Improving water quality communications at beaches: input from stakeholders.

OBJECTIVES: Water quality communication practices vary widely and stakeholder input has not played a role in defining acceptable levels of risk. Although the 2012 Recreational Water Quality Criteria (RWQC) emphasize the importance of promptly notifying the public about hazardous conditions, little is known about the public's understanding of notifications, or about levels of risk deemed acceptable. We sought to address these gaps. METHODS: A mixed methods approach was used. Focus groups (FGs) provided qualitative data regarding the understanding of surface water quality, awareness, and use, of currently available water quality information, and acceptability of risk. Intercept interviews (INTs) at recreation sites provided quantitative data. RESULTS: INTs of 374 people and 15 FG sessions were conducted. Participants had limited awareness about water quality information posted at beaches, even during swim bans and advisories. Participants indicated that communication content should be current, from a trusted source, and describe health consequences. Communicating via mobile electronics should be useful for segments of the population. Risk acceptability is lower with greater outcome severity, or if children are impacted. CONCLUSIONS: Current water quality communications approaches must be enhanced to make notification programs more effective. Further work should build on this initial effort to evaluate risk acceptability among US beachgoers.

Beach communications: a need for evaluation of current approaches.

AIMS: Programs to notify the public about water quality at beaches are developed at the state and local levels. We sought to characterize the messages and message delivery options in use, and information about the effectiveness of these beach notification programs. METHODS: A telephone survey of 37 US state, tribal and territorial and 18 county, city or local beach programs was conducted to characterize current public notification practices and any evaluations of those practices. RESULTS: Beach notification practices vary substantially at the state and local levels. Color-coded signs or flags are commonly used, but not universally, and the color schemes and their meanings vary. New communication approaches utilizing text messaging and the internet are in use or under development for local use. Few communication methods had undergone systematic evaluations of their content, delivery methods or effectiveness in promoting behavior change. CONCLUSION: The prevention of waterborne illness requires communications that effectively promote the avoidance of swimming when water quality is impaired. Current communication practices are variable and generally have not undergone formal evaluations for their effectiveness. It is not known whether or how they impact health risk.