INTERSTATE AIR POLLUTION
BI-STATE DEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
ST. LOUIS DEPARTMENT Of
HEALTH AND HOSPITALS
'•g,
ST. LOUIS. - DIVISION OF
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
PHASE II PROJECT REPORT
EAST ST. LOUIS - AIR
POLLUTION CONTROL
COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS COUNTY
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
EAST SIDE HEALTH
DISTRICT
VII. OPINION SURVEYS AND AIR QUALITY
STATISTICAL RELATIONSHIPS
MISSOURI DIVISION
OF HEALTH
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC HEALTH
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF
METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS
ILLINOIS AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
DHEW
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
-------
INTERSTATE AIR POLLUTION STUDY
PHASE II PROJECT REPORT
VII. OPINION SURVEYS
AND
AIR QUALITY STATISTICAL RELATIONSHIPS
J. D. Williams
F, L. Bunyard
Technical Assistance Branch
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
U. S. Public Health Service
Division of Air Pollution
Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center
Cincinnati, Ohio
May 1966
-------
Copies of this report are available from the cooperating agencies listed on the
cover of this report and from the Technical Assistance Branch, Division of Air
Pollution, Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, 4676 Columbia Parkway,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
-------
FOREWORD
The Interstate Air Pollution Study was divided into two phases. Phase I, a
general study of the overall air pollution problems in the St. Louis - East St. Louis
Metropolitan area, was conducted to determine specific activities that would re-
quire further study in Phase II of the project. The effort was divided into two phases
to provide a logical stopping point in the event that interest and resources for pro-
ceeding further might not materialize. The necessary impetus di^ continue, how-
ever, and the Phase II operation was also completed.
The Phase I operation resulted in a detailed report, designed primarily for use
of the Executive Committee members and their agencies in making decisions con-
cerning the Phase II project operation. A Phase I summary report was also pre-
pared; it received wide distribution.
Numerous papers, brochures, and reports were prepared during Phase II oper-
ations, as were some 18 Memorandums of Information and Instruction concerning the
project. All of these documents were drawn upon in the preparation of the Phase II
project report. The Phase II project report consists of eight separate volumes un-
der the folio-wing titles:
I. Introduction
II. Air Pollutant Emission Inventory
III. Air Quality Measurements
IV. Odors - Results of Surveys
V. Meteorology and Topography
VI. Effects of Air Pollution
VII. Opinion Surveys and Air Quality Statistical Relationships
VIII. Proposal for an Air Resource Management Program.
111
-------
-------
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY 2
PUBLIC OFFICIALS' OPINION SURVEY 5
Methodology and Response 5
Awareness and Concern 5
Severity, Sources, Adverse Effects, and Control Action 6
SURVEY CONCLUSIONS 7
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY RESULTS
AND AMBIENT AIR QUALITY 7
Purpose 7
Methodology 8
Validity '. 10
Geographic Variations in Responses 13
Air Quality Measurements Related to Public Opinion 17
REFERENCES 36
APPENDICES 37
A. Selected Questions from Public Opinion Questionnaire Used for
Analysis in This Report 37
B. Statistical Criteria for Choosing Cause-and-Effect Relationships
Based on Use of Regressional Slope and Standard Error of Slope . . 39
167°
-------
VII. OPINION SURVEYS AND AIR QUALITY
STATISTICAL RELATIONSHIPS
INTRODUCTION
Air pollution is primarily a social problem. Social considerations include,
for example, the relative emphasis a community is willing to place on air pollution
control in view of other pressing problems, the legitimate needs of groups and
individuals for activities that produce air pollution, the degree of cleanliness of
the atmosphere considered desirable, and the purposes and policies of a community.
The nature and magnitude of air pollution control measures thus reflect the opin-
ions and desires of the public and public officials as well as the technical facts
that prevail.
Opinion surveys were conducted among public officials and the general public
in an attempt to define the air pollution situation in the Interstate Air Pollution
Study Area as men see it, for, as Medalia has said, * "If men define situations as
real, they will be real in their consequences. " This report relates data from
studies in the fields of social science and physical science in an effort to better un-
derstand the total impact of air pollution on community life. The methods used
were intended to promote this objective and to develop opinion surveys as an ac-
ceptable tool (unbiased or little biased) for air pollution program use. If such sur-
veys are accepted, they will become an expansion of the democratic process, be-
cause the people will have broader participation in the affairs of their government.
The fact that opinions are considered here does not mean that possible effects
of pollution on health are to be ignored or compromised. Rather, it means that
opinions are considered in addition to technical information relating air pollution
to adverse health effects. Obviously public opinions cannot be used to gauge reac-
tions to such pollutants as arsenic, lead, and carbon monoxide, •which are important
to health and well being, but which even in dangerous concentrations may not be de-
tected by the subjective human senses (i. e. , smell, taste, sight, touch).
There is no doubt that opinions on a subject can be influenced by the nature and
amount of attention given to it in mass media and other means of communication.
The surveys reported here were conducted in the summer of 1963, before any ex-
tensive public information releases occurred in specific regard to air pollution in
the Study area or to the extensive studies that were undertaken.
Two types of opinion survey reports were used; the first, a survey of public
opinion, ^ and the second, a survey of the opinions of public officials. ^ Each of
these surveys are summarized here. A third and major section of this report deals
with a specialized use of the public opinion survey in which the results are related
to chemical and physical measurements of air pollution.
-------
PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY
As part of the Interstate Air Pollution Study, a public opinion survey was made
by Southern Illinois University. The following are the results and conclusions of
the University's report^ on this survey:
"In the St. Louis Metropolitan Area in 1963, clean air at first glance apparent-
ly was more important to suburbanites than to city* dwellers: suburban residents
cited clean air as something they liked about their area more frequently than did
city residents; suburban residents, particularly in the Illinois area, also cited air
pollution as a 'dislike' more frequently than did city residents. The city popula-
tion, a large portion of which is non-white, was more concerned with other social
problems, such as juvenile delinquency and unemployment. Other data repeats
this pattern by showing that the non-white resident was less satisfied with his
neighborhood than was the white resident, but that air pollution was not a signifi-
cant cause of his dissatisfaction; this contrasts with the metropolitan area as a
whole in which air pollution in the neighborhood was significantly related to dissat-
isfaction with their city or township as a place to live.
"Apparently, then, one community problem can be displaced as a cause of con-
cern by the existence of other problems. This is directly supported by other data
from the survey: to residents who ranked their communities as 'excellent' no
problem was singled out as particularly serious; residents who ranked their com-
munities as 'good, ' 'fair, ' or 'poor' listed unemployment and juvenile delinquency
as most important; residents who ranked their communities as 'very poor' most
often cited air pollution as the most serious community problem. No single prob-
lem appeared to be a determinant of the rating of a community as a place to live.
"The problem of air pollution can be masked or can mask other social problems.
Certainly where it exists it can, depending upon the existence of other problems, be
a considerable factor in the overall feeling of a resident about his community.
St. Louis County residents, who thought no problem was very serious in their com-
munity, cited lack of recreation areas as their most serious problem. Juvenile de-
linquency was most important to St. Louis City residents; air pollution ranked fourth
(of six problems). In Madison County, Illinois, air pollution ranked first.
"Other survey data showed that the residents' rating of the effectiveness of
their officials was related to their rating of their city or town as a place to live,
and was related to their perception of the seriousness of various problems.
"Although few persons reported that they had complained about any of the prob-
lems presented, there was a relation between those who wished to complain and
those who gave a low rating to the effectiveness of their officials. It is also signi-
ficant that those who thought air pollution was the most serious problem in their
community were those who most frequently wished to complain. Other complaint
patterns evidenced themselves in the survey. Those who wished least to complain
were the highly educated, (presumably those living in communities with the fewest
or least serious problems and with the least cause to complain) and the relatively
uneducated residents, (presumably those living in areas having the most serious
problems, but who may have been afraid to complain or who did not know how or to
whom to complain). Those who •wished to complain the most were in the middle
*In this section, "city" refers to St. Louis city; "suburbs" refers to the rest of the
metropolitan area.
2
-------
education bracket, (presumably those who are living in communities which experi-
enced the problems to some degree, and who are articulate and knowledgable about
making complaints). There was evidence, too, that the residents felt some problems
could be more readily dealt with by complaint than others; e. g. , you can call the po-
lice about a juvenile delinquency problem, but where can you make an effective
single complaint about unemployment problems? Air pollution may fall into both
categories. Where some local agency or official is strongly identified with air
pollution more complaints are likely than in those areas where no focus of com-
plaint exists.
"With respect to specific attitudes toward air pollution, almost 50 percent of
the entire metropolitan population said air pollution was at least 'somewhat' bother-
some, and in the Illinois segment two-thirds of the population so indicated. A con-
sistent pattern of the perceived seriousness of the problem emerged for the three
major-area divisions: St. Louis County considered the problem least serious, the
Illinois counties considered it most serious, St. Louis City came between. Air
pollution affected personal aspects of living more in Illinois than elsewhere, but
even in St. Louis County 20 percent of the residents stated that air pollution affected
their choice of jobs and affected household maintenance activities. For the overall
area the number of residents who were affected in one or more personal aspects of
living equalled the number who were 'somewhat' bothered by the problem. Nine
out of ten residents thought air pollution adversely affected health, and the more
highly educated made the connection almost unanimously. However, a large por-
tion of those afflicted with ailments (such as lung and heart troubles and allergies),
to which air pollution is strongly implicated as a contributory factor, stated that
they were not bothered by air pollution.
"Forty percent of the overall metropolitan sample experienced air pollution in
the 'neighborhood' and, since almost half were 'somewhat bothered, ' many must
have been bothered at work, on the way to work, or at some other activity away
from home. Seasonally, the sample experienced air pollution most in the summer;
this might be explained in terms of the types of sources which may exist in an area
as well as by the fact that in summer people are out of doors more or are indoors
with windows and doors open.
"In defining air pollution, more than 50 percent listed odor; smoke was second.
The more serious a respondent considered air pollution, the greater were the
number of listed definitions which he included for it.
"Factories and businesses were most often cited as the causes of air pollution
and, as was the case with respect to definitions of air pollution, the more serious
the problem was considered the greater were the number of causes cited.
"In summary, the citizens of Metropolitan St. Louis were well aware of air
pollution as a problem and were bothered by it, knew what the components of air
pollution were and what caused it, believed that air pollution adversely affected
health, and were aware that certain aspects of their daily living were adversely
affected by the problem.
"Data on the effectiveness of the mass media in communicating air pollution
information showed a somewhat inconsistent pattern. Although the perceived seri-
ousness of air pollution as a problem did not relate to a respondent's reading about
pollution in the newspaper or hearing about it on television or radio, the interest of
-------
the respondent in air pollution did relate to such exposure. Further, a considerable
portion who were "interested1 did not perceive the problem as serious for them per-
sonally. With respect to exposure to the subject of air pollution in personal contact
situations (rather than through the mass media) the data is consistent: perceived
'seriousness' and 'interest' both related to hearing or talking about air pollution
with a doctor or in a community or neighborhood organization. However, whether
hearing about air pollution caused the interest or the interest caused the respondent
to talk about it could not be determined from the data.
"As might be expected, the more serious the resident thought air pollution was,
the more he was inclined to feel that government and industry were not doing enough
to control it. Industry •was thought by St. Louis County and the Illinois counties to
be making the least control effort, but St. Louis City residents gave industry a more
favorable rating. Whatever their rating of industry and government efforts to con-
trol air pollution, some 90 percent of the residents believed that something should
be done about the problem; the percentage was even higher among the highly edu-
cated and among those who believed their health was affected by pollution. Eighty-
five percent of the residents were willing to pay $1 per year in taxes to control air
pollution, and 66 percent were willing to pay a $5 a year increase in the cost of
living for this purpose. The increased cost of living hypothetic ally was to be
brought on by manufacturers having to install control devices.
"Although St. Louis city residents desired that the city government be respon-
sible for the control of air pollution, a bistate control agency was generally sup-
ported in-all areas. The more highly educated preferred a bistate agency. No
other governmental level - Federal, State, local - was generally supported. More
than two-thirds of the residents believed that their government officials would co-
operate with other officials on the same side of the river in the development of an
area-wide control agency for their side of the river, and slightly less than two-
thirds of the residents believed that their officials would cooperate with officials
on the other side of the river in developing an agency covering both sides of the
river. In other words, if efforts to establish an area-wide control organization to
tackle the problem of air pollution in the St. Louis area were to be made, the citi-
zens say they would support it and the citizens believe their public officials would
support it. "
The following is synthesized from the same report:
Awareness and concern with air pollutants arising from motor vehicles and
affecting people in other vehicles is important in considering the future of mass
transportation. An examination, primarily of St. Louis County information, re-
veals that 85 percent of the heads of households get to work by driving their own
cars or riding with others, and that 58 percent take from 15 to 60 minutes to get
to their destinations. The St. Louis County respondents also report that in their
opinion, autos and buses are important causes of air pollution and that exhaust
from "transport agents" is a major cause of neighborhood air pollution. They
include motor vehicle exhausts in their definition of air pollution almost twice as
frequently as do respondents from any other reporting area. This reaction tends
to highlight the motor vehicle as a major recognized problem source and probably
explains to a considerable degree the following observation in the report. ^ "It is
interesting to note, however, that again, in each subarea, a greater proportion
are'bothered'by air pollution than recognize its existence in the neighborhood
where they reside. This seems to indicate that residents of neighborhoods rela-
tively free of air pollution are bothered by exposure to air pollution in other areas
where they work, shop, or travel. On this basis the problem is area-wide rather
than local. "
-------
PUBLIC OFFICIALS' OPINION SURVEY
Methodology and Response
A survey of public officials' opinion about air pollution^ was made during the
summer of 1963. Questionnaires were mailed by the Southwest Illinois Mayors
Association to mayors and village presidents in southwestern Illinois and by the
St. Louis County Municipal League to officials in St. Louis County. A reply from
St. Louis City was not included in the following discussion because the large popu-
lation of the city would have unduly biased treatment of the results from the other
cities.
Of the 97 places in St. Louis County, 45 (including 20 city, village, and town
clerks; 19 mayors and board chairmen), or 47 percent, returned the questionnaires.
Their returns covered an area containing 54 percent of the total population in the
incorporated area of St. Louis County. The response from places having less than
1, 000 population was significantly lower than the response from areas having over
1, 000 population. Only 37 percent of the population of the places under 1, 000 was
represented by returned questionnaires, as compared to about 55 percent of the
population in places over 1, 000 population. In Illinois, a better response was ob-
tained; 17 officials (including mayors and village presidents), or 36 percent of the
total number of places, including 68 percent of the population in the survey area,
returned questionnaires. The percentage response was significantly higher from
places over 5, 000 population. Sixty-nine percent of these places, representing 76
percent of the population in such places, responded. On a total area basis, of the
143 places to which questionnaires were mailed, responses -were obtained from 43
percent, covering 60 percent of the population in the surveyed area.
Awareness and Concern
Forty percent of the air pollution complaints received by public officials were
in regard to domestic sources (backyard burning and home heating); 22 percent re-
lated to industrial sources; and 21 percent related to municipally controlled sources
such as burning dumps, sewage, and incinerators. In Missouri, complaints about
domestic sources were more numerous (56 percent) than in Illinois (30 percent).
In Illinois, 28 percent of the complaints named industrial sources, over twice that
in Mis souri.
Sixty-nine percent of the officials, representing 75 percent of the population,
indicated air pollution in their area was objectionable because it "soils or damages
property" and "reduces property values. " Fifty percent of the officials, repre-
senting 67 percent of the population, stated that air pollution "smells bad. "
Officials reported very little activity by organized groups in their areas re-
garding air pollution matters, although there was somewhat more in Illinois than
in Missouri. The officials themselves thought that more concern was felt about air
pollution by doctors and housewives than by any of the other six categories of peo-
ple listed. Officials felt that public concern was limited - an opinion different from
that found in the public opinion survey, -when public concern is related to the spec-
trum of community problems and various geographical areas.
-------
Severity, Sources, Adverse Effects, and Control Action
Seventy-two percent of the reporting public officials did not think that their
community had an air pollution problem. Twenty-eight percent, representing
51 percent of the population, stated that they either had a problem or that they
did not know what the situation was. There were significant differences between
the two states. In Missouri, 82 percent (71 percent of the Missouri population)
stated they had no problem, whereas in Illinois only 47 percent (24 percent of the
Illinois population) so responded. Perhaps, and understandably so, more officials
reported sources of air pollution problems both within and outside their areas of
jurisdiction than indicated they had an air pollution problem. It is significant in
assessing the concern of the public officials that, of those reporting pollution
sources located outside their areas of jurisdiction, 90 percent of the officials,
representing 99 percent of the reporting population, named industrial sources as
a major contributor to their area's problem.
Fifty-eight percent of all officials, representing 30 percent of the population,
were of the opinion that neither the public nor the legislative body would support
a tax for an air pollution control program. In places having a population of over
5,000, however, only 37 percent of the officials, representing 25 percent of the
population, so responded.
The public officials were asked to express their opinion about the economic
consequences of the enactment and enforcement of more stringent air pollution
laws and regulations. One-half (representing two-thirds of the area's total popula-
tion) felt that property values would probably increase; 42 percent (representing
64 percent of the population) felt that desirable types of employees could be at-
tracted to the area more easily; and 37 percent felt that the area would become
more attractive to industries. In view of the allegation sometimes made that air
pollution control measures may drive industries away, it is significant that 70 per-
cent of the officials (representing 70 percent of the population) felt that this -was
not a likely consequence of more stringent air pollution laws, and only 14 percent
(representing 13 percent of the population) saw this as a likely consequence. Sev-
enty-eight percent of the officials felt the area's economy would not be worse off,
whereas 47 percent felt the economy would be better off with more restrictive air
pollution laws.
Over 70 percent of the officials in both Illinois and Missouri thought that en-
forcement of more stringent air pollution laws would probably not decrease property
values. Conversely, 67 percent of the Illinois officials (74 percent of the Illinois
population) felt that an increase in property values would result from enforcement
of air pollution laws. In Missouri, where air pollution is less severe than in
Illinois, only 39 percent of the officials (56 percent of the Missouri population)
thought so.
When asked about possible governmental arrangements directed toward con-
trol of air pollution in the metropolitan area, the plan most frequently named as
that which would work well (70 percent of officials in areas comprising 76 percent
of the population) was "all counties in the metropolitan area (in both states) should
join together in operation of a program. " Sixty percent of the officials in areas
comprising 66 percent of the population felt that the following arrangement would
also "work well": "A special agency should be established to serve the whole metro-
politan area under terms of an interstate compact between Illinois and Missouri. "
-------
SURVEY CONCLUSIONS
Results of the two opinion surveys were compared for major points of agree-
ment and disagreement. The following are the findings:
1. Both surveys indicated that the air pollution problem was more severe in
the Illinois portion of the study area.
2. Both the public and the public officials were in general agreement concern-
ing the nature of the air pollution problem. The public reported odors as
the primary problem and placed smoke in second place. The public offi-
cials selected the same two major categories, but reversed the order of
importance; they placed soiling and damage from air pollution at the top
of the list and odors in second position.
3. Ninety percent of the reporting public indicated that something should be
done about air pollution; however, 72 percent of the officials reported
no air pollution problems in their areas of jurisdiction. This seeming
major difference between the thinking of the public officials and those they
represent results from a difference between officials' opinions in small
population places as compared with places having over 5, 000 population.
In the more populous jurisdictions, there is good general agreement be-
tween the opinions of public officials and the public.
4. Public officials did not think their legislative bodies or the public would
support taxes for governmental air pollution control programs; however,
the public opinion survey indicated that 85 percent of the respondents
would support a tax of one dollar per year for governmental air pollution
control program purposes.
5. Both public officials and the public agreed that the air pollution control
program that would serve well "would be one that joined the metropolitan
area (in both states) together. "
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY RESULTS AND AMBIENT
AIR QUALITY
Purpose
Opinions are legion; and, in spite of their qualitative nature, they guide many
actions of both individuals and groups. This report attempts to quantitate public
opinions about air quality to fulfill the following purposes:
1. To provide information in a form suited to development of an understand-
ing of air quality and citizens' wishes regarding it.
2. To develop a tool that will assist in determining air quality goals.
3. To show relationships in an organized manner and statistical form between
chemical and physical measurements of air pollution and public opinion.
-------
4. To develop a methodology that •will facilitate the use of results from public
opinion and air quality surveys for finding ambient air quality levels ac-
ceptable to the public.
The following hypotheses were tested, some to a limited extent, in fulfilling
the purposes:
1. The higher the air pollution levels, the greater is public concern about
air pollution.
2. Certain air pollutant measurements are more closely related to public
opinion than are others.
3. A certain combination of pollutants represents a combined stress effect
relating to a certain percentage of people.
4. People are more concerned about short-term periods of exceptionally
high air pollution than about the actual air quality itself.
5. People are more concerned about variations in air quality than about the
air quality itself.
Methodology
In Nashville, Tennessee, low, medium, and high levels of pollutants such as
sulfur dioxide, dustfall, and soiling were related to responses to certain questions
in a public opinion survey. The methodology used in this study stems from the
Nashville report and builds on it. This new methodology is facilitated by the map
grid system used by the Interstate Air Pollution Study. This grid system, which is
described in detail in Memorandum of Information and Instruction No. 1, provides
the key whereby any pollutant level, public opinion answer, or other survey informa-
tion, including meteorological input, can be related on any time, area, or informa-
tion-type basis.
This section of the report is based on physical and chemical measurements of
air pollution from the Interstate Air Pollution Study (Volume III of the phase II
report) and the public opinion survey carried out by Southern Illinois University. ^
Only six questions, No. 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, and 43, -were selected for detailed
analysis from the Southern Illinois University questionnaire (see Appendix A). The
first five of these questions approach an ideal series that is well understood by the
respondent, yields answers with no bias, brings forth true statements, results in
mutual understanding, and provides reproducible results. These questions are
called, for the purpose of this report, "a logic sequence. " Question No. 27 asked
the respondent to rate air quality in the area where he lives. He had seven choices
and very little opportunity to give the matter much thought before making his rating.
In question No. 28 he was asked to say what "air pollution" means to him, in his
own words. The resulting definition is general in nature, but has folio-wed a brief
period of reflection provided by question 27. In question 30 he was asked to report
what his neighbors consider air pollution to be. In this case he was not allowed a
free choice, but had to select from a list of seven items. This question, since he
reported what he thought his neighbors considered air pollution to be, focused on
his neighborhood in a nonpersonal manner.
-------
The next question, No. 31, was again personalized and had to do with the de-
gree of "bother" due to air pollution experienced by the respondent. Question 32
focused again on air pollution in the respondent's neighborhood; it asked him point-
blank whether there •was or •was not air pollution there. Question No. 43 asked the
respondent to rank air quality in his neighborhood from a list of five terms ranging
from "desirable" to "intolerable, "
To facilitate relating the replies to the logic sequence questions to air pollution
levels, the grid cell numbers of the locations where the respondents lived were
added to the data processing cards containing the public opinion survey information.
The grid cells used were 1, 000 by 1, 000 feet in size.
The Interstate Air Pollution Study reports Air Quality Measurements (Volume III)
and'Odors - Results of Surveys (Volume IV) contain the air quality data that were re-
lated to the public opinion survey results. The following air pollution measurements,
made in 1963 and 1964, were used:
1. Suspended particulate matter, as measured by high-volume filter paper
samplers
a. Annual geometric means
b. 99th percentile values (Highest 1 percent of the values obtained in a
year).
2. Soiling index, as measured by the AISI strip filter paper sampler
a. Annual geometric means
b. 99th percentile values (Highest 1 percent of the values obtained in a
year).
3. Sulfur dioxide, as measured by the volumetric West-Gaeke method
a. Geometric means for the 1963-64 winter season (December, January,
February).
b. 99th percentile values for the 1963-64 winter season (December,
January, February).
4. Sulfation as measured by the lead peroxide candle method
a. Annual geometric means
b. 99th percentile values.
5. Odor survey conducted by inspectors of the St. Louis Division of Air
Pollution Control.
Since the public opinion survey did not cover exactly the same area as that
covered by various pollutant sampling networks, it was necessary to ensure
-------
coincidence for each type of pollutant with the respondent's place of residence.
Figures 1 and 2 show the areas in which there were coincident data to use in this
report from both the various aerometric networks and the public opinion survey.
These data provided a base for comparison of results.
The relationship between air quality and public opinion was established through
the geographical grid cell number. Graphs of air quality levels related to responses
for selected opinion survey questions, on a 10, 000-foot-square grid cell basis, in-
dicated a statistical relationship between the two (Figure 3). Using this observa-
tion as a starting point led to examination of the relationship in more detail.
This analysis, primarily geographic in nature, resulted in a good general under-
standing of people's response, but was not very detailed or precise. No attempt is
made in this report to treat this grid cell approach by statistical analysis, although
possibly it could be so treated.
The 10, 000-foot-square grid cells were judged too large in that the respondents
may not have lived in the average air-quality conditions of the grid cell. Respon-
dents' locations were, therefore, based on 1, 000-foot-square grid cells, and air
quality levels were interpolated from, isopleth maps on the same basis. These data
were related to responses to questions in the public opinion survey.
In the 1, 000-foot-square grid cell analysis, relationships between public opin-
ion responses and air quality levels were examined on the basis of six to ten ranges
of air pollution levels for each pollutant and the percent of individuals responding
in certain manners in each. The geographic relationship is lost in this type of
analysis, but statistical analysis is facilitated. By utilizing both approaches con-
currently, a considerably better understanding of air pollution conditions is
obtained.
Validity
The public opinion survey for purposes of this report is accepted as tested and
reported by its authors. There were 1, 002 respondents in the public opinion sur-
vey sample; however, the sample size, when related to different air pollutants,
varied from 487 for sulfur dioxide geometric mean to 785 for sulfation 99th percen-
tile value. In the public opinion survey report differences were reported in the
respondents' concern about air pollution in three major parts of the survey area,
St. Louis County, St. Louis City, and Illinois. In St. Louis County, 11. 1 percent
of the people; in the City of St. Louis, 6. 7 percent of the people; and in the Illinois
area, 21. 5 percent of the people placed air pollution in the highest priority position
on a list of community problems. This fact, with its socioeconomic implications,
influences the validity of the data for certain interpretations; however, the samples,
both for the opinion surveys and surveys of air pollutants, come from discreet,
self-contained areas and therefore have, on the grid-cell basis at least, self-cor-
recting features for the effects indicated by these percentages.
The validity of the air quality measurements is reported in Volume III of this
report. The use of isopleths is a method of interpolation that helps approximate
true values. The adequacy of coverage of the sampling station networks and the
validity of the meteorological data as they apply to long-term, weather trends are
also discussed in other volumes.
10
-------
NETWORK COVERAGE FOR:
— ^—•— — 24-hr HIGH-VOLUME ANNUAL GEOMETRIC MEANS
24-hr HIGH-VOLUME ANNUAL 99 PERCENT1LE VALUES
2-hr AISI ANNUAL GEOMETRIC MEANS
2-hr AISI ANNUAL 99 PERCENTILE VALUES
190 400- 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 410 490 500'" SIO 520 550 540 550 MO ITO
Figure 1. Measurement networks for suspended particulates.
580
11
-------
JWBIJOHM.
IT CUII CO
NETWORK COVERAGE FOR:
— •—••« — SULFATION ANNUAL GEOMETRIC MEANS
SULFATION ANNUAL 99 PERCENTILE VALUES
24-hr SULFUh DIOXIDE WINTER SEASON GEOMETRIC
MEANS
24-hr SULFUR DIOXIDE WINTER SEASON 99
PERCENTILE VALUES
300 400- 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 4(0 490 HO" $10 $20 530 $40 $$0 5(0 $70
Figure 2. Measurement networks for sulfur compounds.
12
-------
The relationship between the public opinion variable and the air quality vari-
able, or variables, is not simple and cannot be fully explained. It is hoped that
what is reported here will be of assistance to other investigators in the future.
Starting with Smith's work in Nashville^ and expanding his concepts to include as
many as 10 levels of air pollution, rather than the three used there, provides
some refinement in methodology. The curve of the relationship for a number of
pollutants is recognized to be linear in the central portion of the pollution ranges
measured. Also recognized, but not proved, is that the function is a combined
stress response on the part of respondents to a single stress measurement, all
influenced by outside forces. Methodology needs to be developed or adapted to
allow for adequate analysis of this type of complex function.
Geographic Variation in Responses
Survey question 31 relates to whether people were "bothered" by air pollution.
(See Appendix A for questions. ) The number of respondents in the grid cells are
indicated by the boxed numbers in the lower right-hand corners of cells (Figure 3).
The percentages appearing in the centers of the grid cells are percents of respon-
dents bothered by air pollution, either "bothered somewhat" or "bothered quite a
lot. " The Illinois portion of the survey area showed the most respondents both-
ered, with 80 percent of the respondents bothered in parts of Granite City, East
St. Louis, and a portion of the Hartford-Roxana—Wood River area (around grid
coordinates 530-790*). The St. Louis central business district and the area adja-
cent to the Mississippi River do not present a coherent picture, possibly because
of socioeconomic factors or too few respondents. The high percent of respondents
bothered in grid cells 430-760 and 560-670 represents too limited a geographic
area and too few respondents to be very meaningful.
Survey question 32 is "As you see it, is there any air pollution here in this
neighborhood? " Again, the total number of respondents is indicated in the lower
right-hand corner of the grid cell, and the percent affirmative responses is shown
in the center of the cell (Figure 4). The geographic distribution is, in general,
the same as that indicated by question 31 (Figure 3). The 75 percent isopleth, how-
ever, is somewhat smaller and shifted slightly from that for question 31. This map
again points to the Illinois portion of the survey area as a major problem area.
Question 32 was also analyzed in its relationship to air pollution as defined by
respondents in question 28. This analysis is reported on three maps (Figure 5,
6, and 7). These three maps show the results for those cases in which the respon-
dents reporting air pollution in their neighborhoods defined air pollution as smoke,
dust and dirt, or odors. On these maps, the fraction appearing in the lower right-
hand corner indicates the numbers reporting air pollution in their neighborhoods
and the total number of respondents in the grid cells. The figure in the center of
the cell indicates the percent of those defining air pollution in one of the three
specified manners:
1. Smoke. Figure 5 pertains to smoke pollution in neighborhoods. The zone
of greatest concern is in the Illinois part of the survey area. The center
of concern (75 percent isopleth) in the East St. Louis area is quite far to
!'Grid cells refer to the area north and east of the designated point.
13
-------
39 !/39 I (47
ca i v \
-V_-- —60---^ i
3 86.J 60
LINES OF EQUAL-PERCEM-AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSE
_ % RESPONDENTS REPORTING EITHER TYPE OF
TOTAL RESPONDENTS IN GRID CELL
QUESTION 31-"WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS COMES CLOSEST TO
DESCRIBING HOW YOU ARE AFFECTED BY AIR POLLUTION ?
I HAVEN'T Bc'EN BOTHERED BY AIR POLLUTION AT ALL"
2) "I'VE BEEN BOTHERED BY AIR POLLUTION SOMEWHAT"
3) "I HAVE BEEN flOTHEREO QUITE A LOT BY IT!
410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500000 510 520 530 540 550 560 570
Figure 3. Respondents "bothered" by air pollution (question 31).
14
-------
— LINES OF EQUAL-PERCENT-AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSE
ra:
% AFFIRMATIVE
TOTAL RESPONDENTS IN GRID CELL
QUESTION 32- AS YOU SEE IT, IS THERE ANY
AIR POLLUTION HERE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD?1
YES
410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500000 510 520 530 540 550 560 570
Figure 4. Respondents who believe there is air pollution in their neighborhood
(question 32).
15
-------
MAD I: SON CO
ST. CLAIR CO
LINES OF EQUAL PERCENTS OF THOSE RESPONDENTS
DEFINING AIR POLLUTION AS SMOKE (QUESTION 28) OF
THOSE REPORTING AIR POLLUTION IN THEIR NEIGHBOR-
HOODS (QUESTION 32).
% SMOKE RESPONSE
FRACTION IS RATIO OF THOSE RESPONDENTS REPORTING
AIR POLLUTION TO TOTAL RESPONDENTS IN GRID CELL
QUESTION 28-OPEN END-"THE TERM'AIR POLLUTION1 IS USED
OCCASIONALLY NOWADAYS. WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO YOU ?"
QUESTION 32-AS YOU SEE IT, IS THERE ANY AIR POLLUTION
HERE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD?" YES N0
410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500°°° 510 520 530 540 550 560 570
Figure 5. Respondents who believe there is air pollution in their neighborhood and
who define air pollution as "smoke" (questions 28 and 32).
16
-------
the east and somewhat to the south of the city. The area of major con-
cern in the Madison County area includes Alton and Edwardsville. There
are pockets that appear to be significant in south and north St. Louis
County, the latter near Route 70. The central business districts of St.
Louis and East St. Louis, as well as a considerable section adjacent to
the Mississippi River to the north, are not well defined, probably be-
cause of too few respondents.
2. Dust and dirt. Figure 6 relates responses concerning air pollution "here
in this neighborhood" (question 32) to air pollution defined as "dust and
dirt" (question 28). Again, the major concern was in the Illinois part of
the Study area, with some areas of concern reported on the Missouri side.
The central portion of the survey area is not well defined.
3. Odors. Figure 7 relates responses concerning air pollution "here in this
neighborhood" to air pollution defined as "odors. " The major areas of
concern (75 percent isopleths) with odors as a neighborhood problem are
south of the central business districts of St. Louis and East St. Louis to
and beyond the south limits of the City of St. Louis. There are also
major areas of concern southeast and northeast of East St. Louis, in the
Wood River and East Alton area of Illinois, and in the northeast and south-
west portions of St. Louis County.
Air Quality Measurements Related to Public Opinion
Four Questions, Four Pollutants - Table 1 lists the four pollutants considered,
the number of air sampling stations for both geometric means and-99th percentiles,
and the number of respondents to questions in the areas for which air quality data
were available. Tables 2 through 5 report the results of the comparison in detail,
and Table 6 summarizes Tables 2 through 5 statistically by using ratios of the re-
gression slope to the product of the student "t" statistical test and standard error
of the slope (see Appendix B for statistical criteria).
The ratios (Table 6) indicate the following order of greatest to least cause-
and-effect relationships for the geometric means: high-volume sampler, soiling,
sulfation, and sulfur dioxide volumetric measures. For the 99th percentiles the
order is: high-volume sampler, sulfation, soiling, and sulfur dioxide volumetric
measures. In other words, for mean pollution levels, high-volume sampler data
are most closely related to opinions of the respondents, and volumetric sulfur
dioxide measurements are least closely related to opinions of respondents about
air pollution. These results are in general agreement with expectations with re-
gard to the sensory perception (by sight, touch, taste, and smell) of the respon-
dents to pollutants measured.
Use of Data as an Aid in Selecting Air Quality Goals - Figures 8 through 15 show
in graphic form selected data from Tables 2 through 5. They show the relation-
ship between responses to questions 27, 31, 32, and 43 and geometric mean and
99th percentile values of the four pollutant measurements. These figures can be
used as an aid in selecting air quality goals insofar as those aspects of air quality
that people perceive are concerned. The criteria used in selecting values from
these data are subject to broad exercise of judgment. In this report the criteria
17
-------
_5/IZ
/ MADISON CO
LINES OF EQUAL PERCENTS OF THOSE RESPONDENTS
DEFINING AIR POLLUTION AS DUSTS, DIRT (QUESTION 28)
OF THOSE REPORTING AIR POLLUTION IN THEIR NEIGH-
BORHOODS (QUESTION 32).
% DUSTS, DIRT RESPONSE
FRACTION IS RATIO OF THOSE RESPONDENTS REPORTING
AIR POLLUTION TO TOTAL RESPONDENTS IN GRID CELL
QUESTION 28-OPEN END~"THE TERM'AIR POLLUTION1 IS USED
OCCASIONALLY NOWADAYS WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO YOU ?"
QUESTION 32-"AS YOU SEE IT, IS THERE ANY AIR POLLUTION
HERE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD'"
410 420 430
450 460 470
490 500°°° 510 520 530 540 550 560 510
Figure 6. Respondents -who believe there is air pollution in their neighborhood and
who define air pollution as "dust and dirt" (questions 28 and 32).
18
-------
GRANITE/T^f ""'
'CITY 7/67*
0
1/3
ST. LOUIS
100 I 57 II 50
75 11 25
/I8W.4/
E ST. LOUIS
LINES OF EQUAL PERCENTS OF THOSE RESPONDENTS
DEFINING AIR POLLUTION AS ODORS (QUESTION 28)OF
THOSE REPORTING AIR POLLUTION IN THEIR NEIGH-
BORHOODS (QUESTION 32).
% ODOR RESPONSE
FRACTION IS RATIO OF THOSE RESPONDENTS REPORT-
AIR POLLUTION TO TOTAL RESPONDENTS IN GRID
CELL
QUESTION 28-OPEN END-THE TERM 'AIR POLLUTION1 IS USED
OCCASIONALLY NOWADAYS.WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO YOU?"
QUESTION 32-"AS YOU SEE IT, IS THERE ANY AIR POLLUTION
HERE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD?" YES
410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500°°° 510 520 530 540 550 560 570
Figure 7. Respondents who believe there is air pollution in their neighborhood and
who define air pollution as "odors" (questions 28 and 32).
19
-------
Table 1. RESPONDENTS AND AIR QUALITY NETWORK STATIONS
Air quality
measurement
Number of respondents
in public
opinion survey
Number of stations
in air quality
network
Suspended particulates
High-volume sampler
Geometric mean
99th percentile
Soiling index (AISI sampler]
Geometric mean
99th percentile
Sulfur dioxide (volumetric)
Geometric mean
99th percentile
Sulfation (lead peroxide)
Geometric mean
99th percentile
739
716
595
638
487
609
711
785
17
17
12
12
20
20
41
41
Table 2. PUBLIC RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RELATED TO PARTICULATE
MATTER MEASURED ON ANNUAL BASIS BY HIGH-VOLUME SAMPLER
Suspended
participate
matter
concentration,
H-g/m
Responses to
question 27
Satisfied,3
%
Confidence
limits'3
Responses to
question 31
Bothered, c
%
Confidence
limits"
Responses to
question 32
Affirmative
answers,
%
Confidence
limitsb
Responses to
question 43
Undesirable,
excessive , or
intolerable,
%
Confidence
limit sb
Number
of
respondents
99th percentile
values
175 - 200
201 - 225
226 - 250
251 - 275
276 - 300
301 - 350
351 - 400
401 - 500
501 - 670
96.3
89.8
90.9
88.2
79. 1
82. 0
81.2
79.0
60. 5
90 - 99
78 - 97
82 - 96
81 - 94
68 - 89
74 - 89
73 - 88
69 - 88
45 - 75
30.0
44.9
45. 5
42.7
49. 3
55.3
52.6
62.2
81.4
20 - 41
31 - 60
33 - 58
33 - 53
37 - 61
46 - 65
43 - 62
51 - 73
67 - 93
22. 5
40.8
31.8
34.9
41.8
39.3
49. 1
65.8
74.4
14 - 33
27 - 56
21 - 44
26 - 45
30 - 55
30 - 49
40 - 58
55 - 76
60 - 87
3.8
8.2
6. 1
7.9
19.4
8.0
16.8
18.3
41.8
2-11
2-21
2 - 15
4 - 16
11-32
4-16
10 - 25
11-29
27 - 58
80
49
66
103
67
112
114
82
43
Geometric
mean values
60.0 - bl. 5
b7.6 - 75.0
IS. 1 - 80. 0
80. 1 - 85. 0
85. 1 - 92.5
92. b - 100. 0
100. 1 - 125.0
125. 1 - 150.0
150. 1 - 220.0
100.0
90. b
89.8
88.2
92. 3
76. 1
80. 1
71. 1
60.3
94 - 100
82 - 9b
81 - 96
81 - 94
82 - 97
65 - 85
73 - 86
60 - 81
47 - 73
40. 0
33.8
40.0
45.2
42. 3
50.0
57. 3
84.2
64.4
28 - 53
23 - 46
29 - 52
35 - 55
29 - 57
38 - 62
50 - 64
75 - 92
51 - 77
26.7
27.0
27. 1
37.6
32.7
44. 4
45. 3
73.7
78.0
16 - 39
17 - 38
17 - 39
28 - 48
20 - 47
33 - 56
38 - 53
63 - 84
bb - 88
0.00
6.80
7.20
/.60
7.7
16.7
14.7
28.0
33.9
0-6
2-15
2-16
3-16
2-20
9-27
10 - 21
18'- 39
22 - 47
60
74
70
93
52
11
183
76
59
Strongly satisfied, satisfied, and mildly satisfied.
cBothered somewhat and bothered quite a lot.
^Confidence limits at 95 percent level.
20
-------
w
p
l-H
O W
H h
Q P
H Z
H rH
CU O «
rH (V)
42 » rH
Undesira
excessive
intolerab
%
CU
o
fl-U
§ 1
cu
CJ
"H '^
^ §
O rH
U
o
cu
CD S^
"o
ffl
rQ
T3"
(U
CO
-M
It
w
(U
rH
'a
o
ft
ON
ON
oo
m
o
i — t
CO
m
(NJ
CO
CO
5
1
(NJ
m
m
m
^p
CNJ
r-
o
o
rH
O
1
O
m
o
0
CO
(NO
oo
(NJ
co
CO
i
M
ON
NO
O
m
m
ON
t—
oo
i — i
r-
co
CO
1 — I
o
1
1 — 1
0
o
in
f~
f-
CO
rH
ON
O
0
o
oo
1
oo
m
CO
o
NO
o
o
co
NO
rH
O
CO
rH
O
i — t
OO
1 — 1
ON
i — t
CO
„
r-
CO
oo
CO
co
o
O
OO
o
o
(NJ
o
t
•&
rH
o
o
Cx]
i — 1
00
r-
rH
m
m
i
CO
co
m
•NP
•— i
~o
m
m
t-
o
oo
CO
CO
(NJ
o
i
rH
0
CM
0
~o
00
in
0
. — i
oo
(M
(NJ
r~
CO
m
i
m
CO
CO
m
•*
(NJ
CO
f~
•*
ni
^P
CNJ
in
^p
[x_
CO
o
o
CNJ
0
O
m
rH
O
0
CO rH
r~* *o
m rH
ON CO
CNJ rH
O f-
D^~ sO
1 1
CO fNJ
•* -NP
0 rH
ON yfH
in m
nj ni
rH CO
•NP r~
-o m
O CO
oo co
-o t>-
O 0
m o
CN] CO
o o
o o
i i
o m
CN] (NJ
o o
o o
in o
in co
o r~
O xO
i — i
*Q OO
xO «O
1 1
O ON
•xp CM
r- r~
(NJ sO
in ^
it it
CO O
r- o
•xp in
m cxj
rH ON
OO CO
o o
m o
CO ^xp
o o
0 0
i i
o in
CO CO
0 0
o o
i — i
m
o
xO
rH
xO
m
i
oo
Oxl
(NJ
rH
•xP
a
O
CM
m
O
OO
00
O
(Nl
O
o
o
o
o
rjj
cu
• H
CO
It
1 — )
1 — t
1
fl
It
15
• H
• CO
1 (J «rH
cu -J-J
(ti CO
1 — \
o ^
rH CU
CJ to
*£ .4-1
S co
CO 15.
X ^
a %
MH 0
"^ rH
-------
Table 4. PUBLIC RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RELATED TO SULFATION
MEASURED ON ANNUAL BASIS BY LEAD PEROXIDE CANDLE METHOD
Sulfation
levels ,
mg SO3/100 cm2/day
Responses to
question 27a
Satisiied, b
%
Responses to
question 3 1
B other ed,c
%
Confidence
limitsd
Responses to
question 32
Affirmative
answers,
%
Confidence
limitsd
Responses to
question 43
Undesirable,
excessive, or
intolerable,
%
Confidence
limitsd
Number
of
respondents
99th percentile values
0. 700 - 1. 000
1.001 - 1. 500
1.501 - 2.000
2.001 - 2. 500
2. 501 - 3.000
3. 001 - 4. 000
4. 001 - 5. 000
5. 001 - b.OOO
6. 001 - 7.800
94. 1
93.2
87.8
91. 3
71.2
87. 3
84. 3
b4. 0
53.3
23.5
40. 1
38.6
38.8
fal. 1
45.6
59.8
73.9
63. 3
11 - 39
28 - 54
31-48
28 - 50
50 - 71
38 - 53
51 - 08
62 - 85
14.7
23.7
35.0
22.5
53.7
38. 1
50.8
70.8
44 - 19 76. 6
5-30
14 - 37
27 - 44
14 - 33
44 - 64
31-47
42 - 60
58 - 82
60 - 90
5.9
6.8
8.6
3.7
16.8
11.9
8. 0
35.4
33. 3
1 - 19
2-17
5 - 15
2-11
10 - 26
8-18
5-15
24 - 48
18 - 52
34
59
140
80
95
160
122
65
30
Geon
aConfidence limits not calculated. ^Includes satisfied, satisfied, and mildly satisfied.
cBothered somewhat and bothered quite a lot. ^Confidence limits at 95 percent level.
0. 500 - 0.750
0. ^51 - 1. 000
1.001 - 1.250
1.251 - 1. 500
1. 501 - 1.750
1.751 - 2. 000
2.001 - 3.700
89.3
85. 0
80. 6
84.9
76. 7
62.3
70.6
42.8
44.8
51. 6
54. 5
79. 1
69.8
55.5
35 - 51
37 - 53
45 - 59
46 - 63
65 - 90
54 - 83
32 - /6
30. 4
37.0
46. 3
41.5
69.8
76.7
83.3
23 - 39
29 - 46
39 - 53
33 - 50
54 - 83
62 - 88
62 - 95
7. 3
12. 3
15. 3
8.9
26. 2
32. 6
27. B
4-14
7 - 19
10 - 22
5-16
14 - 42
19 - 49
12 - 5fa
138
154
192
123
43
43
18
Table 5. PUBLIC RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RELATED TO SOILING INDEX
MEASURED ON ANNUAL BASIS BY STRIP FILTER PAPER (AISI) METHOD
Soiling index
values,
Coh/1000 lineal ft
Responses to
question 27a
Satisfied, b
%
Responses to
question 31
Bothered, c
%
Confidence
Hmitsd
Responses to
question 32
Affirmative
answers,
%
Confidence
limits'1
Responses to
question 43
Undesirable,
excessive,
intolerable,
%
i
Confidence
limitsd
Number
of
respondents
99th percentile values
2.000 - 2. 500
2. 501 - 3. 000
3.001 - 3. 500
3. 501 - 4. 000
4. 001 - 4. 500
4. 501 - 5. 000
5. 001 - 6. 250
6.251 - 7. 500
7. 501 - 10. 000
10.001 - 12. 300
98. 1
91. 1
94. 0
87. 5
81.8
78. 9
89.6
78.6
60. 7
69. 0
38. 5
44.3
39.2
43.2
49. 1
53. 5
46.2
57. 1
78.6
56.7
25 - 53
33 - 55
26 - 54
33 - 54
36 - 62
44 - 63
35 - 57
38 - 74
67 - 88
36 - 76
26.9
30.4
25.5
34. 1
43.7
45.6
35.0
60.7
70. 5
83.3
15 - 41
20 - 42
14 - 40
24 - 45
31 - 58
36 - 55
25 - 47
38 - 78
58 - 82
68 - 93
1.9
5. 1
6.0
6.9
16.4
13. 1
11. 3
22.2
37.7
20. 0
0-10
2-13
2-17
3 - 15
8-29
8-22
5-21
10-42
26 - 51
9-36
52
79
51
88
55
114
80
28
61
30
Geometric mean values
0.200 - 0. 300
0. 301 - 0.400
0. 401 - 0. 500
0. 501 - 0. 600
0. 601 - 0. 800
0. 801 - 1. 200
1. 201 - 1. 400
1.401 - 1. 500
94.0
90. 6
84. 4
83. 9
83. 3
50. 0
70.0
75.0
42.0
38. 3
47.6
51.2
50.0
75. 0
70.0
61.9
32 - 52
30 - 47
39 - 56
42 - 60
33 - 67
58 - 89
47 - 86
40 - 80
31.0
27.6
43.0
41.3
44. 4
78.6
80. 0
85.7
22 - 41
20 - 36
34 - 52
33 - 50
28 - 62
62 - 90
59 - 93
66 - 96
4. 0
6.4
15.0
9.9
14. 3
50. 0
20.0
23.8
2-10
3-12
9-23
5-17
5-30
il - 69
7-41
10 - 46
100
141
128
121
36
28
20
21
Confidence limits not calculated. Includes strongly satisfied, satisfied, mildly satisfied.
cBothered somewhat and bothered quite a lot. dConfidence limits at 95 percent level.
22
-------
W
w
2
O
ft
w
W
P^
^
W
H <
H t>
pq O
z, o
2«
r . IT j
o
to
C
tn
C
^
ationshlps
4J
Question 43
0
tn
4)
6
Question 31
i—
rM
tn
4)
99th
percentlle
Geo
mean
CX UH
0 0
53
!H
-o o
4)
CX ^
53
•0 O
O
CX v.
0 0
(-<
•o o
ty
4)
0 0
53
Std
error
Number
cr
S|
,n
regres sion
line
v- CX
"Tn
^
0
tn
CO
JH
4)
^ CX
tn
^
Pi
regression
line
4)
CX
Pi
c
.2
tn
2 .5
00 ^
41
^
4)
CX
tn
tn
(U
"o 2
rt
Air quality
measurement
- .
u
ro rsj
rvj CD
0 0*
^-t LT)
O O
0 0
0 ^
TO r*l
?~
O O
co >n
o o
o o
* 0-
-H r*i
fM — <
or. —i
0* 0*
iTi fM
ON -,
0 0
0 0
-• -.
f-H (v-1
O 00
ro O
0 O
0 0
o o
...
High-volume sampler
Geometric mean
99th percentlle
'
fM
S
O
?
CO
o
•^o
ro
CO
o
?
m
^
-H
[N-
m
r—
^
0^
o
^
fM
CN
CO
Soiling index
Geometric mean
*i
'
^
—
"•j
00
o
(N]
Nf
^
s
o
^
— (
:•
r-
o
0
^H
m
i
r-
o
o
99th percentile
'
«
^
o
1
o
r-
o
ON
O
O
LT)
r-
o
ro
CO
o
o
fl
CO
Lfl
LTi
o
(Xl
5
O
o
o
(-
*r
r~
Volumetric sulfur dioxide
Geometric mean
*
i
ON
O
o
rM
^
m
£
o
o
00
o
2
£
o
o
1
m
s
ON
^H
O-
r-
r—
in
r~
99th pcrcentile
i
*
-
-.
o
'M
CO
0"
O
fM
_,
rM
2
m
r-
o
00
?
0
_
-^
CO
ON
1
CO
in
ro
-
Sulfation (lead peroxide)
Geometric mean
XI
1
r-
-i
^
'M
^^
r-
fM
CO
IX]
r-
^
o
~
o
fM
rM
"
rO
^
99th percentlle
^
(n
O
X
T)
rt
tn
4J
cti
f-i
00
C
O
value
K
tn
00
X
•^
tn
cr
0)
o
QJ
C
rt
H
O
>
c
t
"c
o
o
CJ
JH
tn
1
c
2
^
tn
4<
h
rt o
h C
rt ,2
3 ^
a" "u
h "O
o .2
10 C ™
- S -i
o rt
2 •!•
v) O
gs
H H
« = U
23
-------
used for selecting air quality goals were as follows:
1. With respect to question 27 (Figures 8 and 9), if 90 percent of the respon-
dents were "satisfied" with air quality in their neighborhood (strongly
satisfied, satisfied, or mildly satisfied), the air quality level was selected
as satisfactory. These selected levels were used in steps 2 and 3.
2. In question 31 (Figures 10 and 11), the respondents were asked whether
they had not been bothered at all, had been bothered somewhat, or had
been bothered quite a lot by air pollution. The question does not refer
only to the respondents' neighborhood. About 32 percent more respon-
dents reported being bothered somewhat or quite a lot than reported
being dissatisfied with air quality in their neighborhood. About 34 per-
cent more respondents reported being bothered to some degree than
described air pollution in their neighborhood as undesirable, excessive,
or intolerable. This was taken to indicate that about 33 percent of the
people bothered by air pollution •were concerned about air pollution at
some location other than in their neighborhood (e. g. , at -work or on the
streets while traveling). This 33 percent was added to a basic assumed
10 percent of the respondents who were expected to be bothered by air
pollution. Air quality goals were thus read off at the 43 percent frequency
of bother from Figures 10 and 11.
3. In question 32 (Figures 12 and 13), the respondents were asked to answer
yes or no as to whether there was air pollution in their neighborhood. A
yes response was not considered to indicate a level of pollution that was
necessarily objectionable or of concern to the respondent. About 24 per-
cent more respondents said there was air pollution in their neighborhood
than said they were dissatisfied with their air quality. About 27 percent
more respondents said there was air pollution in their neighborhood than
said air pollution in their neighborhood was undesirable, excessive, or
intolerable. This was considered to indicate that about 25 percent of the
respondents who said there was air pollution in their neighborhood did
not find it particularly objectionable and in need of corrective action.
This 25 percent was added to a basic assumed 10 percent of the respon-
dents who -were expected to state that there was objectionable air pollu-
tion in their neighborhood. Air quality goals were therefore read off of
Figures 12 and 13 at the 35 percent level of affirmative response to
question 32.
4. In question 43 (Figures 14 and 15), the respondents were asked to rank
air quality in their neighborhood as desirable, acceptable, undesirable,
excessive, or intolerable. It was considered that no more than 10 per-
cent of the respondents should rank air pollution as undesirable, exces-
sive, or intolerable. This value was used to read air quality goals off
of Figures 14 and 15.
When these selected criteria are used, the annual mean and 99th percentile air
quality goals indicated would be as follows:
1. Suspended particulate by high-volume sampler:
Geometric mean - 78 to 85 micrograms per cubic meter.
99th percentile - 240 to 268 micrograms per cubic meter.
24
-------
SULFATION, mg SOj/100 cmVday
2.0 30
a
uj 20
-'"SATISFIED" INCLUDES THOSE RESPONDING _ • SUSPENDED PARTICULATES t-
, "STRONGLY SATISFIED)'"SATISFIED1,1 AND , A SOILING INDEX
"MILDLY SATISFIED'.' ° SULFATION
SULFUR DIOXIDE | [
I
iln
75 100 125 150
SUSPENDED PARTICULATES,/ig/m3
05
10 15
SOILING INDEX,Cohs/1,000 lineal ft
Figure 8. Relationship between response to question 27: "As far as this area goes,
how would you rate the quality of air in this neighborhood right around
here •where you live? " and geometric mean values of four pollutants.
SULFATION, mg S03/I00 cmVday
3456
40
""SATISFIED" INCLUDES THOSE RESPONDING
"STRONGLY SATISFIED1,' "SATISFIED" AND
"MILDLY SATISFIED'.'
• SUSPENDED PARTICULATES i
A SOILING INDEX
o SULFATION
SULFUR DIOXIDE
ZOO
300 400 500 600
SUSPENDED PARTICULATES,^tg/rn3
6 8 10 12
SOILING INDEX, Cohs/1,000 lineal ft
Figure 9. Relationship between response to question 27: "As far as this area goes.
how would you rate the quality of air in this neighborhood right around
here •where you live? " and the 99th percentile values of four pollutants.
25
-------
10
SULFATION.mg S03/I00 cmVdav
20 30
80
O
O
20
o
CD
SULFUR DIOXIDE, ppm
002 003
40
004
::*"BOTHERED" INCLUDES THOSE RESPONDING_ • SUSPENDED PARTICULATES t±
:. BOTHERED SOMEWHAT" AND "BOTHERED ' * SOILING INDEX f+
± QUITE A LOT" ; ° SULFATION
;,'r •••••••a SULFUR DIOXIDE
50 75 100 125 150
SUSPENDED PARTICULATES,/J.g/m3
20O
2 5
05 10 1.5
SOILING INDEX, Cohs/1,000 lineal ft
2.0
Figure 10. Relationship between responses to question 31 concerning degree of
"bother" by air pollution and geometric mean values of four pollutant
SULFATION.mg SOj/100 cmVday
3 4 5 6
100
SULFUR DIOXIDE, ppm
02 03
S?
to
g
ui
a
o
H
O
o_
o
UJ
20
o
m
'"BOTHERED" INCLUDES THOSE RESPONDING
"BOTHERED SOMEWHAT"AND "BOTHERED
±1 QUITE A LOT"
SUSPENDED PARTICULATES
,— A SOILING INDEX
— o SULFATION
••••n SULFUR DIOXIDE
3OO 400 500 600
SUSPENDED PARTICULATES,/j.g/m3
6 8 IO 12
SOILING INDEX, Cohs/1,000 lineal ft
Figure 11. Relationship between response to question 31 concerning degree of
"bother" by air pollution and 99th percentile values of four pollutant
measurements.
26
GPO 828—813—4
-------
10
SULFATION.mg SO,/IOOcmVday
20 30
SULFUR DIOXIDE, ppm
002 003
40
—I—
0.04
1.0 1.5
SOILING INDEX, Cohs/1,000 lineal ft
Figure 12. Relationship between response to question 32: "Is there any air pollu-
tion here in this neighborhood? " and geometric mean values of four
pollutant measurements.
SULFATION.mg SOz/IOOcmVday
0 2345678
loo°llilLil 4444ffH
5? £-±tt:...-
to
§80 - —
en . .. — i _ _ i
060 EC T ±'-~
uj : :"__"_: :_.: • : : ;
tn -- i - -i
2 . t - -,
Q_ 40 -------- — . - - . - ^ '
j/} _ *'--
ill Ti£ 1
uj ' "- •"!>'• ;«s '
> a ,(-l
JSzoiEEEEEEEjlElI'lElEEi
5 , I
^ _.. 4. .
°0 100 200
SULFUR DIOXIDE, ppm
0.2 0.3
- +J — 1-| ""^4J — 1 ~™l
-Lf i'TT £j--4 F ++
-:£"T"TO T
_^__^L-H£ rll
::::::::::3:-::-:-:h-:::::::i' :.:::::::;!:
-ir. 4t--L -- --ta~-- -- (----'»•
— ft — ^^ T i * — ^ '^t — 1*'~ i
::±:?(::::s.;-.i :.:::; ^J .;s'':::i::::::;::±
:: li':^:^^'^:^:! ::::::::::::::::::::
Fjjjf — '~3iir" ~~ •^--tj5''?'>ii:''f-;ij'3^*s~
— 4 --^ "p^ — -_|- --•
_±:±:::i:::::::;:.:::: • SUSPENDS
-L-4- -+ | £. SOILING II
--l~:":t'_t: • _'.:.Ti — ° SULFATIO
"'iTT'i' d~ t~"iT " ° SULFUR D
-:"-44--"4: {III -l-^Hli lllfl 1 In^ttl^t+i
0.4
-L_
S:::::::i::-.:::::
D PARTICULATES ::
IDEX
OXIDE El
300 400 5OO 600 7OO 800
SUSPENDED PARTICULATES, /ig/m5
iji > i
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
SOILING INDEX, Cohs/1,000 lineal ft
Figure 13. Relationship between response to question 32: "is there any air pollu-
tion here in this neighborhood? " and 99th percentile values of four
pollutant measurements.
27
-------
I 0
SULFATION.mg SOj/100 cmVdoy
20 30
001
SULFUR DIOXIDE, ppm
002 0.05
0.04
• SUSPENDED PART1CULATES
a SOILING INDEX
o SULFATION
75 100 125 150
SUSPENDED PARTICULATES,,^g/m5
05
1.0 I 5
SOILING INDEX, Cohs/1,000 lineal ft
175
J_
200
2 0
225
_J
Figure 14. Relationship between response to question 43: "How would you rank the
level of air pollution in this neighborhood? " and geometric mean values
of four pollutant measurements.
SULFATION.mg SOj/100 crnVdoy
3 4 5 6
SULFUR DIOXIDE, ppm
02 03
• SUSPENDED PARTICULATES -
A SOILING INDEX
o SULFATION
300 400 5OO 600
SUSPENDED PARTICULATES,^.g/m3
700
800
6 8 10 12
SOILING INDEX, Cohs/1,000 lineal ft
Figure 15. Relationship between response to question 43: "How would you rank the
level of air pollution in this neighborhood? " and 99th percentile values
of four pollutant measurements.
28
-------
2. Soiling index by AISI strip filter paper sampler:
Geometric mean - 0. 37 to 0. 45 Coh per 1, 000 lineal feet.
99th percentile - 2. 8 to 4. 0 Cohs per 1, 000 lineal feet.
3. Sulfation by the lead peroxide candle method:
Geometric mean - 0. 42 to 0. 73 milligram of sulfur trioxide per
100 square centimeters per day
99th percentile - 1. 9 to 2. 4 milligrams of sulfur trioxide per
100 square centimeters per day.
The relationship between volumetric sulfur dioxide measurements and the
respondents' answers were too erratic to yield meaningful values. The regres-
sion line slopes for volumetric sulfur dioxide were in an opposite direction to
those for other pollutants in some cases, and reversals in the slope of the sulfur
dioxide curves appeared. To try to find reasons for these occurrences, air
quality levels for volumetric sulfur dioxide and sulfation were compared, as were
the education and socioeconomic levels of those respondents living in the several
levels of pollutants measured by these two methods. Results reported in Tables 7
and 8 indicate that the populations in each case are considerably different in their
socioeconomic and educational-level characteristics. A comparison of air quality
data indicated that the geographic distribution of the two pollutant measurements
was also different. It would appear that the two measures of air pollution do in
fact measure different things in some cases, but that people's response is only in
part related to this difference.
Table 7. SOCIOECONOMIC LEVELS OF RESPONDENTS IN AREAS OF HIGHER
AND LOWER MEAN SULFUR DIOXIDE LEVELS
Area of SO geometric mean greater than 0. 0250 ppm
Income,
dollars/yr
< 2,000
2,000 - 2,999
3,000 - 3,999
4,000 - 4,999
5,000 - 5,999
6,000 - 6,999
7, 000 - 7, 999
8,000 - 9,999
10,000 - 14,999
> 15, 000
Total =
Respondents
No.
38
32
25
34
22
14
9
4
7
0
185
%
20.4
17. 3
13.5
18.4
11.9
7.6
4.9
2.2
3.8
0
100
Education,
years
0-4
5-6
7-8
9-11
12
1-3
college
4 or more
college
Total
Respondents
No.
29
19
49
43
30
11
11
192
%
15. 1
9.9
25.6
22.4
15.6
5. 7
5. 7
100
Area of SO geometric mean less than 0. 025 ppm
Income,
dollars /yr
< 2,000
2,000 - 2,999
3,000 - 3,999
4,000 - 4,999
5,000 - 5,999
6,000 - 6, 999
7,000 - 7, 999
8,000 - 9, 999
10,000 - 14,999
> 15,000
Total
Respondents
No.
25
20
16
26
35
25
32
24
22
11
236
%
10.6
8.5
6.8
H.O
14.8
10.6
13.6
10.2
9.3
4.7
100. 1
Education,
years
0-4
5-6
7-8
9-11
12
1-3
college
4 or more
college
Total
Respondents
No.
11
15
74
51
74
34
34
293
%
3.8
5. 1
25.2
17.4
25.2
H. 6
11.6
100
Ratio of percents,
SO2 > 0.025
SO2 < 0. 025
Income
1.9
2. 0
1.9
1.7
0.8
0.7
0. 4
0.2
0.4
-
Education
3.9
1. 9
1. 0
1.2
0.6
0. 5
0. 5
_
_
Concern About Variation in Air Quality - Table 9 reports the results of a test of
whether people are more concerned about variations in air quality than they are
in air quality itself (hypothesis 5). If people were more concerned about varia-
tions, the air quality variation data would appear in the table as an increase in
percentages of people concerned as ratios between 99th percentile values (high
29
-------
w
o
w
s
1-1
ffi
°3
^
w
§3
O t,
co A
W §
h 3
o S
W
>
W
u
hH
I
O
u
w
o
o
o
CO
oo
rt
H
w
u
w
CH
fi
ft
ft
1 — I
o
A
i-H
• iH
B
O
OJ
ft
ON
ro
O
CO
o
ri
0!
*~\
"*"
ft
ft
NO
O
Al
i-H
• H
OJ
o
fH
ft
ON
00
O
MH
o
03
JH
*S
W
a
i>
T)
B
o
ft
to
»•»•, f, » •>*
OJfO^LOvO IN- 000
00 ON vO i"H [N- f~^ ON
r- NO 'Nf ON O ~H ON
00 l-H 00 r-H
^ o r- to o oo fo
(O CO CD OO ON ^* ^J*
cu
^H 4) o (!)
^f NO OO r-H - , CO QO(H 00
1 1 1 1 ^ 1
-------
Table 9. PUBLIC CONCERN ABOUT AIR POLLUTION AS RELATED
TO VARIATIONS IN AIR POLLUTION LEVELS
Ratio of 99th
percentile values
to geometric mean
values of air quality
measurements
Percent of respondents
B othe r ed
by air
pollution
(question 31)
Report
air pollution
in their
neighborhood
(question 32)
Report
air pollution is
undesirable,
excessive, or
intolerable
(question 43)
Number
of
respondents
Suspended particulate, high-volume sampler
2.00 - 2.79
2.80 - 2.99
3.00 - 3.29
3.30 - 3.99
> 4.00
56. 1
51.0
59.3
45.5
46. 0
62.2
38.6
55.0
34.5
42.0
18.5
11.8
19.5
9.4
10.0
82
153
160
235
50
Volumetric sulfur dioxide
4.00 -
7.00 -
9.00 -
12.00 -
> 14.
6.99
8.99
11.99
13.99
00
62.6
55.0
51.0
44. 7
38.6
59.3
51.2
44.0
42.8
31.2
18.8
11.2
19.0
14.5
8.4
155
80
100
56
96
Sulfation (lead peroxide candle)
1.00
2. 10
2.70
3.00
>
- 2.09
- 2.69
- 2.99
- 3.99
4.00
49.7
49. 1
48.7
60.9
46.8
43.8
42.2
42.7
51.0
40.5
13.1
13.4
10.3
16.6
16.9
153
173
117
151
79
Soiling index (AISI sampler)
6.00 - 7.99
8.00 - 8.99
9.00 - 9.99
10.00 - 10.99
> 11.00
60.7
45.5
47.7
47.3
48.0
59.0
42.8
42.6
36.0
40.0
21.3
8.1
15.7
9.3
11.0
61
112
155
150
100
values) and mean values increased. With only one exception, and only slight
variations through the ranges, all percentages for all questions and all pollutants
decreased as the ratios increased. The exception was sulfation in the case of
question 43, which increased slightly (from approximately 13 to 17 percent).
Based on these findings, people are apparently not concerned primarily with vari-
ations in air quality, but are more concerned with the actual levels of pollutants
(hypotb.es is 1).
31
-------
Air Pollution Definitions Based on Terms - Table 10 reports the relationship be-
tween questions 28 and 30. Question 28 asked people to define air pollution in
their own words, and question 30 asked them, by means of a closed-end question,
what most people in "this area think of when they speak of air pollution. " If the
respondent's definition of air pollution is the same as he believes his neighbor's
perception of air pollution in the neighborhood to be, each line item in the left-
hand column of Table 10 will correspond with the corresponding boxed item in the
same line in another column. Thus, "Smoke," reported under question 28, should
find the "Too much dust and dirt" column with the greatest number of replies in
it. In this case, the column reporting frequent bad smells in the air slightly
Table 10. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WAY RESPONDENTS DEFINE
AIR POLLUTION AND THE WAY THEY THINK OTHERS
DEFINE AIR POLLUTION
Words used by
respondents to define
air pollution
(question 28)
Definitions respondents believe "most people" think
of when speaking of air pollution'3 (question 30)
oj
CO
o
CQ
2 £
o
T3 tuO
h O
O •*-!
^ 0
Smoke
Exhaust gases
Pollen
Radiation
Chemicals
(insecticides)
Odors
Dust, dirt
Fog, smog
Other unhealthy
conditions
General contami-
nation
Other
ti
V
>
'So
to ^
tu O
S «>
•H +-»
~*~* td
Vt (J
° 0
*H CQ
*Q O
H CO
P (D
z 2
412
132
38
91
106
483
177
80
85
159
3
CO
i— H
0)
e
to
T3
rt
•y h
g '3
^ til
Q^ r-<
OJ -S
h -S
291
89C
25
55
87C
407C
130
59
68
122
2
T)
fl
n)
to
^
o
c|
O-
O -t-1
o ^
H TJ
278d
82
29
51
62
310
152C
57
54
94
2
0
0)
N
a
"8
rt
D^
£ ^
h >2
153
42
13
24
36
161
65
40d
40
48
1
o
$
' ^
*_. o-
• H CO
0) IU
CJ1 {-*
CU *^J
h o
218
62
16
59
56
237
81
41
48
79
1
-M
• H
Tl
CuO
.3
•M __
QJ *• "
:i
T3 O
fl A
^ O
209
52
14
42
43
224
111
37
40
67
1
0 "rt
« .2
to -y
o
-------
overrides reports of "Dust and dirt. " Reports of "Exhaust gases" under question
28 has the greatest number of affirmative responses under question 30 in the
"Frequent bad smells in the air" column. Pollen reports are overridden slightly
by odors and by dust and dirt. Radiation does not have a matching column under
question 30. "Chemicals, " under question 28, have the greatest number of re-
ports in the "Frequent bad smells in the air" column of question 30. The "Odor"
response under question 28 matches with "Frequent bad smells in the air" under
question 30. The "Dust and dirt" category likewise matches. "Fog, smog" re-
ports under question 28 do not match "Frequent haze or fog" under question 30.
This would seem reasonable in view of the difference in meaning between the words.
The other three categories under question 28 cannot be expected to show any rela-
tionship. Out of five categories in the responses to the two questions that could be
expected to correspond, four of them, "Exhaust gases," "Chemicals (insecticides),"
"Odors," and "Dust and dirt," do correspond, and the fifth, "Smoke, " corresponds
if one considers the split category of the question sections of question 30, "Frequent
bad smells in the air" and "Too much dust and dirt. " These data indicate that
"Odors" and "Dust and dirt" are the two primary areas of concern to the public.
Air Pollution Definitions Based on Air Pollution in Neighborhood - Table 11
reports the relationship between questions 28 and 32. Four hundred respondents
reported that there was air pollution in their neighborhoods, and 600 reported that
there was no air pollution in their neighborhoods. Both groups of these respondents
had defined air pollution previously in question 28. Odors were the primary defini-
tion item in each group, with 53. 5 percent naming odors in the group reporting air
pollution in their neighborhoods, and 44. 8 percent naming odors in the group re-
porting no air pollution in their neighborhoods. Smoke was the second greatest
definitional item of concern in both groups. Among those respondents reporting
air pollution in their neighborhoods, 23.3 percent indicated "dust and dirt" as a
third major definitional item. There was no clear-cut third most frequent defini-
tional item among those respondents reporting no air pollution in their neighbor-
hoods. The order of importance of air pollutants as people see them, from most
to least, is odors, smoke,and dust and dirt.
Air Pollution Definitions Based on Odor Survey - Table 12 relates odor responses
to questions 28 and 30A to results of the odor survey conducted by inspectors of the
City of St. Louis Division of Air Pollution Control. Only respondents reporting air
pollution in their neighborhoods were included. The geographic area was divided
into two parts (high odor frequency and low odor frequency) on the basis of the
inspectors' survey. The respondents in the areas of low odor frequency more
often include odors in their definition of air pollution than do those in the area of
high odor frequency, the reverse of what might be expected. A review of Table 13
indicates that this is probably related to differences in socioeconomic status, educa-
tion, and priorities of problems between groups in these two type areas. This dif-
ference disappears when people's memories are stimulated by showing them cards
listing air pollution definitional items as evidenced by response to question 30A.
This is an important consideration in design and use of questionnaires. Of greater
importance foi the governments of the area are the implications of changing popula-
tion characteristics in odorous areas. As people of higher socioeconomic status
move into the renewed downtown portion of cities, where odors often occur, more
complaints can be expected.
33
-------
Table 11. COMPARISON OF WORDS USED TO DEFINE AIR
POLLUTION BY RESPONDENTS WHO THINK THERE IS OR IS
NOT AIR POLLUTION IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD
Terms used to define
air pollution in response
to question 28a
Smoke
Exhaust gases
Pollen
Radiation
Chemicals (insecticides)
Odors
Dust, dirt
Fog, smog
Other unnealthy condi-
tions
General contamination
Other
Respondents opinion on air pollution in his
neighborhood in response to question 32"
Yes
(400 respondents)
People defining air
pollution with terms
given in left-hand
column.
No.
158
47
18
36
51
214
93
25
42
72
2
%
39.5
11.8
4.5
9.0
12.8
53.5
23. 3
6.3
10.5
18. 0
0.5
No
(600 respondents)
People defining air
pollution with terms
given in left-hand
column.
No.
254
85
20
55
55
269
84
55
43
87
1
%
42.3
14.2
3.3
9.2
9.2
44.8
14.0
9.2
7.2
14.5
0.2
aQuestion 28 - The term "air pollution" is used occasionally now-
adays. What does it mean to you?
k Question 32 - As you see it, is there any air pollution here'in this neighborhood?
Table 12. OPINIONS OF RESPONDENTS ABOUT ODORS RELATED TO FREQUENCY
OF ODORS REPORTED BY AIR POLLUTION INSPECTORS
Odor prevalence indicator
Areas of high
odor frequency3
as determined by
odor survey, %
Areas of low
odor frequency"
as determined by
odor survey, %
Frequency of unpleasant odor occurrence
reported by inspectors
People who say there is air pollution in their
neighborhood (question 32) and who include
"odor" in their definition of air pollution
(question 28)
People who say there is air pollution in their
neighborhood (question 32) and who pick
"frequent bad smells" as something most
people think about when they speak about air
pollution (question 30A)
25.9
46.7
13.5
63.6
88.3
76.3
alnspector territories 1,2, 3, 4, and 10 of the St. Louis Division of Air Pollution Control.
^Inspector territories 5,6,7,8,9.
34
GPO 828—813—3
-------
Table 13. SOCIOECONOMIC LEVELS OF RESPONDENTS
IN AREAS OF LOW AND HIGH ODOR FREQUENCY
Socioeconomic
index
Class
No.
Respondents
Low odor frequency
areas
No.
%
High odor frequency
areas
No.
%
Income,
dollar s/yr
< 2,000
2,000 - 2,999
3,000 - 3,999
4,000 - 4,999
5,000 - 5,999
6,000 - 6,999
7,000 - 7,999
8,000 - 9,999
10, 000 - 14, 999
> 15,000
Totals
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-
10
4
6
6
14
10
15
11
12
2
90
11. 1
4.4
6.7
6.7
15.6
11. 1
16.7
12.2
13. 3
2.2
100.0
22
23
26
27
14
9
9
7
6
0
143
15.4
16.1
18.2
18.8
9.8
6.3
6.3
4.9
4.2
0
100.0
Education,
yr
0-4
5 - 6
7-8
9-11
12
1 - 3
college
4 or more
college
Totals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-
3
5
36
12
31
13
15
115
2.6
4.3
31.5
10.4
26.9
11. 3
13.0
100. 0
21
15
34
39
26
13
9
157
13.5
9.5
21.6
24.8
16.6
8.3
5. 7
100.0
Air Pollution Recognition - Table 14 reports relationships between responses
to question 28, the open-end question defining air pollution, but limited to those
respondents reporting air pollution in their neighborhoods (question 32) and levels
for three types of pollutants. The increased recognition of air pollution in neigh-
borhoods with more air pollution is clearly shown in all cases by the corresponding
increases in the percent of "yes" responses to question 32. The "Dust and dirt"
responses to question 28 relate, as one might expect, to air quality as measured
by dustfall and high-volume samplers. Responses defining air pollution as "Smoke"
did not vary greatly for the two ranges of soiling or suspended particulates as
measured by the high-volume sampler.
35
-------
Table 14. RANGES OF AIR POLLUTION LEVELS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP
TO RECOGNITION OF AIR POLLUTION AND ITS MEANING TO RESPONDENTS
Pollutant measurements
and ranges of
concentrations
Soiling index,
Coh/1, 000 lineal ft
0. 200 - 0.800
0.801 - 1. 500
Suspended particulate.
M-g/m3
Less than 93. 0
More than 93. 0
Dustfall,
tons /mi /month
Less than 20. 0
More than 20. 0
Total
respondents
No.
523
68
352
386
491
142
%
88. 5
11. 5
47. 7
52. 3
77.6
22.4
Respondents who
report air pollution
in their neighborhood,
(question 32)
No.
191
56
107
217
178
96
%
36.5
82. 4
30. 4
56. 2
36.4
67.6
Respondents who
define air pollution
as "smoke" in
question 28°
No.
58
20
38
84
-
%
30.4
35. 7
35. 5
38.7
-
R cspond
define air
as "dust ar
questi
No.
~
17
60
31
26
•*nts who
pollution
d dirt" in
an 28b
%
"
15.9
27.6
17.4
27. 1
aQuestion 32 - "As you see it, is there any air pollution here in this neighborhood?"
"Question 28 - "The term 'air pollution' is used occasionally nowadays. What does it mean to you?"
Only replies of respondents who believe there is air pollution in their neighborhood are considered.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
Medalia, N. Z. Air pollution as a socio-environmental health problem: A
survey report. J. Health and Human Behaviour. 5(4):165. 1964.
Public awareness and concern with air pollution in the St. Louis metropolitan
area. Public Administration and Metropolitan Affairs Program. Southern
Illinois University. Edwardsville, Illinois. April 1965.
Goldner, L. and F. P. Partee. Public officials opinion survey.
by Public Health Service. Unpublished. 1964.
Draft report
Smith, W. S. , J. J. Schueneman, and L. D. Zeidberg.
air pollution in Nashville, Tennessee. J. Air Poll.
14:418-423. Oct. 1964.
Public reaction to
Control Assoc.
36
-------
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - SELECTED QUESTIONS FROM PUBLIC OPINION QUESTIONNAIRE
USED FOR ANALYSIS IN THIS REPORT
1. Question 27. As far as this area goes, how would you rate the quality of the
air in this neighborhood right around here where you live? (HAND RESPON-
DENT CARD B.) Which statement on that card most closely represents your
feelings?
Strongly satisfied 5- 1
Satisfied 2
Mildly satisfied 3
Mildly dissatisfied 4
Dissatisfied 5
Strongly dissatisfied 6
Don't know y
2. Question 28. The term "air pollution" is used occasionally nowadays. What
does it mean to you?
6-
Note: 7-
Interviewer is to enter words used by respondents.
8-
9-
10-
3. Question 30. What do you think most people in this area think of when they
speak of "air pollution"? Would you guess they mean:
Yes 12- 1
A. Frequent bad smells in the air?
No 2
B. Too much dust and dirt? Yes 13- 1
No 2
37
-------
C. Frequent haze or fog? Yes 14- 1
No 2
D. Frequent irritation of the eyes? Yes 15- 1
No 2
E. When they speak of air pollution, do you think of laundry getting dirty on
the line?
Yes 16- 1
No 2
F. Frequent nose or throat irritations? Yes 17- 1
No 2
G. Would you guess there are any other things people think 18-
of when they talk about "air pollution"?
19-
4. Question 31. Which of these statements comes closest to describing how you
are affected by air pollution? (READ CODES)
"I haven't been bothered by air pollution at all. " 20- 1
"I've been bothered by air pollution somewhat. " 2
"I have been bothered quite a lot by it. " 3
5. Question 32. As you see it, is there any air pollution here in this neighborhood?
Yes . . (ASK A AND B) 21-1
No . . (SKIP TO Q. 35) 2
6. Question 43. How would you rank the level of air pollution in this neighborhood?
Would you say it is desirable, acceptable, undesirable, excessive, or intolerable?
Desirable 15- 1
Acceptable 2
Undesirable 3
Excessive 4
Intolerable 5
38
-------
APPENDIX B - STATISTICAL, CRITERIA FOR CHOOSING CAUSE-AND-EFFECT
RELATIONSHIPS BASED ON USE OF REGRESSION SLOPE AND STANDARD
ERROR OF SLOPE
1. If the linear slope is not equal to zero, the linear relationship between the
dependent and independent variable is significant. If the slope equals zero,
the two variables under scrutiny are independent.
2. The 95 percent confidence interval estimate of the slope is equal to:
s + (t)(standard error of slope).
s = Slope.
t = Student "t" value for 95 percent confidence and n-2 degrees of freedom.
where:
n = Number of values to determine regression.
3. Test s - (t)(standard error of slope) > 0.
r s i
The linear slope will not be equal to zero if 7-77 : : > 1. 0
^ H (t)(standard error)
1—— —t
r s
4. In addition, the higher the ratio, 777; : : r I , the better the
(t)(standard error) '
relationship.
39
GPO 828-813-2
------- |