Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This research aims to support sustainable water-resource management by investigating cognitive and affective perceptions of recycled water and their influence on public receptivity across multiple usage contexts. It analyzes how regulatory availability and water quality affect receptivity for domestic, public, and supplementary uses. It also analyzes the mediating role of perceived performance and physical risks, which are moderated by affective reactions, with the “yuck factor” concept reflected in these negative emotional responses. To this end, a cross-sectional quantitative approach was adopted, drawing on responses gathered from a sample of 550 participants, with PROCESS macro techniques applied to analyze the data. Results indicate that perceived performance risk consistently mediates the associations between regulatory availability, water quality, and overall receptivity across all use categories. Partial mediation is observed in most cases, while full mediation is observed for public use with respect to water quality. Perceived physical risk also acts as a mediator, although its effects differ by context. Specifically, no mediation is observed for domestic use under regulatory availability, whereas partial and full mediation effects are present in other contexts. The results further demonstrate that affective reactions significantly moderate the relationships between regulatory availability and water quality and perceived performance risk, as well as between water quality and perceived physical risk. These moderating effects are most pronounced at low to moderate levels of negative emotional reactions and diminish at higher levels. Overall, the study underscores the essential roles of cognitive risk assessments and emotional responses in shaping public receptivity of recycled water, providing actionable insights for policymakers and practitioners seeking to support water reuse implementation and sustainable water-resource management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mahrous et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: