?/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Policy
(1807T)
May 2011
EPA-100-R-11-004
Assessing the
Effectiveness of the
Beaches Environmental
Assessment and Coastal
Health (BEACH) Act
Notification Program
Final Report
Promoting Environmental Results
i i
Through Evaluation
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This evaluation, Assessing the Effectiveness of the Beaches Environmental Assessment and
Coastal Health (BEACH) Act Notification Program, was developed for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Policy (OP) under Contract EP-W-07-028
between EPA and Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc) of Cambridge, MA. The evaluation team
included IEc and Abt Associates, Inc. of Cambridge, MA. Tracy Dyke-Redmond represented
IEc and Isabelle Morin represented Abt Associates.
Denise Hawkins and Richard Healy of EPA's Office of Water, Office of Science and
Technology, Standards and Health Protection Division, provided critical assistance and
background information on the notification component of the BEACH Act program. John
Heffelfinger of OP's Evaluation Support Division served as the technical advisor for this
evaluation. Special thanks go to EPA staff at Headquarters and the Regions who shared
thoughtful reflections, recommendations, and critiques during the conduct of this evaluation.
This report was developed under the Program Evaluation Competition, sponsored by EPA's
Office of Policy. To access copies of this or other EPA program evaluations, please go to
EPA's Evaluation Support Division website at http://www.epa.gov/evaluate.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 BACKGROUND 1
1.2 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND AUDIENCE 6
1.3 EVALUATION QUESTIONS 6
CHAPTER 2 | METHODOLOGY 9
2.1 DATA SOURCES AND ANALYTIC APPROACH 9
2.1.1 INTERVIEWS AND CORRESPONDENCE 9
2.1.2 BEACH USER SURVEYS AND BEACH NOTIFICATION STUDIES 13
2.1.3 NATIONAL AND STATE-LEVEL DATA ON BEACH NOTIFICATIONS AND
ATTENDANCE 14
2.1.4 RISK PERCEPTION AND COMMUNICATION LITERATURE 15
2.2 LIMITATIONS 15
CHAPTERS | BACKGROUND ON RISK COMMUNICATION 17
3.1 FUNDAMENTALS OF RISK COMMUNICATION 17
3.2 LITERATURE ON RISK COMMUNICATION RELATED TO RECREATION AND WATER
POLLUTION 19
3.3 IMPLICATIONS OF RISK COMMUNICATION LITERATURE FOR BEACH ADVISORIES 21
CHAPTER 4 | FINDINGS 22
4.1 HOW GRANTEES ARE USING BEACH ACT FUNDING TO NOTIFY THE PUBLIC 22
4.1.1 BEACH NOTIFICATION RESPONSIBILITIES 23
4.1.2 METHODS USED TO NOTIFY THE PUBLIC 26
4.1.3 REASONS FOR SELECTING SPECIFIC NOTIFICATION METHODS 47
4.2 WHICH NOTIFICATION METHODS ARE MOST EFFECTIVE IN REACHING THE
PUBLIC 48
4.3 EFFECT OF NOTIFICATIONS ON THE AWARENESS OF BEACHGOERS 55
4.4 EFFECT OF NOTIFICATIONS ON THE UNDERSTANDING OF BEACHGOERS 59
4.5 EFFECT OF NOTIFICATIONS ON THE BEHAVIOR OF BEACHGOERS 61
CHAPTER 5 | CONCLUSIONS 70
5.1 BEACH NOTIFICATION PROGRAMS USE A COMPLEMENTARY SUITE OF
NOTIFICATION MESSAGES 70
5.2 THE CONTENT AND FORMAT OF BEACH NOTIFICATION MESSAGES VARIES,
EXAMPLES DRAWN FROM STATES AND LOCALITIES SUGGEST GOOD PRACTICES 70
ES-ii
-------
5.3 NOTIFICATION MESSAGES REACH ONLY A FRACTION OF BEACHGOERS, BUT
SOCIAL NETWORKING TOOLS, AS WELL AS TRADITIONAL MEDIA, CAN EXPAND
REACH 71
5.4 PUBLIC AWARENESS OF BEACH ADVISORIES VARIES; BEACHGOERS WHO ARE
AWARE OF SIGNS OFTEN FIND THEM HELPFUL 72
5.5 BEACH ADVISORIES APPEAR TO HAVE SOME EFFECT ON BEHAVIOR, BUT OTHER
FACTORS MAY PREDOMINATE 72
5.6 BEACH NOTIFICATION PROGRAMS HAVE EVOLVED BASED ON EXPERIENCE, BUT
LITTLE SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION OF PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS HAS BEEN
COMPLETED 73
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW CONTACTS
APPENDIX B: REFERENCES
APPENDIX C: STATE INTERVIEW GUIDE
APPENDIX D: LOCAL INTERVIEW GUIDE
APPENDIX E: SUMMARY OF BEACH NOTIFICATION WEBSITE FEATURES
ES-iii
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
For the last nine years, EPA has made approximately $10 million in grants per year to eligible
coastal and Great Lakes states, territories, and tribes through the Beaches Environmental
Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act. The grants are designed to help implement
programs to monitor water quality at their beaches and to notify the public when water
quality problems exist. Each swimming season, state and local health and environmental
protection agencies monitor bacteria levels in the water and, when levels exceed water quality
criteria, notify the public by various means (e.g., through signs at the beach, websites,
telephone hot lines). In some cases agencies close beaches (i.e., prevent visitors from
entering the water).
EPA is interested in assessing the effectiveness of the notification component of the BEACH
Act. This evaluation seeks to address: 1) how grantees are using BEACH Act funding to
notify the public of beach conditions; 2) which notification methods are the most effective in
reaching the public; and 3) how beachgoers' awareness of beach advisories and closures,
understanding of water quality risks, and beach visitation behavior has changed in response to
notifications.
The evaluation uses a mixed-method approach that combines interviews with state and local
beach managers and other stakeholders, a review of the relevant literature and past studies,
and site-specific case studies. Most of the state and local beach programs reviewed in this
evaluation have not assessed the effectiveness of their beach notifications, nor have they
collected data on how beach notifications influence public awareness and understanding of
water quality risks, or behavior in response to notifications. However a few states and
localities have conducted surveys of beachgoer perceptions. This information, used in
combination with anecdotal information from beach authorities and relevant literature,
provides the basis for the findings in this evaluation.
FINDINGS
Findings for each evaluation question are summarized below:
HOW ARE GRANTEES USING BEACH ACT FUNDING TO NOTIFY THE PUBLIC OF
BEACH CONDITIONS?
The evaluation finds that states and local beach programs use a combination of methods to
notify the public about beach water quality, and that the methods reinforce each other. All of
the jurisdictions reviewed in this evaluation use websites as part of their notification
programs, and all but one post notification signs on their beaches. After websites and signs,
e-mail outreach and press releases are the next-most common notification tools. Several
states and local beach managers use social media (e.g., Facebook and Twitter) as a means of
ES-1
-------
communicating water quality issues with the beachgoing public and expanding the reach of
traditional notification methods. In addition to notifying the public about discrete advisories,
several states and local beach managers conduct general outreach and education efforts to
raise public awareness of water quality issues at beaches and enhance the reach of
notifications. Some states also conduct trainings for local beach managers about monitoring
and notification issues.
Overall, the states and localities interviewed for this evaluation tend to use, on average, more
than four different notification methods, some of which (e.g., signs) are targeted to
beachgoers at the beach, and others (e.g., websites) are targeted to potential visitors before
they travel to the beach. Beach program managers report that the different notification
methods reinforce each other (e.g., coverage in the media or signs at the beach drive traffic to
the website). Moreover, general public education and outreach are necessary to build a
common understanding of beach water quality issues, risks of contaminated water, and steps
that beachgoers can take to stay safe while still enjoying the beach. Educated members of the
public are more likely to be aware of, seek out, and abide by beach water quality notification
messages.
WHICH NOTIFICATION METHODS ARE THE MOST EFFECTIVE IN TERMS OF
REACHING THE PUBLIC?
This evaluation finds that beach signs, the Internet, and television are the most common
sources beachgoers use to learn of beach advisories or closings. However, the total target
audience for beach notifications can be very large, and therefore it can be difficult to reach
the majority of beachgoers. Beach managers are increasingly using social networking tools
(e.g., Facebook and Twitter) to expand the reach of their beach notification messages.
However, social networking tools typically only reach subscribers. Traditional media
approaches (e.g., press releases to local television stations and newspapers) can extend the
reach of notification messages to the general public (both residents and tourists). Overall, the
evaluation finds that a combination of notification methods is necessary to reach the largest
possible share of the beachgoing public.
In addition to selecting a range of appropriate notification methods, it is important to craft the
notification methods within the context of an overall risk communications strategy. As a part
of developing this strategy, it is necessary to identify the goal of the program (i.e., to inform
or influence the public), identify stakeholders, and earn the trust of key stakeholder groups.
Usually risk communication messages are judged first on the basis of whether the source can
be trusted, and only secondarily on the basis of the content of the message itself. Once a risk
communication plan is in place, it is possible to develop effective beach advisories.
An analysis of beach advisory signs and websites for states and localities reviewed in this
evaluation suggests that there is no standard format for beach notification messages at
beaches across the country. The content and wording of messages, as well as the level of
detail and contextual information provided, varies widely. Part of the reason for this diversity
may be that beach programs may tailor the content and format of their communications based
ES-2
-------
on their target audiences (e.g., residents vs. tourists), and based on the goal of the
communications (e.g., to inform vs. to influence beachgoer behavior). While directly
contrasting the effectiveness of one approach versus another is not possible, there are features
of signs and websites that are likely to be relatively effective in informing and influencing
behavior, based on comments from interviewees and the literature. Specifically, this
evaluation identifies good practices for beach signs and websites:
Beach signs that are large, durable, and placed in a prominent location are most
likely to be effective. Signs should convey meaning using widely-recognized
symbols and icons, along with simple text to explain the cause of the advisory or
closure. In addition, signs that use a familiar color scale (e.g., red, yellow, green) to
indicate risk levels should help beachgoers understand the risk. Signs can briefly
highlight consequences of water contact and tips on staying safe (although such
explanations will necessarily be very short). Signs should identify the agency
responsible for the advisory, as well as a source for more information (e.g., a phone
number or website). Where visitors are likely to speak languages other than English,
signs should be translated.
Websites can provide considerably more information than signs, and yet designing
the websites so that the most relevant information is summarized in a prominent
location is important in ensuring that beachgoers can quickly find the information. A
review of websites suggests that websites that prominently display a summary of the
status of each beach, or a list of all beaches under advisory, are most helpful. Several
websites also include other useful features such as allowing users to search for
current status and history for a particular beach of interest. Beachgoers may be more
likely to be able to understand simple summaries of testing results (e.g., beach open,
closed, or under advisory), rather than detailed testing results. In order to help
interested beachgoers understand the basis for the beach status, websites can provide
information about the day the beach was last sampled, the frequency of monitoring,
and an explanation for the cause of any advisories and testing methods. Websites can
also provide detailed information about health consequences of contact with
contaminated water, and advice on the activities that may be unsafe. Finally, beach
websites may provide information about beaches other than water quality (e.g.,
weather and beach amenities) to draw visitors to the beach website.
TO WHAT EXTENT DO NOTIFICATIONS AFFECT THE AWARENESS OF BEACHGOERS?
While research on beachgoer awareness is limited, the few studies that do exist vary in the
percentage of beachgoers that are aware of notifications. For example, awareness of beach
signs has varied from 2% to 54%, depending on the survey. Awareness of any notification
method tends to be higher, for example, one survey in Orange County, California found that
65% of residents and 45% of non-residents were aware of at least one source of information
on water quality However, a smaller percentage of beachgoers checks for information about
water quality before visiting a beach (approximately 20% of survey respondents or less).This
ES-3
-------
suggests that simply making sure beachgoers see signs and hear about other notification
methods prior to visiting a beach may be the greatest challenge for beach managers.
TO WHAT EXTENT DO NOTIFICATIONS AFFECT THE UNDERSTANDING OF
BEACHGOERS?
Very little data are available on the extent to which notifications affect beachgoer
understanding of risks. A few studies tested beachgoer understanding of beach signs in
particular; these studies suggest that the signs reviewed do communicate effectively to the
public. For example, between 72 and 87% of respondents in one small survey in Indiana
found redesigned signs to be very understandable, while 63% of survey respondents who
were aware of electronic signs in Orange County, California, found the signs helpful and easy
to understand.
TO WHAT EXTENT DO NOTIFICATIONS AFFECT THE BEHAVIOR OF BEACHGOERS?
Studies that consider factors influencing beachgoer behavior suggest that beach advisories
influence some members of the public, but that weather and water temperature seem to be
stronger factors in many individuals' decisions not to swim. Beach attendance data do
suggest a relationship between number of visitors and advisory status, but weather also exerts
a strong influence on beach attendance. An unknown proportion of individuals choose to
visit the beach and enter the water even when advisories are in place. There may be many
reasons that individuals choose to contact the water when an advisory is in place, including
not only being unaware of the advisory, but also other factors such as not having alternate
recreation opportunities, or individuals' belief that they will not get sick.
In addition to the specific evaluation questions above, this evaluation finds there is very
limited data which can provide a foundation for a comprehensive evaluation of beach
notification programs. While a few programs have conducted targeted studies to identify
areas to improve, most programs have not conducted such research, and no programs have
conducted a series of studies over time to assess changes in behavior as the beach notification
programs evolved. The scarcity of data on effects of beach notification (e.g., large scale
surveys of beachgoers and data on beach attendance) substantially limits an evaluation of the
outcomes of effectiveness of beach notification programs. Interviews with states and
localities suggest that funding is a limiting factor for beach programs, and therefore the
paucity of primary research may be due to lack of resources to gather data. Additional
research in the form of surveys of beachgoers and tracking attendance records would help
assess program effectiveness.
ES-4
-------
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION
This report describes a mixed-methods evaluation of the notification component of the
Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act (BEACH Act) monitoring and
notification program (hereafter, the notification program). This evaluation has been funded
as part of EPA's annual Program Evaluation Competition.
The chapter provides background on the notification program, describes the purpose and
audience for the evaluation, and identifies the evaluation questions.
1.1 BACKGROUND
Congress enacted the BEACH Act in 2000 as an amendment to the Clean Water Act (CWA)
in order to improve the quality of coastal recreation waters. The BEACH Act authorizes EPA
to provide grants to eligible coastal and Great Lakes states, territories, and tribes to monitor
their coastal beaches for bacteria that indicate the possible presence of disease-causing
pathogens, and to notify the public when there is a potential risk to public health (U.S.
Congress, 2000).
When pathogens such as bacteria, viruses, and protozoa are present at sufficient levels in
swimming water, they can cause adverse health effects for people that have been in contact
with the water. One of the most common health effects of poor recreational water quality is
gastroenteritis, a condition that can include vomiting, diarrhea, nausea, and stomachaches
(Stoner and Dorfman, 2004). Other potential adverse health effects include hepatitis,
respiratory illness, and ear, nose, and throat problems.
The BEACH Act notification program is intended to help the public make better informed
decisions about beach use, resulting in a reduction in illness from contact with contaminated
water. As a part of this program the EPA Office of Water (OW) makes approximately $10
million in grants available each year to eligible coastal and Great Lakes states, territories, and
tribes to help them implement their respective monitoring and notification programs. Grants
range in value (from under $100,000 to over $500,000 in 2010), and are based on an
allocation formula that considers several factors, including 1) beach season length, 2) total
miles of shoreline, 3) coastal county population, 4) beach miles, and 5) beach use (U.S. EPA
Office of Water, 2010). Among conditions for receiving funding under the BEACH Act,
EPA's grant guidance stipulates that states or other grantees must:
-------
Develop an overall public notification and risk communication plan that describes
the state, tribal, or local government public notification efforts regarding potential
risks associated with recreational contact with water that does not meet applicable
standards.
Notify relevant government agencies when beach water quality does not meet
applicable state standards. States are required to notify local governments promptly
when water quality standards are exceeded. In addition, state, tribal, and local
governments must notify EPA annually of exceedances of water quality standards and
actions taken to notify the public.
Notify the public when beach water quality does not meet standards. Grantees
must promptly notify the public of a water quality standard exceedance when there is
no reason to doubt the accuracy of the sample; in some cases grantees may resample
for bacterial exceedance of a water quality standard. When a water quality standard is
exceeded, grantees must post a sign to notify the public or take other steps that are the
functional equivalent of posting a sign.
EPA's grant guidance document discusses the types of notifications that may be issued, the
content and wording of advisories or closings, the timing of issuance and lifting of an
advisory, and placement of beach signs (U.S. EPA Office of Water, 2002). : For example,
the guidance suggests that beach managers notify the public using beach signs, mass media
(e.g., newspapers, television, and radio), press releases, websites, telephone hotlines, and
technical reports. In addition to notifying the public, the guidance recommends that the
appropriate agency promptly notify the beach owner, manager, operator, and/or the
lifeguards. The guidance also recommends that grantees evaluate their public notification
program at various times throughout the risk communication process. 2 The guidance
includes a placeholder for supplemental materials under development that will describe
effective practices for beach notification.
When indicator bacterial levels exceed the state or tribal water quality standard, the
appropriate state or local authorities may either issue and advisory or close the beach,
depending on state-specific protocols. EPA guidance strongly recommends that states and
tribes consider beach closures when a sewage spill or major leaks are suspected.
In 2009 (the most recent year for which data are available), of the 3,819 coastal beaches that
were monitored, 1,642 (43%) had at least one advisory or closure. States and territories
reported 6,203 notification actions during the 2009 swimming season. Most actions (88%)
Note that the complete original guidance, dating back to 2002, is available online, as are more recent updates.
2 Regarding evaluation, the guidance notes that it is important to include activities, benchmarks, and milestones that require
formative, process, and summary evaluation data to be collected and used. Factors to be evaluated include whether the
notification program meets the needs of the audiences and the objectives of the agency.
-------
lasted a week or less. EPA calculates that in 2009, beaches were under an advisory or closed
about 5% of the time (U.S. EPA Office of Water, 2009).3
The basic structure and design of the BEACH Act notification program, from EPA's
perspective, is captured in the logic model shown in Exhibit 1. Key components of the logic
model include:
Resources: basic inputs of funds, staffing, and knowledge dedicated to the program.
For example, the notification program draws on approximately $10 million in BEACH
Act grants, which cover monitoring and notification.
Activities/Outputs: specific actions taken to achieve program goals and the
immediate products that result. For example, EPA issues BEACH Act grants and
develops grant guidance and performance criteria, as discussed above. EPA also
collects beach notification and closure data from states, analyzes the data, and
produces an annual report and a corresponding database with information on beach
closings and advisories.
Target Audiences: groups that the program seeks to influence. The principal target
audience for the notification program is the beachgoing public, however additional
important audiences include local authorities and beach managers; EPA Regional
beach coordinators; and state, tribal, and territorial officials.
Short-Term Outcomes: intended changes in awareness, attitudes, understanding,
knowledge, and skills resulting from program outputs. For example, the notification
program seeks to inform the public when beach advisories are issued, and to shape
public understanding and awareness of the risks of contact with waterborne pathogens,
and why beachgoers should abide by beach advisories and closures.
Intermediate Outcomes: involve changes in behavior resulting from short-term
outcomes. Under the beach notification program, awareness and understanding about
beach advisories and closures supports informed decisions about avoiding contact
with contaminated water.
Long-Term Outcomes: outcomes that parallel the overarching goals of the program
and include reduced illness associated with exposure to contaminated water.
Contextual/External Factors: factors that may affect program performance but are
not directly controlled by the program or partner agencies that implement the program.
For example, updated water quality standards and monitoring test methods would
determine action thresholds for notification, which could in turn affect the
implementation and outcomes of the notification program.
3 To calculate total available "beach days," EPA multiplies the duration of each state's and territory's beach season (in days) by
the number of beaches in the state or territory, and sums for all states and territories. EPA then counts the number of beach
days with notification actions, and calculates this as a percentage of total beach days.
-------
Notes on the logic model:
1) States and territories are the primary recipients of BEACH Act grants; certain tribes
are also eligible to apply for funding.4 These direct funding recipients may use the
funds themselves to implement BEACH Act monitoring and notification programs,
or they may distribute some of their funds to municipalities, counties, and
universities for program implementation. In Exhibit 1, the term funding recipients
indicates both direct and indirect funding recipients.
2) The evaluation questions are aimed at assessing components of the notification
program identified in the logic model, as indicated by the circled letters in Exhibit 1.
Corresponding evaluation questions, identified by the letters in the middle column in
Exhibit 2, are presented in page 7 of this report.
4 To receive BEACH Act grants, tribes, like states and territories, must have coastal and Great Lakes recreational waters next to
beaches or similar points of access used by the public. In addition, a tribe must demonstrate that it meets the "treatment in the
same manner as a state" criteria contained in section 518(e) of the Clean Water Act. Two tribes currently meet these criteria and
receive grants from EPA under the BEACH Act.
-------
EXHIBIT 1 LOGIC MODEL FOR THE BEACH ACT NOTIFICATION PROGRAM
Logic Diagram of the Notification Component of the BEACH Act Monitoring and Notification Program
March 4, 2011
I Target Audience
Outcomes
Resources
Activities
Outputs
Short-term
Intermediate
Long-term
standards,
''-.. criteria, and test _
''-..methods ..-'''
8 EPA Regions distribute funds to
eligible coastal and Great Lakes
states, territories and tribes
35 eligible States and Territories and
2 eligible Tribes may redistribute
funds to municipalities, counties,
universities
Funding recipients:
Monitor Tier 1 beaches
Test water quality
If results exceed
water quality
standards:
Based on monitoring,
beach managers notify
the public about water
quality conditions:
a) Advise the public
beach use
b) Close beaches
Notify relevant agenc
Conduct data analysis/QA
Develop Annual Report
Maintain National database
Update guidance and
performance criteria for grants
Identify sources of beach
contamination
Remediate sources
of contamination
Reduced illnesses
Public is aware of:
Poor water quality
Notifications: advisories
and closures
Health impacts of poor
water quality
Public better understands:
Why to modify behavior
What behaviors are safe
Key:
EPAHQ
Funding
Recipients
Regions
Target
Audience
States, Territories,
Notification 1
. Component 1
Tribes
-------
1.2 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND AUDIENCE
This evaluation seeks to address the effectiveness of the beach notification program, and to
the extent possible, the relative effectiveness of various notification methods. The evaluation
is intended to help policy makers and beach managers understand, and potentially improve,
public notification of beach conditions so as to ultimately help the public make better
informed decisions about beach use.
Evidence of the effectiveness of various notification methods could be used to supplement or
update the existing grant guidance. In addition, states, territories, tribes, and local
governments could use information from the evaluation to develop or improve their
individual program strategies. Finally, the evaluation identifies where additional research
could help further understanding of the program effectiveness. Therefore, key audiences for
this evaluation include BEACH Act staff at EPA Headquarters, EPA Regional beach program
coordinators, state, local, and tribal officials involved in implementing beach notification
programs, and researchers.
1.3 EVALUATION QUESTIONS
Overall, this evaluation seeks to answer the following:
1. How are grantees using BEACH Act funding to notify the public of beach conditions;
2. Which notification methods are the most effective in reaching the public; and
3. How has beachgoers' awareness of beach advisories and closures, understanding of water
quality risks, and beach visitation behavior changed in response to notifications.
EPA's Office of Water developed a preliminary set of evaluation questions, which the
evaluation contractors (Industrial Economics and Abt Associates Inc.), working in concert
with EPA's Evaluation Support Division, helped refine. The evaluators also developed a
corresponding set of detailed research questions. Exhibit 2 presents the evaluation questions
and research questions. The letter code in the middle column indicates the node in the logic
model shown in Exhibit 1 which the evaluation question seeks to inform. References to
notification "methods" in Exhibit 2 are meant to cover both the notification type (signs,
internet, etc.) and the design and content of the notification (e.g., what combinations of text
and graphics are used).
-------
EXHIBIT 2. OVERARCHING EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND CORRESPONDING
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
OVERARCHING EVALUATION
QUESTION
How are grantees using
BEACH Act funding to
notify the public of beach
conditions?
Which notification
methods are the most
effective in terms of
reaching the public?
To what extent do
notifications affect the
awareness of beachgoers?
To what extent do
notifications affect the
understanding of
beachgoers?
To what extent do
notifications affect the
behavior of beachgoers?
CONNECTION TO
THE LOGIC MODEL
A
B
C
D
E
DETAILED RESEARCH QUESTIONS
A.1 What methods are used by local beach officials
to notify the public regarding beach conditions?
A.2 Which methods are the most and least
common?
A. 3 What factors influence local officials to choose
one method of notification vs. another (e.g.,
funding, program history)?
B.1 How do beachgoers most often learn of beach
advisories or closings?
B.2 What is the estimated audience reached by
each method?
B.3 Do the notification methods differ in terms of
the types of audiences they are reaching?
C.1 Does awareness of poor water quality,
presence of notifications, or potential health
impacts vary by notification method?
D.1 Does public understanding of why to modify
behavior and what behaviors are safe vary by
notification method?
E.1 Are there observable changes (e.g., since
2000) in the number of beach visits or activities
beachgoers engage in for beaches subject to
advisories or closures?
E.2 How do beachgoers change their behavior
when their preferred beach is under an advisory or
closure (e.g., by not visiting the beach, visiting a
different beach, or avoiding contact with the
water)?
E.3 Does beachgoer behavior vary by notification
type?
E.4 What other factors, aside from notification
methods, may influence public behavior (e.g.,
beach management characteristics, such as
presence of lifeguards or another "official"
presence on the beach; beach location
characteristics such as number of access points to
the beach).
-------
The remainder of this report is organized as follows:
Chapter 2 describes the evaluation methodology, including sources of data and types
of analysis conducted, as well as the limitations of this approach.
Chapter 3 summarizes relevant information from the general literature on risk
communication and from studies that addressed the specific challenges of
communicating environmental risk. The purpose of the literature review is to provide
a foundation for assessing the effectiveness of the different notification tools and their
applications.
Chapter 4 discusses the findings from our evaluation research. The discussion is
organized by the three primary evaluation questions and presents overall findings of
the research, informed by interviews, prior studies, and site- and issue-specific
discussions drawing from experience of selected beach programs.
Chapter 5 provides the evaluation's conclusions.
Supporting material such as interview guides, contacts, and references are included in the
Appendices.
-------
CHAPTER 2 | METHODOLOGY
The study is designed as a mixed-method evaluation that combines interviews with
information compiled from existing studies, surveys and the published literature. This
chapter describes the sources and types of data compiled as part of the evaluation, how the
data were analyzed, and the inherent limits of the analysis.
2.1 DATA SOURCES AND ANALYTIC APPROACH
The evaluation draws on multiple data sources in order to answer the evaluation questions.
Key sources of information include: 1) interviews and e-mail correspondence with
knowledgeable stakeholders from EPA regions, states, tribes, counties and localities, U.S.
territories and other organizations, 2) existing beach user surveys and other studies that
examine the effects of beach notifications on public awareness and behavior, 3) existing
studies from the broader literature that provide additional insight on effective methods of
communicating health risks to the public, and 4) national and state-level data on beach
notifications and beach attendance. The sections below describe each of these data sources
and how they contribute to answering the evaluation questions.
2.1.1 INTERVIEWS AND CORRESPONDENCE
The evaluation draws on the experience and perspectives of stakeholders with personal
knowledge about notification program implementation and its effects on the public. We5
conducted nine structured interviews in each of two primary groups of interviewees: 1) state
contacts, and 2) tribal, county, or local authorities and beach managers. We used a distinct
interview guide with different questions for each group of interviewees. Hereafter we refer to
both county and local interviews as "local" interviews (to contrast them with state
interviews). However most of the local interviews were in fact at the county level and three
were at the city or town level.
In addition to helping answer the research questions, we also used the interviews to identify
additional data sources (e.g., other interviewees, studies of beachgoer attitudes and behavior
conducted at specific beaches, or data sets on beach attendance).
Answers to all of the research questions identified in Exhibit 2 are informed by interview
responses. State, tribal, and local interviewees provided responses based on their direct
experience in implementing some or all notifications for beaches within their jurisdiction.
Their perspectives directly informed research questions A.I, A.2, and A.3.
Since restrictions of the Paperwork Reduction Act prevented us from interviewing
beachgoers directly about their awareness, understanding, and response to beach
notifications, we asked state, tribal, and local authorities, as well as EPA Regional beach
5 Throughout this report, "we" refers to the evaluation contractors lEc and Abt Associates Inc.
-------
program coordinators, about their perceptions of the public's response to beach notifications.
Insights from these interviewees inform evaluation questions B, C, D, and E and complement
information available in existing studies and surveys.
We used a snowball sampling method to select candidates for the interviews,6 beginning with
EPA regional beach program coordinators. This is a multi-step process, as described below.
Step 1: We asked EPA regional beach coordinators from the eight EPA Regions
involved in the notification program for information on state, territorial, and tribal
government contacts in their Region that they believe would be most likely to have
relevant information about how notifications are conducted and how they influence
the awareness, understanding, and behavior of the beachgoing public. We also asked
for contacts within local governments, universities, non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), or other organizations in their Region that are knowledgeable about the
beach notification program or may have information about how notifications affect the
public. Finally, we also requested information on any studies or surveys conducted in
the Region that could offer data relevant to beach notification and beachgoer
perceptions and behavior to supplement the studies that had already been identified by
EPA and through literature search.
Step 2: We selected nine state government contacts to interview based on the
recommendations of EPA Regional beach coordinators. Interviewees were selected
from the list of recommended contacts so as to include at least one state from each
EPA region, with a preference for those locations that regional coordinators suggested
are particularly active in the notification program and informed about its effects on
beachgoers. We then conducted telephone interviews to gather state contacts'
perspectives on the research questions, and to ask for contacts at local levels (e.g.,
local authorities and beach managers) that would be knowledgeable about beach
notifications and their effects on public behavior. In addition, we requested
information on any studies or surveys in the state that are relevant to beach
notification and beachgoer perceptions and behavior. Interviews with the state
government contacts followed a standard interview guide provided in Appendix C.
Interviews ranged from 30 to 75 minutes.
Step 3: We selected nine tribal and local beach managers from the candidates
identified by regional contacts and state interviewees. Our first priority was to
identify interviewees that regions or state contacts suggested might have access to
local data, surveys, or studies on public responses to beach notifications. From among
those localities, we further classified potential local beach contacts according to types
of notification methods used and EPA region. Tribal and local beach contacts were
selected to ensure maximum representation across regions and notification methods.
In selecting candidates for interviews, we considered characteristics of the local beach
Snowball sampling can be used when the desired sample characteristic is uncommon in the general population. In this case, the
sample characteristic is specialized knowledge about the BEACH Act notification program. Snowball sampling relies on referrals
from initial subjects to generate additional subjects for possible interviews.
10
-------
monitoring and notification program, particularly concerning activities that were
distinct from the state program, and also considered existing studies and the degree to
which the beach notification program was either well-established or new. We
conducted telephone interviews to gather information on notification program
implementation and the public's response. We also collected any available data on
public responses to beach notifications. Interviews with the tribal and local beach
program contacts were conducted following the standard interview guide provided in
Appendix D. Interviews ranged from 30 to 90 minutes.
Exhibit 3 provides the list of state, tribal, and local beach programs whose managers we
interviewed using the standard interview guides. The map in Exhibit 4 highlights the state,
local and tribal programs interviewed for this study.
EXHIBIT 3.
OVERVIEW OF STANDARD INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED
INTERVIEWEE CATEGORY
INTERVIEWEES
State contacts
Florida
Hawaii
Indiana
Massachusetts
Maryland
New Jersey
Rhode Island
Texas
Washington
Local and Tribal contacts
Makah Tribe7
Orange County, California
City of Newport Beach, California
Chicago Park District, Illinois
Town of Ogden Dunes, Indiana
Barnstable County, Massachusetts
Anne Arundel County, Maryland
Monmouth County, New Jersey
Galveston County Health District, Texas
7 The Makah Tribe is located on the Olympic Peninsula, WA.
11
-------
EXHIBIT 4.
STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL BEACH PROGRAMS INTERVIEWED
Local Interviews
Interviewed States
Non-Coastal States
Coastal States Not Interviewed
American Samoa Guam
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands
V
Virgin Islands
Together, the states interviewed for this evaluation monitored 1,697 beaches in 2009, or
about 45% of the total number of coastal beaches monitored nationally.
In addition to the interviews described above, which used a standard interview guide, we also
contacted other individuals to cover other program-specific questions. In particular, we
contacted beach managers in three U.S. territories, individuals from two non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), selected stakeholders familiar with beach notification at particular
beaches we researched in more detail for case studies (described later), and academic
researchers. All of these individuals were identified through our interviews and literature
search as having specific knowledge or access to data pertaining to public response to beach
notifications (Exhibit 5). We made these contacts primarily through e-mail correspondence,
but also through phone conversations.8 The purpose of these efforts was to gather additional
information about program activities, history of beach notification programs in specific
locations discussed in the case studies, ongoing or unpublished studies relevant to the
evaluation questions, and different perspectives.
These conference calls are distinct from the interviews because they did not follow a structured interview format.
12
-------
EXHIBIT 5.
ADDITIONAL CONTACTS AND CORRESPONDENCE
CATEGORY
U.S. Territory
Non-Governmental Organization
(NGO)
Local Stakeholder
Local Government
Academia
ORGANIZATION
Guam
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
American Samoa
Islands (CNMI)
Heal the Bay
Surf rider- Rhode Island Chapter, South Texas Chapter, and
Coastal Bend (Texas) Chapter
Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries Program,
Corpus Christi Windsurfing Association
Corpus Christi Texas
City of Corpus Christi
University of Illinois-Chicago
Finally, we discussed preliminary findings from our interviews and additional data collection
with EPA regional coordinators to assess the extent to which these preliminary findings fairly
represented notification programs within their region.
2.1.2 BEACH USER SURVEYS AND BEACH NOTIFICATION STUDIES
In addition to the interviews and direct contacts described above, the evaluation draws on
information collected in existing studies or beach user surveys identified from the literature or
provided by the interviewees.
Several pertinent studies conducted by EPA, state agencies, and academic researchers in the
last decade have addressed, directly or indirectly, the effectiveness of beach notification and
its effects on behavior of the beachgoing public. These studies, which generally use intercept
surveys of beach users and/or surveys of the general public as their main data collection
technique, aim to understand how beachgoers get their information regarding beach water
quality, how they interpret the information, and whether the information influences their
behavior. Given that we could not interview individual beachgoers as part of this evaluation,
as described earlier, we used existing studies and surveys as an additional source of detailed
data necessary to help answer evaluation questions B,C, D, and E.
Existing studies and surveys consider several issues relevant to the evaluation, including:
The use of different communication approaches and media and their
effectiveness in reaching the public (or certain subset populations). One study
summarized the range of methods used by state beach monitoring programs to inform
the public about water quality at beaches (Barker, 2009). The Natural Resources
Defense Council issues a report, Testing the Waters, that also describes notification
methods (NRDC, 2010). These sources are useful in highlighting the frequency with
which different methods are used across state programs. They are limited, however,
in the insight they offer regarding the reach of different methods and their
effectiveness at improving the public's understanding of the risk.
13
-------
How awareness of notifications affect risk perception. The academic literature
provides several studies of risk perception as it applies to beach water quality. These
studies are generally based on surveys that: 1) relate the public's awareness of beach
notifications (or of local environmental issues in general) to beach
visitation/participation, and/or 2) specifically consider how beach users obtain water
quality information.
How risk perception affects beachgoers' behavior. Several studies seek to
understand what factors affect risk perception and the behavior of beach users. For
example, researchers have explored how various factors, e.g., water quality
measurements, presence of physical debris, and general messages in the media, affect
beachgoer's perception of water quality. Other studies have looked at factors that
drive selection of one beach over another, including water quality, water temperature,
and recreational amenities. However, we found only two studies that addressed the
relationship between perception of beach water quality on a given day and beach
attendance or beachgoer behavior (Shaik, 2005 and Turbow et. al., 2004).
2.1.3 NATIONAL AND STATE-LEVEL DATA ON BEACH NOTIFICATIONS AND
ATTENDANCE
The most comprehensive source of data on beach notifications is the EPA beach program's
PRAWN database (PRogram tracking, beach Advisories, Water quality standards and
Nutrients). PRAWN provides data on beach characteristics and on advisories, closures, and
other notification events. EPA publishes a summary of these data approximately a year after
the end of each summer swimming season. In this evaluation, we used the PRAWN database
information to understand the programmatic activities of states interviewed, to develop and
focus the interview guides, to help in developing case studies, and to provide additional
context to the responses on various evaluation questions.
Several sources provide national- or state-specific data on beach attendance, but only one of
these provided sufficient detail to be combined with the PRAWN data to assess the
relationship between beach attendance and advisory status (see Case Study C in Chapter 4).
In particular, this case study draws on detailed beach attendance data from Newport Beach,
California, and provides a regression analysis to assess the relationship between beach
attendance, beach advisories, and other factors that may affect beach attendance, such as
temperature. Other sources of beach attendance data did not provide sufficient detail for this
type of analysis, but instead provided additional context for certain findings, such as to
contrast the estimated number of visits to a state's beaches annually to the number of hits to
the state's beach notification website. These sources include the National Survey on
Recreation and the Environment (Leeworthy and Wiley, 2001) and visitation data for Great
Lakes beaches from the literature (e.g., Austin et al., 2007). In addition, EPA provided
attendance data for nine beaches around the country from the National Epidemiological and
Environmental Assessment of Recreational (NEEAR) Water Study. However, since data
were only available for 20 to 30 days for each beach, and these days did not have substantial
overlap with days when beach advisories were issued, we were not able to analyze the
relationship between beach attendance and beach advisories for these NEEAR study beaches.
14
-------
2.1.4 RISK PERCEPTION AND COMMUNICATION LITERATURE
In addition to studies that address beach user surveys and beach water quality notifications
specifically, the evaluation also considers insights from the general risk communication
literature. Risk communication theory offers useful conceptual frameworks for
understanding factors that influence individuals' perception of risk and best practices for
effective public communication. This general literature, along with selected literature that
pertains more specifically to the communication of environmental risk to the public through
advisories (i.e., water quality and fish consumption advisories), provide the context for
assessing beach notification tools and messages.
2.2 LIMITATIONS
As with any evaluation, the findings of this evaluation are limited by available data, resources
and time, as well as by statutory constraints (specifically the Paperwork Reduction Act).
These conditions lead to uncertainties, potential errors, and bias, the four most important of
which are described below:
Uncertainties associated with secondary data. A survey of beachgoers was outside
the scope of this evaluation and we were therefore not able to directly assess
beachgoers' awareness of beach notifications or how notifications affect their
understanding of health risks or their behavior. Instead, we primarily relied on
secondary reports of beachgoers awareness, understanding, and behavior from
interviews with several categories of stakeholders, as well as existing studies and
survey data. However, interviewees may not have sufficient information to accurately
or completely characterize the experiences of beachgoers; and past studies and
surveys may not be representative of the experiences of beachgoers in other locales or
for current conditions.
Sampling error associated with snowball sampling techniques. Since we relied on
certain interviewees (EPA regional beach coordinators) to recommend contacts for
other interviewees (state contacts), who in turn recommended local or tribal
authorities or beach managers to interview, it was not possible to ensure that the
interviewees adequately represent knowledgeable individuals in each group. To
partially address this potential sampling error, we sought to ensure that interviewees,
particularly at the local level, represent different EPA regions and types of notification
methods.
Qualitative, non-experimental research design. The evaluation did not involve a
true or quasi-experiment to test the effectiveness of different beach notification
methods. Instead, as noted earlier, the evaluation relied on secondary data (i.e.,
existing research studies) and second-hand reports of the influence of beach
notifications on beachgoer behavior. Therefore, the causal impact of beach
notifications on beachgoer behavior cannot be determined from this evaluation.
Lack of detailed national-level data sets which would allow comprehensive
correlation of beach notifications with beach attendance. Existing data sets (e.g.,
15
-------
PRAWN and the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment) provide
information on beach notifications and beach attendance, but the data are not specific
enough to relate notifications to subsequent changes in beach attendance or changes in
beachgoer behavior (e.g., whether or not beachgoers swim). While we sought beach
attendance records from local beach managers, and we analyze one dataset in Case
Study C later in this report, such data are very limited. It is difficult to show a causal
relationship between notifications and beachgoer attendance given the myriad other
factors that may affect beach attendance (e.g., weather and day of the week).
Moreover, beach attendance records may not serve as an accurate behavioral
indicator, since beachgoers may visit the beach but still change their behavior in
response to advisories by staying out of the water.
16
-------
CHAPTER 3 | BACKGROUND ON RISK COMMUNICATION
This chapter summarizes relevant background from the literature on risk communication as
context for this evaluation. The discussion first provides an overview of the fundamentals of
risk communication. We then discuss insight from studies that look at the effectiveness of
different communication strategies in the context of environmental risk communication,
focusing specifically on studies of water quality and fish consumption advisories. The
chapter concludes with suggestions about how this risk literature may inform understanding
of the findings of our evaluation, which are presented in Chapter 4.
3.1 FUNDAMENTALS OF RISK COMMUNICATION
The general literature on risk communication offers a useful framework for understanding the
process, and also the challenges, of beach notifications. Key steps of risk communication
include: 1) creating a risk communication strategy; 2) establishing public trust; 3) crafting
specific risk communications; and 4) evaluating outcomes (adapted from Bennett, undated).
Each of these steps is considered in more detail below.
Creating a risk communication strategy requires first and foremost establishing the goal of
the risk communication. An agency may be seeking either to influence or inform the public.
Influencing the public involves convincing individuals to take (or avoid) certain actions.
Alternatively, an agency may simply strive to inform the public; this calls for sharing
information so that individuals can make their own judgments and risk management decisions
(NgandHamby, 1997).
When discussing the intent of public communication on beach water quality, EPA's National
Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants (June 2002) stipulates that
grantees should use "measures such as beach
advisories or closings to inform the public of the
potential risks associated with water contact activities
in waters that exceed applicable state or tribal water
quality standards."9 (emphasis added) The guidance
further notes it is up to local beach managers to
decide whether to close a beach or issue an advisory,
and that advisories are recommendations to the public
to avoid swimming in water that has exceeded
applicable water quality standards. This suggests that
the general purpose of the beach notifications is to
inform beachgoers so that they can make an educated
decision about whether to swim, rather than to ensure
that no swimming occurs during an advisory.
However, individual states and localities vary in the
degree to which they seek to influence the public, and
Plan Carefully and Evaluate Your Efforts:
"Begin with clear, explicit risk
communication objectives, such as
providing information to the public [or]
motivating individuals to act. ... Classify
and segment the various groups in your
audience. Aim your communications at
specific subgroups in your audience. ...
Whenever possible, pretest your
messages. Carefully evaluate your efforts
and learn from your mistakes."
Source: Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk
Communication, US EPA, 1988,
OPA-87-020
9 Section 5.3.2.
17
-------
some beach managers do seek to keep beachgoers out of water that does not meet water
quality standards. Given the implications that the different goals may have on all aspects of
the notification program, it is important that beach managers be clear about the goal of their
communication strategy.
As part of developing their communication strategy, state and local agencies should also
identify different stakeholders and consider how different stakeholders will perceive the
beach notification messages. For example, for beach advisories, stakeholders could include
local and tourist beachgoers, as well as local business owners and environmental groups.
Each of these groups may have different levels of awareness of, and interests in, beach
notification, and may require different types and content of communication (e.g., tourists may
not read local newspapers, some beachgoers may need to have advisories translated into a
language besides English, and some local advocacy groups may be able to communicate
beach advisories to their membership).
Regardless of an agency's goal to inform or influence, agencies practicing effective risk
communication also work to establish trust with key stakeholder groups. Usually risk
communication messages are judged first on the basis of whether the source can be trusted,
and only secondarily on the basis of the content of the message itself. The extent of trust
defines the limits of how effective risk communication can be: "If trust is lacking, no form or
process of communication will be satisfactory" (Slovic, 1993) and "Trust is an important pre-
requisite for effective orientation and action." (Ng and Hamby, 1997) There are four key
factors that determine trust: commitment, competence, caring, and predictability (Kasperson,
Golding, and Tuler, 1992). Beach managers charged with communicating risk to the public
must therefore strive to demonstrate their trustworthiness to the public, e.g., by providing
consistent, accurate information and by showing concern about public welfare. It may also
be helpful to partner with parties that already have the public's trust, such as a local television
station or neighborhood organizations, in order to get the word out about beach advisories.
In addition to establishing trust, agencies must craft specific risk communications that are
tuned to the characteristics of both the risk and the target audience. Certain risks are
perceived as more worrisome than others. Risk perception can be influenced by the degree of
control individuals feel they have over a risk, the immediacy of the risk, and the "catastrophic
potential" of situations (Martin and Pendleton, undated; Palenchar and Heath, 2002; Slovic,
1987). Exhibit 6 summarizes factors that tend to make a risk more worrying. A number of
these factors do not apply to beach advisories, and thus the public may view the risks of
contact with contaminated water to be relatively acceptable compared to other risks.
Moreover, people tend to be subject to "self-positivity" bias, i.e., an individual's sense that
they are personally immune to the consequences of a risk (Menon, 2002). Given this, it may
be difficult to get individuals to take seriously the risks of contact with contaminated water,
and communications plans should be crafted accordingly.
Risk perception is based not only on factors that pertain directly to the risk, but also a wide
variety of characteristics specific to the individual perceiving the risk, such as trust in
authority figures, age, gender, disability, language proficiency, literacy, education level,
income, religious beliefs, and access to resources (Palenchar and Heath, 2002; Vaughan and
18
-------
Tinker, 2009). In other words, the public is not a "homogenous mass" but rather individuals
who may hold different values and perceptions of risk.
Besides crafting careful notification methods, effective risk communication also requires
evaluation of program outcomes. In fact, EPA's National Beach Guidance and Required
Performance Criteria for Grants (June 2002) requires that BEACH Act grantees evaluate
public notification and risk communications programs. Evaluations should address whether
the public and agency's objectives have been met, e.g., whether people have sufficient
knowledge and understanding to make an informed decision and whether their health was
protected. Evaluations of specific beach notification programs should be informed by the
program's goals (i.e., whether the intent is to inform or influence the public.) Assessing the
beach notification program outcomes and impacts may involve focus groups and surveys, and
should include not only program staff but also members of the public.
EXHIBIT 6. RISK-SPECIFIC FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE RISK PERCEPTION, AND
RELEVANCE TO BEACH ADVISORIES
RISKS ARE GENERALLY MORE WORRYING (AND LESS ACCEPTABLE) IF PERCEIVED:10
To be involuntary (e.g., exposure to ambient pollution) rather than voluntary (e.g.,
dangerous sports)
As inequitably distributed (some individuals benefit while others suffer the consequences)
As inescapable by taking personal precautions
To arise from an unfamiliar or novel source
To result from man-made, rather than natural sources
To cause hidden and irreversible damage (e.g., onset of illness many years after exposure)
To pose some particular danger to small children or pregnant women, or more generally to
future generations
To threaten a form of death (or illness or injury) arousing particular dread
To damage identifiable, rather than anonymous, victims
To be poorly understood by science
As subject to contradictory statements from responsible sources (or, even worse, from the
same source)
3.2 LITERATURE ON RISK COMMUNICATION RELATED TO RECREATION AND
WATER POLLUTION
Several studies have found that public perception of beach water pollution is based in large
part on direct experience. The public's initial perception of water quality is usually based not
on bacteriological data; rather, it is based what they can see or smell in the water (Martin and
Source: Bennett, undated.
19
-------
Pendleton, undated; Jensen and McClelland, 2010; House, 1996). Researchers have also
found that perceptions of water quality are often linked to observable indicators (e.g.,
physical debris) rather than to water quality monitoring results. Turbow et al. (2004) found
that concern over pollution was among the reasons for beachgoers not to swim during their
visit, but that temperature and other factors were also at play. Beach managers could use this
information in two ways as they strive to craft notification messages. First, they could
encourage beachgoers to take note of observable indicators of poor water quality (e.g.,
discolored water), and to be aware of factors that may lead to water contamination (e.g.,
recent rain leading to stormwater runoff). Alternatively, beach managers could actively seek
to counteract initial impressions, e.g., by conveying the message that even if beachgoers
cannot see or smell a problem, the water may still be contaminated. We did not find literature
on which of these approaches may be more effective in the context of beach notifications.
Media coverage can also affect public perception. For example, in a survey of beachgoers in
Los Angeles County, Pendleton et al. (2001) found that the perception of risk and the
resulting behavior related to beach use was influenced by several factors, including general
messages communicated by the media about water quality (in addition to specific advisories).
Media coverage can influence how individuals interpret their own experience. For example,
swimmers in the United Kingdom who had heard reports regarding water quality were almost
five times more likely to report skin ailments than swimmers who had not been exposed to
any information about water quality (Fleischer and Kay, 2006). These findings may suggest
that beach notification programs should include general media outreach as part of their
communications strategy, and not rely on individual notification messages in isolation.
Studies about the effectiveness offish advisories also offer potentially useful insights for
beach advisories by highlighting how individuals receive and understand environmental risk
communication.11 Several studies have found a relationship between awareness offish
advisories and angler behavior. For example, one study found that anglers who are aware of
advisories are 26% less likely to consume listed species than anglers who are not (Jakus et.
al., 2002). A study offish consumption and risk perception of urban fishermen in the New
York/New Jersey estuary found that awareness of advisories varied, and that the greater the
awareness, the less likely that fishermen would eat their catch (Burger, 1996). These findings
suggest that awareness offish advisories is the foundation for changing behavior; a similar
pattern may be true for beach water quality advisories.
Another fish advisory study suggests that general education and outreach may be equally or
more important than specific advisories. This study of Wisconsin anglers, especially non-
English speaking anglers, found that local newspaper and TV stations were a more common
source of information about the risks of eating contaminated fish than fish advisories for
particular streams (Knuth, et. al., 2003). Therefore, increasing general public awareness of
We acknowledge important differences between water quality and fish advisories. In particular, water quality advisories are
generally episodic, as compared to fish advisories which generally apply over long periods of time. This characteristic of water
quality advisories presents challenges for ensuring that the public gets timely information learns how to check information
sources regularly for the most up to date information before using the beach.
20
-------
the risk through outreach may facilitate and reinforce subsequent more specific
communication.
The fish advisory literature also offers some potentially relevant perspectives on how to
communicate risk to the public. For example, in one study, researchers investigated the
relative effectiveness of different formats12 for fish advisories and the extent to which target
audiences understand and respond to risk-related information (Connelly et al, 1998). While
there were differences among people with different demographic characteristics, researchers
found that the most effective formats combined qualitative and quantitative information using
a combination of text and diagrams. In addition, a cajoling rather than commanding tone was
found more effective in relaying information to the audience so that they could make their
own decisions. These findings highlight the need to tie the format of the message to the
intent (i.e., informing vs. influencing behavior), and to consider how the advisory message
will be received by the audience.
3.3 IMPLICATIONS OF RISK COMMUNICATION LITERATURE FOR BEACH
ADVISORIES
In light of this literature, it seems that individuals may be most likely to take note of beach
water contamination when they can directly perceive the contamination (e.g., they observe a
change in the appearance or odor of the water) or they have direct experience with the effects
of contacting contaminated water. Since not all individuals will have such personal
experience, agencies seeking to inform or influence the public should develop a thoughtful
risk communication plan. In addition, beach managers that wish to influence the public to
avoid contact with contaminated water should develop beach advisories that highlight the
aspects of exposure that are most relevant to the public, e.g., consequences of contact with
contaminated water, and how to avoid the risk of illness. Since awareness of advisory
messages or general outreach seems to precede changes in understanding and behavior,
effective beach notification programs may need to communicate information at different
levels and using parallel approaches - combining general outreach with multiple methods of
communicating specific beach advisories - to ensure that the public is able to make informed
decisions. The format of the notification needs to consider both the primary goal (inform or
influence) and the characteristics of the target audience. Finally, beach managers should
recognize that individuals bring their own values and perceptions about risk and that some
individuals will be more likely to heed advisories than others. If it is essential to public
health that beachgoers stay out of the water (as currently recommended in the event of a
sewage discharge), beach managers may need to go beyond notification to take active steps to
close beaches and enforce swim bans.
The advisory formats evaluated by Connelly et al (1998) considered different reading levels; predominance of graphics vs. text;
use of a commanding vs. cajoling tone; and use of qualitative vs. quantitative information.
21
-------
CHAPTER 4 | FINDINGS
The chapter presents findings for each evaluation question, drawing on information collected
through interviews, existing surveys and studies pertaining to beach notification. The
discussion is organized according to the five primary evaluation questions:
Section 4.1: How are grantees using BEACH Act funding to notify the public of beach
conditions?
Section 4.2: Which notification methods are the most effective in terms of reaching the
public?
Section 4.3: To what extent do notifications affect the awareness of beachgoers?
Section 4.4: To what extent do notifications affect the understanding of beachgoers?
Section 4.5: To what extent do notifications affect the behavior of beachgoers?
Throughout the chapter, we highlight the observations and findings that apply generally
across the data sources we consulted, as well as specific examples that demonstrate a range of
experiences. We include in the discussion four case studies that explore in greater detail
selected aspects of the findings:13
Case Study A: Chicago Park District Uses New Media Tools to Notify Public of Beach Water
Quality Conditions
Case Study B: Orange County, California, Pilots Real-Time Beach Notification Using
Electronic Signs
Case Study C: Data from Newport Beach, California, Suggest Relationship between
Advisories and Beach Attendance
Case Study D: Corpus Christi, Texas, Finds No Major Economic Impacts as a Result of
Notification
4.1 HOW GRANTEES ARE USING BEACH ACT FUNDING TO NOTIFY THE PUBLIC
OF BEACH CONDITIONS
The nine states we interviewed are all direct recipients of BEACH act funding. In all but one
state, the BEACH Act grant is the only source of funds for monitoring coastal beaches and
issuing notifications within the state. The one exception is the state of Florida, which
contributes about half of the total budget for its program.14
Case studies A and B relate to evaluation questions A and B: How are grantees using BEACH Act funding to notify the public of
beach conditions, and which notification methods are the most effective in terms of reaching the public? Case study C relates to
evaluation question E: To what extent do notifications affect the behavior of beachgoers? Case study D is not tied specifically to
an evaluation question, but explores controversy around instituting beach notifications and the experience of one city in
implementing notifications in recent years.
M Note that additional funding may be provided at the local level. For example, about half of the funding for Chicago Park
District's monitoring and notification program comes from local sources.
22
-------
Implementing beach advisories involves several
responsibilities, including 1) establishing policies and
procedures for notification; 2) monitoring water
quality; 3) issuing beach notifications; and 4)
managing beach operations on site. Section 4.1.1
describes the range of responsibilities that are part of a
beach notification program in more detail, and how
these responsibilities are coordinated among state,
tribal, and local authorities.
Section 4.1.2 describes specific methods used to notify
PROPOSED 2010 BEACH ACT
FUNDING FOR INTERVIEWED STATES
Florida $531,000
Hawaii $326,000
Indiana $207,000
Maryland $271,000
Massachusetts $257,000
New Jersey $280,000
Rhode Island $215,000
Texas $386,000
Washington $270,000
the public regarding beach conditions, and identifies
which methods are most and least common. This
section also includes a summary of characteristics for
beach signs and websites from states and localities we interviewed. Finally, Section 4.1.3
describes our findings about why states, localities, and tribes use the notification methods
they do.
4.1.1 Beach notification responsibilities
State, tribal, and local beach authorities each have a role in carrying out a range of
responsibilities related to beach notification, although the allocation and coordination of
responsibilities varies from state to state, as described below.
Establishing Policies and Procedures for Notification
All states interviewed for this evaluation establish policies or procedures for notification,
including guidance about when advisories should be issued and circumstances when beaches
should be closed. Nearly all states recommend that a beach advisory be issued upon
receiving fecal indicator bacteria test results above the established standards.15 New Jersey is
an exception, since the state retests the water to verify results before issuing an advisory
(except in Monmouth County, where closures are issued without retesting). In some cases,
localities make the final determination about whether to issue an advisory based on sampling
data. For example, in Indiana, the local health departments or beach managers issue
advisories, following policies established by Indiana Department of Environmental
Management. The local authorities lift advisories after further testing results indicate that
bacteria are below threshold levels.
Most states do not close beaches or prevent access, but instead issue advisories to inform the
public of the risk of contact with contaminated water. However, some states (e.g., New
Jersey and Rhode Island) do systematically close beaches entirely or ban swimming when test
results are above the applicable pathogen criterion. In addition, some localities, e.g.,
15 E. coli (freshwater beaches) or enterococci (in freshwater or marine beaches) are used as indicator organisms of fecal
contamination. Advisories are generally issued when single sample maximums exceed the criteria values specified in the
standard (EPA, 1986).
23
-------
Chicago, Illinois, and Newport Beach, California, may close the beach for swimming,
depending on the fecal indicator bacteria densities. Both of these localities use lifeguards to
enforce swim bans.
In addition to advisories prompted by monitoring results, several states and localities we
interviewed, including Rhode Island, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Orange County
California, have established policies to issue preemptive advisories, closures, or swim bans
following storms, when stormwater runoff is known to increase fecal indicator bacteria
levels. Interviewees noted that several jurisdictions along the Great Lakes are now moving
toward using predictive models16 to estimate fecal indicator bacteria levels and to estimate
water quality conditions in "real-time." These methods allow information to be
communicated faster than the 18- to 24-hour turnaround of the conventional culture-based
testing methods. (Case Study C, later in this chapter, discusses the experience of Orange
County, California, in implementing rapid testing methods)
Monitoring Water Quality
Water quality sampling frequencies vary among the states and among beaches within a given
state. Beaches are prioritized into tiers based in part on their water quality history and their
popularity. Although testing once per week during the swimming season is common, high
priority beaches ("Tier 1") may be sampled as frequently as daily.
In some cases states monitor coastal beaches directly, while in others state agencies
coordinate the efforts of counties and other local jurisdictions that follow procedures
established by the states to implement aspects of the program, such as water quality sampling,
testing, and notifications. Seven of the states interviewed redistribute part of their BEACH
Act funds to counties, municipalities, private laboratories, or other local organizations that are
responsible for implementing the monitoring aspects of the program at some or all of the
coastal beaches within the state. Hawaii and Rhode Island are two exceptions, as these states
directly monitor all their coastal beaches.
Issuing Notifications
All states interviewed provide a central gateway for compiling and distributing water quality
information about all beaches within their jurisdiction. However, many states only post data
on their websites, and local beach managers are responsible for putting up signs and taking
other steps to notify the public.
Managing Beach Operations on Site
Local governments and municipalities usually take the lead in managing beach operations on
site, which may include posting signs, and hiring lifeguards who in some cases may play a
role in enforcing swim bans or answering beachgoer questions about beach advisories. States
are generally not involved in directly staffing and managing beach operations, except at state
16 The predictive models rely on empirical relationships between pathogen density and climatic or other environmental factors.
24
-------
parks. Several county departments we interviewed rely on municipal staff to post signs or
flags at the beaches and enforce swim bans. For example, Newport Beach, California,
lifeguards post and enforce swimming bans when notified by Orange County, California, that
water quality sampling revealed problems. Responsibilities are not exclusively assigned to
local governments or regular staff. For example, Ogden Dunes, Indiana, relies partly on
volunteers who are also involved in outreach to local residents on water quality.
Exhibit 7 summarizes responsibilities of the states we interviewed with regard to aspects of
the beach notification program. Exhibit 8 summarizes responsibilities of the localities and
tribe we interviewed for selected aspects of the beach program.
EXHIBIT 7.
STATE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR BEACH NOTIFICATION
STATE
Florida
Hawaii
Indiana
Massachusetts
Maryland
New Jersey
Rhode Island
Texas
Washington
BEACH PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITIES
PROVIDE FUNDING
FOR DIRECT
PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATION
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
ESTABLISH
POLICIES,
STANDARDS, OR
PROCEDURES FOR
NOTIFICATION
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
CONDUCT
MONITORING/
SAMPLING
s
s
s
^19
^20
NOTIFY THE
PUBLIC OF
WATER
QUALITY
CONDITIONS
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
STAFF THE
BEACH AND
MANAGE
OPERATIONS
^17
S"
17 Local officials manage beaches except state park beaches run by the Department of Conservation and Recreation.
18 Local officials manage beaches except state park beaches run by the Department of Environmental Management.
19
This function is contracted out.
State will monitor beaches when necessary; however, monitoring is typically performed by the localities.
25
-------
EXHIBIT 8.
LOCAL AND TRIBAL RESPONSIBILITIES FOR BEACH NOTIFICATION
LOCALITY/TRIBE
Orange County, CA
Newport Beach, CA24
Chicago, IL
Ogden Dunes, IN
Barnstable County, MA
Anne Arundel County, MD
Monmouth County, NJ
Galveston County Health
District, TX
Makah Tribe
BEACH PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITIES21
CONDUCT
MONITORING/
SAMPLING
^22
'
s
s
s
s
'
'
ESTABLISH
POLICIES,
STANDARDS, OR
PROCEDURES FOR
NOTIFICATION
'
'
s
s
'
NOTIFY THE
PUBLIC OF
WATER QUALITY
CONDITIONS
'
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
STAFF THE BEACH
AND MANAGE
OPERATIONS
^23
'
^
s
^25
4.1.2 Methods Used to Notify the Public
This section describes findings for two of the detailed research questions:
A. 1 What methods are used by local beach officials to notify the public regarding beach
conditions?
A.2 What methods are the most and least common?
According to information compiled by EPA in 2009, of 30 states receiving BEACH Act
grants,26 all posted signage at their beaches and all but one used Internet Web sites to
communicate beach water quality to the public. Other methods used by states included, in
decreasing order of use: press releases (74%), telephone hotlines (39%), e-mail listservs
(32%), beach flags (13%), and other methods such as Really Simple Syndication (RSS)
services or social media tools (Barker, 2009). The combination of methods and the content
and design of the medium differed among states.
Interviews and other research conducted for this evaluation largely confirm these earlier
findings. All of the jurisdictions from which we obtained information for this evaluation use
21 Local beach managers generally do not redistribute funds to other authorities.
22 For some locations.
23 For some locations.
24 We interviewed the Newport Beach Lifeguard Agency, not the County of Newport Beach (which conducts monitoring and also
issues notifications)
25 For some locations.
26 Five territories and two tribes also receive BEACH Act grants but were not covered in the study (Barker, 2009).
26
-------
websites as part of their notification programs,2? and all but one post notification signs on
their beaches. Most signs are similar to traffic signs (i.e., large, physically printed signs that
beach managers either post or flip down to indicate the beach status); however in one case
(Orange County, California) beach managers used electronic signs to allow for greater
flexibility in posting information on beach status.
After websites and signs, e-mail outreach and press releases are the next-most common
notification tools. Note that e-mail outreach is more common in the states we interviewed for
this evaluation than in the 30 states reviewed in 2009, which may be a result of the
composition of states interviewed, increasing use of e-mail outreach overtime, or the
different data collection method used here as opposed to Barker (2009). Local governments
interviewed for this evaluation use social media just as often as press releases. Flags,
telephone hotlines, and text messaging are the least common notification methods used
among those interviewed.
Exhibit 9 summarizes notification methods used by the states, tribes, territories, and localities
interviewed. Note that in some states, different notification methods are used for beaches in
state parks or where the state directly manages the beach, and different requirements and
notification methods may be in place for semi-public beaches (e.g., beaches at private
campgrounds).
Overall, the findings show that the different jurisdictions use similar combinations of
methods to notify the public. While it is difficult to generalize the findings given the
diversity of specific approaches to each medium, we note that states tend to focus their
attention on methods that have a broader and more general appeal such as web sites or use of
consistent signage, while local governments are more likely than states to use notification
methods that target a local audience (press release, e-mails, and social media tools).
27 We did not interview the beach program manager for the state of Alaska, the only state mentioned in the Barker (2009) study as
not having a website. The website for Alaska's beach program, which is administered by the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) provides general information about the program and how local communities can get involved in monitoring
their recreational beaches, guidance on how to conduct the monitoring, and other similar information. It also provides links to
other resources such as EPA beach program sites. However, it does not provide a link to monitoring results.
27
-------
EXHIBIT 9.
SUMMARY OF NOTIFICATION METHODS USED
LOCATION
WEBSITE
BEACH
POSTING:
SIGNS
BEACH
POSTING:
FLAGS
E-MAILS
DEDICATED
TELEPHONE
HOTLINE
PRESS
RELEASES
TEXT
MESSAGING
SOCIAL
MEDIA (E.G.,
TWITTER,
FACEBOOK)
OTHER/NOTES
States
FL
HI
IN
MA
MD
NJ
Rl
TX
WA
State
Count
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
-
'
9
'
-
'
'
-
'
'
-
'
9
'
1
'
'
^
'
4
'
'
2
'
'
'
'
4
-
1
'
'
2
Radio notification will generally occur if beach closure is of
local interest. State runs general information phone line; the
hotline is used for red tides.
Press release if sewage or other spill affects water quality
("brown water" advisory or other severe conditions).
Telephone hotline repair/update at the time of the interview.
RSS Feed, Twitter, Facebook
Public outreach: Attend conferences and presentations. Some
localities send out press releases.
Signs vary by locality. Press releases are issued in the case of
sewage spills. Some counties use Twitter, hotlines, and local
websites.
Signs vary by locality. Press routinely gets data through the
state website.
Public outreach, e.g., interviews with media to explain the
issues; information distributed during "Bay Day" when beach
access is free; other community activities.
RSS Feed; Some localities issue press releases; Pilot project in
five counties to report daily beach conditions; Conducted
extensive outreach to publicize the Texas Beach Watch
website and beach conditions report (e.g., mass mailings, TV
and radio ads)
ListServ, Twitter, Facebook, and blog
28
-------
LOCATION
WEBSITE
BEACH
POSTING:
SIGNS
BEACH
POSTING:
FLAGS
E-MAILS
DEDICATED
TELEPHONE
HOTLINE
PRESS
RELEASES
TEXT
MESSAGING
SOCIAL
MEDIA (E.G.,
TWITTER,
FACEBOOK)
OTHER/NOTES
Tribe
Makah
Tribe
Tribal
Count
S
1
S
1
Also post on local announcement boards and send notification
through a community member-only website.
Localities
Orange
County, CA
Newport
Beach, CA
Chicago, IL
Ogden
Dunes, IN
Barnstable
County, MA
Anne
Arundel,
MD
Mon mouth
County, NJ
Galveston
Island, TX
Local
Count
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
8
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
8
S
s
s
3
S
/
S
/
S
V
6
^
s
s
3
^
s
s
s
s
5
^
s
2
^
s
s
s
s
5
Social media tools include iPhone app, Twitter. Recently
participated in a pilot project that used electronic signs.
Social media tools include Twitter; press releases are issued
upon high precipitation events.
E-mails sent only to internal stakeholders. Social media tools
include Facebook and Twitter. Red flag also indicates
dangerous weather. Bilingual (Spanish) hotline.
Operate a website subscription service that issues alerts
through the police department. Social media tools include a
blog.
One locality sent out e-mails to key stakeholders (e.g., hotels)
in 2010.
Twitter serves similar purpose as text messaging; have
extensive outreach program (fairs, neighborhood canvassing);
bilingual (Spanish) website.
Issued one press release (2002).
29
-------
LOCATION
WEBSITE
BEACH
POSTING:
SIGNS
BEACH
POSTING:
FLAGS
E-MAILS
DEDICATED
TELEPHONE
HOTLINE
PRESS
RELEASES
TEXT
MESSAGING
SOCIAL
MEDIA (E.G.,
TWITTER,
FACEBOOK)
OTHER/NOTES
Territories
American
Samoa
CNMI
Guam
Territory
Count
s
s
s
3
S
s
2
0
/
s
/
3
0
s
s
s
3
0
^
1
Press releases to radio, television, and newspaper. Beach
signs have been designed and will be implemented at Tier 1
beaches in the near future.
Social media tools include Facebook.
Internal agency list and notify beach managers and lifeguards.
30
-------
Beach Signs
As mentioned above, nearly all state, tribal, and territorial beach authorities interviewed for
this evaluation use signs28 at their beaches to notify the public of water quality. Signs posted
at each beach often follow a standard format determined by the state, and in some cases state
beach programs provide signs to localities. However, some states, e.g., Maryland and New
Jersey, do not require localities to post a standard type of sign. Note that a few localities use
the same signs as other programs - namely, the Makah Tribe uses Washington State's signs,
and Michigan City and Wisconsin use the same signs as Indiana (although Wisconsin's signs
provide the website and phone number for their own monitoring program).
This evaluation reviewed the content and format of a total of 18 signs from five states and
two counties. Most the signs reviewed are specific to the current water quality conditions,
meaning beach managers will change the sign when bacteria levels change. Thirteen of the
signs communicate beach advisories or closures specifically, while the five others indicate
good conditions or provide general information. Signs from all but one of the jurisdictions
reviewed provide at least some information in more than one language.
As beach authorities consider sign design, they must weigh what information is most
important to convey in a small space. EPA's current guidance recommends that beach
advisory or closure signs include the terms
"Warning," "Advisory," "Beach Closed," or
similar language and include the following
information:
Reason for the advisory or closing,
and the location affected;
When samples were taken and
information about when the beach will
reopen; and
The responsible agency's name and
contact number.29
In practice, signs vary in their format and the
level of detail they provide. Of the
13 warning or advisory signs reviewed,
12 use images or icons to communicate beach
status. All of the signs use color in the sign
background or text to convey information
about water quality; red, orange, and yellow
are the most common colors to convey beach
BEACH SIGNS ALERT BEACHGOERS ABOUT
WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS
This section discusses physical beach signs. For a discussion of the one locality interviewed for this evaluation that uses
electronic signs, see Case Study B.
29 U.S. EPA, National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria Chapter 5: Public Notification and Risk Communication.
31
-------
advisories or closures. Most signs explain the reason for the advisory or the source of
contamination, explain the specific activities that may not be safe, mention the agency
responsible for issuing the advisory, and provide a website address. While eight signs
mention general consequences of contact with contaminated water (i.e., contact could "cause
illness") none of the signs describes the type of illness or symptoms that beachgoers might
experience. Seven of the 13 signs provided a phone number to call for more information.
Only one sign provides information about when the notice was posted and when the beach
may reopen.
As was discussed earlier in Chapter 3, the intent of the communication - whether to convince
beachgoers to avoid contact with the water, or simply to provide data so they can make an
informed decision - should influence sign format and content. This distinction in intent is
apparent in the signs we reviewed. Several signs are used specifically to communicate beach
closings (e.g., following a sewage discharge) and clearly stress that swimming is forbidden.
Others communicate caution by sharing information on bacteria levels. The intent of the sign
is also distinguished by use of a cajoling versus commanding tone as indicated by wording
(e.g., caution versus warning/stop/closed) or the use of colors (e.g., yellow, orange, red) or
shapes (e.g., rectangular versus octagonal signs). Exhibit 10 shows the different features of
beach signs reviewed for individual states and local jurisdictions. The text box below
summarizes those features that are likely to be relatively effective, based on information we
gathered about improvements states have made to their signage over time in response to
public feedback, considerations mentioned in the risk literature summarized in Chapter 3, and
requirements from the EPA guidance.
GOOD PRACTICES FOR BEACH SIGNS
Based on available information, findings from this evaluation suggest that beach
notification signs with the following features will tend to be more effective than
those without these features, all other factors being equal.
Convey meaning using widely-recognized symbols (e.g., red octagonal
shape) and icons, along with simple text.
Explain the cause of the advisory or closure.
Highlight consequences of water contact and briefly provide advice on the
activities that may be unsafe.
Use a scale to communicate the severity of the risk (e.g., colors commonly
associated with increasing risk levels such as green-yellow- red scale). By
reading the sign posted, beachgoers should be able to tell how the current
beach status fits on the scale of risk.
Translate text into relevant languages for residents and visitors.
Identify the agency responsible for the advisory.
List other sources where beach users can obtain additional information.
In addition, effective signs should be large, and placed in a prominent location.
32
-------
EXHIBIT 10. SUMMARY OF BEACH SIGN FEATURES
u
SIGN
TEXT
UJ
O o
o z
LU g
-3 j§
3 g
o o
u
LU
g
Ct
g
< ft
< > DQ
5 fe
LJJ
O Z
iz o
O
Q.
HI
AWARNINC
KEEP OUT OF WATER
NO SWIMMING NO FISHING
Sewage contniriinaled water.
Exposure to water n
WARNING!
KEEP OUT OF WATER
No swimming; No fishing; Sewage
contaminated water. Exposure to
water may cause illness.
English
**
(too
limited
degree)
HI
NO SWIMMING NO FISHING
ConljimMial«d Wafer
Eiposut* 10 w«l*r or ting flan CM
fth««t»h may causa Mnaafl
OCPAttTMENT Of HEALTH
CAUTION!
NO SWIMMING; NO FISHING.
Contaminated Water. Exposure to
water or eating fish or shellfish
may cause illness. Department of
Health
English
(to a
limited
degree)
IN
Water Quality Notice
All natural bodies or water contain
mkro«c*plc orgenlaml Thr» ana I*
monNMafl lot t con Bacteria an indicate*
n*hi ir
tgn Mil bo pot-Ud at tlin locauon. Do not
'
Water Quality Notice: All natural
bodies of water contain
microscopic organisms. This area
is monitored for E. coli bacteria,
an indicator of the possible
presence of human health risks.
For latest water conditions
English
N/A
N/A
Provides info
about what other
signs mean
IN
Water quality today is GOOD,
based on recent monitoring for E.
co/7 bacteria. For more
information
English
N/A
N/A
33
-------
^
p
8
IN
IN
IN
SIGN
1 CAUTION: 1
V
1
VATER QUAL
/!\
IncrtJtnt rtsKof U
I '"Jinn
ITY ADVISORY
«.. ..i r:.m '«n rMk
rrii ffljpjy J>* pfitt/it
«*W AN- f . '.
1-
i _,
TEXT
CAUTION: Water quality advisory.
For your own safety: swim at your
own risk, do not ingest lake water,
shower after swimming, wash
hands before eating, do not swim
if you are ill. Increased risk of
illness may be present based on
recent monitoring for E. coil
bacteria. For more information
STOP. CLOSED. Based on recent
monitoring for E. coli bacteria
serious risk of illness may be
present. This area is closed to
swimming. For more information
In Spanish: Do not drink the lake
water. Swim at your own risk.
For more information
Green sign: There is no notice
posted now.
Yellow sign: Precaution. Notice of
Water Quality. Increased risk of
disease in recent days based on
recent analysis of the bacteria E.
Coli.
Red Sign: Beach Closed. Do not
enter the water. High risk of
disease likely.
LU
Z>
-z.
English
English
Spanish
ifl
i
s
'
'
* 0
O LU
U-. U
~^~ Z> -7
on O O
III fV l~l
& 0 ^
on LU 5
§ z5 -3
_i on b;
a. O Z
X i O
LU U U
^
'
ifl
^
II 1
1 1 1
LO
^ LU
O a:
i^j )
2 0
< ft
s£
(to a
limited
degree)
/
V
(to a
limited
degree)
>
u <
Q_ |
U ^
oi K LU
^ LO ^f
on LU ^
< > DQ
155
.-
-
U
~Z-
LU
O LU
CO
up ^
o ~z-
~^ Lu
5 ct
g
^
^
"
LU
-^
o
on
H
Provides detailed
advice for staying
safe
Does not say if all
water contact
should be avoided.
Sign does not
convey current
information on its
own, only in
conjunction with
other signs
34
-------
^
p
8
Rl
TX
TX
SIGN
_i,i_ ,.....
?. NO
SWIMMINO
VOM I't-HMIII VMJlH
* I. ritrvBIMl-VT Of IfLlLIH
j LHuil WAIuM ^^
/&\
r WARNING! ^
\ /
\ /
\/_
TEXT
Beach Monitoring Program NO
SWIMMING (No Se Permite Nadar)
Per order of the Rhode Island
Dept of Health Beach Closure
Hotline
TexasBeachWatch.com
Check beach conditions online.
(In English and Spanish) WARNING!
Contact with Water may cause
Illness. Bacteria levels exceed
health standards. Check beach
conditions online
LU
o
Z)
~z.
-1
English and
Spanish
English
English and
Spanish
Lu
o
^
* o
O LJJ
LL- U
-r C£
° 1 o
LlJ &- tr
<* 0 ^
« LU I
^ § 5
x 2 o
Q 0 0
N/A
/
Lu
s
LJJ
LO
^ LJJ
U ~~)
g 0
< X
-I LU
g fe
(to a
limited
degree)
>-
u <
LU r^ ,
0. P {^
on LU 5i
< > OQ
x o O
^
N/A
o
~z.
LJJ
CO
O ~Z-
^ UJ
^ Q^
/
-
3
V
-
^
LU
/
on
Does not say if all
water contact
should be avoided
Does not provide
information about
current conditions
35
-------
<
8
SIGN
TEXT
ifl
O UJ
Lil U
X
o
ifl
O
>-
u <
c: H
r; <
ffl 55
>
b
_
,/> 99
o
ifl
BEACH WATER
QUALITY
WA
SWIMMING BEACH WATER
QUALITY. This beach is being
monitored as part of a state-wide
program to ensure conditions
meet EPA guidelines for
recreational water activities.
Changing conditions will be posted
here and on the Web. Please
refer to this beach area as :
English
N/A
N/A
Briefly describes
program, but does
not explicitly say
that water quality
is currently good.
Picture on the
bottom takes up
space but does not
convey
information.
CAUTION
Xln Lim V : Cl'IPADO -|MJ
WA
*
SHELLFISHING NOT ADVISED
T: "" "
CAUTION: No Swimming, no
wading. A health advisory has
been posted based on monitoring
results. The current conditions at
this beach are not suitable for
recreational water activities.
Small children and chronically ill
people are at higher risk for
increased illness. Please refer to
this beach area as :
SHELLFISHING
NOT ADVISED
English,
Spanish,
Vietnamese
and a fourth
un-identified
language
(to a
limited
degree)
Mentions specific
populations at
risk. Picture on
the bottom takes
up space but does
not convey
information.
WA
CLOSED: No swimming, no
wading. Water contaminated!
Stay out of the water.
Health Officer:
Health Jurisdiction:
Phone:
Shellfishing not advised.
Please refer to this beach area as
English,
Spanish,
Vietnamese
and a fourth
un-identified
language
Picture on the
bottom takes up
space but does not
convey
information.
36
-------
~z_
o
b
u
o
Orange
County,
CA
Orange
County,
CA
SIGN
.WARNING!.
1 RUHOFF'STORM DRAIN WATER I
I MAY CAUSE ILLNESS "
^ AVOID CONTACT WTTH PONDED OR
FUMING RUNOFF AND T«E AREA WHEIE .
k RUNOFF ENTERS THE OCEAN |
1 ^^"'^^ |.
I iAVISO! '
Ss^p^ciiBwafEraawir k
IEVTE CHIKTS cw «w * DESWJE &£ 1
ESTEESTI««1»OCOIW*!<-HIA 1
A ^>g£»5*B*?.m>,
WARNING
OCEAN WATER CONTACT MAY
CAUSS tLLWESS
BACTERIA LEVELS EXCEED
HEALTH STANDARDS
iAVISO!
1. COOCTO C0*i ACU* JE. OCEA\Q
LOS MVELES 0 BACTERIAS EXCEQtN
^ .LOS PSTWQARES DE SAIJD
e
TEXT
(In English and Spanish)
WARNING! Runoff/storm drain
water may cause illness. Avoid
contact with ponded or flowing
runoff and the area where runoff
enters the ocean. Orange County
Environmental Health Division.
For more information call
(In English and Spanish)
WARNING Ocean water contact
may cause illness, bacteria levels
exceed health standards. Orange
County Environmental Health
Division. For more information
call
LU
<
Pi
z
English and
Spanish
English and
Spanish
On
LU
i
"
Q. O
O LU
~Z. )
111
i2 &. H
& O ±
l/l LU ^
~Z. C£ ^
-
y 5
Ll_ 1
oi H LU
1/1 on tj
on LU ^
Z |- uj
< > DQ
of F k
x u o
LJJ < Z
U
z
O LLJ
<[ |
on 99
Z on
O Z
i- 2
1 1
""
/
g
^
/
^
O
n
^
/
i/l
LLJ
1-
37
-------
^
5
8
Orange
County,
CA
Arundel
County,
MD
SIGN
KEEP OUT
XL^\
SEWAGE
CONTAMINATED WATER
OCEAN WATER MAY
CAUSE ILLNESS
; : ' ; ,
,
^"^ DUE TO A SEWAGE SPBLi 1
«»*PO - <"3 « rvtBt *ttOi« J
ltir^tl^'",s?.j^^it2;"*
ftiia ssr
TEXT
KEEP OUT Sewage contaminated
water. Ocean water may cause
illness. By order of the Health
Officer, County of Orange. For
more information call
CLOSED No swimming due to a
sewage spill (Cerrado - No Se
Puede Nadar) The Department of
closing and warns against
swimming, water skiing, and other
direct water contact in the area
of:
This area will be reopened once
water quality conditions are found
acceptable. Date posted:
For water quality information:
COUNT
LLI
o
i
z
English
English and
Spanish
12
ta
o
"
/
9
* o
O LU
-r &-
?*. 13 -7
i s °
<* 0 ^
<" LLI 5
1 1 ?
x 2 o
UJ U U
^
/
9
U
LLI
s
LO
~f\ ^
{_) -~j
g 0
3 §
g fe
(to a
limited
degree)
9
^
u <
u ^
"-I pr LU
on LO li?
on LU ^
< > CO
x o O
/
9
u
z
LU
O LU
rn
Z on
E ?
W LU
5 ct
'
/
9
3
^
/
7
LU
Z
^
/
12
B
o
Specifies
contamination
source
enter specific area
affected.
Specifies date
posted and when
area will be
reopened.
38
-------
Several states have changed the size, locations, and design of their signs in an effort to make
them more effective. For example, Indiana moved the locations of its signs to more
prominent sites at the entrance of the beach rather than placing the signs in general
information kiosks, after finding out that beachgoers often did not see the signs at the kiosks.
Indiana's new signs also have redesigned content based on the example of signs in
Wisconsin, and are intended to provide more information on how to minimize risks. Indiana
assessed the effectiveness of the new signs through a pilot test in Ogden Dunes. When asked
to comment on new signs being tested, survey respondents suggested using larger signs
placed at more prominent locations (64% of respondents); changing the color to a more
intuitive green/yellow/red scale (10%); and more clearly distinguishing the reason for the
advisory (e.g., riptide vs. fecal contamination) (10%). While respondents preferred signs
with shapes or colors and fewer words to communicate the critical information, they also
expressed their concern that the public often does not understand the risk and needs to be
better informed about how testing is done, what results mean, and the consequences of not
heeding the warning. This dichotomy highlights the key challenge faced by beach managers
in using signs to communicate risk.
Florida also redesigned its signs, and made them more durable. The old signs Florida used
were 8.5"xl 1" pieces of paper in a plastic protector, and thus were not durable. The signs
were not posted in a designated location, and because of their size and location, it was hard
for beachgoers to find them. Florida developed its new signs based on EPA guidance and the
experience of surrounding states (Georgia and Alabama). The new signs are durable,
36"xl6.5" in size, and are posted at the main entry points of beaches.
Hawaii has also changed its beach signs in recent years to make them more durable.
Previously, signs were temporary and made of cardboard, but now they are made of metal.
The signs are 18" x 24" in size, and are posted near streams and sources of contamination.
Rhode Island replaced the flags that it previously used with signs, after determining that the
water quality flags were confusing because they could contradict flags used for other
purposes (e.g., surf conditions, rip tides, jellyfish).
In Texas, the Beach Watch program staff felt that the previous signs were not working, since
beachgoers were still swimming in the water when the signs were posted. Therefore, the state
developed new signs, with different colors, Spanish language translation, and an icon (Exhibit
11). The Beach Watch program says the extent to which the new signs are more effective is
unclear. Texas is also working to ensure that signs are not posted once the beach advisory is
no longer active, so that the signs provide more timely information than in the past.
39
-------
EXHIBIT 11. IMPROVEMENTS IN TEXAS BEACH WATCH SIGNS
Previous Advisory Sign Current Advisory Sign
CONTACT WITH WATER MAY I
BACTERIA LEVaS EXCEED HEAI
iAVISO!
CONTACTOCQNELAGU*
PUEDE CAUSAfl ENFERMEOADES.
3 NIVEUS DC BACTERIAS CXCCDE N
LOS ESTANDAHES OE SALUO.
BEACH WATCH
Websites
All of the states interviewed for this evaluation use websites to convey and explain water
quality data to the public. State websites vary in their approaches to providing water quality
information and notifications of beach advisories/closures. The information provided ranges
from actual water quality testing results to simple updates of beach status (e.g., list of beaches
under advisory). Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Texas pair notification
information with other indicators of beach conditions that are thought to be of interest to
beachgoers (e.g., surf conditions and algal blooms). Indiana and Washington have begun
implementing ways to reach the public via social networks and mobile applications, and both
states provide a link to these media on their program websites. Many of the states
interviewed, including Indiana, Massachusetts, Texas and Washington, have set up automated
notification procedures, whereby the government or private laboratories that conduct testing
enter their results into a system which automatically notifies local contacts and updates the
website.30 Several local beach programs (Chicago, Galveston, Anne Arundel and Barnstable
County) maintain their own websites, in addition to receiving or feeding information from
and to their respective state beach program's website.
30 As this was not a specific question in the interview protocol, we do not have data on these types of systems for every state
interviewed; however, several interviewees volunteered this information when describing the main features of their beach
notification programs.
40
-------
This evaluation reviewed websites for nine states, seven localities, and three NGOs that
provide beach water quality information to identify features of these sites that inform the
public. The most common approaches to conveying health risk on websites include: 1)
describing the risk qualitatively, 2) categorizing the health risks due to contamination as low,
moderate, or high (or some other similar scheme), or 3) comparing the contamination levels
to the standard set for bacterial levels. In addition to providing current information on beach
advisories and closures, some websites provide information about beach water quality trends
and historic data about beach advisories to help the public select suitable beaches.
Almost all websites reviewed present the results of their sampling and monitoring efforts,
whether as numerical results or as a classification on a scale. The vast majority of sites also
list closures and advisories, either as a list of beaches that currently present health risks or as
part of the information provided for each individual beach monitored. Many sites use maps
to at least indicate the location of the beach itself; some also show the specific sampling
locations or store and report water quality data directly on the map.
Some websites contain links to forms or instructions for reporting a beach-related illness.
Others provide annual reports so a user can obtain more in-depth information about the beach
monitoring program. Many sites also include fact sheets, FAQs, or pages with information
and tips about staying healthy and safe at the beach, or provide links to external sites for
additional information.
The accessibility of websites through
search engines varies. Some, but not
all, of the sites reviewed were in the top
returns for a Google search on "beach
closures" or "beach water quality" and
the name of the state.
Appendix E identifies relevant features
of the specific state and local websites.
The text box below summarizes features
that may be relatively effective, based
on information we gathered about
improvements states have made to their
websites, considerations mentioned in
the risk literature summarized in
Chapter 3, and requirements from the
EPA guidance.
MANY BEACH WEBSITES PROVIDE INTERACTIVE
MAPPING TOOLS
O Caution
Closed n Not Currently MonBored
41
-------
GOOD PRACTICES FOR BEACH PROGRAM WEB SITES
Based on a review of selected websites, and informed by other information
gathered during this evaluation, the following features appear useful.
Summary information available, on the program home page or through a
clearly identifiable link on the home page. Summary information should
include the status of each beach (selected from a list or map) or a list of
all beaches under advisory.
Ability to search for current status and history for a particular beach of
interest.
Clear indication of the implication of the testing results (e.g., beach
open, closed, or under advisory), ideally communicated through text and
color coding
Information about the day the beach was last sampled and frequency of
monitoring.
An explanation for the cause of any advisories and testing methods.
Information about health consequences to beach users and advice on the
activities that may be unsafe.
Simple, direct language, translated into languages relevant to key
audiences
Links to other sources where beach users can obtain additional
information (phone number, email, fact sheets, EPA web site, etc.)
Information about beaches other than water quality (e.g., weather and
beach amenities) to draw visitors to the beach website
Other Notification Methods
Several states and local beach managers have embraced social media as a means of
communicating water quality issues with the beachgoing public and expanding the reach of
traditional notification methods. Some beach notification websites reviewed in the previous
section include options to sign up for RSS feeds, e-mail alerts, Twitter or other social
networking updates, or provide syndication in order to disseminate real time information. For
example, the state of Washington uses Facebook and Twitter, building on a broader social
media initiative by the Department of Ecology. In Orange County, California, local NGOs
Surf Rider and Heal the Bay "retweet" the County health department's tweets on beach
advisories, expanding the reach of this information from the 107 groups or individuals who
directly follow the health department tweets, to their several thousand followers. The
Chicago Park District posts advisories on Facebook and Twitter, and offers a texting service
42
-------
that allows people to receive messages about the status of a given beach or all beaches (see
Case Study A for more detail). In Maryland, Anne Arundel County's notification program
features Twitter posts and e-alerts, along with more traditional notification methods.
A number of states issue press releases to
local newspapers, television stations, and
radio stations that report on beach closures.
In some cases this media coverage can
inform the public about where to get
regular updates on beach advisories, and
can lead the public to check state beach
websites for beach updates. Several states
noted that they include local media outlets
(radio stations, newspapers) or local
businesses (hotels, Chamber of Commerce)
in their notification e-mail list, along with
other interested stakeholders. State staff
field media requests as needed. The State
of Washington includes issuing a press
release as part of its standard procedure for
notifying the public in the event of an
advisory. For other states interviewed,
media reports generally occur for selected
closures of particular local interest (e.g.,
closure of a highly frequented beach such
as Miami Beach, Florida) or extended
duration, when they are picked up by local media.
In addition to notifying the public about discrete advisories, several states (e.g., Indiana,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Texas) and local beach managers (e.g., Chicago Park
District, Ogden Dunes, and Anne Arundel) highlighted their general outreach and education
efforts to raise public awareness of water quality issues at beaches and enhance the reach of
notifications. For example, Texas invested in a substantial outreach campaign, including
developing promotional items (e.g., t-shirts, cups, hats, and bags to hand out at public events),
a 60,000-piece mailing to central and coastal counties about the beach watch website and
beach conditions report, and purchasing advertisements on television and radio. Rhode
Island also emphasizes outreach, e.g., by establishing relationships with the media, sending
out targeted press releases to ensure coverage of notifications on local news channels and in
newspapers, participating in interviews with local television stations a couple of times each
year, and hosting a "Bay Day" where beaches are free and the state provides a booth with
educational materials. Anne Arundel County, Maryland, not only issues press releases to
local media about specific advisories, but also sponsors general outreach events, and partners
with local neighborhood associations to distribute educational materials to residents door-to-
door.
MEDIA COVERAGE CAN RAISE PUBLIC AWARENESS
OF BEACH ADVISORIES AND DRIVE TRAFFIC TO
STATE WEBSITES
Example item in local newspaper:
"Fort Adams beach closed to swimmers:
Fort Adams State Park in Newport brings to four the
number of areas closed to swimming because of high
bacteria counts, the state Department of Health said
Wednesday. Bristol Town Beach, Goddard Memorial
State Park and Gorton Pond Beach, both in Warwick,
have been closed to swimmers since Tuesday. Health
officials will continue to monitor water quality and
reopen the beaches when they are safe for swimming.
Beach closings and advisories are posted on the Health
Department Website:
http://www.ribeaches.org/closures.cfm. For recorded
information, call (401) 222 - 2751."
The Providence Journal, June 25, 2009, Section B.3
43
-------
Some states also conduct trainings for local beach managers about monitoring and
notification issues. For example, Massachusetts conducts annual trainings, which include
information on how to respond if the public asks about water quality. Rhode Island also has
meetings with lifeguards, beach owners, and managers at the start of each season to instruct
them on how to explain beach advisories to the public when beaches are closed.
CASE STUDY A: CHICAGO PARK DISTRICT USES NEW MEDIA TOOLS TO NOTIFY PUBLIC
OF BEACH WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS
The Chicago Park District (CPD) is responsible for managing 31 beaches in the Chicago area, which
receive an average of 20 million visitors each summer. The vast majority of these visitors are local
(i.e., residents of the City of Chicago or of Cook County) and visit a beach on average once a week;
more than half of visitors come to the beach to swim.31
Beaches are open for swimming from Memorial Day , ...
Notification Methods Used
through Labor Day. Swimming is permitted when . Beach f|ags (green/yellow/red)
lifeguards are on duty, generally from 11AM through Telephone hotline (English and
7PM, except when swimming is prohibited due to water .., , ..'
K 5 K .Website
conditions. The District uses a two-level notification . Facebook
system whereby it issues an advisory when f. co//levels Twitter
Texting service
are between 235 and 1,000 cfu per 100 ml, and bans . park_and-displav messages
swimming completely when E. coli levels exceed
1,000 cfu per 100 ml. 32 Lifeguards strictly enforce swim bans, although beaches remain open to
land-based activities.
In 2009, the most recent year for which data were available from EPA, CPD issued contamination
advisories on 103 days, and swim bans on 75 additional days. Advisories or swim bans affected 19 of
the 31 beaches managed by CPD.
Notification Methods
CPD is somewhat unusual in the broad range of notification methods it uses to alert beachgoers to
advisories and swim bans. First, CPD uses colored flags to notify the public of water quality and
weather-related beach conditions, with green indicating no issue reported, yellow indicating that a
swim advisory is in effect (swimming with caution); and red indicating that swimming is prohibited
due to severe weather or water conditions that may be hazardous. A sign at the beach explains the
31 A survey of 1,573 respondents at eight Chicago beaches conducted in 2004 indicated that the vast majority of beachgoers were
residents of City of Chicago or of Cook County. Beachgoers generally traveled less than 3 miles to the beach, visited on average
once a week, and over half came to the beach to swim (Shaik and Tolley, 2006). The study estimated at $35 (in 2004$) per
individual the value of a beach day in Chicago.
32 The notification protocol changed in 2006 from issuing a closure upon two consecutive days of exceeding the standard, to one
day.
44
-------
meaning of the flag color. The CPD website provides general visitor information, current beach
status, and more detailed information explaining the flag system and health risks.
In addition, CPD has enhanced its outreach in recent years by implementing new social media tools to
publicize beach information. In 2009, the District launched Facebook and Twitter pages. Exhibit A-l
shows a sample of Facebook postings for September 2010. The CPD Facebook wall provides daily
beach status updates ("Beach Swim Report"), posts announcements for events at beaches, and allows
the public to interact with CPD staff by asking questions or communicating their likes and dislikes.
The interactive nature of the Facebook site seems to be well received by the public, judging from the
amount of back-and-forth displayed on the wall on an ongoing basis.
EXHIBIT A-1: EXCERPT FROM CPD FACEBOOK WALL
li Marchia Sendaydiego likes this.
Eric Wagner Labor Day Monday - Are the Beaches open then?
September 4, 2010 at 10:55am Flag
Chicago Park District Yes, beaches dose officially the following day.
September 5, 2010 at 10:17am Flag
Chicago Park District BEACH SWIM REPORT 9/3/10: There is a SWIM BAN
at Osterman and Hartigan beaches. There are SWIM ADVISORIES at Montrose
and Rainbow beaches. All other beaches are open for swimming today, weather
permitting. For more info call 312-742-3224. You can now text 312-715-SWIM
(7946) with the beach name for the swim status.
September 3, 2010 at 10:23am
t§ Anne-Marie Grenier likes this.
Chicago Park District BEACH SWIM REPORT 9/2/10: There is a SWIM BAN
at Osterman Beach. There are SWIM ADVISORIES at Ohio Street and Montrose
beaches. All other beaches are open for swimming today, weather permitting.
For more info call 312-742-3224. You can now text 312-715-SWIM (7946) with
the beach name for the swim status.
September 2, 2010 at 10:10am
l5 3 people like this.
Chicago Park District Head over to Redmoon's 1st annual Joyous Outdoor
Event, "a spectacular festival of performance, live music and art celebrating
ordinary Joes and average Janes of all ages" this Labor Day weekend at Belmont
Harbor, Belmont Ave. and Lake Shore Dr. All ages. For tickets and more
information go here:
Joyous Outdoor Event Joyous Outdoor Event!
joyousoutdoorevent. org
6:30-7:OOPM: Clown Frown Cabaret Presents!, a collection of Chicago's
finest lady downs, performs on the Small Stage
In 2010, CPD launched a new texting service that allows users to receive beach notification messages
(similar to the Beach Swim Report) about one specific beach, or for all 31 beaches managed by the
District.
Finally, to reach beach users who may otherwise miss or not have access to the various notification
methods, CPD posts also beach status at the entrance to the beach, using park-and-display service
boxes. While admission to the beaches is free, parking at many beaches is not, and CPD advises
beachgoers whether swimming is allowed before they make their parking payment.
45
-------
Reach and effectiveness
The CPD has received considerable media attention for its use of novel approaches to reach the
public. The use of Facebook and Twitter and the more recent launch of the texting service all
received wide coverage in Chicago media, with several local and regional newspapers (e.g., Chicago
Tribune) and TV stations (e.g., NBC) featuring stories that were later picked up by other media. This
media coverage may have helped raise awareness of the program. Another potential factor
influencing public interest in the social media tools is the combination of information CPD
communicates. For example, the fact that CPD continues to post cultural events of interest to the
public on its Facebook page during winter months when beaches are closed may encourage people to
continue to receive or sign up for the updates. As of January 2011, the District had over 4,000
Facebook friends and nearly 2,000 Twitter followers. Between the period of June 7, 2010, when the
service was launched, and the end of the swimming season in September, about 15,000 text
messages had been delivered to beachgoers, upon their request. About as many people (12,000 to
15,000) visit the CPD website on a weekly basis. CPD has not gathered information to assess the
effect of these notifications have had on the beachgoing public, and whether the new notification
methods have led to a better understanding of beach advisories or changes in behavior based on
advisories. (Beachgoers do generally follow swimming bans, since lifeguards strictly enforced them.)
However, CPD's combination of notification approaches is among the most comprehensive reviewed
in this evaluation.33
Future Enhancements to Notification
CPD is planning further enhancements to its notification program, including improvements to the
beach flag system to increase public understanding of the risks. This could involve, for example, using
multi-lingual signage34 and emphasizing symbols rather than text. The CPD is currently planning focus
groups to assess the effectiveness of different signs. The results of the focus groups will be used to
develop new beach advisory signs to be deployed prior to the start of the 2011 swimming season.
CPD is making these efforts to improve the notification aspect of its program in parallel with a push to
improve the timeliness of the notifications (e.g., by developing computer models that can predict
fecal indicator bacteria density based on weather and other real-time data) and to control sources of
pathogen contaminations, such as waterfowl or stormwater runoff.
Sources of information for this case study: Unless otherwise cited, information comes from Cathy
Breitenbach, personal communication and Chicago Park District website
(http://www.chicagoparkdistrict.com/resources/beaches/).
33 The only other jurisdiction reviewed in this evaluation that uses as many different types of notification methods as CPD is
Orange County, California.
34 CPD's beachgoing population includes not only English and Spanish speakers, but also people whose first language is Chinese or
Polish.
46
-------
4.1.3 Reasons for Selecting Specific Notification Methods
This section describes findings associated with the following research questions:
A.3 What factors influence local officials to choose one method of notification vs.
another (e.g., funding, program history)?
States and localities interviewed for this evaluation have gradually refined and improved the
notification methods they use, adding new notification methods over time as new technology
becomes available. In some cases, changes in notification methods have been prompted by
changes in agency or organization communication strategies. For example, Washington
State's move to social media (Facebook or Twitter) emerged from a broader strategy by the
state government to embrace social media and provide more information to its citizens in
real-time. States have also refined their notification methods as grant funding became
available (e.g., to purchase new signs), and based on the experience of surrounding states.
Several interviewees specifically mentioned the characteristics of their target audience as
factors in selecting notification methods, a key factor in effective risk communication. For
example, Ogden Dunes is primarily used by local residents, and therefore local beach
managers believe the annual community newsletter is an effective way to remind beachgoers
about water quality issues and potential risks. Likewise, the Makah Tribe uses
communication methods that members of the local community are already familiar with, e.g.,
bulletin boards posters, flyers, as well as a community intranet website that links to the State
of Washington's website. Beach managers in American Samoa primarily use newspapers and
other conventional media to inform the public, noting that the small size of the island makes
these methods effective. Several of the local beach managers we interviewed whose beaches
are popular with outside visitors and tourists (Galveston County Health District, Barnstable
County, Monmouth County, Makah Tribe35) noted that their website (or the state's program
website) is an important medium to ensure that tourists can get water quality information
prior to their visit. The primary language of tourists, as well as residents, can be an important
factor in designing beach signs. For example, in Maryland, Anne Arundel County's largest
beach frequently attracts a high proportion of tourists who may not read English, and for this
reason beach managers use symbol-based signs that visitors can understand regardless of
their native language. Some beach managers also consider beachgoer demographics when
selecting notification methods. For example, Chicago Park District beach managers sought to
reach out to younger beach users by implementing their text message service. Indiana state
contacts similarly noted that their interest in texting or SmartPhone applications as a means of
better reaching younger beach users.
In some cases, beach managers have wanted to implement certain notification methods, but
have lacked technical capacity, staff, or funding. For example, several states expressed
interest in exploring mobile applications to reach younger audiences, but doubted that they
5 Makah Tribe beaches are popular both with tourists as well as tribal community members.
47
-------
would have the funding to implement the approaches. Other states have set aside plans for
website upgrades or telephone hotlines due to lack of funding.
4.2 WHICH NOTIFICATION METHODS ARE MOST EFFECTIVE IN REACHING THE
PUBLIC
This section describes findings associated with the following research questions:
B.I How do beachgoers learn of beach advisories or closings?
B.2 What is the estimated audience reached by each method?
B.3 Do the notification methods differ in terms of the types of audiences they are
reaching?
States and localities interviewed had relatively little data on how beachgoers learn of
advisories or closures. However, a few beach programs have conducted surveys that touch
on this issue. For example, Texas conducted a telephone survey in May 2008 of visitors to
the Texas Gulf Coast in order to measure awareness of the Texas General Land Office's
Beach Watch Program. The survey was intended as a baseline study, before more recent
improvements to the Beach Watch program. When asked how the Texas Beach Watch
program can best communicate information about water quality at Texas recreational
beaches, television was the most popular response (cited by 36 % of respondents), followed
by signs at the beach (21%), or a website (14%) (Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, 2008).
Orange County, California, has conducted two surveys of beachgoers to determine how
beachgoers learn of advisories: the first survey, conducted in 2001, was an in-person survey
of 372 visitors at local beaches. The survey found that both residents and non-residents were
more likely to be aware of beach signs than any other source of water quality information.
Fifty-five percent of residents were aware of beach signs, vs. 17-31% aware of other
sources; 35% of non-residents were aware of beach signs vs. 15-18% aware of other sources.
A minority of respondents (15%) had checked the water quality of the beach they were
planning to visit before they arrived; of those that did, the most common sources of
information for residents were two surfer websites. Forty-one percent of residents went to
surfline.com and 32% went to surfider.com. Non-residents were equally likely to check the
Environmental Health Hotline (50%) and surfline.com (50%) (Adams and Co., 2001). A
more recent survey of beachgoers, designed to assess the extent to which beach users were
aware of electronic signs, found that in addition to these electronic signs, between 31 - 41%
of beachgoers found out about ocean water quality from the Internet, newspaper, or television
(personal communication Orange County Health Care Agency, see Case Study B for more
detail). Overall, the data gathered from Texas and Orange County suggest that beach signs,
the Internet, and television may be the most common sources beachgoers use to learn of
beach advisories or closings.
None of the states interviewed had complete data on the estimated audience reached by each
notification method. It is particularly difficult to track awareness of signs and information
provided through the general media (e.g., press releases). However, some beach managers
48
-------
have tracked the number of visitors to state websites and followers on social media sites, as
described below:
Website traffic: Texas has records of visitors and hits to their website for the 2009
and 2010 seasons, with 23,401 hits to their website in 2009 and 17,791 in the first
eight months of 2010, averaging 84 hits per day.36 This number is relatively small,
when considered in the context that Texas had nearly 50 million swimming visits to
coastal beaches in 2009. This translates roughly into one website hit for every 2,100
visitors. Chicago Park District's (CPD's) website receives about 12,000 to 15,000
hits per week (less than 200,000 per season), and the beaches receive 10 to 20
million visitors per season. This translates roughly into one website hit for every 50
to 100 visitors. Even accounting for the fact that visitors traveling together may
share the information they sought on the websites, these websites reach only a
fraction of beach visitors. Other localities track website traffic, but do not have
beach visitation data. For example, Anne Arundel county counted over 7,000
visitors to their homepage, 3,500 visitors to the factsheet subpage, 3,150 visitors to
the advisory page, and over 600 visitors to the Spanish-translated homepage.
Social media: Anne Arundel's notification program features Twitter posts with
about 2,700 subscribers while the Chicago Park District (CPD)'s Facebook and
Twitter pages have over 4,000 and 2,000 friends or followers, respectively. The
texting service put in place by CPD responds to an estimated 15,000 text message
requests per season. While these numbers are still small as compared to the number
of people who visit the websites, and represent only a small fraction of total beach
visits, to the extent that they reach different audiences or provide information in a
more convenient manner, they still offer a means of increasing the reach of
notifications.
When considering the audience that notification methods reach, it is important to note that the
total target audience for beach notifications can be very large. Exhibit 12 presents state-wide
statistics of swimming visits by adults to coastal beaches for 2009, as projected based on the
2000 National Survey of Recreation and the Environment (Interagency National Survey
Consortium, 2000 - 2002) and Austin et al. (2007). Together, the nine states interviewed for
this evaluation received over 500 million visits by adult swimmers in 2009. These statistics
represent the estimated number of adult visits to coastal beaches in 2009 by state where the
visit occurred.37 Given the size of the target audience for the communication, and limited
resources available for the notification program, states have attempted to make the
information as broadly available as possible at minimal cost (e.g., through posting
36 Statistics are missing for October 2009 and for the last four months of 2010.
37 Individuals may visit beaches multiple times, however, and therefore the number of individuals who swam at least once in a
coastal beach is lower. The relative distribution of individuals to visit beaches by state is similar to the chart in Exhibit 13:
Florida has the highest rate of swimming participation with 14.5 million adults. Estimates were derived from data from
Leeworthy (2005) for Ocean beaches and CGLI (2007) for Great Lakes beaches, as described in Abt Associates (2010).
49
-------
information online). At the same time, beach managers interviewed also strive to ensure that
beachgoers have access to information at the beach, since many visitors do not check water
quality when planning their visits.
s
.18
< s
5 m
5 s
-Q in
I §
I"
ra
EXHIBIT 12. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF SWIMMING VISITS AT COASTAL BEACHES IN
2OO9, BY STATE
250
o
i
200
150
100
50
Source: Abt Associates, 2010
FL
HI
IN
MD
MA
State
NJ
Rl
TX
WA
Most state and local representatives interviewed expressed the opinion that a combination of
notification approaches is necessary in order to reach beachgoers when they are planning a
visit, as well as when they are onsite at the beach. Some notification approaches require
visitors to actively seek out information (e.g., website and e-mail alerts), while others (e.g.,
media reports and signs) do not. These characteristics are summarized in Exhibit 13.
Moreover, some notification methods can provide detailed information while others can only
summarize the advisory status. For example, websites can complement signs by providing
interested members of the public detailed information about advisories and context regarding
the risks associated with contaminated waters. Social media can serve as an add-on to the
information provided on websites and can provide mobile access to advisory information.
Lifeguards can also play a role in ensuring the public is aware of beach advisories and
closures (e.g., by enforcing swimming bans or answering questions about what a posting
means), but lifeguards' first priority must be public safety.
50
-------
EXHIBIT 13. BEACH NOTIFICATION CHARACTERISTICS
AVAILABILITY
Available prior
to visiting the
beach
Available at
the beach
REACH THE GENERAL PUBLIC
Media reports (may be prompted by
press releases, websites, and ongoing
outreach to/education of the media)
Signs or flags
Lifeguards
Parking notices
BEACHGOERS NEED TO SEEK OUT/REQUEST
INFORMATION OR SPECIFICALLY INDICATE
THEIR INTEREST
Websites
E-mails
Hotlines
Text messages and mobile applications
Social networking sites (e.g., Facebook,
Twitter)
Text messages and mobile applications
Hotlines
Different notification methods do appear to vary in their ability to reach various subgroups of
beachgoers. State beach coordinators interviewed generally thought that media reports are
more effective than other methods in reaching older populations, and can be targeted to
bilingual and other sub-populations. Several interviewees explained their interest in new
media (e.g., texting, Facebook, and Twitter) by noting their popularity with younger adults, in
particular. The ability to reach young adults is especially important, since younger adults are
more likely to swim than older individuals (Interagency National Survey Consortium, 2000 -
2002).
Overall, states interviewed for this evaluation have divergent perspectives about which
notification methods they believe are most effective in reaching beachgoers. Exhibit 14
summarizes the range of interviewee views. States did agree that (1) general outreach in
some form is necessary to raise the awareness of beachgoers on water quality issues and
about the existence of signs at the beach or of websites; and (2) the various notification
methods play a complementary role with one method reinforcing - or raising awareness of-
another. For example, Indiana noticed increased traffic on their website after the replacement
of beach signs with larger, more visible signs that included a link to their website. The new
signs also prompted greater interest in the beach monitoring program overall during public
outreach events such as Earth Day.
51
-------
EXHIBIT 14. NOTIFICATION METHODS STATES PERCEIVED TO BE MOST EFFECTIVE IN
REACHING BEACHGOERS.
STATE
FL
HI
IN
MA
MD
NJ
Rl
TX
WA
METHOD(S)
Website, new signs
E-mail is fastest and easiest way, followed by website
High-profile Waikiki spill prompted heavy media publicity and
raised awareness
Website, new signs
Need broad variety of notification methods (media/TV reports
lifeguards and signs at the beach)
, website, trained
Signs
Not sure about the most effective method
Press releases
E-mail
Combination of all methods. Can use social media (e.g., listserv, Facebook) to
leverage exposure in traditional media outlets.
CASE STUDY B: ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, PILOTS SAME DAY BEACH
NOTIFICATION
The County of Orange Health Care Agency (HCA) partners with two wastewater districts (Orange
County Sanitation District, OCSD, and South Orange County Wastewater Authority, SOCWA) to
monitor the county's 42 miles of open coastline and 70 miles of harbor and bay frontage. The
agencies test water samples for bacterial contamination at approximately 150 ocean, harbor and bay
monitoring locations. Beaches are sampled at least once per week during the swimming season (April
1 - October 31). Some locations monitored by the wastewater districts are monitored two or five
times a week.
When water quality does not meet standards, beach managers may post either warning or closure
signs, depending on the extent of water contamination. In the case of a beach closure (e.g., when
there has been a sewage leak), visitors may use the beach but are not allowed in the water, and
lifeguards enforce this restriction. In the case of a warning, beach managers will post signs that
recommend staying out of the water, but visitors are allowed in the water at their own discretion. In
addition to warnings and closures, HCA issues beach "advisories" that recommend staying out of the
water for three days after rain storms. Such beach advisories are not posted on signs, but are
included in the HCA's other notification methods, which include press releases, a telephone hotline,
website updates, an e-mail list, and Twitter updates.
52
-------
EXHIBIT B-1: ORANGE COUNTY BEACH MONITORING STATIONS
Sunset
Bolsa Chica^S"?
State Beach
Xo
Huntington cityX
Beach v
Huntington Slati
Beach
o County Be
uth Laguna Beach
Monarch Beac
Salt Creek County Baacli
HCA Monitoring Stations
OCSD Monitoring Stations
SOCWA Monitoring Stations
Caplstrano County Beac
\ Capistrano Bay District Beach'
N Poche Beac
i»»»»»»»»«: i»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»" Miles San Clemente City BeacPI
0 2.5 5 10
San Clemente State Be
Source: 2009 Annual Ocean, Harbor & Bay Water Quality Report County of Orange, California, Health Care Agency, August 2010.
In addition to these ongoing notification methods, HCA has participated in a recent pilot project to
test real-time testing and notification methods. Standard water quality monitoring methods require
a 24-hour period to culture the bacteria, and therefore typical beach notification methods are at least
one day out of date, and can often be up to a week out of date, depending on the frequency of
monitoring. In 2010, a collaborative group headed by the Southern California Coastal Water Research
Project piloted a demonstration project to test rapid water quality testing methods that could
produce results within four hours (by noon on the day that samples were taken). The non-profit
foundation MiOcean38 installed electronic LCD screens at six39 locations across Orange County.
MiOcean allowed Orange County HCA to update the signs remotely based on the rapid testing
responses. Each electronic sign had a banner that showed red, yellow, or green to indicate that the
beach was closed, there was a warning, or the beach was open. The electronic signs also showed a
38 http://www.miocean.org/bim.html
" Four new signs were installed: two at Newport city beach, one at Huntington state beach, and one at Doheny state beach. In
addition, the city of Newport already had two electronic signs prior to the rapid testing pilot project, at Newport Pier and "Big"
Corona del Mar beach, which had been installed in late 2009. The signs had previously displayed information on beach "grades"
provided by Heal the Bay, another non-governmental advocacy group. These grades were based on beach conditions over the
last 30 days, and did not provide "real time" data on beach water quality.
53
-------
map, indicating the current location and the status of all beaches monitored, as well as weather and
surf information, and tips on preventing beach pollution The signs were located at the kiosks where
visitors pay parking fees. Parking attendants handed out fliers to explain signs to visitors. The project
ran for two months (July and August) in 2010.
EXHIBIT B-2: ELECTRONIC SIGN DISPLAYING REAL-TIME INFORMATION
(Inset shows part of sample display)40
Toward the end of the demonstration project, Orange County HCA conducted a survey of beachgoers
at Doheny and Huntington beaches, where electronic signs with same day testing information was
posted. Over half (54%) of respondents said they noticed the electronic sign regarding the water
quality when they entered the beach parking lot. Over half of those who noticed the sign (63%)
found the information displayed on the electronic sign helpful and easy to understand. In addition to
the electronic signs, survey respondents also reported finding out about conditions of ocean water
quality via Internet (41%), newspaper (32%), television (31%), a hotline (14%), radio (12%), other
signs (12%), or the Heal the Bay website (3%). Ten respondents wrote in additional comments
indicating that the signs were too small, difficult to read, or poorly placed. For example, one
respondent said, "Electronic sign is too small (too much info) to see and understand when driving in."
Another respondent commented, "Found it by accident on the bathroom building. Writing was
overlapping (difficult to read), also the date wasn't current. Signs are a waste of money. A flag
similar to surf reports would be more visible and less costly." While these comments provide
important perspectives, they should not overshadow the fact that the majority of respondents did
notice the signs, and most of those who did found them helpful.
The pilot project has now concluded, and same day notification is unlikely to continue due to funding
limitations. MiOcean continues to use the electronic signs and has resumed providing beach grades
provided by Heal the Bay, which provide a summary of beach water quality over the past 30 days.41
40 http://www.miocean.org/bim.html
41 For example beach report cards, see http://brc.healthebay.org/?st=CA6tf=1
54
-------
No surveys have assessed the degree to which beachgoers valued having same day beach water
quality information, or if members of the public understand the time lags associated with standard
beach monitoring. Further research on the value for this notification approach, as well as the costs to
implement it, may be warranted.
Sources of information for this case study: Unless otherwise cited, information comes from personal
communication with Larry Honeybourne, Orange County HCA. For more information about Orange
County's monitoring and notification program, see http://www.ocbeachinfo.com.
4.3 EFFECT OF NOTIFICATIONS ON THE AWARENESS OF BEACHGOERS
This section describes findings associated with the following research question:
C. 1 Does awareness of poor water quality, presence of notifications, or potential health
impacts vary by notification method?
While few studies have formally assessed the public's awareness of beach notifications, some
states and localities have conducted surveys to assess the effectiveness of their notification
methods in raising overall awareness of water quality issues and health risks on the part of
beachgoers. These studies vary in their design and the format of the questions, but a number
of surveys have found that awareness of beach notifications is generally low (less than half of
beachgoers surveyed). In some cases these studies prompted beach managers to improve
their notification methods, which resulted in greater public awareness of advisories. Each of
the relevant studies is summarized below.
Findings from a survey administered by the Texas General Land Office (TGLO) in 2008,
prior to TGLO's targeted campaign to raise awareness of their program, suggest that
relatively few respondents (33%) were aware of warning signs placed at the beach and even
fewer (24%) were aware of the Texas Beach Watch Program. Of those that were aware of
the program, only 6% had ever used the Texas Beach Watch website to check water quality
conditions. The majority of respondents (78%) considered themselves to be "concerned"
about water quality from a health perspective; however, only 20% actually checked water
quality reports before going to the beach. Of those that did check water quality reports, about
a third primarily used the Internet, 14% mentioned newspapers, and 14% used the television
as their primary information source. Furthermore, coastal residents were more likely to have
seen or heard water quality advisories than tourists (Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates,
2008)42. TGLO has not conducted a follow-up survey since conducting its outreach
campaign to raise awareness of the Texas Beach Watch program, but the state thinks that
public awareness has increased in recent years.
Prior to making changes to its beach signage, the Indiana Department of Environmental
Protection conducted a survey to determine the awareness of beachgoers to signs in Lake and
42 The sample of this survey totaled 325 individuals.
55
-------
Porter County beaches and to flags in La Porte County beaches. Very few respondents (2-
8%) were aware of signs, and only slightly more (22%) were aware of the flags.
Additionally, very few respondents (3-10%) obtained water quality information before
arriving at the beach. When asked whether they preferred flags or signs, the respondents
generally preferred the method not used at the beach they frequented; this may follow from
the low awareness of the existing method and a belief that the alternative method would fare
better. Potentially also for this reason, over 60% of the 350 respondents indicated their
preference for a combined warning sign/flag to "cover all the bases." (Environmental Law
and Economics Institute (ELEI), 2007).43 Our interview with Indiana state staff provided
some more insight on the potential reasons for the lack of awareness of the old signs - they
tended to be small (8 !/2" x 11") and posted in locations where they could easily be missed
(e.g., often shared a message board or kiosk with other general information about the beach).
In 2009, Indiana addressed these problems by adopting new signs, which are now much
larger (18" x 24"), use a simple color system, and are located in highly-visible spots at the
entrance of each beach. A follow-up online survey administered to Ogden Dunes beachgoers
in 2009 to assess the redesigned Indiana sign suggests that the new signs were more
successful. The survey revealed that 47% of respondents were highly aware of the blue signs
(indicating acceptable water quality for swimming), 39% were aware of the yellow signs
(indicating an advisory and potentially unsafe water quality), and 50% were aware of the red
sign (indicating a beach closure)44.
Surveys in Orange County, California, have assessed awareness of water quality information
sources. A 2001 survey of 372 beachgoers found that 65% of residents and 45% of non-
residents were aware of at least one source of information on water quality, and that the best
known source of information was beach signs. This study also found that a minority of
respondents (15%) had checked the water quality of the beach they were planning to visit
before they arrived (Adams and Co., 2001). This survey also considered use of water quality
information (as distinguished from awareness of the information); section 4.5 of this report
describes this data. A more recent survey in Orange County found that the majority of
respondents (88%) were aware of water quality monitoring efforts at the beach and over half
(54%) noticed an electronic sign. As noted in Case Study B, aside from electronic signs,
survey respondents also reported finding out about water quality conditions from the Internet
(41%), newspaper (32%), television (31%), a hotline (14 %), radio (12%), other signs (12%),
or the Heal the Bay website (3%). 45
Pendleton et al. (2001) found that residents in Los Angeles did have a considerable degree of
awareness of beach notifications. Over half46 of residents surveyed were aware of the
The sample of the survey totaled 172 beachgoers at Lake and Porter County beaches and 178 beachgoers at the La Porte County
beach.
44 The total sample size of this survey was about 50 people and varied depending on the question as some respondents did not
answer each question.
45 The total sample size was not given in this particular survey.
45 The study authors do not provide an exact percentage.
56
-------
warning signs about stormwater pollution, 68% had heard of a beach closure within the past
year, and 74% had seen or heard a news story about beach water quality concerns, most
commonly on the television.
An intercept survey administered to 1,007 beachgoers at the Santa Monica Pier, California,
found that only 23% were aware of general water quality issues at the pier and only 5% of
residents were aware of Heal the Bay's Beach Report Card, a rating system based on
bacteriological data (Heal the Bay, 2008).
Exhibit 15 and Exhibit 16 summarize the survey results described above regarding beachgoer
awareness of signs, extent to which beachgoers check water quality information before going
to a beach, and the most common sources of beach advisory information, aside from signs.
EXHIBIT 15. SUMMARY OF BEACHGOER AWARENESS OF NOTIFICATIONS
Percentage of survey respondents who were aware of beach notification signs:
6J4056 50
sxas 0
10% 20%
Indiana (original signs)
30%| 40% 50% 60%
Texas Orange County
Indiana (redesigned signs)
70%
80%
90%
Percentage of survey respondents who sought water quality information before going to the beach:
Ind
II
10% 2(
Orange County
ana Te
]
% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
(as
57
-------
EXHIBIT 16. SOURCES OF BEACH NOTIFICATION INFORMATION, ASIDE FROM SIGNS
45%
Texas
Orange County,
Internet Newspapers Television
Several states interviewed remarked that public awareness of beach advisories has improved
over time, due to repeated exposure to media coverage of beach closures or related stories,
notifications, and various outreach efforts. Florida, Hawaii, and Indiana observed that
beachgoers are asking more detailed questions and displaying a higher base of knowledge
about monitoring efforts and risks, highlighting the success that beach monitoring has had in
raising overall awareness. These states based their feedback on direct interaction with the
public during outreach events. Public feedback on the suite of notification methods is usually
"positive."
The sentiment shared by several beach managers interviewed is that beachgoers most aware
of beach issues tend to be local residents; more specifically, residents that raise questions and
attend outreach events and those that have gotten sick after swimming or know someone who
has (Martin and Pendleton, undated; Elin Jones, personal communication). Local beach
managers and state program contacts mentioned that local residents can often anticipate when
water quality is more likely to be good or poor; for example following heavy rainfall, based
on their experience with past notifications. In the case of Newport Beach, California, the
interviewee noted that local surfers tend to be one of the most aware groups. Several surveys
and studies confirm that, compared to visitors, residents have a greater awareness of
notification programs and beach water quality concerns. For example, the 2001 Orange
County survey found that residents were more aware of beach signs, hotline and webpage,
and used these informational sources more frequently than visitors (Adams & Co., 2001). In
Texas, coastal residents were more likely to have seen or heard advisories compared to
tourists (70% of residents compared to 49% of tourists) (Penn, Schoen and Berland, 2008).
58
-------
4.4 EFFECT OF NOTIFICATIONS ON THE UNDERSTANDING OF BEACHGOERS
This section describes findings associated with the following research question:
D. 1 Does the public understanding of why to modify behavior and what behaviors are
safe vary by notification method?
State beach program coordinators have different opinions about the degree to which the
public understands the risks of contact with contaminated water. For example, Rhode
Island's perception is that the public generally knows which beaches present a higher risk,
while Massachusetts is concerned that there has not been a lot of public education and the
public does not understand that health impacts (e.g., stomach aches) may be caused by
exposure to contaminated beach water. Similar concerns were expressed by local beach
managers regarding the public's understanding of the health risks of exposure to
contaminated water. According to local beach coordinators, public understanding of beach
water quality issues has improved in recent years as a result of outreach, improved
communication (both state and county websites and signs) and media attention on specific
high visibility events. This is based on the types of questions that come up during outreach
events or when talking to beach users directly (e.g., outreach done by the lifeguards).
None of the states interviewed had direct information to compare differences in public
understanding of risk based on different notification methods. However, there are a few
recent surveys that have assessed public understanding of beach advisory signs. For example,
in 2008 Indiana surveyed a small number of residents in Ogden Dunes and found that most
respondents understood the content and message of the color-coded signs.47 The greatest
percentage of respondents found the blue and red signs to be "very understandable" (87% and
84% respectively), while nearly as many respondents (72%) said the yellow sign is "very
understandable." (see
Exhibit 17 for a snapshot of each of these signs). Features of these signs that may make them
easy to understand include use of a clear red/yellow/green color scale, explanatory text (on
the blue sign) that accompanies the indication of current water quality statistics (on the green,
yellow, or red signs), simple graphics, and a link to a website for more information. Note the
color scale posted with the signs in Spanish (Exhibit 18); this graphic along with the blue
water quality notice sign may provide context for the other signs.
47 The online survey of 130 residents of Ogden Dunes had a response rate of 37%. Thus the percentages presented here are based
on the opinions of slightly less than 50 people.
59
-------
EXHIBIT 17. OGDEN DUNES SIGNS
/^Water Quality NoticeN
All natural bodies of water contain
microscopic organisms. This area is
monitored for £ coli bacteria, an indicator
of the possible presence of human health
risks. If bacteria levels are above state
health standards, an advisory or closure
sign will be posted at this location. Do not
ingest (ake water and. as always, swim at
your own risk.
^For latest water conditions: www.idem.in.gov/beachesy
CAUTION:
WATER QUALITY ADVISORY
FOR YOUR SAFETY
Swim at your own risk
- Do not ingest lake water
Shower after swimming
Wash hands before eating
Do not swim if you are ill
Increased risk of illness may be present
Based on recent monitoring for E. coli bacteria
(FOR MORE INFORMATION:
www .idetn.in.gov/beaches J
STOP
CLOSED
I monitoring tor E. COS A*Cf*rfe
SfrlfHisrish of Ulnfa* m*y to* present
THIS AREA IS CLOSED
TO SWIMMING *
EXHIBIT 18. COMBINATION OF SIGNS IN OGDEN DUNES MAY PROVIDE CONTEXT FOR
ADVISORY INFORMATION
60
-------
As noted in Case Study B, Orange County also evaluated the respondents' comprehension of
the electronic signs and found that of the 54% who were aware of the signs, 63% believed the
sign was helpful and easy to understand.48 A study at Santa Monica Pier found that 55% of
respondents did not understand the permanent signs containing information on water quality,
and 21% of beachgoers did not understand the beach closure signs. To increase
understanding, those beachgoers recommended enlarging the signs, including several
languages, and making them more visible by increasing the number, improving the
placement, and using brighter colors (Heal the Bay, 2008).49
4.5 EFFECT OF NOTIFICATIONS ON THE BEHAVIOR OF BEACHGOERS
This section describes findings associated with the following four research questions:
E.I Are there observable changes (e.g., since 2000) in the number of beach visits or
activities beachgoers engage in for beaches subject to advisories or closures?
E.2 How do beachgoers change their behavior when their preferred beach is under an
advisory or closure (e.g., by not visiting the beach, visiting a different beach, or avoiding
contact with the water)?
E.3 Does beachgoer behavior vary by notification type?
E.4 What other factors, aside from notification methods, may influence public behavior
(e.g., beach management characteristics, such as presence of lifeguards or another
"official" presence on the beach; beach location characteristics such as number of access
points to the beach).
There are limited sources of data that directly address the degree to which beach notifications
affect beachgoer behavior. One beachgoer intercept study was conducted in Indiana in
conjunction with the Environmental Law and Economics Institute in 2007, prior to the design
and installation of the state's current signs, shown in Exhibit 17. This study found that very
few survey respondents (2-8%) were aware of the beach advisory signs the state used at that
time, however, of the beachgoers that were aware of the signs, over half (56%) indicated that
the sign did influence their behavior, with about 43% of these respondents deciding not to get
in contact with water. A second survey at a different Indiana beach, where flags were posted,
found that 23% of respondents indicated that the flag changed their decision of whether to get
in contact with water (ELEI, 2007). These findings suggest that flags may not be as effective
as signs in influencing behavior. After redesigning its signs, Indiana carried out another
survey in 2008 in Ogden Dunes. As noted in Section 4.4 of this report, most respondents
understood the redesigned signs, and in addition, the majority of respondents said that the
new signage would have an impact on their decision to go swimming. Specifically, 79% of
respondents said the blue signs would have a "great impact" on the person's decision to go
48 The sample size for this survey is unknown.
49 The total sample size of this survey was 1,007 individuals.
61
-------
swimming at the beach, 78% said the red signs would have a "great impact," and 64% said
that the yellow signs would have a "great impact."50
As noted in Section 4.3, a survey of 372 beachgoers in Orange County, California, conducted
in 2001, found that respondents were most aware of beach signs, compared to other
notification methods. This survey also asked about beachgoers' "use" of water quality
information. (The term "use" was not defined, however it seems to refer to beachgoers using
the information to inform themselves about beach conditions, which may in some cases
translate into changes in behavior.) The survey found that the most used source of
information on ocean water quality was beach signs, used by 39% of respondent respondents
and 20% of non-resident respondents. The least used source of information was the
telephone hotline, used by 8% of resident respondents and 5% of non-resident respondents
(Adams and Co.,2001).
Aside from conducting surveys of beachgoers, another approach to assess changes in
beachgoer behavior in response to beach notifications is to assess changes in beach
attendance on days when beach advisories are posted, vs. days when no advisories are posted.
Unfortunately, most beach managers interviewed for this evaluation did not have access to
beach attendance data. However, the City of Newport Beach, California was able to provide
such data, although beach managers cautioned that many factors (e.g., weather, season, and
day of the week) affect beach attendance. An analysis of the data suggests a relationship
between the water quality status and number of visitors to a beach, controlling for other
factors that influence beach visitation. Results of a preliminary analysis using data for one
beach over a three-year period are discussed in Case Study C, below. EPA's National
Epidemiological and Environmental Assessment of Recreational (NEEAR) Water Study has
also collected data on beach attendance, however, the number of observations of beach
attendance on days when there were beach advisories was not sufficient to enable the type of
analysis presented in Case Study C for other locations around the country.
CASE STUDY C: DATA FROM NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUGGEST RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN ADVISORIES AND BEACH ATTENDANCE
Lifeguards at Newport Beach, California, are responsible for posting advisories or closures at the
beach, using information received from the Orange County Health department, and for enforcing
swim bans when a closure is posted. In addition, lifeguards record beach attendance daily.
To test the hypothesis that advisories influence the behavior of beachgoers, we analyzed daily
attendance records for Newport Beach for 2008 and 2009 to look at whether there was a statistically
significant relationship between the number of beach visitors on any given day and the beach status,
all else being equal.51 To do this analysis, we first augmented the attendance data with daily weather
50 As noted above, the survey size for this web-based survey was small, slightly less than 50 residents of Ogden Dunes.
51 While attendance records were also available for January through October 2010, these data were not included in the analysis as
advisory data summaries were not yet available from EPA for 2010.
62
-------
data obtained from the National Weather Service and advisory data obtained from EPA's PRAWN.
Weather (temperature and precipitation), season, and day of the week, were all mentioned by the
Newport Beach interviewees as key determinants of beach attendance, along with other less easily
quantifiable factors such as sport events or holidays. Exhibit C-l shows time series of beachgoer
counts and maximum daily temperature for the two-year period. Beachgoer counts on days when an
advisory was in place are marked using red circles. Beach attendance varies throughout the year
following temperature and seasons with summer months showing a greater number of beachgoers,
on average, than the winter months. A closer look at the raw data also confirms that attendance
depends on precipitation and day of the week, with sunny days and weekend days both generally
showing a higher number of visitors.
EXHIBIT C-1: RECORDED TEMPERATURE DAILY HIGH AND NUMBER OF BEACHGOERS ON
DAYS WITH AND WITHOUT ADVISORY AT NEWPORT BEACH, CA IN 2008 AND 2009.
120.000
100.000
50
4/10/2008
7/19/2008 10/27/2008
2/4/2009
5/15/2009 8/23/2009
12/1/2009
Beachgoer Count Beachgoer Count (Advisory Day)
Temperature (Daily High)
To verify these tendencies, we ran a statistical regression on the Newport Beach, California, data.
The purpose of the analysis was to determine whether advisories affect recorded attendance,
controlling for the multitude of factors that may influence beach visitation rates. The linear
regression model relates the daily number of visitors at the beach (Attendance) to a set of
explanatory variables that includes advisory status (Advisory, true/false), the maximum daily
temperature (Temperature), a precipitation indicator (Rain, true/false), a weekday indicator
(Weekend, true vs. false), a season indicator (Summer, true/false), and several interaction variables
63
-------
that account for correlation among the explanatory variables.52 The resulting regression is expressed
as follows:
Results show that the model explains 67% of the variation in daily attendance and that the equation
is internally valid.53 All regression coefficients have the expected directional impact on beach
attendance and are significant at the 5% confidence level, except for rain which is significant at the
15% level.
The estimated regression confirms that beach attendance increases during summer months (June,
July, and August), on weekends, and with higher air temperature. Attendance is approximately
40,200 visits higher during the summer as compared to other months and increases by about 800
visits for each degree increase in the temperature. Further, attendance is on average 11,200 higher
on weekends as compared to weekdays. The significant interaction between weekends and season
suggests that the difference in attendance between weekends and weekdays is larger during the
summer. During summer months, attendance is approximately 20,000 greater on weekends
compared to weekdays, while attendance is only 11,000 greater on weekends compared to weekdays
during other months.
Of particular interest for this evaluation, the estimated regression suggests that advisories are
associated with significant declines in beach attendance: 5,900 fewer people visit the beach during
advisories posted during off-peak months, and 11,000 fewer people visit if the advisory instead
occurs during the summer.
These limited results suggest that a statistically significant relationship may exist between advisories
and daily beach attendance when controlling for other factors. It is unknown whether the results for
Newport Beach, California, would hold for other beaches that implement their beach notification
programs differently. For example, the presence of lifeguards at the beach could reinforce the effect
of beach advisories on visitation rates. Moreover, when looking at beach attendance more generally,
it is important to keep in mind that changes in beach attendance are not a necessary indicator of
adherence to beach advisories.54 Since individuals may visit the beach and still avoid contact with the
water, indication that an advisory did not significantly decrease beach attendance would not
necessarily mean that the advisory was not effective; this could be considered to be a positive
outcome since it would suggest that advisories result in a smaller reduction in the recreational
benefits of beach use, while providing human health benefits to beachgoers.
52 Interaction variables include: Summer-Rain; Advisory-Summer; Weekend-Rain; and Weekend-Summer.
53 The regression was run on a subsample (75%) of the dataset and used to predict the other 25% of observations. Calculated
predicted values and actual values had a correlation of approximately .80
M This distinction is not as important for Newport Beach since lifeguards enforce swim bans.
64
-------
Studies from the literature suggest that water quality has an influence on beachgoers'
behavior, but that weather and water temperature seem to be more important determinants for
many individuals. For example, a survey conducted at Chicago beaches during the summer
of 2004 revealed that a large fraction (80%) of the nearly 2,000 respondents were aware of
past swimming bans (Shaikh, 2005, unpublished). When the researchers focused on reasons
why people decided not to swim at the surveyed beaches, most non-swimmers identified
either water temperature or weather as the main driver for their decision to avoid the water
(61%). However, a significant subset of respondents (36%) listed concerns over water
quality as a factor in their decision.
A 2004 study conducted in Huntington Beach, California 24 hours after a beach closure
revealed that a large majority of respondents (83%) was aware of the recent closure, and the
same fraction indicated that water quality was an important or very important issue in
deciding to come to the beach. Despite this, more than half of respondents felt the water was
either safe or very safe to swim in, and 35% thought the risk of becoming ill from swimming
was low (the beach closure posting had been lifted at the time the survey was conducted).
Furthermore, 84% planned on swimming. Of those that decided not to swim, 41% cited the
cold temperature of the water as the main reason not to swim. However, 64% of respondents
with children or grandchildren would not allow their children or grandchildren to swim
(Turbow et al., 2004).55 The study authors attributed the public's willingness to swim soon
after a beach closure to a high level of public trust in health agency officials to properly
decide when beaches should be open or closed. The authors further noted that "beach visitors
may equate open beaches with safe swimming water. Alternatively, beach visitors who swam
immediately following closures may have been well aware of the risks but not concerned
with becoming ill."
An older survey administered in Ohio Lake Erie beaches in 1999 found similar results:
beachgoers continued to visit beaches even though there was some awareness of poor water
quality or an advisory or closure. In this study, over 70% beachgoers indicated that they have
never cancelled a trip because of a beach closure (Murray, 1999).56 These results suggest that
episodic beach advisories and closures may not adversely influence visitation trends or affect
beachgoers' decision on whether to swim at a beach in the longer term, once the advisory or
closure has been lifted.
Comments about beachgoer behavior from state and local beach managers interviewed for
this evaluation were generally consistent with information from existing surveys and
literature. Anecdotally, state and local contacts noted that while most beachgoers do abide by
the advisories, not all beachgoers adhere to advisories or closures, unless beaches are either
physically closed or lifeguards prevent beachgoers from entering the water. The local beach
managers we interviewed mentioned that while people are generally better informed about
risks now, compared to a few years ago, translating this understanding into behavior changes
The sample size of this survey totaled 204 individuals.
56 The sample size of this survey totaled 1,587 individuals.
65
-------
is proving to be a significant challenge. As discussed in Chapter 3, research on how different
people respond to risk messages suggests regardless of the risk communication approach, not
all beachgoers will heed advisories. Since a stated objective of the beach notification
program is to inform the public so they can make appropriate and knowledgeable decisions,
this outcome in itself does not represent a shortcoming of the notification program.
State and local beach managers generally did not have sufficient data from which to estimate
the fraction of beachgoers who abide by, or ignore, advisories. The interviewees noted that
they believe that fewer beachgoers use the beach and even fewer go swimming during an
advisory, but aside from the small survey conducted in Ogden Dunes, Indiana (described
earlier in this section), beach managers did not have specific data to support their observation.
At the same time, the interviews suggest that the presence of lifeguards can strongly influence
behavior during an advisory if the advisory is accompanied by a swimming ban. Beaches in
Monmouth County, Barnstable County, and Newport Beach, for example, are staffed with
lifeguards who will strictly enforce a swimming ban.
When asked why some beachgoers who are otherwise aware of the advisory may still decide
to go swimming, the interviews and the existing literature offered some potential reasons.
The state and local beach managers we interviewed speculated that some beachgoers who are
aware of advisories may enter the water anyway for a variety of reasons: they may not
understand the significance of the advisory, may care more about surf conditions or other
factors, may believe that they would not get sick (i.e., self-positivity bias), or may think they
can control exposure by not swallowing water.
In addition, an individual's access to alternative recreation may influence their decision. For
example, the beach manager for the state of Indiana interviewed for this evaluation noted that
the fraction of beachgoers who may disregard an advisory may be relatively higher in lower-
income urban areas where impaired beaches are close to home, free, and where there may not
be a readily accessible alternate site.
Furthermore, the fact that it takes 24 hours to get water quality monitoring results57 may lead
beachgoers to discount beach advisories, in the believe that they do not reflect current
conditions. Several interviewees mentioned the delay between testing and water quality
notification - which typically ranges between 24 to 48 hours - as a potentially significant
factor that can lead local residents not only to discount beach advisories, but also question the
credibility of agencies issuing the advisories. Local beach managers (Chicago, Newport
Beach) note their strong interest in implementing more timely notifications. Orange County
has tested a rapid testing method that can provide water quality information within a few
hours of testing (see Case Study C earlier in this chapter).
57 Culture-based methods used to measure fecal indicator bacteria density have a turnaround of about 24 hours, meaning that
even in cases where beaches are sampled daily, the water quality status posted on any given day actually reflects conditions for
samples collected the prior day.
66
-------
CASE STUDY D: CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS, FINDS NO MAJOR ECONOMIC IMPACTS AS A
RESULT OF NOTIFICATION
The city of Corpus Christ! in Nueces County, Texas, began implementing beach notification as part of
the Texas Beach Watch program in early 2008. Prior to that time, the city Health Department, the
Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries Program, and the University of Texas at Corpus Christi were all active
in water sampling, however results were not disseminated to the public. For example, the Health
Department sampled all receiving waters to test water
quality, the estuaries program was studying the types of
contamination from storm drains, and the University of
Texas was studying the sources of contamination.
However, the only signs posted at the beach were general
warnings (e.g., warning visitors of glass on the beach).
There were a few reasons why the city did not provide
beach notifications. First, the city perceived that businesses
and local residents were concerned that notifications would
lead to a negative image of the city, which could hurt the
local economy that depended on tourists. Moreover, the
city's Environmental Director was concerned that since
samples were only taken once a week in the summer, and
View from a Local Windsurfer
"I live right next to an outflow ...Water
will flow out of it darkish brown or
black [after a rainfall event]. You can
see a mass of polluted water around
the Bay ...Normally the water is
turquoise or greenish, but it turns
brown or black after a rain, [even if
the rain is three or four miles inland].
It takes the currents a couple of days
to dissipate [the polluted water].
I think the Texas Beach Watch
program is great, and feel the signs
are a good educational tool to inform
Bay users of the potential hazards in
the water."
once every two weeks in the winter, providing notifications
based on these potentially out-of-date sampling results could give the public a false sense of security
(i.e., that beaches were safe if there was no notification, which might not be the case). Therefore,
the city's Environmental Director felt that it was most important to provide general education to the
public not to swim in receiving waters after a rain event. Indeed, the Commodore of the local
windsurfing association reported that prior to the city issuing notifications, many local windsurfers
knew through their own experience that they should not enter beach water for two days after a
rainfall.
However, after the Texas Beach Watch program was launched at the state level, and based on input
from the Surfrider Foundation, the city began issuing notifications about beach water quality by
posting Beach Watch signs. Notifications are also provided
by the state through the Beach Watch website, an e-mail
list, and a RSS feed.
Texas Beach Watch Sign
Moau
BEACH WATCH
Perspectives on the impacts of the notifications vary. The
city's Environmental Director feels that the general
population does not notice the Beach Watch signs and
beachgoers have not changed their behavior, although
there has been more media attention about the
notifications. The Executive Director for the Coastal Bend
Bays & Estuaries Program (hereafter, the Estuary Program)
believes that the Texas Beach Watch program has raised
public awareness and knowledge about bacterial contamination at the beaches. While there are no
data on changes in beachgoer behavior, the Executive Director believes it is likely that visitors are
I
Photo Credit: Rob Nixon, Chairman
Surfrider Foundation South Texas Chapter
67
-------
paying attention to the signs and staying out of the water when there is an advisory. The Program
Manager for the Estuary Program notes that there is a distinction between beaches on Corpus Christi
Bay, versus those on the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf beaches are less likely to have notifications, but when
they do beachgoers seem to take note and "second guess" getting in the water. The Program
Manager did not have any anecdotal information about whether visitor behavior had changed at Bay
beaches. Overall, the Program Manager believes that notification signs are a useful communication
tool for people visiting the beach, alerting them not only to the most current information available on
water quality, but also where to get more information (i.e., the website). The Commodore from the
local windsurfer association believes that local windsurfers and kite surfers were generally aware of
water conditions even prior to the notifications, based on word of mouth and personal experience.
However, visiting windsurfers and kite surfers may not be aware of water quality issues in the Bay,
and therefore the signs are useful for informing them. In addition, members of the windsurfing club
do check the Texas Beach Watch website regularly, and the club has put a link on its website to the
state's Beach Watch website, where visitors can find information on bacteria counts at local beaches
and other possible surfing sites.
All of those interviewed for this case study
Cole Park, Corpus Christi
agreed that the notifications have not
resulted in a noticeable negative impact for
the city's economy. As the Executive
Director of the Estuary Program stated, 'The
truth is now that the signs are up it has been
practically painless for the city. There has
been no mass movement or public
outpouring of demand to deal with the
problem." The city's Environmental Director Photo credit: City of Corpus Christi
observed that there may not be any negative
economic impacts of the notifications in part because tourists who notice the signs and opt not to use
the beach patronize local businesses instead. Or it may be that the beaches where notifications are
most likely to occur (Cole and Ropes Park) are not frequented by tourists, since they are not sandy
beaches.
Aside from any influence on beachgoers, the beach monitoring data has informed other initiatives
regarding water quality. For example, the city Health Department formed a task force to help
address water quality issues, and two locations in the city were placed on EPA's 303d list of impaired
waters. Including the city's beaches on the 303d list seems to have prompted the most concern from
the city as well as the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.58 Currently, two locations in
Corpus Christi Bay are included on the 303d list: Cole and Ropes Park.59
58 Documentation of EPA's response to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's concerns about the 303d listing is
available at http://www.epa.gov/region6/water/npdes/tmdl/303d/tx/follow up%20letti. 'Otceq ccbav.pdf
-------
Sources: Unless otherwise cited, information from this case study is drawn from interviews or
personal communication with Peggy Sumner, Environmental Director for the City of Corpus Christi;
Ray Allen, Executive Director Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries Program; Jace Tunnell, Project Manager
at the Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries Program; and Chip Ducrest, Commodore of the Corpus Christi
Windsurfing Association.
69
-------
CHAPTER 5 | CONCLUSIONS
This evaluation explores the types of beach notification methods used to inform the public
about water quality concerns, and the effectiveness of these notifications. This chapter
highlights conclusions drawn from the research.
5.1 BEACH NOTIFICATION PROGRAMS USE A COMPLEMENTARY SUITE OF
NOTIFICATION MESSAGES
The states and localities interviewed for this evaluation tend to use, on average, more than
four different notification methods. Some of these methods (e.g., signs) are targeted to
beachgoers at the beach, and others (e.g., websites) are targeted to potential visitors before
they travel to the beach.
Evidence from existing surveys suggests that beach signs, as well as press releases to
television and radio stations, are essential, since only a minority of beachgoers seeks out
water quality information before they visit the beach. However, aside from signs, the Internet
is the most common source of information about beach water quality and the primary mode
by which state and local beach managers provide detailed water quality information to the
public. Beach program managers report that the different notification methods reinforce each
other (e.g., coverage in the media or signs at the beach drives traffic to the website).
Moreover, general public education and outreach are necessary to build a common
understanding of beach water quality issues, risks of contaminated water, and steps that
beachgoers can take to stay safe while still enjoying the beach. Educated members of the
public will be more likely to be aware of, seek out, and abide by beach water quality
notification messages.
5.2 THE CONTENT AND FORMAT OF BEACH NOTIFICATION MESSAGES VARIES,
EXAMPLES DRAWN FROM STATES AND LOCALITIES SUGGEST GOOD
PRACTICES
The review of signs and websites in Chapter 4 suggests that there is no standard format for
beach notification messages at beaches across the country, and that the content and wording
of messages, as well as the level of detail and contextual information provided, varies widely.
Part of the reason for this range of approaches may be that beach programs may tailor the
content and format of their communications based on their target audiences (e.g., residents vs.
tourists), and based on the goal of the communications (e.g., to inform vs. to influence
beachgoer behavior). While directly contrasting the effectiveness of one approach versus
another is not possible, there are features of signs and websites that are likely to be relatively
effective in informing and influencing behavior, based on comments from interviewees and
the literature.
70
-------
Large durable signs, placed in a prominent location, that convey meaning using widely-
recognized symbols and icons, along with simple text to explain the cause of the advisory or
closure, are likely to be relatively effective. In addition, signs that use a familiar color scale
(e.g., red, yellow, green) to indicate risk levels should help beachgoers understand the risk.
Signs can briefly highlight consequences of water contact and tips on staying safe (although
such explanations will necessarily be very short). Signs should identify the agency
responsible for the advisory, as well as a source for more information (e.g., a phone number
or website). Where visitors are likely to speak languages other than English, signs should be
translated.
Websites can provide considerably more information than signs, and yet it is still important to
design websites so that the most relevant information is summarized briefly on the beach
program's home page (or on a clear link to the home page), so that beachgoers can quickly
find it. A review of websites suggests that it is helpful if websites prominently display a
summary of the status of each beach, or a list of all beaches under advisory. In addition,
some websites include useful features such as allowing users to search for current status and
history for a particular beach of interest. Several websites reviewed provide detailed testing
information (e.g. bacterial levels) and this information is likely useful to researchers and
experts. However, beachgoers may be more likely to be able to understand simple summaries
of testing results (e.g., beach open, closed, or under advisory) communicated through text
and/or color coding. In order to help interested beachgoers understand the basis for the beach
status, websites can provide information about the day the beach was last sampled, the
frequency of monitoring, and an explanation for the cause of any advisories and testing
methods. Websites can also provide detailed information about health consequences of
contact with contaminated water, and advice on the activities that may be unsafe. Finally,
beach websites may provide information about beaches other than water quality (e.g., weather
and beach amenities) to draw visitors to the beach website.
5.3 NOTIFICATION MESSAGES REACH ONLY A FRACTION OF BEACHGOERS, BUT
SOCIAL NETWORKING TOOLS, AS WELL AS TRADITIONAL MEDIA, CAN
EXPAND REACH
Although limited in number, the available studies suggest that beach signs, the Internet, and
television may be the most common sources beachgoers use to learn of beach advisories or
closings. However, the total target audience for beach notifications can be very large, and
therefore it can be difficult to reach the majority of beachgoers. For example, the state of
Texas conducted a major outreach campaign as part of its Beach Watch program, which did
increase visitors to the website, but the total number of website hits (roughly 23,400 in 2009)
was still a small fraction of the number of swimming visits to Texas beaches that year (nearly
50 million).
Beach managers are increasingly using social networking tools (e.g., Facebook and Twitter)
to expand the reach of their beach notification messages. In some cases, beach managers
partner with local stakeholders (e.g., NGOs) to reach a broader audience. For example, in
71
-------
Orange County, California, local NGOs "retweet" the County health department's beach
advisories, expanding the reach of this information by at least a factor often. However,
social networking tools typically only reach subscribers. Traditional media approaches (e.g.,
press releases to local television stations and newspapers) can expand the reach of
notification messages to the general public (both residents and tourists). Some states have
found cultivating relationships with local media en effective way to ensure that newspapers
and television stations routinely publicize beach status updates.
5.4 PUBLIC AWARENESS OF BEACH ADVISORIES VARIES; BEACHGOERS WHO ARE
AWARE OF SIGNS OFTEN FIND THEM HELPFUL
While research on beachgoer awareness is limited, the few studies that do exist vary in the
percentage of beachgoers that are aware of notifications. For example, awareness of beach
signs has varied from 2% to 54%, depending on the survey. Awareness of any notification
method tends to be higher, for example, one survey in Orange County, California found that
65% of residents and 45% of non-residents were aware of at least one source of information
on water quality. However, a smaller percentage of beachgoers checks for information about
water quality before visiting a beach (approximately 20% of survey respondents or less).
This suggests that simply making sure beachgoers see signs, and hear about other notification
methods prior to visiting a beach, may be the greatest challenge for beach managers.
The few studies that tested beachgoer understanding of beach signs suggest that they can
communicate effectively to the public, depending on their design, content, and placement.
For example, between 72% and 87% of respondents in one small survey in Indiana found
redesigned signs to be very understandable, while 63% of survey respondents who were
aware of electronic signs in Orange County, California, found they were helpful and easy to
understand.
5.5 BEACH ADVISORIES APPEAR TO HAVE SOME EFFECT ON BEHAVIOR, BUT
OTHER FACTORS MAY PREDOMINATE
Studies that consider factors influencing beachgoer behavior suggest that beach advisories
influence some members of the public, but that weather and water temperature seem to be
stronger factors in many individuals' decisions not to swim. Beach attendance data do
suggest a relationship between number of visitors and advisory status, but weather also exerts
a strong influence on beach attendance. An unknown proportion of individuals choose to
visit the beach and enter the water even when advisories are in place. There may be many
reasons that individuals choose to contact the water when an advisory is in place, including
being unaware of the advisory, not having alternate recreation opportunities, or believing that
they will not get sick.
72
-------
5.6 BEACH NOTIFICATION PROGRAMS HAVE EVOLVED BASED ON EXPERIENCE,
BUT LITTLE SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION OF PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS HAS
BEEN COMPLETED
The states and localities interviewed generally developed their notification programs based on
their own experience. Beach notification managers have adapted their programs over time to
add new technologies as they have become available (e.g., social media tools) and to improve
notification methods that seemed not to be effective (e.g., flags or small signs).
While states and localities do appear to take note of feedback they receive from beachgoers,
only a few noted specifically learning from the experience of their peers (e.g., other states)
when adjusting the design of their notification programs. It seems likely that beach program
managers may not be fully aware of techniques their peers are using, and therefore may not
be in a position to adopt best practices.
While a few programs have conducted targeted studies to identify areas to improve, most
programs have not conducted such research, and no programs have conducted a series of
studies over time to assess changes in behavior as the beach notification programs evolved.
The scarcity of data on effects of beach notification (e.g., large scale surveys of beachgoers
and data on beach attendance) substantially limits an evaluation of the outcomes of
effectiveness of beach notification programs. While EPA guidance calls for BEACH Act
grantees to evaluate their programs, it is not clear whether individual grant agreements
include evaluation as part of their scope. Interviews with states and localities suggest that
funding is a limiting factor for beach programs, and therefore the paucity of primary research
may be due to lack of resources to conduct gather data. Additional research in the form of
surveys of beachgoers and tracking attendance records would help assess program
effectiveness. Such surveys could be carried out by EPA, states, localities, universities, or
NGOs, and ideally coordinated by a central agency (e.g., EPA).
73
-------
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW CONTACTS
We would like to thank the individuals who provided information for this evaluation.
STATE/LOCALITY/ORGANIZATION
CONTACTED
Florida
Hawaii
Indiana
Makah Tribe
Massachusetts
Maryland
New Jersey
Rhode Island
Texas
Washington
Anne Arundel County, Maryland
Orange County, California
City of Newport Beach, California
Chicago Park District, Illinois
Town of Ogden Dunes, Indiana
Barnstable County, Massachusetts
Monmouth County, New Jersey
Galveston County Health District,
Texas
INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWED OR CONTACTED
David Polk, Florida Department of Health
Dale Mikami and Watson Okubo, Hawaii Department of
Health
Michelle Caldwell, Beach Grant Program Coordinator, and
Danielle Barnett; Indiana Department of Environmental
Management
Andrew Winck, Emergency Management Coordinator,
Makah Tribe
Chris Huskey, Massachusetts Department of Public Health
Heather Morehead, Kathy Bromont, and Tom Nscuta,
Beaches Division /Shellfish Division, Maryland Department
of Environment, Technical & Regulatory Services
Virginia Loftin, NJDEP Bureau of Marine Water Monitoring,
Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program, Clean Shores
Program
Amie Parris, Beach Coordinator, Rhode Island Department
of Health
Craig Davis, Texas Beach Watch Coordinator, and Landon
Camp and Melissa Porter; Coastal Resources Division, Texas
General Land Office
Jessica Archer, BEACH Program Manager, Washington
Department of Health; and Jessica Bennett, Washington
Department of Ecology
Elin Jones, Public Information Officer, Public Information
Office, Anne Arundel County Department of Health
Larry Honeybourne, Orange County Health Care Agency
Jim Turner, Lifeguard Battalion Chief, Newport Beach
Lifeguard Agency
Cathy Breitenbach, Chicago Park District
Sue MiHalo, Chair of Ogden Dunes Environmental Advisory
Board
Bethany Sadlowski, Beach Sampling Program Coordinator,
Barnstable County Health and Environment
Anne Marie Fournier, Cooperative Coastal Monitoring
Program Coordinator, Monmouth County Health
Department
Ronnie Schultz, Director of Galveston County
Environmental Health Program
A-1
-------
STATE/LOCALITY/ORGANIZATION
CONTACTED
Guam
Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (CNMI)
American Samoa
Surf rider- Rhode Island Chapter
City of Corpus Christi
Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries
Program, Corpus Christi Texas
Corpus Christi Windsurfing Association
Surfrider Foundation - Coastal Bend
Chapter, Texas
Surfrider Foundation - South Texas
Chapter
University of Illinois-Chicago
INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWED OR CONTACTED
Annie Leon Guerrero, Guam EPA
Clarissa T. Bearden, Lead State Contact, CNMI Division of
Environmental Quality
Christianera Tuitele (Water Program Manager) and
Josephine Regis, American Samoa EPA
Dave Prescott, Executive Director
Peggy Sumner, Environmental Director
Ray Allen, Executive Director, and Jace Tunnell, Project
Manager, Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries Program
Chip Ducrest, Commodore
John S. Adams, Chair - Coastal Bend Chapter
Rob Nixon, Chairman, South Texas Chapter
Sabina Shaikh, Lecturer, Public Policy Studies and
Environmental Studies
A-2
-------
APPENDIX B: REFERENCES
Adams, S. (2001). "Environmental Health Ocean Water Quality Survey: Report of Results."
County of Orange: Environmental Health Division.
Austin et al. (2007). America's North Coast: A Benefit-Cost Analysis of a Program to Protect
and Restore the Great Lakes. September 2007.
Barker, D. (2009). Assessment of Current Beach Advisory and Closure Public Notification
Methods of the BEACH Act States. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water.
Bennet, Peter (undated). "Communicating about Risks to Public Health: Pointers to Good
Practice." EOR Division, Department of Health, Skipton House, 80 London Road, SE1
6LW.
Environmental Law and Economics Institute (2007). Public Notification: An Examination of
Existing and Alternative Notification Systems
Fleisher, JM and Kay, D. (2006). Risk perception bias, self-reporting of illness, and the
validity of reported results in an epidemiologic study of recreational water associated
illnesses. Marine Pollution Bulletin 52(3): 264-268.
Hansen, A. (1991). The media and the social construction of the environment. Media, Culture
and Society 13.
Heal the Bay. (2008). Santa Monica Pier Survey.
House, MA. (1996). Public perception and water quality management. Water Science and
Technology 34(12).
Interagency National Survey Consortium, Coordinated by the USDA Forest Service,
Recreation, Wilderness, and Demographics Trends Research Group, Athens, GA and the
Human Dimensions Research Laboratory, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN
(2000-2002). 1999-2000 National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, available
online National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE). Available online at
< http ://www. srs .fs .usda.gov/trends/Nsre/nsre2 .html>
Kasperson, Roger E; Golding, Dominic; and Tuler, Seth (1992). "Social Distrust as a Factor
in Siting Hazardous Facilities and Communicating Risks." Journal of Social Issues,
Volume 48, Issue 4, pages 161-187, Available online at
Knuth, B. A., A. Connelly, N., Sheeshka, J. and Patterson, J. (2003), Weighing Health
Benefit and Health Risk Information when Consuming Sport-Caught Fish. Risk
Analysis, 23: 1185-1197. doi: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2003.00392.x
Jakus et al. (2002). The Benefits and Costs of Fish Consumption Advisories for Mercury.
Jensen, E and McClellan, S. (2005). Beach Closings: Science versus Public Perception.
American Institute of Biological Sciences.
B-1
-------
Leeworthy, V and Wiley, P. (2001). Current Participation Patterns in Marine Recreation.
Silver Spring, MD.
Lipkus, I. (2007). Numeric, Verbal, and Visual Formats of Conveying Health Risks:
Suggested Best Practices and Future Recommendations. Medical Decision Making 27.
Martin, N and Pendleton, L. Perceptions of Environmental Quality and Risk in Beach
Recreation.
May H, Burger, J. (1996) Fishing in a Polluted Estuary: Fishing Behavior, Fish Consumption,
and Potential Risk. Risk Analysis, Volume 16, Issue 4, August 1996, Pages: 459-471.
Menon, G, et al. (2002). We're at as Much Risk as We Are Led to Believe: Effects of
Message Cues on Judgments of Health Risk. Journal of Consumer Research 28.
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). (2010). Testing the Waters: A Guide to Water
Quality at Vacation Beaches.
Ng KL, Hamby DM. (1997). "Fundamentals for establishing a risk communication program."
Health Phys.73(3):473-82. Available online at
Palenchar, M and Heath, R. (2002). Another Part of the Risk Communication Model:
Analysis of Communication Processes and Message Content. Journal of Public Relations
Research 14(2).
Pendleton, L, et al. (2001). Public perceptions of environmental quality: a survey study of
beach use and perceptions in Los Angeles County. Marine Pollution Bulletin 42(11).
Penn, Schoen and Berland (2008) Texas GLO Beach Watch Baseline Research. Presentation.
May 19, 2008.
Slovic, Paul. (1993). "Perceived Risk, Risk, and Democracy: A Systems Perspective."
Decision Research, Eugene Oregon.
Smith, R. (2006). Responding to global infectious disease outbreaks: Lessons from SARS on
the role of risk perception, communication and management. Social Science & Medicine
63.
Turbow, D, et al. (2004). Impacts of beach closures on perceptions of swimming-related
health risk in Orange County, California. Marine Pollution Bulletin 48(1-2): 132-136.
U.S. Congress (2000). Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000,
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/beachrules/act.cfm. last accessed online
December 15, 2010.
U.S. EPA Office of Water (2002) National Beach Guidance and Required Performance
Criteria for Grants, Chapter 5: Public Notification and Risk Communication. US EPA
Office of Water. https://owpubauthor.epa.gov/grants_funding/beachgrants/chapter5.cfm.
last accessed online December 15, 2010.
B-2
-------
U.S. EPA Office of Water (2009). 2009 Swimming Season Update,
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/seasons/2009/national.htmL last accessed
June 21, 2010.
U.S. EPA Office of Water (2010). 2010 EPA Beach Grant Factsheet,
https://owpubauthor.epa.gov/grants funding/beachgrants/upload/2010 01 06 beaches
grants factsheet.pdf last accessed online December 15, 2010.
Vaughan, E and Tinker, T. (2009). Effective Health Risk Communication about Pandemic
Influenza for Vulnerable Populations. American Journal of Public Health 99(S2): S324-
S332.
Wakefield, SEL and Elliott, SJ. (2003). Constructing the News: The Role of Local
Newspapers in Environmental Risk Communication. Professional Geographer 55(2):
216-226.
B-3
-------
APPENDIX C: STATE INTERVIEW GUIDE
CONTACT INFORMATION
Name:
Title:
Organization:
Email:
Phone number:
INTRODUCTION
Thank you for agreeing to speak with us today. As you may know, we are contractors
assisting the U.S. EPA in conducting an evaluation of the notification component of the
Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act. As we're sure you're
aware, the Act provides funding to state and local health and environmental protection
agencies to monitor bacteria levels in water, and when levels exceed standards, notify the
public by posting warnings or advisories, or closing a beach. Through this evaluation, EPA is
seeking to understand:
1. How grantees are using their BEACH Act funding to notify the public about local beach
conditions;
2. Which notification methods are the most effective in reaching the public; and
3. How beachgoers' awareness of beach advisories and closures, understanding of water
quality risks, and beach visitation behavior has changed in response to notifications since
the BEACH Act was enacted.
EPA intends to share the results of this evaluation at the 4th National Beach Conference in
2011.
In this interview, we are hoping to learn from your experience about effective approaches to
notifying the public about beach conditions, so that EPA can share this information with other
states and local governments. Please note that we are not auditing or evaluating your
program. Rather, we are trying to understand the successes and challenges you and other
states have encountered, so that EPA can learn from this experience and improve its guidance
and assistance to other BEACH Act grantees. We appreciate your involvement and feedback.
In this interview, we will start with general questions to understand the beach monitoring and
notification program in your state. These questions are meant to verify our current
understanding of your program, based on our research to date. We will then ask you more
detailed questions about notification methods used in your state to alert the public to beach
conditions, and the extent to which these notification methods reach beachgoers. Finally, we
will ask about your experience with how these methods affect beachgoer awareness and
C-1
-------
behavior, and any insights you can share on how states could improve their notification
programs. We are aware of research done by University of Illinois Chicago (UIC) about
some of these same topics and we are hoping to complement the information you may have
provided to UIC researchers earlier.
For purposes of this interview, we are only interested in coastal and Great Lakes beaches
subject to the BEACH Act; if you have experience with other beaches (e.g., beaches located
inland) please let us know, but note that our questions are primarily focused on your activities
related to coastal and Great Lakes beaches.
During this interview we may ask you questions that you cannot answer because you do not
have the requested information readily available. Whenever that is the case, just let us know.
We do not expect you to conduct a file review to answer any question. Some of the
information we are looking for may not be collected by your state, but we are asking to make
sure that we do not miss any information that is relevant to our evaluation.
In addition to speaking with you, we are conducting interviews with several other state beach
officials, and we also plan to interview several local beach managers to understand their
perspectives about beach notification. We will ask for your recommendations on potential
local beach managers to interview toward the end of our conversation.
Do you have any questions before we begin?
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
GENERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT PROGRAM AND ROLES
1. We understand your state has the following responsibilities with regard to
implementing the BEACH Act notification program: [Fill in appropriate
responsibilities depending on specific state and information based on state website.
If information is unclear, ask about roles directly]
D Provide funding and guidance to municipalities, counties, local beach
managers, or others involved in direct program implementation
D Conduct monitoring/sampling of water quality at public beaches
D Establish policies, standards, and /or procedures for notification at public
beaches
D Notify the public of water quality conditions
D Staff the beach and manage operations
2. In addition to your particular department or agency, are other organizations (e.g.,
municipalities, counties, universities, etc.) substantively involved in implementing
your notification program?
What monitoring and notification activities do these organizations conduct?
C-2
-------
What fraction of your state's coastal beaches do these organizations monitor and
provide notification for?
NOTIFICATION METHODS
3. When water quality monitoring shows a beach's waters do not meet standards, is
there a standard notification process? Is this standard formalized (e.g., in a policy or
requirement for all organizations involved in beach notification)?
If there is a formalized standard, what does it require? Does it address process,
timing, medium, format, and/or content of notifications?
4. [If state is responsible for notification at some or all beaches] We understand that all
coastal and Great Lakes states post beach notifications on their websites and in signs
at the beach; is this accurate for your state?
What type of notice do you post at the beach, e.g., flag, permanent placard, other
notice?
Does your state use any other notification method(s) to inform the public about
water quality conditions at beaches? (Indicate all method(s) you are currently
using)
D Press release (specify media: television, radio, newspapers)
D Telephone hotline
D Email list
D Text messaging
D Outreach through mobile devices or using "social media" tools (e.g., iPhone
application, Facebook, Twitter)
D Other (specify)
What factors led your state to choose the notification methods it uses?
Has your state considered other notification methods? Which ones? Do you
expect your state will implement these other methods? If so, why? If not, why
not?
Has your state used any notification methods in the past that have now been
discontinued? Which ones? Why were they discontinued?
[For each method currently used] What type of information do you include in the
notification message? (e.g., binary status such as beach open/closed, actual water
quality results, detailed information on the health risks of exposure.) [If the
information is not on your state 's website, can you send us a sample
notification?]
C-3
-------
Has your state tried including other types of information in the notification
messages, or wording the messages in a different way? What did you learn from
this experience?
5. [If other organizations are involved in notification] Do you know what notification
method(s) the beach managers from other organizations in your state use to inform
the public about water quality conditions at beaches in your state? (Indicate all
method(s) you are aware of)
D Posting a notice at the beach {specify type: flag, permanent placard,
other)
D Website {specify website/organization, if known)
D Press release {specify media: television, radio, newspapers)
D Telephone hotline
D Email list
D Text messaging
D Outreach through mobile devices or using "social media" tools (e.g.,
iPhone application, Facebook, Twitter)
D Other {specify)
Do you have any information on how these other organizations chose the
notification methods they are using, or whether they have used or considered
other methods in the past?
REACH OF NOTIFICATION METHODS
6. Have you estimated the number of beachgoers that receive advisories?
How did you develop this estimate (e.g., through statistics on web site visits or
survey methods)?
7. Have you found that some notification methods are more effective than others in
reaching beachgoers?
How do you know? Do you have any quantitative data regarding this (e.g., beach
attendance figures, beachgoer surveys), or is it more a qualitative judgment?
8. What factors do you think are most important in affecting the degree to which a
beach notification reaches beachgoers?
9. In your opinion, what is the public's preferred method for getting information about
water quality conditions at your state's beaches?
C-4
-------
EFFECTIVENESS OF NOTIFICATION MESSAGE
In our study, we are distinguishing between beachgoer awareness and understanding of beach
advisories (i.e., noticing the advisories and being able to interpret what they mean), and
beachgoer behavior (i.e., what the beachgoers decide to do based on the information they
have). We ask about both types of responses below.
Awareness and Understanding
10. Do you know how advisories have affected beachgoer awareness or understanding of
risks associated with contacting the water?
11. Have you found that some notification methods or messages are more effective than
others in affecting beachgoer awareness or understanding? Why do you think this is?
Behavior
12. In your experience, have advisories or other notifications had an impact on the
number of visitors to the beach or on the behavior of beachgoers?
13. Have you found that some notification methods or messages are more effective than
others in affecting beachgoer behavior? Why do you think this is?
14. Are there improvements that you would like to make to the way your notification
program is currently implemented that you think would improve the effectiveness of
the program?
ADDITIONAL DATA
15. Are you aware of any studies, or do you have data or further information, that you
think would inform our study and that you would be willing to share?
16. Are there other individuals that we should talk to in other organizations in order to
better understand beach notification in your state?
LOCAL BEACH MANAGERS
17. In addition to our interviews with state program staff, we are seeking to interview a
handful of local beach managers that are involved in implementing the beach
notification program. Specifically, we are looking for beach managers that are more
engaged and active on issues pertaining to beach notifications, have conducted
relevant studies, and/or are implementing innovative notification methods. Can you
suggest two or three local beach managers that you think would be willing to
OO O J O
participate in an interview with us?
C-5
-------
APPENDIX D: LOCAL INTERVIEW GUIDE
CONTACT INFORMATION
Name:
Title:
Organization:
Type of Organization: D County government D Town/City government
D Other (specify)
Email:
Phone number:
INTRODUCTION
Thank you for agreeing to speak with us today. As you may know, we are contractors
assisting the U.S. EPA in conducting an evaluation of the notification component of the
Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act. As we're sure you're
aware, the Act provides funding to state and local health and environmental protection
agencies to monitor bacteria levels in water, and when levels exceed standards, notify the
public by posting warnings or advisories, or closing a beach. Through this evaluation, EPA is
seeking to understand:
1. How grantees are using their BEACH Act funding to notify the public about local beach
conditions;
4. Which notification methods are the most effective in reaching the public; and
5. How beachgoers' awareness of beach advisories and closures, understanding of water
quality risks, and beach visitation behavior has changed in response to notifications since
the BEACH Act was enacted.
EPA intends to share the results of this evaluation at the 4th National Beach Conference in
2011.
In this interview, we are hoping to learn from your experience about effective approaches to
notifying the public about beach conditions, so that EPA can share this information with other
states and local governments. Please note that we are not auditing or evaluating your
program. Rather, we are trying to understand the successes and challenges you and other
beach managers have encountered, so that EPA can learn from this experience and improve
its guidance and assistance to other BEACH Act grantees. We appreciate your involvement
and feedback.
In this interview, we will start with general questions to understand your particular beach
monitoring and notification program. These questions are meant to verify our current
understanding of your program, based on our research to date. We will then ask you more
detailed questions about what notification methods you use to alert the public to beach
conditions, and the extent to which these notification methods reach beachgoers. Finally, we
D-1
-------
will ask about your experience with how these methods affect beachgoer awareness and
behavior, and any insights you can share on how states could improve their notification
programs. We are aware of research done by University of Illinois Chicago (UIC) about
some of these same topics and we are hoping to complement the information you may have
provided to UIC researchers earlier.
For purposes of this interview, we are only interested in coastal and Great Lakes beaches
subject to the BEACH Act; if you have experience with other beaches (e.g., beaches located
inland) please let us know, but note that our questions are primarily focused on your activities
related to coastal and Great Lakes beaches.
During this interview we may ask you questions that you cannot answer because you do not
have the requested information readily available. Whenever that is the case, just let us know.
We do not expect you to conduct a file review to answer any question. Some of the
information we are looking for may not be information you collect, but we are asking to make
sure that we do not miss any information that is relevant to our evaluation.
In addition to speaking with you, we are conducting interviews with several other local beach
managers. We are also interviewing a small set of state beach program managers and non-
governmental organizations to understand the beach notification program from their
perspective.
Do you have any questions before we begin?
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
GENERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT PROGRAM AND ROLES
1. How many beaches is your organization responsible for?
If more than one beach, are all these beaches coastal/Great Lakes beaches? For
purposes of this interview, we are only concerned with beaches subject to the
BEACH Act.
2. What are the primary responsibilities of your locality with respect to implementing
the beach notification program? (identify all that apply)
D Conduct monitoring/sampling of water quality
D Establish policies, standards, and/or procedures for notification at public
beaches? (specify and describe)
D Notify the public of water quality conditions
D Staff the beach and manage operations (specify: collect fee, provide lifeguards
and ensure security, clean and maintain facilities, enforce beach closures) (Note,
we recognize these activities are not directly part of the notification program, but
we are asking about them to understand the context of the notification program.)
3. When water quality exceeds the state standards, do you:
D Issue an advisory/warning only
D Close the beach
D-2
-------
NOTIFICATION METHODS
4. What notification method(s) are you currently using to inform the public about water
quality conditions at beaches? (indicate all method(s) you are currently using)
D Posting a notice at the beach (specify type: flag, permanent placard, other)
D Press release (specify media: radio, newspapers)
D Telephone hotline
D Website
D Email list
D Text messaging
D Outreach through mobile devices or using "social media" tools (e.g., iPhone
application, Twitter)
D Other (specify)
5. Are the same notification methods always used, or does it depend on the
circumstances?
6. What factors led you to choose these notification methods?
7. Have you considered other notification methods? Which ones?
Do you expect to implement these other methods in the future? If so, why? If
not, why not?
8. Have you used any notification methods in the past that have now been discontinued?
Which ones? Why were they discontinued?
9. [For each method currently used] What type of information do you include in the
notification message? (e.g., binary status such as beach open/closed, actual water
quality results, detailed information on the health risks of exposure.) [If the
information is not on your program's website, can you send a sample notification?]
10. How long does it take to post notifications after receiving water quality results back
from the laboratory?
If multiple notification methods are used, are all methods updated with the same
frequency?
REACH OF NOTIFICATION METHODS
11. Do beachgoers in your area tend to be local (e.g., from nearby towns), from other
parts of your state, or from outside your state?
Has this affected your choice of notification method(s)?
12. Do you have estimates of the number of beachgoers that use your beach(es)
annually?
What is the maximum number of people that use your beach(es) during a typical
hot weekend day?
D-3
-------
13. Do you have an estimate the number (or fraction) of beachgoers that typically receive
advisories?
What information is your estimate based on? (e.g., through statistics on web site
visits or survey)
14. [If multiple notification methods are (or have been) used] Have you found that some
notification methods are more effective than others in reaching beachgoers?
How do you know? Do you have any quantitative data regarding this (e.g., beach
attendance figures, beachgoer surveys), or is it more a qualitative judgment?
15. In your opinion, what method(s) appear to be most effective in reaching the largest
number of beachgoers?
Are some methods more effective than others in reaching specific subsets of the
population (e.g., different age groups, or local vs. out of state beachgoers, or
different user groups, such as surfers and fishermen)?
EFFECTIVENESS OF NOTIFICATION MESSAGE
16. Do you have any information about how beachgoers respond to advisories or other
notifications at your beach(es)?
In our study, we are distinguishing between beachgoer awareness and understanding of beach
advisories (i.e., noticing the advisories and being able to interpret what they mean), and
beachgoer behavior (i.e., what the beachgoers decide to do based on the information they
have). We ask about both types of responses below.
Awareness and Understanding
17. In your experience, do beachgoers understand the meaning and potential health
implications of advisories?
18. What other factors, aside from notification methods or messages, do you think might
influence beachgoer awareness or understanding of risks associated with coming into
contact with water (e.g., newspaper stories; word-of-mouth)?
19. Have you found that some notification methods or messages are more effective than
others in affecting beachgoer awareness or understanding?
Behavior
20. Have you or your staff personally observed any changes in beachgoer behavior,
attendance or adherence following a notification? (e.g., by not visiting the affected
beach, visiting a different beach, or avoiding contact with the water while at the
affected beach)? (specify and describe)
21. Aside from personal observation, do you have any information on behavior changes
in response to notifications? (e.g., beach attendance data or reduced parking revenues
on days during which an advisory was in effect as compared to similar days) If you
did not observe changes in behavior, why do you think this is?
D-4
-------
22. What other factors, aside from notification methods or messages, do you think might
influence beachgoer behavior?
23. Have you found that some notification methods or messages are more effective than
others in affecting beachgoer behavior?
24. Are there improvements that you would like to make to the way your program is
currently implemented (focusing on notifications) that, in your view, would improve
the effectiveness of the notification?
What constraints, if any, have you faced in making these improvements?
ADDITIONAL DATA
25. Are there other topics that you feel we should have covered to understand how you
implement the beach notification program in your locality?
26. Are you aware of any studies, or do you have data or further information, that you
think would inform our study and that you would be willing to share?
27. Are there other individuals that you think we should talk with in order to better
understand how your program has affected beachgoer awareness, understanding,
and/or behavior?
D-5
-------
APPENDIX E: SUMMARY OF BEACH NOTIFICATION WEBSITE FEATURES
ENTITY AND
WEBSITE
HOW RISK IS
COMMUNICATED
OL
H y
l|
>->- 0 -J
00 Ul <
oo
Ul
CL
1
Ul
u.
a:
Ul
o
>-
^
Ul
O
H H£
Z P ^
8?£
u. Di
Ul \
0 «
< Ul
Q. OL
fe lj
[Z O
28
STRENGTHS
LIMITATIONS
States
Florida
http://esetappsd
oh. doh. state. fl.u
s/irmOObeachwat
er/default.aspx
Hawaii
http://emdweb.
doh.hawaii.gov/c
wb/wqd/viewer/
Home.aspx?AspxA
utoDetectCookieS
upport=1
Indiana
https: //extranet.
idem.in.gov/beac
hguard/
Map provides list of
counties, and within each
county a map of sampling
sites is provided. For each
sampling site, Water
quality is described as
good, moderate, or poor.
Water quality levels
identified but no
information about risk
associated
Water quality levels
identified and compared
to threshold, but
relationship to risk level
not explained
^
/"
/
Link to oil
contamination
Weather, surf,
salinity, pH,
dissolved
oxygen
/"
/"
/
/
RSS feed
/
RSS feed
Links to
other
resources
v^
Phone
numbers
available,
but
contact
for beach
program
not
prominent
/"
/"
/
Main page includes map
where user can browse
beaches by county
All advisories listed on main
page through the "Show all
Postings" feature. Detailed
information about cause
and status of contamination
provided.
Closures/ advisories
prominently listed on front
page; Monitoring frequency
and agency responsible
identified.
Cannot search by beach or
town name. Website does
not provide a list of all
beaches that currently have
advisories on one page.
It can be difficult to find
advisories through the
mapping feature.
Map color key and colors
shown on map appear
different. Map does not
display all sample points
(only those with advisories).
Interactive map available
but not prominently
displayed
E-1
-------
ENTITY AND
WEBSITE
Massachusetts
http://mass. digit
alhealthdepartm
ent.com/public_
217
Maryland
http://www.mar
ylandhealthybeac
hes.org/current_
conditions.html
New Jersey
http://www.njbe
aches.org/
Rhode Island
http://www.ribe
aches.org/
HOW RISK IS
COMMUNICATED
Beach status (e.g., open)
displayed, and detailed
sampling results provided,
but relationship to risk
level not explained
General description on
FAQ page that bacteria
increase risk of illness
Water quality levels
identified and compared
to threshold, but not
correlated to risk level
Water quality levels
identified and compared
to threshold. No
correlation to specific risk
level, states that beaches
that have been posted
result in a "greater risk" of
the swimmer getting sick.
OL
H y
> 5
u. *^
>- >- oo
\ < ^
E ID'S
^
/"
V
I
y oo
2Z
"b
Ul O
1- O
O 0
Recent storm
event
Algal blooms,
link to rainfall
Link to algal
bloom data
UJ 00
5 5
Ul 00
u. o
o <
Q_ [_
si
Shows
beach
locations
only
/"
Linked
Shows
beach
locations
only
Ul
u.
Ul
5
O
1-
y p
Z ^ ui
> o -J
00 Ul <
S
Press
releases
through RSS
feed
00
§
Ul
u.
a:
Ul
o
Annual
Reports
Links to
other
resources
including
ftU _._! fU\ f
healthy
beach
habits"
Links to
other
resources
Annual
Reports
Links to
other
resources
(e.g. fact
sheets);
Annual
Reports;
Illness
complaint
form
>
13
Ul
Z
O
H b
i^z
z P ^
o £ o
O £ U.
/
^
S
u. oo
Ul 3
O oo
< £
H ui
2d
u. O
z 0
/"
/"
top hit
/"
top hit
STRENGTHS
Provides monitoring
frequency and detailed
historical data.
Find beach by clicking on
map or selecting from list
(by town or beach name).
Site provides a survey for
feedback on Google Earth
tool. Provides step-by-step
instructions for using
Google Earth tool.
Site provides tips for
helping to prevent water
contamination.
Recent updates located at
top of home page - list
closures in monitoring
season. Phone number
provided in prominent
location. Utilizes graphs
for historical information.
Link for recent closures in a
prominent location on
home page. Includes
resources for beachgoers
and managers. Phone
number and email for state
Beach Coordinator
provided.
LIMITATIONS
Information about the
program and standards are
not on the homepage or in a
direct link. Website does
not provide a list of all
beaches that currently have
advisories on one page. Site
provides such detailed
information that it may be
difficult for the public to
interpret it.
Website does not provide a
list of all beaches that
currently have advisories on
one page. Site requires
users to download Google
Earth, and then download
the update file to get
current beach information
status.
User must infer individual
beach status by the sampling
levels.
Standards are not listed near
water quality data.
E-2
-------
ENTITY AND
WEBSITE
Texas
http://www.texa
sbeachwatch.co
ml
Washington
http://www.ecy.
wa.gov/programs
/eap/beach/
http://www.doh.
wa.gov/ehp/ts/
WaterRec/beach
/default, htm
HOW RISK IS
COMMUNICATED
Water quality levels
categorized as high,
medium, low; link to
description of health risks.
Water quality levels
categorized as good,
caution, closed, or not
monitored. EPA standard
is referenced.
OL
H y
> 5
u. *^
>- >- oo
\ < ^
E ID'S
i
y oo
2Z
"b
Ul O
1- O
O 0
For some
beaches,
information
provided on
wind
conditions,
surf height,
etc.
Shellfish and
parks and
recreation
data
UJ 00
5 5
Ul 00
u. o
o <
Q_ [_
si
/
/
Ul
u.
Ul
5
O
1-
y p
Z ^ ui
00 Ul <
For some
beaches -
other
conditions
/
00
3
Ul
u.
a:
Ul
o
Links to
other
resources
Links to
other
resources;
Illness
complaint
form
>
-------
ENTITY AND
WEBSITE
Galveston
County, TX
http://www.gch
d.org/pollution/B
eachAdvisory.ht
m
Makah Tribe
http://www.mak
ah.com/beachmo
nitoring.html
Monmouth
County, NJ
http:/ /www. visit
monmouth.com/
page.aspx?ID=203
1
Michigan City
(Washington
Park), IN
http://www.emi
chigancity.com/c
ityhall/departme
nts/parks/beach.
htm
Anne Arundel
County, MD
http://www.aah
ealth.org/progra
ms/env-hlth/rec-
water
HOW RISK IS
COMMUNICATED
Site lists if there are
current advisories
Site informs user if each
beach is open or closed
due to health risks
Links to state site.
Risk conveyed through
colored signs and flags
correlated to particular
levels of bacteria
Sample results compared
directly to acceptable
level.
OL
H y
> 5
u. *^
>- >- oo
O Ii =>
\
-------
ENTITY AND
WEBSITE
HOW RISK IS
COMMUNICATED
OL
H y
> 5
u. *^
>- >- oo
\ < ^
^ O1 o£
i
y oo
2Z
"b
Ul O
1- O
O 0
UJ 00
5 5
Ul 00
u. o
o <
l/l I
si
Ul
u.
Ul
5
O
1-
y p
Z -v Ul
> a -J
00 Ul <
00
§
Ul
u.
a:
Ul
I
o
>
13
Ul
Z
O
H b
j^Ig
~ li ^
O ^r O
O U.
U. oo
Ul 3
O oo
< ^
1- ui
2d
^R
7 O
z 0
STRENGTHS
LIMITATIONS
Territories
Commonwealth
of the Northern
Mariana Islands
http://www.cnm
icoralreef.net/w
q/beachclose.ht
m
Previous
years' data
available
S
Information about what
causes beach closures
provided.
Violations are identified on
map, under page title of
"beach closures", but no
bacteria levels or standards
are given. Most recent
violations are in February
2010. Current status is not
given for each beach -
advisories and closures are
listed from home page.
Non-Governmental Organizations
Heal the Bay
http://brc.healt
hebay.org/
Save the Harbor,
Save the Bay
http://www.save
theharbor.org/in
dex.php/beach-
water-quality
Beaches are given letter
grades based on sample
results; grades for both
wet and dry. Uses color
coding and graphics.
Grades are updated
weekly.
Using colored flags (blue
or red)
No raw data
/
Weather
/"
/"
Links to
other
resources
Annual
reports
Link to
Facebook
page
S
V
Link for alerts in obvious
spot on top right of home
page. Alternatively, search
for particular beach by
state. Closed beaches are
clearly noted. Uses color
coding and graphics on
report card. Sample date
provided.
Describes flag color
meanings.
Standards for letter grades
and terminology are not
immediately available on
home page or report card -
must go to documents
section.
No actual sampling data or
statuses for specific beaches
other than Fort Point
Channel.
E-5
-------
ENTITY AND
WEBSITE
Surf rider
Foundation
http://www.surfrid
er.org/waterqualit
y.asp;
http://www.surfrid
er.org/stateoftheb
each/home. asp
HOW RISK IS
COMMUNICATED
Sample results are
reported both in numerical
value and with
corresponding
classification (very low to
very high)
OL
H y
> 5
u. *^
>- >- oo
\ < ^
^ O1 o£
^
I
y oo
2Z
Sb
Ul O
1- O
O 0
UJ 00
5 5
Ul 00
u. O
O <
l/l I
si
Ul
u.
Ul
5
O
1-
y p
Z -v Ul
> a -J
00 Ul <
00
§
Ul
u.
a:
Ul
I
o
Links to
other
resources
Illness
compliant
form; Links
to
regulations
and
standards
available on
sample
results page
>
13
Ul
Z
O
H b
^I§
~ li ^
O ^r O
O U.
U. oo
Ul 3
O oo
< ^
1- ui
2d
^R
7 O
z 0
S
STRENGTHS
Blue Water Task Force
provides water quality
sampling results performed
by Surfrider. State of the
Beach also compiles and
analyses water quality data
from states. Testing date
provided.
LIMITATIONS
Limited number of beaches
available. Samples collected
by volunteers.
E-6
------- |