Open Journal of Political Science
Vol.08 No.04(2018), Article ID:86937,12 pages

Reliability and Validity of an Instrument that Measures the Main Challenge Facing the Management and Administration of Water Resources and Services

Tirso Javier Hernández-Gracia1, Enrique Martínez Muñoz1, Danae Duana Ávila1, Cruz García-Lirios2

1Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, Pachuca, México

2Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Huehuetoca, México

Copyright © 2018 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0).

Received: May 29, 2018; Accepted: August 26, 2018; Published: August 29, 2018


Often, local water issues have been addressed from the perspective of the social actors in relation to their authorities, but the objective of this paper has been to estimate the perception of risk of both rulers who are comfortable and governed in a scenario of shortages, shortages, unhealthy and expensive water service. A non-experimental investigation was carried out with a selection of 248 residents of a locality in northeastern Mexico. The reliability and validity of the WRPS-16 were established, which included two dimensions related to the aversion or delegation of responsibility to the State for the free supply of water and the risk-prone dimension to account for the negotiation and agreement with local managers. However, the type of study, sampling and analysis limited the results to the context of the research, suggesting the inclusion of the hypermetropia factor that explains the lack of concern and the inaction of future generations in the face of risk events and their effects on community health.


Natural Disasters, Water Supply, Risk Perception, Pro-Environmental Behaviors

1. Introduction

The objective of this work was to establish the reliability and validity of an instrument that measure the perception of risk before municipal water resources and services ( García, Sandoval, & Espinoza, 2018 ).

Studies of risk perception in general have shown that risk events such as landslides, floods, droughts, fires, earthquakes or subsidence are the result of absent or deficient civil protection, as well as a propensity to make decisions and actions oriented towards risks (see Table 1).

In the case of water resources and services, risk perception has been associated with risk events with shortages, shortages, unhealthiness and scarcity, highlighting their impact on community health, mainly in vulnerable sectors such as infants whose deaths are around one million per year for the consumption of hydro-transmitted diseases ( García, 2018 ).

However, the studies referred to do not distinguish areas of local development that determine the sustainability of the supply and collection system. This is the case of urban peripheries where water problems are associated with risk events, leading to a scenario of current risks that may be observed in the future in urban centralities and rural areas ( García, Carreón, & Hernández, 2017 ).

Prospective studies have shown an increasingly lower availability of supply per person in cities that correlates with austere lifestyles and cutting policies, as well as the substantial increase in rates and the proliferation of diseases and not only hydro-transmitted but through vectors such as malaria ( García, Rivera, Limón, Bustos, & Juárez, 2017 ).

However, the main challenge facing the management and administration of water resources and services is not only the prevention of diseases and the strengthening of a public and community health care system, but also the differentiation between urban and regional centrality, and the semi-rural periphery ( Bustos, Juárez, Sandoval, Quintero, & García, 2017 ).

Studies of risk perception have centered their interest in the establishment of a co-government system in which civil society is involved in the decision making of preventive health institutions ( García, Rivera, & Limón 2017 ).

In this sense it is that the trustworthiness and the validity of instruments that allow diagnosing the confidence of the citizenship with its authorities in the matter of supply, quality and rates, not of subsidies and condoning is essential to anticipate scenarios of conflicts and agreements ( García, Bustos, Juárez, Ribera, & Limón, 2017 ).

However, the instruments that have been used to measure risk perceptions have disconnected the risk events with the consequences on community health and its impact on the decisions and preventive life styles of the inhabitants ( Carreón, Juárez, & García, 2017 ).

The inclusion of environmental, perceptual, dispositional and administrative determinants on decision-making and preventive risk actions is fundamental to achieve the sustainability of a co-management between political and social actors, as well as between public and private sectors ( García, Juárez, & Sandoval, 2017 ).

It is a governance system in which civil participation goes beyond an opinion poll or a consultation about its voting intentions in favor of inclusive proposals

Table 1. State of knowledge.

Source: Own elaboration.

in the water supply and collection system ( Vázquez, Cruz, Carreón, Hernández, Bustos, & Sandoval, 2017 ).

It is necessary to link civil protection strategies with risk-based lifestyles based on water availability and local capacity for collecting, storing, collecting and treating wastewater ( Bustos, Juárez, Carreón, Quintero, Sandoval, Espinoza, & García, 2017 ).

In each category, the perceptions of risk are different if urban centers are compared with recreation and water comfort with respect to urban peripheries with scarcity, lack of sanitation and scarcity ( García, Carreón, Hernández, Bustos, & Aguilar, 2016 ).

2. Method

Are there significant differences between the theoretical dimensions of risk perceptions with respect to the relationships between the factors and indicators observed?

Null hypothesis: There will be significant differences between the theoretical dimensions with respect to the empirical dimensions around the perceptions of risks derived from the local supply and collection system.

Alternative hypothesis: There will be no significant differences between the theoretical dimensions of risk perceptions and the relationships between their factors and indicators to be observed.

A non-experimental, cross-sectional and exploratory study was carried out with a non-probabilistic selection of 248 residents of a municipality in northeastern Mexico, considering the scarcity, shortage, unhealthiness and local scarcity (see Table 2).

The Water Risk Perception Scale (WRPS-16) was built, which includes three dimensions related to aversion to risks and the propensity to risk before capture, storage, optimization and reuse promoted by the municipal government (see Table 3).

Table 2. Descriptive of the sample.

Source: Prepared with the study data.

Table 3. Construction of the (WRPS-16).

Source: Prepared with the study data.

Participants were surveyed in their place of residence and/or work, with a written guarantee of confidentiality and anonymity, as well as a warning that the results of the study would not affect their status.

The information was processed in IBM-SPSS-AMOS version 25.0. The multivariate Crombach’s alpha and the parameters of adequacy, sphericity, validity, fit and residual for the contrast of the null hypothesis were estimated.

3. Results

Table 4 shows the internal consistency values of the general scale and the subscales which exceeded the minimum required of 0.700 (general alpha of 0.789, alpha of the aversion of 0.780 and alpha of the propensity of 0.785).

Once the constructs that explained 39% of the total variance were established, we proceeded to contrast the null hypothesis relative to the significant differences between the theoretical dimensions of risk perception with respect to the factors and indicators found.

The adjustment and residual parameters ⌠X2 = 567.32 (45 gl) p = 0.009; CFI = 0.990; GFI = 0.995; RMSEA = 0.009⌡suggest the non-rejection of the null hypothesis, although the total variance suggests the inclusion of another factor that

Table 4. Descriptive of the instrument.

R = Reactive, M = Media, SD = Standar Desviation, SW = Swedness, K = Kurtosis, A = Alpha de Crombach’s. Adecuation (KMO = 0.783), Sphericity (X2 = 346.32 (34 gl) p = 0.000). Extraction: Main Axes, Rotation: Promax. F1 = Aversion to risks (24% of the total variance explained), F2 = Propensity to Risks (15% of the total variance explained). All items are answered with any of five options ranging from 0 = “not likely” to 5 = “quite likely”. Source: Prepared with the study data

the literature identifies as hyperopia to demonstrate a tenure towards carelessness and inaction in the face of risk events and water problems both global and local.

4. Discussion

The contribution of this work to the state of the question lies in the establishment of the reliability and validity of an instrument that measured the perception of risks, but the type of non-experimental study, the type of non-probabilistic sampling and the type of exploratory analysis they limited the results to the research scenario, suggesting the inclusion of the hyperopia factor to account for the lack of concern and inaction in the face of risk events and their effects on public health.

García, Juárez, & Bustos (2018) showed that local water governance depends on the conciliation of uses and customs rather than on the implementation of water supply and comfort strategies that suppose consumption of more than 200 liters per person.

In the present work it has been highlighted that the uses and customs only generate aversion to the risks in the best of cases, but the clientelist relationship between the violated sectors with their authorities rather develop perceptions of risk associated with the propensity or Delegation of responsibility to the government, prelude to the lack of concern and inaction before the events of risk and their effects on public health.

Juárez, Bustos, Quintero, García, & Espinoza (2018) showed that in the area of cooperation co-management can be indicative of co-government, although the increase in propensity to risk suggests that in the best of cases, solidarity will be observed inside of native peoples.

In the present study, the cooperation would be related to an aversion to the risks when the actors are willing to carry out the solidary efforts to carry out the tequio or guatza, main uses and local customs of dosage of water consumption.

Sandoval, Bustos, & García (2018) proposed a model for the study of local governance, although they started from the assumption that self-management and technology would be sufficient for the establishment of co-management.

In the present work, co-management replaces civil self-management and state self-management since the propensity to risk implies the exclusion of actors from being civil for politicians or vice versa.

It is necessary to include hypermetropia for the study of governance and local water sustainability if differences prevail between urban centrality and periphery.

5. Conclusion

The objective of this paper has been to establish the reliability and validity of an instrument that measured two dimensions of the perception and risks related to the aversion or delegation of the problem to the political or social actor, as well as the dimension of the propensity involved in negotiation. and agreement between the parties, but the type of study, sampling and analysis limited the results to the research scenario, suggesting the inclusion of the hyperopia factor to explain the effect of the risk events on the mental health of the locality that would be characterized by a lack of concern and inaction before the problems of shortages, unhealthiness and lack of water service.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Cite this paper

Hernández-Gracia, T. J., Muñoz, E. M., Ávila, D. D., & García-Lirios, C. (2018). Reliability and Validity of an Instrument that Measures the Main Challenge Facing the Management and Administration of Water Resources and Services. Open Journal of Political Science, 8, 353-364.


  1. 1. Bustos, J. M., Juárez, M., Carreón, J., Quintero, M. L., Sandoval, F. R., & García, C. (2017). Press Coverage around the Problem Water in the Political Election. International Journal of Environment, Agriculture & Biotechnology, 3, 1-20. [Paper reference 1]

  2. 2. Bustos, J. M., Juárez, M., Sandoval, F. R., Quintero, M. L., & García, C. (2017). Quality and Fares of Water Supply Services Perceptions for Users in Mexico City. Journal Education & Social Development, 11, 20-31. [Paper reference 1]

  3. 3. Carreón. J., Juárez, M., & García, C. (2017). Governance of Water Sustainability. Administrative Science, 1, 241-255. [Paper reference 1]

  4. 4. Corral, V., Bonnes, M., Tapia, C., Fraijo, B., Fríace, M., & Carrus, G. (2009). Correlates of Pro-Sustainable Orientation the Affinity towards Diversity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 34-43.

  5. 5. Corral, V., Fraijo, B., & Tapia, C. (2008). An Observational Record of Individual Consumption of Water; Applications for Research or n of Sustainable Behavior. Revista Mexicana de Analysis of Behavior, 34, 79-96.

  6. 6. Corral, V., Fraijo, B., & Pinheiro, J. (2006). Sustainable Behavior and Time Perspective: Present, Past, and Future Orientation and Their Relationships with Water Conservation Behavior. American Journal of Psychology, 40, 139-147.

  7. 7. Frías, M., Rodríguez, A., & Corral, V. (2009). A to Analysis of Factors Influencing the Development of Environmental Standards and the Anti-Ecol Behavior or Logic. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 43, 309-322.

  8. 8. García, C. (2018). Interpretation of Speeches around the Subsidy of the Water Supply Services for the Understanding of Narratives Tariff. Social Sciences, 4, 25-40. [Paper reference 1]

  9. 9. García, C., Bustos, J. M., Juárez, M., Rivera, B. L., & Limón, G. A. (2017). Expectations of Users of the Potable Water Services around Supply, Quality and Tariffs in the Context of Future Elections in a Locally Mexico City. Compendium, 4, 33-54. [Paper reference 1]

  10. 10. García, C., Carreón, J., & Hernández, J. (2016). Public Security Governance Based of Ideas of Identity and Risk Perception that Have Been Established by the Media within the Citizens Agenda. Social Work, 11, 103-116. [Paper reference 2]

  11. 11. García, C., Carreón, J., & Hernández, J. (2017). Cogestion as Security Device for Sustainable Local Development. Eureka, 14, 268-289. [Paper reference 1]

  12. 12. García, C., Carreón, J., Hernández, J., Bustos, J. M., & Aguilar, J. A. (2016). Specification a Sociopolitical Hyperopia Model. Blue Moon, 42, 270-292.

  13. 13. García, C., Carreón. J., Bustos, J. M., & Juárez, M. (2016). Scenarios Regarding the Stablishement of an Agenda for Transgenerational Governance of Water Resources and Services. Civilizar, 16, 86-112. [Paper reference 1]

  14. 14. García, C., Juárez, M., & Bustos, J. M. (2018). Specification for a Model of the Study of Local Governance. Sincronía, 22, 459-472. [Paper reference 1]

  15. 15. García, C., Juárez, M., & Sandoval, F. R. (2017). Model of Water Disposal. Science Political, 32, 1-26. [Paper reference 1]

  16. 16. García, C., Rivera, B. L., & Limón, G. A. (2017). Perception Model of Sustainability in the Millennial Generation. Inclusions, 4, 82-96. [Paper reference 1]

  17. 17. García, C., Rivera, B. L., Limón, G. A., Bustos, J. M., & Juárez, M. (2017). Specification of a Consensus Sustainability Model. International Journal of Social Science & Research, 13, 201-224. [Paper reference 1]

  18. 18. García, C., Sandoval, F. R., & Espinoza, F. (2018). Sociopolitical Axes for the Governance of the Quality of Social Services. Documental Science, 4, 38-46. [Paper reference 1]

  19. 19. Gilford, R. (2009). Temporal and Spatial Optimism Pessimism in Environmental Assessment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 1-12.

  20. 20. Juárez, M., Bustos, J. M., Quintero, M. L., García, C., & Espinoza, F. (2018). Governance of Water Sustainability Specification for a Model of the Study of Cooperative Reuse. Invurnus, 13, 33-43. [Paper reference 1]

  21. 21. Sandoval, F. R., Bustos, J. M., & García, C. (2018). Exploratory Testing of a Local Water Sustainability Governance Model. Gestión de la Personas y Tecnología, 31, 72-87. [Paper reference 1]

  22. 22. Vázquez, F., Cruz, M. G., Carreón, J., Hernández, J., Bustos, J. M., & Sandoval, F. R. (2017). Agenda of the Governance of Water Services in Demarcation of Mexico City. Global Advances Research Journal of Agricultural Science, 6, 1-17. [Paper reference 1]