Making Sense of PFAS: Public Perceptions & Engagement on an Emergent Threat

• In Event: Responding to Dynamic Environmental Risks

Abstract

Later this year, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to issue a proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Prized for their water and stain-resistant properties, PFAS are found in an array of industry and consumer products, including firefighting foam, cosmetics, waterproof fabrics, nonstick cookware, and food containers. These human-made compounds are commonly referred to as “forever chemicals.” Resistant to chemical breakdown, they persist and accumulate in our bodies and environment. A growing body of scientific evidence links these chemicals to increased risk of certain cancers, high blood pressure, low birth rate, developmental delays, and harm to immune and reproductive systems.

Governments around the world are working to increase community resiliency to natural and human-made disasters. Strategies include reducing vulnerabilities to environmental hazards, identifying effective mitigation technologies, educating the public about environmental risks, and crisis planning to reduce response times and economic losses. Community engagement is critical to these efforts. However, communicating PFAS risk is challenging. There are currently no federal PFAS regulations. In some cases, communities have resisted testing for PFAS due to liability and cost concerns. Scientific understanding of the adverse health impacts of PFAS is also changing.

In this paper, we look at how perceptions of PFAS risk are shaped by community experience and media coverage of PFAS contamination. Last June, Wisconsin implemented a new drinking water standard for PFAS. As of November 2022, communities are required to test public water systems for two of the most widely used PFAS. Those water systems that exceed the limit (for either of the chemicals or a combination of the two) will have to take corrective action. Public water utilities must also disclose PFAS levels in their annual consumer confidence reports.

Public understanding of PFAS risk and contamination will likely change as testing gets underway and more residents become aware of likely exposure. We report findings from a multi-year study of public perceptions of water quality in Wisconsin. We draw on three waves of the Marquette Law School Poll (MLSP), a state representative survey of Wisconsin residents, to assess individual, geographic and temporal variation in public concern about the safety of drinking water supplies. We partner with the MLSP to survey Wisconsin residents about their perceptions of PFAS risk and water quality in their communities. Our first survey was conducted in June 2022, one week after the state published its new drinking water standard. We will field a second survey in June 2023 to assess how public perceptions of PFAS risk have changed since public water utilities were required to test for PFAS levels.

Preliminary findings point to high levels of concern, with notable individual-level differences. Those getting their drinking water from public water systems expressed more concern about PFAS and the safety of their water supply than those on private wells, despite growing evidence of PFAS contamination in groundwater. Politically engaged residents were more worried than those who expressed little interest in politics. And we observe a partisan divide: Democrats and Independents expressed slightly more concern about PFAS than Republicans, all else equal. We find little evidence that concern is higher in communities that have experienced PFAS contamination of drinking water supplies.

We build upon these public opinion results in three ways. First, we designed a survey experiment to test whether geographic frames of reference affect public concern about water quality. Previous research finds that framing—how an issue or problem is presented—can affect risk perceptions. We asked respondents whether water quality issues are mainly a problem in isolated parts of the state or affect residents statewide. We randomly assigned respondents to receive a slightly modified version of the question in which we varied the geographic frame of reference. We find that respondents think about water quality as an urban issue absent any additional information, and that rural residents are the most sensitive to these geographic framing effects. Second, we have assembled a database of news articles and social media posts about PFAS issues. We use these data to track news and social media discussions about PFAS over time and across the state and consider differences in how risks are communicated and framed for the public. Finally, we conduct focus groups to examine how communities have responded to PFAS concerns. We have used public opinion data and media coverage to identify focal communities. We are particularly interested in how information is gained and shared with community members, the role of community and environmental organizations, and how Wisconsin residents make sense of PFAS exposure, cleanup (if necessary) and risk management efforts.

Authors

• Amber Wichowsky, University of Wisconsin-Madison

• Jill Birren, Marquette University