• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Risk analysis >Do Reports on Drinking Water Quality Affect Customers' Concerns? Experiments in Report Content
【24h】

Do Reports on Drinking Water Quality Affect Customers' Concerns? Experiments in Report Content

机译：关于饮用水水质的报告是否会影响客户的担忧？报告内容中的实验

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 required U.S. utilities to report on drinking water quality to their customers annually, beginning in fall 1999, on the assumption that such reports would alert them to quality problems and perhaps mobilize pressure for improvement. A random sample of New Jersey customers read alternative versions of a water quality report, in an experiment on reactions to water quality information under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) rules. Experiment design was 2 x 3 + 1: two versions each―one with, one without, a violation of a health standard―of a report that was (1) Qualitative (without water quality numbers, thus not meeting USEPA rules); (2) Basic, with minimal information meeting the rules; or (3) Extended, adding reading aids and utility performance information; plus a control instrument without any hypothetical report. Results of ANOVA suggest the reports will have less effect than hoped or feared. These manipulations were successful: people reading the Qualitative versions were less likely to say that the report gave the amounts of substances found in the water, and those reading Violation versions were more likely to report a violation of a health standard. The main differences in responses to the report involved the judged adequacy of the information, and to a lesser extent responses on a Concern scale (constructed from measures of concern, judged risk, clean-up intentions, distrust of utility information, and doubt that the utility was doing all it could to improve water quality). Overall judgments of water quality and utility performance did not change, either relative to the controls or in before versus after responses. Qualitative reports performed worse than others, confirming the decision to have utilities report actual contaminant levels. Extended reports did only slightly better than the Basic versions on these measures. Many respondents had trouble identifying the presence or absence of substance amounts or violations, despite their seeming obviousness (e.g., in a "bottom line" summary on the front page of each report), suggesting many were not processing this information carefully. However, the pattern of responses for those who accurately identified the presence or absence of substance amounts or violations did not differ substantially from that for the group as a whole. Generic risk beliefs (serious local environmental problems; lack of control over risks to one's health) dominated demographic variables, attitudes toward utility water quality or trustworthiness, and the content and format of water quality reports in influencing concern about drinking water quality. Previous empirical and theoretical evidence for lack of change in public risk attitudes due to one-time or infrequent communications―e.g., role of personal experience, perseverance of prior trust or distrust―seems to be confirmed for annual water quality reports.
机译：1996年的《安全饮用水法》修正案要求美国公用事业从1999年秋季开始每年向其客户报告饮用水水质，前提是此类报告会提醒他们注意质量问题，并可能动员改善压力。在美国环境保护署（USEPA）规则下对水质信息做出反应的实验中，随机抽取了新泽西州客户的样本阅读了水质报告的替代版本。实验设计为2 x 3 +1：每个都有两个版本-一个版本，一个版本不违反健康标准-报告的内容如下：（1）定性的（没有水质数字，因此不符合USEPA规定）； （2）基本信息，最少的信息符合规则；或（3）扩展，添加阅读工具和公用事业性能信息；加上没有任何假设报告的控制工具。方差分析的结果表明，这些报告的影响要比希望或担心的要小。这些操作是成功的：阅读定性版本的人不太可能说该报告给出了水中所含物质的数量，而阅读违规版本的人则更有可能报告违反了健康标准。对报告的回应的主要不同之处在于，所判断的信息是否充分，以及在较小程度上的关注程度回应（由关注度量，判断风险，清理意图，对公用事业信息的不信任以及对公用事业正在尽其所能改善水质）。相对于对照或响应前后，水质和公用事业绩效的总体判断均未改变。定性报告的表现要差于其他报告，这证实了让公用事业公司报告实际污染物水平的决定。在这些措施上，扩展报告仅比基本版本稍好。尽管有明显的外观（例如，每份报告首页上的“底线”摘要中），但许多受访者仍难以确定是否存在实质性数量或违规行为，这表明许多受访者并未认真处理此信息。但是，对于那些准确地识别出是否存在实质性数量或违规行为的人，其回应方式与整个小组的回应方式并没有很大的不同。通用风险信念（严重的当地环境问题；对人的健康风险缺乏控制）主导着人口统计学变量，对公用事业水质或可信赖性的态度以及影响人们对饮用水水质关注的水质报告的内容和格式。以前的经验和理论证据表明，由于一次或不频繁的交流（例如，个人经验的作用，对以前的信任或不信任的坚持），公共风险态度没有发生变化，这似乎可以在年度水质报告中得到证实。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号