2017
DOI: 10.1080/07900627.2017.1347085
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluating media framing and public reactions in the context of a water reuse proposal

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
18
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
0
18
1
Order By: Relevance
“…When blackwater is reused, it is typically not treated to potable water standards due to the belief that the public are not supportive of its direct reuse. However, recent studies contradict these assumptions and have demonstrated increasing acceptance (Smith et al 2015;Goodwin et al 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When blackwater is reused, it is typically not treated to potable water standards due to the belief that the public are not supportive of its direct reuse. However, recent studies contradict these assumptions and have demonstrated increasing acceptance (Smith et al 2015;Goodwin et al 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The importance of the media and of communication regarding potable reused water has been discussed earlier, as well as the responses of populations to media messages [9][10][11][12][13][14]63,[114][115][116][117], and societal views on alternative sources of water [12,[117][118][119][120][121]. Here we discuss the views of the media, policymakers and water utility managers on the technology to produce potable reused water.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite the explicit benefits of reusing treated wastewater, several projects faced public resistance irrespective of the intended use (Hartley 2006;Dolnicar et al 2011;Molle et al 2012). This resistance is attributable to various sociocultural factors, including but not limited to trust in authorities, availability of fresh water, availability of information, risk perception, and religious prohibition (Saldas et al 2016;Goodwin et al 2017;Fielding et al 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%