This article describes the empirical development and validation of graphic symbols to be affixed to sources of recycled water. The symbols are intended to encourage the use of recycled water in ways that do not endanger the environment or public health. The current identification system does not provide specific information concerning levels of quality (pollution levels) of recycled water, nor does it provide positive comparative information. In the design and validation of more effective symbols, cognitive elicitation techniques were used to assess the normative implicit meaning of stimulus values of hue and brightness with respect to five levels of water quality. Although both hue and brightness choices were systematically related to water qualities, the implicit meaning of brightness values was clearer. A validity assessment of the untrained meanings of symbols based on brightness and supplemented by hue supported both their implicit comprehensibility and the empirical strategy employed in their design.
ANSI. (1998). Accredited standards committee on safety signs and colors (section Z535.1-5). Washington, DC: National Electrical Manufacturers Association.
2.
Burkitt, E., Barrett, M., & Davis, A. (2003). Children's colour choices for completed drawings of affectively characterized topics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44, 445-455.
3.
California Department of Health Services. (2001). California health laws related to recycled water: “The purple book” (Excerpts from the Health and Safety Code, Water Code, and Titles 22 and 17 of the California Code of Regulations).Sacramento: State of California.
4.
Callow, M., & Schiffman, L. (2002). Implicit meaning in visual print advertisements: A cross cultural examination of the contextual communication effect. International Journal of Advertising, 21, 259-278.
5.
Food and Agricultural Organization. (1992). Wastewater treatment and use in agriculture (FAO irrigation and drainage paper 47, M. B. Pescod, Ed.). Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization.
6.
Gaynor, S. T., & Shull, R. L. (2002). The generality of selective observing. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 77, 171-187.
7.
Gregorian, V. S., Azarian, A., DeMaria, M. B., & McDonald, L. D. (1996). Colors of disaster: The psychology of the “black sun.”The Arts in Psychotherapy, 23, 1-14.
8.
Horton, W. (2005). Graphics: Not quite the universal language. In N. Aykin (Ed.), Usability and internationalization of information technology (pp. 157-187). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
Kalsher, M. J., Wogalter, M. S., & Racicot, B. M. (1996). Pharmaceutical container labels: Enhancing preference perceptions with alternative designs and pictorials. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 18, 83-90.
10.
Linden, M., & Sheehy, N. (2004). Comparison of a verbal questionnaire and map in eliciting environmental perceptions. Environment and Behavior, 36, 32-40.
11.
Menegaki, A. N., & Hanley, N. (2005). Social acceptability and evaluation of recycled water in Crete. Proceedings of the IWA International Conference on Water Economics, Statistics, and Finance, 1, 341-350.
12.
Okabe, M., & Ito, K. (2002). How to make figures and presentations that are friendly to color blind people. University of Tokyo. Retrieved May 5, 2005, from http://jfly.iam.u-tokyo.ac.jp/html/color_blind/
13.
Oron, G. (2003). Agriculture, water and the environment: Future challenges. Water Science & Technology: Water Supply, 3, 51-57.
14.
Recycled Water Task Force. (2003). Task force report. Sacramento: State of California, Department of Water Resources.
15.
Sakkas, N., Kozyraki, M., Menegaki, A., & Tsagarakis, K. P. (2004). Public awareness towards sensitive areas of Crete with emphasis in water recycling and reuse of marginal waters Heraklio, Greece: Hellenic Republic Ministry of the Environment, Planning and Public Works and the Technological Institute of Crete.
16.
Salgot, M., Vergés, C., & Angelakis A. N. (2003). Risk assessment in wastewater recycling and reuse. Water Science & Technology: Water Supply, 3, 301-309.
17.
Smith-Jackson, T. L., & Hall, T. E. (2002). Information order and sign design: A schema-based approach. Environment and Behavior, 34, 479-492.
18.
Toze, S. (2006). Reuse of effluent water-benefits and risks. Agricultural Water Management, 80, 147-159.
19.
Tsagarakis, K. P., & Georgantzis, N. (2003). The role of information on farmers' willingness to use recycled water for irrigation. Water Science & Technology: Water Supply, 3, 105-113.
20.
Tzanakakis, E. V., Paranychianakis, N. V., Kyritsis, S., & Angelakis, A. N. (2003). Wastewater treatment and biomass production by slow rate systems using different plant species. Water Science & Technology: Water Supply, 3, 185-192.
21.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2004). Guidelines for water reuse (EPA/625/R-04/108). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Support Division, Office of Wastewater Management.
22.
Wogalter, M. S., & Leonard, S. D. (1999). Attention capture and maintenance. In M. S. Wogalter, D. M. DeJoy, & K. R. Laugherly (Eds.), Warnings and risk communication (pp. 123-148). London: Taylor and Francis.
23.
World Health Organization. (1989). Health guidelines for the use of wastewater in agriculture and aquaculture: Report of a WHO scientific group. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
