Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 64, Issue 6, pp 689–700 | Cite as

Perceptions of Water-related Environmental Concerns in Northwest Ohio One Year after a Lake Erie Harmful Algal Bloom

  • April AmesEmail author
  • Victoria Steiner
  • Erin Liebold
  • Sheryl A. Milz
  • Samantha Eitniear
Article
  • 162 Downloads

Abstract

Water is essential to human life around the world, but there are numerous threats to its quality both internationally and nationally. The purpose of this secondary data analysis was to examine public perceptions of water-related environmental concerns in northwest Ohio. In fall 2015, nine focus groups on environmental health conditions were conducted with Lucas County, Ohio residents. Each 90-min focus group was videotaped and professionally transcribed to maximize data capture and facilitate data analysis. Colaizzi’s (1978) method of content analysis was applied to make sense of the participants’ environmental concerns related to water. The majority of the 93 participants were white females between the ages of 40 and 59. A do-not-drink advisory related to a harmful algal bloom in the summer of 2014 and the possibility of a future bloom were still prominent in residents’ minds that affected their perceptions and behaviors 1 year later. The emergent themes included: (1) avoiding the use of tap water due to concerns about water quality, (2) mourning the loss of a precious resource and their childhood recreational activities, (3) believing there are financial impacts associated with water problems, (4) distrusting the actions and decisions of persons in authority, (5) wanting to stop fighting about who is to blame and determine the problem’s real cause, and (6) desiring actions and planning by authorities to prevent future problems. Understanding public perceptions of water-related environmental concerns can inform practitioners worldwide on successful approaches to restoring trust, educating about and communicating risk, and planning for future issues.

Keywords

Environment Focus groups Harmful algal bloom Lake Water 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Focus groups were conducted as part of an environmental health assessment with the Toledo-Lucas County Health Department; Sheryl Milt, PhD, CIH, Principal Investigator.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. Barnett MJ, Jackson-Smith D, Haeffner M (2018) Influence of recreational activity on water quality perceptions and concerns in Utah: a replicated analysis. J Outdoor Recreat Tour 22:26–36.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2017.12.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beardmore B (2015) Boater perceptions of environmental issues affecting lakes in Northern Wisconsin. JAWRA 51(2):537–549.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jawr.12265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bingham M, Sinha MK, Lupi F (2015) Economic benefits of reducing harmful algal blooms in Lake Erie. Environmental Consulting & Technology Inc., Report 66. Gainsville FLGoogle Scholar
  4. Breffle WS, Muralidharan D, Donovan RP, Liu F, Mukherjee A, Jin Y (2013) Socioeconomic evaluation of the impact of natural resource stressors on human-use services in the Great Lakes environment: a Lake Michigan case study. Resour Policy 38(2):152–161.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2012.10.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chorus I., Bartram J. (eds) (1999) Toxic cyanobacteria in water: a guide to their public health consequences, monitoring and management. World Health Organization, E&FN Spon, Routledge, London. http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/toxicyanobact/en/
  6. Colaizzi P (1978) Psychological research as phenomenologists view it. In: Valle R, King M (eds) Existential phenomenological alternatives for psychology. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Drobac D, Tokodi N, Simeunović J, Baltić V, Stanić D, Svirčev Z (2013) Human exposure to cyanotoxins and their effects on health. Arh za Hig rada i toksikologiju 64:305–315.  https://doi.org/10.2478/10004-1254-64-2013-2320 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Griffin RJ, Dunwoody S, Zabala F (1998) Public reliance on risk communication channels in the wake of a cryptosporidium outbreak. Risk Anal 18:367–375.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb00350.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hu Z, Morton LW, Mahler R (2011) Bottled water: United States consumers and their perceptions of water quality. Int J Environ Res Public Health 8(2):565–578.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8020565 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jones AQ, Dewey CE, Dore K, Majowicz SE, McEwen SA, Waltner-Toews D, Henson SJ, Mathews EM (2005) Public perception of drinking water from private water supplies: focus group analyses. BMC Public Health 5:129.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-5-129 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jones AQ, Dewey CE, Doré K, Majowicz SE, McEwen SA, Waltner-Toews D, Eric M, Carr DJ, Henson SJ (2006) Public perceptions of drinking water: a postal survey of residents with private water supplies. BMC Public Health 6:94.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-6-94 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jones AQ, Dewey CE, Doré K, Majowicz SE, McEwen SA, Waltner-Toews D, Henson SJ, Mathews E (2007) A qualitative exploration of the public perception of municipal drinking water. Water Policy 9:425–438.  https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2007.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kuhar SE, Nierenberg K, Kirkpatrick B, Tobin GA (2009) Public perceptions of Florida red tide risks. Risk Anal 29(7):963–969.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01228.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Maxwell JA (2013) Qualitative research design: an interactive approach, 3rd edn. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks CAGoogle Scholar
  15. McCarty CL, Nelson L, Eitniear S, Zgodzinski E, Zabala A, Billing L, DiOrio M (2016) Community needs assessment after microcystin toxin contamination of a municipal water supply—Lucas County, Ohio, September 2014 MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 65: 925–929.  https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6535a1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McSpirit S, Reid C (2011) Residents’ perceptions of tap water and decisions to purchase bottled water: a survey analysis from the appalachian, big sandy coal mining region of West Virginia. Soc Nat Resour 24:511–520.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920903401432 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nierenberg K, Byrne MM, Fleming LE, Stephan W, Reich A, Backer LC, Tanga E, Dalpra DR, Kirkpatrick B (2010) Florida red tide perception: residents versus tourists. Harmful algae 9(6):600–606.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2010.04.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Parag Y, Roberts JT (2009) A battle against the bottles: building, claiming, and regaining tap-water trustworthiness. Soc Nat Resour 22:625–636.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802017248 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Savoia E, Stoto MA, Gupta R, Wright N, Viswanath K (2015) Public response to the 2014 chemical spill in West Virginia: knowledge, opinions and behaviours. BMC Public Health 15:790.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2134-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Saylor A, Prokopy LS, Amberg S (2011) What’s wrong with the tap? Examining perceptions of tap water and bottled water at Purdue University. Environ Manag 48:588–601.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9692-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schade CP, Wright N, Gupta R, Latif DA, Jha A, Robinson J (2015) Self-reported household impacts of large-scale chemical contamination of the public water supply, Charleston, West Virginia, USA. PloS ONE 10(5):e0126744.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126744 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stewart I, Webb PM, Schluter PJ, Shaw GR (2006) Recreational and occupational field exposure to freshwater cyanobacteria - a review of anecdotal and case reports, epidemiologic studies, and the challenges for epidemiologic assessment. Environ Health 5:6.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-5-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stumpf RP, Johnson LT, Wynne TT, Baker DB (2016) Forecasting annual cyanobacterial bloom biomass to inform management decisions in Lake Erie. J Gt Lakes Res 42:1174–1183.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2016.08.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. University of Toledo (2019) UT water task force. https://www.utoledo.edu/commissions/water-task-force/. Accessed 13 Sep 2019
  25. University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute (2018) Lake Ontario. https://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/resources/the-formation-of-the-great-lakes/lake-ontario/. Accessed 20 Sep 2019
  26. Vaismoradi M, Turunen H, Bondas T (2013) Content analysis and thematic analysis: implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Health Sci 15(3):398–405.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wilder Research/APM Research Lab (2018) Qualitative study for the water main: how American’s relate to water. Wilder Research/American Public Media (APM) Research Lab, St Paul MNGoogle Scholar
  28. Zhang W., Sohngen BL (2017) Heterogeneous preferences for water quality attributes: a discrete choice experiment of lake Erie Recreational Anglers. Working Papers 590, CARD. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/card_workingpapers/590

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • April Ames
    • 1
    Email author
  • Victoria Steiner
    • 1
  • Erin Liebold
    • 1
  • Sheryl A. Milz
    • 1
  • Samantha Eitniear
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Toledo College of Health and Human ServicesToledoUSA
  2. 2.University of Toledo Infection Prevention and ControlToledoUSA

Personalised recommendations