TARGET AUDIENCES, MONITORING OBJECTIVES, AND FORMAT
CONSIDERATIONS FOR REPORTING WATER-QUALITY INFORMATION
[Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality, 1992,
Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring in the United States --
First Year Review, Evaluation and Recommendations: 51 p.]
The Intergovernmental Task Force on Water Quality Monitoring
(ITFM) was established to develop and initiate implementation
of a strategic plan to achieve effective collection,
interpretation, and presentation of water-quality data and to
improve the availability of information for decisionmaking at
all levels of government. To this end, the Assessment and
Reporting Task Group (Task Force) is reviewing available
water-quality reports to identify features and
information-presentation techniques that should be used in
summary reports to produce understandable interpretations of
water-quality conditions. This exercise will ultimately result
in guidelines for agencies or individuals who prepare
water-quality reports.
Tables 1 and 2 were developed as a framework for anyone who
prepares water-quality reports. Table 1 presents a framework
for comparing target audiences to the monitoring objectives of
the ITFM, as presented in its first-year report. This table is
intended to help identify the most relevant issues and concerns
for the target audiences. For each audience, authors should
establish a priority ranking for each of the ITFM monitoring
purposes to help determine report content and presentation
sequence. For example, people who use (drink from, recreate
on, live near) a particular water body probably will be most
interested in the water-quality status and trends, as well as
in existing or emerging problems, while policymakers will be
more interested in how well water pollution-control programs
have addressed these issues.
Table 1. Framework for water-quality
documents/materials--Audience vs. monitoring objective
Table 2. Framework for water-quality
documents/materials--Audience vs. format.
Table 2 presents a framework for format considerations in
presenting water-quality information to target audiences. Authors
should complete each block in the matrix for their target
audiences to help determine the most effective style and format
for communicating their information. For example, resource
managers and scientists usually want more technical information
than the general public, and the style of the document should
reflect this. Audience categories, monitoring objectives, and
format definitions are presented below.
The Task Group also has reviewed several documents as examples
of publications that address the various monitoring objectives,
use specific formatting styles, and (or) are directed to
specific audiences. Excerpts from these documents are being
incorporated into a compendium to provide authors with examples
of particularly effective techniques for reporting
water-quality information. This compendium and these tables
will be reviewed by additional focus groups to obtain target
audiences input into the reporting guidelines.
Audience Categories
The audience is the group to whom the information
product is targeted. The Task Group has identified the following
audience categories:
-
Interested public/concerned citizens --People who
have a general interest in the quality of water resources
and a vested interest in the quality of specific water
bodies. Their vested interest usually is related to the
locations of their homes, their uses of water bodies for
various purposes (for example, fishing, boating, swimming,
water supply), or their livelihoods. Examples include
lakefront property owners, anglers, commercial fishermen,
marina owners/operators, recreational boaters and skiers,
and local environmental advocacy groups.
-
Media/general public --Representatives of
organizations whose main function is mass communication,
such as newspapers, general interest magazines, radio
stations, and television stations, as well as the audiences
to which their reports are directed. Members of this
audience have a general interest in water-resource quality,
but less of a vested interest than the interested
public/concerned citizens categories.
-
Policymakers --Persons who set national, State, or
agency environmental goals and establish programs for
attaining them. Examples include lawmakers and other
elected officials who are directly accountable to the
public, top-level managers in State and Federal agencies who
are directly accountable to elected officials, and oversight
agencies, such as the Office of Management and Budget and
the General Accounting Office.
-
Resource managers --Persons who are responsible
for implementing programs to protect or improve
water-resource quality or for operating systems, such as
reservoirs, that are designed to modify or control natural
variables. Examples include line staff and managers of
State and Federal water-resource, land-management, and
fisheries agencies, as well as environmental staffs of
municipalities and regional planning agencies.
Organizations represented in this audience category include
national programs and regional offices of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); the natural resources
divisions of the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Bureau of
Reclamation, and the Bonneville Power Administration; and
the hydropower divisions of private utilities, such as the
Duke Power Company and the Southern Company.
-
Scientists --Individuals engaged in technical
observation, identification, description, experimental
investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural
phenomena. Examples include individuals who are involved in
university research programs; research divisions of
agencies, such as the USGS, the Agricultural Research
Service, the NRCS, the National Biological Service, the
National Marine Fisheries Service, the USACE, and the USEPA;
and industry-supported research organizations, such as the
Electric Power Research Institute and the Pulp and Paper
Institute.
Monitoring Objectives
The monitoring objectives defined by the ITFM, and the
questions they address are as follows:
-
Defining status and trends. (How healthy is this body of
water? Is its quality improving of deteriorating?)
-
Identifying existing and emerging problems. (Where are the
problem areas?)
-
Providing information to support development and
implementation of policies and programs for water-resource
management. (What is needed to correct problems or protect
good quality waters?)
-
Evaluating program effectiveness. (Are we doing the right
thing? Are we accomplishing what we want to accomplish and
at a reasonable cost?)
-
Responding to emergencies.
Format Definitions
Formatting decisions should be based on the type of audience the
document is trying to reach. The format should enable the
audience to understand and use the information in the document.
List 1 summarizes the types of information usually
presented in water-quality reports, and List 2 suggests
some special considerations for formatting. The format criteria
suggested by the Task Group are as follows:
-
Reading level--Reading level or level of education of
targeted audience.
-
Level of detail--Integration of information from different
disciplines; importance of the "whole picture" as
opposed to a piece of the picture. Different audiences have
varying needs in the amount and type of information that
needs to be presented.
-
Layout--Integration of text and graphics; color, use of
fonts, headers, white space, columns, bullets, sidebars,
footnotes, and other features to improve clarity and
readability.
-
Graphics--Choice and placement of photographs, drawings,
charts, graphs, tables, study area maps, schematic maps, and
other graphic devices to illustrate points covered in text,
or to supplement textual information.
List 1. Types of Information Usually Presented in
Water-Quality Reports
-
Status of aquatic flora and fauna.
-
Status of water-quality indicators.
-
Monitoring activities.
-
Trend assessment.
-
Management activities.
List 2. Special Considerations for Presentation
of Information
-
For most audiences, reports should be short; documents that
consist of an executive summary and supporting appendices
could accomplish this.
-
In large reports, particularly those with several authors,
the same types of information should be presented
consistently throughout the report to help readers easily
recognize similarities and differences among sites.
-
The font must be large enough to be read comfortably and
should be modern, readable and attractive as opposed to a
typewriter style. For most persons, reading speed is faster
for serif style fonts, as compared to similar blocked fonts.
-
Margins should be large enough to prevent a page of
information from overwhelming the readers.
-
Running heads and feet that include such information as
chapter number, chapter name, document name, and page number
are helpful.
-
Summary information can be included at the beginning of
sections or in sidebars
-
Section headings should provide organization for the reader
and be in large, bold, and (or) distinctive type to
distinguish them from regular text.
-
A two-column format is easier to read.
-
Monotony of text can be broken up with graphics, tables, and
(or) summary information.
-
Graphics may be displayed in boxes to attract attention.
-
Some gloss is good, although it can be overdone.
These criteria may apply to either printed materials or electronic
information. Printed materials may range from fact sheets to
technical reports; electronic-information presentations may range
from audio and video presentations, such as radio public service
announcements, television informationals, packaged educational
presentations, and video news releases, to electronic release of
reports on the Internet.
Return to
ITFM Report Appendixes Table of Contents
Please e-mail comments to
lkendrix@usgs.gov
Last modified: Wed Nov 6 14:50:08 1996