Advancing Water Resources Research and Management
|
Advancing Water Resources Research and Management |
| Symposium on Water Resources and the World Wide Web |
|---|
| Seattle, Washington, December 5-9, 1999 |
Lynn Halverson and Lisa Burton-Radzely
Macro International
The Internet affords water service providers, the environmental community and government agencies with an excellent opportunity to provide education and information to the general public about water resources. With access to the Internet increasing exponentially, the Internet already enables anyone with computer access to have real-time data at their fingertips.
For many information providers, however, there is a disconnect between the way in which data traditionally have been provided and the ways in which the general population can access environmental data. For data managers, developing ways to display data, explain it and make it useful to the general public often is beyond the scope of what they have been asked to do in the past.
During the past three years, we have conducted several qualitative research studies for various water-related projects in the Environmental Protection Agency. In this paper, we discuss the findings from those studies and provide the "lessons learned" so that other water programs can apply that information to their own dissemination strategies.
In 1997 and 1998, Macro conducted two series of focus groups with consumers on projects for the EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. The first was a series of focus groups that dealt specifically with language to be used in Consumer Confidence Reports (CCR) - . The second project, consisting of focus groups and one-on-one interviews, looked at knowledge about drinking water in general.
In both projects, respondents were "average citizens" who were selected based upon meeting demographic criteria for the study rather than for any sensitivity level toward environmental issues. In the second set of focus groups and interviews, however, approximately half of the focus groups and interviews were composed of people who identified themselves as "involved" in community affairs, such as civic organizations, or school or church activities.
From July, 1999 through July, 1999, Macro had a contract with the EPA's Office of Research and Development to work with the Environmental Monitoring for Public Access and Community Tracking (EMPACT) program to provide assistance to projects in developing communication strategies for time-sensitive environmental information. While the EMPACT projects deal with a variety of environmental media, four of the projects were specifically water-related.
1. For the most part, environmental issues are fairly low on the "radar screen" of the average citizen.
In most of the qualitative research projects, we recruited participants from the population at large rather than among people who had indicated a strong interest in environmental issues. With only a few exceptions, participants in our focus groups and interviews had very limited knowledge about environmental issues. They tended to assume that "the government" took care of ensuring that resources such as drinking water were safe for them to use, and they also trusted the government to regulate the environment for the sake of the natural resources themselves. While they were aware of environmental issues as something they had heard or read about, they did not invest a lot of time, energy or personal interest in environmental issues, until something occurred that upset the status quo.
2. Scientific knowledge also is fairly low, as is comprehension of scientific data through the use of charts, graphs, etc.
Most of the government offices and programs with which we were working were staffed by people with strong academic backgrounds in scientific fields. To these individuals who were providing the information, scientific terminology and typical methods of transmitting scientific information -- bar graphs, charts, or common abbreviations -- were seen as clear expressions of the information they were trying to convey.
To the general population audiences that were the targets of such information, however, there was a lot of confusion about the meaning of terms used, the graphs and charts used to communicate environmental information, and abbreviations that were unknown to them.
For OGWDW, we conducted a series of four focus groups on the Consumer Confidence Reports (CCR's). In addition to looking at format and layout of the CCR's, the focus groups were asked about comprehension of terms being used. In one section of the focus groups, we provided them with alternative definitions for the phrases, maximum contaminant level and maximum contaminant level goal. Participants were completely unfamiliar with the terms, had difficulty understanding them, and consistently preferred the shortest definitions, even though those definitions provided the least amount of information. "I am lost when I start reading too much of something like that," said one person. "Short and to the point," said another, "I'm always for that." Said a third person, "Why say it in 29 words when you can say it in ten?"
These "average citizens" that we interviewed also had a great deal of difficulty interpreting water quality data on a chart. We provided them with sample CCR's from Denver and from the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, and we asked them to explain the information provided on the water quality charts. Only a few of the participants had any idea about what the charts were trying to convey. Some did not understand what "parts per million" and "parts per billion" meant. With the exception of nitrate and mercury, most of them were unfamiliar with the substances being measured, so they had difficulty comprehending the significance of the presence of these substances in drinking water. Some completely misunderstood the meaning of certain words, such as misinterpreting "coliform" as "chloroform."
3. Despite these factors, people appear to be interested in environmental issues and respond well to environmental messages when they understand them. They WANT more environmental information.
Although our focus group and interview participants were notably uninformed about the environmental issues being discussed, their interest in those issues appeared to increase as they were provided information. Once they could visualize a personal connection with the topic at hand, such as the safety of the drinking water in their community, they said that they wanted more information. Participants responded considerably more favorably to health-related environmental messages than they did to issues that did not draw personal connections to their health and that of their families.
1. Make it easy to use
We found that our focus groups were relatively uneducated about science in general and about environmental issues in particular. Once their awareness of those issues was raised, however, their interest also appeared to increase. To captivate their attention, therefore, information must be presented in an easy-to-use, straightforward manner.
The suggestions made by the focus group participants included:
For many people, a key element of "simplicity" is having the information source explain the significance of what they were being told. Rather than have someone tell them the level of a contaminant in their drinking water, for, example, they wanted to know, "Should I stop drinking the water?" "Will it hurt me?"
There has been a considerable amount of disagreement in recent years about whether to provide raw data or interpreted data to the public. While raw data may be preferred by some environmental groups, members of the general public -- at least those that we talked to -- have said that they don't have the knowledge of the issues involved to interpret raw data. So, either someone will need to interpret it for them, or a long-term education process will need to be instituted in order to make raw data meaningful to more people.
2. Use illustrations, simplified charts, and lay-level explanations; and PRE-TEST these on your audience
Participants in our focus groups consistently responded positively to illustrations, and to charts that presented material in a clear, simple manner to them. What is clear to a scientist may not be clear to a layperson, however. Therefore, it is important to test any intended public education materials on the prospective audience. We recommend either holding focus groups with representatives of the intended audience or, at a minimum, obtaining informal feedback from potential audience members who do not have a vested interest in the success of your website.
3. Keep information up-to-date and relevant to your audience
Web users are fickle people. If information is clearly out of date, they will not come back to that site. If a website continually updates its information, however, and the topic is of interest to them, they will return to see "what's new."
4. Capitalize upon public awareness of related issues to draw attention to your issues/your website
A lot of environmental issues are seen by the public as long-term concerns that probably will not affect them directly. When an event occurs that affects water quality, such as a flood or hurricane, consumers generally are more receptive to information about how they might be affected in their own area. Thus, we encourage water information providers to help consumers make those information connections. For example, residents of Maryland and Virginia became much more aware of run-off problems when the pfisteria incident occurred in the summer of 1998. Similar situations are possible elsewhere, and pointing that out directly can help you get your message across.
Waterwatch Victoria, Australia
www.vic.waterwatch.org.au
Demonstrates how to make environmental information appealing to the public.
Greater Vancouver Air Quality Project
www.gvrd.bc.ca/air/bro/aqindex.html
Shows how to present data in a way that not only provides a lot of information,
but also is understandable to the public & is not overwhelming.
Chesapeake Bay Pocomoke River EMPACT Monitoring
www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/empact
EPA EMPACT project that presents information in a way that caters to people
with a range of knowledge.
Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch/ California Department of Health
Services & the Sacramento County Department of Health & Human
Services
www.scph.com/Programs/Lead/leadawr.html
Good example of giving tips on what the public can do to reduce an environmental
problem.
South Coast Air Quality Management District
www.aqmd.gov
Good example of how to tailor your information to kids.
 | |
| Symposium TOC | AWRA Home page |
Maintainer: AWRA Webserver Team
Copyright © 1999 American Water Resources Association