Gendered Water Stewardship in Jordan and the influence of Women’s Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices on Sustainability

Gendered Water Stewardship in Jordan and the influence of Women’s Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices on Sustainability | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Gendered Water Stewardship in Jordan and the influence of Women’s Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices on Sustainability Ola Al Haddid, Alaeddin Ahmad, Qais Ahmad This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8238314/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 30 Apr, 2026 Read the published version in Discover Sustainability → Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Water scarcity in Jordan is among the most severe globally, yet its social and gendered dimensions remain underexplored. This study examines how women’s knowledge, attitudes, and practices shape water sustainability in Jordan’s water-scarce context, expanding the traditional Knowledge–Attitude–Practice (KAP) model through the lens of Water Stewardship. Drawing on twenty-seven semi-structured interviews with women and institutional stakeholders, the research adopts a qualitative interpretivist approach informed by feminist political ecology. The findings reveal that women’s knowledge of water scarcity in Jordan is deeply experiential and multi-dimensional, integrating both normative values—such as moral, cultural, and religious obligations to conserve water—and instrumental understandings shaped by the country’s political, economic, and technological realities. Despite their central role in managing household water, women remain marginalized in decision-making and excluded from governance structures. The study argues that recognizing women’s stewardship—an ethic of care, reciprocity, and responsibility—can advance gender-inclusive water governance and sustainable development goal 6 (clean water and sanitation). By amplifying women’s lived experiences, this paper redefines sustainability as both a normative and instrumental project, grounded in equity, justice, and everyday practice. Gender Water Sustainability Stewardship KAPs Model SDG 6 Clean Water and Sanitation Figures Figure 1 1. Introduction Water is the foundation of all forms of life, a finite and irreplaceable resource that sustains individual wellbeing, community stability, and industrial productivity. As a limited natural resource, water functions as both a socioeconomic and environmental constraint, shaping development trajectories across nations (Anderson, Clow, and Haworth-Brockman, 2013; Ezbakhe, Giné-Garriga, and Pérez-Foguet, 2019). According to the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report (2025), water scarcity ranks among the top five global risks, affecting countries such as Jordan, Iran, Iraq, and Tunisia. This classification underscores that water scarcity is not merely a local or regional phenomenon but a widespread structural challenge embedded in global systems of inequality. Despite global progress toward improved access, clean and safely managed water remains unevenly distributed, both among and within nations (Ezbakhe et al., 2019). Disparities persist between rural and urban populations, elites and marginalized groups, and across gender and socioeconomic lines. As Mehta (2016) observes, the persistence of water inequality is not simply the outcome of resource limitations but the product of deep-seated power asymmetries that define who controls, accesses, and benefits from water. These asymmetries have positioned water governance at the core of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which seeks to “ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all” (de Jong and Vijge, 2021). The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) affirms that equitable access to water is foundational to multiple other goals, including SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 3 (Good Health and Wellbeing), SDG 4 (Quality Education), and SDG 5 (Gender Equality) (Essex, Koop, and van Leeuwen, 2020). Within SDG 6, Target 6.2 explicitly prioritizes women and girls, calling for “adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all” while paying particular attention to their specific needs (UNESCO, 2021). In this context, gendered perspectives are critical to understanding the dynamics of water scarcity. Women possess unique “water knowledge” derived from their daily responsibilities for collection, storage, and management of water at the household and community levels (Anderson et al., 2013). This knowledge extends beyond technical familiarity to encompass sociocultural, religious, political, economic, and environmental dimensions—forming what Behailu, Pietilä, and Katko (2016) describe as contextual ecological knowledge . Yet, despite their central roles in ensuring water security, women’s voices remain underrepresented in water policy and governance structures (Carmi, Alsayegh, and Zoubi, 2019; Kevany and Huisingh, 2013). In Jordan—a nation suffering from extreme water scarcity—the gendered nature of water challenges is particularly visible. The country’s renewable freshwater availability is less than 100 m³ per person annually, well below the international threshold of 500 m³ that defines severe scarcity (UNICEF, 2017). Although 98 percent of Jordanians have nominal access to water sources, only 93 percent access safely managed sources, with supply intermittent and quality uneven (USAID, 2018). Jordan’s limited hydrological endowment, rapid population growth, and large influx of refugees have compounded this crisis, positioning it as the second most water-stressed country globally (USAID, 2018). Women, who constitute over half of Jordan’s population, disproportionately experience the burden of this scarcity. They manage domestic water needs, maintain hygiene, and adapt to intermittent supply cycles, yet remain systematically excluded from decision-making within water and irrigation sectors (Carmi et al., 2019; USAID, 2020). As Carmi and colleagues (2019) found in Palestine, Lebanon, and Jordan, women’s absence from governance forums reinforces a patriarchal institutional order that privileges technical expertise over experiential knowledge. This exclusion silences women’s agency and constrains the potential for inclusive and sustainable solutions (Mehta, 2016). Women’s water knowledge in Jordan is thus both normative and instrumental. On one hand, it reflects normative dimensions—moral, cultural, and religious commitments to stewardship, community solidarity, and care for future generations (Kevany et al., 2013). On the other hand, it incorporates instrumental dimensions shaped by the political economy of scarcity: awareness of rising water tariffs, limited municipal access, inequitable distribution between urban elites and rural peripheries, and dependence on outdated infrastructure and transboundary sources (Hussein, 2018; Shamayleh, 2019). Women navigate these constraints daily, translating knowledge into pragmatic and adaptive practices—reducing consumption, reusing greywater, and negotiating local water-sharing arrangements (Makki et al., 2013; Figueirdo and Perkins, 2013). These realities reveal that water scarcity in Jordan is not merely a matter of hydrology, but of governance, equity, and everyday survival. As such, this study adopts a gendered perspective to examine how women’s knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) influence water sustainability. It expands the conventional KAP framework (Salas-Zapata, Ríos-Osorio, and Cardona-Arias, 2018) by integrating water stewardship—a relational and ethical orientation toward care, reciprocity, and responsibility (Kevany and Huisingh, 2013; Kreutzwiser et al., 2011). This multidimensional approach links sociocultural, religious, economic, political, environmental, and technological domains to the ways women perceive and manage water in their daily lives. Ultimately, this research investigates: How women’s knowledge — grounded in sociocultural, spiritual, economic, political, and environmental realities — informs their attitudes toward water sustainability. How these attitudes translate into water-related practices, particularly in reducing, reusing, and recycling water at the household and community levels. How the notion of water stewardship is understood and enacted by women as they navigate water scarcity. Conceptually, while prior studies have applied the KAP model to assess behavioral determinants of water management (Salas-Zapata et al., 2018; Abu-Bakar, Williams, and Hallett, 2021), this research repositions the framework within feminist political ecology (Mehta, 2016). This allows the analysis to move beyond linear cause-effect relationships (i.e., quantitative) and instead examine how gender, power, and institutional arrangements shape women’s agency (i.e., qualitative) under scarcity. From a policy standpoint, the study challenges the portrayal of women as passive recipients of water policy and instead positions them as active agents of transformation. Their lived experiences, embedded in Jordan’s sociocultural and political context, offer practical pathways toward equitable and sustainable governance. The study’s findings aim to inform the implementation of Jordan’s National Water Strategy (2016–2025) and Water Demand Management Policy by highlighting how gendered knowledge and stewardship can strengthen both efficiency and justice in water management. Furthermore, the study emphasizes the critical contribution of women and girls to water sustainability, particularly in advancing Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6—Clean Water and Sanitation—with a specific focus on Target 6.2, which addresses equitable access to sanitation and hygiene. Given the shared sociocultural, religious, economic, and geographic characteristics across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, the Jordanian Case —may hold wider regional relevance. This study begins by introducing the context of water scarcity in Jordan, highlighting the importance of a gendered perspective. It outlines the research aim, objectives, and key questions. A brief review of the relevant literature, particularly the KAP (Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice) model, follows. The methodology section explains the qualitative approach and use of semi-structured interviews. The findings present key themes from participants’ narratives, which are then discussed in light of existing research. The study concludes with implications, limitations, and recommendations for future research on gender and water sustainability. 2. Literature Review 2.1 Gender, exclusion, and the promise of participation Research on gender and water sustainability consistently shows that women and girls bear a disproportionate burden because of traditional gender roles that assign to them the daily tasks of water collection, sanitation, and household management (Figueirdo and Perkins, 2013; Kevany and Huisingh, 2013; Kevany et al., 2013). Case studies further demonstrate systematic exclusion of women and girls from decision-making in water management, with tangible impacts on livelihoods, physical health, and mental wellbeing (Figueirdo and Perkins, 2013). Such exclusion helps explain disappointing outcomes of water resource management projects in low-income and developing settings, where local knowledge is sidelined during design and implementation (Figueirdo and Perkins, 2013). Building on this evidence, this study argues that meaningful participation and engagement of women and girls in water management and governance are necessary conditions for real, sustainable, and transformative change. Socially marginalised and vulnerable populations, particularly women and girls in remote or underserved areas, are doubly affected by scarcity because of gendered socio-economic and political roles (Anderson, Clow, and Haworth-Brockman, 2013). Although the literature often frames women as passive recipients of harm, many studies also recognise that they hold local ecological knowledge derived from everyday practice. Yet policy and scholarship have tended to prioritise mitigation of harms from consumption, contamination, and loss, rather than women’s positive contributions to sustainability through reduction, reuse, and recycling of water (Anderson, Clow, and Haworth-Brockman, 2013; Figueirdo and Perkins, 2013; Kevany and Huisingh, 2013; Kevany et al., 2013). In line with these works, this study foregrounds women’s “water knowledge” as a potential driver of sustainable transformation. Despite women’s multiple roles at household and community levels, they remain underrepresented in environmental decision-making, including water resource management (Kevany and Huisingh, 2013). One reason is the frequent neglect of social heterogeneity and power relations that shape institutions and cultural norms, thereby reproducing class, ethnic, and gender discrimination. These structures determine access to natural resources and whose interests are voiced and represented in decision arenas (Kevany and Huisingh, 2013; Kevany et al., 2013). Consequently, sociocultural, economic, political, and environmental conditions at local and national levels can either enable or constrain women’s engagement in water governance. A community-based, people-centred approach is widely recommended. Figueirdo and Perkins (2013) argue for bottom-up strategies that value local knowledge in adaptation. Smilaily, Kevany, and Huisingh (2013) identify seven challenges that water insecurity worsens for women: poor health, mental stress, gender violence, inequality, climate change, legislation, and privatisation. They call for removing participation barriers and supporting women’s co-creative roles in governance. Extending this logic, the present study emphasizes building capacity among marginalised groups to adapt to scarcity and to initiate long-term, self-directed, community strategies (Figueirdo and Perkins, 2013). Given women’s central roles in stewardship and day-to-day management, examining women’s water knowledge is essential for understanding how attitudes toward sustainability form and how these translate into demand-side practices. 2.2 Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice (KAPs) Model Water challenges are partly attributed to deficits in water literacy, especially in low- and middle-income contexts (Maniam et al., 2021). Water literacy involves knowledge of sources, management, and problems, which informs attitudes and practices (Anderson et al., 2013; Figueirdo and Perkins, 2013; Kevany and Huisingh, 2013; Kevany et al., 2013). To break cycles of illiteracy, Maniam, Poh, Htar, Poon, and Chuah (2021) advocate active and cognitive engagement that cultivates responsible users and communities. This aligns with the KAP model, a framework that links understanding (knowledge), predisposition (attitude), and behaviour (practice) for assessing water-related sustainability. Originating in cognitive, affective, and behavioural theory (Kandel and Schwartz, 1985), the KAP model conceptualises knowledge as awareness and understanding of water issues and management; attitude as willingness or tendency to act given one’s context; and practice as enacted behaviour regarding sustainability. Used together, these dimensions help examine how water literacy shapes outcomes. 2.2.1 Knowledge Reviews highlight the multifaceted nature of water sustainability and its sensitivity to geography, sociocultural norms, economics, politics, environment, and technology (Olmstead, 2014; Abu-Bakar et al., 2021; Maniam et al., 2021). In Jordan, contextual knowledge strongly conditions practices. Hussein (2018) and Shamayleh (2019) show that the government and public commonly attribute scarcity to topography and hydrology, while socio-economic and political drivers such as instability, conflict, transboundary agreements, and forced displacement are viewed as amplifiers. This emphasis tends to privilege supply-side solutions and normalise insufficiency, while demand-side management and mismanagement receive less attention (Shamayleh, 2019). Understanding how these interlocking factors operate is critical for assessing sustainability. Sociocultural knowledge Water insecurity produces emotional stress, anxiety, stigma, and exclusion that threaten mental health, particularly for women who manage household water (Wutich et al., 2016, 2017; Brewis, Choudhary, and Wutich, 2019a; Brewis, Choudhary, and Wutich, 2019b). Many studies focus on quality, quantity, reliability, and affordability, potentially overlooking entitlements, capabilities, sociocultural dynamics, and political institutions (Wutich et al., 2017). Mushavi et al. (2020) therefore underscore the need to account for power structures that shape knowledge among marginalised populations. Traditional sociocultural knowledge is cumulative and embedded in historical interaction with local economies and environments, and is reflected in labels, classifications, practices, and worldviews (Fielding et al., 2012; Willis et al., 2011; Willis et al., 2013; Behailu, Pietilä, and Katko, 2016). Demographics matter: gendered division of labour positions women as custodians of hygiene and sanitation, and their knowledge influences household attitudes and practices (Anderson, Clow, and Haworth-Brockman, 2013). Age, education, income, household size, tenure, and dwelling type all correlate with consumption and conservation behaviours in complex ways (Fielding et al., 2012; Beal et al., 2013; Willis et al., 2013; Homewood and Snowdon, 2014; Aprile and Fiorillo, 2017; Watson, 2017; Manouseli et al., 2019; Abdullah, Zakaria, and Razman, 2018; Makki et al., 2013; Liu, Giurco, and Mukheibir, 2016; Martínez-Espiñeira and García-Valiñas, 2013; Jorgensen et al., 2009; Hussein, 2018). Religious and spiritual knowledge Women often serve as spiritual guides and symbols of stewardship within households and communities (Anderson et al., 2013; Kevany et al., 2013; Kevany and Huisingh, 2013). Religious teachings can embed conservation as a moral duty (Ahmad et al., 2025). For example, Islamic guidance discourages waste even when water appears abundant, illustrating how faith can reinforce sustainable practices (Ibn Majah, 2007). Undermining ecosystem integrity can compromise spiritual wellbeing, making inclusion and empowerment in governance a matter of both policy and moral concern (Kevany et al., 2013; Kevany and Huisingh, 2013). Economic knowledge Price instruments can influence consumption, though effects vary by income and context (Sahin et al., 2017; Romano, Salvati, and Guerrini, 2016; Lu, Deller, and Hviid, 2019). Some studies show that tariff increases prompt measurable reductions in household demand, including during drought (Reynaud, 2015; Lu et al., 2019; Abu-Bakar et al., 2021; Pinto et al., 2021). Yet water’s essential nature and limited substitutability create low elasticity, so aggregate savings may derive from many small household reductions rather than large individual responses (Giwa and Dindi, 2017). Pricing also risks regressive impacts on low-income households and may be interpreted as rent-seeking by utilities, especially among affluent users who can absorb higher costs (Romano et al., 2016; Lu et al., 2019; Abu-Bakar et al., 2021; Pinto et al., 2021). Political knowledge Political context shapes risk perceptions and conservation behaviours. Conflict, refugee influx, and inequitable transboundary arrangements can heighten perceived scarcity and spur conservation responses (Gilbertson, Hurlimann, and Dolnicar, 2011; Rodríguez-Sánchez and Sarabia-Sánchez, 2020; Hussein et al., 2020; McCarroll and Hamann, 2020). Environmental knowledge Topography, geography, climate variability, and change all affect sustainability (Makki et al., 2013; Olmstead, 2014; Abu-Bakar et al., 2021). Knowledge of scarcity, sources, high evaporation, low precipitation, flash floods, and climate fluctuations in Jordan influences attitudes and practices (Hussein, 2018; Shamayleh, 2019; Gilbertson, Hurlimann, and Dolnicar, 2011; Rodríguez-Sánchez and Sarabia-Sánchez, 2020; Maniam et al., 2021). Seasonal effects on indoor use are mixed, but temperature and climate variables significantly affect total consumption, especially outdoors (Willis et al., 2011; Grafton et al., 2011; Rathnayaka et al., 2017; Manouseli, Kayaga, and Kalawsky, 2019; Kenney et al., 2009; Aprile and Fiorillo, 2017). Technological knowledge Water-efficient devices can reduce per-capita consumption, yet rebound or offsetting behaviours can blunt gains (Fielding et al., 2012; Beal et al., 2013; Willis et al., 2013; Abu-Bakar et al., 2021). Education and income correlate with adoption of technologies such as smart meters and low-flow fixtures, though lower-income households often engage in stronger conservation routines due to necessity (Makki et al., 2013; 2015; Abu-Bakar et al., 2021). Traditional sociocultural knowledge should not be displaced by technical fixes but integrated to ensure local relevance and durable practice change (Anderson, Clow, and Haworth-Brockman, 2013; Figueirdo and Perkins, 2013; Kevany and Huisingh, 2013; Kevany et al., 2013; Behailu, Pietilä, and Katko, 2016). Overall, sociocultural (Behailu, Pietilä, and Katko, 2016), religious (Kevany et al., 2013), economic (Lu et al., 2019), political (Hussein et al., 2020), environmental (Makki et al., 2013), and technological knowledge (Abu-Bakar et al., 2021) interact to shape adoption of water-related practices and, by extension, sustainability outcomes in Jordan. 2.2.2 Attitude Sustainable water management depends on users’ understanding of issues, but positive attitudes do not always translate into behaviour change, revealing an intention–behaviour gap (Echeverría, 2020). Pro-environmental actions often require sacrifice, which can dampen commitment unless users anticipate positive outcomes from conservation (Lindenberg and Steg, 2007). Several studies show that awareness of scarcity and restrictions alone does not reliably alter behaviour (Jorgensen et al., 2009; Landon et al., 2018). Others find direct links between strong conservation attitudes and lower household consumption across behaviourally influenced end-uses such as showering, laundry, irrigation, and taps (Willis et al., 2011). In Iran, perceived crisis risk and self-rewarding emotions raise intentions to conserve among farmers, but responses tend to be reactive rather than proactive (Yazdanpanah et al., 2014; Beal et al., 2013). 2.1.3 Practice Equally, the role of knowledge, attitudes and water-related practices continues to receive attention in the literature. However, water sustainability remains unattained – due to the focus remaining on the knowledge, attitude, and behaviour gap (Echeverría, 2020). That is, the overarching assumption – is that bridging the gap – would consequently lead to attainment of water sustainability (Echeverría, 2020). Rather, this study argues that understating these three ‘key’ elements/factors, thereby their interrelated relationship – delivers a real, sustainable, and transformative change, especially, with regards to water sustainability. According to Echeverría (2020), studies focus on defining ‘behaviour’ as observed/reported actions/practices, while the evidence falls short of demonstrating that knowledge and attitude are concretely converted/translated into actions, namely sustainable water-related practices. That is, not all households’ knowledge and attitude - are converted/translated into corresponding action/practices (Liu, Giurco, and Mukheibir, 2016). Water sustainability requires – further than the short-term aspiration; instead, water sustainability requires steady/long-term embracement of sustainable water-related practices at the household level. To elucidate, Echeverría (2020) argued that the long-term difficulty and challenge of water sustainability – is understanding the intention-behaviour gap, which might translate ‘temporarily’ into practice /action at the household level. That is, the difference between the observed, desired/ intended, and actual practice/action at the household level. However, the embracement of a steady reduction gap, which entails water-user/consumers embedding/embracing sustainable water-related habits – delivers a real, sustainable, and transformative change. 2.3 Feminist Political Ecology and Stewardship Feminist political ecology offers a lens to examine how environmental issues intersect with gender, power, and everyday life, reframing water scarcity as a socially produced condition rather than a purely biophysical problem (Mehta, 2016). Within this perspective, water stewardship is not mere compliance with conservation norms but a moral and relational practice grounded in care, reciprocity, and responsibility (Kevany and Huisingh, 2013; Kreutzwiser et al., 2011). Ram-Bidesi (2015) emphasises women’s stewardship as both a coping mechanism under scarcity and a transformative force in community-based resource management, while de San Miguel (2018, 2019) shows how women’s leadership in Mexico has shifted local governance toward more inclusive and sustainable outcomes. Situating stewardship within feminist political ecology therefore allows this study to conceptualise it simultaneously as ethical labour and political agency—a means of resisting marginalisation through care, collaboration, and locally grounded decision-making (Mehta, 2016; Kevany and Huisingh, 2013; Kreutzwiser et al., 2011; Ram-Bidesi, 2015; de San Miguel, 2018, 2019). One of the primary mechanisms utilised to protect and safeguard water resources is the active promotion of stewardship (Kreutzwiser et al., 2011; Kevany and Huisingh, 2013; Kevany et al., 2013). Kreutzwiser et al. (2011) define stewardship as actions undertaken to maintain the quality and quantity of water resources, motivated by reassurance, environmental knowledge, and perceived risks, and constrained by barriers such as complacency, inconvenience, ignorance, costs, and privacy concerns. Crucially, stewardship behaviours are context-specific; effective strategies must be tailored to social, economic, and environmental challenges and development needs (Kreutzwiser et al., 2011). Women possess distinctive “water knowledge” because of their close, everyday engagement with local environments and their responsibility for household tasks that require locating, managing, allocating, and safeguarding water (Anderson, Clow, and Haworth-Brockman, 2013). From a gender perspective, this positions women’s stewardship and guardianship as critical to sustainable water management. Integrating women’s knowledge into decision processes enables context-specific strategies that align with lived constraints and local priorities (Anderson, Clow, and Haworth-Brockman, 2013; Kevany and Huisingh, 2013). Yet women’s perspectives and experiences remain frequently overlooked within formal water governance, limiting the uptake of effective, demand-side solutions (Kevany and Huisingh, 2013; Kevany et al., 2013). Addressing these gaps requires capacity building and institutional arrangements that secure women’s inclusion, participation, and engagement across multiple levels of governance—what Kevany and Huisingh (2013) describe as gender-inclusive management of water resources. Such inclusion enables women to contribute substantively to wealth creation, water management, and stewardship (Kevany et al., 2013). Ram-Bidesi (2015) further highlights women’s multiple roles across household, community, and national scales—particularly through reducing, reusing, and recycling water—which place them in a pivotal position to shape attitudes that translate into sustainable practices. From this perspective, gender-sensitive approaches that amplify women’s voices and contest social wrongs are essential (Ram-Bidesi, 2015). Similarly, de San Miguel (2018, 2019) underscores the instrumental role of women’s leadership in reorienting governance toward balancing present and future needs, calling on governments and public–private actors to strengthen participation, collaboration, and leadership via gender mainstreaming and gender-focused initiatives. Accordingly, this study examines women’s water knowledge as a driver of attitudes toward sustainability and as a pathway into everyday practices—particularly demand-side conservation behaviours such as reduction, reuse, and recycling—thereby operationalising stewardship within the Knowledge–Attitude–Practice (KAP) framework (Anderson, Clow, and Haworth-Brockman, 2013; Kevany and Huisingh, 2013; Kevany et al., 2013; Kreutzwiser et al., 2011; Ram-Bidesi, 2015; de San Miguel, 2018, 2019; Mehta, 2016). 3. Methodology 3.1 Research Design This study adopts a qualitative research design grounded in interpretivism , which emphasizes the understanding of social phenomena through the subjective experiences and meanings attributed by individuals (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Castleberry and Nolen, 2018; Masharqa, 2021). Interpretivism is particularly suited to exploring water as a social experience—a domain in which meanings are culturally situated and negotiated through gendered practices, power relations, and moral responsibilities (Masharqa, 2021; Hussein, 2018; Wojnarowski, 2025). Given the deeply personal and contextually embedded nature of water-related knowledge, attitudes, and practices among women in Jordan, a qualitative approach was deemed particularly suitable to explore the nuanced and multifaceted ways in which women make sense of and respond to water scarcity (Masharqa, 2013; Castleberry and Nolen, 2018; Hussein, 2018; Wojnarowski, 2025). It enables an examination of how cultural norms, religious beliefs, political contexts, and material constraints shape their attitudes and everyday practices (Mustafa et al., 2016; Hussein et al., 2020; Al-Addous et al., 2023). The study is guided by feminist political ecology , which situates environmental management within structures of gender, power, and social inequality (Mehta, 2016; Figueirdo and Perkins, 2013). This theoretical framing challenges the technocratic view of water scarcity as a purely physical or managerial problem and instead conceptualizes it as a socially produced condition (Mustafa et al., 2016; Castleberry and Nolen, 2018; Hussein et al., 2020; Al-Addous et al., 2023). By embedding the Knowledge–Attitude–Practice (KAP) model within this framework and extending it through the concept of water stewardship, the study links micro-level experiences to macro-level governance and justice concerns (Selby and Hoffmann, 2012; Castleberry and Nolen, 2018; Katz, 2022). 3.2 Participant Selection and Recruitment A purposive, stratified sampling strategy was employed to capture a wide range of perspectives and ensure diversity across gendered experiences, institutional roles, and geographic settings (Farrugia, 2019; Achore, Bisung, and Kuusaana, 2020). The recruitment process followed a two-tiered strategy , blending both top-down and bottom-up approache s, as outlined by Smith (2008) and Hazelton (2013). First , top-down selection involved engaging institutional actors such as members of parliamentary water committees, representatives from national ministries, and professionals from private water utilities—whose expert knowledge and policymaking roles provide insight into water governance and SDG 6 implementation challenges. Second , a bottom-up approach was adopted to include voices from grassroots and civil society (i.e., women participants). Here, participants were recruited from grassroots and civil society, particularly, women, to ensure inclusion of community-informed and gender-sensitive knowledge. Thereby, the final sample comprised 25 participants. Fifteen women engaged in daily household and community-level water management from both urban (Amman, Zarqa, Irbid) and rural (Mafraq, Karak, Tafileh) regions of Jordan. Participants varied in age, marital status, education, and income, providing insight into intersecting social determinants of water use. While, ten institutional stakeholders representing ministries, parliamentary committees, private water utilities, nongovernmental organizations, and higher education institutions, whose professional roles offered perspectives on water governance, SDG 6 implementation, and gender mainstreaming in policy. This dual-level sampling design captured both experiential and institutional dimensions of water management, bridging the gap between household realities and governance systems (Smith, 2008; Hazelton, 2013). This inclusive sampling strategy acknowledged the value of both scientific expertise and lived experiences in shaping (un)sustainable water practices (Richards et al., 2022). In doing so, the study emphasized complementarity rather than exclusivity between expert and community knowledge. Initial access to participants was facilitated through trusted gatekeepers embedded within local community networks and institutional affiliations, ensuring that recruitment processes were culturally sensitive and ethically sound (Lata, 2021). Furthermore, participants were approached respectfully, and informed consent was secured before conducting interviews. As a result, participants felt empowered to share their experiences and insights openly, facilitating in-depth qualitative and nuanced semi-structured interviews . 3.3 Data Collection To explore how women’s knowledge and attitudes influence (un)sustainable water-related practices in Jordan, the study employed semi-structured interviews as its primary qualitative method (Kallio et al., 2016; Castleberry and Nolen, 2018; Ruslin et al., 2022). This approach allowed for flexibility in capturing personal themes and narratives while maintaining consistency across core themes aligned with the study objectives (Kallio et al., 2016; Castleberry and Nolen, 2018). That is, semi-structured interviews were conducted to gather insights about the gender knowledge that shapes attitudes, which might be influencing (un)sustainable water-related practices. Consequently, the study generated insights into the complex understandings of and relationships with water resources, especially, those suffering from water scarcity (Ruslin et al., 2022). Furthermore, the study revealed, firstly, women’s knowledge grounded in sociocultural, spiritual, economic, political, and environmental realities informs their attitudes toward water sustainability. Secondly, attitudes translate into water-related practices, particularly in reducing, reusing, and recycling water at the household and community levels. Thirdly, the notion of water stewardship is understood and enacted by women as they navigate water scarcity. Finally, the impact of those water- related practices on the achievement of SDG 6 in Jordan. All 25 interviews were conducted in Arabic , the native language of the participants, to ensure comfort and authenticity in expression. They were carried out both in-person and virtually (online) , depending on participant availability and geographic location. Each session lasted between 30 to 60 minutes and was audio-recorded with prior informed consent. An interview guide (see Appendix I) was used to guide the discussion, covering domains such as participants' understanding of water sustainability, attitude, and water-related practices. The guide was iteratively adjusted to reflect participants’ backgrounds and experiences, particularly in relation to SDG 6 Cleaner water and Sanitation. 3.4 Data Analysis Thematic analysis, as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006), was employed to analyze the qualitative data collected through semi-structured interviews. To ensure a holistic perspective, 25 semi-structured interviews were conducted with a range of women and institutional stakeholders, including members of parliamentary committees, national ministries, private water companies, international and non-governmental organizations, and higher education institutions (see Appendix II). Triangulation across participant groups (household women and institutional actors) ensured a rich and multi-layered dataset relevant to both national policy and community practice (Hussein, 2018; Katz, 2022). All collected interviews were transcribed verbatim by the first researcher and cross checked against the original interview recording for accuracy, consistency, and rigor by the researchers. Using NVivo, thematic analysis was used to organize and code the transcripts. Codes were developed both inductively (emerging from participants’ narratives) and deductively (guided by the KAP and stewardship frameworks) (Castleberry and Nolen, 2018; Ahmed et al., 2025). Themes were continually cross-checked against the theoretical framework to ensure interpretive alignment. That is, the thematic analysis entailed six phases, as outlined by Braun & Clarke (2006, p.87).: (1) familiarity with the data and information; (2) initial code generation; (3) searching for themes and subthemes; (4) reviewing themes and subthemes; (5) labeling themes and subthemes; (6) summarising data and information. The analysis aimed to capture gendered patterns of meaning—how women’s lived knowledge, ethical attitudes, and adaptive practices interact to shape sustainable water behaviour. The process yielded five overarching themes and eighteen subthemes , encompassing domains such as contextual knowledge, ethical attitudes, adaptive practices, stewardship, and implications for achieving SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation). The researcher continued conducting the interviews until data saturation had been reached – that is, until the stage at which the interviews were no longer generating new thematic insights (Castleberry and Nolen, 2018; Ahmed et al., 2025). This analytical process enabled the study to uncover gendered understandings and lived experiences that influence (un)sustainable water behaviors within the Jordanian context. 3.5 Ethical Considerations and Reflexivity Ethical approval was obtained from the relevant ‘ institutional review board (IRB) ’ at Princess Sumaya University for Technology (PSUT) prior to data collection. Participants were provided with detailed information about the study’s aim and objectives, procedures, and their rights, including confidentiality, anonymity, and the voluntary nature of participation. Informed – consent was obtained from all participants (Aluwihare-Samaranayake, 2012; Taquette and Borges da Matta Souza, 2022). Additionally, the researcher took ‘care’ to ensure cultural sensitivity, especially when discussing potentially sensitive topics related to domestic water management, household responsibilities, and gender roles (Makhoul et al., 2023). Participants were given the option to withdraw at any stage without consequence. Reflexivity was central to the research process. The researcher’s positionality—as a Jordanian academic with experience in sustainability policy—enabled access and trust while also requiring conscious awareness of potential biases and power dynamics. Continuous self-reflection, peer debriefing, and translation cross-checks were used to maintain analytical transparency and integrity (Castleberry and Nolen, 2018; Ahmed et al., 2025). 3.6 Trustworthiness and Rigor Methodological rigor was ensured through triangulation , member checking, and audit trails (Castleberry and Nolen, 2018; Ahmed et al., 2025). Triangulation was achieved by integrating multiple participant perspectives (grassroots and institutional), while member checking involved sharing summaries with select participants to verify interpretations. A detailed coding audit trail documented analytical decisions and theme evolution. Credibility was enhanced by prolonged engagement with participants, while transferability was achieved through rich contextual description (Castleberry and Nolen, 2018). Confirmability was reinforced through documentation of analytic memos and coding logs. While, dependability was ensured by maintaining transparency across all research stages, from design to analysis (Ahmed et al., 2025). Thereby, this rigorous qualitative framework enables the study to offer valid, contextually grounded insights into how women’s knowledge, attitudes, and practices shape water sustainability in Jordan. 4. Findings and Discussion This section presents the findings of the qualitative analysis, revealing how women and institutional actors in Jordan understand, experience, and respond to water scarcity. Through thematic analysis, five interrelated themes emerged: experiential knowledge of scarcity, normative attitudes toward water, adaptive practices and coping strategies, water stewardship, and SDG 6 Cleaner Water and Sanitation. Each theme reflects a distinct dimension of the Knowledge–Attitude–Practice (KAP) model while also demonstrating how women’s lived realities and institutional dynamics intersect within Jordan—context. 4.1 Experiential Knowledge of Scarcity Participants’ knowledge of water challenges is deeply embedded in lived experience . Women described scarcity not as an abstract concept but as a daily condition that structures routines, emotions, and relationships. Many recounted waiting for water trucks or rationing stored water during weekly shortages, illustrating how scarcity has become normalized in everyday life. “ Every week we wait for the water truck. I save every drop because God says waste is haram .” (W06) This experiential knowledge encompasses sociocultural, spiritual, environmental, economic, and political dimensions —a multifaceted awareness that extends beyond technical literacy. Most participants attributed scarcity to natural and geographic constraints, echoing national discourses that frame Jordan’s topography and climate as primary causes (Hussein, 2018; Shamayleh, 2019). However, they also recognized how human-induced factors —mismanagement, rising costs, population growth, refugee influx, and climate change—amplify these conditions. A nongovernmental organizations (NGO) participant observed: “We are the second most water-scarce country in the world. The problem isn’t only nature—it’s also how we manage it.” (I05) This aligns with Gilbertson et al. (2011) and Rodríguez-Sánchez & Sarabia-Sánchez (2020), who argue that local understandings of scarcity often reflect both environmental and institutional dimensions. Women’s testimonies demonstrated this dual awareness, describing scarcity as both physical insufficiency and governance failure. “You don’t need to teach us that water is important—we live this every day. When the taps go dry, we know it before anyone tells us.” (I09) Faith-based knowledge further reinforces conservation. Many participants cited Islam’s emphasis on moderation, echoing Anderson et al. (2013) and Kevany et al. (2013). Economic and technological knowledge also shaped responses: women understood the financial and infrastructural limits that constrain equitable access. “Not every husband can buy an 800 JD water tank… families just make do with what they have.” (W01) In line with Abu-Bakar et al. (2021), participants noted that while water-saving devices could reduce waste, affordability and inconsistent supply—limited their adoption. Collectively, these narratives position knowledge as embedded and experiential , combining sociocultural, economic, and political literacy to form the foundation for subsequent attitudes and practices. 4.2 Normative Attitudes Toward Water Women’s attitudes toward water are characterized by strong moral, religious, and emotional dimensions. Across contexts, they expressed a deep sense of responsibility and care for water as a sacred trust—consistent with the stewardship ethics described by Kevany and Huisingh (2013) and Ram-Bidesi (2015). “Water is a blessing and a trust from God. We are responsible not to waste it, no matter how hard it is.” (W08) This ethical orientation shaped not only personal behavior but also expectations of fairness and social justice. Participants articulated frustration at perceived inequalities in water distribution, echoing Mehta’s (2016) analysis of power asymmetries in water governance. “In the camps, people queue for water while others use it for gardens and pools.” (W10) Many described feelings of anxiety and fatigue, revealing the emotional toll of water scarcity. Similar to Wutich et al. (2016, 2017), participants linked scarcity to stress, insecurity, and declining well-being. Yet their responses also reflected resilience, framed by duty and faith. “Sometimes we do everything right, but there is still no water. It feels like we are alone in this.” (W07) Frustration extended to governance: women and institutional actors criticized short-term, reactive policy responses —what they called the ‘Faza’i’ or panic model—consistent with Yazdanpanah et al.’s (2014) findings that users often act reactively under crisis conditions. “We suffer from mismanaging the water resources… With the Faza'i model, solving problems short-term rather than planning for the long term.” (I06) While, another pointed, the mismanagement of water resources: We suffer from management by abayas (I10). Collectively, these reflections demonstrate that attitudes toward water are deeply moral yet constrained by systemic barriers. Even positive attitudes toward conservation cannot always translate into action without supportive infrastructure and policy coherence (Echeverría, 2020; Hussein et al., 2018). 4.3 Adaptive Practices and Coping Strategies Water-related practices among participants were pragmatic, creative, and rooted in necessity. Women routinely engaged in micro-level adaptations—reducing usage, reusing greywater, and adjusting routines to intermittent supply. “I reuse the laundry water for the plants; everyone in our street does now.” (W03) These adaptive practices reflect both individual agency and collective resilience. Community sharing norms were common, especially in rural areas, where informal water exchange sustained social cohesion. “In our neighborhood, when someone’s tank is empty, we help. It’s how we survive together.” (W05) Participants emphasized that reduction, as well as reuse were achievable, while recycling remained rare due to limited infrastructure, knowledge, and incentives. “Recycling water is difficult. We can reduce and reuse easily, but we don’t have the means to recycle at home.” (I05) These findings support Abu-Bakar et al. (2021), who highlight barriers to household-level recycling in water-scarce regions. They also mirror Makki et al. (2013) and Willis et al. (2011), who note that adaptive water practices often depend on education, household income, and social norms. Collectively, these practices embody everyday stewardship: pragmatic, context-specific actions that sustain families under chronic scarcity. Women’s innovation—driven by both necessity and moral duty—demonstrates the intersection of knowledge, attitude, and practice as envisioned in the KAP framework. 4.4 Water Stewardship Beyond household-level adaptation, the study found that women frame water uses —within a broader ethic of stewardship —a moral and political responsibility to care for water and community. “We must leave something for our children. If we do not take care of the water now, who will?” (W06) This theme integrates the findings of Kreutzwiser et al. (2011) and Kevany and Huisingh (2013), who define stewardship as a context-specific form of moral action shaped by local values and governance structures. Women’s stewardship was expressed through voluntary awareness campaigns, teaching children conservation, and informal leadership within communities. However, institutional stakeholders acknowledged that women remain underrepresented in water decision-making. “We are focusing more on gender mainstreaming within the water sector, but the emphasis should be on quality, not just quantity.” (I07) This reflects growing recognition of gendered water knowledge but also concern over tokenistic inclusion —a pattern documented by Figueirdo and Perkins (2013) and de San Miguel (2018, 2019). Meaningful stewardship, as participants emphasized, must go beyond symbolic participation toward substantive engagement and capacity building. “They invite women to meetings for photos, not for opinions.” (I05) Collectively, these accounts reveal that stewardship is both ethical labour and political agency : a lived ethic of care that resists exclusion through everyday practices of cooperation and persistence. 4.5 SDG 6 – Cleaner Water and Sanitation Participants across both groups explicitly and implicitly connected their experiences to Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG 6) , which calls for universal access to clean water and sanitation. Many women viewed their household efforts as direct contributions to national sustainability, while institutional stakeholders framed their work as operationalizing SDG 6 through policy and capacity-building initiatives. “When women lead awareness campaigns, families listen.” (I07) This reflects Kevany et al. (2013) and Ram-Bidesi (2015), who argue that integrating women’s knowledge into governance enhances both equity and efficiency. Participants called for greater collaboration between ministries, NGOs, and communities to address the persistent disconnect between policy ambition and lived reality. “Policy talks about efficiency, but not about how we fetch water.” (W12) Water stewardship, when aligned with SDG 6, therefore becomes both a moral and developmental imperative. It transforms everyday domestic actions—reducing, reusing, and sharing—into the groundwork for collective sustainability and justice. 4.6 Integrative Interpretation: Knowledge–Attitude–Practice–Stewardship (KAPS) Framework Drawing together these themes, the study proposes an expanded KAPS framework (Fig. 1.1 ) that situates women’s water practices within intersecting layers of knowledge , attitude , practice , and stewardship. At the national level , structural challenges—insufficiency, mismanagement, inequitable distribution—shape women’s lived experiences. At the household level , these macro factors translate into daily challenges affecting physical health, mental wellbeing, safety, and spirituality. This framework captures the cyclical relationship between contextual water knowledge, moral attitudes, adaptive practices, and the emergence of stewardship as a unifying ethic. It underscores that women’s water-related agency in Jordan is not merely reactive—it is a moral, collective, and strategic response to structural scarcity. 5. Conclusion This study has explored how women in Jordan understand, experience, and respond to water scarcity within a context marked by chronic insufficiency, institutional constraints, and gendered inequality. Through a feminist political ecology lens, it revealed that women’s water-related knowledge, attitudes, and practices are deeply embedded in lived experience and shaped by intersecting sociocultural, economic, political, and environmental realities. The analysis demonstrated that women’s knowledge of water scarcity is experiential and multidimensional—combining awareness of natural constraints with insight into structural and political factors such as pricing, infrastructure failure, and governance gaps. This finding aligns with Hussein (2018) and Shamayleh (2019), who show that in Jordan, that state, thereby, public discourses emphasize natural scarcity while overlooking institutional inefficiency and demand-side management. Participants recognised water not only as a biophysical resource but also as a moral and spiritual trust, a perception rooted in cultural and religious teachings (Anderson, Clow, and Haworth-Brockman, 2013; Kevany et al., 2013). Women’s attitudes toward water reflected an ethic of care, fairness, and intergenerational duty—an embodiment of stewardship as both moral and political agency (Ram-Bidesi, 2015; Kevany and Huisingh, 2013). Yet their ability to act on these values was constrained by insufficiency, mismanagement, inequitable allocation, and tokenistic participation in decision-making (Carmi, Alsayegh, and Zoubi, 2019). The resulting paradox mirrors Figueirdo and Perkins’ (2013) critique: ‘women are expected to uphold sustainability at the household level but remain excluded from the governance structures that determine resource access’. At the same time, women’s practices—from greywater reuse to collective storage and informal sharing—demonstrate creativity and resilience under pressure. These practices, grounded in necessity and care, constitute what Kevany et al. (2013) call applied stewardship: everyday actions that sustain communities and ecosystems despite systemic neglect. However, recycling remains rare, hindered by limited infrastructure and awareness, echoing Abu-Bakar et al. (2021) and Makki et al. (2013). From these findings, several key insights emerge; firstly, water scarcity is socially produced and gendered in Jordan. Women’s accounts show that scarcity cannot be explained by geography alone. Institutional inefficiencies, unequal power structures, and socio-economic disparities deepen its impact (Hussein et al., 2018; Mehta, 2016). Secondly, women’s stewardship constitutes both moral and political labour. Women are central to sustaining water security through daily management, yet their agency remains undervalued. Recognising this stewardship as a form of ethical and civic participation expands conventional definitions of governance (Kevany and Huisingh, 2013; Ram-Bidesi, 2015). Thirdly, stewardship must move beyond tokenism. Genuine inclusion requires structural reform—transforming consultation into co-decision-making and ensuring that women’s knowledge shapes both community initiatives and national policy (Figueirdo and Perkins, 2013; de San Miguel, 2018, 2019). Fourthly, integrating traditional and technological knowledge enhances resilience. Women’s sociocultural and faith-based knowledge complements scientific and technical innovations, creating hybrid forms of sustainable practice (Behailu, Pietilä, and Katko, 2016; Abu-Bakar et al., 2021). Finally, water governance must align moral responsibility with material justice. Faith-based ethics and cultural values can reinforce conservation only when supported by equitable access, transparent pricing, and reliable infrastructure (Romano, Salvati, and Guerrini, 2016; Lu, Deller, and Hviid, 2019). Conceptually, this study contributes to feminist political ecology by illustrating how knowledge, attitude, and practice intertwine through stewardship—transforming domestic labour into ethical and political participation. By extending the KAP framework to include stewardship, it advances a more holistic understanding of sustainability that encompasses both the normative and instrumental dimensions of water governance. Thereby, this study highlights that achieving water sustainability in Jordan demands integrating women lived knowledge, moral responsibility, and everyday practices into both policy and implementation. Policymakers should institutionalise gender equity across all levels of water governance, ensuring women’s active participation in decision-making within ministries, local councils, and water associations (Carmi et al., 2019). Recognising women’s informal management of collection, reuse, and sharing as a form of social infrastructure can strengthen resilience and decentralised governance (Ram-Bidesi, 2015; de San Miguel, 2018). Practically, national monitoring systems must combine quantitative indicators with qualitative, participatory insights that reflect the lived realities of scarcity and inequality, ensuring that progress toward SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) reflects both efficiency and justice (Hazelton, 2013; Hussein, 2018). Collectively, these approaches would align Jordan’s National Water Strategy (2016–2025) with SDG 5 (Gender Equality) by transforming women’s stewardship—from informal, undervalued labour into a recognised pillar of sustainable governance—linking moral justice, social inclusion, and environmental resilience within the national and international policy framework. Declarations Funding: This research received no external funding. Clinical trial number: Not applicable. Conflict of Interest: There was no potential conflict of interest by the authors. Ethics Approval and Declaration: Ethical approval was obtained from the relevant ‘institutional review board (IRB)’ at Princess Sumaya University for Technology (PSUT) prior to data collection. The ethics approval protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Princess Sumaya University for Technology (PSUT) in accordance with the PSUT IRB relevant guidelines and regulations. Consent to Participate: Participants were approached respectfully, and informed consent was secured before conducting interviews. Consent to Publish declaration: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Availability of data and materials: The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Authors’ contributions: All authors contributed to the study conception, design, material preparation, data collection, analysis, and manuscript writing. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgements: Not applicable. References Abdullah, A., Zakaria, S.Z.S. and Razman, M.R., 2018. Environmental education through outdoor education for primary school children. International Journal of the Malay World and Civilisation, 6(1), pp.27-34. Abu-Bakar, H., Williams, L. and Hallett, S.H., 2021. A review of household water demand management and consumption measurement. Journal of Cleaner Production, 292, p.125872. Achore, M., Bisung, E. and Kuusaana, E.D., 2020. Coping with water insecurity at the household level: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 230, p.113598. Afroz, R.; Banna, H.; Masud, M.M.; Akhtar, R.; Yahaya, S.R. Household’s perception of water pollution and its economic impact on human health in Malaysia. Desalin. Water Treat. 2016, 57, 115–123. Ahmad Q, Ceschin F, Abdulla D (2025), "Understanding household food waste behaviours in Jordan: ethnographic research". Journal of Humanities and Applied Social Sciences, Vol. 7 No. 5 pp. 473–490, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/JHASS-12-2024-0214 Ahmed, S.K., Mohammed, R.A., Nashwan, A.J., Ibrahim, R.H., Abdalla, A.Q., Ameen, B.M.M. and Khidhir, R.M., 2025. Using thematic analysis in qualitative research. Journal of Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health, p.100198. Al-Addous, M., Bdour, M., Alnaief, M., Rabaiah, S. & Schweimanns, N., 2023. ‘Water Resources in Jordan: A Review of Current Challenges and Future Opportunities’, Water, 15(21), p.3729. Aluwihare-Samaranayake, D., 2012. Ethics in qualitative research: A view of the participants' and researchers' world from a critical standpoint. International Journal of qualitative methods, 11(2), pp.64-81. Anderson, K., Clow, B. and Haworth-Brockman, M., 2013. Carriers of water: Aboriginal women’s experiences, relationships, and reflections. Journal of Cleaner Production, 60, pp.11-17. Aprile, M.C. and Fiorillo, D., 2017. Water conservation behavior and environmental concerns: Evidence from a representative sample of Italian individuals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 159, pp.119-129. Beal, C.D., Stewart, R.A. and Fielding, K., 2013. A novel mixed method smart metering approach to reconciling differences between perceived and actual residential end use water consumption. Journal of Cleaner Production, 60, pp.116-128. Behailu, B.M., Pietilä, P.E. and Katko, T.S., 2016. Indigenous practices of water management for sustainable services: Case of Borana and Konso, Ethiopia. Sage Open, 6(4), p.2158244016682292. Braun, V. and Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), pp.77-101. Brewis, A., & Workman, C. 2019. Burdened by both: Coping and disease at the intersection of water and food insecurity. In American Journal of Human Biology. NJ: Wiley. Brewis, A., Choudhary, N., & Wutich, A., 2019a. Household water insecurity may influence common mental disorders directly and indirectly through multiple pathways: Evidence from Haiti. Social Science & Medicine, 238, 112520. Brewis, A., Choudhary, N., & Wutich, A., 2019b. Low water access as a gendered physiological stressor: Blood pressure evidence from Nepal. American Journal of Human Biology, 31(3), e23234. Carmi, N., Alsayegh, M. and Zoubi, M., 2019. Empowering women in water diplomacy: A basic mapping of the challenges in Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan. Journal of hydrology, 569, pp.330-346. Castleberry, A. and Nolen, A., 2018. Thematic analysis of qualitative research data: Is it as easy as it sounds?. Currents in pharmacy teaching and learning, 10(6), pp.807-815. de Jong, E., & Vijge, M. J., 2021. From Millennium to Sustainable Development Goals: Evolving discourses and their reflection in policy coherence for development. Earth System Governance, 7(100087), pp.1-12. de San Miguel, J.A.S.R., 2018. Gender and water management in Mexico. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal ,29(5), pp. 842-858. de San Miguel, J.A.S.R., 2019. Gender and water governance in Mexico. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 30(4), pp.695-713. Dean, A.J., Fielding, K.S. and Newton, F.J., 2016. Community knowledge about water: who has better knowledge and is this associated with water-related behaviors and support for water-related policies?. PloS one, 11(7), p.e0159063. Echeverría, J.M.A., 2020. Cross-country evidence for social dimensions of urban water consumption during droughts. Journal of Cleaner Production, 260, p.120895. Essex, B., Koop, S.H.A. and Van Leeuwen, C.J., 2020. Proposal for a National Blueprint Framework to Monitor Progress on Water-Related Sustainable Development Goals in Europe. Environmental Management, 65(1), pp.1-18. Ezbakhe, F., Giné-Garriga, R. and Pérez-Foguet, A., (2019). Leaving No One Behind: Evaluating Access to Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Vulnerable and Marginalized Groups. Science of the Total Environment, 683, pp.537-546. Farrugia, B., 2019. WASP (write a scientific paper): Sampling in qualitative research. Early human development, 133, pp.69-71. Fielding, K.S., Russell, S., Spinks, A. and Mankad, A., 2012. Determinants of household water conservation: The role of demographic, infrastructure, behavior, and psychosocial variables. Water Resources Research, 48(10). Fielding, K.S., Russell, S., Spinks, A. and Mankad, A., 2012. Determinants of household water conservation: The role of demographic, infrastructure, behavior, and psychosocial variables. Water Resources Research, 48(10). Figueiredo, P. and Perkins, P.E., 2013. Women and water management in times of climate change: participatory and inclusive processes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 60, pp.188-194. Franco, E. G. (2025). World Economic Forum: The Global Risk Report 2025. In World Economic Forum, Available at: URL. https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2025/ Gilbertson, M., Hurlimann, A. and Dolnicar, S., 2011. Does water context influence behaviour and attitudes to water conservation?. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 18(1), pp.47-60. Giwa, A. and Dindi, A., 2017. An investigation of the feasibility of proposed solutions for water sustainability and security in a water-stressed environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 165, pp.721-733. Grafton, R.Q., Ward, M.B., To, H. and Kompas, T., 2011. Determinants of residential water consumption: Evidence and analysis from a 10‐country household survey. Water Resources Research, 47(8). Gregory, G.D. and Leo, M.D., 2003. Repeated behavior and environmental psychology: the role of personal involvement and habit formation in explaining water consumption 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(6), pp.1261-1296. Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Gudergan, S. P. (2018). Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hazelton, J., 2013. Accounting as a human right: the case of water information. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 26 (2), pp. 267-311. Homewood, S. and Snowdon, C., 2014. Setting standards for the future based on evidence from the past–a UK perspective on the success of the approach. Water Practice and Technology, 9(1), pp.33-41. Hussein, H., 2016. An Analysis of The Discourse of Water Scarcity and Hydropolitical Dynamics in the Case of Jordan. Doctoral of Philosophy. University of East Anglia (UEA). Hussein, H., 2018. Lifting the veil: Unpacking the discourse of water scarcity in Jordan. Environmental Science & Policy, 89, pp.385-392. Hussein, H., 2019. Yarmouk, Jordan, and Disi basins: Examining the impact of the discourse of water scarcity in Jordan on transboundary water governance. Mediterranean Politics, 24(3), pp.269-289. Hussein, H., Menga, F. and Greco, F., 2018. Monitoring transboundary water cooperation in SDG 6.5.2: How a critical hydropolitics approach can spot inequitable outcomes. Sustainability, 10(10), p.3640. Hussein, H., Natta, A., Yehya, A.A.K. and Hamadna, B., 2020. Syrian refugees, water scarcity, and dynamic policies: How do the new refugee discourses impact water governance debates in Lebanon and Jordan?. Water, 12(2), p.325. Ibn Majah, M., 2007. Sunan Ibn Majah (5 Volumes). Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Darussalam Publications. Jorgensen, B., Graymore, M. and O'Toole, K., 2009. Household water use behavior: An integrated model. Journal of environmental management, 91(1), pp.227-236. Kallio H, Pietilä AM, Johnson M, Kangasniemi M., 2016. Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. J Adv Nurs.;72(12):2954-2965. doi: 10.1111/jan.13031. Epub 2016 Jun 23. PMID: 27221824. Kandel, E. R., & Schwartz, J. H. (Eds.). (1985). Principles of neural sciences (2nd ed). New York: Elsevier Science Katz, D., 2022. Basin management under conditions of scarcity: The transformation of the Jordan River basin from regional water supplier to regional water importer. Water, 14(10), p.1605. Kenney, D.S., Goemans, C., Klein, R., Lowrey, J. and Reidy, K., 2008. Residential water demand management: lessons from Aurora, Colorado 1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 44(1), pp.192-207. Kevany, K. and Huisingh, D., 2013. A review of progress in empowerment of women in rural water management decision-making processes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 60, pp.53-64. Kevany, K., 2010. Water, women, waste, wisdom, and wealth–An energizing international collaboration, action research, and education project. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(16), p.1769. Kevany, K., Siebel, M., Hyde, K., Nazer, D. and Huisingh, D., 2013. Water, women, waste, wisdom and wealth–harvesting the confluences and opportunities. Journal of cleaner production, 60, pp.4-10. Koop, S.H.A., Van Dorssen, A.J. and Brouwer, S., 2019. Enhancing domestic water conservation behaviour: A review of empirical studies on influencing tactics. Journal of environmental management, 247, pp.867-876. Kreutzwiser, R., de Loe, R., Imgrund, K., Conboy, M.J., Simpson, H. and Plummer, R., 2011. Understanding stewardship behaviour: factors facilitating and constraining private water well stewardship. Journal of environmental management, 92(4), pp.1104-1114. Landon, A.C., Woodward, R.T., Kyle, G.T. and Kaiser, R.A., 2018. Evaluating the efficacy of an information-based residential outdoor water conservation program. Journal of cleaner production, 195, pp.56-65. Lata, L.N., 2021. Negotiating gatekeepers and positionality in building trust for accessing the urban poor in the Global South. Qualitative Research Journal, 21(1), pp.76-86. Lindenberg, S. and Steg, L., 2007. Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. Journal of Social issues, 63(1), p.117. Liu, A., Giurco, D. and Mukheibir, P., 2016. Urban water conservation through customised water and end-use information. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, pp.3164-3175. Lu, L., Deller, D. and Hviid, M., 2019. Price and behavioural signals to encourage household water conservation: Implications for the UK. Water Resources Management, 33(2), pp.475-491. Makhoul, J., El Ashkar, C., Nakkash, R. and Bjelobaba, S., 2023. A qualitative multi-methods research protocol: Applied research ethics in the Middle East North Africa Region. International journal of qualitative methods, 22, p.16094069231204820. Makki, A.A., Stewart, R.A., Beal, C.D. and Panuwatwanich, K., 2015. Novel bottom-up urban water demand forecasting model: Revealing the determinants, drivers and predictors of residential indoor end-use consumption. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 95, pp.15-37. Makki, A.A., Stewart, R.A., Panuwatwanich, K. and Beal, C., 2013. Revealing the determinants of shower water end use consumption: enabling better targeted urban water conservation strategies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 60, pp.129-146. Maniam, G., Poh, P.E., Htar, T.T., Poon, W.C. and Chuah, L.H., 2021. Water Literacy in the Southeast Asian Context: Are We There Yet?. Water, 13(16), p.2311. Manouseli, D., Kayaga, S.M. and Kalawsky, R., 2019. Evaluating the effectiveness of residential water efficiency initiatives in England: influencing factors and policy implications. Water Resources Management, 33(7), pp.2219-2238. Martínez-Espiñeira, R. and García-Valiñas, M.Á., 2013. Adopting versus adapting: adoption of water-saving technology versus water conservation habits in Spain. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 29(3), pp.400-414. Masharqa, K., 2021. Embodying the everyday practices of urban water: the discourse of water scarcity and women's subjectivities in Amman, Jordan. McCarroll, M. and Hamann, H., 2020. What we know about water: A water literacy review. Water, 12(10), p.2803. Mehta, L., (2016). Why invisible power and structural violence persist in the water domain. IDS Bulletin, 47(5), pp.31-42. Ministry of Water & Irrigation (MWI), 2016. National Water Strategy 2016 ‐ 2025. [Online]. Jordan: Ministry of Water & Irrigation (MWI). [Viewed 4th April 2022]. Available at: URL. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.258.11.1487 Mushavi, R.C., Burns, B.F., Kakuhikire, B., Owembabazi, M., Vořechovská, D., McDonough, A.Q., Cooper-Vince, C.E., Baguma, C., Rasmussen, J.D., Bangsberg, D.R. and Tsai, A.C., 2020. “When you have no water, it means you have no peace”: a mixed-methods, whole-population study of water insecurity and depression in rural Uganda. Social Science & Medicine, 245, p.112561. Mustafa, D., Altz-Stamm, A. & Scott, L.M., 2016. ‘Water User Associations and the Politics of Water in Jordan’, World Development, 79, pp.164–176. Olmstead, S.M., 2014. Climate change adaptation and water resource management: A review of the literature. Energy Economics, 46, pp.500-509. Pinto, F.S., de Carvalho, B. and Marques, R.C., 2021. Adapting water tariffs to climate change: linking resource availability, costs, demand, and tariff design flexibility. Journal of Cleaner Production, 290, p.125803. Ram-Bidesi, V., 2015. Recognizing the role of women in supporting marine stewardship in the Pacific Islands. Marine Policy, 59, pp.1-8. Rathnayaka, K., Malano, H., Arora, M., George, B., Maheepala, S. and Nawarathna, B., 2017. Prediction of urban residential end-use water demands by integrating known and unknown water demand drivers at multiple scales II: Model application and validation. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 118, pp.1-12. Reynaud, A., 2015. Insights from a Cross-Country Econometric Analysis of EU-28 Countries 2015 Modelling Household Water Demand in Europe. https:// doi.org/10.2788/95638. Richards, N., Pandolfelli, L., Bouziani, B., Ofosu‐Baadu, B. and Carter, K., 2022. The role of administrative data in gender statistics: Supporting inclusive development for women and girls. Journal of International Development, 34(2), pp.349-378 Rodriguez-Sanchez, C. and Sarabia-Sanchez, F.J., 2020. Does water context matter in water conservation decision behaviour?. Sustainability, 12(7), p.3026. Romano, G., Salvati, N. and Guerrini, A., 2016. An empirical analysis of the determinants of water demand in Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 130, pp.74-81. Ruslin, R., Mashuri, S., Rasak, M.S.A., Alhabsyi, F. and Syam, H., 2022. Semi-structured Interview: A methodological reflection on the development of a qualitative research instrument in educational studies. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME), 12(1), pp.22-29. Sahin, O., Bertone, E. and Beal, C.D., 2017. A systems approach for assessing water conservation potential through demand-based water tariffs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 148, pp.773-784. Salas Zapata, W.A., Ríos Osorio, L.A. and Cardona Arias, J.A., 2018. Knowledge, attitudes and practices of sustainability: a systematic review 1990-2016. Selby, J. and Hoffmann, C., 2012. Water scarcity, conflict, and migration: a comparative analysis and reappraisal. Environment and planning C: government and policy, 30(6), pp.997-1014. Shamayleh, M.A., 2019, The Water Crisis in Jordan: A Habermasian Analysis of how Power and Interests Guide Policy towards Colonization and Unsustainable Water Management. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Newcastle). Smith, J., 2008, “A critical appreciation of the ‘bottom-up’ approach to sustainable water management: embracing complexity rather than desirability”, Local Environment, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 353-66. Taquette, S.R. and Borges da Matta Souza, L.M., 2022. Ethical dilemmas in qualitative research: A critical literature review. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, p.16094069221078731. UNICEF, 2017. JORDAN’S WASH TOP FACTS [Online]. Amman: Jordan. [Viewed 24th of September 2020]. Available at: URL. https://www.unicef.org/jordan/sites/unicef.org.jordan/files/2019-03/UCF-WASH%20in%20JOR-Top%20Facts-D4%2017%20Jan%202019.pdf UNESCO, 2021. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2021: Valuing Water. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) [Online]. Amman: Jordan. [Viewed 1 June 2024]. Available at: https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2021/07/375750eng.pdf USAID, 2018. Water Management Initiative (WMI) [Online]. Amman: Jordan. [Viewed 24th of September 2020]. Available at: URL. https://www.globalwaters.org/sites/default/files/jordan-wmi-midterm-evaluation.pdf USAID, 2020. Gender Analysis and Assessment [Online]. Amman: Jordan. [Viewed 24th of September 2020]. Available at: URL. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00WDSP.pdf Watson, S., 2017. Consuming water smartly: the significance of sociocultural differences to water-saving initiatives. Local environment, 22(10), pp.1237-1251. Willis, R.M., Stewart, R.A., Giurco, D.P., Talebpour, M.R. and Mousavinejad, A., 2013. End-use water consumption in households: impact of socio-demographic factors and efficient devices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 60, pp.107-115. Willis, R.M., Stewart, R.A., Panuwatwanich, K., Williams, P.R. and Hollingsworth, A.L., 2011. Quantifying the influence of environmental and water conservation attitudes on household end-use water consumption. Journal of environmental management, 92(8), pp.1996-2009. Wojnarowski, F., 2025. Contested flows: An ethnographic contribution to narratives of groundwater over abstraction in the central Jordanian highlands. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, p.1-25. Wutich, A., Beresford, M., & Carvajal, C. 2016. Can informal water vendors deliver on the promise of a human right to water? Results from Cochabamba, Bolivia. World Development, 79, 14–24. Wutich, A., Budds, J., Eichelberger, L., Geere, J., Harris, L.M., Horney, J.A., Jepson, W., Norman, E., O'Reilly, K., Pearson, A.L. and Shah, S.H., 2017. Advancing methods for research on household water insecurity: Studying entitlements and capabilities, socio-cultural dynamics, and political processes, institutions and governance. Water Security, 2, pp.1-10. Yazdanpanah, M., Hayati, D., Hochrainer-Stigler, S. and Zamani, G.H., 2014. Understanding farmers' intention and behavior regarding water conservation in the Middle-East and North Africa: A case study in Iran. Journal of environmental management, 135, pp.63-72. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SupplementarymaterialDS.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 30 Apr, 2026 Read the published version in Discover Sustainability → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 20 Jan, 2026 Reviews received at journal 14 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 09 Jan, 2026 Reviews received at journal 06 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 18 Dec, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 16 Dec, 2025 Editor invited by journal 15 Dec, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 11 Dec, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 11 Dec, 2025 First submitted to journal 11 Dec, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8238314","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":562427005,"identity":"1efc2ad9-41a4-4609-b8f8-b182cff886b4","order_by":0,"name":"Ola Al Haddid","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Princess Sumaya University for Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ola","middleName":"Al","lastName":"Haddid","suffix":""},{"id":562427006,"identity":"fb99c28f-dccb-43b5-a97e-06732f67612c","order_by":1,"name":"Alaeddin Ahmad","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Jordan","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Alaeddin","middleName":"","lastName":"Ahmad","suffix":""},{"id":562427007,"identity":"06c6eeec-1af0-46ef-ade4-b797034ecd3d","order_by":2,"name":"Qais Ahmad","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Leeds","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Qais","middleName":"","lastName":"Ahmad","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-11-29 16:38:09","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8238314/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8238314/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-026-03019-w","type":"published","date":"2026-04-30T15:58:12+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":98613011,"identity":"7e9aebec-dd50-4085-970d-4357f46683c6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-19 14:54:40","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":193977,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"GenderedWaterStewardshipinJordanWomensKAPTowardSustainabilityNEW.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8238314/v1/881e826470852e9004cd9cb1.docx"},{"id":98613009,"identity":"d92b719d-4af7-4d1e-ada0-2827fda451e7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-19 14:54:40","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":4989,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"c47b7eff93784c999bc1260d5117ba07.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8238314/v1/8ea75761c25a78a50c122693.json"},{"id":98613010,"identity":"9178bffd-aa06-40a3-8942-1dc1e793b04a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-19 14:54:40","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":34327,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementarymaterialDS.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8238314/v1/770d313bc510c7532b5fbed5.docx"},{"id":98613016,"identity":"c7162126-3c2b-4bd1-bfad-17a38a16e2e7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-19 14:54:41","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":100712,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"c47b7eff93784c999bc1260d5117ba071enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8238314/v1/46014d62f0c7a74d9ad86c2c.xml"},{"id":98613007,"identity":"927f0979-db9a-4264-abf8-1a9f2cb47b62","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-19 14:54:38","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":69411,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8238314/v1/25bcaf6f28cf02e9161378e4.png"},{"id":98613008,"identity":"9a878f1c-be6e-450d-b849-57069718859e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-19 14:54:39","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":21222,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8238314/v1/cf6f95be90abd9f99489fa1e.png"},{"id":98613014,"identity":"fb9c1c78-57d0-4a84-80d5-b681212e8a2c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-19 14:54:41","extension":"xml","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":97112,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"c47b7eff93784c999bc1260d5117ba071structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8238314/v1/962677c1c552aa11072f2d3b.xml"},{"id":98613015,"identity":"6d6c3444-17ea-4a1e-9fb9-badf68524fec","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-19 14:54:41","extension":"html","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":111015,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8238314/v1/dde956470854a44846de90ed.html"},{"id":98629566,"identity":"1187d927-191f-4208-935a-3bd9629fe6c7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-19 17:14:14","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":47543,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eConceptual Framework: The Expanded KAPS Model \u003cem\u003e(Adapted from Knowledge–Attitude–Practice Model to include Stewardship as ethical and political agency.)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8238314/v1/fc9cbca38f4cbc9a6284293f.jpg"},{"id":108437670,"identity":"441ec8d2-fb14-405a-afbb-5f92b16022b2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-04 16:01:53","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":397540,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8238314/v1/16d64409-c371-4b0a-9c17-ef7015343b7e.pdf"},{"id":98613012,"identity":"9960e85e-d706-4eb7-a56d-09e7c98db82d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-19 14:54:40","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":34327,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementarymaterialDS.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8238314/v1/3dd3e691dfae675ae563d3b9.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Gendered Water Stewardship in Jordan and the influence of Women’s Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices on Sustainability","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eWater is the foundation of all forms of life, a finite and irreplaceable resource that sustains individual wellbeing, community stability, and industrial productivity. As a limited natural resource, water functions as both a socioeconomic and environmental constraint, shaping development trajectories across nations (Anderson, Clow, and Haworth-Brockman, 2013; Ezbakhe, Gin\u0026eacute;-Garriga, and P\u0026eacute;rez-Foguet, 2019). According to the World Economic Forum\u0026rsquo;s Global Risks Report (2025), water scarcity ranks among the top five global risks, affecting countries such as Jordan, Iran, Iraq, and Tunisia. This classification underscores that water scarcity is not merely a local or regional phenomenon but a widespread structural challenge embedded in global systems of inequality.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite global progress toward improved access, clean and safely managed water remains unevenly distributed, both among and within nations (Ezbakhe et al., 2019). Disparities persist between rural and urban populations, elites and marginalized groups, and across gender and socioeconomic lines. As Mehta (2016) observes, the persistence of water inequality is not simply the outcome of resource limitations but the product of deep-seated power asymmetries that define who controls, accesses, and benefits from water. These asymmetries have positioned water governance at the core of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which seeks to \u0026ldquo;ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all\u0026rdquo; (de Jong and Vijge, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe United Nations\u0026rsquo; Sustainable Development Goal 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) affirms that equitable access to water is foundational to multiple other goals, including SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 3 (Good Health and Wellbeing), SDG 4 (Quality Education), and SDG 5 (Gender Equality) (Essex, Koop, and van Leeuwen, 2020). Within SDG 6, Target 6.2 explicitly prioritizes women and girls, calling for \u0026ldquo;adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all\u0026rdquo; while paying particular attention to their specific needs (UNESCO, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this context, gendered perspectives are critical to understanding the dynamics of water scarcity. Women possess unique \u0026ldquo;water knowledge\u0026rdquo; derived from their daily responsibilities for collection, storage, and management of water at the household and community levels (Anderson et al., 2013). This knowledge extends beyond technical familiarity to encompass sociocultural, religious, political, economic, and environmental dimensions\u0026mdash;forming what Behailu, Pietil\u0026auml;, and Katko (2016) \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003edescribe as contextual ecological knowledge\u003c/span\u003e. Yet, despite their central roles in ensuring water security, women\u0026rsquo;s voices remain underrepresented in water policy and governance structures (Carmi, Alsayegh, and Zoubi, 2019; Kevany and Huisingh, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Jordan\u0026mdash;a nation suffering from extreme water scarcity\u0026mdash;the gendered nature of water challenges is particularly visible. The country\u0026rsquo;s renewable freshwater availability is less than 100 m\u0026sup3; per person annually, well below the international threshold of 500 m\u0026sup3; that defines severe scarcity (UNICEF, 2017). Although 98 percent of Jordanians have nominal access to water sources, only 93 percent access safely managed sources, with supply intermittent and quality uneven (USAID, 2018). Jordan\u0026rsquo;s limited hydrological endowment, rapid population growth, and large influx of refugees have compounded this crisis, positioning it as the second most water-stressed country globally (USAID, 2018).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWomen, who constitute over half of Jordan\u0026rsquo;s population, disproportionately experience the burden of this scarcity. They manage domestic water needs, maintain hygiene, and adapt to intermittent supply cycles, yet remain systematically excluded from decision-making within water and irrigation sectors (Carmi et al., 2019; USAID, 2020). As Carmi and colleagues (2019) found in Palestine, Lebanon, and Jordan, women\u0026rsquo;s absence from governance forums reinforces a patriarchal institutional order that privileges technical expertise over experiential knowledge. This exclusion silences women\u0026rsquo;s agency and constrains the potential for inclusive and sustainable solutions (Mehta, 2016).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWomen\u0026rsquo;s water knowledge in Jordan is thus both normative and instrumental. On one hand, it reflects normative dimensions\u0026mdash;moral, cultural, and religious commitments to stewardship, community solidarity, and care for future generations (Kevany et al., 2013). On the other hand, it incorporates instrumental dimensions shaped by the political economy of scarcity: awareness of rising water tariffs, limited municipal access, inequitable distribution between urban elites and rural peripheries, and dependence on outdated infrastructure and transboundary sources (Hussein, 2018; Shamayleh, 2019). Women navigate these constraints daily, translating knowledge into pragmatic and adaptive practices\u0026mdash;reducing consumption, reusing greywater, and negotiating local water-sharing arrangements (Makki et al., 2013; Figueirdo and Perkins, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese realities reveal that water scarcity in Jordan is not merely a matter of hydrology, but of governance, equity, and everyday survival. As such, this study adopts a gendered perspective to examine how women\u0026rsquo;s knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) influence water sustainability. It expands the conventional KAP framework (Salas-Zapata, R\u0026iacute;os-Osorio, and Cardona-Arias, 2018) by integrating water stewardship\u0026mdash;a relational and ethical orientation toward care, reciprocity, and responsibility (Kevany and Huisingh, 2013; Kreutzwiser et al., 2011). This multidimensional approach links sociocultural, religious, economic, political, environmental, and technological domains to the ways women perceive and manage water in their daily lives. Ultimately, this research investigates:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow women\u0026rsquo;s knowledge \u0026mdash; grounded in sociocultural, spiritual, economic, political, and environmental realities \u0026mdash; informs their attitudes toward water sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow these attitudes translate into water-related practices, particularly in reducing, reusing, and recycling water at the household and community levels.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow the notion of water stewardship is understood and enacted by women as they navigate water scarcity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConceptually, while prior studies have applied the KAP model to assess behavioral determinants of water management (Salas-Zapata et al., 2018; Abu-Bakar, Williams, and Hallett, 2021), this research repositions the framework within feminist political ecology (Mehta, 2016). This allows the analysis to move beyond linear cause-effect relationships (i.e., quantitative) and instead examine how gender, power, and institutional arrangements shape women\u0026rsquo;s agency (i.e., qualitative) under scarcity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a policy standpoint, the study challenges the portrayal of women as passive recipients of water policy and instead positions them as active agents of transformation. Their lived experiences, embedded in Jordan\u0026rsquo;s sociocultural and political context, offer practical pathways toward equitable and sustainable governance. The study\u0026rsquo;s findings aim to inform the implementation of \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eJordan\u0026rsquo;s National Water Strategy (2016\u0026ndash;2025) and Water Demand Management Policy\u003c/span\u003e by highlighting how gendered knowledge and stewardship can strengthen both efficiency and justice in water management.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the study emphasizes the critical contribution of women and girls to water sustainability, particularly in advancing Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6\u0026mdash;Clean Water and Sanitation\u0026mdash;with a specific focus on Target 6.2, which addresses equitable access to sanitation and hygiene. Given the shared sociocultural, religious, economic, and geographic characteristics across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, the Jordanian Case \u0026mdash;may hold wider regional relevance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study begins by introducing the context of water scarcity in Jordan, highlighting the importance of a gendered perspective. It outlines the research aim, objectives, and key questions. A brief review of the relevant literature, particularly the KAP (Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice) model, follows. The methodology section explains the qualitative approach and use of semi-structured interviews. The findings present key themes from participants\u0026rsquo; narratives, which are then discussed in light of existing research. The study concludes with implications, limitations, and recommendations for future research on gender and water sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Literature Review","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Gender, exclusion, and the promise of participation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch on gender and water sustainability consistently shows that women and girls bear a disproportionate burden because of traditional gender roles that assign to them the daily tasks of water collection, sanitation, and household management (Figueirdo and Perkins, 2013; Kevany and Huisingh, 2013; Kevany et al., 2013). Case studies further demonstrate systematic exclusion of women and girls from decision-making in water management, with tangible impacts on livelihoods, physical health, and mental wellbeing (Figueirdo and Perkins, 2013). Such exclusion helps explain disappointing outcomes of water resource management projects in low-income and developing settings, where local knowledge is sidelined during design and implementation (Figueirdo and Perkins, 2013). Building on this evidence, this study argues that meaningful participation and engagement of women and girls in water management and governance are necessary conditions for real, sustainable, and transformative change.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocially marginalised and vulnerable populations, particularly women and girls in remote or underserved areas, are doubly affected by scarcity because of gendered socio-economic and political roles (Anderson, Clow, and Haworth-Brockman, 2013). Although the literature often frames women as passive recipients of harm, many studies also recognise that they hold local ecological knowledge derived from everyday practice. Yet policy and scholarship have tended to prioritise mitigation of harms from consumption, contamination, and loss, rather than women\u0026rsquo;s positive contributions to sustainability through reduction, reuse, and recycling of water (Anderson, Clow, and Haworth-Brockman, 2013; Figueirdo and Perkins, 2013; Kevany and Huisingh, 2013; Kevany et al., 2013). In line with these works, this study foregrounds women\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;water knowledge\u0026rdquo; as a potential driver of sustainable transformation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite women\u0026rsquo;s multiple roles at household and community levels, they remain underrepresented in environmental decision-making, including water resource management (Kevany and Huisingh, 2013). One reason is the frequent neglect of social heterogeneity and power relations that shape institutions and cultural norms, thereby reproducing class, ethnic, and gender discrimination. These structures determine access to natural resources and whose interests are voiced and represented in decision arenas (Kevany and Huisingh, 2013; Kevany et al., 2013). Consequently, sociocultural, economic, political, and environmental conditions at local and national levels can either enable or constrain women\u0026rsquo;s engagement in water governance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA community-based, people-centred approach is widely recommended. Figueirdo and Perkins (2013) argue for bottom-up strategies that value local knowledge in adaptation. Smilaily, Kevany, and Huisingh (2013) identify seven challenges that water insecurity worsens for women: poor health, mental stress, gender violence, inequality, climate change, legislation, and privatisation. They call for removing participation barriers and supporting women\u0026rsquo;s co-creative roles in governance. Extending this logic, the present study emphasizes building capacity among marginalised groups to adapt to scarcity and to initiate long-term, self-directed, community strategies (Figueirdo and Perkins, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven women\u0026rsquo;s central roles in stewardship and day-to-day management, examining women\u0026rsquo;s water knowledge is essential for understanding how attitudes toward sustainability form and how these translate into demand-side practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice (KAPs) Model\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWater challenges are partly attributed to deficits in water literacy, especially in low- and middle-income contexts (Maniam et al., 2021). Water literacy involves knowledge of sources, management, and problems, which informs attitudes and practices (Anderson et al., 2013; Figueirdo and Perkins, 2013; Kevany and Huisingh, 2013; Kevany et al., 2013). To break cycles of illiteracy, Maniam, Poh, Htar, Poon, and Chuah (2021) advocate active and cognitive engagement that cultivates responsible users and communities. This aligns with the KAP model, a framework that links understanding (knowledge), predisposition (attitude), and behaviour (practice) for assessing water-related sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOriginating in cognitive, affective, and behavioural theory (Kandel and Schwartz, 1985), the KAP model conceptualises knowledge as awareness and understanding of water issues and management; attitude as willingness or tendency to act given one\u0026rsquo;s context; and practice as enacted behaviour regarding sustainability. Used together, these dimensions help examine how water literacy shapes outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.1 Knowledge\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eReviews highlight the multifaceted nature of water sustainability and its sensitivity to geography, sociocultural norms, economics, politics, environment, and technology (Olmstead, 2014; Abu-Bakar et al., 2021; Maniam et al., 2021). In Jordan, contextual knowledge strongly conditions practices. Hussein (2018) and Shamayleh (2019) show that the government and public commonly attribute scarcity to topography and hydrology, while socio-economic and political drivers such as instability, conflict, transboundary agreements, and forced displacement are viewed as amplifiers. This emphasis tends to privilege supply-side solutions and normalise insufficiency, while demand-side management and mismanagement receive less attention (Shamayleh, 2019). Understanding how these interlocking factors operate is critical for assessing sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eSociocultural knowledge\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWater insecurity produces emotional stress, anxiety, stigma, and exclusion that threaten mental health, particularly for women who manage household water (Wutich et al., 2016, 2017; Brewis, Choudhary, and Wutich, 2019a; Brewis, Choudhary, and Wutich, 2019b). Many studies focus on quality, quantity, reliability, and affordability, potentially overlooking entitlements, capabilities, sociocultural dynamics, and political institutions (Wutich et al., 2017). Mushavi et al. (2020) therefore underscore the need to account for power structures that shape knowledge among marginalised populations. Traditional sociocultural knowledge is cumulative and embedded in historical interaction with local economies and environments, and is reflected in labels, classifications, practices, and worldviews (Fielding et al., 2012; Willis et al., 2011; Willis et al., 2013; Behailu, Pietil\u0026auml;, and Katko, 2016). Demographics matter: gendered division of labour positions women as custodians of hygiene and sanitation, and their knowledge influences household attitudes and practices (Anderson, Clow, and Haworth-Brockman, 2013). Age, education, income, household size, tenure, and dwelling type all correlate with consumption and conservation behaviours in complex ways (Fielding et al., 2012; Beal et al., 2013; Willis et al., 2013; Homewood and Snowdon, 2014; Aprile and Fiorillo, 2017; Watson, 2017; Manouseli et al., 2019; Abdullah, Zakaria, and Razman, 2018; Makki et al., 2013; Liu, Giurco, and Mukheibir, 2016; Mart\u0026iacute;nez-Espi\u0026ntilde;eira and Garc\u0026iacute;a-Vali\u0026ntilde;as, 2013; Jorgensen et al., 2009; Hussein, 2018).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eReligious and spiritual knowledge\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWomen often serve as spiritual guides and symbols of stewardship within households and communities (Anderson et al., 2013; Kevany et al., 2013; Kevany and Huisingh, 2013). Religious teachings can embed conservation as a moral duty (Ahmad et al., 2025). For example, Islamic guidance discourages waste even when water appears abundant, illustrating how faith can reinforce sustainable practices (Ibn Majah, 2007). Undermining ecosystem integrity can compromise spiritual wellbeing, making inclusion and empowerment in governance a matter of both policy and moral concern (Kevany et al., 2013; Kevany and Huisingh, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eEconomic knowledge\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrice instruments can influence consumption, though effects vary by income and context (Sahin et al., 2017; Romano, Salvati, and Guerrini, 2016; Lu, Deller, and Hviid, 2019). Some studies show that tariff increases prompt measurable reductions in household demand, including during drought (Reynaud, 2015; Lu et al., 2019; Abu-Bakar et al., 2021; Pinto et al., 2021). Yet water\u0026rsquo;s essential nature and limited substitutability create low elasticity, so aggregate savings may derive from many small household reductions rather than large individual responses (Giwa and Dindi, 2017). Pricing also risks regressive impacts on low-income households and may be interpreted as rent-seeking by utilities, especially among affluent users who can absorb higher costs (Romano et al., 2016; Lu et al., 2019; Abu-Bakar et al., 2021; Pinto et al., 2021).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003ePolitical knowledge\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolitical context shapes risk perceptions and conservation behaviours. Conflict, refugee influx, and inequitable transboundary arrangements can heighten perceived scarcity and spur conservation responses (Gilbertson, Hurlimann, and Dolnicar, 2011; Rodr\u0026iacute;guez-S\u0026aacute;nchez and Sarabia-S\u0026aacute;nchez, 2020; Hussein et al., 2020; McCarroll and Hamann, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eEnvironmental knowledge\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTopography, geography, climate variability, and change all affect sustainability (Makki et al., 2013; Olmstead, 2014; Abu-Bakar et al., 2021). Knowledge of scarcity, sources, high evaporation, low precipitation, flash floods, and climate fluctuations in Jordan influences attitudes and practices (Hussein, 2018; Shamayleh, 2019; Gilbertson, Hurlimann, and Dolnicar, 2011; Rodr\u0026iacute;guez-S\u0026aacute;nchez and Sarabia-S\u0026aacute;nchez, 2020; Maniam et al., 2021). Seasonal effects on indoor use are mixed, but temperature and climate variables significantly affect total consumption, especially outdoors (Willis et al., 2011; Grafton et al., 2011; Rathnayaka et al., 2017; Manouseli, Kayaga, and Kalawsky, 2019; Kenney et al., 2009; Aprile and Fiorillo, 2017).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eTechnological knowledge\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWater-efficient devices can reduce per-capita consumption, yet rebound or offsetting behaviours can blunt gains (Fielding et al., 2012; Beal et al., 2013; Willis et al., 2013; Abu-Bakar et al., 2021). Education and income correlate with adoption of technologies such as smart meters and low-flow fixtures, though lower-income households often engage in stronger conservation routines due to necessity (Makki et al., 2013; 2015; Abu-Bakar et al., 2021). Traditional sociocultural knowledge should not be displaced by technical fixes but integrated to ensure local relevance and durable practice change (Anderson, Clow, and Haworth-Brockman, 2013; Figueirdo and Perkins, 2013; Kevany and Huisingh, 2013; Kevany et al., 2013; Behailu, Pietil\u0026auml;, and Katko, 2016).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, sociocultural (Behailu, Pietil\u0026auml;, and Katko, 2016), religious (Kevany et al., 2013), economic (Lu et al., 2019), political (Hussein et al., 2020), environmental (Makki et al., 2013), and technological knowledge (Abu-Bakar et al., 2021) interact to shape adoption of water-related practices and, by extension, sustainability outcomes in Jordan.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.2 Attitude\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSustainable water management depends on users\u0026rsquo; understanding of issues, but positive attitudes do not always translate into behaviour change, revealing an intention\u0026ndash;behaviour gap (Echeverr\u0026iacute;a, 2020). Pro-environmental actions often require sacrifice, which can dampen commitment unless users anticipate positive outcomes from conservation (Lindenberg and Steg, 2007). Several studies show that awareness of scarcity and restrictions alone does not reliably alter behaviour (Jorgensen et al., 2009; Landon et al., 2018). Others find direct links between strong conservation attitudes and lower household consumption across behaviourally influenced end-uses such as showering, laundry, irrigation, and taps (Willis et al., 2011). In Iran, perceived crisis risk and self-rewarding emotions raise intentions to conserve among farmers, but responses tend to be reactive rather than proactive (Yazdanpanah et al., 2014; Beal et al., 2013).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1.3 Practice\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEqually, the role of knowledge, attitudes and water-related practices continues to receive attention in the literature. However, water sustainability remains unattained \u0026ndash; due to the focus remaining on the knowledge, attitude, and behaviour gap (Echeverr\u0026iacute;a, 2020). That is, the overarching assumption \u0026ndash; is that bridging the gap \u0026ndash; would consequently lead to attainment of water sustainability (Echeverr\u0026iacute;a, 2020). Rather, this study argues that understating these three \u0026lsquo;key\u0026rsquo; elements/factors, thereby their interrelated relationship \u0026ndash; delivers a real, sustainable, and transformative change, especially, with regards to water sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to Echeverr\u0026iacute;a (2020), studies focus on defining \u0026lsquo;behaviour\u0026rsquo; as observed/reported actions/practices, while the evidence falls short of demonstrating that knowledge and attitude are concretely converted/translated into actions, namely sustainable water-related practices. That is, not all households\u0026rsquo; knowledge and attitude - are converted/translated into corresponding action/practices (Liu, Giurco, and Mukheibir, 2016).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWater sustainability requires \u0026ndash; further than the short-term aspiration; instead, water sustainability requires steady/long-term embracement of sustainable water-related practices at the household level. To elucidate, Echeverr\u0026iacute;a (2020) argued that the long-term difficulty and challenge of water sustainability \u0026ndash; is understanding the intention-behaviour gap, which might translate \u0026lsquo;temporarily\u0026rsquo; into practice /action at the household level. That is, the difference between the observed, desired/ intended, and actual practice/action at the household level. However, the embracement of a steady reduction gap, which entails water-user/consumers embedding/embracing sustainable water-related habits \u0026ndash; delivers a real, sustainable, and transformative change.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Feminist Political Ecology and Stewardship\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFeminist political ecology\u003c/b\u003e offers a lens to examine how environmental issues intersect with gender, power, and everyday life, reframing water scarcity as a socially produced condition rather than a purely biophysical problem (Mehta, 2016). Within this perspective, \u003cb\u003ewater stewardship\u003c/b\u003e is not mere compliance with conservation norms but a moral and relational practice grounded in care, reciprocity, and responsibility (Kevany and Huisingh, 2013; Kreutzwiser et al., 2011). Ram-Bidesi (2015) emphasises women\u0026rsquo;s stewardship as both a coping mechanism under scarcity and a transformative force in community-based resource management, while de San Miguel (2018, 2019) shows how women\u0026rsquo;s leadership in Mexico has shifted local governance toward more inclusive and sustainable outcomes. Situating stewardship within feminist political ecology therefore allows this study to conceptualise it simultaneously as ethical labour and political agency\u0026mdash;a means of resisting marginalisation through care, collaboration, and locally grounded decision-making (Mehta, 2016; Kevany and Huisingh, 2013; Kreutzwiser et al., 2011; Ram-Bidesi, 2015; de San Miguel, 2018, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne of the primary mechanisms utilised to protect and safeguard water resources is the active promotion of stewardship (Kreutzwiser et al., 2011; Kevany and Huisingh, 2013; Kevany et al., 2013). Kreutzwiser et al. (2011) define stewardship as actions undertaken to maintain the quality and quantity of water resources, motivated by reassurance, environmental knowledge, and perceived risks, and constrained by barriers such as complacency, inconvenience, ignorance, costs, and privacy concerns. Crucially, stewardship behaviours are context-specific; effective strategies must be tailored to social, economic, and environmental challenges and development needs (Kreutzwiser et al., 2011).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWomen possess distinctive \u0026ldquo;water knowledge\u0026rdquo; because of their close, everyday engagement with local environments and their responsibility for household tasks that require locating, managing, allocating, and safeguarding water (Anderson, Clow, and Haworth-Brockman, 2013). From a gender perspective, this positions women\u0026rsquo;s stewardship and guardianship as critical to sustainable water management. Integrating women\u0026rsquo;s knowledge into decision processes enables context-specific strategies that align with lived constraints and local priorities (Anderson, Clow, and Haworth-Brockman, 2013; Kevany and Huisingh, 2013). Yet women\u0026rsquo;s perspectives and experiences remain frequently overlooked within formal water governance, limiting the uptake of effective, demand-side solutions (Kevany and Huisingh, 2013; Kevany et al., 2013).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAddressing these gaps requires capacity building and institutional arrangements that secure women\u0026rsquo;s inclusion, participation, and engagement across multiple levels of governance\u0026mdash;what Kevany and Huisingh (2013) describe as gender-inclusive management of water resources. Such inclusion enables women to contribute substantively to wealth creation, water management, and stewardship (Kevany et al., 2013). Ram-Bidesi (2015) further highlights women\u0026rsquo;s multiple roles across household, community, and national scales\u0026mdash;particularly through reducing, reusing, and recycling water\u0026mdash;which place them in a pivotal position to shape attitudes that translate into sustainable practices. From this perspective, gender-sensitive approaches that amplify women\u0026rsquo;s voices and contest social wrongs are essential (Ram-Bidesi, 2015). Similarly, de San Miguel (2018, 2019) underscores the instrumental role of women\u0026rsquo;s leadership in reorienting governance toward balancing present and future needs, calling on governments and public\u0026ndash;private actors to strengthen participation, collaboration, and leadership via gender mainstreaming and gender-focused initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccordingly, this study examines women\u0026rsquo;s water knowledge as a driver of attitudes toward sustainability and as a pathway into everyday practices\u0026mdash;particularly demand-side conservation behaviours such as reduction, reuse, and recycling\u0026mdash;thereby operationalising stewardship within the Knowledge\u0026ndash;Attitude\u0026ndash;Practice (KAP) framework (Anderson, Clow, and Haworth-Brockman, 2013; Kevany and Huisingh, 2013; Kevany et al., 2013; Kreutzwiser et al., 2011; Ram-Bidesi, 2015; de San Miguel, 2018, 2019; Mehta, 2016).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Research Design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study adopts a \u003cb\u003equalitative research\u003c/b\u003e design grounded in \u003cb\u003einterpretivism\u003c/b\u003e, which emphasizes the understanding of social phenomena through the \u003cb\u003esubjective\u003c/b\u003e experiences and meanings attributed by individuals (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Castleberry and Nolen, 2018; Masharqa, 2021). Interpretivism is particularly suited to exploring water as a social experience\u0026mdash;a domain in which meanings are culturally situated and negotiated through gendered practices, power relations, and moral responsibilities (Masharqa, 2021; Hussein, 2018; Wojnarowski, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven the deeply personal and contextually embedded nature of water-related knowledge, attitudes, and practices among women in Jordan, a qualitative approach was deemed particularly suitable to explore the nuanced and multifaceted ways in which women make sense of and respond to water scarcity (Masharqa, 2013; Castleberry and Nolen, 2018; Hussein, 2018; Wojnarowski, 2025). It enables an examination of how cultural norms, religious beliefs, political contexts, and material constraints shape their attitudes and everyday practices (Mustafa et al., 2016; Hussein et al., 2020; Al-Addous et al., 2023).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study is guided by \u003cb\u003efeminist political ecology\u003c/b\u003e, which situates environmental management within structures of gender, power, and social inequality (Mehta, 2016; Figueirdo and Perkins, 2013). This theoretical framing challenges the technocratic view of water scarcity as a purely physical or managerial problem and instead conceptualizes it as a socially produced condition (Mustafa et al., 2016; Castleberry and Nolen, 2018; Hussein et al., 2020; Al-Addous et al., 2023). By embedding the Knowledge\u0026ndash;Attitude\u0026ndash;Practice (KAP) model within this framework and extending it through the concept of water stewardship, the study links micro-level experiences to macro-level governance and justice concerns (Selby and Hoffmann, 2012; Castleberry and Nolen, 2018; Katz, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Participant Selection and Recruitment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eA \u003cb\u003epurposive, stratified sampling strategy\u003c/b\u003e was employed to capture a wide range of perspectives and ensure diversity across gendered experiences, institutional roles, and geographic settings (Farrugia, 2019; Achore, Bisung, and Kuusaana, 2020). The recruitment process followed a \u003cb\u003etwo-tiered strategy\u003c/b\u003e, blending both \u003cb\u003etop-down and bottom-up approache\u003c/b\u003es, as outlined by Smith (2008) and Hazelton (2013). \u003cb\u003eFirst\u003c/b\u003e, \u003cb\u003etop-down selection\u003c/b\u003e involved engaging institutional actors such as members of parliamentary water committees, representatives from national ministries, and professionals from private water utilities\u0026mdash;whose expert knowledge and policymaking roles provide insight into water governance and SDG 6 implementation challenges. \u003cb\u003eSecond\u003c/b\u003e, a \u003cb\u003ebottom-up approach\u003c/b\u003e was adopted to include voices from grassroots and civil society (i.e., women participants). Here, participants were recruited from grassroots and civil society, particularly, women, to ensure inclusion of community-informed and gender-sensitive knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThereby, the final sample comprised \u003cb\u003e25\u003c/b\u003e participants. \u003cb\u003eFifteen\u003c/b\u003e women engaged in daily household and community-level water management from both urban (Amman, Zarqa, Irbid) and rural (Mafraq, Karak, Tafileh) regions of Jordan. Participants varied in age, marital status, education, and income, providing insight into intersecting social determinants of water use. While, \u003cb\u003eten\u003c/b\u003e institutional stakeholders representing ministries, parliamentary committees, private water utilities, nongovernmental organizations, and higher education institutions, whose professional roles offered perspectives on water governance, SDG 6 implementation, and gender mainstreaming in policy.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis \u003cb\u003edual-level sampling\u003c/b\u003e design captured both experiential and institutional dimensions of water management, bridging the gap between household realities and governance systems (Smith, 2008; Hazelton, 2013). This \u003cb\u003einclusive sampling strategy\u003c/b\u003e acknowledged the value of both scientific expertise and lived experiences in shaping (un)sustainable water practices (Richards et al., 2022). In doing so, the study emphasized complementarity rather than exclusivity between expert and community knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eInitial access to participants was facilitated through trusted gatekeepers\u003c/b\u003e embedded within local community networks and institutional affiliations, ensuring that recruitment processes were \u003cb\u003eculturally sensitive and ethically\u003c/b\u003e sound (Lata, 2021). Furthermore, participants were approached respectfully, and informed consent was secured before conducting interviews. As a result, participants felt empowered to share their experiences and insights openly, facilitating \u003cb\u003ein-depth qualitative\u003c/b\u003e and nuanced \u003cb\u003esemi-structured interviews\u003c/b\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Data Collection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo explore how women\u0026rsquo;s knowledge and attitudes influence (un)sustainable water-related practices in Jordan, the study employed \u003cb\u003esemi-structured interviews\u003c/b\u003e as its \u003cb\u003eprimary qualitative method\u003c/b\u003e (Kallio et al., 2016; Castleberry and Nolen, 2018; Ruslin et al., 2022). This approach allowed for flexibility in capturing personal themes and narratives while maintaining consistency across core themes aligned with the study objectives (Kallio et al., 2016; Castleberry and Nolen, 2018). That is, semi-structured interviews were conducted to gather insights about the gender knowledge that shapes attitudes, which might be influencing (un)sustainable water-related practices. Consequently, the study generated insights into the complex understandings of and relationships with water resources, especially, those suffering from water scarcity (Ruslin et al., 2022).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the study revealed, firstly, women\u0026rsquo;s knowledge grounded in sociocultural, spiritual, economic, political, and environmental realities informs their attitudes toward water sustainability. Secondly, attitudes translate into water-related practices, particularly in reducing, reusing, and recycling water at the household and community levels. Thirdly, the notion of water stewardship is understood and enacted by women as they navigate water scarcity. Finally, the impact of those water- related practices on the achievement of SDG 6 in Jordan.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll \u003cb\u003e25\u003c/b\u003e interviews were conducted \u003cb\u003ein Arabic\u003c/b\u003e, the native language of the participants, to ensure comfort and authenticity in expression. They were carried out \u003cb\u003eboth in-person and virtually (online)\u003c/b\u003e, depending on participant availability and geographic location. Each session lasted \u003cb\u003ebetween 30 to 60 minutes\u003c/b\u003e and was \u003cb\u003eaudio-recorded\u003c/b\u003e with prior informed consent. An \u003cb\u003einterview guide (see Appendix I)\u003c/b\u003e was used to guide the discussion, covering domains such as participants' understanding of water sustainability, attitude, and water-related practices. The guide was iteratively adjusted to reflect participants\u0026rsquo; backgrounds and experiences, particularly in relation to SDG 6 Cleaner water and Sanitation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4 Data Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThematic analysis, as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006), was employed to analyze the qualitative data collected through semi-structured interviews. To ensure a holistic perspective, \u003cb\u003e25\u003c/b\u003e semi-structured interviews were conducted with a range of women and institutional stakeholders, including members of parliamentary committees, national ministries, private water companies, international and non-governmental organizations, and higher education institutions \u003cb\u003e(see Appendix II). Triangulation\u003c/b\u003e across participant groups (household women and institutional actors) ensured a \u003cb\u003erich and multi-layered dataset\u003c/b\u003e relevant to both national policy and community practice (Hussein, 2018; Katz, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll collected interviews were transcribed verbatim by the first researcher and cross checked against the original interview recording for accuracy, consistency, and rigor by the researchers. Using \u003cb\u003eNVivo, thematic analysis\u003c/b\u003e was used to organize and code the transcripts. Codes were developed both inductively (emerging from participants\u0026rsquo; narratives) and deductively (guided by the KAP and stewardship frameworks) (Castleberry and Nolen, 2018; Ahmed et al., 2025). Themes were continually cross-checked against the theoretical framework to ensure interpretive alignment. That is, the thematic analysis entailed six phases, as outlined by Braun \u0026amp; Clarke (2006, p.87).: (1) familiarity with the data and information; (2) initial code generation; (3) searching for themes and subthemes; (4) reviewing themes and subthemes; (5) labeling themes and subthemes; (6) summarising data and information.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis aimed to capture gendered patterns of meaning\u0026mdash;how women\u0026rsquo;s lived knowledge, ethical attitudes, and adaptive practices interact to shape sustainable water behaviour. The process yielded \u003cb\u003efive overarching themes\u003c/b\u003e and \u003cb\u003eeighteen subthemes\u003c/b\u003e, encompassing domains such as contextual knowledge, ethical attitudes, adaptive practices, stewardship, and implications for achieving SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe researcher continued conducting the interviews until \u003cb\u003edata saturation\u003c/b\u003e had been reached \u0026ndash; that is, until the stage at which the interviews were no longer generating new thematic insights (Castleberry and Nolen, 2018; Ahmed et al., 2025). This analytical process enabled the study to uncover gendered understandings and lived experiences that influence (un)sustainable water behaviors within the Jordanian context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.5 Ethical Considerations and Reflexivity\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eEthical approval\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003ewas obtained from the relevant \u0026lsquo;\u003cb\u003einstitutional review board (IRB)\u003c/b\u003e\u0026rsquo; at Princess Sumaya University for Technology (PSUT) prior to data collection. Participants were provided with detailed information about the study\u0026rsquo;s aim and objectives, procedures, and their rights, including confidentiality, anonymity, and the voluntary nature of participation. Informed \u0026ndash; consent was obtained from all participants (Aluwihare-Samaranayake, 2012; Taquette and Borges da Matta Souza, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, the researcher took \u0026lsquo;care\u0026rsquo; to ensure cultural sensitivity, especially when discussing potentially sensitive topics related to domestic water management, household responsibilities, and gender roles (Makhoul et al., 2023). Participants were given the option to withdraw at any stage without consequence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eReflexivity\u003c/b\u003e was central to the research process. The researcher\u0026rsquo;s positionality\u0026mdash;as a Jordanian academic with experience in sustainability policy\u0026mdash;enabled access and trust while also requiring conscious awareness of potential biases and power dynamics. Continuous self-reflection, peer debriefing, and translation cross-checks were used to maintain analytical transparency and integrity (Castleberry and Nolen, 2018; Ahmed et al., 2025).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.6 Trustworthiness and Rigor\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eMethodological rigor\u003c/b\u003e was ensured through \u003cb\u003etriangulation\u003c/b\u003e, member checking, and audit trails (Castleberry and Nolen, 2018; Ahmed et al., 2025). \u003cb\u003eTriangulation\u003c/b\u003e was achieved by integrating multiple participant perspectives (grassroots and institutional), while member checking involved sharing summaries with select participants to verify interpretations. A detailed coding audit trail documented analytical decisions and theme evolution.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eCredibility\u003c/b\u003e was enhanced by prolonged engagement with participants, while transferability was achieved through rich contextual description (Castleberry and Nolen, 2018). Confirmability was reinforced through documentation of analytic memos and coding logs. While, dependability was ensured by maintaining transparency across all research stages, from design to analysis (Ahmed et al., 2025). Thereby, this \u003cb\u003erigorous qualitative framework\u003c/b\u003e enables the study to offer valid, contextually grounded insights into how women\u0026rsquo;s knowledge, attitudes, and practices shape water sustainability in Jordan.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Findings and Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis section presents the findings of the qualitative analysis, revealing how women and institutional actors in Jordan understand, experience, and respond to water scarcity. Through thematic analysis, five interrelated themes emerged: experiential knowledge of scarcity, normative attitudes toward water, adaptive practices and coping strategies, water stewardship, and SDG 6 Cleaner Water and Sanitation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEach theme reflects a distinct dimension of the Knowledge\u0026ndash;Attitude\u0026ndash;Practice (KAP) model while also demonstrating how women\u0026rsquo;s lived realities and institutional dynamics intersect within Jordan\u0026mdash;context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1 Experiential Knowledge of Scarcity\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants\u0026rsquo; knowledge of water challenges is deeply \u003cb\u003eembedded in lived experience\u003c/b\u003e. Women described scarcity not as an abstract concept but as a \u003cem\u003edaily condition\u003c/em\u003e that structures routines, emotions, and relationships. Many recounted waiting for water trucks or rationing stored water during weekly shortages, illustrating how scarcity has become normalized in everyday life.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eEvery week we wait for the water truck. I save every drop because God says waste\u003c/em\u003e is \u003cem\u003eharam\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo; (W06)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis experiential knowledge encompasses \u003cb\u003esociocultural, spiritual, environmental, economic, and political dimensions\u003c/b\u003e\u0026mdash;a multifaceted awareness that extends beyond technical literacy. Most participants attributed scarcity to natural and geographic constraints, echoing national discourses that frame Jordan\u0026rsquo;s topography and climate as primary causes (Hussein, 2018; Shamayleh, 2019). However, they also recognized how \u003cb\u003ehuman-induced factors\u003c/b\u003e\u0026mdash;mismanagement, rising costs, population growth, refugee influx, and climate change\u0026mdash;amplify these conditions. A nongovernmental organizations (NGO) participant observed:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;We are the second most water-scarce country in the world. The problem isn\u0026rsquo;t only nature\u0026mdash;it\u0026rsquo;s also how we manage it.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (I05)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis aligns with Gilbertson et al. (2011) and Rodr\u0026iacute;guez-S\u0026aacute;nchez \u0026amp; Sarabia-S\u0026aacute;nchez (2020), who argue that local understandings of scarcity often reflect both environmental and institutional dimensions. Women\u0026rsquo;s testimonies demonstrated this dual awareness, describing scarcity as both \u003cem\u003ephysical insufficiency\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003egovernance failure.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;You don\u0026rsquo;t need to teach us that water is important\u0026mdash;we live this every day. When the taps go dry, we know it before anyone tells us.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (I09)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFaith-based knowledge further reinforces conservation. Many participants cited Islam\u0026rsquo;s emphasis on moderation, echoing Anderson et al. (2013) and Kevany et al. (2013). Economic and technological knowledge also shaped responses: women understood the financial and infrastructural limits that constrain equitable access.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Not every husband can buy an 800 JD water tank\u0026hellip; families just make do with what they have.\u0026rdquo; (W01)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn line with Abu-Bakar et al. (2021), participants noted that while water-saving devices could reduce waste, affordability and inconsistent supply\u0026mdash;limited their adoption. Collectively, these narratives position \u003cem\u003eknowledge as embedded and experiential\u003c/em\u003e, combining sociocultural, economic, and political literacy to form the foundation for subsequent attitudes and practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Normative Attitudes Toward Water\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWomen\u0026rsquo;s \u003cb\u003eattitudes toward water\u003c/b\u003e are characterized by strong moral, religious, and emotional dimensions. Across contexts, they expressed a deep sense of \u003cem\u003eresponsibility and care\u003c/em\u003e for water as a sacred trust\u0026mdash;consistent with the stewardship ethics described by Kevany and Huisingh (2013) and Ram-Bidesi (2015).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Water is a blessing and a trust from God. We are responsible not to waste it, no matter how hard it is.\u0026rdquo; (W08)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis \u003cem\u003eethical orientation\u003c/em\u003e shaped not only personal behavior but also expectations of fairness and social justice. Participants articulated frustration at perceived inequalities in water distribution, echoing Mehta\u0026rsquo;s (2016) analysis of power asymmetries in water governance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;In the camps, people queue for water while others use it for gardens and pools.\u0026rdquo; (W10)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMany described feelings of anxiety and fatigue, revealing the \u003cb\u003eemotional toll\u003c/b\u003e of water scarcity. Similar to Wutich et al. (2016, 2017), participants linked scarcity to stress, insecurity, and declining well-being. Yet their responses also reflected resilience, framed by duty and faith.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Sometimes we do everything right, but there is still no water. It feels like we are alone in this.\u0026rdquo; (W07)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrustration extended to governance: women and institutional actors criticized \u003cem\u003eshort-term, reactive policy responses\u003c/em\u003e\u0026mdash;what they called the \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;Faza\u0026rsquo;i\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e or panic model\u0026mdash;consistent with Yazdanpanah et al.\u0026rsquo;s (2014) findings that users often act reactively under crisis conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;We suffer from mismanaging the water resources\u0026hellip; With the Faza'i model, solving problems short-term rather than planning for the long term.\u0026rdquo; (I06)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile, another pointed, the mismanagement of water resources:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe suffer from management by abayas (I10).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCollectively, these reflections demonstrate that attitudes toward water are \u003cem\u003edeeply moral yet constrained by systemic barriers.\u003c/em\u003e Even positive attitudes toward conservation cannot always translate into action without supportive infrastructure and policy coherence (Echeverr\u0026iacute;a, 2020; Hussein et al., 2018).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3 Adaptive Practices and Coping Strategies\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWater-related practices among participants were pragmatic, creative, and rooted in necessity. Women routinely engaged in micro-level adaptations\u0026mdash;reducing usage, reusing greywater, and adjusting routines to intermittent supply.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I reuse the laundry water for the plants; everyone in our street does now.\u0026rdquo; (W03)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese adaptive practices reflect both individual agency and collective resilience. Community sharing norms were common, especially in rural areas, where informal water exchange sustained social cohesion.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;In our neighborhood, when someone\u0026rsquo;s tank is empty, we help. It\u0026rsquo;s how we survive together.\u0026rdquo; (W05)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants emphasized that reduction, as well as reuse were achievable, while recycling remained rare due to limited infrastructure, knowledge, and incentives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Recycling water is difficult. We can reduce and reuse easily, but we don\u0026rsquo;t have the means to recycle at home.\u0026rdquo; (I05)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings support Abu-Bakar et al. (2021), who highlight barriers to household-level recycling in water-scarce regions. They also mirror Makki et al. (2013) and Willis et al. (2011), who note that adaptive water practices often depend on education, household income, and social norms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCollectively, these practices embody everyday stewardship: pragmatic, context-specific actions that sustain families under chronic scarcity. Women\u0026rsquo;s innovation\u0026mdash;driven by both necessity and moral duty\u0026mdash;demonstrates the intersection of knowledge, attitude, and practice as envisioned in the KAP framework.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4 Water Stewardship\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeyond household-level adaptation, the study found that women frame water uses \u0026mdash;within a broader \u003cb\u003eethic of stewardship\u003c/b\u003e\u0026mdash;a moral and political responsibility to care for water and community.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;We must leave something for our children. If we do not take care of the water now, who will?\u0026rdquo; (W06)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis theme integrates the findings of Kreutzwiser et al. (2011) and Kevany and Huisingh (2013), who define stewardship as a context-specific form of moral action shaped by local values and governance structures. Women\u0026rsquo;s stewardship was expressed through voluntary awareness campaigns, teaching children conservation, and informal leadership within communities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, institutional stakeholders acknowledged that women remain underrepresented in water decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;We are focusing more on gender mainstreaming within the water sector, but the emphasis should be on quality, not just quantity.\u0026rdquo; (I07)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis reflects growing recognition of gendered water knowledge but also concern over \u003cb\u003etokenistic inclusion\u003c/b\u003e\u0026mdash;a pattern documented by Figueirdo and Perkins (2013) and de San Miguel (2018, 2019). Meaningful stewardship, as participants emphasized, must go beyond symbolic participation toward \u003cem\u003esubstantive engagement and capacity building.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;They invite women to meetings for photos, not for opinions.\u0026rdquo; (I05)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCollectively, these accounts reveal that stewardship is both \u003cem\u003eethical labour\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003epolitical agency\u003c/em\u003e: a lived ethic of care that resists exclusion through everyday practices of cooperation and persistence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.5 SDG 6 \u0026ndash; Cleaner Water and Sanitation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants across both groups explicitly and implicitly connected their experiences to \u003cb\u003eSustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG 6)\u003c/b\u003e, which calls for universal access to clean water and sanitation. Many women viewed their household efforts as direct contributions to national sustainability, while institutional stakeholders framed their work as operationalizing SDG 6 through policy and capacity-building initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;When women lead awareness campaigns, families listen.\u0026rdquo; (I07)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis reflects Kevany et al. (2013) and Ram-Bidesi (2015), who argue that integrating women\u0026rsquo;s knowledge into governance enhances both equity and efficiency. Participants called for greater collaboration between ministries, NGOs, and communities to address the persistent disconnect between policy ambition and lived reality.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Policy talks about efficiency, but not about how we fetch water.\u0026rdquo; (W12)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWater stewardship, when aligned with SDG 6, therefore becomes both a moral and developmental imperative. It transforms everyday domestic actions\u0026mdash;reducing, reusing, and sharing\u0026mdash;into the groundwork for \u003cb\u003ecollective sustainability and justice.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.6 Integrative Interpretation: Knowledge\u0026ndash;Attitude\u0026ndash;Practice\u0026ndash;Stewardship (KAPS) Framework\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDrawing together these themes, the study proposes an \u003cem\u003eexpanded KAPS framework\u003c/em\u003e (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1.1\u003c/span\u003e) that situates women\u0026rsquo;s water practices within intersecting layers of \u003cb\u003eknowledge\u003c/b\u003e, \u003cb\u003eattitude\u003c/b\u003e, \u003cb\u003epractice\u003c/b\u003e, and \u003cb\u003estewardship.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the \u003cb\u003enational level\u003c/b\u003e, structural challenges\u0026mdash;insufficiency, mismanagement, inequitable distribution\u0026mdash;shape women\u0026rsquo;s lived experiences. At the \u003cb\u003ehousehold level\u003c/b\u003e, these macro factors translate into daily challenges affecting physical health, mental wellbeing, safety, and spirituality.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis framework captures the cyclical relationship between contextual water knowledge, moral attitudes, adaptive practices, and the emergence of stewardship as a unifying ethic. It underscores that women\u0026rsquo;s water-related agency in Jordan is not merely reactive\u0026mdash;it is a moral, collective, and strategic response to structural scarcity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study has explored how women in Jordan understand, experience, and respond to water scarcity within a context marked by chronic insufficiency, institutional constraints, and gendered inequality. Through a feminist political ecology lens, it revealed that women’s water-related knowledge, attitudes, and practices are deeply embedded in lived experience and shaped by intersecting sociocultural, economic, political, and environmental realities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analysis demonstrated that women’s knowledge of water scarcity is experiential and multidimensional—combining awareness of natural constraints with insight into structural and political factors such as pricing, infrastructure failure, and governance gaps. This finding aligns with Hussein (2018) and Shamayleh (2019), who show that in Jordan, that state, thereby, public discourses emphasize natural scarcity while overlooking institutional inefficiency and demand-side management. Participants recognised water not only as a biophysical resource but also as a moral and spiritual trust, a perception rooted in cultural and religious teachings (Anderson, Clow, and Haworth-Brockman, 2013; Kevany et al., 2013).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWomen’s attitudes toward water reflected an ethic of care, fairness, and intergenerational duty—an embodiment of stewardship as both moral and political agency (Ram-Bidesi, 2015; Kevany and Huisingh, 2013). Yet their ability to act on these values was constrained \u003cu\u003eby insufficiency, mismanagement, inequitable allocation, and tokenistic participation in decision-making\u003c/u\u003e (Carmi, Alsayegh, and Zoubi, 2019). The resulting paradox mirrors Figueirdo and Perkins’ (2013) critique: ‘women are expected to uphold sustainability at the household level but remain excluded from the governance structures that determine resource access’.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the same time, women’s practices—from greywater reuse to collective storage and informal sharing—demonstrate creativity and resilience under pressure. These practices, grounded in necessity and care, constitute what Kevany et al. (2013) call applied stewardship: everyday actions that sustain communities and ecosystems despite systemic neglect. However, recycling remains rare, hindered by limited infrastructure and awareness, echoing Abu-Bakar et al. (2021) and Makki et al. (2013).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom these findings, several key insights emerge; firstly, water scarcity is socially produced and gendered in Jordan. Women’s accounts show that scarcity cannot be explained by geography alone. Institutional inefficiencies, unequal power structures, and socio-economic disparities deepen its impact (Hussein et al., 2018; Mehta, 2016).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecondly, women’s stewardship constitutes both moral and political labour. Women are central to sustaining water security through daily management, yet their agency remains undervalued. Recognising this stewardship as a form of ethical and civic participation expands conventional definitions of governance (Kevany and Huisingh, 2013; Ram-Bidesi, 2015). Thirdly, stewardship must move beyond tokenism. Genuine inclusion requires structural reform—transforming consultation into co-decision-making and ensuring that women’s knowledge shapes both community initiatives and national policy (Figueirdo and Perkins, 2013; de San Miguel, 2018, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFourthly, integrating traditional and technological knowledge enhances resilience. Women’s sociocultural and faith-based knowledge complements scientific and technical innovations, creating hybrid forms of sustainable practice (Behailu, Pietilä, and Katko, 2016; Abu-Bakar et al., 2021). Finally, water governance must align moral responsibility with material justice. Faith-based ethics and cultural values can reinforce conservation only when supported by equitable access, transparent pricing, and reliable infrastructure (Romano, Salvati, and Guerrini, 2016; Lu, Deller, and Hviid, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConceptually, this study contributes to feminist political ecology by illustrating how knowledge, attitude, and practice intertwine through stewardship—transforming domestic labour into ethical and political participation. By extending the KAP framework to include stewardship, it advances a more holistic understanding of sustainability that encompasses both the normative and instrumental dimensions of water governance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThereby, this study highlights that achieving water sustainability in Jordan demands integrating women lived knowledge, moral responsibility, and everyday practices into both policy and implementation. Policymakers should institutionalise gender equity across all levels of water governance, ensuring women’s active participation in decision-making within ministries, local councils, and water associations (Carmi et al., 2019). Recognising women’s informal management of collection, reuse, and sharing as a form of social infrastructure can strengthen resilience and decentralised governance (Ram-Bidesi, 2015; de San Miguel, 2018). Practically, national monitoring systems must combine quantitative indicators with qualitative, participatory insights that reflect the lived realities of scarcity and inequality, ensuring that progress toward SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) reflects both efficiency and justice (Hazelton, 2013; Hussein, 2018). Collectively, these approaches would align Jordan’s National Water Strategy (2016–2025) with SDG 5 (Gender Equality) by transforming women’s stewardship—from informal, undervalued labour into a recognised pillar of sustainable governance—linking moral justice, social inclusion, and environmental resilience within the national and international policy framework.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFunding: This research received no external funding.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eClinical trial number: Not applicable.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eConflict of Interest: There was no potential conflict of interest by the authors.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEthics Approval and Declaration: Ethical approval was obtained from the relevant ‘institutional review board (IRB)’ at Princess Sumaya University for Technology (PSUT) prior to data collection. The ethics approval protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Princess Sumaya University for Technology (PSUT) in accordance with the PSUT IRB relevant guidelines and regulations.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eConsent to Participate: Participants were approached respectfully, and informed consent was secured before conducting interviews.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eConsent to Publish declaration: Not applicable.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCompeting interests: The authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAvailability of data and materials: The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAuthors’ contributions:\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors contributed to the study conception, design, material preparation, data collection, analysis, and manuscript writing. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAcknowledgements: Not applicable.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbdullah, A., Zakaria, S.Z.S. and Razman, M.R., 2018. Environmental education through outdoor education for primary school children. International Journal of the Malay World and Civilisation, 6(1), pp.27-34.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbu-Bakar, H., Williams, L. and Hallett, S.H., 2021. A review of household water demand management and consumption measurement. Journal of Cleaner Production, 292, p.125872.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAchore, M., Bisung, E. and Kuusaana, E.D., 2020. Coping with water insecurity at the household level: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 230, p.113598.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAfroz, R.; Banna, H.; Masud, M.M.; Akhtar, R.; Yahaya, S.R. Household\u0026rsquo;s perception of water pollution and its economic impact on human health in Malaysia. Desalin. Water Treat. 2016, 57, 115\u0026ndash;123.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhmad Q, Ceschin F, Abdulla D (2025), \u0026quot;Understanding household food waste behaviours in Jordan: ethnographic research\u0026quot;. Journal of Humanities and Applied Social Sciences, Vol. 7 No. 5 pp. 473\u0026ndash;490, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/JHASS-12-2024-0214 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhmed, S.K., Mohammed, R.A., Nashwan, A.J., Ibrahim, R.H., Abdalla, A.Q., Ameen, B.M.M. and Khidhir, R.M., 2025. Using thematic analysis in qualitative research. Journal of Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health, p.100198.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAl-Addous, M., Bdour, M., Alnaief, M., Rabaiah, S. \u0026amp; Schweimanns, N., 2023. \u0026lsquo;Water Resources in Jordan: A Review of Current Challenges and Future Opportunities\u0026rsquo;, Water, 15(21), p.3729.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAluwihare-Samaranayake, D., 2012. Ethics in qualitative research: A view of the participants\u0026apos; and researchers\u0026apos; world from a critical standpoint. International Journal of qualitative methods, 11(2), pp.64-81.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnderson, K., Clow, B. and Haworth-Brockman, M., 2013. Carriers of water: Aboriginal women\u0026rsquo;s experiences, relationships, and reflections. Journal of Cleaner Production, 60, pp.11-17.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAprile, M.C. and Fiorillo, D., 2017. Water conservation behavior and environmental concerns: Evidence from a representative sample of Italian individuals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 159, pp.119-129.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeal, C.D., Stewart, R.A. and Fielding, K., 2013. A novel mixed method smart metering approach to reconciling differences between perceived and actual residential end use water consumption. Journal of Cleaner Production, 60, pp.116-128. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBehailu, B.M., Pietil\u0026auml;, P.E. and Katko, T.S., 2016. Indigenous practices of water management for sustainable services: Case of Borana and Konso, Ethiopia. Sage Open, 6(4), p.2158244016682292.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraun, V. and Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), pp.77-101.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrewis, A., \u0026amp; Workman, C. 2019. Burdened by both: Coping and disease at the intersection of water and food insecurity. In American Journal of Human Biology. NJ: Wiley.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrewis, A., Choudhary, N., \u0026amp; Wutich, A., 2019a. Household water insecurity may influence common mental disorders directly and indirectly through multiple pathways: Evidence from Haiti. Social Science \u0026amp; Medicine, 238, 112520.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrewis, A., Choudhary, N., \u0026amp; Wutich, A., 2019b. Low water access as a gendered physiological stressor: Blood pressure evidence from Nepal. American Journal of Human Biology, 31(3), e23234.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarmi, N., Alsayegh, M. and Zoubi, M., 2019. Empowering women in water diplomacy: A basic mapping of the challenges in Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan. Journal of hydrology, 569, pp.330-346.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCastleberry, A. and Nolen, A., 2018. Thematic analysis of qualitative research data: Is it as easy as it sounds?. Currents in pharmacy teaching and learning, 10(6), pp.807-815.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ede Jong, E., \u0026amp; Vijge, M. J., 2021. From Millennium to Sustainable Development Goals: Evolving discourses and their reflection in policy coherence for development. Earth System Governance, 7(100087), pp.1-12.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ede San Miguel, J.A.S.R., 2018. Gender and water management in Mexico. \u003cem\u003eManagement of Environmental Quality: An International Journal\u003c/em\u003e,29(5), pp. 842-858.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ede San Miguel, J.A.S.R., 2019. Gender and water governance in Mexico. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 30(4), pp.695-713.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDean, A.J., Fielding, K.S. and Newton, F.J., 2016. Community knowledge about water: who has better knowledge and is this associated with water-related behaviors and support for water-related policies?. PloS one, 11(7), p.e0159063.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEcheverr\u0026iacute;a, J.M.A., 2020. Cross-country evidence for social dimensions of urban water consumption during droughts. Journal of Cleaner Production, 260, p.120895. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEssex, B., Koop, S.H.A. and Van Leeuwen, C.J., 2020. Proposal for a National Blueprint Framework to Monitor Progress on Water-Related Sustainable Development Goals in Europe. Environmental Management, 65(1), pp.1-18.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEzbakhe, F., Gin\u0026eacute;-Garriga, R. and P\u0026eacute;rez-Foguet, A., (2019). Leaving No One Behind: Evaluating Access to Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Vulnerable and Marginalized Groups. Science of the Total Environment, 683, pp.537-546.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFarrugia, B., 2019. WASP (write a scientific paper): Sampling in qualitative research. Early human development, 133, pp.69-71.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFielding, K.S., Russell, S., Spinks, A. and Mankad, A., 2012. Determinants of household water conservation: The role of demographic, infrastructure, behavior, and psychosocial variables. Water Resources Research, 48(10). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFielding, K.S., Russell, S., Spinks, A. and Mankad, A., 2012. Determinants of household water conservation: The role of demographic, infrastructure, behavior, and psychosocial variables. Water Resources Research, 48(10). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFigueiredo, P. and Perkins, P.E., 2013. Women and water management in times of climate change: participatory and inclusive processes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 60, pp.188-194.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFranco, E. G. (2025). World Economic Forum: The Global Risk Report 2025. In World Economic Forum, Available at: URL. https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2025/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGilbertson, M., Hurlimann, A. and Dolnicar, S., 2011. Does water context influence behaviour and attitudes to water conservation?. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 18(1), pp.47-60.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGiwa, A. and Dindi, A., 2017. An investigation of the feasibility of proposed solutions for water sustainability and security in a water-stressed environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 165, pp.721-733. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrafton, R.Q., Ward, M.B., To, H. and Kompas, T., 2011. Determinants of residential water consumption: Evidence and analysis from a 10‐country household survey. Water Resources Research, 47(8). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGregory, G.D. and Leo, M.D., 2003. Repeated behavior and environmental psychology: the role of personal involvement and habit formation in explaining water consumption 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(6), pp.1261-1296. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., \u0026amp; Gudergan, S. P. (2018). Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHazelton, J., 2013. Accounting as a human right: the case of water information. Accounting, Auditing \u0026amp; Accountability Journal, 26 (2), pp. 267-311.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHomewood, S. and Snowdon, C., 2014. Setting standards for the future based on evidence from the past\u0026ndash;a UK perspective on the success of the approach. Water Practice and Technology, 9(1), pp.33-41.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHussein, H., 2016. An Analysis of The Discourse of Water Scarcity and Hydropolitical Dynamics in the Case of Jordan. Doctoral of Philosophy. University of East Anglia (UEA).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHussein, H., 2018. Lifting the veil: Unpacking the discourse of water scarcity in Jordan. Environmental Science \u0026amp; Policy, 89, pp.385-392.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHussein, H., 2019. Yarmouk, Jordan, and Disi basins: Examining the impact of the discourse of water scarcity in Jordan on transboundary water governance. Mediterranean Politics, 24(3), pp.269-289.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHussein, H., Menga, F. and Greco, F., 2018. Monitoring transboundary water cooperation in SDG 6.5.2: How a critical hydropolitics approach can spot inequitable outcomes. Sustainability, 10(10), p.3640.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHussein, H., Natta, A., Yehya, A.A.K. and Hamadna, B., 2020. Syrian refugees, water scarcity, and dynamic policies: How do the new refugee discourses impact water governance debates in Lebanon and Jordan?. Water, 12(2), p.325. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIbn Majah, M., 2007. Sunan Ibn Majah (5 Volumes). Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Darussalam Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJorgensen, B., Graymore, M. and O\u0026apos;Toole, K., 2009. Household water use behavior: An integrated model. Journal of environmental management, 91(1), pp.227-236.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKallio H, Pietil\u0026auml; AM, Johnson M, Kangasniemi M., 2016. Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. J Adv Nurs.;72(12):2954-2965. doi: 10.1111/jan.13031. Epub 2016 Jun 23. PMID: 27221824. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKandel, E. R., \u0026amp; Schwartz, J. H. (Eds.). (1985). Principles of neural sciences (2nd ed). New York: Elsevier Science\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKatz, D., 2022. Basin management under conditions of scarcity: The transformation of the Jordan River basin from regional water supplier to regional water importer. Water, 14(10), p.1605.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKenney, D.S., Goemans, C., Klein, R., Lowrey, J. and Reidy, K., 2008. Residential water demand management: lessons from Aurora, Colorado 1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 44(1), pp.192-207. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKevany, K. and Huisingh, D., 2013. A review of progress in empowerment of women in rural water management decision-making processes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 60, pp.53-64.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKevany, K., 2010. Water, women, waste, wisdom, and wealth\u0026ndash;An energizing international collaboration, action research, and education project. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(16), p.1769.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKevany, K., Siebel, M., Hyde, K., Nazer, D. and Huisingh, D., 2013. Water, women, waste, wisdom and wealth\u0026ndash;harvesting the confluences and opportunities. Journal of cleaner production, 60, pp.4-10.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKoop, S.H.A., Van Dorssen, A.J. and Brouwer, S., 2019. Enhancing domestic water conservation behaviour: A review of empirical studies on influencing tactics. Journal of environmental management, 247, pp.867-876.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKreutzwiser, R., de Loe, R., Imgrund, K., Conboy, M.J., Simpson, H. and Plummer, R., 2011. Understanding stewardship behaviour: factors facilitating and constraining private water well stewardship. Journal of environmental management, 92(4), pp.1104-1114.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLandon, A.C., Woodward, R.T., Kyle, G.T. and Kaiser, R.A., 2018. Evaluating the efficacy of an information-based residential outdoor water conservation program. Journal of cleaner production, 195, pp.56-65. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLata, L.N., 2021. Negotiating gatekeepers and positionality in building trust for accessing the urban poor in the Global South. Qualitative Research Journal, 21(1), pp.76-86. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLindenberg, S. and Steg, L., 2007. Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. Journal of Social issues, 63(1), p.117. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, A., Giurco, D. and Mukheibir, P., 2016. Urban water conservation through customised water and end-use information. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, pp.3164-3175. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLu, L., Deller, D. and Hviid, M., 2019. Price and behavioural signals to encourage household water conservation: Implications for the UK. Water Resources Management, 33(2), pp.475-491. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMakhoul, J., El Ashkar, C., Nakkash, R. and Bjelobaba, S., 2023. A qualitative multi-methods research protocol: Applied research ethics in the Middle East North Africa Region. International journal of qualitative methods, 22, p.16094069231204820.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMakki, A.A., Stewart, R.A., Beal, C.D. and Panuwatwanich, K., 2015. Novel bottom-up urban water demand forecasting model: Revealing the determinants, drivers and predictors of residential indoor end-use consumption. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 95, pp.15-37.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMakki, A.A., Stewart, R.A., Panuwatwanich, K. and Beal, C., 2013. Revealing the determinants of shower water end use consumption: enabling better targeted urban water conservation strategies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 60, pp.129-146. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eManiam, G., Poh, P.E., Htar, T.T., Poon, W.C. and Chuah, L.H., 2021. Water Literacy in the Southeast Asian Context: Are We There Yet?. Water, 13(16), p.2311.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eManouseli, D., Kayaga, S.M. and Kalawsky, R., 2019. Evaluating the effectiveness of residential water efficiency initiatives in England: influencing factors and policy implications. Water Resources Management, 33(7), pp.2219-2238.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMart\u0026iacute;nez-Espi\u0026ntilde;eira, R. and Garc\u0026iacute;a-Vali\u0026ntilde;as, M.\u0026Aacute;., 2013. Adopting versus adapting: adoption of water-saving technology versus water conservation habits in Spain. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 29(3), pp.400-414.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMasharqa, K., 2021. Embodying the everyday practices of urban water: the discourse of water scarcity and women\u0026apos;s subjectivities in Amman, Jordan.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcCarroll, M. and Hamann, H., 2020. What we know about water: A water literacy review. Water, 12(10), p.2803.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMehta, L., (2016). Why invisible power and structural violence persist in the water domain. IDS Bulletin, 47(5), pp.31-42.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMinistry of Water \u0026amp; Irrigation (MWI), 2016. National Water Strategy 2016 ‐ 2025. [Online]. Jordan: Ministry of Water \u0026amp; Irrigation (MWI). [Viewed 4th April 2022]. Available at: URL. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.258.11.1487\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMushavi, R.C., Burns, B.F., Kakuhikire, B., Owembabazi, M., Vořechovsk\u0026aacute;, D., McDonough, A.Q., Cooper-Vince, C.E., Baguma, C., Rasmussen, J.D., Bangsberg, D.R. and Tsai, A.C., 2020. \u0026ldquo;When you have no water, it means you have no peace\u0026rdquo;: a mixed-methods, whole-population study of water insecurity and depression in rural Uganda. Social Science \u0026amp; Medicine, 245, p.112561.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMustafa, D., Altz-Stamm, A. \u0026amp; Scott, L.M., 2016. \u0026lsquo;Water User Associations and the Politics of Water in Jordan\u0026rsquo;, World Development, 79, pp.164\u0026ndash;176.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOlmstead, S.M., 2014. Climate change adaptation and water resource management: A review of the literature. Energy Economics, 46, pp.500-509.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePinto, F.S., de Carvalho, B. and Marques, R.C., 2021. Adapting water tariffs to climate change: linking resource availability, costs, demand, and tariff design flexibility. Journal of Cleaner Production, 290, p.125803.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRam-Bidesi, V., 2015. Recognizing the role of women in supporting marine stewardship in the Pacific Islands. Marine Policy, 59, pp.1-8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRathnayaka, K., Malano, H., Arora, M., George, B., Maheepala, S. and Nawarathna, B., 2017. Prediction of urban residential end-use water demands by integrating known and unknown water demand drivers at multiple scales II: Model application and validation. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 118, pp.1-12.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReynaud, A., 2015. Insights from a Cross-Country Econometric Analysis of EU-28 Countries 2015 Modelling Household Water Demand in Europe. https:// doi.org/10.2788/95638.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRichards, N., Pandolfelli, L., Bouziani, B., Ofosu‐Baadu, B. and Carter, K., 2022. The role of administrative data in gender statistics: Supporting inclusive development for women and girls. Journal of International Development, 34(2), pp.349-378\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRodriguez-Sanchez, C. and Sarabia-Sanchez, F.J., 2020. Does water context matter in water conservation decision behaviour?. Sustainability, 12(7), p.3026. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRomano, G., Salvati, N. and Guerrini, A., 2016. An empirical analysis of the determinants of water demand in Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 130, pp.74-81.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRuslin, R., Mashuri, S., Rasak, M.S.A., Alhabsyi, F. and Syam, H., 2022. Semi-structured Interview: A methodological reflection on the development of a qualitative research instrument in educational studies. IOSR Journal of Research \u0026amp; Method in Education (IOSR-JRME), 12(1), pp.22-29.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSahin, O., Bertone, E. and Beal, C.D., 2017. A systems approach for assessing water conservation potential through demand-based water tariffs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 148, pp.773-784.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSalas Zapata, W.A., R\u0026iacute;os Osorio, L.A. and Cardona Arias, J.A., 2018. Knowledge, attitudes and practices of sustainability: a systematic review 1990-2016.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSelby, J. and Hoffmann, C., 2012. Water scarcity, conflict, and migration: a comparative analysis and reappraisal. Environment and planning C: government and policy, 30(6), pp.997-1014. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShamayleh, M.A., 2019, The Water Crisis in Jordan: A Habermasian Analysis of how Power and Interests Guide Policy towards Colonization and Unsustainable Water Management. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Newcastle).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmith, J., 2008, \u0026ldquo;A critical appreciation of the \u0026lsquo;bottom-up\u0026rsquo; approach to sustainable water management: embracing complexity rather than desirability\u0026rdquo;, Local Environment, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 353-66.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTaquette, S.R. and Borges da Matta Souza, L.M., 2022. Ethical dilemmas in qualitative research: A critical literature review. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, p.16094069221078731.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUNICEF, 2017. JORDAN\u0026rsquo;S WASH TOP FACTS [Online]. Amman: Jordan. [Viewed 24th of September 2020]. Available at: URL. https://www.unicef.org/jordan/sites/unicef.org.jordan/files/2019-03/UCF-WASH%20in%20JOR-Top%20Facts-D4%2017%20Jan%202019.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUNESCO, 2021. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2021: Valuing Water. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) [Online]. Amman: Jordan. [Viewed 1 June 2024]. Available at: https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2021/07/375750eng.pdf \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUSAID, 2018. Water Management Initiative (WMI) [Online]. Amman: Jordan. [Viewed 24th of September 2020]. Available at: URL. https://www.globalwaters.org/sites/default/files/jordan-wmi-midterm-evaluation.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUSAID, 2020. Gender Analysis and Assessment [Online]. Amman: Jordan. [Viewed 24th of September 2020]. Available at: URL. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00WDSP.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWatson, S., 2017. Consuming water smartly: the significance of sociocultural differences to water-saving initiatives. Local environment, 22(10), pp.1237-1251. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWillis, R.M., Stewart, R.A., Giurco, D.P., Talebpour, M.R. and Mousavinejad, A., 2013. End-use water consumption in households: impact of socio-demographic factors and efficient devices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 60, pp.107-115. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWillis, R.M., Stewart, R.A., Panuwatwanich, K., Williams, P.R. and Hollingsworth, A.L., 2011. Quantifying the influence of environmental and water conservation attitudes on household end-use water consumption. Journal of environmental management, 92(8), pp.1996-2009. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWojnarowski, F., 2025. Contested flows: An ethnographic contribution to narratives of groundwater over abstraction in the central Jordanian highlands. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, p.1-25. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWutich, A., Beresford, M., \u0026amp; Carvajal, C. 2016. Can informal water vendors deliver on the promise of a human right to water? Results from Cochabamba, Bolivia. World Development, 79, 14\u0026ndash;24.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWutich, A., Budds, J., Eichelberger, L., Geere, J., Harris, L.M., Horney, J.A., Jepson, W., Norman, E., O\u0026apos;Reilly, K., Pearson, A.L. and Shah, S.H., 2017. Advancing methods for research on household water insecurity: Studying entitlements and capabilities, socio-cultural dynamics, and political processes, institutions and governance. Water Security, 2, pp.1-10.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYazdanpanah, M., Hayati, D., Hochrainer-Stigler, S. and Zamani, G.H., 2014. Understanding farmers\u0026apos; intention and behavior regarding water conservation in the Middle-East and North Africa: A case study in Iran. Journal of environmental management, 135, pp.63-72.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-sustainability","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"disu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Sustainability](https://www.springer.com/43621)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Discover Sustainability","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Gender, Water Sustainability, Stewardship, KAPs Model, SDG 6 Clean Water and Sanitation","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8238314/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8238314/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eWater scarcity in Jordan is among the most severe globally, yet its social and gendered dimensions remain underexplored. This study examines how women\u0026rsquo;s knowledge, attitudes, and practices shape water sustainability in Jordan\u0026rsquo;s water-scarce context, expanding the traditional Knowledge\u0026ndash;Attitude\u0026ndash;Practice (KAP) model through the lens of Water Stewardship. Drawing on twenty-seven semi-structured interviews with women and institutional stakeholders, the research adopts a qualitative interpretivist approach informed by feminist political ecology. The findings reveal that women\u0026rsquo;s knowledge of water scarcity in Jordan is deeply experiential and multi-dimensional, integrating both normative values\u0026mdash;such as moral, cultural, and religious obligations to conserve water\u0026mdash;and instrumental understandings shaped by the country\u0026rsquo;s political, economic, and technological realities. Despite their central role in managing household water, women remain marginalized in decision-making and excluded from governance structures. The study argues that recognizing women\u0026rsquo;s stewardship\u0026mdash;an ethic of care, reciprocity, and responsibility\u0026mdash;can advance gender-inclusive water governance and sustainable development goal 6 (clean water and sanitation). By amplifying women\u0026rsquo;s lived experiences, this paper redefines sustainability as both a normative and instrumental project, grounded in equity, justice, and everyday practice.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Gendered Water Stewardship in Jordan and the influence of Women’s Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices on Sustainability","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-12-19 14:54:17","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8238314/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-01-20T13:47:03+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-01-14T15:44:28+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"315796766002463471963037975627267073355","date":"2026-01-09T07:36:23+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-01-06T17:49:17+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"48143762738455433988786177137842181442","date":"2025-12-18T13:41:39+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-12-16T13:00:14+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-12-15T12:39:07+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-12-12T04:14:23+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-12-11T15:02:48+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Sustainability","date":"2025-12-11T14:53:05+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-sustainability","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"disu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Sustainability](https://www.springer.com/43621)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Discover Sustainability","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"c87d9867-dbcd-4d3b-993c-f2eaede2dadd","owner":[],"postedDate":"December 19th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-04T16:00:36+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-8238314","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-026-03019-w","journal":{"identity":"discover-sustainability","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Discover Sustainability"},"publishedOn":"2026-04-30 15:58:12","publishedOnDateReadable":"April 30th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-12-19 14:54:17","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s43621-026-03019-w","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-026-03019-w","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8238314","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8238314","identity":"rs-8238314","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}