CORPORACIÓN UNIVERSITARIA MINUTO DE DIOS Programa: ADMINISTRACIÓN DE EMPRESAS

The studies described above have identified some of the key barriers to communication about water recycling (Case study 1) and more specifically barriers to uptake of bioanalytical tools in water quality assessment (Case studies 2&3). Ross et al (2013) examined some social science theories regarding communication (e.g. cultural cognitive theory of risk). This theory recognizes that there is an

influence of social and cultural factors on risk perception and refers to the tendency of persons to form perceptions of risk and related facts that cohere with their self-defining values (Kahan et al, 2011). Cultural cognition theory proposes that psychological theory proposes that psychological mechanisms

62 | P a g e

predispose individuals to credit or dismiss evidence of risk in patterns that fit values they share with others (Kahan and Braman, 2006).

Some of the key issues identified in case study 1 are summarized in Table 3-1 and the key messages from the direct interview and online survey methods that relate to those issues are also shown in the table. Other issues that had previously been identified including political nervousness,

language/terminology, consistency of guidelines and cost effectiveness were not included in the surveys but these are all important factors to be considered to enhance the use of science in environmental policy making and regulation.

In Case study 2 where there was direct interviews conducted there were several responses regarding communication to the public. Several respondents felt that bioanalytical tools could be useful in promoting public confidence in water recycling and that cost saving could be made by using them for broad screening of water quality. Others were keen to know more about how these results could be effectively communicated to the public to provide a more objective picture on the risks. It was noted that more work needs to be done in terms of providing advice for people in the profession on how to communicate risk to the general public. Other comments include “Bioassays are not the silver bullet that will guarantee public acceptance, but they are powerful tools that could be developed to enhance public confidence.”

As reported by Ross (2011) one of the major challenges to the implementation of recycled water projects in Australia has been a lack of both public acceptance ad consistent polices and regulation for the management of the treated water. Perceptions of risk regarding recycled water is influenced by the credibility of the responsible authority (Baggett et al, 2008) and it is therefore important to have a good communication process so that policy decisions can be based on good science.

63 | P a g e

Table 3‐1. Barriers to risk communication in water recycled (Column A) and key messages from survey projects (Columns 2 & 3)  A. Enhancing risk communication from science 

to policy and regulation and implementation  of recycled water in Australia 

B. Evaluating a science communication workshop as an educational  tool 

C. Evaluation of an online survey to assess the effectiveness of  technology transfer workshops on acceptance of bioanalytical  methods 

Aim: To identify barriers to risk communication  ‐ water recycling 

Aim: To identify changes in attitude regarding bioassays pre and 

post technology work‐shops using face to face interviews 

Aim: To identify changes in attitude regarding bioassays pre and 

post technology work‐shops using an online survey 

Recycled water research Bioassays may have a substantial contribution to make, there is a lot 

of work already happening in the area and still a lot more work to be 

done. 

A lack of laboratories with appropriate experience in procedures 

and uncertainty with data interpretation with respect to human 

health are seen as barriers to uptake. Science to policy translation Applying bioassays will give us a more comprehensive way of 

targeting our sampling and a more comprehensive view of what 

might be there rather than just looking for a single compound. 

The bioassay workshops appear to be an effective method of 

increasing knowledge and acceptance of new and emerging 

technologies for the audience surveyed Implementation

          

Bioassays complement the other methodologies and can help to 

reinforce the results that are obtained through chemical analysis 

and biological analysis etc. 

Supporting material (copies and power points, fact sheets etc.) need 

to be clear and appropriate to the audience. Bioassays are an under‐utilised and unexplored resource for 

determining risk, toxicology or the effects and harm of hazards in 

the environment. 

Practical demonstrations are seen as a useful activity

There are a wide variety of bioanalytical tests available and they 

cover a range of parameters that can be estimated at different 

levels. The results are repeatable and reliable.    

Bioassays are an under‐utilised and unexplored resource for 

determining risk, toxicology or the effects and harm of hazards in 

the environment.    

Bioassays have other applications than just recycled water. They 

have strengths and weaknesses against traditional techniques.    

Risk perceptions Bioassays are an important tool to expand our understanding of 

water quality risks. They can be used to do things that traditional 

analyses have problems doing, for example, the cocktail effect, 

unknown unknowns and the mode of toxicity. 

The workshops served to increase the perceived value and 

acceptance of bioanalytical methods.

Bioassays are not the silver bullet that will guarantee public 

acceptance, but they are powerful tools that could be developed to 

enhance public confidence. 

There continues to be perceived (or actual) barriers to the uptake of 

the new methods by industry and regulators.

Cost effectiveness     There are unknowns regarding the cost effectiveness of 

incorporating the methods into routine water quality monitoring 

3.6

References

Baggett S, Jeffrey P and B Jefferson (2008) Risk perception in participatory planning for water reuse.

Desalination, 187: 149-158.

Black & Veatch (2010). Overcoming Global Barriers to Reuse as Part of an Integrated Water Portfolio.

White Paper Draft for Black & Veatch’s Reuse Roundtable Series: Black and Veatch. Chapman H.F., A Roiko and V Ross (2012) Evaluation of an online survey used to assess the

effectiveness of technical transfer workshops on acceptance of new analytical methods. Confidential report to Water Quality Research Australia. Project identification: 2024-11.

Chapman HF, Leusch FDL, Prochazka E, Cumming J, Ross V; Humpage A, Froscio S, Laingam S, Khan SJ, Trinh T, McDonald JA (2011) A national approach to health risk assessment, risk

communication and management of chemical hazards from recycled water, Waterlines Report 48,

National Water Commission, Canberra.

EPHC/NRW/NWC (2008) “ Recycled water quality – A guide to determining, monitoring and achieving safe concentrations of chemicals in recycled water” Report commissioned by the Environment Heritage Protection Agency and Natural Resources and Natural Resources and Water, QLD and the National Water Commission.

Green, M., Fielding, K., Leviston, Z., & Price, J. (2010). Communicating Scientific and Technical Information about Alternative Water Supply Options: A Review of the Literature. Brisbane. GWRC (2007) Tools to detect estrogenicity in Environmental Water. Final Report from the Global

Water Research Coalition (GWRC) project “Tools for analysing estrogenicity in environmental waters” WERF contract number #03-HHE-4T

Holmes J and R Clark (2008) Enhancing the use of science in environmental policy-making and regulation. Environmental Science and Policy. 11:702-711

Kahan DM, & Braman D (2006) Cultural cognition and public policy. Yale Law and Policy Review, 24,

149 - 172.

Kahan, D. M., Jenkins‐Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus.

Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 147-174.

Leusch FDL, SJ Khan, S Laingam, W Prochazka, S Froscio, T Trinh, HF Chapman and Andrew Humpage (2014) Assessment of the application of bioanalytical tools as surrogate measure of chemical contaminants in recycled water. Water Research 49:300-315

Reitsema T, Nice HE, Leusch, FDL, Quayle, P, Chapman, HF, Khan, SJ Trinh, T, Coleman, H., Rawson, C, Gagnon, MM and Blair (2009) ‘Development of an Ecotoxicity toolbox to characterise

water quality for recycling’. Water Science Technical Series, Report No 36, Dept of Water, WA.

Ross V (2011) Chapter 6 in Chapman et al (2011) A National Approach to Risk Assessment, Risk Communication and Management of Chemical Hazards in Recycled Water. ” Waterlines Report #49, National Water Commission, Canberra (2011)

Ross, V and H Chapman (2012) Ross, Victoria and Heather Chapman (2012) Evaluating a science

communication workshop as an educational tool. Urban Water Security Alliance - Technical

Report # 72

Ross et al (2013) Enhancing risk communication from science to policy and regulation and

implementation of recycled water projects in Australia. Final report for sub-stream 2.3. Submitted

to Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence, Brisbane.

Simpson J and Stratton H (2011) Talking about water: words and images that enhance

65 | P a g e