Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Risk communication approaches for preventing private groundwater contamination in the Republic of Ireland: a mixed-methods study of multidisciplinary expert opinion

Approches de communication sur le risque pour la prévention de la contamination des eaux souterraines des puits privés en république d’Irlande: une étude à méthodologie mixte de l’opinion d’experts multidisciplinaires

Enfoques de comunicación de riesgos para prevenir la contaminación de las aguas subterráneas privadas en la República de Irlanda: un estudio de métodos mixtos de opinión de expertos multidisciplinarios

预防爱尔兰共和国私有井地下水污染的风险沟通方法:多学科专家意见的混合方法研究

Abordagens de comunicação de risco para prevenir a contaminação de águas subterrâneas privadas na República da Irlanda: um estudo de métodos mistos de opinião de especialistas multidisciplinares

  • Paper
  • Published:
Hydrogeology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The mechanisms of private-well groundwater contamination are uniquely complex, necessitating a multisector communicative approach to risk management, premised on behaviour promotion. In countries such as the Republic of Ireland (ROI), characterised by oftentimes high groundwater contamination risk and concurrently limited user awareness, incorporation of multidisciplinary, ‘expert-based’ knowledge may facilitate design of evidence-based, practical interventions. Expert interviews represent an efficient form of expert consultation, enabling ease of access to niche information and comparison of procedure, but remain under-utilised within the groundwater management literature. In response, the current study elicited opinion from 50 experts across four broad categories (communications, engineering/science, policy, and risk assessment) via a mixed-methods interview study. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were undertaken with experts from the ROI (n = 25) and European/North American countries (n = 25) and examined using thematic (qualitative) and bivariate statistical (quantitative) analyses. Experts noted financial cost, knowledge and social norms as primary barriers to adopting private-groundwater and other health risk-prevention behaviours. Lack of organisational knowledge as a communication barrier was significantly related to expert category (p = 0.034) and highlighted by a majority of communications experts (95%) compared to policy (75%), risk assessment (67%) and engineering/science (50%) experts. The most frequently suggested communication activities comprised events (24%), radio segments (22%), workshops (24%) and community meetings (30%), allied with family-oriented, discursive approaches to information delivery. Study findings may be used by both national (Irish) and international stakeholders in myriad hydrogeological contexts to develop educational outreach strategies and contribute to the existing groundwater-management-knowledge base.

Résumé

Les mécanismes de contamination des eaux souterraines des puits privés sont particulièrement complexes, nécessitant une approche de communication multisectorielle en matière de gestion des risques, fondée sur la promotion du comportement. Dans des pays comme la République d’Irlande (ROI), caractérisée souvent par de forts risques de contamination des eaux souterraines en parallèle d’une faible prise de conscience des usagers, l’utilisation d’une connaissance multidisciplinaire basée sur l’avis d’expert permet de faciliter la conception d’interventions pratiques et factuelles. L’entretien avec des experts constitue une forme efficace de consultation d’experts, facilitant l’accès à une information de niche et la comparaison de procédures, mais demeurant sous-utilisée d’après la littérature dans la gestion des eaux souterraines. En réponse, l’étude actuelle a sollicité l’opinion de 50 experts de quatre grandes catégories (communication, ingénierie/sciences, réglementation et évaluation des risques) par le biais d’une étude d’entretiens selon des méthodes mixtes. Des entretiens qualitatifs semi-structurés ont été réalisés avec des experts de ROI (n = 25) et d’Europe/Amérique du Nord (n = 25) et examinés en utilisant des analyses thématiques (qualitative) et statistiques bivariées (quantitatives). Les experts ont noté le coût financier, les connaissances et les normes sociales comme une première barrière à l’adoption de comportements vis-à-vis des eaux souterraines privées et de prévention des risques pour la santé. L’absence de connaissance organisationnelle comme une barrière de communication a été rapportée de manière significative par l’ensemble des catégories d’expert (p = 0,034) et est soulignée par un plus grand nombre d’experts en communication (95%) que d’experts en matière de réglementation (75%), d’experts en évaluation des risques (67%) et en ingénierie/sciences (50%). Les activités de communication les plus fréquemment suggérées sont les évènements (24%), les segments radiophoniques (22%), les ateliers (24%) et les réunions de communautés (30%), alliées à des approches discursives orientées vers les familles pour livrer l’information. Les résultats de l’étude peuvent être utilisés aussi bien par les parties prenantes nationales (irlandaises) qu’internationales dans une myriade de contextes hydrogéologiques afin d’élaborer des stratégies à portée éducative et de contribuer à la base de connaissances existantes en matière de gestion des eaux souterraines.

Resumen

Los mecanismos de contaminación de las aguas subterráneas de los pozos privados son singularmente complejos y requieren un enfoque comunicativo multisectorial de la gestión de riesgos, basado en la difusión del conocimiento. En países como la República de Irlanda, que se caracterizan por el alto riesgo de contaminación de las aguas subterráneas y, al mismo tiempo, por la limitada conciencia de los usuarios, la incorporación de conocimientos multidisciplinarios ‘basados en expertos’ puede facilitar el diseño de intervenciones prácticas basadas en datos empíricos. Las entrevistas con expertos representan una forma eficiente de consulta de expertos, que permite un fácil acceso a la información sobre los lugares de interés y la comparación de procedimientos, pero siguen estando subutilizadas en la bibliografía sobre la gestión de las aguas subterráneas. En respuesta a ello, el presente estudio recabó la opinión de 50 expertos en cuatro amplias categorías (comunicaciones, ingeniería/ciencia, política y evaluación de riesgos) mediante un estudio de entrevistas de métodos mixtos. Se realizaron entrevistas cualitativas semiestructuradas con expertos de la ROI (n = 25) y de países europeos/norteamericanos (n = 25) y se examinaron mediante análisis estadísticos bivariados (cuantitativos) y temáticos (cualitativos). Los expertos señalaron que el costo financiero, los conocimientos y las normas sociales eran los principales obstáculos para la adopción de comportamientos de prevención de riesgos para la salud en relación con el agua subterránea privada y otros riesgos. La falta de conocimientos organizativos como barrera de comunicación se relacionó significativamente con la categoría de expertos (p = 0.034) y fue destacada por la mayoría de los expertos en comunicaciones (95%) en comparación con los expertos en políticas (75%), evaluación de riesgos (67%) e ingeniería/ciencia (50%). Las actividades de comunicación sugeridas con mayor frecuencia comprendían eventos (24%), secciones de radio (22%), talleres (24%) y reuniones comunitarias (30%), junto con enfoques discursivos orientados a la familia para la entrega de información. Las conclusiones del estudio pueden ser utilizadas por los interesados nacionales (irlandeses) e internacionales en una gran variedad de contextos hidrogeológicos para elaborar estrategias de divulgación educativa y contribuir a la base de conocimientos existente sobre la gestión de las aguas subterráneas.

摘要

私有井的地下水污染机制非常复杂, 因此需要以行为动机为前提的多部门交流风险管理方法。在像爱尔兰共和国(ROI)这样的国家, 其特点是经常存在较高的地下水污染风险, 同时用户意识有限, 因此纳入多学科, 基于“专家”的知识可能有助于设计基于证据的实际干预措施。专家访谈是一种有效的专家咨询形式, 可以方便地获取恰当信息和比较程序, 但在地下水管理文献中仍未得到充分利用。因此, 本研究通过混合方法访谈研究, 从四个大类(通信, 工程/科学, 政策和风险评估)中征求了来自50位专家的意见。与来自爱尔兰(n = 25)和欧洲/北美国家(n = 25)的专家进行了半结构化的定性访谈, 并使用了主题(定性)和双变量统计(定量)分析进行了检验。专家指出, 财务成本、知识和社会规范是采用私用地下水和其他预防健康风险行为的主要障碍。缺乏作为沟通障碍的组织知识与专家类别(p = 0.034)显著相关, 与政策(75%)、风险评估(67%)和工程/科学(50%)专家相比, 大多数通信专家(95%)强调了这一点。建议最多的沟通活动包括活动(24%)、广播片段(22%)、研讨会(24%)和社区会议(30%), 以及以家庭为导向的、散漫的信息传递方式。研究结果可供国家(爱尔兰)和国际利益相关者在各种水文地质背景下使用, 以制定教育推广战略, 并为现有的地下水管理知识库作出贡献。

Resumo

Os mecanismos de contaminação de águas subterrâneas de poços particulares são exclusivamente complexos, necessitando de uma abordagem comunicativa multissetorial para o gerenciamento de riscos, com base na promoção do comportamento. Em países como a República da Irlanda (RI), caracterizada por muitas vezes alto risco de contaminação das águas subterrâneas e conhecimento do usuário simultaneamente limitado, a incorporação de conhecimentos multidisciplinares e baseados em especialistas pode facilitar o projeto de intervenções práticas baseadas em evidências. As entrevistas com especialistas representam uma forma eficiente de consulta a especialistas, permitindo facilidade de acesso a informações de nicho e comparação de procedimentos, mas permanecem subutilizadas na literatura de gerenciamento de águas subterrâneas. Em resposta, o presente estudo suscitou a opinião de 50 especialistas em quatro grandes categorias (comunicações, engenharia/ciência, política e avaliação de riscos) por meio de um estudo de entrevista com métodos mistos. Entrevistas qualitativas semiestruturadas foram realizadas com especialistas da RI (n = 25) e dos países da Europa/América do Norte (n = 25) e examinadas usando análises temáticas (qualitativas) e estatísticas bivariadas (quantitativas). Os especialistas observaram o custo financeiro, o conhecimento e as normas sociais como barreiras primárias à adoção de águas subterrâneas privadas e outros comportamentos de prevenção de riscos à saúde. A falta de conhecimento organizacional como barreira da comunicação estava significativamente relacionada à categoria de especialistas (p = 0.034) e destacada pela maioria dos especialistas em comunicações (95%) em comparação com especialistas em políticas (75%), avaliação de riscos (67%) e engenharia/ciência (50%). As atividades de comunicação sugeridas com mais frequência incluíram eventos (24%), segmentos de rádio (22%), oficinas (24%) e reuniões da comunidade (30%), aliados a abordagens discursivas e orientadas à família para a entrega de informações. As conclusões do estudo podem ser usadas por partes interessadas nacionais (irlandesas) e internacionais em inúmeros contextos hidrogeológicos para desenvolver estratégias educacionais e contribuir para a base de conhecimento existente sobre gerenciamento de águas subterrâneas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AlYahmady HH, Alabri SS (2013) Using NVivo for data analysis in qualitative research. Int Interdiscip J Educ 2(2):181–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnell NW, Gosling SN (2016) The impacts of climate change on river flood risk at the global scale. Clim Chang 134(3):387–401

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkin CK, Rice RE (2012) Theory and principles of public communication campaigns. In: Rice RE, Atkin CK (eds) Public communication campaigns, 4th edn. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Basu A, Dutta MJ (2008) The relationship between health information seeking and community participation: the roles of health information orientation and efficacy. Health Commun 23:70–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogner A, Menz W (2009) The theory-generating expert interview: epistemological interest, forms of knowledge, interaction. In: Bogner A, Littig B, Menz W (eds) Interviewing experts. Macmillan, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Boholm Å, Prutzer M (2017) Experts’ understandings of drinking water risk management in a climate change scenario. Clim Risk Manag 16:133–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun V, Clarke V (2014) What can “thematic analysis” offer health and wellbeing researchers?. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being 9:10

  • Chappells H, Campbell N, Drage J, Fernandez CV, Parker L, Dummer TJB (2015) Understanding the translation of scientific knowledge about arsenic risk exposure among private well water users in Nova Scotia. Sci Total Environ 505:1259–1273

    Google Scholar 

  • Covello VT (2003) Best practices in public health risk and crisis communication. J Health Commun 8(1):5–8

    Google Scholar 

  • CSO (2017) Census 2016: small area population statistics. Central Statistics Office, Dublin

    Google Scholar 

  • de França Doria M (2010) Factors influencing public perception of drinking water quality. Water Policy 12:1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • de Loë RC, Kreutzwiser RD (2005) Closing the groundwater protection implementation gap. Geoforum 36(2):241–256

    Google Scholar 

  • EPA (2017) National Inspection Plan 2018–2021: domestic waste water treatment systems draft for consultation. Environmental Protection Agency, Wexford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrer R, Klein WM (2015) Risk perceptions and health behavior. Curr Opin Psychol 5:85–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Fienen MN, Arshad M (2016) The international scale of the groundwater issue. In: Jakeman AJ, Barreteau O, Hunt RJ, Rinaudo JD, Ross A (eds) Integrated groundwater management: concepts, approaches and challenges. Springer, New York City, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Figueroa ME, Kincaid DL (2010) Social, cultural and behavioral correlates of household water treatment and storage. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Communication Programs, Baltimore, MD

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan S, Zheng Y (2017) Comparative case study of legislative attempts to require private well testing in New Jersey and Maine. Environ Sci Pol 85:40–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Flick U (2014) An introduction to qualitative research, 5th edn. SAGE, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford L, Bharadwaj L, McLeod L, Waldner C (2017) Human health risk assessment applied to rural populations dependent on unregulated drinking water sources: a scoping review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 14(8):846

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox MA, Nachman KE, Anderson B, Lam J, Resnick J (2016) Meeting the public health challenge of protecting private wells: proceedings and recommendations from an expert panel workshop. Sci Total Environ 554–555:113–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Franz NK (2014) Measuring and articulating the value of community engagement: lessons learned from 100 years of cooperative extension work. J High Educ Out Engage 18(2):5–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Funari E, Manganelli M, Sinisi L (2012) Impact of climate change on waterborne diseases. Ann Ist Super Sanita 48(4):473–487

    Google Scholar 

  • Gläser J, Laudel G (2009) On interviewing “good” and “bad” experts. In: Bogner A, Littig B, Menz W (eds) Interviewing experts. Macmillan, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Green TR, Taniguchi M, Kooi H, Gurdak JJ, Allen DM (2011) Beneath the surface of global change: impacts of climate change on groundwater. J Hydrol 405:532–560

    Google Scholar 

  • HPSC (2016) Annual epidemiological report 2016. Health Protection Surveillance Centre, Dublin

    Google Scholar 

  • Hynds P, Misstear BD, Gill LW, Murphy HM (2014) Groundwater source contamination mechanisms: physicochemical profile clustering, risk factor analysis and multivariate modelling. J Contam Hydrol 159:47–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Hynds P, Naughton O, O’Neill E, Mooney S (2018a) Efficacy of a national hydrological risk communication strategy: domestic wastewater treatment systems in the Republic of Ireland. J Hydrol 558:205–2013

    Google Scholar 

  • Hynds P, Regan S, Andrade L, Mooney S, O’Malley K, Di Pelino S, O’Dwyer J (2018b) Muddy waters: refining the way forward for the “sustainability science” of socio-hydrogeology. Water 10(9):1111

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson R (2014) Four questions for risk communication. J Risk Res 17(10):1233–1239

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreutzwiser R, de Loë R, Imgrund K, Conboy MJ, Simpson H, Plummer R (2011) Understanding stewardship behaviour: factors facilitating and constraining private water well stewardship. J Environ Manag 92(4):1104–1114

    Google Scholar 

  • Kvale S, Brinkmann S (2009) Interviews: learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing, 2nd edn. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • LaGro JA Jr, Vowels VT, Vondra B (2017) Exurban housing development, onsite wastewater disposal, and groundwater vulnerability within a changing policy context. Landscape Urban Plan 167:60–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Limaye SD (2017) Socio-hydrogeology and low-income countries: taking science to rural society. Hydrogeol J 25(7):1927–1930

    Google Scholar 

  • Little KE, Hayashi M, Liang S (2016) Community-based groundwater monitoring network using a citizen-science approach. Groundwater 54(3):317–324

    Google Scholar 

  • López-Gunn E (2012) Groundwater governance and social capital. Geoforum 43(6):1140–1151

    Google Scholar 

  • Lund JR (2015) Integrating social and physical sciences in water management. Water Resour Res 51:5905–5918

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundgren RE, McMakin AH (2013) Risk communication: a handbook for communicating environmental, safety, and health risks, 5th edn. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald Gibson J, Pieper KJ (2017) Strategies to improve private-well water quality: a North Carolina perspective. Environ Health Perspect 125(7):076001

    Google Scholar 

  • Malecki KMC, Schultz AA, Severtson DJ, Anderson HA, VanDerslice JA (2017) Private-well stewardship among a general population based sample of private well-owners. Sci Total Environ 601–602:1533–1543

    Google Scholar 

  • Meuser M, Nagel U (2009) The expert interview and changes in knowledge production. In: Bogner A, Littig B, Menz W (eds) Interviewing experts. Macmillan, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R (2011) The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci 6:42

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell M, Curtis A, Sharp E, Mendham E (2012) Directions for social research to underpin improved groundwater management. J Hydrol 448–449:223–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Mooney S, McDowell CP, O’Dwyer J, Hynds PD (2019) Knowledge and behavioural interventions to reduce human health risk from private groundwater systems: a global review and pooled analysis based on development status. Sci Total Environ 716:135338

  • Morris L, Wilson S, Kelly W (2016) Methods of conducting effective outreach to private well owners–a literature review and model approach. J Water Health 14(2):167-182.

  • Munene A, Hall DC (2019) Factors influencing perceptions of private water quality in North America: a systematic review. System Rev 20198:111

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy HM, Prioleau MD, Borchardt MA, Hynds PD (2017) Review: Epidemiological evidence of groundwater contribution to global enteric disease, 1948–2015. Hydrogeol J 25(4):981–1001

    Google Scholar 

  • Naughton O, Hynds PD (2014) Public awareness, behaviours and attitudes towards domestic wastewater treatment systems in the Republic of Ireland. J Hydrol 518(A):108–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasick RJ, Hiatt RA, Paskett ED (2004) Lessons learned from community-based cancer screening intervention research. Cancer 101:1146–1164

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul MP, Rigrod P, Wingate S, Borsuk ME (2015) A community-driven intervention in Tuftonboro, New Hampshire, succeeds in altering water testing behavior. J Environ Health 78(5):30–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Plummer R, Velaniškis J, de Grosbois D, Kreutzwiser RD, de Loë R (2010) The development of new environmental policies and processes in response to a crisis: the case of the multiple barrier approach for safe drinking water. Environ Sci Pol 13(6):535–548

    Google Scholar 

  • Re V (2015) Incorporating the social dimension into hydrogeochemical investigations for rural development: the Bir Al-Nas approach for socio-hydrogeology. Hydrogeol J 23(7):1293–1304

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn O (2008) Risk communication: insights and requirements for designing successful communication programs on health and environmental hazards. In: Health RL, O’Hair HD (eds) Handbook of risk and crisis communication. Routledge, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values 30(2):251–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, Baker S, Waterfield J, Bartlam B, Burroughs H, Clare Jinks C (2018) Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quant 52(4):1893–1907

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzenbach RP, Egli T, Hofstetter TB, von Gunten U, Wehrli B (2010) Global water pollution and human health. Ann Rev Environ Resour 35:109–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverman D (2015) Interpreting qualitative data. Sage Publications Inc

  • Sprain L, Timpson WM (2012) Pedagogy for sustainability science: case-based approaches for interdisciplinary instruction. Environ Commun 6(4):532–550

    Google Scholar 

  • Tavares AO, Santos PPD (2014) Re-scaling risk governance using local appraisal and community involvement. J Risk Res 17:923–949

    Google Scholar 

  • Terrell SR (2012) Mixed-methods research methodologies. Qual Rep 17(1):254–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton T, Leahy J (2012) Trust in Citizen Science Research: a case study of the groundwater education through Water Evaluation & Testing Program. JAWRA 48(5):1032–1040

  • Werder KP (2015) The integration of domains: multidisciplinary approaches to strategic communication campaigns. Int J Strateg Commun 9(2):79–86

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all sectoral experts who so generously gave of their time and opinions in completing interviews. The authors would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers and editors for their time and insightful comments.

Funding

This research has received financial support from the Health Service Executive (Ireland) and Technological University Dublin under the remit of a co-funded Fiosraigh PhD Scholarship.

Conflict of interest

The authors can confirm that they have no commercial or other associations that might pose a conflict of interest with the presented study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental Sustainability & Health Institute, Technological University Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

    S. Mooney & P. D. Hynds

  2. Irish Centre for Research in Applied Geosciences (iCRAG), University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

    J. O’Dwyer & P. D. Hynds

  3. School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

    J. O’Dwyer

  4. Environmental Research Institute, University of Cork, Cork, Ireland

    J. O’Dwyer

Authors
  1. S. Mooney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. O’Dwyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. D. Hynds
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. D. Hynds.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 8 Behavioural, cognitive and communication theories cited by experts and specialisation category
Full size table
Fig. 3
figure 3

Sankey diagram displaying relationships between recommended interpersonal engagement mechanisms and content style

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Sankey diagram displaying relationships between recommended media engagement mechanisms and content style

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Sankey diagram displaying relationships between recommended interpersonal engagement mechanisms and information presentation

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Sankey diagram displaying relationships between recommended media engagement mechanisms and information presentation

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mooney, S., O’Dwyer, J. & Hynds, P.D. Risk communication approaches for preventing private groundwater contamination in the Republic of Ireland: a mixed-methods study of multidisciplinary expert opinion. Hydrogeol J 28, 1519–1538 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-020-02158-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-020-02158-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation