Abstract

Lead service lines (LSLs)—lead pipes connecting the water main under the street to a building’s plumbing—contribute an estimated 50% to 75% of lead in tap water when they are present. Although Congress banned lead in plumbing materials in 1986, over 6 million LSLs remain in homes across the United States today. This paper summarizes three different home buying or renting scenario-based experimental studies used to evaluate disclosure styles, to assess if these influenced respondents’ perceived risk of the LSL in a home, and their willingness to act. In renting scenarios, having landlords disclose the presence of an LSL, but also provide water test results showing lead levels below the EPA’s lead action level resulted in lower levels of perceived risk, and of willingness to act. In seller-disclosure home buying scenarios, levels of perceived risk and willingness to act were consistently high, and three different disclosure styles did not differentially influence those outcomes. In home inspector-disclosure home buying scenarios, levels of perceived risk and willingness to act were high, but having explicit recommendations to replace LSLs and/or information about risk did not further influence those outcomes. In some cases, including the specific recommendations backfired. Implications for policy and regulation are discussed.

Highlights

  • There is scientific consensus that there is no safe level of lead in children’s blood [1]

  • RB1: I would insist that the landlord replace the

  • Turning to the effects of various methods of disclosure, among potential home renters, we found that a landlord giving a potential renter water test results showing the lead level was below EPA’s lead action level appeared to give more people license to do less to replace the lead service lines (LSLs), as well as a false sense of security, in contrast to results showing that the lead level was above the EPA’s action level, or providing no water test results at all

Read more

Summary

Introduction

There is scientific consensus that there is no safe level of lead in children’s blood [1]. The tragedy of Flint, Michigan in 2014 to 2017, in which many children were exposed to substantial and toxic levels of lead via changes to the municipal water source, brought renewed attention to the health threats posed to children by lead in general, and by lead in drinking water in particular [2]. Widespread attention to this crisis prompted the United States (U.S.) Federal government and many states to reassess their existing strategies to protect children from lead, and to search for opportunities to reduce exposure from all sources [3]. Public Health 2019, 16, 963; doi:10.3390/ijerph16060963 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call