water

Article
Bottled Water or Tap Water? A Comparative Study of
Drinking Water Choices on University Campuses
Neng Qian ID

Institute of Water Policy, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore,
L2 Tower Block, 469A Bukit Timah Road, Singapore 259770, Singapore; sppqn@nus.edu.sg; Tel.: +65-6516-6725

Received: 6 November 2017; Accepted: 8 January 2018; Published: 11 January 2018

Abstract: A cross-regional comparative study was conducted to survey the drinking behaviors of
university students, in Singapore, Hong Kong, and Macau. In particular, I tested students’ preference
for bottled water over filtered tap water, in a context where the latter option is widely accessible, free
of charge, and meets drinking standards. It was found that Singapore has a relatively low rate of
bottled water consumption within the young population of university students, while in Hong Kong
and Macau one-fourth of the students still drink bottled water more frequently than tap water. Using
the Theory of Planned Behavior framework, the perceptions and factors that determine the choices
were studied. In terms of determinants of the drinking water choices, “Safety and Hygiene” and
“Convenience and Availability” ranked highest for all three regions. “Taste”, “Price”, and “Personal
and Family Habits” were valued next by different subsamples. Respondents from Singapore rated
relatively high in the accessibility of filtered tap water, safety of tap water transfer, and trust in
government, and these factors are considerably significant in driving the result of having the lowest
consumption of bottle water on campus. Gender and the behaviors of students who stay in campus
dorms were also explored.

Keywords: bottled water; tap water; theory of planned behavior; comparative study

1. Introduction
Water is an essential resource and one that is of imperative use. It is needed in everyday life and
affects the well-being of each individual. Most of the governments in the world have succeeded to
or aim to provide clean and safe drinking water to its residents, and many developed countries have
already provided tap water to basic drinking standards [1]. However, recent decades have witnessed a
rising global consumption of bottled water, especially in developed countries where water directly
from the tap is drinkable. In the United States, bottled water consumption has been doubled to an
average annual per capita volume of 138.17 L in 2015; this figure in the European Union is roughly
104.1 L [2,3]. Globally, the total bottled water consumption topped 329.33 billion L in 2015, an increase
of more than 1/3 in per capita terms over a span of five years [4].
Bottled water initially emerged as a large, mainstream commercial beverage category in Western
Europe and later expanded remarkably in the US market. In the last few years, several Asian markets
have become major bottled water markets. In fact, Asia itself became the largest regional market in
2011, edging out North America and easily outshining Europe [5]. In Asia, Singapore, Hong Kong,
and Macau are places where local water authorities confidently claim the safety and drinkability of
municipal tap water [6–8]. However, despite the availability of drinkable tap water, people living in
these three regions still consume a large amount of bottled water. Hong Kong has long been among
the top 20 countries and regions across the world in annual per capita bottled water consumption,
as high as 123.78 L in 2014 [5]. In Singapore, the sales volume of bottled water hit $134 million in 2015,
up 24% from five years ago [9].

Water 2018, 10, 59; doi:10.3390/w10010059 www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2018, 10, 59 2 of 12

Why should the consumption of bottled water be a concern, especially in those places with
drinkable tap water? Firstly, bottled water requires much more energy in terms of production and
distribution. The total energy required for unit bottled water consumption ranges from 5.6 to 10.2 MJ
per liter, while this number is typically 0.005 MJ per liter for tap water treatment and distribution [10].
Secondly, bottled water has a negative environmental impact, particularly plastic waste. Plastic bottles
are made from petroleum, and most bottles are not recycled. In the US, the recycling rate for plastic
was only 23% in the year 2007 [11]. Many plastic bottles still end up in landfills, or worse, as litter in
forests, lakes, and oceans. Thirdly, regarding safety and health aspects, bottled water is less regulated
than municipal tap water [12].
Convincing the public to adopt and maintain sustainable behaviors, such as drinking tap water
instead of bottled water, is a challenging task despite the potential for significant environmental and
social benefits [13]. In universities, education on sustainability has developed rapidly, and universities
are perceived as playing active roles in providing the students with understanding about environment
and sustainability [14]. Among others, university students are a community group thought to be more
concerned about the environment and tend to adopt sustainable behaviors. Therefore, empirical study
on this group in terms of their perceptions and choices of drinking water on university campuses is
important, as it would serve as a stepping stone to understanding the general public’s behavior of
drinking bottled water, as compared to that of drinkable tap water.
In this paper, I explore the drinking water choices of university students, examine the factors that
determine their choices, and focus on whether and how this group makes bottled water choices out of
pro-environmental intentions.
I carried out empirical studies in three regions: Singapore, Hong Kong, and Macau. Besides the
common fact that municipal tap water has high direct drinking standards, the three cities have other
similarities: they are all islands relying on the import of fresh water from their neighbors, they are
categorized as high income cities, their populations consist of a large majority of ethnic Chinese, etc.
Further, in the three university campuses of interest: the National University of Singapore (NUS),
Hong Kong University (HKU), and Macau University (McU), filtered tap water drinking fountains
and dispensers are generally available and commonly in use. It is merely a personal choice of each
student to choose between tap water and bottled water as major drinking water source on campus.
Hence, a comparative study was conducted to address the following research questions:
1. What are the current behaviors of drinking water choices on campuses in NUS, HKU, and McU?
2. What are the major factors that determine the drinking water choices of university students?
3. Are university students concerned about the environment and does such sustainability intentions
motivate the pro-environmental behavior of consuming less bottled water?

2. Health Implications of Drinking Bottled Water versus Tap Water

The health implications of drinking bottled waters and of drinking tap water are worth
highlighting. Various studies have revealed that, relative to tap water, bottled water generally contains
higher concentrations of essential minerals. In a book edited by a Swedish researcher [15], it is stated
that bottled water with origin in especially limestone bedrock have higher concentrations of calcium
and magnesium, along with HCO3 and some micro elements, than tap waters in Sweden. Both of
Ca and Mg reduce tendencies of cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and osteoporosis. Bottled waters
from the European continent or other areas, where the bedrock is younger and contains more Ca and
Mg, generally have higher levels of both. Contrary, some Swedish bottled waters are supplemented
with Na and K, causing levels of these elements that are harmful for people at risk of cardiovascular
diseases. However, overconsumption of certain minerals harm our bodies. For instance, levels of
fluoride above 1.5 mg/L would increase our risk of dental fluorosis, despite its benefits in protecting
us from tooth decay. It is a concern that bottled water contains fluoride levels that are 12% to 218%
of the recommended daily intake, much higher than that of tap water (0% to 62%) [15]. Considering
wholly the mineral content of bottled and tap water, another study on the North American community
Water 2018, 10, 59 3 of 12

shows that drinking tap water is associated with 14% to 17% more gastrointestinal illness than purified
bottled water [16].
However, improper storage of bottled water would also harm its consumers.
Elevated temperatures are responsible for the release of antimony from polyethylene terephthalate
plastics used for water bottles [17]. Antimony is a regulated contaminant that can cause nausea,
vomiting, diarrhea, and even chronic health effects in drinking water. The authors also found that
the longer the water is stored in plastic bottles, the higher concentrations of antimony is leached.
Considering the growing trend of using reverse osmosis in producing bottled water, there are concerns
of drinking such demineralized water as it deprives consumers from minerals and their health benefits.
In the United States, as prevalent as 24% of the bottled water consumed is filtered water (i.e., water
produced by reverse osmosis) [18].
Shifting focus to our case study, authorities in Hong Kong ensure that its tap water is one of the
safest in the world, implying less need for bottled water in terms of healthy consumption. Equipped
with rigorous water treatment processes, the average chloroform levels in Hong Kong’s water was
less than 50 mg/L, much lower than the upper limit of 300 mg/L set by WHO. Further, the Water
Supplies department also mineralize water for health benefits, adding, for example, 0.5 mg of fluoride
for every liter of water to prevent tooth decay. In Singapore, it is difficult to ascertain which type of
water (tap or bottled) provides more health benefits, as the difference lies in the water source and
treatment processes [19]. However, tap water in Singapore is of high quality, well within the WHO
guidelines for drinking water quality according to the local water authority PUB. In Macau, there is a
lack of studies on the safety of tap water and its health effects as compared to drinking bottled water.
In a nutshell, mineral content in water, bottled or tap, differs according to water source, how it
is treated, and how it is stored, subsequently giving rise to different long-term health implications.
Countries with established municipal water standards tend to find tap water as a healthy water choice.
Drinking bottled water, on the other hand, is advantageous if consumers choose water with mineral
content that meets recommended daily intake limits and store these bottles properly. Nevertheless,
one should keep in mind that, given the prevalence of reverse osmosis technology in producing
bottled water and/or filtered tap water, the health implications of such drinking water sources are
further twisted. Consumers need to be much better educated to understand their water choices when
making decisions.

3. Literature Review
There are a few studies on the public perceptions and choice of bottled water over tap water,
most of which focus on analyzing different aspects of benefit and risk perceptions. Jakus et al. used a
probability-based measure of risk and focused attention on the role that the perceived risks of tap water
play in the demand for bottled water [20]. They studied a sample of people living in areas in the United
States whose water supply was contaminated with arsenic, measured their perceived risk, and related
it to observed behavior statistically. Besides convenience and price factors, they found that perceived
risk was a statistically significant determinant of the amount of bottled water a person bought. Viscusi
et al. examined decisions to choose bottled water using a large, nationally representative sample [21].
They showed that perceptions of superior safety, taste, and convenience boost consumption of bottled
water. Those who had prior adverse experiences with tap water or had encountered water quality
incidences tended to believe bottled water is safer or tastes better. They also found evidences of
different ethnic effects and concluded that it was due to the exposure to unsafe water and varied risk
beliefs. Doria explored some of the reasons why people choose an option that is often more expensive
and less pleasant than tap water, besides the two frequently highlighted main factors: organoleptic
dissatisfaction with tap water (especially taste) and risk concerns [22]. Many other factors, including
demographic variables, the perceived quality of the water source, and trust in tap water companies,
also seem to influence public behavior. The author found that people generally value “good quality
water”, and some are prepared to splurge on what they perceived to be a “purer” or “healthier”
Water 2018, 10, 59 4 of 12

product. Arnold and Larsen argued that people highly value clean drinking water, and may distrust
the quality and safety of tap water due to perceived risks, especially after contamination incidents [23].
Hence, it becomes difficult to convince the public to adopt and maintain sustainable behaviors, such as
drinking tap water instead of bottled water.
On the behaviors on university campuses related to tap or bottled water consumption, several
work has shed light on the issue. Saylor et al. conducted a mixed method research in Purdue University,
US and assessed the current behaviors as well as the perceived benefits and barriers to drinking tap
water versus bottled water [13]. They found that perceived risks from tap water and the perceived
safety, preferred taste, and convenience of bottled water were major determinants. The study also
uncovered a gender difference in bottled water consumption. Due to the increasing concerns of
environmental impacts of bottled water, activists and communities have joined forces to act on issues
associated with bottled water. Mikhailovich and Fitzgerald studied a public program of the removal of
bottled water on university campus community [24]. Their analysis indicated that such programs lead
to changes in pro-environmental behaviors, such as the increased use of re-fillable bottles. However,
there were other undesirable outcomes as well, such as drinking a lower quantity of water. Moreover,
community perceptions were polarized: restrictions on freedom of choice, health concerns as a result
of increased intake of sugary drinks, and the continued availability of other plastic drink bottles were
provided as strong objections to the removal of bottled water from sale on campus. Van Der Linden
proposed an applied social-psychological understanding of how to reduce bottled water consumption,
testing different strategies for behavioral change of drinking less bottled water [25]. Findings showed
that beliefs about health, taste, water quality, lifestyle, the environment, and perceived alternatives are
all correlated with bottled water consumption.
This work is strongly related to that of Saylor et al.’s. Extending their method to a cross-country
study of three countries/regions, this paper, to the best of our knowledge, is the first comparative
study across regions on the issue of drinking water choices on university campuses. Further, existing
cross-country or regional comparative works mainly focus on the water supply issue and consumer’s
attitude on water quality as well as quantity [26], and my work adds to the literature in expanding such
studies to the drinking water area. I aim not only to provide empirical evidence of the current behaviors
as well as the underlying perceptions but also to test the synthesized framework originated from the
theory of planned behavior, in explaining the drinking water choices among university students.

4. Framework
Numerous theoretical frameworks have been developed to explain the factors that determine
certain behaviors. Drinking tap versus bottled water is considered in this work to be an
environmentally affected behavior [27]; thus, I would like to adopt a framework that draws attention
to pro-environmental behaviors. To explain the attitude–behavior relation, Ajzen and Fishbein’s theory
of reasoned action has been the cornerstone for more sophisticated models and frameworks [28,29].
In the model of responsible environmental behavior, Hines et al. identified factors associated with
responsible pro-environmental behavior including knowledge of issues, knowledge of action strategies,
locus of control, attitudes, verbal commitment, and individual responsibility [30]. Stern developed
a value–belief–norm (VBN) theory of environmentalism, which links value theory, norm-activation
theory and the New Environmental Paradigm perspective through a causal chain of variables (personal
values, beliefs about environment, personal norms, etc.) leading to behavior [31]. Kollmuss and
Agyeman developed an integrated model of Pro-environmental Behavior, forming a diagram of
factors [32]. They emphasized “pro-environmental consciousness”, which incorporates knowledge,
attitudes, and emotional involvement—factors that are embedded in broader personal values rather
than directly impacting behavior.
Synthesizing the earlier theories, I focused on the theory of planned behavior (TPB) by Ajzen [33]
and the work of Harland et al., which highlight the role of personal norms [34]. In the TPB theory,
it is argued that the behaviors are predicted by behavioral intentions, which in turn are anteceded by
Water 2018, 10, 59 5 of 12

the attitude, the subjective norms, and the perceived behavioral control. Attitudinal factors include
a general attitude towards the behavior, about the product attributes and perceived costs, benefits,
Water 2018, 10, 59 5 of 12
and risks; subjective norms refer to individuals’ perception of norms and conventions regarding the
particular
particular pro-environmental
pro-environmentalbehavior,
behavior,i.e., i.e.,
how howothersothers
wouldwould
view suchviewbehavior
such and the motivation
behavior and the
to comply with the views; the perceived behavior control relates to individuals’
motivation to comply with the views; the perceived behavior control relates to individuals’ perception of the
extent to which
perception of theperformance of the
extent to which behavior is
performance ofeasy or difficult.
the behavior Besides
is easy these factors
or difficult. Besidesprescribed by
these factors
the TPB theory, Schwartz defines personal norm as self-expectations that are
prescribed by the TPB theory, Schwartz defines personal norm as self-expectations that are based on based on internalized
values [35]. Such
internalized personal
values norms
[35]. Such reflect norms
personal commitment reflectwith internalized
commitment withvalues and are values
internalized experienced
and areas
feelings of personal obligation to engage in a certain behavior. Harland et
experienced as feelings of personal obligation to engage in a certain behavior. Harland et al. al. conducted a combined
study of TPB
conducted and the personal
a combined study ofnorm theory
TPB and thein explaining
personal norm the environmentally
theory in explainingrelevant behavior and
the environmentally
found that
relevant personal
behavior andnorms
foundare of importance
that personal norms in themselves and improve
are of importance the explanatory
in themselves powerthe
and improve of
TPB [34].
explanatory power of TPB [34].
In this
In this work,
work, II apply
apply concepts from Ajzen
concepts from Ajzen [33][33] and
and Harland
Harland et et al.
al. [34],
[34], by
by incorporating
incorporating thethe
personal norm into the TPB theory. Figure 1 illustrates the framework and the factors
personal norm into the TPB theory. Figure 1 illustrates the framework and the factors that potentially that potentially
impact the
impact the particular
particular behavior
behavior ofof drinking
drinking water
water choices.
choices.

Figure
Figure 1.
1. Theory
Theory of
of planned
planned behavior
behavior (TPB)
(TPB) framework
framework adapted
adapted from Ajzen and
from Ajzen and Harland
Harland et
et al.
al.

5. Data and Analysis

5. Data and Analysis
5.1.
5.1. Sample
Sample
A quantitativesurvey
A quantitative surveywas
was used
used to learn
to learn aboutabout the behavior
the behavior and perceptions
and perceptions of university
of university students
students
in the National University of Singapore (NUS), Hong Kong University (HKU), and Macauand
in the National University of Singapore (NUS), Hong Kong University (HKU), Macau
University
University (McU). Subjects were recruited through convenience sampling: the research
(McU). Subjects were recruited through convenience sampling: the research assistants (RAs) utilized assistants
(RAs) utilized
university open university
directoryopen
emailsdirectory
and socialemails and social
networks networks
to attract to attract
students studentsintothe
to participate participate
surveys;
in the surveys; those who were interested could contact the RAs to complete the
those who were interested could contact the RAs to complete the questionnaire, and redeem a token questionnaire, and
of
redeem a
around $8. token of around $8.
A
A total
total ofof 406
406 questionnaires
questionnaires were
were completed,
completed, with
with the
the respondents’
respondents’ characteristics
characteristics summarized
summarized
in
in Table 1 for the three regions. From Singapore, there were 186 sample observations, 105
Table 1 for the three regions. From Singapore, there were 186 sample observations, 105 from
from Hong
Hong
Kong, and 115 from Macau. Gender composition was almost balanced; local respondents
Kong, and 115 from Macau. Gender composition was almost balanced; local respondents constituted constituted
larger proportionsinin
larger proportions thethe
NUS NUS
and and
HKUHKU samples,
samples, relativerelative to the
to the McU McUMost
sample. sample.
of theMost of the
respondents
respondents were staying more than two years locally, and most of them were
were staying more than two years locally, and most of them were undergraduate students. NUS had a undergraduate
students. NUS hadofaparticipants
larger proportion larger proportion of participants
who were who were to
religious, compared religious,
the othercompared
two regions.to the other two
regions.
Water 2018, 10, 59 6 of 12

Table 1. Summary of sample.

City Singapore Hong Kong Macau

Sample size N = 186 N = 105 N = 115
Female 58.06% 51.43% 65.22%
Local 74.19% 80.95% 43.38%
Have stayed for >2 years locally 95.16% 95.24% 70.43%
Undergraduate 95.70% 80% 95.65%
Religion
No Religion 47.31% 73.33% 84.35%
Buddhism 25.27% 1.90% 7.83%
Christian 18.82% 24.76% 6.96%
Islam 3.23% 0 0.87%
Others 5.38% 0 0

5.2. Current Behavior

Given that in all three regions the tap water is treated to meet drinking standards, and that filtered
tap water facilities for drinking purposes (such as water dispensers or water fountains) are generally
available in universities, the respondents were asked to choose between “bottled water” and “filtered
tap water”. Among all respondents, 79 out of 406 (19.46%) reported consuming bottled water more
often on campus than filtered tap water. Comparing the regions, the F-test (p = 0.0187) shows that
the mean consumption of bottled water is significantly different across the three universities. Table 2
shows the drinking water choice by region. In Singapore, only 13.44% of respondents drink bottled
water more often, while in both Hong Kong and Macau, the rate is almost one out of four, significantly
higher than that of Singapore.

Table 2. Drinking water choice on campus by region.

City Singapore Hong Kong Macau

Drink bottled water more often on campus 13.44% 24.76% 24.35%
Mean difference compare to Singapore (t-test) p = 0.011 p = 0.011

Considering the frequency of drinking bottled water, it was found that in general 40.39% of
the respondents “hardly ever” drink bottled water, and 13.05% drink bottled water “almost daily”.
Such frequency also differs significantly (p = 0.001) across regions, with Singaporeans drinking the
least bottled water, as shown in Figure 2. Only 9.68% of NUS respondents drink bottle almost daily;
while the corresponding figures for HKU and McU stand at 19.05% and 13.04%, respectively. Frequent
bottled water drinkers (those who drink bottle more than once a week) account for less than a third
of the Singapore sample (29.58%), which pales in comparison to 47.62% in Hong Kong and 51.3%
in Macau.
Water 2018, 10, 59 7 of 12
Water 2018, 10, 59 7 of 12

Figure 2. Frequency of drinking bottled water on campus.

Figure 2. Frequency of drinking bottled water on campus.

5.3. Factors for Drinking Water Choices

5.3. Factors for Drinking Water Choices
Students were given seven general factors that influence drinking water choice and were asked
to Students wereinfluential
evaluate how given seven general
these factorsfactors
were that influence drinking
to themselves waterThe
on a 1–5 scale. choice andscore
mean wereofasked
each to
evaluate how influential these factors were to themselves on a 1–5 scale. The mean score
factor with standard deviation by region is illustrated in Table 3. For all three regions, “Safety and of each factor
with standard
Hygiene” anddeviation by region
“Convenience andis illustrated
Availability” in Table
were 3. For highest
rated all threeon
regions,
average;“Safety
NUSand andHygiene”
HKU
and “Convenience and Availability” were rated highest on average; NUS and
respondents ranked “Price” as the third important factor, while McU respondents cared more about HKU respondents
ranked “Price”
“Taste”. All as
butthetwo
thirdfactors,
important factor, while
“Religious McU respondents
Conventions” cared more about
and “Environmental “Taste”. were
Concerns”, All but
two factors, “Religious
significantly different Conventions”
across regionsand in “Environmental
terms of average Concerns”,
score. Thewere significantly
stated importancedifferent
of
across regions in terms
“Environmental of average
Concerns” score.water
on drinking The stated
choice importance of “Environmental
is almost invariant across regions, Concerns”
averagingon
aroundwater
drinking 3.51, which
choiceisislower
almost than the topacross
invariant three regions,
factors but even higher
averaging than3.51,
around “Personal
whichand Family
is lower than
theHabits”.
top threeThisfactors
is surprising
but even since there are
higher thanwell documented
“Personal and results
Familythat habits should
Habits”. This is be a significant
surprising since
factor
there areshaping environmentally
well documented resultssignificant
that habits behavior
should[31].
be a significant factor shaping environmentally
significant behavior [31].
Table 3. General factors for drinking water choice.
Table 3. General factors for drinking water
Singapore Hong choice.
Kong Macau F-Test
General Factors for Drinking Water Choice
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) p-Value
Price Singapore
4.12 (0.83) Hong3.65
Kong(1.07) Macau
3.20 (1.11) F-Test
0.000
General Factors for Drinking Water Choice
Safety and Hygiene Mean 4.63(SD)
(0.62) Mean4.42 (0.87) Mean
(SD) 4.42 (0.78)
(SD) p-Value
0.014
Convenience and Availability 4.44 (0.68) 4.22 (0.78) 3.96 (0.91) 0.000
Price 4.12 (0.83) 3.65 (1.07) 3.20 (1.11) 0.000
Taste
Safety and Hygiene 3.83 (1.04)
4.63 (0.62) 3.49 (1.19)
4.42 (0.87) 3.63 (1.11)
4.42 (0.78) 0.032
0.014
Personal and
Convenience andFamily Habits
Availability 4.443.34 (1.28)
(0.68) 4.22 3.00 (1.15) 3.963.41
(0.78) (1.09)
(0.91) 0.024
0.000
Religious Conventions
Taste 3.831.60 (1.03)
(1.04) 3.49 1.64 (1.05) 3.631.73
(1.19) (1.09)
(1.11) 0.560
0.032
Environmental
Personal and FamilyConcerns
Habits 3.343.51 (1.07)
(1.28) 3.00 3.50 (1.24) 3.413.52
(1.15) (1.10)
(1.09) 0.985
0.024
Religious Conventions 1.60 (1.03) 1.64 (1.05) 1.73 (1.09) 0.560
Environmental
General Concerns
factors depict a rough outline3.51
for(1.07) 3.50 (1.24)
understanding 3.52 (1.10) of a particular
the determinants 0.985
behavior. In the context of preferring bottled water over (filtered) tap water on campus, such general
factors are factors
General represented
depictby specific
a rough sub-factors,
outline which on one
for understanding thehand influenceofthe
determinants stated behavior
a particular behavior.
(“drink bottle” or “drink tap”) and on the other hand provide testable grounds for the theoretical
In the context of preferring bottled water over (filtered) tap water on campus, such general factors are
framework.
represented byI specific
devisedsub-factors,
a list of statements,
which onand
oneasked
hand the students
influence thetostated
indicate their opinions
behavior on the or
(“drink bottle”
statements
“drink on aon1–5
tap”) and thescale,
otherfrom
hand“strongly disagree”
provide testable to “strongly
grounds for theagree”. Thenframework.
theoretical the statements were a
I devised
list of statements, and asked the students to indicate their opinions on the statements on a 1–5 scale,
Water 2018, 10, 59 8 of 12

from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. Then the statements were grouped under the general
factors, and a compounded score for each general factor was computed. Note that the score was
computed in a manner whereby opinions that support drinking bottled water are assigned lower
scores, and those that imply a higher tendency to drink tap water are assigned higher scores. Hence,
statements that indicate inclination towards drinking bottled water had the score reversed, i.e., a 1–5
scale, from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”, corresponding to score −1 to −5. The detailed
statements and the expected direction of correlation are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Specific factors for drinking water choice.

Expected Impact on
General and Specific Sub-Factors
Drinking Bottled Water
Safety and Hygiene
Tap water in general is unsafe to drink directly. (-)
Bottled water is safer than tap water. (-) negative
Tap water is treated to be drinkable, but contamination may happen during storage and transfer. (-)
Tap water is more regulated and safer than bottled water.
Convenience and Availability
negative
Filtered tap water is easily accessible on campus.
Taste
negative
Filtered tap water tastes almost the same as bottled water.
Trust in Authority
negative
The government is trustworthy in providing safe tap water for drinking.
Personal and Family Habits
Your preference on drinking water. positive
Your family’s preference on drinking water.
Environmental Concerns
Consumption of bottled water causes damage to the environment.
negative
Using less bottled water reduces oil consumption to make plastic as well as contributes less plastic to landfills.
By using reusable bottles or recycle bottles, I’m reducing my personal contribution to global climate change.
Barriers to Bottle Reuse
Reusable bottles may contain harmful chemicals or germs.
Reusable bottles require too much time and effort to clean. positive
Reusable bottles are inconvenient to carry around on a daily basis and easy to lose/forget.
There are not enough locations to recycle plastic bottles on campus.
Self-impact
I feel guilty throwing away plastic bottles after only using them once. negative
I would persuade my friends to consume less bottled water.
Note: 1. Only the factors that are significantly correlated with drinking bottled water are reported; 2. (-) denotes
reversed score, i.e., 1–5 scale, from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” corresponding to scores −1 to −5; 3.
Barriers and self-impact are included to represent the additional significant specific factors (statements).

Spearman’s test was carried out to evaluate the correlation of the factors with the behavior
of drinking bottled water. Consistent with the statistics reflected in the general factors, the three
factors elaborated with specific contextual statements, “Safety and Hygiene”, “Convenience and
Availability”, and “Taste” were still significantly correlated with drinking bottled water, with the
correlation coefficients to be −0.196, −0.199, and −0.1335 and p-values of 0.001, 0.000, and 0.007,
respectively. Note that “Price” statements were not included since filtered tap water is free of charge on
campus. This implies that the more students felt tap water was safe, hygienic, convenient, and widely
available, as well as tasty, the less frequently they would drink bottled water on campus. Among
others, “Convenience and Availability” is most strongly correlated with drinking bottled water.
Although in the general factors evaluation “Personal and Family Habits” was scored lower
than “Environmental Concerns”, with contextual specific factors supplied, the former was shown
to be highly correlated (0.351 and 0.115) and significant (p = 0.000 and 0.020). “Environmental
Concerns” was still robustly associated with drinking bottled water, given a correlation of −0.126
with p = 0.011. Furthermore, I tested the detailed factors of “Trust in Authority”, “Barriers to Bottle
Reuse”, and “Self-Impact”, which are examined in other literature [13,36,37]. The results also showed
significant correlations of −0.1243, 0.140 and −0.126, respectively. Summarizing the factors and
statistical results, the framework set up earlier on could be tested (Table 5).
Water 2018, 10, 59 9 of 12

Table 5. Correlations tested in the TPB framework.

TPB Framework Representing Factors Correlation to Behavior p-Value

Safety and Hygiene −0.1691 0.0006
Convenience and Availability −0.199 0.000
Attitude
Taste −0.1335 0.007
Trust in authority −0.1243 0.012
Personal Habits 0.351 0.000
Subjective Norms Family Habits 0.115 0.020
Environmental Concerns −0.1263 0.011
Perceived Behavioral Control Barriers to bottle reuse 0.14 0.005
Personal Norms Self-impact −0.1261 0.011

For each country/region, Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regressions were conducted to identify
the important factors that drive drinking water decisions. In Singapore, it was found that easy
access to tap water (p = 0.000), less contamination in tap water transfer (p = 0.05), and trust in the
government (p = 0.06) were the most significant factors. In Hong Kong, “Convenience and Availability”
(p = 0.045) and “Environmental Concerns” (p = 0.001) were the most important determinants. In Macau,
respondents reported that superior taste (p = 0.007) and the safety of bottled water (p = 0.069) were key
underlying factors.

5.4. Gender Difference

The effect of gender was also tested on both stated behavior and driving factors. For the total
sample, there was no effect of gender on drinking water choice. In terms of the driving factors, females
ranked “Taste” and “Personal and Family Habits” significantly higher than males (p = 0.014 and
0.0017, respectively).
However, within different cities, gender variation plays a role in drinking water choice in
different ways. In NUS, females drank slightly more frequent bottled water (p = 0.05) and valued the
“Convenience and Availability” (p = 0.04) less. In Hong Kong, female respondents cared more about
“Safety and Hygiene” (p = 0.032) as well as “Taste” (0.05). In Macau, males reported a slightly higher
score on the impact of “Religious Beliefs” (p = 0.06).

5.5. Drinking Behavior of Students Staying on Campus

The subgroup of students who stayed in the campus dorms were separately investigated.
This subsample consisted of 58.37% of the total respondents, with 64/186 in NUS, 68/105 in HKU, and
105/115 in McU.
In terms of drinking water choices, answers were significantly different across the three regions in
the frequency of drinking “tap water”, “bottled water”, and “boiled tap water”. Bottled water was
the least popular among NUS students, with only 12.5% of them reporting “frequently” or “always”
drinking bottled water, while 17.65% and 28.57% of their HKU and McU counterparts respectively did
so. Further, only 15.63% of the students in Singapore “boiled” tap water before drinking it, but there
were as many as 32.35% in Hong Kong and 37.14% in Macau who reported doing so. This result is
consistent with the findings for the total sample.

6. Conclusions
From this comparative study of three different regions, I firstly answer statistically the question:
what is the young population’s drinking behavior on university campus, an environment where the
low-cost, environmentally friendly choice of drinking filtered tap water is readily available? In two
of the three regions, one-fourth of the students still drink bottled water more frequently than tap
water. This raises the concern of the overconsumption of bottled water, which potentially costs more
Water 2018, 10, 59 10 of 12

energy and burdens the environment. For a relatively higher educated and more informed population
(university students), especially where tap water is easily accessible (university campus in developed
cities), bottled water is still widely used. One can expect that the overall situation of bottled water
consumption for the entire society might be even worse. Thus, it is necessary for governments and
institutions to correct for this negative externality on the environment via public education on the
overconsumption of bottled water.
Secondly, to understand why people prefer certain types of drinking water, certain significant
factors were identified. Among others, “Safety and Hygiene” and “Convenience and Availability”
ranked highest for all three regions. “Taste”, “Price”, and “Personal and Family Habits” were valued
next by different subsamples. Although the subsamples’ average scores for the above factors differ
significantly across regions, relatively similar scores were found for both “Religious conventions” and
“Environmental concerns”. NUS respondents reported a high score in the accessibility of filtered tap
water, the safety of tap water transfer, and trust in government, which are significant forces driving the
consumption of bottle water on campus down to the lowest level among all three regions.
Thirdly, I use specific sub-factors in the context of “drink bottle” vs. “drink tap” to construct
and test the theory of planned behavior, taking into account personal norms. It was found that
personal norms represented by both the self-impact (feeling guilty when drinking bottled water) and
the intention to impact others (persuading others to drink bottled water less) do have a significant
effect on the drinking water behavior. This sheds some light on how certain behavioral change can be
induced to care more for the environment and engage more with the community. If education and
policies can be designed to enact personal norms favoring such behaviors, they might foster targeted
behavioral change.
Lastly, a gender difference was found in both drinking water behavior and its driving factors,
either in the total sample or in specific countries. Moreover, the drinking behavior of students who
stay in campus dorms was also found to be consistent with the general sample.

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/10/1/59/s1.

Acknowledgments: The author acknowledges the research assistance from Ms Jiao Xin Ping. This work benefitted
from the funding support of a Water Research Grant (R-603-000-182-490) from the Institute of Water Policy,
Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References
1. Ashton, D. A Traveller’s Guide to Tap Water. Available online: http://neomam.com/blog/tap-water/
(accessed on 2 November 2017).
2. Cabejskova, Z. The Role of Tap Water in Public Health and Hydration; Water UK: London, UK, 2016.
3. Gleick, P.H.; Cooley, H. Energy implications of bottled water. Environ. Rese. Lett. 2009, 4, 014009. [CrossRef]
4. Rodwan, J.G.J. Bottled Water. 2015. Available online: http://www.bottledwater.org/public/BWR_
Jul-Aug_2016_BMC%202015%20bottled%20water%20stat%20article.pdf#overlay-context=economics/
industry-statistics (accessed on 2 November 2017).
5. Bottled Water. Available online: http://www.bottledwater.org/economics/industry-statistics (accessed on 2
November 2017).
6. DSAMA. 2014. Available online: http://www.marine.gov.mo/images/waterreport2013_2014.pdf (accessed
on 2 November 2017).
7. HKWSD. 2016. Available online: http://www.wsd.gov.hk/tc/faqs/water_quality/#tape (accessed on 2
November 2017).
8. Drinking Water Quality. Available online: https://www.pub.gov.sg/watersupply/waterquality/
drinkingwater (accessed on 2 November 2017).
9. Lim, L. Singapore’s S$134 m Bottled Water Addiction. Available online: http://www.channelnewsasia.
com/news/singapore/singapore-s-s-134m-bottled-water-addiction/3364034.html (accessed on 2
November 2017).
Water 2018, 10, 59 11 of 12

10. Burton, F.L. Water and Wastewater Industries: Characteristics and Energy Management Opportunities.
Electric Power Research Institute. Available online: http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.
aspx?ProductId=CR-106941 (accessed on 2 November 2017).
11. Fisherman, C. Message in a Bottle. Fast Company Magazine, July/August Issue 2007:117. Available online:
https://www.fastcompany.com/59971/message-bottle (accessed on 11 January 2018).
12. Shapley, D. 6 Indictments against Bottled Water. Available online: http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/
home/a17834/bottled-water-47091001/ (accessed on 2 November 2017).
13. Saylor, A.; Prokopy, L.S.; Amberg, S. What’s wrong with the Tap? Examining Perceptions of Tap Water and
Bottled Water at Purdue University. Environ. Manag. 2011, 48, 588–601. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Jones, P.; Selby, D.; Sterling, S.R. Sustainability Education: Perspectives and Practice across Higher Education;
Earthscan: London, UK, 2010; ISBN 978-1844078776.
15. Rosborg, I. Drinking Water Minerals and Mineral Balance; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2016.
16. Payment, P.; Siemiatycki, J.; Richardson, L.; Renaud, G.; Franco, E.; Prevost, M. A prospective epidemiological
study of gastrointestinal health effects due to the consumption of drinking water. Int. J. Environ. Health Res.
1997, 7, 5–31. [CrossRef]
17. Shotyk, W.; Krachler, M.; Chen, B. Contamination of Canadian and European bottled waters with antimony
from PET containers. J. Environ. Monit. 2006, 8, 288–292. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Magill, K. Bottled Water vs. Filtered Tap Water|Care2 Healthy Living. Available online: http://www.care2.
com/greenliving/bottled-water-vs-filtered-tap-water.html (accessed on 21 December 2017).
19. Ng, A.W. The truth about bottled water. The Straits Times, May 2017. Available online: http://www.
straitstimes.com/singapore/health/the-truth-about-bottled-water (accessed on 21 December 2017).
20. Jakus, P.M.; Shaw, W.D.; Nguyen, T.N.; Walker, M. Risk perceptions of arsenic in tap water and consumption
of bottled water. Water Resour. Res. 2009, 45. [CrossRef]
21. Viscusi, W.K.; Huber, J.; Bell, J. The Private Rationality of Bottled Water Drinking. Contemp. Econ. Policy 2014,
33, 450–467. [CrossRef]
22. Doria, M.F. Bottled water versus tap water: Understanding consumers’ preferences. J. Water Health 2006, 4,
271–276. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Arnold, E.; Larsen, J. Plan B Updates—51: Bottled Water—Pouring Resources down the Drain. Available
online: http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2006/update51 (accessed on 2 November 2017).
24. Mikhailovich, K.; Fitzgerald, R. Community responses to the removal of bottled water on a university
campus. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2014, 15, 330–342. [CrossRef]
25. Linden, S.V.D. Exploring Beliefs about Bottled Water and Intentions to Reduce Consumption. Environ. Behav.
2013, 47, 526–550. [CrossRef]
26. Chenoweth, J.; Barnett, J.; Capelos, T.; Fife-Schaw, C.; Kelay, T. Comparison of Consumer Attitudes between
Cyprus and Latvia: An Evaluation of Effect of Setting on Consumer Preferences in the Water Industry.
Water Resour. Manag. 2010, 24, 4339–4358. [CrossRef]
27. Stern, P.C. Toward a working definition of consumption for environmental research and policy.
In Environmentally Significant Consumption: Research Directions; National Academy Press: Washington,
DC, USA, 1997; ISBN 0-309-05598-9.
28. Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. The prediction of behavior from attitudinal and normative variables. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.
1970, 6, 466–487. [CrossRef]
29. Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research.
Psychol. Bull. 1977, 84, 888–918. [CrossRef]
30. Hines, J.M.; Hungerford, H.R.; Tomera, A.N. Analysis and Synthesis of Research on Responsible
Environmental Behavior: A Meta-Analysis. J. Environ. Educ. 1987, 18, 1–8. [CrossRef]
31. Stern, P.C. New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior.
J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [CrossRef]
32. Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to
pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 239–260. [CrossRef]
33. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes 1991, 50, 179–211. [CrossRef]
34. Harland, P.; Staats, H.; Wilke, H.A.M. Explaining Proenvironmental Intention and Behavior by Personal
Norms and the Theory of Planned Behavior1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 29, 2505–2528. [CrossRef]
35. Schwartz, S.H. Normative Influences on Altruism. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1977, 10, 221–279. [CrossRef]
Water 2018, 10, 59 12 of 12

36. De França Doria, M. Factors influencing public perception of drinking water quality. Water Policy 2010, 12,
1–19. [CrossRef]
37. Fielding, K.S.; Gardner, J.; Leviston, Z.; Price, J. Comparing Public Perceptions of Alternative Water
Sources for Potable Use: The Case of Rainwater, Stormwater, Desalinated Water, and Recycled Water.
Water Resour. Manag. 2015, 29, 4501–4518. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).