Exploring Well Water Stewardship in Rural Ontario Communities Via a Mixed-Methods Approach: Implications For Drinking Water Consumers And Public Health Risks
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Private groundwater wells represent the primary source of household drinking water for at least 1.6 million individuals in the province of Ontario. In contrast to those who consume water from public (municipal) systems, private well users in Ontario are responsible for well water stewardship (i.e., protective actions), including source maintenance, treatment, and submitting samples for contaminant testing. Previous studies have reported low participation rates with respect to these actions, thus constituting a public health concern (e.g., contamination from agricultural run-off, septic tanks, etc.). The current thesis sought to classify private well owners in Ontario based on socio-cognitive factors, explore, and evaluate relationships between socio-cognitive factors (i.e., awareness, attitudes, perceptions, beliefs) and behaviours, and contextualize relationships between motivators and barriers to undertaking protective actions. A mixed-methods approach was employed, including a province-wide online survey (May to August 2018) and semi-structured interviews in two rural communities in southeastern Ontario (i.e., Town of Greater Napanee and Stone Mills Township) (March to June 2021). Survey data were used to quantify well owners’ awareness, perceptions, and behaviours, with two-step cluster analysis and binary logistic regression used to classify and profile the survey cohort based on cognitive factors. Thematic analysis of data from subsequent semi-structured interviews was employed to further elucidate initial quantitative results. Overall, 1140 survey respondents were included for quantitative analyses, and 40 semi-structured interviews (20 per community) were included for qualitative analyses. Survey findings illustrate that specific socio-cognitive and socio-demographic factors are significantly associated with user behaviours. Additionally, three distinct respondent clusters (i.e., socio-cognitive profiles) were identified based on two socio-cognitive factors (i.e., awareness and risk perception). Qualitative findings suggest complacency around well water quality and lack of risk perception are the main barriers to routine testing and/or treatment. Both quantitative and qualitative findings demonstrate that specific socio-cognitive and experiential factors are potential drivers of, and barriers to, undertaking protective actions, highlighting the need for tailored knowledge-translation initiatives and evidence-based tools. Results have crucial implications for risk communication and may be used to guide development of future public health interventions and stewardship tools to enhance protective actions among private well owners in Ontario and further afield.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».