materials have been adapted to provide results in table format (Figure 5), though we continue to use pictorial representations to share aggregated data in community meet- ings, where educators and scientists are available to interpret pictures and respond to risk-related questions. This evaluation also informed the development of tools to understand environmental health literacy associated with toxic metal contamination of groundwater (Gray et al., 2021), with resident feedback informing the next itera- tion of pictorial representations of well test results. Other recent studies have high- lighted the value of using visual communi- cation tools to build trust, accurately com- municate health risk, and support people in taking appropriate health-protective actions (Machida et al., 2022; Tomsho et al., 2019). Taken together, these studies underscore the importance of iterative processes to refine report-back materials in response to assess- ments of participant engagement, under- standing, and subsequent action. The limitations of the Well Empowered pilot study apply to this evaluation as well, in
particular, the small sample size and the rela- tive homogeneity of the study sample. While the 14 evaluation respondents were represen- tative of the larger pilot study sample, they were not necessarily representative of the pop- ulation of well owners in the region or state. Additionally, participation in the study was voluntary and residents of the study commu- nity had been exposed to local media coverage about well water contamination issues during the study time frame, and this exposure could have influenced their responses. Conclusion The results of this evaluation underscore the value of incorporating pictorial representa- tions when communicating technical infor- mation about well water contamination, especially to highlight results that require action and in combination with detailed information in other formats. This evalua- tion also suggests that established health- based standards might serve as important benchmarks for comparison of analytical results. Going forward, repeated cycles of assessment and refinement will provide
insight into the most eective use of visual communications during the report-back process. Acknowledgements: The study team acknowl- edges the support of our community partner on this project, Appalachian Voices, for assist- ing us in developing and implementing the sampling protocol and aiding us in connecting with community members. Many thanks to the study participants for giving us access to their homes and sharing samples of their water and soil for analysis. This work was supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (Grant Numbers: P42-ES005948, P42-ES031007, P30-ES010126). The funder was not involved in study design, implemen- tation, or publication. Corresponding Author: Sarah Yelton, Envi- ronmental Education and Citizen Science Program Manager, Center for Public Engage- ment With Science, Institute for the Environ- ment, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB 1105, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-1105. Email: sarah.yelton@unc.edu.
References
Boronow, K.E., Susmann, H.P., Gajos, K.Z., Rudel, R.A., Arnold, K.C., Brown, P., Morello-Frosch, R., Havas, L., & Brody, J.G. (2017). DERBI: A digital method to help researchers oer “right- to-know” personal exposure results. Environmental Health Per- spectives , 125 (2), A27–A33. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP702 Brody, J.G., Dunagan, S.C., Morello-Frosch, R., Brown, P., Patton, S., & Rudel, R.A. (2014). Reporting individual results for biomoni- toring and environmental exposures: Lessons learned from envi- ronmental communication case studies. Environmental Health , 13 , Article 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-13-40 Chappells, H., Parker, L., Fernandez, C.V., Conrad, C., Drage, J., O’Toole, G., Campbell, N., & Dummer, T.J. (2014). Arsenic in pri- vate drinking water wells: An assessment of jurisdictional regula- tions and guidelines for risk remediation in North America. Jour- nal of Water & Health , 12 (3), 372–392. https://doi.org/10.2166/ wh.2014.054 DeSimone, L.A., Hamilton, P.A., & Gilliom, R.J. (2009). Quality of water from domestic wells in principal aquifers of the United States, 1991–2004: Overview of major findings [Circular 1332]. U.S. Geo- logical Survey. https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1332/ Dieter, C.A., Maupin, M.A., Caldwell, R.R., Harris, M.A., Ivahnenko, T.I., Lovelace, J.K., Barber, N.L., & Linsey, K.S. (2018). Estimated use of water in the United States in 2015 (Circular 1441). U.S. Geo- logical Survey. https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1441
Flanagan, S.V., Marvinney, R.G., & Zheng, Y. (2015). Influences on domestic well water testing behavior in a Central Maine area with frequent groundwater arsenic occurrence. Science of the Total Environment , 505 , 1274–1281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scitotenv.2014.05.017 Fox, M.A., Nachman, K.E., Anderson, B., Lam, J., & Resnick, B. (2016). Meeting the public health challenge of protecting private wells: Proceedings and recommendations from an expert panel workshop. Science of the Total Environment , 554 – 555 , 113–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.128 Frewer, L. (2004). The public and eective risk communication. Toxicology Letters , 149 (1–3), 391–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. toxlet.2003.12.049 Gray, K.M. (2018). From content knowledge to community change: A review of representations of environmental health literacy . International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 15 (3), Article 466. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15030466 Gray, K.M., Triana, V., Lindsey, M., Richmond, B., Hoover, A.G., & Wiesen, C. (2021). Knowledge and beliefs associated with envi- ronmental health literacy: A case study focused on toxic metals contamination of well water. International Journal of Environmen- tal Research and Public Health , 18 (17), Article 9298. https://doi. org/10.3390/ijerph18179298
continued on page 14
13
April 2023 • 3962&0 3+ 2:.6321*28&0 *&08-
Powered by FlippingBook