Report No FR0439

MARCH 1994

I BENEFITS

The National Rivers Authority and the Water Utilities have a better understanding of how the presence of aesthetic pollution in the water environment affects the public perception of water quality.

II OBJECTIVE

To ascertain the publics attitude towards aesthetic pollution, and in particular, the effect that the presence of gross solids derived from urban drainage systems has on their perception of water quality.

III REASONS

The National Rivers Authority is developing a series of Statutory Water Quality Objectives and a new General Water Quality classification scheme which, for the first time, is to include a consideration of the impact of aesthetic pollution. It is important that the NRA is aware of how the public perceive aesthetic pollution, to assist in the development of the new standards.

IV RESUME

Previous work on public perception studies of water quality is discussed, and types of aesthetic pollution are introduced and the aims of the work presented.

The background to the choice of methods used in the study is explained and the choice of sites, questionnaire design, pilot survey and analytical methods are described before the results of the on-site and laboratory surveys are presented.

Finally, the conclusions from the study are listed, and recommendations for further work made.

The questionnaires and photographs used in the surveys are included in the appendices.

V CONCLUSIONS

• Sewage derived contaminants have a greater impact on the public's enjoyment of a visit to a river or beach than any other aesthetic pollution parameter.
  
• The public's perception of water quality is derived more from the visual state of the water itself than from other indicators; and the presence of solid waste contaminants in the water seems to have a greater impact on the public ' s perception of water and environmental quality than their presence on the banks of a river or on a beach.
  
• Sewage derived products are not regularly seen, or at least, not recognised by the public. When such items were identified they were found to have a negative affect on perceived water and environmental quality.
  
• Single items of sewage derived waste, when recognised as such, appear to have a greater impact on perceived water quality than a conglomeration of different items, and sanitary towels had a more strongly negative impact on perceived water quality than condoms.
  
• A large section of the public do not associate the presence of sewage derived waste products in the water or on the banks of a river or beach as evidence of pollution arising from sewerage discharges.
  
• The public considered the construction of more, or the improvement of existing, sewage treatment works to be the most agreeable and effective solution to the problem of sewage contamination. Legislation and raising consumer awareness of how to dispose of products were ranked second and third. The use of long sea outfalls were not considered to be an effective solution.

VI RECOMMENDATIONS

• There is a need to repeat this study at additional beach and river locations to confirm the representativeness of the results.
  
• It is recommended that future studies include small qualitative study groups to discuss certain river and coastal features and different items of solid waste contamination.
  
• There is a need for the Water Utilities, manufacturers of sanitary products and the National Rivers Authority to increase the public's awareness of the desirability of disposing of sanitary products by routes other than the sewerage system. This would be best achieved through a joint awareness campaign.

Copies of the report are available from FWR, price £35.00, less 20% to FWR Members.