IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i20p10615-d653207.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to Address Consumers’ Concerns and Information Needs about Emerging Chemical and Microbial Contaminants in Drinking Water; The Case of GenX in The Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Liesbeth Claassen

    (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands)

  • Julia Hartmann

    (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands
    Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box 5048, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Susanne Wuijts

    (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands
    Utrecht Centre for Water, Oceans and Sustainability Law, Utrecht University, Newtonlaan 231, 3584 BH Utrecht, The Netherlands)

Abstract

The perceived safety of tap water is an important condition for consumers to drink it. Therefore, addressing consumers’ concerns should be included in the roadmap towards the UN SDG 6 on safe drinking water for all. This paper studies consumers’ information needs regarding emerging contaminants in drinking water using a mental model approach for the development of targeted risk communication. As most consumers expect safe drinking water, free of contamination, communication on emerging contaminants may increase concerns. Here, we showed that communication strategies better tailored to consumers’ information needs result in smaller increases in risk perception compared with existing strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Liesbeth Claassen & Julia Hartmann & Susanne Wuijts, 2021. "How to Address Consumers’ Concerns and Information Needs about Emerging Chemical and Microbial Contaminants in Drinking Water; The Case of GenX in The Netherlands," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-17, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:20:p:10615-:d:653207
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/20/10615/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/20/10615/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nick Boase & Mathew White & William Gaze & Clare Redshaw, 2017. "Evaluating the Mental Models Approach to Developing a Risk Communication: A Scoping Review of the Evidence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2132-2149, November.
    2. Nancy Kraus & Torbjörn Malmfors & Paul Slovic, 1992. "Intuitive Toxicology: Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 215-232, June.
    3. Donald G. MacGregor & Paul Slovic & Torbjorn Malmfors, 1999. "“How Exposed Is Exposed Enough?” Lay Inferences About Chemical Exposure," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 649-659, August.
    4. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    5. Ari Kauppinen & Tarja Pitkänen & Haider Al-Hello & Leena Maunula & Anna-Maria Hokajärvi & Ruska Rimhanen-Finne & Ilkka T. Miettinen, 2019. "Two Drinking Water Outbreaks Caused by Wastewater Intrusion Including Sapovirus in Finland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-14, November.
    6. Dirk Scheer & Christina Benighaus & Ludger Benighaus & Ortwin Renn & Stefan Gold & Bettina Röder & Gaby‐Fleur Böl, 2014. "The Distinction Between Risk and Hazard: Understanding and Use in Stakeholder Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1270-1285, July.
    7. Susanne Wuijts & Peter P. J. Driessen & Helena F. M. W. Rijswick, 2018. "Governance Conditions for Improving Quality Drinking Water Resources: the Need for Enhancing Connectivity," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 32(4), pages 1245-1260, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rita Saleh & Angela Bearth & Michael Siegrist, 2019. "“Chemophobia” Today: Consumers’ Knowledge and Perceptions of Chemicals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2668-2682, December.
    2. Branden B. Johnson & Adam M. Finkel, 2016. "Public Perceptions of Regulatory Costs, Their Uncertainty and Interindividual Distribution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1148-1170, June.
    3. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    4. Kathleen L. Purvis‐Roberts & Cynthia A. Werner & Irene Frank, 2007. "Perceived Risks from Radiation and Nuclear Testing Near Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan: A Comparison Between Physicians, Scientists, and the Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 291-302, April.
    5. Branden B. Johnson, 2008. "Public Views on Drinking Water Standards as Risk Indicators," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1515-1530, December.
    6. Bryan Caplan & Edward Stringham, 2005. "Mises, bastiat, public opinion, and public choice," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 79-105.
    7. Angela Bearth & Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2016. "“The Dose Makes the Poison”: Informing Consumers About the Scientific Risk Assessment of Food Additives," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 130-144, January.
    8. Donald G. MacGregor & Paul Slovic & Torbjorn Malmfors, 1999. "“How Exposed Is Exposed Enough?” Lay Inferences About Chemical Exposure," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 649-659, August.
    9. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    10. Ronald L. Schumann & Kevin D. Ash & Gregg C. Bowser, 2018. "Tornado Warning Perception and Response: Integrating the Roles of Visual Design, Demographics, and Hazard Experience," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 311-332, February.
    11. Branden B. Johnson & Paul Slovic, 1994. "“Improving” Risk Communication and Risk Management: Legislated Solutions or Legislated Disasters?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 905-906, December.
    12. Andy S. L. Tan & Susan Mello & Ashley Sanders‐Jackson & Cabral A. Bigman, 2017. "Knowledge about Chemicals in e‐Cigarette Secondhand Vapor and Perceived Harms of Exposure among a National Sample of U.S. Adults," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(6), pages 1170-1180, June.
    13. Morioka, Rika, 2014. "Gender difference in the health risk perception of radiation from Fukushima in Japan: The role of hegemonic masculinity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 105-112.
    14. Angela Bearth & Gulbanu Kaptan & Sabrina Heike Kessler, 2022. "Genome-edited versus genetically-modified tomatoes: an experiment on people’s perceptions and acceptance of food biotechnology in the UK and Switzerland," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(3), pages 1117-1131, September.
    15. Donald G. MacGregor & Raymond Fleming, 1996. "Risk Perception and Symptom Reporting," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(6), pages 773-783, December.
    16. Branden B. Johnson & Mathew P. White, 2010. "The Importance of Multiple Performance Criteria for Understanding Trust in Risk Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1099-1115, July.
    17. Zhihua Xu & Jingzhu Shan, 2018. "The effect of risk perception on willingness to pay for reductions in the health risks posed by particulate matter 2.5: A case study of Beijing, China," Energy & Environment, , vol. 29(8), pages 1319-1337, December.
    18. Bryan Caplan, 2007. "Beyond conventional economics: The limits of rational behaviour in political decision making," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 131(3), pages 505-507, June.
    19. Vern R. Walker, 1995. "Direct Inference, Probability, and a Conceptual Gulf in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(5), pages 603-609, October.
    20. Timothy McDaniels & Lawrence J. Axelrod & Paul Slovic, 1995. "Characterizing Perception of Ecological Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(5), pages 575-588, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:20:p:10615-:d:653207. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.