prepared by
Gabriella Rundblad, Chris Tang
Water Research Foundation project #4323
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
1
Man-Made Chemicals May Put Strain on Fish
The Potomac River contains an array of man-made
chemicals that could play havoc with animals' hormone
systems, federal scientists have found in their best
glimpse yet of the river's problems with a mysterious
new class of pollutant.
The research, unveiled at a conference last week,
found more than 10 of the compounds, including
pesticides, herbicides and artificial fragrances. Through
an accident of chemistry, formulas designed to kill bugs
or add smell to soap might also interfere with vital
signals in fish, amphibians and other creatures.
Washington Post, March 2008
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
2
 Endocrine
Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) and
Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs)
in the water supply
 Minute amounts (Snyder et al., 2008); no significant
risk as far as we know at the moment, but there is
some lack of scientific consensus which has been
picked up by media
 First main media event – Associated Press (AP)
report in 2008
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
3
 Risk
communication studies analysing media
content indicate a tendency to amplify the risk
posed by a particular threat (Combs and Slovic
1978; Mazur 1990; McCabe and Fitzgerald 1991)
 Journalists tend to exploit scientific uncertainty
by making it the focus of controversy (Rödder and
Schäfer, 2010) or avoid properly representing it
(Olausson, 2009)
 Science is simplified: lacking an examination of
cause and effect (Wahlberg & Sjoberg, 2000) or a
lack of specificity in terms of health outcomes and
health advice (Brittles & Zint, 2003
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
4

As the water industry needs to create a dialogue with the public about EDCs and
PPCPs, a firm understanding of consumers’ conceptualisations of safe drinking
water and contaminants is imperative.

The objectives of this project were to assess consumer conceptualisations and
understandings of water contaminants, especially EDCs and PPCPs, contaminant
detection processes, treatment options and the role of regulation. We
particularly focused on factors that influence consumer beliefs; such as
belonging to a vulnerable population, preferences and trust in information
sources, the aesthetic features of drinking water and willingness to pay for
additional treatment.

Additionally, this project explored how EDCs and PPCPs are reported in the
media and outreach material. We investigated the implicit and explicit messages
carried in these information sources, characteristic words and phrases strongly
linked to negative and positive beliefs, and the intensity of media coverage. We
aimed to measure the effect of these messages on consumer perceptions and
attitudes.

The project drew comparisons between the UK and the US; this presentation will
focus on the results and implications for the US unless otherwise specified.
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
5

Project components:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
A comprehensive literature review on risk
communication and perceptions of water
contaminants (not included in this PPT)
Detailed qualitative and quantitative
analysis of media and outreach reports
communicating about EDCs and PPCPs
11 expert and consumer focus groups in the
UK and the US
Perceptions survey distributed by post in
the UK and online in the US
Language survey that qualitatively
examined consumer conceptualisations of
key terms and the science and regulation
of contaminants
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
6
 To
validate our results and conclusions from:
 literature review
 The
media and outreach corpus (UK and US) is
composed of:
 384 media articles (274, 876 words)
 116 outreach texts (69,025 words)
 The
US sub corpus is composed of:
 349 media articles (255, 865 words)
 86 outreach texts (47,950 words)
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
7
 Far
fewer
articles were
found in the
UK with a
relatively
stable trend
 Reporting on
EDC and PPCP
contamination
is increasing
in the US
 Spike:

AP story (US)
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
8
The terms used in media and outreach texts can
be grouped in four categories:
Contaminants Terms referring to EDCs/PPCPs in the water.
Water types
and
contamination
channels
Authorities
Terms relating to the type of water source that is
contaminated and how contaminants are getting into
the water.
Threats
Terms that refer to the risks posed by contaminants.
Terms relating to organisations and research that are
often credited with a position, attitude or an action in
relation to the threat posed by contaminants.
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
9

Many different agents (=people) feature in media and outreach texts. The
three most prominent are: Researchers, Water Industry and Government

When an author wants the reader to be aware of an agent, there are two
techniques:
 explicit reference and implied reference; implied means that there is no
word in the text, but the context or knowledge about the topic makes it
possible for the reader to know/guess who is the agent

There are two types of explicit reference:
 generic and specific references
Category
Generic
Specific
Researchers
studies, scientists, researchers
Theo Colburn, researchers from
Cardiff University
Water
Industry
water utilities, wastewater
treatment plants
the Environmental Protection
Agency, Arizona American Water
Government
congressional committees,
politicians
the Environment Agency, the White
House
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
10
ANIMALS
EDCs and PPCPs
*an example to illustrate the three levels with normal words
*usage in the media and outreach corpus
Level 1: animals, mammals, reptiles
Level 1: EDCs, PPCPs, hormones,
drugs, pharmaceuticals, contaminants
Level 2: dogs, cats, snakes, lizards
butterflies, birds
Level 2: pesticides, antibiotics, heart
medicine, pills
Level 3: terrier, German Shepherd,
poodle, boxer
Level 3: BPA, atrazine, triclosan,
caffeine, ibuprofen

Level 1 are very vague and thus tend to be the most prominent in both media and
outreach texts; however, outreach favours EDCs, CECs, PPCPs (either abbreviated or
spelt out), while media prefers chemicals, compounds, contaminants, drugs,
hormones

Media also uses lots of Level 2 (= “basic level terms” – kids learn Level 2 terms first
and then add Levels 1 and 3) and Level 3 (= very specific terms) as well – outreach
seldom use Levels 2 and 3 (with the exception of atrazine in the US)
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
11

DISCOVER actions utilise words like detect, find, discover
Media
 85% of agents are generic – 70% are Researchers, e.g. Researchers
detected contaminants
 The agent is often missing from the text, e.g. Contaminants were detected
Outreach
 Water Industry is the most common agent
 However, both Water Industry and Researchers are even more
concealed/absent from the outreach text compared to media texts
Therefore:
 There is a preference for highlighting what is discovered and concealing
who is doing the discovering
 The role of the water utility in detecting contaminants is largely hidden in
both media and outreach texts
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
12
DRINKING WATER
drinking water
tap water
our water
water systems
city’s water
nation’s water

OTHER WATER TYPES
environment
streams
rivers
waterways
Potomac
groundwater
lakes
river
reservoirs
surface (water)
tributaries
As the darkest shading shows, media predominantly uses drinking
water when describing where contaminants are found; water
supply, river(s), streams and (the) environment are also used
prominently
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
13


Main contamination channel reported in the media and
outreach is through drains and sewers
CONTAMINATE actions involve references like deposit,
excrete, contaminate, flush, but also the more vague
expressions are present and contain, e.g.
Cosmetics and medicines flushed down drains are polluting
Britain's drinking water.

It is rarely clear who is responsible for the presence of
contaminants – we have an unknown agent – true for
both media and outreach; in some cases, the reader can
infer from the context that the agent is Industry or
General Public, but in many cases there are no clues
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
14
Typical adjectives
trace
low
minute
tiny
small
diluted
minuscule


Quantity words
concentrations
levels
amounts
traces
doses
Adjectives and quantity
words are typically used in
combination, e.g.:
low concentrations, low
levels, trace amounts, minute
doses
In the media, low levels are often not presented as an attenuating factor,
e.g. The chemicals were found at very low levels, but some scientists
worry that even in tiny amounts, they could mess with the sensitive
reproductive systems of animals that already have plenty of challenges.
In outreach, there is a tendency to add uptoners like very >>> very low
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
15
 Scientific
health:


uncertainty about the risk to human
Media: don’t know, do not yet understand, are worried,
have concerns
Outreach: no evidence, does not demonstrate
 Displacing

of risk claims
Media:
concentrations for now are low. Still, tiny doses can add up
after years and years of exposure

Outreach:
Several compounds were found in trace amounts, but are
not considered to have any short-term health effects.
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
16

To validate our results and conclusions from:
literature review
 text analysis


7 Focus groups were run in the US



4 with consumers in the US (DC, Maryland, Portland, Philadelphia)
3 with professionals from water utilities, regulators and health
organisations
There were also 4 groups in the UK (2 with consumers and 2 with
professionals)

Media handout: Archetypal media article developed from the media
analysis was used as a prompt

Protocol was adapted for the professionals who were also asked
about what they thought about consumer perceptions and
awareness
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
17
Information
channels
Perceptions of
water safety
Level of
awareness
What should be
done

Information channels drove perceptions and awareness
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
18
 Consumer
awareness of contaminants was primarily
linked to media reports, with most consumers
having read or seen reports
 Most consumers did not express an immediate
concern about reports, but suggested they might
affect their choices in the long run:
...it wouldn’t be a serious factor, but I would keep
it in my head.
 Only a minority of consumers said they felt media
reports would have no effect on their perceptions
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
19

The media handout drew a similar reaction from the
different consumer groups. They focused on two aspects
that would lead them to seek out more information:

A lack of credibility



The article was perceived as deliberately sensationalist – this was
associated with a general trend for scaremongering in the media
with some allusions to the stylistics of tabloids
There was also a perceived lack of information – consumers were
frustrated at the lack of a clear context
The potential of particular features to cause worry


Similar terms were identified as worrying:
Cancer, cocaine, compounds, depression, epilepsy, toxic , poison
Endocrine disruptor - an unknown term for most - also caused
worry
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
20

The credibility of water utilities depended on whether
consumers perceived them as a public utility or in a
corporate frame:
There is greater trust when water utilities are identified as a
public utility: they have a public duty or there is no choice
but to trust them
 As a corporate entity they are seen as self-serving and profit
hungry: They’re going to have a story aren’t they?


Consumers said they were most likely to trust an
independent authority


Organisations connected with the environment instilled
greater trust, i.e. the EPA and Department of the
Environment.
In general, there was a distrust of the government and the
FDA in particular.
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
21
First reactions when asked about contaminants in drinking/
source water:



Positive conceptions:





Naturally occurring contaminants are safe
Some badness is good
Negative conceptions:


harmful
bacteria/germs
Contaminants are unnatural (pollutants)
Negative conceptions were associated with negative aesthetics
(e.g. cloudy, smelly water)
Mixed perceptions about the length of time that
contaminants had been in the water supply
Most consumers saw the removal of all contaminants as a
preference, but acknowledged that it might not be possible
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
22
 Most
consumers had heard of contaminants (though
not the terms EDC or PPCP)
 EDCs and PPCPs were seen as new contaminants
 Consumers were divided about whether they
presented a threat



Some were concerned about their potential harmfulness
in the long term, with effects on wildlife perceived as “a
canary in the coalmine”
Others thought there was a lack of evidence
Consumers were generally undecided about whether the
occurrence of contaminants at low levels was an
attenuating factor
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
23
 Consumers
typically felt that something should be
done about contaminants
 Preventative measures, such as raising awareness
and drug recycling, were the most popular
 Consumers were driven by a sense of social
responsibility about the environmental impact of
contaminants
 Most Consumers were unwilling to pay higher rates
for more expensive treatment without more
research
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
24
Consumers lack
professional
insights
Tap water as a
consumer issue
Media impact
Responding to
contaminants

The industry’s response to contaminants was shaped by
perceptions of tap water as a consumer issue and the
impact of media reports as well as the perception that
consumers lack professional insights
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
25
 Professionals
felt that tap water was typically a
non-issue for consumers but speculated that the
level of consumer concern about tap water was
region dependent
 Media attention was typically seen to be negative,
but not always – e.g. bad press for bottled water
was seen as good press for the water industry; but
generally seen to amplify consumer concerns
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
26

Professionals viewed consumers to lack technical and industry specific
knowledge, including:
 Difficulties understanding the impossibility of zero risk and zero
contamination
 Difficulties understanding scientific information
 A lack of awareness about the routine functions of water utilities

Particular groups of consumers identified as more likely to worry than
others:
 Vulnerable groups (embryos/babies and patients were mentioned –
NO mention of pregnant women)
 Pregnant women and educated consumers who had an axe to grind

These deficiencies were seen to complicate efforts to communicate
about contaminants
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
27
Professionals typically did not see the media as a
credible source of information, criticising the media
handout along similar lines to consumers
(sensationalist/lacks information)
 Professionals expressed a range of beliefs about the
capacity of media reports to impact on consumer
perception and worry:

Professionals highlighted a similar range of features in media
reports as potentially worrying to those pointed out by the
consumer groups
 The media impact was not seen to be immediate – with no
reported increase in calls following the publication of a
report; also, some professionals did not think reports had
much of an impact.

Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
28
 Professionals
were divided between advocating
transparency and adopting a more controlled
approach to communication


Advocates of caution appeared to be driven by a
perception that the water industry might be a less
credible source
There were also calls for greater synergy with health
organisations
 There
appeared to be a conflict between wanting
to reassure and a fear that communicating will do
more harm than good.

This was largely driven by a perception of the consumer
as lacking professional insights
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
29
Two views of what consumers want:
Professionals
 A lack of expert knowledge makes the consumer more
vulnerable to incomprehension, misinterpretation and
unnecessary worry. The dominant view amongst professionals
was that most consumers want reassurance more than
information, and that providing technical details might either
unintentionally cause concern or be ambiguous.
Consumers
 Consumers want information centered around being able to
determine whether contaminants are safe, but only when this
is given within a context that explains what safety is. They
were also receptive to important technical details, even if
they are difficult to understand, but not technical language.
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
30


To validate the results from:

literature review

text analysis

focus groups
UK – postal distribution


2,000 randomly selected residential addresses
US – online distribution

Facebook, twitter, blogs, LinkedIn, email lists of community organisations, &
utility websites

Survey webpage received a total of 714 visitors

Demographics: age, gender, ethnicity, occupation/ home ownership/socio-economic
status

Three vulnerable groups:

households with under 17s

pregnant women/women with infants

people with long-term illnesses/disabilities
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
31
 UK:
326 completed postal surveys (16.3% of 2000)
 US: 207 completed online surveys (29.0% of 714)
 Representative when compared to censuses, but
with some biases typical for surveys.
Vulnerable groups (US)
A member of the household
was 17 or younger
Respondent was (recently)
pregnant
Respondent was disabled/
suffered from long-term illness
n /N
51 /207
%
24.6
13 /207
6.3
13 /207
6.3
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
32
Do you ever worry about
the quality of your tap
water
Never
Hardly ever
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
(N=184)
n
%
23
37
44
62
18
12.5
20.1
23.9
33.7
9.8
Most consumers sometimes worry about their tap water
quality
 Females are more likely to worry
 People who own their homes worry less – in this
context, homeownership is quite likely to be an
indication of higher socio-economic status

Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
33
Have you read/seen media reports about
contaminants in water and their potential
effects?
Yes
Maybe
No
UK (N=300)
n
%
136
63
101
45.3
21.0
33.7
US (N=184)
n
%
126
34
24
68.5
18.5
13.0
 Most
US consumers had read/seen media
reports
 UK consumers were almost equally likely not to
have seen reports as having seen them
 US
consumers were more likely (p<0.001) to
have seen reports compared to UK consumers
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
34
Have you heard these
compounds mentioned by
the media as occurring in…?
Lead
Oestrogen
Germs
Contraceptive pill
Antibiotics
Pharmaceuticals
Personal care products
Battery acid
Endocrine disruptors
Other
Atrazine


Tap water
(N=143)
n
87
24
57
31
44
52
33
4
28
13
15
%
60.8
16.8
39.9
21.7
30.8
36.4
23.1
2.8
19.6
9.1
10.5
Rivers, lakes and
streams (N=143)
n
62
44
87
62
82
93
90
50
48
11
22
%
43.4
30.8
60.8
43.4
57.3
65.0
62.9
35.0
33.6
7.7
15.4
Plastics and
Packaging
(N=75)
n
%
23
16.1
15
10.5
17
11.9
4
2.8
5
3.5
15
10.5
18
12.6
6
4.2
50
35.0
11
7.7
2
1.4
Consumers see lead as the primary tap water contaminant in media
In other water types, germs, antibiotics, pharmaceuticals and personal care products
feature prominently as contaminants in rivers, lakes and streams
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
35
 We
queried worries about exposure to contaminants
in 1) tap water and 2) river water, and worries
about effects on 3) human and 4) wildlife health

Factor analysis, however, yielded one worry factor for
all four
 Those
that had read/seen media reports were more
likely to worry, as were females and participants
with disability/ illness
 Home owners (high SES) were less likely to worry
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
36
In your mind, what are the levels of
contaminants in the water supply?
Very large
Quite large
Quite small
Very small
None

(N=163)
N
3
23
75
61
1
%
0.6
37.4
46.0
14.1
1.8
Factors that influence whether consumers think that tap water containing contaminants are safe
to drink include:
 US consumers were more likely to say yes
 younger consumers were more likely to say yes
 home owners were more likely to say yes
 consumers who had read/seen media were more likely to say yes
 (recently) pregnant consumers were LESS likely to say yes
Can tap water that
contains contaminants
still be safe to drink?
No
Don’t know
Yes
(N=163)
%
%
20
40
103
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
12.3%
24.5%
63.2%
37
US consumers were more likely to seek information than
UK consumers
 Home owners were more likely to seek information
 Those who reported being worried about the quality of
their tap water were also more likely to seek
information
 We did not find that consumers with an
illness/disability or female consumers were more
likely to seek information despite them reporting
higher levels of concern; in fact, the likelihood of
male consumers seeking out information (despite
reporting lower levels of worry) was approaching
significance.

Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
38
Have you ever looked for
information about the quality
of your tap water? If yes,
please specify source

(N=106)
Primary
source
Total source
users
Water utility
Internet search
Family/neighbours
National newspapers
Local newspapers
Local council/City council
GP/nurse/health org.
n
42
18
12
2
4
8
4
%
39.6
17.0
11.3
1.9
3.8
7.5
3.8
n
74
55
29
20
34
40
15
%
69.8
51.9
27.4
18.9
32.1
37.7
14.2
Other
9
8.5
14
13.2
Water utilities and the internet were the most popular
sources of information about tap water quality
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
39
If you do worry about your tap
water, have your worries changed
your drinking water habits?
Not at all
Filter tap water
Drink tap water less often
Drink smaller amount than
before
No longer drink it
In another way
Boil and chill tap water

(N=120)
n
79
52
15
%
65.8
43.3
12.5
11
8
6
4
9.2
6.7
5.0
3.3
Female consumers and consumers in paid employment
(higher SES) were more likely to have changed their
drinking water habits
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
40
Do you think enough contaminants
are removed?
n
%
No
35
21.5%
Don’t know
71
43.6%
Yes
57
35.0%



(N=163)
US consumers were more likely to state
that enough contaminants are currently
removed than UK consumers
Female consumers were however less
likely to agree
Almost 95% of consumers felt that
removing contaminants will improve the
quality of their tap water by making it
safer to drink
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
41
Please state one contaminant that you
think is important to remove
Lead
Germs
Pharmaceuticals (in general)
Battery fluid/acid
Antibiotics
Oestrogen
Limescale
Contraceptive pill
Personal care product
Metals
Endocrine disrupting compound
Atrazine
Pesticides (in general)
Hormones
Other
Irrelevant answers

(N=92)
n
39
13
11
3
3
1
2
4
4
1
7
4
%
42.4
14.1
12.0
3.3
3.3
1.1
2.2
4.3
4.3
1.1
7.6
4.3
Consumers mentioned a wide variety of non EDC/PPCP contaminants
with lead at the top; pharmaceuticals is the highest ranked EDC/PPCP
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
42
Who should be the
most responsible
for paying the extra
cost
Water utilities
Pharmaceutical
manufacturers
The government
Farms and
agriculture
Water consumers
Other

(N=154)
Primary
responsible
Total
party
selections
n
%
n
%
20
13.0
125
81.2
69
18
44.8
11.7
140
124
90.9
80.5
14
15
3
9.1
9.7
1.9
119
114
12
77.3
74.0
7.8
The strongest feeling was that costs should be borne primarily
by pharmaceutical manufacturers
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
43
Would you be willing to finance
measures?
No
Yes, but only if future research suggests
it is necessary
Yes
(N=159)
n
%
15
9.4
92 57.9
52
32.7
 US
consumers are more willing to contribute
financially to the removal of contaminants than
consumers in the UK
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
44
 To
validate the results
from:

literature review

text analysis

focus groups

perceptions survey

Free Word Association (FWA)
state the first two words that
come to mind when presented
with a stimulus word
 cannot know that the study is
water related


Online survey
a short demographic section
 a FWA test
 three short ranking questions
that probed negative
associations with prominent
terms that are associated with
contaminant risks

Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
45
UK (N=50)
under 20
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60 and over


n
2
28
7
9
4
0
US (N=50)
%
4.0
56.0
14.0
18.0
8.0
0.0
n
8
21
6
7
1
7
%
16.0
42.0
12.0
14.0
2.0
14.0
The link to the survey received 813 visits in total, of which 392
submitted a fully completed survey, yielding a completion rate of
48.2%
As we received far more responses than needed for qualitative
analysis, a sample of 50 responses was randomly selected for each
country
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
46
Stimulus word
chlorine
Previous component
focus groups, perceptions survey
boiling
focus groups, perceptions survey
exposure
text analysis
clean
text analysis, focus groups
unknown
focus groups
miniscule
text analysis
low levels
text analysis
chemicals
text analysis
external use only
literature review
safe
text analysis, focus groups
risk
text analysis
regulations
focus groups, perceptions survey
bacteria
text analysis, focus groups
negligible
focus groups
ingest
literature review, text analysis
research
text analysis, focus groups
oestrogen/estrogen
text analysis, perceptions survey
benign
literature review
water
focus groups, perceptions survey
treated
text analysis
cloudy
focus groups
endocrine disruptor
focus groups
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.


The stimulus words
for the survey
were selected
based on previous
project
components
So participants
would give
responses that
were not
prejudiced by the
context of water
contaminants, we
also included filler
words (carpet,
green, hairy, etc.)
47
 We
created diagrams to represent the most
common associations for each word.
 Each diagram shows:


The strength of association – indicated by the degree of
shading
The associations between different responses – indicated
by how closely they are positioned in each diagram
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
48
 The
contaminant terms included in the survey
tended to draw very negative associations - unless
they were naturally-occurring


oestrogen/estrogen
endocrine disruptor
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
49

As a naturally occurring phenomenon, oestrogen/estrogen did not
draw any negative associations
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
50

Endocrine disruptor drew strong negative associations
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
51
 The
term exposure (along with expose, exposed)
was a very prominent term in both media and
outreach reports used to refer to the potential for
exposure e.g. long-term exposure to
environmentally relevant doses
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
52

We see either negative associations (radiation, risk, vulnerable) or associations that
are completely unrelated to water contaminants (sun, photo)
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
53
 Low
levels was the most prominent way of referring
to quantities of contaminants
 Professionals suggested negligible as an alternative
term
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
54

The associations for low levels were either negative or unrelated
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
55

Clear relationship between negligible and amount, but also a
negative association with negligence (lawsuit, irresponsible)
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
56
 We
tested consumer associations with regulations
 We also looked at which terms associated with the
science and regulation of contaminants were most
worrying for consumers, using a ranking task
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
57
Has associations with safety and rules; these may be linked:

The existence of rules presupposes the existence of knowledge about
whether a threat is safe or not, i.e. regulations provide reassurance
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
58
Which of the following terms would
concern you the most?
No regulations
Long term exposure
Disaster management
Mixtures of contaminants
Lack of evidence
Scientists disagree
Naturally occurring contaminants
Negligible risk
New measuring technologies
New treatment technologies

Most worrying
n
%
19
38.0
11
22.0
8
16.0
2
4.0
2
4.0
0
0.0
1
2.0
1
2.0
1
2.0
0
0.0
Total worried
participants
n
%
39
78.0
41
82.0
27
54.0
41
82.0
25
50.0
21
42.0
9
18.0
13
26.0
7
14.0
4
8.0
The expression no regulations was the most worrisome, with
long term exposure a close second
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
59



Tap water is typically perceived as a public good and its safety is,
on the one hand, taken for granted, but, on the other, also strongly
linked to (assumed) regulations
Contaminants are far more negatively than positively perceived
Media reports:
Present limited information about causes and solutions
 Emphasise the potential risk to humans
 Suppress the role of water utilities
 Contain worrying terms referring to contaminants and their potential
effects




Potential of reports to amplify risk perceptions may be tempered
by a healthy scepticism of the media
The representation of scientific disagreement and the exploitation
of the authority of science in media texts seemed to cause as much
frustration as worry
Strong discrepancy between terms used by media vs. those used by
utility outreach, which inhibits effective consumer communication
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
60

There is uncertainty about whether enough contaminants are removed, and female
consumers are particularly sceptical

Tendency is for consumers to sometimes worry about their tap water – especially females
worry; similarly, females and consumers with a disability/illness worry significantly about
the presence of contaminants in the water supply

Worry about tap water has caused changes in behaviour, significantly so in women

Media reports have an impact on worry but not on risk perception

Internet and water utilities are the most important sources of information about
contaminants

Those with an illness/disability and women are not more likely to seek information
despite being more worried

Consumers associate regulations with safety and peace of mind, which is very different
from how they are perceived within the industry; lack of regulations is the most worrying
factor for consumers

Current language used to refer to the amounts of contaminants is typically
misinterpreted; many words and phrases have extremely negative associations
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
61

The websites of water utilities and other organisations in the industry have proved to be an
important means of reaching out to consumers about contaminants; however, the
terminology differs from media and thus consumers using search engines may not find the
industry web pages they need to find. 1) Need better indexing on water websites and 2)
need to use the same words as media to ensure a google search goes to a water website.

Communication needs to be easily accessible and identifiable as a response to (media)
reports; we suggest a “neutral” site dedicated to responding to conflicting or confusing
information that would be best located at a national level; the site should adopt a neutral
tone, a non-confrontational approach – this will provide a clear context on which consumers
can base their own judgements. 1) Determine location, 2) agree format, 3) set up, 4) get
(psycho)linguistic staff

The type of words and phrases used in communication needs to be carefully tailored to the
consumer conceptualisations so that they do not cause undue worry; avoid no regulations,
low levels, exposure, contaminants and endocrine disruptor as these will generate negative
associations even if the message is positive. 1) use positive/neutral terms, 2) need another
language survey to test e.g. insignificant, constituents (see next two slides for examples)

Extra efforts should be made to encourage information uptake by those most likely to worry,
particularly groups that worry but are less likely to seek information (i.e. those with an
illness/disability and females). 1) need focus groups to determine how to reach these groups

Assess what consumers actually understand by regulations; what is it that they need?
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
62
BIASED
 Reassuringly, the report
does say that one option
is for mothers to do
nothing and acknowledges
that it may be difficult to
avoid certain exposures.
 Allegedly, no official
advice or guidelines exist
that inform women who
are pregnant or
breastfeeding of the
potential risks that some
chemical exposures could
pose for their babies.
NEUTRAL
 In contrast, the report does
say that one option is for
mothers to do nothing and
acknowledges that it may be
difficult to avoid certain
exposures.
 According to the report, no
official advice or guidelines
exist that inform women
who are pregnant or
breastfeeding of the
potential risks that some
chemical exposures could
pose for their babies.
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
63
AVOID:
CONSIDER INSTEAD :

We are all exposed to low
levels of these
contaminants every day.

As part of our daily lives,
we ingest, breathe and
touch insignificant
amounts of these
constituents

the water is regularly
tested

highly qualified
technicians regularly test
the water on behalf of
the water utility
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
64

Differences between consumer and professional perceptions
and levels of awareness about risk management and science
need to be addressed, particularly in terms of:
Awareness of the links between source water and tap water
 Awareness of how contaminants enter the water supply and the
implications for implementing measures
 Awareness of what water utilities routinely do to ensure tap
water is safe to drink
 Perceptions of risk and risk assessment
While differences in awareness can be addressed in communication
about contaminants, differences in perception need to be
acknowledged in the short term but require long-term educational
recommendations. Key educational issues include:




The role of uncertainty in risk assessment
How risk assessment relates to regulations
Based on Rundblad et al . 2014. Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking Water.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
65