Public Notification: Pain or Panacea

Bruvold, William H.; Gaston, John M.

doi:10.1002/j.1551-8833.1980.tb04482.x

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 3 publications

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first-stage sample unit was the water system. The sampled population of 178 systems was determined through the system survey previously reported and involved those systems that had been identified by 14 states selected by the USEPA as having gone to public notification, The water systems were divided into six strata by size (3) and type of violation (2). The two types of violations were bacteriological and turbidity.…”

Section: Methods and Prcmduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Customer awareness of public notification

Stegman¹,

Schneider²

1982

Journal AWWA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A two‐stage telephone survey was conducted to question 1400 customers of 28 water systems about their recollections of public notification of water quality standards violations. Overall, an estimated 40.6 percent of the customers remembered some type of notification. However, only 20 percent were willing to spend money to improve water quality, mostly because many were already satisfied with their water.

show abstract

Section: Methods and Prcmduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Customer awareness of public notification

Stegman¹,

Schneider²

1982

Journal AWWA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Researchers studying consumers' knowledge of receipt of public notification 20 report that 47 percent of respondents recalled receiving the notice, 44 percent said that they did not receive the notice, and 9 percent did not remember whether they had received it. A 1982 study investigated consumers' awareness of public notification and the effect of that notification on their willingness to accommodate additional expenditures by their water systems 21 .…”

Section: Public Notification Takes Different Forms Varies In Effectimentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumer response to public notification

Harding¹,

Anadu²

2000

Journal AWWA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A recent study offers utilities information that may help increase the effectiveness of their public notification programs. Residents of four Oregon communities were surveyed about their responses to public notification. In the two towns that had issued public notification in response to a water problem, most residents were aware of the notices and responded by boiling their water, drinking bottled water, or both. Residents in the town with a short‐term water problem were more likely than residents in the town with a long‐term problem to boil water. Most respondents in both towns favored drinking bottled water over boiling water, despite a boil‐water notice. The survey found that residents of these towns as well as those in two control communities considered the newspaper the primary source of information about their drinking water. The sources of information regarded as most reliable, however, were mail from the city water utility, followed by the county health department and newspapers. Most respondents reported they were willing to pay for drinking water improvements, particularly to correct chemical and microbiological contamination.

show abstract

“…Six empirical studies reported evaluations of the consumer notification provisions of the SDWA, and these are noted in chronological order. Bruvold and Gaston (1980) conducted surveys in eight Southern California communities. Fifty respondents were selected from each community by methods designed to give every adult member of the community an equal chance to participate in the survey.…”

Section: Evaluation Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reaching the Audience Bruvold and Gaston (1980) report that 47 percent of respondents were certain that they had received the notice sent by the water utility. Another 9 percent were uncertain if they had received it.…”

Section: Evaluation Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

EVALUATION OF CONSUMER NOTIFICATION UNDER THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT¹

Wardlaw¹,

Bruvold

1989

J American Water Resour Assoc

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 as amended in 1986 requires that consumers be notified when maximum contaminant levels are exceeded in their community water supply and when presci-ibed testing and treatment procedures are not met. A review of communication theory indicates that for the message to be effective (1) it must be received by the intended audience, (2) it must be attended to by that audience, (3) it must be understood, and (4) it must be accepted and acted upon. A review and analysis of existing research evaluating notification programs administered under the Safe Drinking Water Act indicates (1) that receipt rates have been highly variable, (2) that attention to the message has usually not been directly assessed, (3) that levels of understanding, while variable, have usually been minimal, and (4) that acceptance, though not often directly measured, seemed higher than expected. These results, while critical of past notification programs, indicate that understanding and

show abstract

Public Notification: Pain or Panacea

Cited by 6 publications

References 3 publications

Customer awareness of public notification

Customer awareness of public notification

Consumer response to public notification

EVALUATION OF CONSUMER NOTIFICATION UNDER THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT¹

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Public Notification: Pain or Panacea

Cited by 6 publications

References 3 publications

Customer awareness of public notification

Customer awareness of public notification

Consumer response to public notification

EVALUATION OF CONSUMER NOTIFICATION UNDER THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

EVALUATION OF CONSUMER NOTIFICATION UNDER THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT¹