A second logistic regression was conducted to assess whether the demographic variables and the water quality perceptions predicted the use of a filter when drinking tap water. The assumptions of independence of observations and the linearity of independent variables with the log of the dependent variable were met. When considered together, the ten variables adequately predict whether a respondent uses a filter (χ2 = 63.56, df = 10, p < 0.001). Table 3 presents the odds ratios that suggest that the odds of using a filter significantly decrease as age and organoleptic perceptions scores increase. Specifically, the odds of using a filter deteriorate by 0.99 per year gained and by 0.55 per unit increase of organoleptic perceptions. In contrast, as the score of income increases by one unit, the odds of using a filter significantly increase by 1.38. Gender, education, perceived health risks, environmental concern, area satisfaction, and clean water for recreation did not prove significant in modifying the odds of using a filter when drinking tap water. The Nagelkerke pseudo R2 specifies a modest strength of the model in predicting the use of filter by respondents (see Table 3). This model was not as strong as the previous model, even though the Hosmer and Lemeshow test of good fit is non-significant, indicating a good model fit (χ2 = 14.99, df = 8, p = 0.059).
Summary of logistic regression analysis predicting using a filter (N = 546)
Predictor . | B . | SE . | R . | 95% CI . | Wald statistic . | p . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Female | −0.01 | 0.19 | 0.99 | [0.67, 1.46] | 0.02 | 0.992 |
Age | −0.01 | 0.01 | 0.99 | [0.97, 0.99] | 4.28 | 0.039 |
Income | 0.32 | 0.07 | 1.38 | [1.20, 1.59] | 20.93 | <0.001 |
Education | −0.09 | 0.07 | 0.91 | [0.79, 1.05] | 1.64 | 0.200 |
Perceived health risks | −0.16 | 0.15 | 0.85 | [0.64, 1.13] | 1.24 | 0.265 |
Organoleptic perceptions | −0.59 | 0.14 | 0.55 | [0.42, 0.73] | 17.48 | <0.001 |
Environmental concern | 0.02 | 0.12 | 1.02 | [0.82, 1.29] | 0.04 | 0.834 |
Area satisfaction | 0.03 | 0.12 | 1.03 | [0.82, 1.30] | 0.07 | 0.795 |
Perceived surface water quality | −0.26 | 0.13 | 0.77 | [0.59, 1.00] | 3.71 | 0.054 |
Clean water for recreation | −0.04 | 0.21 | 0.96 | [0.64, 1.45] | 0.03 | 0.859 |
Pseudo R2 (Nagelkerke) | 0.148 |
Predictor . | B . | SE . | R . | 95% CI . | Wald statistic . | p . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Female | −0.01 | 0.19 | 0.99 | [0.67, 1.46] | 0.02 | 0.992 |
Age | −0.01 | 0.01 | 0.99 | [0.97, 0.99] | 4.28 | 0.039 |
Income | 0.32 | 0.07 | 1.38 | [1.20, 1.59] | 20.93 | <0.001 |
Education | −0.09 | 0.07 | 0.91 | [0.79, 1.05] | 1.64 | 0.200 |
Perceived health risks | −0.16 | 0.15 | 0.85 | [0.64, 1.13] | 1.24 | 0.265 |
Organoleptic perceptions | −0.59 | 0.14 | 0.55 | [0.42, 0.73] | 17.48 | <0.001 |
Environmental concern | 0.02 | 0.12 | 1.02 | [0.82, 1.29] | 0.04 | 0.834 |
Area satisfaction | 0.03 | 0.12 | 1.03 | [0.82, 1.30] | 0.07 | 0.795 |
Perceived surface water quality | −0.26 | 0.13 | 0.77 | [0.59, 1.00] | 3.71 | 0.054 |
Clean water for recreation | −0.04 | 0.21 | 0.96 | [0.64, 1.45] | 0.03 | 0.859 |
Pseudo R2 (Nagelkerke) | 0.148 |
Using a filter coded as 0 = does not use a filter, 1 = uses a filter.
SE = standard error for regression coefficient (B).
CI = confidence interval for odds ratio (OR).