Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 12 (2024) 100167

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cleaner and Responsible Consumption

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/cleaner-and-responsible-consumption

Investigating the impact of technical, economic and social behavioral

saving strategies on domestic water-saving consumption patterns in Shiraz
Negar Esmaeilishirazifard b, Maryam Ekhtiari a, *, Mohammad Nikkar c, Kaveh Fattahi c
a
Art and Architecture School of Shiraz University, Architecture Faculty, Faculty of Art and Architecture, 3rd Goldasht Street, Maaliabad Main Street, Shiraz City, Fars
province, Iran
b
Master of Architectural Engineering at Architecture, Faculty of Art and Architecture School of Shiraz University, Iran
c
Assistant Professor of Art and Architecture School of Shiraz University, Architecture Faculty, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The increasing demand for potable water resources worldwide due to population growth, drought, and unpre­
Water conservation dictable weather patterns resulting from climate change has led to a significant water crisis. To address this issue,
Domestic water-use it is essential to analyze domestic water consumption patterns and implement practical guidelines for water
Behavioral saving patterns
conservation programs in sustainable development.
Classification
Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM)
This study investigated the technical and social behavioral saving strategies affecting domestic water con­
Simple additive weighted (SAW) sumption patterns in a random survey of 100 householders in Shiraz City, Iran. The aim was to determine the
public viewpoint and hindrances of water conservation methods. Technical questions in the questionnaire were
related to water usage facilities and equipment, while social questions were related to people’s attitudes,
awareness, and hindrances toward water conservation. Three categories are used to cluster water-saving
behavioral patterns i.e., curtailment, economic, and efficiency characteristics. Multi-Criteria Decision Making
(MCDM) techniques, including Simple Additive Weighted (SAW) and Analytic Hierarchy Processes (AHP), were
used for the analysis of the comprehensive questionnaire data.
Based on the results, people seem to prioritize Social-Curtailment characteristics that align with their habits
and culture, as well as Technical-Curtailment characteristics that involve high water consumption, low cost, and
easy implementation. To effectively communicate the proposed technical-economic factors of low cost, low
consumption, and medium implementation, they can be conveyed to the public through carefully chosen socio-
curtailment indicators.

1. Introduction consumption and mismanagement of water resources.

Water scarcity is a growing global concern due to population growth,
changing consumption patterns, expanding cities, and climate change-
induced droughts. The rate of water consumption has outpaced popu­
lation growth at a rate of more than two-fold, exacerbating water stress
and resulting in an unpredictable supply (FAO, 2013; UNESCOUN-­
Water, 2020). In arid regions like Iran, various methods have been
employed to conserve and optimize water use, including water sharing
management, water clocks, water transfer from rivers, water circulation
in ponds, and hydraulic structures to treat and remove particles from
water (Jiang and Arnold, 2023). However, with the industrial and
modern eras, the value of water was forgotten, leading to excessive
Iran is facing severe water stress due to several factors, including
climate change, population growth, increasing demand, per capita
consumption, financial constraints, and the notion that water is a cheap
commodity (Feizi and Khatabiroudi, 2023). Over the last decade, Iran
has experienced a decline in precipitation, surface water, and renewable
water compared to its long-term averages. Additionally, the average
temperature of major cities in Iran has risen from the long-term average
(Feizi and Khatabiroudi, 2023). Iran has one of the highest domestic
water consumption rates despite limited water resources, with 157–400
L of drinking water per day per capita (Feizi and Khatabiroudi, 2023).
Given these challenges, it is crucial to analyze domestic water con­
sumption patterns and develop practical guidelines for water

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: negarshirazifard@gmail.com (N. Esmaeilishirazifard), maryam_ekhtiari@yahoo.com, m_ekhtiari@shirazu.ac.ir (M. Ekhtiari), nikkar.
mohammad@yahoo.com (M. Nikkar), ka_fattahi@shirazu.ac.ir (K. Fattahi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2023.100167
Received 24 September 2023; Received in revised form 22 December 2023; Accepted 29 December 2023
Available online 1 January 2024
2666-7843/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
N. Esmaeilishirazifard et al.
conservation programs in the context of sustainable development. This
article aims to investigate the technical and social behavioral strategies
that influence domestic water consumption patterns, with a particular
emphasis on understanding the public’s viewpoint and the obstacles
they face in adopting water conservation methods. By gaining insights
into these patterns and barriers, the research endeavors to provide
recommendations and insights for effective water conservation strate­
gies. The study focuses on Shiraz City, Iran, where water scarcity is
exacerbated by climate change, population growth, increasing demand,
and financial constraints. The article seeks to address the issue of
excessive water consumption and mismanagement of water resources by
identifying viable water conservation strategies. The research aims to
bridge the gap between technological advancements and social knowl­
edge to foster behavior change towards water conservation and
contribute to sustainable water management practices. By disseminating
techniques and raising awareness about the economic advantages of
water conservation, this research is essential for addressing the global
water crisis and ensuring the preservation of this invaluable resource.
2. Research background
To address the water crisis in Iran, a holistic approach involving
cultural and social management, technical interventions, and policy
changes is required. The DAIAD research project (Data Analytics and
Integration for Advanced Water Management) has demonstrated that
social, financial, and psychological interventions can play a significant
role in reducing energy consumption and controlling water usage
(Athanasioua et al., 2014; Peters et al., 2016). Consumer perception of
water and its use has a significant effect on behavior and attitudes to­
ward water conservation, and greater water savings can be achieved in
households by underestimating their water consumption (Fan et al.,
2013).
Analyzing domestic water consumption patterns can help modify
them and implement practical guidelines for water conservation pro­
grams in sustainable development, promoting water conservation,
enhancing public awareness, and implementing effective water man­
agement practices to ensure the sustainability of water resources for
future generations.
2.1. Water consumption patterns
The term "consumption" refers to the utilization and use of existing
facilities to meet the needs of individuals and households in society.
Meanwhile, "consumption pattern" refers to the quantity and quality of
items individuals and households consume. The consumption pattern
consists of three primary components (Zare Shahabadi, 2013):
2.1.1. The amount of water used
Household water consumption is measured in terms of quantity and
cost, as derived from the consumption bill. Bourdieu’s theory suggests
that people’s consumption is influenced by different types of capital,
including economic, cultural, and social variables (Schleich and Hill­
enbrand, 2009; Haunge et al., 2017) which is defined in (Fig. 1) formula:
water = constant + α1 PRICE + α2 income + α3 income2 + α4 size + α5 age
∑
11
+ α6 wells + α7 onefam + α8 raindays + α9 temp + δ1s Ds + μ1
s=1
Fig. 1. Water consumption and variables (Schleich and Hillenbrand, 2009).
2
Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 12 (2024) 100167
Willis et al. (2011b) classified household water use into
non-discretionary and discretionary categories based on consumption,
but this distinction is subjective and context-specific. Non-discretionary
water use is defined as 40–70 (LPCD, liter per capita per day), and any
use beyond this is considered discretionary, regardless of its purpose.
Domestic water consumption per capita in ten countries was recorded in
2018 (Table 1):
The average daily water consumption per person in Iran is about 157
L. However, in metropolitan areas such as Tehran, this figure can exceed
up to 400 L, according to data from the Iranian Energy Ministry (Feizi
and Khatabiroudi, 2023). To address this issue, the Iranian Ministry of
Energy approved a plan aimed at reforming household water con­
sumption. The plan divides consumers into three categories:
⁃ The best because it uses the least water with monthly water con­
sumption up to the consumption limit, which is less than 14 m3.
⁃ Monthly water consumption up to double the consumption pattern,
between 14 and 28 m3.
⁃ Water consumption is more than twice the consumption pattern,
with an average consumption of over 28 m3 per month (National
"Water of Hope" plan of the Ministry of Energy, 2020).
By setting consumption limits and categorizing households, the Ira­
nian government hopes to encourage more responsible water usage and
reduce waste.
2.1.2. Composition of consumption
Kneebone et al. (2018) suggests that location and behavior type are
more significant attributes for perceptions of behavioral similarity.
Water consumption at home can be categorized as indoor, outdoor, and
hidden consumption, according to a 2019 study (Seelen et al., 2019).
Indoor consumption includes water in the kitchen, bathroom, and ser­
vice areas, while outdoor consumption refers to watering the garden, or
swimming pool. Hidden consumption is related to diet and consumer
goods, type and distance of commuting, recycling type, and electricity
type (Seelen et al., 2019). Hidden consumption, related to diets and
animal production costs, accounts for the highest amount of water usage
in households (Vanham and Bidoglio, 2013). Outdoor consumption,
especially watering plants (Fan et al., 2013), is also a significant
contributor to water usage (Shan et al., 2015).
2.1.3. Water-use activities
An individual’s absolute basic water consumption (ABC) is 92 L/
capita/day, which is an appropriate minimum target during times of
strict water restrictions. For indoor-only water use without wastage, a
more realistic value of 175 LPCD was determined (Crouch et al., 2021).
Water consumption behavior patterns vary across different countries
(Table 2). In England, bathroom water consumption include showers,
lavatories, baths and bathroom sinks consume more than two-thirds
(68%) of household water (Energy Saving Trust, 2013). In the
Netherlands, the most important pattern of water consumption are
related to the use of showers/bathtubs and toilets, followed by washing
machines (Shan et al., 2015; Mazzoni et al., 2023). Outdoor water
consumption is related to region-specific factors such as climate, plant
species, and garden size (Shan et al., 2015). In Australia, showering is
the most common uses (Willis et al., 2013). In the Netherlands, data
collection took place during the cold seasons, specifically when outdoor
N. Esmaeilishirazifard et al. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 12 (2024) 100167

Table 1
Per capita daily household water consumption in 10 countries.
Country United United France Canada Germany Japan South India Indonesia China
States Kingdom Korea

Per capita domestic water consumption 230.29 136.09 106.58 186.96 71.39 130.02 179.42 49.28 91.15 60.77
(m3)

Reference (Du et al., 2020):

Table 2
Domestic water consumption patterns in six countries.
Country Inside the home Outside the home References

British Washing Machine Dishwashing Showering Toilet tank Tapes (22%) Outdoor (10%) Energy Saving Trust, 2013
(9%) (5%) (25%) (22%)
Netherlands Washing Machine Dishwashing Showering Toilet tank Tapes (12%) NDA (No Data Available) Mazzoni et al. (2023).
(14%) (3%) (38%) (27%)
Australia Washing Machine Dishwashing Showering Toilet tank Tapes (19%) Irrigation (12%) Willis et al. (2013)
(19%) (1%) (33%) (13%)
North Washing Machine Dishwashing Showering Toilet tank Faucets NDA Fan et al. (2013);
America (17%) (1%) (20%) (24%) (19%) Deoreo et al. (2016).
Chile Washing Machine Dishwashing Showering Toilet (17.5%) NDA Irrigation of garden and pool Zúñiga et al., 2023
(7%) (15%) (49%) (9%)
Iran, Tehran Laundry (13%) Dishwashing Showering Sanitary (19%) NDA NDA Feizi and Khatabiroudi
(10%) (32%) (2023)

Reference: Fan et al. (2013); Energy Saving Trust (2013); Willis et al. (2013); Deoreo et al. (2016); Feizi and Khatabiroudi (2023); Zúñiga et al., 2023; Mazzoni et al.
(2023).

water usage is typically at its lowest or nonexistent (Mazzoni et al.,
2023). The average daily water consumption per person in Iran is
approximately 157 L which includes 5 L for drinking, 10 L for cooking,
50 L for bathing and showering, 20 L for laundry, 15 L for dishwashing,
30 L for sanitation, 10 L for house cleaning, and 17 L for miscellaneous
use (Feizi and Khatabiroudi, 2023). According to Feizi and Khatabiroudi
(2023), long showers are the main contributor to household water
consumption in Iran.
According to the research, a list of water consumption patterns was
collected (Fig. 2). Water consumption patterns are divided into five
general categories: personal hygiene, kitchen activities, house cleaning,
gardening, and utilities. Each category includes different sections (Dol­
nicar et al., 2012; Fan et al., 2013; Karlin et al., 2014; Boudet et al.,
2016; Tong et al., 2017; Crouch et al., 2021). Each of these categories
requires specific saving behaviors that must be classified based on their
characteristics.
2.2. Strategies and hindrance to achieve behavioral saving patterns
Water conservation strategies are crucial in managing water demand
(Perren et al., 2015). Various strategies have been proposed, including
pro-environmental education and price transparency (Fan et al., 2013).
The structure and content of these interventions must be designed with
the social and cultural context (Perren et al., 2015). Research in Los
Angeles (2012) found that socially-focused interventions, addressing
social norms, social identity, and personal identity, were more effective
in encouraging water conservation than addressing knowledge deficits
alone (Seyranian et al., 2015). In Saudi Arabia, pricing mechanisms
were more effective than public education in reducing water con­
sumption (Shove et al., 2010). In England, hosepipe bans, metering, and
water tariffs reduced per capita water consumption (13.3% of the total
per day) (Shove et al., 2010). Honge identified three strategies for
achieving behavior-saving patterns in buildings: technical (high-­
efficiency equipment and systems), sociological (behavioral programs
and energy engagement techniques), and socio-technical (monitoring
systems and demand-side management technologies), with the latter
having the most significant impact on behavioral patterns (Haunge
et al., 2017).
The main obstacles to water conservation are lack of information and
unwillingness to change habits (Keshavarzi et al., 2006). Consumption
patterns are influenced by economic, social, and cultural conditions
(Zare Shahabadi, 2013). Therefore, developing a daily water protection
pattern is essential for promoting sustainable development. In­
terventions must understand consumer practices within their social and
cultural contexts to achieve a sustained reduction in consumption
(Perren et al., 2015). Emotions, participation, and habit are positively
related to water conservation behavior (Singha et al., 2022). Audiences
engage more with behaviors with fewer barriers to adoption (Kneebone
et al., 2020). Economic concerns drive households with low consump­
tion to conserve water, but their unwillingness to change traditional
habits prevents them from conserving water. For households with high
water consumption, environmental concerns drive them to conserve
water, but their unwillingness to devote additional time and energy and
the lack of social support are the main obstacles to water conservation
(Fan et al., 2013).
2.3. Clustering behavioral saving patterns
Energy-saving behaviors can be clustered into different categories
based on various attributes (Boudet et al., 2016). An analysis of 261
energy-saving behaviors across nine attributes (energy savings, cost,
frequency of performance, required skill level, observability, locus of
decision, household function, home topography, and appliance topog­
raphy) produced four behavioral categories, including "family style"
(frequent, low-cost, low-skill behaviors), "call an expert" (infrequent,
financially costly, high-skill behaviors), household management, and
weekend project (Boudet et al., 2016; Kneebone et al., 2018). However,
the most common classification of energy-saving behaviors by three
attributes (energy savings, cost, frequency of performance) used by
scholars and divided energy consumption behavior into three cate­
gories: Curtailment, Efficiency, and Maintenance (monitoring and
equipment repair) (Karlin et al., 2014; Kneebone et al., 2018).
• Curtailment behaviors are regular, require little skill or financial
resources, and may be part of a routine (low-frequency/low-cost).
• Efficiency behaviors involve adopting new technologies and systems
in the home, such as water-efficient appliances and irrigation sys­
tems (Karlin et al., 2014). (Low-frequency/high-cost)
• Maintenance behaviors include monitoring, maintaining, and fixing
systems to prevent leaks and water wastage (mending hoses or

3
N. Esmaeilishirazifard et al. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 12 (2024) 100167

changing the thermostat on evaporative air conditioning units)

(Kneebone et al., 2018). (Low-frequency/low-cost)

Meanwhile, financial reasons often motivate water conservation,

with residents preferring cost-effective and practical practices that don’t
require extra expenses, time, equipment, or technical expertise (low
cost, medium skill, low frequency) (Fan et al., 2013).
In this study, a new classification system proposes three categories
for saving patterns: efficiency, curtailment, and economic. The effi­
ciency category includes conservation behaviors that are low-frequency,
high-cost, and require high skills, while curtailment involves high-
frequency, low-cost, and low-skill conservation behaviors. The eco­
nomic category includes low-frequency, low-cost conservation behav­
iors that need high skills and focus on being financially efficient. The
concept of maintenance includes all three conservation behaviors -
curtailment, efficiency, and economic - and sets a standard for repairing
and maintaining home appliances using different technical or practical
methods. This classification system provides a clear and efficient way to
categorize conservation behaviors.
This study aims to analyze urban households’ water consumption
and conservation patterns and identify factors that impact their water-
saving behaviors, raising people’s environmental awareness, and ob­
stacles that prevent water conservation behavior. By answering these
Fig. 2. The list of water consumption pattern and their conservation methods.
questions, valuable insights can be offered into promoting water con­
servation behaviors and addressing the water crisis issue in urban areas.
conservation strategies.
A certain number of individuals from the statistical population were
3. Materials and method
unavailable for MCDM questioning. To ensure the validity and reliability
of the research outcomes, a suitable number of samples were selected
The goal of this research is to identify the crucial factors that influ­
from the statistical population by reviewing previous studies related to
ence water conservation behaviors among urban households. Iran is one
the subject (Table 3).
of the countries facing water supply issues due to population growth,
A survey was conducted among 100 households in Shiraz city to
water consumption, and droughts. For this study, Shiraz was chosen as a
investigate the factors influencing water consumption reduction. The
representative city due to its arid climate and water scarcity. Shiraz is
data collection complied with the requirements of the Data Protection
situated in the Fars Province and had a population of 1,819,424 people
Regulation in Iran. The demographic factors covered in the question­
in 2019. The average rainfall between 2004 and 2019 was 268 mm per
naire include individual characteristics (gender, age, and education),
year. According to the Water and Wastewater Statistics Company of
household characteristics (the number of residents, housing type, and
Shiraz, approximately 80% of the residential water demand was met
number of rooms), and economic factors (the water bill, job, and
from underground sources and wells in 2019, with the remaining 20%
income).
supplied by the Doroodzan Dam. Notably, the annual per capita
The statistical population comprised 55 women and 45 men, with the
household water consumption ranged from 51 to 53 cubic meters
highest frequency observed among women aged 30 to 40 with a master’s
(Moosavi et al., 2023).
degree at 13%, followed by men aged 30 to 40 with a bachelor’s degree
To investigate water consumption behavioral patterns at home,
at 11%. Household characteristics with the highest frequency included
specialists and experts were consulted to classify these patterns based on
4-person households living in three-room apartment houses at 12%,
the place of occurrence. A comprehensive list of water consumption
followed by 10% of three-person households living in two-room apart­
patterns was prepared and presented in Fig. 2, divided into eight cate­
ment houses. Water consumption was divided into three categories
gories: personal hygiene, kitchen activities, house cleaning, gardening,
based on the monthly water bill: households that consumed less than 14
utilities, laundering, Pet grooming, and weekend projects. Each category
cubic meters were considered to have good consumption (40%),
includes different sections, such as brushing, washing hands and face,
households that consumed between 14 and 28 cubic meters were
showering, and using the toilet water tank in the personal hygiene
considered to have heavy consumption (39%), and households with
section (Dolnicar et al., 2012; Fan et al., 2013; Karlin et al., 2014; Boudet
consuming more than 28 cubic meters were considered to have bad
et al., 2016; Tong et al., 2017; Crouch et al., 2021).
consumption (11%). Ten percent of participants did not provide this
Personal hygiene, kitchen activities, house cleaning, gardening,
information. The highest frequency was observed among households
utilities, laundering, Pet grooming, and weekend projects.
with good consumption, while 39 households were classified as having
Although investigating water consumption patterns outside the
high consumption, and a small percentage were considered poor con­
home was omitted from this study due to challenges, the findings pro­
sumers. Regarding economic factors, the highest frequency was
vide valuable insights into the behavioral patterns of water consumption
observed among working women with government jobs and a monthly
at home. These insights can inform the development of effective water
salary of 50–100 million Iranian Rials (19%).
conservation strategies.
To gain a comprehensive understanding of the factors shaping peo­
ple’s water consumption habits, a three-part questionnaire was devel­ 3.1. Procedure
oped for this study. Part one collected demographic information about
the statistical population, while part two investigated the impact of The analysis of the questionnaire data was performed using Multi-
social factors, and part three explored the impact of technical factors on Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) techniques, including Simple Addi­
optimal water consumption behavior. By employing a comprehensive tive Weighted (SAW) and Analytic Hierarchy Processes (AHP).
questionnaire covering different aspects of water consumption behavior, MCDM is a widely used approach that addresses complex decision
this study aimed to inform the development of effective water problems by effectively managing uncertainties, diverse criteria, and

4
N. Esmaeilishirazifard et al. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 12 (2024) 100167

Table 3
Literature review for sample size.
Study Objective Sample size

Kneebone, S. et al. (2020). Whose view do we use? Comparing
expert water professional and lay householder perspectives on
water-saving behaviors. Urban Water Journal 17 (10): 884–895.
Kneebone, S. et al. (2018). It’s what you do and where you do it:
Perceived similarity in household
Water-saving behaviors. Journal of Environmental Psychology
55: 1–10.
Laspidou et al. (2015). Exploring patterns in water consumption by
clustering. 13th Computer Control for Water Industry
Conference, CCWI, 119: 1439–1446.
Shan, Y. et al. (2015). Household water consumption: Insight from a
survey in Greece and Poland. 13th Computer Control for Water
Industry Conference, CCWI, 119: 1409–1418.
Perren, K. et al. (2015). Psychosocial and behavioral factors
associated with intention to save water around the home: A
Greece case study, 13th International Conference on Computing
and Control for the Water Industry, CCWI, 119: 1447–1454.
Willis, R.M. et al. (2011b). Quantifying the influence of
environmental and water conservation attitudes on household
end-use water consumption. Journal of Environmental
Management, 92: 1996–2009,
Water-saving behaviors and barriers to participation.
Investigating Perceptions of Household Water-saving
behaviors.
Clustering consumers’ water consumption.
The analysis of three major elements relevant to the
behavior of domestic water consumers.
Investigates psychosocial and behavioral factors
influencing consumers’ intention to engage in
everyday water-saving actions around the home.
The relationship between environmental and water
conservation attitudes and a domestic water end-use
In Australia, expert water professionals (n = 44), and
householders (n = 151).
32 householders in Melbourne, Australia.
First case study different water consumers (MIXED):
83 households and 85 non-residential, in the Greek
island of Skiathos.
77 cases from Greece and 41 from Poland, a total of
118 participants.
174 consumers in Greece.
132 single detached residential households from four
suburban regions within Australia’s Gold Coast City-
South East Queensland (SEQ) region.

associated weight values (Aruldoss et al., 2013; Arsyah et al., 2021;
Vafaei et al., 2022). Its successful application can be observed in various
domains, including prioritizing water-saving methods (Chiu et al., 2020)
and evaluating supplier performance (Ghosh et al., 2023). MCDM
techniques are particularly valuable when dealing with decision prob­
lems that involve multiple criteria or factors, each with varying levels of
importance. These techniques enable a comprehensive analysis of
various alternatives, taking into account multiple criteria simulta­
neously. Additionally, MCDM techniques offer a structured and sys­
tematic approach to decision analysis. They provide a clear framework
for identifying, organizing, and evaluating multiple criteria, helping
researchers avoid the risk of overlooking important factors or making
arbitrary decisions. In this paper, the main focus is on exploring various
criteria that are associated with distinct values and weights. Therefore,
based on the aforementioned potential benefits, it has been observed
that the utilization of the MCDM method is an effective approach for
addressing this issue.
After careful examination, it was concluded that the SAW method
was deemed the most suitable approach for the study, based on the
specific characteristics of the questionnaire and the complexity and
heterogeneity present in the dataset. The SAW method is a straightfor­
ward and appropriate approach for situations where determining
criteria weights is not complex and detailed analysis is not necessary.
However, in scenarios involving trade-offs, uncertainty, varying
levels of importance in criteria, and conflicting preferences, techniques
such as Vlsekriterijumska Optimizacija i Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR)
and Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evalua­
tions (PROMETHEE) have proven to be helpful (Alinezhad and Khalili,
2019). In recent years, further advancements have been made in tradi­
tional MCDM methods, with the development of methods like the
Probabilistic Double Hierarchy Linguistic VIKOR (PDHL-VIKOR)
method (Gou et al., 2020) or the Improved ORESTE Method (Gou et al.,
2023). These methods offer a more comprehensive evaluation and are
particularly suitable when criteria weights are not readily available,
uncertain, or difficult to determine. Alternatively, if pairwise compari­
sons are preferred, the ELECTRE (Elimination and Choice Translating
Reality) method emerges as a reliable choice.
The alignment of SAW with the research objectives and question­
naire characteristics further supported our choice. Furthermore, the
SAW method has been extensively utilized in similar studies. Several
previous research papers have examined normalization techniques in
MCDM problems, and they have recommended the SAW method due to
its advantages, including robustness, simplicity, efficient computation
time, and ease of analysis based on criteria (Afshari et al., 2010; Vafaei
et al., 2022; Siahaan et al., 2017; Nurmali et al., 2017). Moreover, the
SAW method’s versatility and practicality have been demonstrated in
various contexts (Ibrahim et al., 2019; Ghosh et al., 2023).
Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that the analysis was conducted
in two distinct steps. Initially, we considered the significance of expert
opinions in the study and determined the criteria weights using the
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) comparison matrix method. Once the
weights for the criteria were established, we proceeded to apply the
Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) method, following recommendations
from previous studies that indicated SAW as an appropriate approach in
situations where determining criteria weights is either straightforward
or not complex. In the SAW method, the alternative with the highest sum
of normalized weighted values is selected. The criteria used in this
method are the questionnaire questions that relate to water consump­
tion patterns, while the alternatives are the options provided in response
to these questions. These options are clustered according to the behav­
ioral saving patterns under investigation.
3.2. Questions and questionnaire criteria
The solutions to modify water consumption patterns can be classified
into technical and social categories, as shown in previous research
(Hong et al., 2017). In this study, a three-part questionnaire consisting of
14 questions was used to explore both technical and social aspects. The
first part of the questionnaire examined the sociological characteristics
of the respondents while the second part contained multiple-choice
questions (social and technical aspects, questions 1 to 5 and 14). The
third part of the questionnaire comprised prioritization questions that
fell under the technical category. The purpose of the prioritization
questions was to understand the respondents’ preferences for each op­
tion, thereby enabling a more accurate comparison of the question­
naires. Technical questions pertained to water consumption facilities
and equipment, while social questions were related to people’s attitudes,
information sources, and mental or environmental barriers (Hong et al.,
2017). The results of the social category questions were used to inform
the transfer of results from the technical category.
The study conducted a comprehensive review to compile a list of
water consumption patterns (Fig. 2) that were used as criteria in this
study. These patterns were included as questions in the questionnaire
(Table 4). The technical category comprised questions about water
conservation equipment usage, water consumption patterns, and will­
ingness to pay for such equipment. On the other hand, the social

5
N. Esmaeilishirazifard et al. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 12 (2024) 100167

category of the questionnaire investigated people’s awareness and at­ Table 5

titudes toward environmental protection factors and barriers that hinder Questionnaire alternatives.
water conservation behavior. Factors (Alternative) Alternative Features Questions
Water consumption patterns are associated with protective behav­
Social Curtailment A1 Based on the habit/ 1-2-5
ioral patterns, which can be grouped into three main categories: culture
Curtailment, Efficiency, and Economic (Table 5). The questionnaire Economic A2 Based on the
options encompass these three categories, covering everyday actions economy
that people are familiar with (Curtailment), technological solutions Efficiency A3 Based on technology
Technical Curtailment A4 Low cost - high 3-4-6-7-8-9-
(Efficiency), and innovative solutions with optimal results (Economic). consumption- low 10-11-12-13-
Within the technical category, the technical-technological sub- skill 14
branch pertains to high-cost technical solutions that lead to reduced Economic A5 Low cost- low
water consumption. Conversely, the technical-economic sub-sector in­ consumption-
medium skill
volves low-cost installation and implementation methods to achieve
Efficiency A6 High cost - low
water conservation. The technical- Curtailment sub-branch includes consumption- high
low-cost solutions that consume a significant amount of water but are skill
commonly observed in daily life.
In the social category, the relevant indicators have distinct meanings.
The Social- Curtailment index pertains to social issues that are shaped by
people’s culture. The social-efficiency index is related to social issues
that are influenced by technology, while the socio-economic index en­
compasses social issues related to the economy.

3.3. Analytical process

Based on the research methodology and structure, data analysis was

conducted using the Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) method. This
method involves several steps (Fig. 3):

A) Identification of criteria (Ci), which are weighted using the An­

alytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).
B) Determination of the suitability rating of each alternative on each
criterion.
C) Creation of a decision matrix based on the criteria (Ci), followed
by normalization of the matrix using an equation adjusted to the
attribute type (Curtailment, Economics, Efficiency) to obtain a
normalized matrix (R).
D) The final result is obtained through the ranking process (Vi),
involving multiplying the normalized matrix (R) with the weight
vector and selecting the alternative (Ai) with the largest value as
the optimal solution (Arsyah et al., 2021; Ibrahim et al., 2019;
Afshari et al., 2010; Hermanto Izzah, 2018).

3.3.1. SAW criteria: weight criteria by Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

method
Developing decision support applications using the Simple Additive
Weighting (SAW) method requires identifying several criteria and un­
derstanding their relative importance. In the SAW method, decision- Fig. 3. Statistical research framework.

Table 4
makers determine the weight preference for each criterion in advance,
Questionnaire criteria. emphasizing the importance of policymaker involvement (Ibrahim et al.,
2019). This study identified ten criteria, divided into two groups:
Criteria Questions Description Question
Type
Multiple-choice questions and Prioritized-answer questions, each with a
specific weight and type, based on the amount of water consumption
C1 1,2 Consciousness/Awareness, Attitude
(Table 6).
C2 5 Obstacles Social
Questions The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) comparison matrix method
C3 3 Cost was used to analyze criteria weights in this study. The total weight of
C4 4 Equipment criteria in each category (prioritized-answer and multiple-choice ques­
C5 14 Maintenance tions) is equal to one, indicating their relative importance in decision-
C6 6 Heating water Technical
Questions
making based on water consumption. The criteria weighting for social
C7 7,8 Personal hygiene: Shower, Toilet and technical questions was determined by their impact on the levels of
C8 9 Recycled water: (Kitchen activities, water consumption. The Comparison Matrix method was used to
House cleaning, Gardening, Personal determine the weights, and the Consistency Rate (CR) was calculated to
hygiene)
ensure adequate consistency. If the CR falls below 0.1, the SAW method
C9 10 Water collection
C10 11,12,13 Gardening: Keeping, Planting, Watering can be used for ranking alternatives.

6
N. Esmaeilishirazifard et al. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 12 (2024) 100167

3.3.2. Quantification and normalization of the alternatives
3.3.2.1. B-1) Quantification. As the questionnaire contains both priori­
tized and non-prioritized questions, it is necessary to quantify the
prioritized questions to facilitate comparison with other questions. To
this end, a weight of 3 was assigned to the first priority, 2 to the second
priority, and 1 to the third priority for each index.
3.3.3. Multiplying the normalized matrix by the weight of the criteria
To calculate the preference (V) for each alternative, the simple ad­
ditive weighting method is used, which evaluates each alternative (Vi)
using Formula 3, where rij is the score of the ith alternative with respect
to the jth criteria, wi is the weighted criteria (Arsyah et al., 2021).
Formula 3. Evaluating Alternatives.
∑
V i = nj=1 W i rij i = 1, …6, j = 1, …14

3.3.2.2. B-2) Normalization. Each question in the questionnaire in­ 3.3.4. Ranking process
cludes three sub-indices: Curtailment, Economics, and Efficiency with The final result is obtained from the ranking process (Vi), the addi­
multiple options designed to provide a comprehensive view of the re­ tion of the normalized matrix multiplication R with the weight vector so
spondent’s perception. Responses are descaled to ensure consistency in that the largest value is chosen as the best alternative (Ai) as the solu­
analysis, with a de-scaling technique employed for questions with tion. In the SAW method, an alternative is selected whose sum of the
∑
multiple options (e.g., questions 1–5 and 14). For instance, question two weighted normalized value, nj=1 rij wi , is greater than the rest of the
has seven options, four of which refer to cultural indicators. If a alternatives (Arsyah et al., 2021) (Formula 4).
respondent chooses one or all four cultural options in question two, the Formula 4. Selected Alternative.
∑
frequency of their answer to the cultural indicator in question two is A* = {Ai| Max nj=1 rij wi }
considered "one." Accordingly, the frequency of responses to each indi­
cator is divided by the total response frequency (N) to obtain the des­ 4. Result
caled values, allowing for a more accurate and nuanced interpretation of
the responses (Formula 1). 4.1. Weight criteria
Formula 1. Normalization Multiple Choice Questions

F (Curtailment, Economics, Efficiency)

Alternative (Curtailment, Economic, Efficiency) in a Multiple choice Question =
N

The preference weight or the level of importance (W) of each crite­

In questions with prioritized answering (questions 6–13), the impor­
tance of each index is affected by the priority of answering the options.
To account for this, a de-scaling technique is used, involving summing
the frequency of the prioritized responses with the index weight and
dividing it by the sum of the frequency of responses to the options of
each index (X*N) (where X = the number of options of each index in the
question). For example, in question 6, the frequency of responses to
options d and b (efficiency index) with different priorities is summed
and divided by the total frequency of responses to these two options,
multiplied by the number of options and the total number of respondents
(N) (Formula 2).
Formula 2. Normalization Prioritized-answer Questions
rion for the two groups of questions have been computed by using a
comparison matrix in AHP using scale values of 1–9 in Expert Choice
software as shown in Table 6. (Table 7, Fig. 4a, Fig. 4b). The total cri­
teria’s weight in each category (prioritized-answer questions, multiple-
choice questions) is equal to one.
A-1: Test of consistency: The consistency Rates calculated for both
groups were 0.02 and 0.08 which are less than 0.1, indicating sufficient
consistency.
4.2. Create a normalized decision matrix
Normalize the decision matrix R by calculating the value of the

F (First priority ∗ 3) + F (Second priority ∗ 2) + F (Third priority ∗ 1)

Alternative (Cur, Eco, Eff)in a Prioritized − answer Question =
X∗N

normalized performance rating (Rij) of the alternative (Ai) on the criteria

Table 6
Rating criteria for questionnaire.
Groups Criteria Questions Description Rating Type

Multiple-choice Questions C1 1,2 Consciousness/Awareness < Attitude 3 Social Questions

Prioritized-answer Questions
C2 5 Obstacles 4 Social Questions
C3 3 Cost 5 Technical Questions
C4 4 Equipment 1 Technical Questions
C5 14 Facilities/Maintenance 2 Technical Questions
C6 6 Heating water 4 Technical Questions
C7 7,8 Personal hygiene: Shower < Toilet 5 Technical Questions
C8 9 Recycled water: (Kitchen activities, House cleaning, Gardening, Personal hygiene) 2 Technical Questions
C9 10 Water collection 1 Technical Questions
C10 11,12,13 Gardening: Keeping > Planting, Watering 3 Technical Questions

7
N. Esmaeilishirazifard et al. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 12 (2024) 100167

Table 7
Preference weight or importance level of Criteria.
Multiple-choice Questions

Social Questions Technical Questions SUM

Criteria C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
Consciousness Obstacles Cost Equipment Maintenance
Questions 1 2 5 3 4 14
Weights 0.101 0.16 0.25 0.382 0.043 0.064 1

Questions with Prioritized answers

Technical Questions SUM

Criteria C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
Heating Personal hygiene Recycled water Water collection Gardening
Shower Toilet Watering Keeping Planting
Questions 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Weights 0.136 0.213 0.41 0.034 0.02 0.053 0.081 0.053 1

(Cj) with Formula 1 for multiple-choice questions and Formula 2 for

prioritized-answer questions (Table 8).

4.3. The final result of the preference value (Vi) is obtained from the
multiplication and addition of the normalized matrix row elements (R)
with the preference weights (W) corresponding to the matrix column
elements (W) to determine the value of the preference given to the decision-
makers value using formula 3 (Table 9)

Fig. 4a. Weights of criteria by AHP comparison matrix prioritized- 4.4. Ranking process
answer questions.
Finally, in the SAW method, the weighted normalized value (Vi) is
ranked and the best alternative is selected. The best alternative will have
the largest SUM of normalized weighted values. In this research, the
Social - Curtailment alternative has the highest value (0.3). In the
technical alternative, the technical- Curtailment has the highest value
(1.57) (Fig. 5).

5. Discussion

The present study aimed to investigate individuals’ water-saving

Fig. 4b. Weights of
choice questions.
behavioral patterns, as well as their knowledge and propensity to uti­
lize water conservation techniques in their daily lives. The research
premise posits that the combination of technical and sociological (socio-
criteria by AHP comparison matrix multiple- technical) energy savings programs in buildings can have the most sig­
nificant impact on behavioral patterns. Therefore, the research focused
on examining the integration of solutions for modifying consumption
patterns, both technical and social, and the classification of water

Table 8
The normalized decision matrix.
Multiple-choice Questions

Categories Social Technical

Criteria C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
Consciousness Obstacles Cost Equipment Maintenance
Questions 1 2 5 3 4 14
Alternative Curtailment 0.75 0.87 0.34 0.27 0.53 0.98
Economic 0.8 0.22 0.56 0.51 0.54 0.79
Efficiency 0.78 0.08 0.32 0.17 0.78 0.89

Prioritized-answer Questions

Categories Technical

Criteria C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
Heating Personal Hygiene Recycled water Water Collection Gardening
Shower toilet Watering Keeping Planting
Questions 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Alternative Curtailment 1.46 2 1.21 1.44 1.175 1.195 0.91 1.04
Economic 1.42 1.03 1.28 1.435 1.24 0.39 0.92 0.86
Efficiency 1.29 0.69 1.34 0.458 0.78 0.945 1.87 0.748

8
N. Esmaeilishirazifard et al. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 12 (2024) 100167

Table 9
Multiplying The Normalized Social and Technical Questions by the criteria’s weight.
SUM
Social Questions

Criteria C1 C2
Consciousness Obstacles

Questions 1 2 5

Alternative A1: S- Curtailment 0.075 0.13 0.085 0.29

A2: S-Economic 0.08 0.035 0.14 0.256
A3: S- Efficiency 0.078 0.012 0.08 0.171

Technical Questions SUM

Criteria C3 C4 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C5
Cost Equipment Heating Personal Recycled Water Gardening Maintenance
Hygiene water Collection

Shower toilet Watering Keeping Planting

Questions 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Alternative A4: T- 0.10 0.022 0.198 0.426 0.496 0.0489 0.023 0.063 0.073 0.055 0.062 1.57
Curtailment
A5: T- 0.19 0.023 0.193 0.219 0.524 0.0487 0.024 0.02 0.074 0.045 0.050 1.42
Economic
A6: T- 0.064 0.033 0.175 0.148 0.549 0.015 0.015 0.05 0.151 0.039 0.056 1.3
Efficiency

questions. The results indicate that individuals tend to prioritize

Fig. 5. The ranked Alternatives of the Questionnaire.
conservation behaviors into three categories: Curtailment, Efficiency,
and Economic. To achieve this goal, the questionnaire employed in this
study included questions from both technical and social categories, and
behavioral saving patterns were clustered into distinct categories based
on different attributes. Notably, the economic factor was defined as a
separate behavioral saving category in this research, in contrast to
previous studies. The questionnaire defined behavioral saving patterns
as alternatives and clustered them into the three categories mentioned
earlier: Curtailment, Efficiency, and Economic.
Among all alternatives (Fig. 5), the Technical-Curtailment category
had the highest value at 1.57. In terms of social alternatives, the Social-
Curtailment category had the highest value at 0.3. Following Curtail­
ment, the Economic alternative was considered effective with a value of
1.42 in technical questions and 0.256 in social questions. The efficiency
also has a value of 1.3 in technical questions and 0.172 in social
"curtailment" saving patterns based on economic considerations and
ease of implementation, despite being aware of more efficient social and
technical saving strategies.
The contract between technical and social data is substantial,
particularly in terms of efficiency alternatives (Fig. 5). The observed
discrepancies were remarkable, with Technical-Efficiency being 7.5
times greater than Social-Efficiency, and Technical-Economy being 5.5
times higher than Social-Economy. The smallest contrast lies in the area
of curtailment in technical questions, which is 5.25 times greater than
curtailment in social questions. These observations underline the
evident gap between technological advancements in water conservation
techniques and the corresponding social knowledge (Technical and
Social–Efficiency). Despite being aware of low water consumption de­
vices (Technical-Efficiency), individuals tend to use (Technical­
–Curtailment) methods with low cost and higher water consumption due
to economic factors and ease of use. For example, they create a canopy
over the water cooler to reduce water evaporation, use a water heater to
heat water instead of installing solar cells, reduce the time of using water
instead of using low water consumption equipment during personal
hygiene, and use recycled water only for washing the floor.
Further analysis shed light on individuals’ water-saving priorities,
(C7 > C6 = C10 > C1 > C3 > C2 > C5 > C8 > C4 > C9). Among all
criteria (Fig. 6), personal hygiene (C7) consistently received the highest
priority across all alternatives (curtailment, economy, efficiency). It is
deemed four times more important than heating water (C6) and
gardening (C10), and a striking 7.5 times more significant than the cost

Fig. 6. Multiplying The Normalized data by the criteria’s weight.

9
N. Esmaeilishirazifard et al.
(C3) involved in changing water conservation practices in technical
questions. Conversely, the lowest priority for water protection is
attributed to water collection (C9), equipment (C4), and water recycling
(C8). This indicates that individuals prioritize water conservation for
personal hygiene usage over other water consumption patterns.
In the curtailment alternative (Fig. 6), personal hygiene criteria (C7)
emerged as the highest priority, emphasizing the importance of reducing
shower duration and identifying hidden toilet tank leaks. This aspect is
considered 9 times more important than the cost criteria (C3) in tech­
nical questions, includes a 5%–10% increase in the cost of low-
consumption equipment, and 4.38 times more significant than the
awareness criteria (C1) in social questions. These findings suggest that
people prioritize raising awareness and implementing water conserva­
tion measures over spending money on it. According to the question­
naire results, it is evident that the general public tends to gather
environmental information (C1- Q1) through television, radio, satellite,
and virtual platforms rather than through newspapers or social in­
teractions (Social - Curtailment). Also, their attitude (C1-Q2) leans to­
wards social curtailment, which encompasses a sense of responsibility
and educational programs.
The lowest priority for water protection in the curtailment alterna­
tive (Fig. 6) is associated with water collection (C9), like collecting clean
water in bottles, and equipment (C4), such as creating a canopy over the
cooler and washing the floor with recycled water (C8).
Furthermore, the curtailment alternative (with a cultural aspect)
places greater importance on certain criteria for water protection
compared to the economic and efficiency alternatives (Fig. 5). These
criteria include personal hygiene (C7) - reducing shower time and
checking for hidden toilet tank leaks, awareness (C1), water heating
with a heater (C6), equipment maintenance (checking pipes and valves
for leaks) (C5), and washing the floor with recycled water (C8) respec­
tively (Table 10, Fig. 6).
Similarly, in the economic alternative, the highest priority for water
protection criteria is attributed to personal hygiene (C7), which includes
the installation of air and water mixing valves. This aspect holds four
times more importance than the cost criteria (C3) - a 15%–20% increase
in the cost of low-consumption equipment, and water heating (C6)
(installing hot pipes connected to faucets) in technical questions (Fig. 6).
Additionally, it is 5.3 times more significant than the water protection
barriers criteria, such as the price of water-saving equipment (C2), in
social questions (Fig. 6). Furthermore, the economic alternative sur­
passes curtailment and efficiency in certain criteria for water protection
(Table 10, Fig. 6). These criteria include the cost criteria (C3) - a 15%–
20% increase in the cost of low-consumption equipment, obstacles of
water protection (C2) - such as the price of water-saving equipment, and
water collection in tanks and bottles (C9). The research also highlights
that economic factors present a significant obstacle to the implementa­
tion of water conservation methods. Respondents were only willing to
accept a 10–15% increase in cost to change their water consumption
equipment (Q3, Technical - Economy V = 0.19) (Table 10 - Fig. 6).
Table 10
Selected Alternative in each Criterion: Multiplying The Normalized data by the criteria’s weight.
Groups Questions Criteria Criteria Description
Multiple-choice Questions 1+2 C1 Awareness, Attitude
5 C2 Obstacles
3 C3 Cost
4 C4 Equipment
14 C5 Maintenance
Prioritized-answer Questions 6 C6 Heating water
7+8 C7 Personal hygiene: Shower, Toilet
9 C8 Recycled water: Kitchen, House
10 C9 Water collection
11 + 12+13 C10 Gardening: Keeping, Planting, Watering
It is essential to emphasize that effective water conservation strategies must begin with raising awareness about environmental issues, as this serves as the initial step
towards changing behavioral patterns.
10
Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 12 (2024) 100167
In the efficiency alternative (Fig. 6), personal hygiene criteria (C7)
once again held the highest priority. This involved the installation of
equipment with sensors and the utilization of recycled water. This aspect
holds three times more significance than gardening (C10) (planting dry
plants) in technical questions and eight times more importance than
efficiency alternatives in social questions criteria (C1, C2). Regarding
water consumption for gardening, individuals prefer irrigation methods
based on the specific needs of plants (Technical-Curtailment) and weed
control (Technical-Curtailment) instead of intelligent irrigation systems
and the use of porous materials and mulch spraying (Technical-
Curtailment). Only when planting new vegetation they demonstrate
awareness of efficiency methods, such as using dry, native, and drought-
resistant plants (Technical-Curtailment) (Table 9).
Furthermore, efficiency alternatives for water protection, surpass
curtailment and economic alternatives in gardening (drip irrigation and
planting dry plants) (C10) and equipment (installation of low-
consumption equipment) (C4) (Table 10, Fig. 6). This suggests that,
while individuals have an awareness of technological aspects related to
gardening, it was less pronounced compared to other alternatives.
6. Conclusion
The global water crisis is an urgent matter that necessitates practical
solutions for sustainable development and water consumption reduc­
tion. One effective approach is domestic water conservation, which can
be achieved through the implementation of efficient and curtailment-
based behavioral patterns. This study proposes a classification of three
categories of water-saving behavioral patterns: efficiency, curtailment,
and economics.
The results obtained from the questionnaire administered to house­
holds in Shiraz indicate a preference for curtailment-based water con­
servation methods due to their affordability and ease of implementation.
Moreover, the research highlighted the substantial disparity between
technical and social data, particularly in terms of efficiency. These
findings underline the evident gap between technological advancements
in water conservation techniques and the corresponding social knowl­
edge. Further analysis sheds light on individuals’ water-saving prior­
ities, with personal hygiene usage emerging as the highest priority in the
curtailment alternative. This is followed by awareness criteria (C1) and
cost criteria (C3). These factors influence individuals’ choices, favoring
low-cost curtailment methods over more efficient alternatives. This
emphasizes the importance of economic factors and ease of imple­
mentation (Curtailment).
However, economic factors have been identified as the primary
barrier to the adoption of water conservation methods. The economic
alternatives surpassed curtailment and efficiency alternatives in the cost
criteria (C3), the economic barriers in water-saving equipment (C2), and
water collection (C9). This highlights the crucial role of the economic
considerations and the cost of low-consumption equipment in decision-
making. Efficiency alternatives surpassed curtailment and economic
Type Alternative answer Final Answer
Social Curtailment Curtailment
Economic
Technical Economic Curtailment
Efficiency
Curtailment
Curtailment
Curtailment
Curtailment
Economic
Efficiency
N. Esmaeilishirazifard et al.
alternatives in gardening (C10) and equipment (C4). The findings sug­
gest limited awareness among people regarding economic water con­
servation methods, which require higher levels of skill. Therefore, it is
crucial to disseminate these techniques to the public through selective
socio-curtailment strategies. By raising awareness and promoting the
economic advantages associated with water conservation, more in­
dividuals will be motivated to embrace sustainable water-saving prac­
tices and contribute towards preserving this invaluable resource.
In contemporary times, the economy has emerged as a pivotal factor
in inspiring water conservation practices, surpassing both media influ­
ence and social structures. This stands in contrast to previous eras when
social structures held greater sway over shaping water conservation
behaviors and influencing purchases of water-saving tools. Conse­
quently, policies aimed at societal transformation should prioritize
economic measures. Additionally, media policies should carefully
consider their impact on the social and cultural fabric of communities.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Negar Esmaeilishirazifard: Investigation, Formal analysis, Data
curation. Maryam Ekhtiari: Supervision, Project administration,
Methodology, Formal analysis. Mohammad Nikkar: Supervision.
Kaveh Fattahi: Supervision.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
References
Afshari, A., et al., 2010. Simple Additive Weighting approach to personal selection
problem. Int. J. Innovation, Manag. Technol. 1 (5), 511–515. ISSN: 2010-0248.
Alinezhad, Alireza, Khalili, Javad, 2019. New Methods and Applications in Multiple
Attribute Decision Making (MADM). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-030-15009-9.
Arsyah, U.I., et al., 2021. Analysis of the simple additive weighting method in
educational aid decision making. Turkish J. Comput. Mathematics Education 12
(14), 2389–2396.
Aruldoss, M., et al., 2013. A survey on multi-criteria decision-making methods and its
applications. Am. J. Info. Syst. 1 (1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajis-1-1-5.
Athanasioua, S., et al., 2014. DAIAD: open water monitoring. Procedia Eng. 89,
1044–1049.
Boudet, H.S., Flora, J.A., Armel, K.C., 2016. Clustering household energy-saving
behaviors by behavioral attribute. Energy Pol. 92, 444e454.
Chiu, Y.-R., Aghaloo, K., Mohammadi, B., 2020. Incorporating rainwater harvesting
systems in Iran’s potable water-saving scheme by using a GIS-simulation based
decision support system. Water 12 (3), 752. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12030752.
Crouch, M.L., et al., 2021. Defining domestic water consumption based on personal
water use activities. AQUA - Water Infrastructure, Ecosystems, and Society 00 (0).
https://doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2021.056.
Deoreo, W.B., Mayer, P.W., Dziegielewski, B., Kiefer, J., Water Research Foundation,
2016. Residential End Uses of Water. Water Research Foundation, version 2.
Dolnicar, S., et al., 2012. Water conservation behavior in Australia. Environ. Manag. 105,
44–52.
Energy Saving Trust, 2013. The Biggest Ever Review of Domestic Water Use in Great
Britain at Home with Water. https://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/sites/default/f
iles/reports/AtHomewithWater%287%29.pdf.
Fan, L., et al., 2013. Water use patterns and conservation in households of Wei River
Basin, China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 74, 45–53.
FAO, 2013. Coping with Water Scarcity: an Action Framework for Agriculture and Food
Security. FAO, Rome. FAO Water Reports No. 38. www.fao.org/3/a-i3015e.pdf.
Feizi, M., Khatabiroudi, N., 2023. Social and environmental nudges and water usage:
evidence from a field experiment in Iran. Water Resources and Economics 42,
100223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wre.2023.100223.
Ghosh, S., Bhowmik, C., Sinha, S., Raut, R.D., Mandal, M.C., Ray, A., 2023. An integrated
multi-criteria decision-making and multivariate analysis towards sustainable
11
Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 12 (2024) 100167
procurement with application in automotive industry. Supply Chain Analytics 3,
100033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sca.2023.100033.
Gou, X., Xu, X., Deng, F., Zhou, W., Herrera-Viedma, E., 2023. Medical Health Resources
Allocation Evaluation in Public Health Emergencies by an Improved ORESTE
Method with Linguistic Preference Orderings, Fuzzy Optimization and Decision
Making. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10700-023-09409-3.
Gou, X., Xu, Z., Liao, H., Herrera, F., 2020. Probabilistic double hierarchy linguistic term
set and its use in designing an improved VIKOR method: the application in smart
healthcare. J. Oper. Res. Soc. https://doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2020.1806741.
Haunge, A. Ch, Lee, T.Y., Lin, Y. Ch, Huang, Ch F., Shu, C.M., 2017. Factor analysis and
estimation model of water consumption of government institutions in taiwan. Water
9 (492). https://doi.org/10.3390/w9070492.
Hermanto Izzah, N., 2018. Sistem pendukung keputusan pemilihan motor dengan
metode simple addictive weighting (saw). Jurnal Matematika Dan Pembelajaran 6,
184–200.
Hong, T., et al., 2017. Ten questions concerning occupant behavior in buildings: the big
picture. Build. Environ. 114, 518–530.
Ibrahim, A., et al., 2019. The implementation of simple additive weighting (SAW)
method in decision support system for the best school selection in jambi. Physics:
conference series 1338, 012054. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1338/1/
012054.
Jiang, Y., Arnold, H., 2023. Traditional water systems informing sustainable
contemporary drylands design: documentation, extraction, and deployment.
Sustainability 15 (14), 10966.
Keshavarzi, A.R., Sharifzadehb, M., Kamgar-Haghighi, A.A., Amin, S., Keshtkar, Sh,
Bamdad, A., 2006. Rural domestic water consumption behavior: a case study in
Ramjerd area, Fars Province, I.R. Iran. Water Res. 40, 1173–1178.
Karlin, B., Davis, N., Sanguinetti, A., Gamble, K., Kirkby, D., Stokols, D., 2014.
Dimensions of conservation exploring differences among energy behaviors. Environ.
Behav. 46 (4), 423–452.
Kneebone, S., et al., 2018. It’s what you do and where you do it: perceived similarity in
household Water-saving behaviors. J. Environ. Psychol. 55, 1–10.
Kneebone, S., et al., 2020. Whose view do we use? Comparing expert water professional
and lay householder perspectives on water-saving behaviors. Urban Water J. 17 (10),
884–895.
Laspidou, Ch, et al., 2015. Exploring patterns in water consumption by clustering. 13th
computer control for water industry conference. CCWI 119, 1439–1446.
Mazzoni, F., Alvisi, S., Franchini, M., Blokker, M., 2023. Exploiting high-resolution data
to investigate the characteristics of water consumption at the end-use level: a Dutch
case study. Water Resour. Ind. 29, 100198 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wri.2022.100198.
Moosavi, S.F., Salehnia, N., Seifi, A., AsgharpourMasouleh, A., Salehnia, N., 2023.
Designing and calibrating an agent-based platform to evaluate the effect of climate
variables on residential water demand. Water Environ. J. https://doi.org/10.1111/
wej.12864.
National "Water of Hope" plan, The Ministry of Energy, 2020. Project to Improve
Consumption and Support Low Water Users, Resolution No. 106629/T 58259H.
ttps://news.nww.ir/Omid/About. Access date:20/05/2023).
Perren, K., et al., 2015. Psychosocial and behavioral factors associated with intention to
save water around the home: a Greece case study. 13th International Conference on
Computing and Control for the Water Industry, CCWI 119, 1447–1454.
Peters, A., Sartotius, C., Ch, G., Athanasiou, S., Kupfer, A., Staake, Th, 2016. Consumer
behavior and social aspects of water consumption, DAIAD: a research project funded
by European Commission’s 7th Framework Programme. Deliverable 6 (1).
Schleich, J., Hillenbrand, T., 2009. Determinants of residential water demand in
Germany. Ecol. Econ. 68 (6), 1756–1769. ISSN 0921-8009.
Seelen, L.M.S., et al., 2019. Saving water for the future: public awareness of water usage
and water quality. J. Environ. Manag. 242, 246–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2019.04.047.
Seyranian, V., et al., 2015. Comparing communication strategies for reducing residential
water consumption. J. Environ. Psychol. 41, 81–90.
Shan, Y., et al., 2015. Household water consumption: insight from a survey in Greece and
Poland. Procedia Eng. 119, 1409–1418.
Shove, E., Franceys, R., Morris, J., 2010. Behavioral change and water efficiency. In:
ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council) Seminar Series – Mapping the Public
Landscape.
Siahaan, M.D.L., Elviwani Surbakti, A. Br, Lubis, A.H., Siahaan, A.P.U., 2017.
Implementation of simple additive weighting algorithm in particular instance.
International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology 3 (6),
442–447.
Singha, B., et al., 2022. Water conservation behavior: exploring the role of social,
psychological, and behavioral determinants. Environ. Manag. 317, 115484.
Tong, Y., et al., 2017. Water conservation awareness and practices in households
receiving improved water supply: a gender-based analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 141,
947–955.
UNESCO, UN-Water, 2020. United Nations World Water Development Report 2020:
Water and Climate Change. UNESCO, Paris.
Vafaei, N., Ribeiro, R.A., Camarinha-Matos, L.M., 2022. Assessing normalization
techniques for simple additive weighting method. Procedia Comput. Sci. 199 (199),
1229–1236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.01.156.
Vanham, D., Bidoglio, G., 2013. A review of the indicator water footprint for the EU28.
Ecol. Indicat. 26, 61–75.
N. Esmaeilishirazifard et al.
Willis, R.M., et al., 2011. Quantifying the influence of environmental and water
conservation attitudes on household end-use water consumption. J. Environ. Manag.
92 (8), 1996–2009.
Willis, R.M., Stewart, R.A., Giurco, D.P., Talebpour, M.R., Mousavinejad, A., 2013. End
use water consumption in households: impact of socio-demographic factors and
efficient devices. J. Clean. Prod. 60, 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2011.08.006.
12
Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 12 (2024) 100167
Zare Shahabadi, A., 2013. Investigating the impact of socio-cultural factors on the
pattern of energy consumption in households in Yazd city. Energy Planning and
Policy Studies, first year 3, 17–50.
Zúñiga, V., Leiva, S., Riquelme, C., Gómez, G., Vidal, G., Neumann, P., 2023. Assessing
the environmental impacts of household water supply: a case study considering
consumption patterns within a life-cycle perspective. Sustainability 15 (3), 1946.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15031946.