[1] Securing water supplies in urban areas is a major challenge for policy makers, both now and into the future. This study aimed to identify the key determinants of household water use, with a view to identifying those factors that could be targeted in water demand management campaigns. Objective water use data and surveys were collected from 1008 households in four local government areas of southeast Queensland, Australia. Results showed that demographic, psychosocial, behavioral, and infrastructure variables all have a role to play in determining household water use. Consistent with past research, household occupancy was the most important predictor of water use. Households in regions recently exposed to drought conditions and higher-level restrictions also used less water than those who had less experience with drought. The effect of water efficient technology was mixed: some water efficient appliances were associated with less water use, while others were associated with more water use. Results also demonstrated the importance of considering water use as a collective behavior that is influenced by household dynamics. Households who reported a stronger culture of water conservation used less water. These findings, along with evidence that good water-saving habits are linked to water conservation, highlight the value of policies that support long-term cultural shifts in the way people think about and use water.

No abstract

Two studies compared leader-member exchange (LMX) theory and the social identity theory of leadership. Study 1 surveyed 439 employees of organizations in Wales, measuring work group salience, leader-member relations, and perceived leadership effectiveness. Study 2 surveyed 128 members of organizations in India, measuring identification not salience and also individualism/collectivism. Both studies provided good support for social identity predictions. Depersonalized leader-member relations were associated with greater leadership effectiveness among high-than low-salient groups (Study 1) and among high than low identifiers (Study 2). Personalized leadership effectiveness was less affected by salience (Study 1) and unaffected by identification (Study 2). Low-salience groups preferred personalized leadership more than did high-salience groups (Study 1). Low identifiers showed no preference but high identifiers preferred depersonalized leadership (Study 2). In Study 2, collectivists did not prefer depersonalized as opposed to personalized leadership, whereas individualists did, probably because collectivists focus more on the relational self.