.

, Esty

D. C.

, de Sherbinin

, Wendling

Z. A.

(2022a). 2022 environmental performance index. Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy.

78.

Wolf

M. J.

, Emerson

J. W.

, Esty

D. C.

, de Sherbinin

, Wendling

Z. A.

(2022b). Environmental performance index ranking country performance on sustainability issues. Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy.

79.

World Bank. (2019). Worsening water quality reducing economic growth by a third in some countries. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2019/08/20/worsening-water-quality-reducing-economic-growth-by-a-third-in-some-countries

80.

WHO. (2017). Progress on drinking water, sanitation and hygiene. World Health Organization.

81.

WHO. (2018). Safely managed drinking water. World Health Organization.

82.

, & Lin

C. A.

(2018). Effects of cognitive, affective, and behavioral factors on college students’ bottled water purchase intentions. Communication Research Reports, 35(3), 245–255.

83.

Zivin

J. G.

, Neidell

, & Schlenker

(2011). Water quality violations and avoidance behavior. American Economic Review, 101(3), 448–453.