Upload
lythien
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this presentation may be copied, reproduced, or otherwise utilized without permission.
Throwing precaution out the window:how to talk about contaminants,
risk and the unknown22 June 2017
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Related WRF Projects/Resources
• (4323) Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes Toward EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water—Research and guidance on
understanding consumer perceptions to improve future communications
• (4387) Development of a Water Utility Primer on EDCs/PPCPs for Public Outreach—Comprehensive overview —Primer for non-technical
audiences
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
WRF Focus Area on CECs Risk Communication
Objectives:1. Provide core messages and strategies for water utilities2. Facilitate dialogue with a broad range of stakeholders(4457) Core Messages for Chromium, Medicines and Personal Care Products, NDMA, and VOCs• Context animation on drinking water and CECs• Technical briefs and “thinking about” pieces on Cr(VI),
VOCs, NDMA, and medicines
(4463) National Dialogue on Contaminants of Emerging Concern and Public Health• Recommendations to foster communication and collaboration among water sector,
researchers, regulatory agencies and public health groups• White papers summarizing different perspectives and related work
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Dr Gabriella RundbladReader in Applied Linguistics
King’s College London
(4551) Terminology for Improved Communication Regarding CECs
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Participating Utilities/Authorities
5
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Research Team MembersGabriella Rundblad
Chris TangEric Olofson
Aga TytusCarrie OlofsonPer Haugsöen
6
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Water Research Foundation
• #4551 - Terminology for Improved Communication Regarding CECs
• #4323 - Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
#4323 - recapMedia reports impact worry about exposure to contaminantsWomen are in a sense “vulnerable” consumers in that they are concerned about water quality, do not seek out information in proportion to this concern, yet they change their drinking water behaviour.Consumers want technical details but not technical language; There is a big gap between lay language and water professional languageWords/phrases with strong negative associations: endocrine disruptors, low levelsThe phrase no regulations is the most worrisome, because regulation has strong positive associations with safety
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
#4551 - aimAim: • develop communication tools for key
terminology relevant to CECs and risk
Purpose:• to ensure consumers can easily 1) find
and 2) understand tailored water quality information
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Text analysis
Data from participating utilities• telephone• website• social media
Data from• surveys• semantic tasks
10
Activities
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.11
MAIN CONSUMER SURVEY
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Demographics12
Frequency Percent Census %
Gender
Female 192 48.4 50.8
Male 205 51.6 49.2
Age
Under 20 3 0.8 27.0
20-29 139 35.0 13.8
30-39 129 32.5 13.0
40-49 59 14.9 14.1
50-59 47 11.8 13.6
60 or over 20 5.0 18.5
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.13
Frequency Percent Census %
Ethnic Group
White 322 81.1 72.4
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 2 0.5 0.2
Asian 37 9.3 4.8
Black or African American 23 5.8 12.6
Two or more races 9 2.3 2.9
American Indian/Alaskan Native 2 0.5 0.9
Prefer not to say 2 0.5 N/AEnglish is a native language
Yes 392 98.7 N/ANo 5 1.3 N/A
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
14
Frequency Percent Census %
Highest level of education completed
9th-12th grade 3 0.8 8.8
High school graduate (or equivalent) 100 25.2 32.8
College or associate’s degree 117 29.5 28.5
Bachelor’s degree 140 35.3 19.6
Graduate or professional degree 37 9.3 10.4
Employment
not in paid employment 82 20.7 N/A
in paid employment (84.4% vs 74.0%) 315 79.3 N/A
Property owner
does own the property they live in 193 48.6 66.2*
does not own the property they live in
204 51.4 33.8*
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Predictor variables• Standard demographics
—Gender—Age—Paid employment—Property ownership
• Variables generated from the survey—“Factiness” (see next slide)
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.16
Facts are… Gender Age Employ Propertyexcitinguneventful hard to remember 0.031easy to remember 0.019useful 0.005 0.008uselessinteresting boringunnecessary important easy to understand 0.005
hard to understand
We constructed a “factiness” variable based on the participants’ answer to two of the fact questions (0=no to both; 1=yes to one; 2=yes to both) – male bias towards factiness
That
fem
ale
cons
umer
s did
not
find
it e
asy
to
unde
rsta
nd a
nd re
mem
ber f
acts
per
haps
ex
plai
ns w
hy th
ey a
re n
ot m
ore
likel
y to
seek
ou
t inf
orm
atio
n
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Seeking out vs Using information
17
Ordinal regression revealed that participants with a high factiness score were more likely to seek out and use information (both: p<0.001).
A similar prediction was found for older participants (seek: p<0.01; use: p<0.05)
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.18
I don't think about the quality of my tap water
I think about the quality of my tap water
I worry about the quality of my tap water
I am concerned about the quality of my tap water
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
14.6%
51.0%
17.2% 17.2%
20.5%
54.6%
13.2%11.7%
Female
Male
Ordinal regression confirms that women and participants with a high factiness score were more likely to worry/be concerned about tap water quality (p<0.05, p<0.01)
Thinking about water quality
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
FINDINGINFORMATION
19
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
REAL CONTACT
20
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Utility dataPHONE CALL STATISTICS
% of Customers who call re: Quality
% of Callers are Women
0.20% 0.02%0.37% 0.00% 64.4%0.01% 0.01% 46.7%0.01% 61.7%0.00% 53.8%
Average 0.08% 56.6%Note: all values reflect monthly averagesUnderlined values are calls to emergency line, no breakdown of purpose. Some—perhaps most—will have been about supply disruption.
WEBSITE STATISTICS% of Customers
11.9%1.7%4.7%2.2%
12.5%4.9%1.2%
14.6%Average 6.7%Note: all values reflect monthly averages
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Clear gender differences for phone calls and social media use
FACEBOOK AND TWITTER STATISTICSFacebook
Likes% of Likes are Women
Twitter Followers
% Followers are Women
3,308 58% 1,761 36%1,392 58%1,243 2,650 1,788 8,821 1,349 47% 2,124 29%552 65% 491 34%332 56% 679 36%241 49% 1,097 41%
Average 1,276 55.5% 2,518 35%
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
SURVEY CONTACT
23
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.24
n %
Never 287 75.5
Once a year 52 13.7
A few times each year 36 9.5
Several times each year 5 1.3
Excluding private wells
Property owners contacted utilities more often than non-owners (p<0.01)
How often do you/your household contact your water utility each year?
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Answer: NEVER• Hypothetical contact for real consumers• Hypothetical contact for private wells
The rest of the answers• Real contact
• We asked: Who? How? What about?
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
People who really did contact their water utility
Who? n %
Female 41 44.1
Male 52 55.9
How? n %visited them in person 11 11.8
called them 74 79.6
emailed them 4 4.3
used their website 4 4.3
used their Facebook 0 0.0
used their Twitter 0 0.0
Men more likely to contact the water utility – despite water utilities recording calls as being from women
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
What motivated people who really did contact their water utility?
n %
general information about the provision of tap water 16 17.2
general information about the cost of tap water 32 34.4
general information about the quality of tap water 17 18.3
other general information 14 15.1
specific information about the provision of tap water in your home 18 19.4
specific information about the cost of tap water (i.e. incorrect charge) 29 31.2
specific information about the quality of tap water (i.e. water is cloudy) 15 16.1
other specific question 12 12.9
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
HYPOTHETICAL:Who and how would you contact the utility?
How? n %visit them in person 7 2.4
call them 174 60.6
email them 23 8.0
look at their website 82 28.6
look at their Facebook 1 0.3
look at their Twitter 0 0.0
Who? n %
Female 132 46.0
Male 155 54.0
Men again (hypothetically)
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
HYPOTHETICAL: What could motivate you to contact the water
utility?n %
general information about the provision of tap water 36 12.5
general information about the cost of tap water 82 28.6
general information about the quality of tap water 140 48.8
other general information 29 10.1
specific information about the provision of tap water in your home 105 36.6
specific information about the cost of tap water (i.e. incorrect charge) 134 46.7
specific information about the quality of tap water (i.e. water is cloudy) 144 50.2
other specific question 19 6.6
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
CONNECTING
30
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
IMAGINE that you went online to search for information about tap water quality.
How likely are you to use a search engine like Google, Bing or Yahoo?
● 71.3% answered 5=“very likely” and 20.4% selected 4
● Ordinal regression: Those with a high factiness score were more likely to use a search engine (p<0.05)
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Top 20? WATER WORD + NAME OF LOCATION
tap water drinking water
environment
NO NO NOYES YES NOYES YES YESYES YES NOYES YES YESYES NO NONO NO NOYES YES YESYES YES YESYES YES YES
Surprisingly, when we searched for e.g. tap water and the name of the city where the water utility was located, we found that several utilities didn’t make the top 20 list on Google.
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
How do (lay) people search?
• The most popular internet search engine queries consist of words that are non-technical and in common usage (Spink et al, 2001)
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Augmentation of US text corpus
US outreach WRF 4551Advocacy 24,984Utilities 20,329Water Organisations 29,722Agencies and Regulators 31,653
WRF 4323
WRF 4551
US media 255,865 311,605US outreach 47,950 106,688
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.35
Media Advocacy Water Utilities Water Orgs Agenciesdrugs chemicals compounds pharmaceuticals contaminants
pharmaceuticals pharmaceuticals pharmaceuticals compounds pharmaceuticals
chemicals drugs contaminants contaminants PPCPs
atrazine endocrine emerging chemicals chemicals
contaminants triclosan medications CECs emerging
compounds atrazine drugs EDCs compounds
medications contaminants personal (care products) PPCPs drugs
pesticides BPA PPCPs medications endocrine
hormones hormones EDCs emerging personal (care products)
antibiotics antibiotics chemicals substances substances
Discipline differences
Based on our text analysis
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.36
drugs fish
pharmaceuticals frogs
contaminants infants
hormones birth defects
pesticides reproductive
antibiotics intersex
Atrazine
13 words to use in searches
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Top 20?Advanced Google search
Three types of combinations:
CEC WORD+WATER WORD+LOC pesticides + tap water + Idaho
CEC WORD+WORD+LOCpesticides + fish + Idaho
CEC WORD+WORD+WATER WORD+LOC pesticides + fish + tap water + Idaho
Total of 351 Possible hits
Top 20
11
50
115
11
103
15
10
20
54
89
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Internal search engines: 2 Methods Method 1• Manually search for each of
the 13 words
Method 2• Use Google to search a
specified site (i.e. we used the search string “site:WATERUTILITYNAME” plus one of the 13 words
Most utilities scored below 13, which was the max, and for many Google worked better than their internal search engine.
Internal Google Site
7 10
9 9
12 12
5 8
12 12
N/A 8
13 13
8 12
13 12
13 13
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Why?• Most utility websites are constructed
for human viewers• Google is not a human!
• Google treats “has X” and has no X” the same!
• Many utilities take a “conservative” approach
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
How to improve• Website strategies for water
professionals (or, what you see is not what Google sees…)
Tools include:• Meta tags• Alt attribute for images• Tailoring documents for pre-views
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ALTERNATIVES
41
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
• 59% Android 39% iOS
• iOS well balanced for gender, but Android slightly more men
• 191 million internet users in the US• 1/3 of internet traffic from a mobile device (62% men;
59% women)
Mobile internet
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Apps• iOS app is more popular and has
higher traffic than Android app
• iOS: 73.39% women, 26.61% men; pretty equal distribution among age
• Android: 43.38% women, 56.52% men; highly skewed towards age group 35-54
43
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
THEMES
44
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Contaminants Amounts Risk Investigating, Discovering, Knowing
Water Types and the EnvironmentContamination Channels and Proper DisposalImpact Standards and Regulation
45
Themes
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
TRUST
46
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
First and Best sourceWhen you want to know more about the quality of your tap water, which source…
...would you CONTACT/
LOOK AT FIRST?
...is the BEST SOURCE?
n % n %neighbor 19 4.8% 12 3.0%
friend 16 4.0% 5 1.3%search engine 5 1.3% 3 0.8%
other water 1 0.3% 5 1.3%local government 27 6.8% 30 7.6%
political party 1 0.3% 0 0.0%water utility/company 235 59.2% 195 49.1%
health professional 7 1.8% 25 6.3%environmental organization 57 14.4% 92 23.2%
advocacy group 5 1.3% 11 2.8%news media 17 4.3% 15 3.8%social media 7 1.8% 4 1.0%
Fem
ale
cons
umer
s rat
e wa
ter u
tiliti
es h
ighe
r
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Information sources
TRUSTEDRELIABLE/
KNOWLEDGABLE
EASILY ACCESSIBLE
n % n % n %neighbor 51 12.8% 24 6.0% 145 36.5%local government 112 28.2% 122 30.7% 71 17.9%political party 4 1.0% 6 1.5% 6 1.5%water utility/company 243 61.2% 287 72.3% 256 64.5%health professional 165 41.6% 176 44.3% 54 13.6%environmental organization 235 59.2% 249 62.7% 109 27.5%advocacy group 65 16.4% 66 16.6% 44 11.1%news media 92 23.2% 73 18.4% 146 36.8%social media 20 5.0% 15 3.8% 135 34.0%friend/family 58 14.6% 31 7.8% 149 37.5%other water 7 1.8% 5 1.3% n/a n/a
48
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Trusted• Women find water utilities more trustworthy than do men
(p<0.05)
• People with a high score on factiness report greater trust in water utilities than those with a low factiness score (p<0.01)
Female Male Total65.6% 57.1% 243
Low Medium High Total54.9% 64.0% 70.7% 243
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Reliable/Knowledgeable• Women find water utilities more reliable than do men
(p<0.05)Female Male Total76.6% 68.3% 287
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
KNOWING IS TRUSTING
51
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Water Utilities, Water Organizations and Agencies focus on quantitative and qualitative knowledge.“We don’t know what chemicals and drugs to remove because we’re just learning what’s in our rivers and streams.”Knowledge is categorised as known or unknown/not known.
The same binary categorisation is true for lay sources.Media and Advocacy tend to highlight the transient nature of findings, e.g. emerging, preliminary. They also typically infer and suggest contaminants are harmful of by referring to knowledge of their harmfulness in non-water contexts.
52
Scientific knowledge in texts
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
What factors influence people’s trust in a report that the water is safe?
In the case of a report that a constituent is in the water, what influences trust in a statement that the water is safe to drink?Three possibilities (in addition to our usual predictors):• Knowledge of constituent: constituent is either
known to be harmful or it is not known whether or not it is harmful
• Source: is the report from a government, university, water utility, news media, or environmental advocacy source
• Both: various interactions
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
It’s ok to drink• IMAGINE that you read a report or statement that a
constituent has been found in tap water. Professionals DO NOT KNOW if this constituent is or is not harmful to humans. But it is only present in tap water in such small amounts that it is perfectly ok to drink the tap water just as it is.
• IMAGINE that you read a report or statement that a constituent has been found in tap water. Professionals KNOW that this constituent is harmful to humans. But it is only present in tap water in such small amounts that it is perfectly ok to drink the tap water just as it is.
• Would you trust and believe the report/statement?
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Known or Unknown
media utility government env advocacy university
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Men versus Women
media utility government env advocacy university
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
… a constituent that is present in tap water is
known to be harmful to humans so you need to boil the water before drinking it.
• Older participants were more likely to trust media reports, water utility reports, and university reports
• Those who do not own their property were more likely to trust media reports and water utility reports
Would you trust and believe the report/statement? (N=389)
SOURCE YESUtility 79.9%University 79.6%Government 78.2%Media 70.2%Env. Advocacy 69.6%
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Re-representing scientific knowledge about health risks
• Avoid knowledge claims using unknown/not known, and adverbs like still and yet.
• Statements including the phrase no evidence in relation to a risk context, can just as easily suggest a lack of knowledge as a lack of risk, so should be avoided.
• Conceptualise the acquisition of scientific knowledge and the current level of understanding as aspects of a cumulative and ongoing process of knowledge acquisition.
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
CONTAMINANTS
59
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
VERY SMALLSURVEY
60
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.61
Water professionals
Male (N=71) Female (N=48)n % n %
Australia 23 76.7 7 23.3United States 20 43.5 26 56.5United Kingdom 28 65.1 15 34.9
General Public Male (N=46) Female (N=80)n % n %
Australia 14 46.7 16 53.3United States 21 38.9 33 61.1United Kingdom 11 26.2 31 73.8
Who and where from?
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.62
Water professionals Mean Min Max
Australia 45.43 27 59United States 46.26 26 70United Kingdom 37.67 21 62
General Public Mean Min Maxfemale 46.20 25 83Male 42.13 22 94Total 35.76 20 61
Age
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
The myth that is H2O
Tonicity: normal tap water is slightly hypertonic, while pure H2O is hypotonic
Response Professionals (N=119) General public (N=126)
n % n %No 38 31.9 21 16.7Maybe 33 27.7 29 23.0Yes 48 40.3 76 60.3
Can humans drink pure water, i.e. water that is purely made up of the molecule H20, without getting ill?
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
• Participants were required to select one of six options for 18 statements. —origin of contamination (5)—type of contaminant (3)—detection of contamination (2)—aesthetics (3)—harmfulness (3)—treatment (2)
64
Statements
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
General public in all countries
a contaminants is• something that is not meant to be in the
water• that ideally should not be present in tap water• that ideally should be removed from tap
water.
Often, contaminants cannot be seen by the naked eye, and do not make the water look or smell bad.
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Water professionalsUS sample:• something that ideally should be removed from tap water. Most contaminants cannot be seen by the naked eye. Commonly, contaminants end up in the water accidentally.
UK sample:• something that is not meant to be in the water• that ideally should be removed from tap water• that ended up in the water accidentally. Most contaminants cannot be seen by the naked eye.
Australian sample:• something that is not meant to be in the water,• that ended up in the water accidentally• that ideally should be removed from tap water. Most contaminants cannot be seen by the naked eye. Often, contaminants are chemicals, and contaminants commonly have the potential to be harmful to humans.
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Pure waterThose who felt that pure water can be drunk were more likely to say that natural elements and things that were not were in the water to start with are contaminants.
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Survey effect• Water professionals: 73.9% of participants felt
that the meaning of the word “contaminant” was clear, but at the end of the survey that number significantly dropped to 58.8% (Z=-3.279, p<0.01).
• General public: 80.2% of participants felt that the meaning of the word “contaminant” was clear, but at the end of the survey that number significantly dropped to 59.5% (Z=-4.771, p<0.001).
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
SEMANTIC TASK
69
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
• In the very small water professional survey, we asked participants suggest alternative terms (real or novel); suggestions from PAC and participating utilities; and the team
• Final selection of 20 words – these were compared in word pairs
• 20 words = 190 word pairs• 7 point scale, very similar - not at all
similar• 10 comprehension questions• Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) 70
“stuff”
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.71
Contaminant map
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
How to pick the best word?
• Terminology guidance for water professionals (or, what you say is not what people hear…)
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
AMOUNTS
73
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
How understandable and helpful is this information?
1=not understandable/helpful at all; 10=very understandable/helpful
Risk expression Mode Mean
Median
Min Max
0.0003 milligrams per liter 7 5.96 6 1 100.3 micrograms per liter 8 6.36 7 1 100.3 parts per billion 8 6.07 6 1 10over 84 glasses 10 8.41 9 1 10over 5 gallons 10 8.19 9 1 10over 37 baby bottles 10 7.19 8 1 10over 1 gallon 10 7.71 8 1 10
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Preference: grams or glasses?
• Men rate milli/micrograms as more understandable than do women
• Those with a high factiness score preferred adult glasses/gallons and infant bottles/gallons more than those with a lower factiness score
milligrams micrograms ppb adult adult baby infant glasses gallons bottles gallons
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
If you had to choose only one…
76
…which one would you choose? n %
number of milligrams per liter 21 5.3
number of micrograms per liter 14 3.5
number of parts per billion 22 5.5
number of glasses for an adult 237 59.7
number of gallons for an adult 87 21.9
number of baby bottles for an infant 7 1.8
number of gallons for an infant 9 2.3
TRUE FOR EVERYONE!
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Semantic task: 30 amount words
• 74 participants (40 male, 34 female)
GenderAge
Mean Standard Deviation
Minimum Maximum
female 40.0 12.2male 42.6 14.3Total 39.6 13.4 21 75
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.78
minuscu
le
microsc
opic
trace
undete
ctable tin
y
negligi
bleminu
te
insign
ificant
irrelev
antsm
all low
margina
l
infinit
esimal
modest
stand
ard
averag
e
modera
tenor
mal
unmeas
urable
health
ysiz
able
substa
ntial
large big
exten
sive
profou
nd
catast
rophic vas
thug
e
massive
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Variable size
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Is big big enough?• a word that very clearly
means large and nothing more - huge
• a medium word - big, large, vast, extensive
• emphasis is much more on the effect than the size - massive, substantial, profound
79
Vaguehealthyinsignificantmarginalmicroscopicmodestsizableundetectablecatastrophicundetectableunmeasurableinfinitesimal
Words that do not fit
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Is small small enough?• minute, tiny, minuscule, irrelevant, trace -
these words means very small and the focus is on size, not effect. We recommend minute for CECs.
• The words low and small are actually the largest little words and therefore not good enough to use for very small amounts, so avoid these for CECs and for contaminants that are below the MCL threshold. Do note that sticking very or extremely in front of these words does not solve the problem.
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
RISK
81
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
• Word selection: synonym and antonym dictionaries; text analysis; suggestions from PAC and participating utilities
• Comparison in word pairs• 30 words = 435 word pairs• 7 point scale, very similar - not at all similar• Two versions
– first: randomized and counterbalanced– second: “mirror” survey
• 10 comprehension questions82
Semantic task: 30 risk words
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Positive vs negative words
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.84
*questionable*uncertain*unknown*dangerous*hazardous*riskyunwarrantedcomplexcomplicatedcriticalseriousprecautionaryunfounded
beneficialharmlesshealthynatural*safe*clearunderstandable*provenreasonableregulated*reliablestandardacceptableapproved*familiargoodsound
We get a 3D solution.
But the second and third dimensions have no good fits.
So the solution is in fact binary: negative versus positive.
The asterisk shows which words fit this binary model best.
precautionary does not fit at all!
Binary
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
READABILITY
85
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
EPA texts• We tested the readability of three EPA texts
—Text 1 reporting on atrazine in drinking water—Text 2 a press releases about health advisories—Text 3 reporting on cyanobacteria and
cyanotoxins• We conducted quantitative and qualitative
analysis on the three texts • All three texts exhibited conspicuously
complex language, with a direct impact on readability and understanding
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Quantitative assessment• Text 3 is exceptionally hard to digest or even incomprehensible to
many readersText1Atrazine
Text 2 Press release
Text 3Cyanotoxin
Gunning Fog Readability Scorescore of 12 = US high school senior;score of 8 is desirable
13.9 15.0 17.8
Flesch reading-ease test90-100 = 11 year old 38.4 24.6 2.8
Vocabulary complexity(AntWordProfiler)
Level 1 – high freq 71.0% 62.7% 57.4%
Level 2 – freq 6.3% 7.3% 3.2%
Level 3 – common 9.6% 9.4% 6.1%
Specialised 13.1% 20.6% 33.3%
Unidentified words (Wmatrix) 4.4% 4.3% 16.0%
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Qualitative assessment—Grammatically complex, “dense” language —Heavy use of jargon
• These linguistic features were linked to three tendencies:—A tendency to “pack in” lots of information into
the fewest number of words (typical for scientific writing intended for a specialist audience)
—A circular use of jargon heavy and/or grammatically complex language to disambiguate already obscure terms
—The use of complex language to avoid over-simplified or misleading risk assessments
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
BEFOREHealth advisories are not regulations, but provide technical guidance to help state and local officials and managers of water systems protect public health. They identify concentrations of contaminants above which adverse health effects are possible and provide testing methods and treatment techniques. The health advisory values for algal toxins recommend 0.3 micrograms per liter for microcystin and 0.7 micrograms per liter for microcystin and 0.7 micrograms per liter for cylindrospermopsin as levels not to be exceeded in drinking water for children younger than school age. AFTERHealth advisories are not regulations, but guidelines. State and local officials and managers of water systems use these guidelines to protect public health. In the guidelines, EPA scientists state the limit at which contaminants can become harmful and advise local water technicians about the best ways of testing for contaminants and treating water. In the guidelines, the EPA currently recommends limits of...
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Atrazine
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Recalculating readability Atrazine revised
Atrazine orig short
AtrazineEPA
Gunning Fog Readability Scorescore of 12 = US high school senior;score of 8 is desirable
12.54 14.53 13.9
Flesch reading-ease test90-100 = 11 year old 44.4 44.4 38.4
Vocabulary complexity(AntWordProfiler)
Level 1 – high freq 75.3% 65.1% 71.0%
Level 2 – freq 2.7% 7.0% 6.3%
Level 3 – common 4.1% 4.7% 9.6%
Specialised 17.8% 23.3% 13.1%
When making texts shorter, there is a real danger of making it denser and harder to understand.
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Guidance Documents
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Q&A
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Comments or questions, please contact:[email protected]@kcl.ac.uk
For more information visit:www.waterrf.org
Thank you