One participant thought the media used the city water quality dashboard with a meter to exaggerate the situation and said, “So when the water meter was in the watch position, the [news station] banner on their Facebook page was a picture of the water meter. I mean that is sensationalizing anything to get you to go look. What’s the meter doing today?” Another example was related to a news reporter scooping water out of the lake dur- ing the HAB event. A participant expressed, “I think that news kind of portrays things worse than they really are anyways. Right along the shoreline they’re going to find the greenest section of algae they can find and say, ‘Look at this water.’ So, I don’t know, I don’t trust.” Another participant stated that when she sees something on the news media, she gets on her computer and “starts researching for more credible information.” One quote that summarizes this theme is that “a lot of it is media driven to where nobody knows what to believe.” Another participant stated, “The media is competing against each other . . . . You learned everything, and people were more trustworthy back then [when he was a kid]. Because they weren’t trying to make it a story, a non-story a story.” Residents also wanted to hear positive news from the media, which was expressed by one participant as, “I think we all would want information on things that are going to harm us, but also updates on things that have been improved.” Desiring Credible Information From Trustworthy Sources Because individuals and organizations seem to be agenda driven, the public can be unsure of who to trust. One participant shared, “Independent researchers or investigative reporters, stu like that—it’s probably what I would trust the most if I was looking it up. I would probably trust something that a politi- cian says personally or TV news the least.” Another agreed, “When we elect somebody, it doesn’t matter what party, they represent all the people. Well, no, they represent who pads their pocket, and they don’t think about us.” Another participant stated, “I like an outside source . . . someone who is not involved in it. Someone who can be analytical without a personal motive.” Concern was expressed by participants about determining who was credible, espe-
cially when dierent information came from dierent sources. “The health department has their stats, they know what’s going on according to everything, but you don’t have a plumber do your electric for you. You need to go to somebody who actually knows what they’re talking about, does this for a living.” Another participant stated, “I’m so easily swayed if I watch one channel and then lis- ten to an opinion on another. So, I tend to not believe either of them. You know, if I really want to validate something, I think I might be afraid of or might be concerned about, I try to gather information from numerous sources to see if any of them match up more than the others.” Even when information was obtained from credible sources, the participants felt the infor- mation could be conflicting. “And the scien- tists with degrees coming out their ears, alright I trust them, they’re using their training, using their knowledge. But if you’ve got four of them, you might even have four dierent opinions.” One participant stated, “You know, sometimes I would rather hear, ‘I don’t know,’ than hear you make something up because you feel com- pelled to give me an answer.” Discussion Our study expands the body of knowledge by identifying themes related to residents’ per- ceptions of information about HABs that can guide eective risk communication. Similar to other studies, our study found that news- papers and television continue to be a source of information for many people, although the internet and social media was the primary source (Ekstrom et al., 2020; Hardy et al., 2016; Nierenberg et al., 2010). It is antici- pated that the internet and social media will continue to be the prominent mechanism for the exchange of information despite trends in the specific platform (e.g., Twitter, Insta- gram). Regardless of the mechanism, it is cru- cial to convey accurate, understandable, and reliable information about HABs. Residents should be notified about severe HABs or emergent situations and presented with understandable and accurate messages in a timely manner. A prior study found that alerts via email and social media were use- ful during initial HAB events; press releases were found most beneficial for severe blooms or blooms in “large lakes with diverse recre- ational use” (Hardy et al., 2016). Residents
should also be oered opportunities to learn more about HABs in general. Individuals in our study wanted to know more about the causes of HABs to potentially change behav- iors that could impact water quality and also indicated that education could enable them to take measures to protect themselves from future HABs. Moreover, information is seen as credible if it is provided by individuals who do not have an agenda, who are not protecting their job, or who are not politically motivated. The resi- dents in our study thought the news media lost credibility when they did not provide balanced reporting and sensationalized infor- mation, perhaps in an eort to captivate and retain viewers. Framing the information in a manner that emphasized the most negative aspects might have created fear in the com- munity at the time of the do-not-drink advi- sory and subsequent year—and increased the public’s perception of risk (Li et al., 2015). Residents felt there was a gap in the avail- ability of local information on HABs from trustworthy sources. Contrary to our study’s findings, a study by Ekstrom et al. (2020) found trust of information sources was high- est for state government, followed by profes- sional colleagues and academic institutions. A lack of consistency within or between sources has been found to cause challenges with communication (Nierenberg et al., 2010). We found that the perception of dis- agreement among sources amplified distrust among community members. Understanding which information sources are trusted by the public is beneficial to communication about HABs to elicit appropriate behaviors based on the current conditions. There are several factors that limit the transferability of these findings to other populations. The participants consisted of a large percentage who self-identified as female (65%). Additionally, the participants’ percep- tions of HABs were dierentially influenced by the do-not-drink advisory. Some people in the focus groups were from a nearby city that was not directly aected by the advisory, although they were still concerned about their drinking water. They were, though, potentially impacted by the HAB event when going to a restaurant or business aected by the advisory or using the lake for recreational purposes. Other regions can have severe HABs that impact the community dierently,
29
March 2023 • our5(l o- 5=0ro5me5;(l e(l;/
Powered by FlippingBook