Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Sep 25:1002:180558.
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.180558. Online ahead of print.

Public risk perceptions of advanced water purification in an arid urban region of the U.S. southwest: A mixed methods study

Amanda M Wilson  1 , Yoonhee Jung  2 , Mohammed Shafae  3 , Nana Adwoa A Amoh-Asante  2 , Ahamed Ashraf  2 , Hunter Quon  4 , Kerry A Hamilton  4 , Dawn Morrison  5 , Lance Larkin  5 , Kerri Hickenbottom  6 , A Eduardo Sáez  7 , Luisa A Ikner  8 , Walter Betancourt  9 , Robert A Norwood  10 , Andrea Achilli  6
Affiliations

Public risk perceptions of advanced water purification in an arid urban region of the U.S. southwest: A mixed methods study

Amanda M Wilson et al. Sci Total Environ. .

Abstract

As water utilities implement potable reuse technology, there is a need to understand how to increase public acceptance and trust in public water supplies. The study objective was to use surveys and interviews in a large metropolitan area in Arizona to characterize tap water and advanced purified water acceptability, and factors contributing to (un)acceptability. Participants were recruited through a water utility email listserv for participation in an online REDCap survey and/or 1-hr Zoom interview. Surveys and interviews inquired about perceptions of tap water safety, familiarity with water reuse terms, acceptability of direct potable reuse (called "advanced water purification" in our study for consistency with state messaging), and rationales related to acceptance. Four hundred seventy-nine individuals participated in the survey, and twenty-two individuals participated in the interviews, with roughly comparable demographics for our city of interest but with slightly higher levels of household income and education. Only 36 % of survey respondents use their tap water for drinking water supplies, but (42 %) would be open to drinking advanced purified water. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in 2024 on risk-based thinking to evaluate how advanced purified water may compare to current drinking water safety and analyzed with inductive thematic analysis. Survey and interview participants wanted more reassurances (e.g., third party testing and opportunities for hands-on testing). Water utilities should prioritize transparent communication strategies, including sharing detailed third-party testing data and direct community engagement initiatives, to enhance public acceptance. Utilities can build trust through clear comparisons between advanced purified water and current tap water quality.

Keywords: Advanced water purification; Mixed methods; Public acceptance; Risk perception; Sustainability; Water reuse.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Amanda Wilson, Yoonhee Jung, Kerri Hickenbottom, Mohammed Shafae, A. Eduardo Saez, Luisa A. Ikner, Walter Betancourt, Robert A. Norwood, Andrea Achilli report financial support was provided by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) under Cooperative Agreement (W9132T-23-2-0001). Amanda Wilson reports administrative support was provided by National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS P30 ES006694). Amanda Wilson reports financial support was provided by National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (K01HL168014). If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Reported level of concern among survey respondents regarding current drinking water, stratified by female and male.* *Percentages are for each group, individually, where percentages for females sum to 100 %, and percentages for males sum to 100 %.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Willingness to use AWP by household activity among survey respondents*. *It should be noted that participants without children or without lawns/plants likely had to consider these activities as hypothetical.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
Selected considerations among survey respondents that would increase their AWP acceptability.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Agius SJ, 2013. Qualitative research: its value and applicability. Psychiatrist 37 (6), 204–206. 10.1192/pb.bp.113.042770. - DOI
    1. Ahmed SK, 2025. Sample size for saturation in qualitative research: debates, definitions, and strategies. J. Med. Surg. Public Health 5, 100171. 10.1016/j.glmedi.2024.100171. - DOI
    1. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 2025a. Advanced Water Purification Approved in Arizona, Paving the Way for Sustainable Drinking Water Supply. Published online. Accessed April 9, 2025. https://www.azdeq.gov/pr/awp_approved.
    1. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Rulemaking ∣ Advanced Water Purification (AWP): Meetings & Resources. Published online June 25, 2025b. Accessed August 20, 2025. https://azdeq.gov/awp-resources.
    1. Arnold E, Larsen J, 2006. Bottled Water: Pouring Resources Down the Drain. Published online February 2. http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2006/update51. (Accessed 25 August 2021).

LinkOut - more resources