EPA-600/2-80-103
July 1980
by
Ned M. Musselman
Lawrence G. Welling
Sandy C. Newman
David A. Sharp
Ohio Farm Bureau Development Corporation
Columbus, Ohio 43216
Grant No. R804703
Project Officer
G. Kenneth Dotson
Wastewater Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIORNMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increas-
ing public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health
and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled
land are tragic testimonies to the deterioration of our natural environment.
The complexity of that environment and the interplay of its components
require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem solution;
it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and searching for
solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops new and
improved technology and systems to prevent, treat, and manage wastewater and
solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges from municipal and community
sources, to preserve and treat public drinking water supplies, and to minimize
the adverse economic, social, health, and aesthetic effects of pollution.
This publication is one of the products of that research and provides a most
vital communications link between the researcher and the user community.
The ability to make objective decisions about waste utilization or dis-
posal is often limited by the information avialable. This report describes
an attempt to examine the attitudes of residents of various communities toward
land application of sludge and to determine the influence of educational meet-
ings on those attitudes.
Francis T. Mayo, Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
The concept of land application of sewage sludge on farmland is not new-
it has been used for centuries in Asia and Europe. In the United States,
farmers continue the practice of recycling animal wastes, and this practice
is accepted by society. Generally speaking, however, the practice of
recycling treated human wastes is not readily accepted.
Several communities in Ohio have successfully established land applica-
tion programs while others have encountered serious problems of public
acceptance. Opposition arises over various concerns about potential health
and environmental side effects of land application. The real problem seems
to be whether or not people will accept this method of disposal and, if so,
under what conditions.
In this research we have attempted to examine the attitude of Ohio
residents toward land application and to determine the influence of education-
al meetings on those attitudes. The general methodology involved: (1) a
survey of community knowledge and attitudes regarding sludge and its
application to farmland; (2) development and implementation of a land
application educational program; (3) assessment of the effectiveness of the
educational programs on participants' knowledge and attitudes.
Briefly, our analysis indicates that females are much more negative
than males in their reaction to the use of sludge. Farmers who have used
sludge are more favorable to its use than those who have not used it. And,
finally, people who know the definition of sludge have a more favorable
reaction to its use.
Educational meetings proved to be an effective means of improving
participants' attitudes and acceptance of land application. However, even
with extensive meeting publicity, only a small number of community members
will attend such meetings. Land application is not likely to become a topic
of great interest until a land application program is imminent. Obviously,
there is still a need to increase community awareness of the facts about
land application. If educational meetings are not the most efficient way,
it is suggested that more efficient methods may be informational pamphlets,
films and slide programs, and speakers' bureaus.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant No. R804703 by
the Ohio Farm Bureau Development Corporation under the sponsorship of the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers the period of
October 6, 1976 to July 5, 1979, and work was completed as of October 5, 1978.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword
111
Abstract
Tables
Acknowledgments . . . vii
1. Introduction I
2. Conclusions and Recommendations 2
3. Approach ^
Survey of Community Attitudes and Knowledge 4
Selection of communities for participation in
the survey 4
Identification of participant groups 5
Development of the attitude/cognitive survey
instrument g
Selection of the sample 6
Survey procedures 7
Analysis of survey results 9
Background information 9
Educational Program 32
Development of the educational program materials 33
Development of the pre-/post- meeting evaluation
instruments 33
Educational meetings 33
Field trips 3g
Effectiveness of the Educational Program 36
Administration of the pre-/post- meeting
evaluation instruments 35
Analysis of educational program effectiveness . . 38
4. Summary of Results 4g
51
v
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Number of Questionnaires Returned 8
2 Percent of Questionnaires Returned 8
3 Background Variables: Number and Percent 10-11
4 Significant Interactions with Willingness to Use Sludge on
Own Farm Land 12
5 Significant Interaction with Source of Sludge Information. . . 14
6 Primary Reasons for Using Sludge 15
7 Sex and Reaction to Sludge Usage 18
8 Personal Experience with Sludge and Reactions Towards its Use. 20
9 Sludge Definition and Reaction to Sludge Usage 21
10 Reactions to the Use of Sludge and Primary Reasons for Sludge
Usage 22-23
11 Background Characteristics as Related to the Factors of
Specific Attitudes Toward Sludge Usage 25
12 Mean Scores of Willingness to Allow Sludge Usage and
Experience with Sludge by the 5 Factors 27
13 Sewage Sludge Knowledge and Interest in Knowing 28-31
14 Evaluative Response Rate of Educational Meetings 37
15 Background Variables on Form 1 (Farm Population) 39-40
16 Attitudinal Variables on Form 1 (Farm Population) 41-42
17 Background Variables on Form 2 (Non-Farm Population) 44
18 Attitudinal Variables on Form 2 (Non-Farm Population) 45
19 Comparison of Identical Items for the Two Educational Groups . 46
vi
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to acknowledge and thank the many individuals who
provided assistance in the performance of this project.
Dr. Robert Miller, Professor, Department of Agronomy, and Dr. Richard
White, Associate Professor and Extension Agricultural Engineer, Department
of Agricultural Engineering, The Ohio State University, served as subject
matter experts in the development of the educational program and provided
35mm slides of facilities used in sewage treatment and of equipment used for
land application. They also presented the educational program for the "farm"
group at the meetings held in the various counties. We wish to thank them
for their excellent and cooperative assistance in these areas.
A great deal of thanks is due Dr. Richard Thomas, Professor, Cooperative
Extension Service, The Ohio State University; the agricultural extension
agents in the various counties in which educational meetings were held; and,
the Ohio Farm Bureau organization directors for these counties, for their
invaluable assistance in organizing the educational meetings on the local
level.
Finally, there are other individuals, too numerous to mention here,
who provided assistance to the project. These included personnel within the
Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, local waste water treatment personnel, members
of the local news media who helped to advertise the educational meetings, and
others. While they cannot be mentioned here by name, the appreciation for
their help is no less sincere.
VII
-------
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Application of sewage sludge to farmland is expected to become
increasingly important during the next few years. Municipal waste managers
are faced with ever-increasing costs for alternative methods of sludge
disposal, such as incineration, as well as Federal requirements to implement
more cost-effective disposal. Furthermore, sewage sludge, properly applied
to agricultural land, may provide several important benefits to farmers.
Several communities in Ohio have successfully established programs for
land spreading of sewage sludge. Some communities, however, have encountered
serious problems of public opposition. Public opposition seems to arise
over various concerns about possible health and environmental side effects of
land application. The purpose of the project reported herein was to examine
the attitudes of Ohio residents regarding land application of sewage sludge
and to determine the influence of educational programs on those attitudes.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this project were:
o To determine community attitudes and information needs regarding
sludge and the application of sludge to farm land
o To develop an educational program to fill the community
information needs in the area of sludge application
o To determine the effect of the educational program on the
knowledge and attitudes of program participants about sludge
application.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
An educational program, such as the one used in this study, appears to
be an effective means of improving participants' attitudes and acceptance
of land application. A possible problem associated with educational meetings
is the anticipated small number of community members who will attend such
meetings, in spite of extensive meeting publicity. Land application does not
appear to be a topic of great interest to large numbers of community members.
At least, it is not of sufficient interest to reach large numbers of people
via meetings. It is not likely to become a topic of great interest until a
land application program is imminent, and even then will probably be of
greatest concern to those people living in the immediate area of land
application.
This lack of general interest in land application, until a project is
imminent, presents a dilemma, because an education/information program which
is initiated only in response to expressed community interest is likely to
come at a time which is too late to deal with unwarranted community fears in
a most effective manner. Therefore, the following recommendations are made.
There is a need to increase general community awareness of the facts of
land application. Educational meetings, in general, are not the most
efficient way to increase awareness, due to the lack of interest and the
ensuing low attendance at meetings. This indicates that more efficient
methods for reaching the general public may be:
o Small, easily read information pamphlets which can be
distributed to community groups via a variety of distribution
mechanisms (e.g., county fairs, direct mailings, displays in
public places, etc.)
o A film on land application should be produced which can be
used by school systems, 4-H clubs, and other community
organizations.
o A speaker's bureau should be established to provide speakers
on land application to community organizations who frequently
seek topics for their meetings. A number of "captive
audiences" can be reached in this way.
When a land application program is to be instituted in a community, a
more intensive educational program, using advertised public meetings, may
be warranted. Care must be taken that these meetings are timed to both take
-------
advantage of community interest and to prevent the development of unwarranted
fears and ingrained opposition. Public meetings have the advantage of
providing adequate time to answer specific questions and concerns. Also,
there is an added benefit of individuals being able to hear and assess the
views of other community members. It should be remembered, in developing
such public meetings, that survey results show that special educational
attention should be directed to female members of the community. Also, farm
residents who have used sludge in the past are an excellent source of
information which can be utilized to inform other members of the community
regarding the facts of land application.
-------
SECTION 3
APPROACH
The general methodology utilized in this study involved: (1) a survey
of community attitudes and knowledge regarding land application; (2) develop-
ment and implementation of a land application education program; and,
(3) assessment of the effectiveness of the educational program. These
products are discussed in the major sections of this report.
SURVEY OF COMMUNITY ATTITUDES AND KNOWLEDGE
Included in the survey of community attitudes and knowledge were the
following steps:
o Selection of communities for participation in the survey
o Identification of participant groups
o Development of the attitude/cognitive survey instrument
o Selection of the survey sample
o Implementation of the survey procedures
o Analysis of survey results.
Selection of Communities for Participation in the Survey
Six Ohio communities were originally planned for participation in the
study. Four of these communities had already been identified at the
inception of the project. These four communities were Defiance (Defiance
County); the Montgomery County Sanitation District; Zanesville (Muskingum
County); and the Medina County Sanitation District. Each of these communi-
ties was initially selected because of its anticipated participation in the
Ohio Farm Bureau Federation's proposed demonstration project on the manage-
ment of sewage sludge spreading on farmland.1
^'Demonstration Project to Show Ohio Land Owners and Municipalities Accept-
able Systems for Applying Sludge on Land." This project is subsequently
referred to in this report as the "demonstration project." It should not be
confused with the project which is the subject of this report and which is
subsequently referred to as the "education project."
-------
Two additional communities, which did not need to have a sewage sludge
demonstration project, were to be selected. One of these communities was to
be a. large metropolitan area and the second was to be a smaller industrial
city. The large metropolitan area selected for the education project was the
City of Columbus (Franklin County). The small, industrial city which was
selected was the City of Jackson (Jackson County).
In addition to these six counties, it was subsequently decided to add
Greene County, which is adjacent to Montgomery County and which would be a
possible site for land application in the demonstration project. Subse-
quently, it became questionable whether or not Montgomery County would agree
to participate in the demonstration project. Therefore, the City of Columbus
(Franklin County) was picked as an alternative to Montgomery County as a
large metropolitan area, for participation in the demonstration project. In
view of the fact that a land application demonstration project for the City
of Columbus would also involve Pickaway County (adjacent to Franklin County
on the south), Pickaway County was also selected for participation in the
education project.
Therefore, a total of eight Ohio counties were selected for
participation in this study. These counties were selected for the
attitudinal/cognitive survey and for the education meetings. They are:
o Defiance County
o Montgomery County
o Greene County
o Muskingum County
o Medina County
o Jackson County
o Franklin County
o Pickaway County
Preliminary visits were made to several of these communities to provide
general information about the project to sewage treatment plant personnel,
agricultural extension personnel, etc. Where applicable, information
relevant to the identification of participant groups and to the development
of the survey instrument items was obtained.
Identification of Participant Groups
Participant groups were identified. These participant groups were
selected on the basis of individual or unique community groups which may be
differently affected by a land application program. Three basic groups were
identified. They are: (1) farm; (2) non-farm rural; and, (3) urban or
suburban. It was anticipated that the specific attitudes of members of these
-------
three groups regarding a land application program may differ, dependent
on membership in one or another of these groups.
Additionally, within each of these three groups, it was anticipated
that the attitudes of the male population and the attitudes of the female
population regarding land application might differ. Therefore, these two
population characteristics, namely: (1) place of residence (farm, non-farm
rural, urban or suburban), and, (2) sex, were utilized in selection of the
sample and in distribution of the survey instrument.
Development of the Attitude/Cognitive Survey Instrument
A survey instrument was developed to determine: (1) the attitudes of
Ohio residents regarding land application; (2) their current level of
knowledge regarding municipal sewage sludge and land application; and, (3)
their interest in knowing more about a variety of topics regarding sewage
sludge and land application. The survey instrument was developed on the
basis of: (1) a review of the literature on sewage sludge and land applica-
tion; and, (2) discussion with knowledgeable individuals and experts
regarding the topic. Following development of the initial survey instrument,
a pilot test was conducted on a small sample of respondents to verify the
clairty of the instructions, the clarity of the questionnaire items, and to
assure that the length of time required to respond to the questionnaire was
not excessive. This pilot test was conducted with several farm (rural) and
non-farm (urban) individuals, both male and female. It was conducted on an
individual, or one-to-one, basis in order to obtain detailed feedback
regarding the adequacy of the survey instrument. Revisions to the survey
instrument were made subsequently, based upon the information obtained
during the pilot test.
The survey instrument consists of three basic parts. They are: (1)
identification, demographic and background information items (Items 1-10);
(2) attitudinal items (Items 11-34); and, (3) knowledge and interest items
(Items 35-75). Copies of the survey instrument and an accompanying cover
letter were printed.
Selection of the Sample
Sample selection utilized county directories or Farm Bureau membership
lists and local telephone directories. For those counties for which a
county directory was available, an attempt was made to choose resident names
in the various county townships in the same proportion to township population
as indicated in 1970 census data. In instances where a particular township
was heavily urbanized, it was not possible to choose an adequate number of
farm or non-farm rural residents from that township. In this instance, a
larger number of farm or non-farm rural residents were chosen from the
surrounding townships. Likewise, it was sometimes impossible to select an
adequate number of urban/suburban residents from a very rural township. In
general, however, samples selected from counties which had a county directory
represent all of the townships within the county. Each sample (i.e. farm,
non-farm rural, and urban/suburban) was selected on a random basis. For
those counties for which a county directory was available, approximately
-------
two hundred farm families were selected (100 male addresses and 100 female
addresses) using the "farm" notation found with the address and other
resident information. Likewise, approximately 200 non-farm rural residents
were selected for each county by: (1) using a county map to locate rural
areas of the county; (2) selecting roads within the rural areas; and, (3)
selecting residents from the "street index" of the county directory. Only
residents who did not have a "farm" indicator were selected for the non-farm
rural group. For each county for which a directory was available, approxi-
mately 200 urban/suburban residents were selected from the county directory
using the street index or the separate index for large urban areas.
For those counties for which a county directory was not available, farm
and non-farm rural resident groups were randomly selected from Farm Bureau
membership lists. The urban/suburban resident group was selected from the
telephone directory of the principal municipality in the county.
Survey Procedures
The Farm Bureau Municipal Sewage Sludge questionnaire was sent out to
4800 people. Six hundred people in each of the eight Ohio counties
(Defiance, Franklin, Greene, Jackson, Medina, Montgomery, Muskingum and
Pickaway) were sent questionnaires. As stated previously, in each county an
equal number were sent to people who live on a farm, people who live in a
rural area but not on a farm, and people who live in an urban or suburban
environment. There were 200 people in each subgroup. (Each subgroup
contained 100 males and 100 females.) Enclosed in the survey package were:
the questionnaire, the cover letter and a Farm Bureau business reply
envelope. After approximately three weeks a post card was sent, as a
reminder, to those people who had not responded. After an additional three
weeks a second questionnaire and a new cover letter was sent to the non-
respondents. In all, 1397 (29.1%) usable questionnaires were returned using
this three contact approach. Table 1 shows the number of returns for each
of the eight counties and for each of the 3 residential grovipings (it should
be noted that 12 cases had missing data for either county or residential
grouping). Table 2 shows the percent of usable returns for each subgroup
as well as for each county, for each residential grouping and for the total
sample. Here it can be seen that the largest rates of return were from
Franklin County, 47.2% and from people who live on a farm, 43.0%. The
subgroups with the three largest rates of return were people who live on a
farm in Greene County, 68.0%; people who live on a farm in Franklin County,
62.0%; and people who live in an urban or suburban environment in Franklin
County, 59.0%. The lowest rate of returns were from Defiance County, 16.5%,
and for people who do not live on a farm, but do live in a rural environment,
14.8%. The subgroups with the lowest returns are non-farm rural in Defiance
County, 9.5%; non-farm rural in Montgomery County, and urban or suburban in
Defiance County, 10.5%; and non-farm rural in Jackson County, 12.0%. It
should be mentioned here that place of residencefarm, non-farm rural,
urban or suburbanwas self-coded and, as such, the data does not indicate
whether a given respondent thought he belonged to the same residential group
as that in which he was placed during sample selection. The non-farm rural
group is probably affected most by this factor. It is possible that some
members of this group viewed themselves as suburban residents.
-------
TABLE 1. NUMBER OF QUESTIONNAIRES RETURNED
Place of residence
County
MEDINA
DEFIANCE
FRANKLIN
GREENE
JACKSON
MUSKINGUM
MONTGOMERY
PICKAWAY
TOTAL
Farm
96
59
124
136
72
66
66
69
688
TABLE 2. PERCENT
Non-farm
rural
27
19
41
32
24
34
21
39
237
OF QUESTIONNAIRES
Urban or
suburban
34
21
118
68
66
37
74
42
460
RETURNED*
Total
157
99
283
236
162
137
161
150
1385
Place of Residence
County
MEDINA
DEFIANCE
FRANKLIN
GREENE
JACKSON
MUSKINGUM
MONTGOMERY
PICKAWAY
TOTAL***
Farm
48.0
29.5
62.0
68.0
36.0
33.0
33.0
34.5
43.0
Non-f arm
rural
13.5
9.5
20.5
16.0
12.0
17.0
10.5
19.5
14.8
Urban or
suburban
17.0
10.5
59.0
34.0
33.0
18.5
37.0
21.0
28.8
Total**
26.2
16.5
47.2
39.3
27.0
22.8
26.8
25.0
28.9****
* Each of the sub-group percentages are based on 200 questionnaires
mailed.
** Each of the county percentages are based on 600 questionnaires mailed.
*** Each place of residence is based on 1600 questionnaires mailed.
**** xhe total is based on 4800 questionnaires mailed.
-------
Analysis of Survey Results
The questionnaire that was used to determine the "Attitudes of Ohio
Residents Toward the Land Application of Municipal Sewage Sludge" consisted
of 75 questions. In addition to attitudinal questions, questions were also
asked on knowledge of and interest in sludge; and on the respondents back-
ground. In the previous section, "Survey Procedures," and analysis was
presented of the approximately 30% return rate (i.e., 1397 questionnaires).
In this section an analysis of the various response categories of the 1397
respondents is presented. This analysis is divided into three sections:
(1) background information; (2) attitudes; and, (3) knowledge and interest.
A brief summary of survey conclusions is presented at the end of this
section.
Background Information
The numbers and percents for each of the background variables:
questions 1-10 are presented in Table 3 for reader review. It should be
remembered that questions 2 (sex) and 4 (place of residence) were controlled
in the original mail out. An analysis was made to determine the inter-
relatedness of some of these background variables. This analysis is dis-
cussed in the following pages.
A comparison was made, for people who live on a farm, between willing-
ness to use sludge on their own farmland and several other variables. It
was found, through a Chi Square Test of Significance, that this willingness
to use sludge was not related to age, farming as a principal occupation, or
size of farm. However, it was significantly related to sex (.0000) and
experience with land application of sewage sludge (.0000). These significant
results are presented in Table 4. The analysis presented in Table 4A shows
the relationship between willingness to use sludge and being male or
unwillingness to use sludge and being female. Table 4B shows that people who
have not heard of sludge are more likely to say no to its usage (71.8%
compared to the total of 52.0%), while people who have used it themselves are
less likely to say no (20.8% compared to the total of 52.0%). The results
of comparing willingness to use sludge with both sex and experience are
shown in Table 4C. Here it can be seen that there is not a significant
difference between males and females and their willingness to use sludge when
it has been spread on their own land, or when it has been spread on a
neighbor's land (i.e., personal contact with sludge). However, there are
significant differences among willingness to use sludge, sex and having
heard of sludge or not having heard of sludge. For the group which has not
had personal contact (i.e., sludge has not been spread on their land nor on
a neighbor's land), but has heard of sludge, males are significantly more
willing to use sludge than females. For the people who have not heard of
sludge only one out of five women would be willing to have it spread while
slightly less than 1/2 of the males in this category would consent to its
use. From this analysis, it can be seen that once someone has used sludge,
they are willing to continue to use it, or to use it again. These results
indicate that the group of people who have used sludge before might be
utilized in a program to provide information on its use to other farmers.
These results also indicate that some type of special education program on
-------
TABLE 3. BACKGROUND VARIABLES: NUMBER AND PERCENT
Variable categories
Age
18-25
26-35
36-50
51-65
Over 65
Sex
Male
J- J-d-U C-
Female
Are you a property owner or tenant?
Property owner
Tenant
Place of residence
Farm
Non-farm, rural
Urban or suburban
My principal occupation is farming
"XT
No
Yes
Total number of acres owned or farmed
Less than 180 acres
101-300 acres
Over 300 acres
Do not live on a farm
Source of information regarding the land application of
municipal sewage sludge
Have attended educational meetings or programs on the
land application of sewage sludge
Have read articles or brochures on the land application
of sewage sludge
Both of the above
Have seen it in use
Other
No source of information
Experience with land application of sewage sludge
Sludge has been spread on my land
Sludge has been spread on a neighbor's land or in the
community
Have heard of the land application of sludge
Have not heard of the land application of sludge
(continued)
Number
1381
61
183
396
481
267
1393
698
695
1383
1245
138
1388
690
238
460
1388
995
393
1385
261
313
178
633
1384
20
453
57
48
70
736
1380
65
\J -s
146
745
424
Percent
100.0
4 4
" *T
13.2
28.5
34.7
19.2
100.0
50.1
49.9
100.0
90.0
10.0
100.0
49.7
17.1
33.1
100.0
71.7
28.3
100.0
18 8
J. vJ C?
22.6
1? 9
J- £ J
45.7
100.0
1 .4
3? 7
j t- . /
4 1
" -L
3 5
~j . _j
5. 1
53.2
100.0
/. 7
H . /
10.6
54.0
30.7
10
-------
TABLE 3 (continued)
Variable categories Number Percent
Would you allow your land to be used for the landspreading
of sludge? 1397 100.0
No 372 26.6
Yes 341 24.4
Don't know 71 5.1
Do not live on a farm 613 43.9
Definition of sewage sludge 1380 100.0
A product from municipal sewage treatment plants 1151 83.4
Septic tank pumpings 70 5.1
Raw, untreated sewage 93 6.7
Any animal waste materials 43 3.1
Other 23 1.7
11
-------
TABLE 4. SIGNIFICANT INTERACTIONS WITH WILLINGNESS TO USE
SLUDGE ON OWN FARM LAND
Not
Willing
A. Sex
Male
Female
Total
B. Experience with Land Appli-
cation of Sewage Sludge
Sludge has been spread on
my land
Sludge has been spread on
a neighbor's land or in
community
Have heard of land appli-
cation of sludge
Have not heard of land
application of sludge
Total
C. Sex AND Experience with
Land Application
Sludge has been spread on
my land
Male
Female
Total
Sludge has been spread on
a neighbor's land or in
the community3
Male
Female
Total
Have heard of land appli-
cation of sludge^
Male
Female
Total
Have not heard of land
application of sludgec
Male
Female
Total
161
210
371
10
53
187
117
367
6
4
10
27
21
48
80
97
177
34
72
106
Numbers
Willing
206
135
341
38
51
204
46
339
24
13
37
31
13
44
112
80
192
26
18
44
Total
367
345
712
48
104
391
163
706
30
17
47
58
34
92
192
177
369
60
90
150
Not
Willing
43.9
60.9
52.1
20.8
51.0
47.8
71.8
52.0
20.0
23.5
21.3
46.6
61.8
52.2
41.7
54.8
48.0
56.7
80.0
70.7
Percent
Willing Total
56.1
39.1
47.9
79.2
49.0
52.2
28.2
48.0
80.0
76.5
78.7
53.4
38.2
47.8
58.3
45.2
52.0
43.3
20.0
29.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
TJ ' .
b x2 = .0156
c x2 = .0038
12
-------
land application should be directed to women who live on farms.
The variable, concerning the source of information regarding the land
application of municipal sewage sludge was also analyzed in detail. Here
it was found, using a Chi-Square Test of Significance, that age was not
significantly related, while both sex and place of residence were
significantly related (X^ = .0001 for both). Table 5 shows these significant
interactions. In Table 5A it can be seen that 70.8% of the people who have
seen sludge in use are males (males are 50.3% of the respondent population),
while 64.9% of the people who have both attended meetings and read articles
on the subject are males. Table 5B presents the interaction between source
of sludge information and place of residence. Here one can observe an over-
representation of people who live on a farm, with 59.6% who have both
attended meetings and read articles on sludge (people who live on a farm
make up 49.9% of the returned questionnaires). For the non-farm rural
population, there is an over-representation of people who have attended
educational meetings on the land application of sewage sludge, 30.0% of the
people who have attended meetings compared to 17.1% of the total population.
Conversely, the urban and suburban group is under represented with regard
to these meetings, 20.0% compared to 33.0% of the total population. The
remaining percentages appear to fall within normal limits.
Attitudes
Attitudinal questions about sludge make another part of the question-
naire (Items 11 through 34). There are three parts within this attitudinal
section. The first part concerns the primary reasons for land spreading of
municipal sewage sludge (Items 11-13). The second part concerns reactions
to the actual spreading of sewage sludge (Items 14-16). The third part
concerns itself with general statements about sewage sludge (Items 17-34).
The three primary reasons for land application usage: to help the
cities dispose of sludge, as a fertilizer and soil conditioner, and to help
protect the environment, were analyzed in relation to place of residence
and occupation. This analysis is presented in Table 6 which shows
categorical means as well as frequency. Using both a Chi-Square for the
frequency, and an analysis of variance for the means, the use of sludge to
help the cities was not significantly related to either place of residence
or occupation. But both other reasons for land application of sludge (i.e.,
as a fertilizer and to protect the environment) were significant when
compared to place of residence and occupation. An analysis of the importance
each group places on the fertilizer and soil conditioning value of sludge
shows that farmers place a lower value on this than do non-farmers (respec-
tive means of 3.07 and 3.50); and that people who live on a farm place a
lower value on sludge as a fertilizer than people who live in a non-farm
rural environment or in an urban/suburban environment (respective means of
3.16, 3.56 and 3.60).
An analysis of the importance each group places on the landspreading of
sludge to help protect the environment, since it could be a more
environmentally acceptable means of disposal, shows that farmers place a
lower value on this than non-farmers (respective means of 3.04 and 3.36).
Likewise, people who live on a farm place a lower value on this than people
13
-------
TABLE 5. SIGNIFICANT INTERACTIONS WITH SOURCE OF SLUDGE INFORMATION
A. Sex*
Male
Female
Total
Sex**
Male.
female.
Total
B. Place of
Farm
Non-farm
Urban or
Total
Place oi
fasim
Non-fiasun
Utiban on.
Total
Attended
meetings
10
10
20
50.0
50.0
100.0
Residence*
10
, rural 6
suburban 4
20
Residence**
50.0
, nuAal 30.0
4ufautban 20. 0
100.0
Read
articles
252
201
453
55.6
44.4
100.0
263
73
114
450
5S.4
16.2
25.3
100.0
Both
37
20
57
64.9
35.1
100.0
34
7
16
57
59.6
12.3
2&.1
100.0
Have seen
it in use
34
14
48
70. 8
29.2
100.0
26
8
13
47
55.3
17.0
27.7
100.0
Other
30
40
70
42.2
57.1
100.0
34
14
22
70
4S.6
20.0
31.4
100.0
No
source
332
401
733
45.3
54.7
100.0
320
128
285
733
43.7
77.5
35.9
100.0
Total
695
686
1381
50.3
49.7
100.0
687
236
454
1377
49.9
17.1
33.0
100.0
* Regular type format indicates number
** Italic, type, fatunat
-------
M
C'
P
H '
CO
ci
f_
CO
£3
Pi
o
Pn
C/)
53
O
CO
<3
w
Pi
>-l
Pi
a
(H
05
PL|
vO
w
rJ
PQ
S
CU
60
' O
3
rH
to
CU
_ f"i
4J
*4H
O
H
W
4-J
CU
60
to
4-1
a
H
5-i
4-1
CO
H
-a
cu
60
03
£5
CU
to
TJ
03
CO
CU
H
4-1
H
O
CU
H!
4-1
ft
rH
CU
P2
<
4-1
CO
CU
42
6C
H
42
14-1
O
>!
>-i
CU
>
>~i
rH
CU
4-1
03
CU
" \J
O
j> I
K^
rH
4-1
60
H
rH
CO
rH
rH
03
4-J
03
4-1
O
53
CN
X
CN
X
IX
rH
03
4-1
O
H
CU
o
(2
03
4-1
O
ft
E
H
4-1
C
03
4-1
P*J
O
ft
E
H
4-1
(2
03
4-1
o
ex
E
*H
4J
C2
03
4-1
O
ft
E
H
4-1
c2
03
4-1
5-i
O
ft
E
H
.
CO
53
co
52
rH \O O 00
m m m o -d" m
ro CN ro o
vO CN -
CN CN
cr\ oo r~»
O CO ^cj"
i 1 rH
oo m co
vO CO O
i i
5-4
CU
g
03 5-i
<4H CU rH
1 B 03
C C 4J
O 03 O
53 Pn H
CU
60
3
rH
to
CU
l~^
4-1
0
CU
3
rH
03
^
60
C
H
C
o
H
4-1
H
TJ
C
o
O
rH
H
O
to
t3
C
03
CU
N
H
rH
H
4-1
5-i
CU
I-M
CU
42
4-1
<4-l
O
CU
60
03
4-1
C
03
^
^3
03
CU
03
H
PQ
CN
X
CN
X
llx!
IPs
rH
03
4-1
O
H
4-1 CU
to o
CU C
42 03
60 4-1
H 5-4
42 O
ft
0 -9
t \
C
>^ 03
5-J 4J
CU >-i
> 0
E
H
>-.
rH 4J
CU f2
4-1 03
03 4-1
5-t M
CU O
T3 Q-i
o _E
u
r*t p
rH 03
4-1 4-1
60 O
H ft
rH E
CO -rl
rH
rH 4J
03 C
03
4-1 4-J
03 5-1
O
4-J ft
ss
0 0
o o
0 0
O 0
' * *l 1
0
o o
o o to
o o c
O O 03
cu
E
vovoooo 01-^.00 cu
rHin^oro moco rH
rocoroco rococo 03
4-1
cu
03
11
CU
o
rHcorooo or^-oo -H
rs
4-1
{2 CO
CU T3
E 0
5 42
O 4-1
5-i CU
f^ rH CO i 1 P^-COrH >
1 I C2 5-1
CU CU
CU 4-J
42 O
(C 4-J
03 C2
rQ 4-1 03
rJ O 42
rH 3 CU 4-1
03 4D 4J
Lt 3 O rH
3 CO 5-1 03
rJ 5-1 ft CO
T3 CU O
EC E ft ft
W 03 H rH CO
03 03 5-i CU -H
S C S 4J C2 S 4J
03 O >-i O O cd O
CN
X
CN
X
1 s^
IPS
rH
4-1
H
4-J CU
CO O
0) C2
42 03
H 5-1
ft
14-1 E
0 -H
4-J
c
^^ c^3
5-4 4-1
QJ tl
> o
ft
H
K^
rH 4-1
CU C
4-J 03
03 4-1
5-4 ?-i
QJ O
*"O Q-
o e.
1 1
>^ s
rH 03
4-1 4-1
42 5-4
60 O
H ft
rH E
CO -H
rH
rH 4-1
03 C
03
03 5-i
0
4-J ft
£3
O
O
O
o
o
o
o
o
r>. vO CN t>»
o co m CN
co ro co co
o m CN r~
CO CN CO OO
rH
vD r^~ v^ cr\
00 CO <^ rH
CN
oo o f^ m
p.^ OO u"*\ i
, | rH o
rH CO
CN i i OO
ON rH .
CO -I-
o o^ o
CN CO
5SS
CN vet" V.O
o m m
1 1 T I
5-i
CU
03 5-i
1 | «
0 03 O
53 Pn H
15
-------
who live in a non-farm rural environment; and people who live in a non-farm
rural environment place a lower value on this than people who live in an
urban/suburban environment (respective means of 3.07 (farm), 3.36 (non-farm
rural), and 3.52 (urban/suburban)). It is interesting to note that when the
means are compared within groups for all three reasons, the farmers indicate
they will use sludge principally to help the cities, with a mean of 3.52 for
this reason, compared with a mean of 3.07 for sludge's use as a fertilizer
and a mean of 3.04 for landspreading as a way of helping the environment.
The non-farmers indicate that sludge should be used principally for its
fertilizer value (3.50) and to help the cities (3.47) and then because of the
environment (3.36).
This same type of analysis for place of residence shows that people who
live on a farm would use sludge to help the cities (3.51) and then for its
fertilizer value (3.16) and to help protect the environment (3,07). The
non-farm rural population believes sludge should be used principally because
of its fertilizer value (3.56). This group places an equal value on its use
to help the cities and to protect the environment (3.36). The urban and
suburban population place a high value on all three reasons given for the
use of sludge: as a fertilizer (3.60), to protect the environment (3.52)
and to help the cities (3.50). Thus, the analysis points out the irony that
people who live on farms view land application to be primarily a means of
helping the cities with their disposal problem while people who do not live
on farms place a proportionally greater value on land application as a means
of helping the farmers utilize the fertilizer and soil conditioning
properties of sludge. There appears to be a need to make each group aware of
the other's point of view in this regard.
The second group of attitudinal questions (Items 14-16) concerns
reactions to actual spreading of sludge: on one's own land; on a neighbor's
field; and, neighbors reaction to sludge spreading on one's own land. These
reactions were analyzed in relation to most of the previous variables.
Through the use of a Chi-Square Test of Significance it was found that
property ownership, place of residence, occupation, and size of farm were
significantly related to these reactions to the landspreading of sludge.
^
Age and source of sludge information were significantly related to personal
sludge reactions. Also, sex, personal experience with sludge, choice of
sludge definition, and the three primary reasons why sludge is used are all
significantly related to reactions to the landspreading of sludge. An
analysis of the relationship of age and reaction to sludge use on one's own
land shows the following means:
13-25 = 3.9286
26-35 = 4.0826
36-50 = 4.0502
51-65 = 3.9622
65+ = 3.7807
Clearly the oldest age category stands out as the group most unfavorable to
personal use of sludge. The comparison of age to a person's reaction to a
16
-------
neighbor's use of sludge also shows the oldest age category as the most
unfavorable. Here the means are as follows:
18-25 = 4.000
26-35 = 4.0791
36-50 = 4.1246
51-65 = 4.0146
65+ = 3.7611
A similar comparison can be made between reaction to one's own use of
sludge and one's source of information on the land application of sewage
sludge. The means for each group are as follows:
Attended meetings = 4.0625
Read articles = 4.1715
Both of the above = 4.000
Have seen it in use = 4.1316
Other = 4.0577
No source of information = 3.7633
Here the group of people who have no source of sludge information and,
therefore, probably are the least informed, is the group that reacts most
unfavorably to personal sludge usage. The comparison of source of sludge
information to neighbor's usage of sludge shows much the same thing. The
means for this comparison are as follows:
Attended meetings = 4.1053
Read articles = 4.2846
Both of the above = 4.0196
Have seen it in use = 4.2439
Other = 4.0364
No source of information = 3.7876
The analysis of reactions to sludge use by sex shows that females have
a much more negative reaction to sludge use than do males. This is true
whether it is their reaction to personal usage, reaction to neighbors' usage,
or their perception of a neighbor's reaction to their personal usage.
Table 7 shows a steady percentage decrease for females for each of the three
types of reaction to land application. As shows in Table 7A, 61.1% of the
people who would personally react very unfavorably to the use of sludge on
their own land are female compared to only 38.5% of the very favorable
reactions who are female. Tables 7B and 7C show a similar distribution of
percentages for the female group. As can be. seen in Table 7, males as a
group react much more favorably to all three questions regarding sludge
usage.
17
-------
TABLE 7. SEX AND REACTION TO SLUDGE USAGE
A. How would you react to having sludge spread on your land?
Very unfavorably
Unfavorably
Undecided
Favorably
Very favorably
Total
B. How would you feel
Very unfavorably
Unfavorably
Undecided
Favorably
Very favorably
Total
C. How would neighbors
Very unfavorably
Unfavorably
Undecided
Favorably
Very favorably
Total
Males
61
52
183
146
48
490
Numbers
Females
96
67
154
96
38
443
about sludge being
Males
57
55
231
192
41
576
react to
Males
67
94
313
46
13
533
Numbers
Females
108
72
230
137
24
571
Total
157
119
337
242
78
933
spread
Total
165
127
461
329
65
1147
sludge spreading
Numbers
Females
118
98
273
29
2
520
Total
185
192
586
75
15
1053
Males
38.9
43.7
54.4
60.3
61.5
52.5
Percent
Females
61.1
56.3
45.7
39.7
38.5
47.5
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
on a neighbor's fields?
Males
34.5
43.3
50.1
58.4
63.1
50.2
on your
Males
36.2
49.0
53.4
61.3
86.7
50.6
Percent
Females
65.5
56.7
49.9
41.6
36.9
49.8
land?
Percent
Females
63.8
51.0
46.6
38.7
13.3
49.4
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
18
-------
The analysis of reactions to sludge by personal experience with sludge
(See Table 8) shows that farmers who have used sludge would be favorably
disposed to use it again or to continue to use it. They also have very
favorable reactions to a neighbor using it and they also think that neigh-
bors' reactions will be very favorable. On the other extreme, people who
have not heard of it do not react favorably to sludge being spread on their
land, nor do they react favorably to sludge being spread on a neighbor's land,
nor do they think that neighbors would react favorably to their spreading
sludge.
To analyze the reaction to sludge by choice of sludge definition, the
correct definition (1. A product from municipal sewage treatment plants) was
compared to all of the incorrect definitions. (See Table 9.) It was found
that people who chose the correct definition have a more favorable reaction
to sludge usage. This was especially true for personal usage, where the
correct definition percentage progressively increases from 70.9% for very
unfavorable to 93.5% for very favorable; and for personal reaction to
neighbors' usage, where the correct definition percentage increases from
68.4% for very unfavorable to 92.3% for very favorable.
The analysis of reactions to sludge usage with the primary reasons
sludge is used shows a positive relationship between these two sets of
variables. Table 10 presents the means for each of the primary reasons for
using sludge. Here it can be seen that people who don't think helping the
cities is an important reason for using sludge also would be unfavorably
disposed to using sludge, having their neighbors use sludge or think their
neighbors' reaction to their sludge usage would be unfavorable. This same
relationship holds true for both other primary reasons for using sludge: to
take advantage of its fertilizer value and to help protect the environment.
The last attitudinal section of the questionnaire (Items 17-34) concerns
specific statements about municipal sewage sludge. The responses to these
18 individual attitude questions were subjected to a factor analysis in order
to identify the dimensions underlying the responses. The factor analysis
disclosed five underlying factors:
Factor 1: Sludge is a good source of nitrogen
fertilizer.
Factor 2: Chemical analysis of the sludge and land
should be conducted prior to application.
Factor 3: Sludge has minimal impacts on water quality,
odor, health or prevalence of insects.
Factor 4: Sludge has undesirable impacts in the areas
of soil compaction, disease and insects,
and has minimal usefulness as a soil
conditioner.
Factor 5: Sludge should not be applied to land used
for dairy pasture or on growing crops.
19
-------
w
CO
p
CO
H
11
p
CO
X!
O
4-1
4-1
CJ
CO
QJ
5-4
13
O
rQ
rH
0
£5
O
PC
rH
cO
4-J
0
13
5-4
CO 4J
QJ *H
XI
MH
4-J O
O
25
13 4-1
5-i *H
CO
QJ MH
CC O
cn
5-1 4-1
O -H
XI
^C"^ *"Q
00 QJ
H C/}
QJ 3
25
4-1
H
13
QJ
cn
P
i i
CO
4-1
O
H
13
j_i
CO 4-1
QJ -H
el
MH
4J O
0
'O 4-J
5-1 -H
CO
QJ MH
PC 0
CO
5-1 4-1
O vH
Xl
X! 13
00 QJ
H cn
QJ p
25
4-J
H
rrj
QJ
CO
p
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
co rH oo m o r--
VO rH VO 00 O> CO vO r^
CN vo CTI co in CN
C--
CO
CN OO rH O- r-H CO T3
CO CN O CN vO QJ
r-H CN -H
MH
CO
m CT> CN rH r-- <} 5-4
in i-H CO «Cf t*** CN O
r-H r-H CO CN ON X)
,c
00
H
QJ
C
r^ r~~- cyi m o oo co
m co oo co -I CN
CN C
o
rrj
cO
QJ
5n CO
O r-H CO CT> 00 i i CX 5-1
1 vO o «j- CO CN CO QJ
CN i m ,Q
oo e
C 3
H 25
QJ
XI
O O co CM CN r-~ QJ
CN CN CO CO r-H r-H 00
-H 13
3
rH
CO
4-1
P
O
oo rH r^ m r^ oo x>
CN rH m co
rH
QJ
>. QJ
rH MH
CO rH 3
5H Xi O
O r*~> CO P>-^
> rH 5-1
cO Xi rd K^ O 13
MH CO QJ rH > rH
(C 5-4 13 Xi cO rH 3
3 O -H cO MH cO O
> U 5-i 4J £
>, cO QJ O >> O
5-4 MH 13 > JH H £
QJ C C cO QJ O
> p CD PM > PC
rH
rrt
TO
0
5-i
CO 4-1
Q) "rH
MH
4-1 0
O
T3 4-1
CO
QJ MH
PC 0
CO
J-l *I-J
O -H
XI
00 QJ
H rn
n yj
QJ p
25
4-1
H
QJ
CO
P
rH
CO
4-1
O
H
rrj
5-4
CO 4-J
QJ -H
X!
4J O
O
c^
T3 4-J
5-i -H
CO
QJ MH
CC 0
cn
5-1 4J
0 -H
o
X! 13
00 QJ
H CO
QJ 3
C3
4J
H
rrj
QJ
CO
P
O O O O O O
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
~d" vO vO CN OO m
- OO (C
o oo vo CM rH vd- a
-i
QJ
P^
cr\ m r-~ o vo m
I-H vo r^
i i ^ co o in co
r-~ <^- in m CN c
r-H CO O
00
a
H
ro
CO CO
*^" CO CN QJ 5-1
v£5 vO in O CO CM 5-i QJ
CM CN vO CX Xl
co g
3
QJ 25
00
""O
p
CTi r-H in VD O rH rH
i 1 CM CO i v£> o>i 5-i
CN rH in
CO
5-i
O
>> Xi
rH Xl
Xl >> 00
CO rH -H
5-4 Xi QJ
o >*i co pd
> rH 5-4
CO Xi T3 >-, O 13
MH CO QJ rH > rH
C 5-i 13 Xi ^ r~^ 3
3 O -H cO MH cO O
> O 5-i 4-J £
>% cO QJ O >> O
j_i HH T3 C* 5-1 E""1 15
QJ C C CO QJ 0
C> CD p Cn [> CC
rH
4J
O
5-4
CO 4J
QJ «H
XI
MH
4-1 O
0
25
13 4-1
CO
QJ MH
CC O
cn
5-1 4-1
O -H
rQ
00 QJ
H cn
QJ 3
25
4-1
H
QJ
CO
^
1
r1
cO
4-1
0
H
Tj
5H
CO 4-J
QJ iH
x:
MH
4-1 O
O
25
TJ 4J
5-1 -H
CO
QJ MH
PC 0
CO
5n 4-1
O -H
O
t_r^ nj^
00 QJ
H CO
QJ 3
25
4-1
H
13
QJ
CO
P
0 O O O O O
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
. . .
oo o ~3~ r-~ r^
CO CO CN 1 CM
CM m oo co o f~~* r*"- r 4 «^
ri I-H m o
i i
O 00 CO CO O 3" O O CT> f"^
oo o ,
rH
Xl r*~>
CO rH
r-l XI
O >> CO
> rH 5-1
cO ^ 13 C**! O
MH CO QJ rH >
C 5H T3 Xl CO rH
3 O -H cO MH cO
> U 5-i 4-1
>, cO 0) O !>> O
5-4 MH T3 > 5-i H
QJ £ (C CO QJ
> p p fe >
20
-------
TABLE 9. SLUDGE DEFINITION AND REACTIONS TO SLUDGE USAGE
How would you react to having sludge spread on your land?
Numbers
Very unfavorably
Unfavorably
Undecided
Favorably
Very favorably
Total
How would you feel
Very unfavorably
Unfavorably
Undecided
Favorably
Very favorably
Total
How would neighbor
Very unfavorably
Unfavorably
Undecided
Favorably
Very favorably
Total
Correct
(1)
107
97
282
210
72
768
Incorrect
(2-5)
44
23
50
31
5
154
about sludge being
Correct
(1)
108
101
389
289
60
947
react to
Correct
(1)
130
158
508
60
15
871
Numbers
Incorrect
(2-5)
50
26
68
41
5
190
Total
151
120
332
241
77
922
spread on
Total
158
127
457
330
65
1137
sludge spreading on
Numbers
Incorrect
(2-5)
49
35
74
14
0
172
Total
179
193
582
74
15
1043
Correct
(1)
70.9
80.8
84.9
86.8
93.5
83.3
a neighbor1
Correct
(1)
68.4
79.5
85.1
87.6
92.3
83.3
your land?
Correct
(1)
72.6
81.9
87.3
81.0
100.0
83.5
Percent
Incorrect
(2-5)
29.1
19.2
15.1
13.2
6.5
16.7
s fields?
Percent
Incorrect
(2-5)
31.6
20.5
14.9
12.4
7.7
16.7
Percent
Incorrect
(2-5)
27.4
18.1
12.7
19.0
0
16.5
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
21
-------
w
o
w
o
Q
O
CO
w
PH
Q
W
O
Q
hJ
CO
fc
o
w
CO
w
EC
H
O
H
CO
Z
O
o
w
w
H-j-
PQ
<
H
CO
QJ
5-i
ex
co
QJ
oo
00
c
H
T3
0
X
4-1
C
QJ
E
C
O
)_i
H
>
C
QJ
QJ
,c
4-1
4-1
CJ
QJ
4-J
O
5-1
CX
CX
rH
QJ
X
CO
CO
H
J>~,
rH
CO
CO
o
CX
CO
H
TD
00 rH M-l
C
H
"O
CO
QJ
a
CO
T3
£j
CO
rH
QJ
CJ
en
H
CO
rH
CO
4-J
C
QJ
c2
C
0
J_l
H
>
£
QJ
QJ
5_i
O
E
O
CO
C
CO
f\ \
UJ
E
QJ
rH
fl
CO
4J
CX
QJ
CJ
a
co
CO
TD
O
f,
4-1
01
u>
J-l
QJ
_("|
4-1
O
c
CO
X
4-J
o*\ m vjo <3~ i CN O"> O ^D m
ON r-- CN oo m o
CTN *n o co in o
CN CO <3" -CJ" ~3~
"Tj
CO
QJ
,y
co
H
rH
H
O
CO
T3
£
CO
>_!
QJ
N
H
rH
H
4J
5.1
QJ
MH
QJ
4-J
M-t
O
QJ
3
rH
CO
>
00
c
H
C
o
H «
4-1 QJ
H 00
""O *"O
C 3
0 rH
a co
m i i CN o r*»- vo
CO CO C7N " I ^O vO
CN CO O> 00 O CT\
vO CN 00 CO O^» 0s*
CN co co
5-4
O
CX
.1
00
H
CO
C
CO
4J
5-i
O
cx
3
QJ
T3
O
4J
C
CO
4J
5-i
O
CX
QJ
>
QJ
CJ
C
CO
4-1
5-4
O
ex
E
H
(JO
H
<4-(
0
CO
4-J
O
H
CN'
CO
*"O
rH
QJ
H
M-l
CO
S-i
o
,Q
^c
00
H
QJ
C
CO
O
TJ
CO
QJ
5-i
CX
CO
00
c
H
QJ
QJ
00
TJ
3
rH
CO
4-1
3
O
,n
CO
rH
QJ
QJ
M-l
3
O
K^l
""O
1 1
3
O
15
S
O
EC
4-1 rH
C CO
QJ CO
E 0
C co ex
O CO
5-i CO -H
H -H T3
C OOrH M-l .
QJ C rH O CO
H CO -O
QJ T3 4J CO O
f, CO C C rC
4J QJ QJ CO 4J
S-i E QJ QJ
4-» ex C E E
a co o
QJ T3 S-i QJ S-i
4J C -H rH QJ
O CO > X> X
M rH C CO 4J
CX QJ 4J O
QJ CX
CX CJ QJ QJ C
rH C S-I O CO
QJ -H O CJ X
EE CO E CO 4J
QJ
QJ M-^
X O
4J rH
H QJ
M-l O 3
O CO rH
CO
QJ TJ >
00 C
CO CO 00
4-1 C
CO QJ C
> N O
T3 -H -H
CO rH 4J QJ
H «H 00
QJ 4-1 T3 T3
^5 5^ C 3
CO QJ O -H
H M-l CJ CO
QJ
00
CO QJ
QJ 4J
CO
M-l
T3 O
CO T3
H
CO 5-1
QJ
4J QJ
H 00
CJ
CO
QJ 4-J
X O
4-1 -H 0)
5-i 00
cx 4J *a
rH CO 3
QJ -H rH
EC TD CO
<) OO i l m i i CN
vo <} m r^~ i i vo
O 00 ro ro cT> ro
> i vo i m ro o
O") CO d- CN
CTv f^ r i CN O O
CN CO ~, rC O
4-1 -H T3 5-1 H
O i 1 O QJ M-l
Z CO 2 > O
22
-------
^-v
*"O
0)
3
C
H
4-J
C
0
a
v^X
C
1 1
w
rJ
|T|
<^
H
4-1 rH
C CO
CU CO
E o
C CO CX
O CO
>-i CO -H
H 'H 13
£> £>-,
C bO rH 4-1
CU C rH O CO
H CO 13
CU 13 4-J CO O
x: co c C x:
4-» CU 0) CO 4J
>-i E QJ CU
4-1 ex c E E
O CO O
CU 13 r-l CU r-l
4-1 C -H rH CU
O CO > x> -C
!-i rH C CO 4-i
ex cu 4-1 o
cu cx
ex o cu cu c
rH C M 0 CO
CU 'H O U X3
PS co E co 4-i
cu
x:
4-J
CU 4-1
x: o
41 rH
H CU
4-^03
O CO rH
CO
0) -0 >
bfi C
cO CO bO
0- 4-J C
13 C r-i -H
C co CU C
CO > N O
rH 13 «H -H
CO rH 4-J CU
r-l -H -H bO
3 OJ 4-J "O 13
0 ^J !H C 3
>-, CO CU O rH
H 4-1 O CO
C
O
CU
bC bO
C CO CU
H £ x:
13 CU 4-J
co co
0) 4-1
M nd o
ex c
CO CO T3
H
CU CO H
bO CU
3 4-1 CU
rH *H bO
CO O
CO
O CU 4-J
4-1 x: o
4J -H QJ
4-) r-l bO
a cx 4-1 13
CO rH CO 3
CU CU -H rH
^-t P3 13 CO
CO
M
o
o
x:
bO
H
cu
C
13
rH
3
O
[5
[5
0
ffi
O rH CO
CN CO CO CO <3" CO
? 1 LO rH f^ rH V^
rH CN ON CN rH OO
O 00 O 00 vO vD
C^ *3" ^O ^D vO LO
CN CO CO CO CO CO
CU
4-J 4-1 O
C C C
CO 4-> CO CO
4-J C 4-J 4-J
>-l CO S-l V-l
O 4-1 O O
CX r-i CX 4-1 CX
6 0 g C E
H CX -H CO -H
E JJ
r-t -H >, 5-1 4-J
rH rH O CO
CO >^ CU CX CU
rH 4-1 E XI -H
4-J 4-J CO -H 00 CO
co x: >-i -H 4-1
bo cu >^ x: o
4-» -H 13 >-l H
O rH O 01 4-1
2 c/3 S > O
cu
rH
Xi
CO
i_l
o
^>
CO
4-t
C
3
K^i
J-l
cu
>
II
CN
*
cu
rH
CO
CJ
co
C
o
H
4J
o
CO
cu
U
H
o
CX
1
LO
4-1
o
cu
S-j
o
a
CO
C
CO
cu
s
CO
C
CO
cu
E
cu
i_l
CO
cu
J
XI
cO
4-)
CO
H
x:
4-1
C
H
CO
cu cu
3 rH
rH XI
CO co
> r-l
o
cu >
x: co
4-> 4H
4H ^
0 r-l
cu
rH >
-------
These five factors were analyzed by the various background characteristics of
the respondents, through the use of an analysis of variance. It was found
that experience with land application of sewage sludge and willingness to
allow sludge usage were almost always significant in relation to the five
factors (See Table 11A). Because of the high degree of significance with
these two variables, a multiple classification analysis (MCA) was performed to
determine the extent to which significance on the other variables might be
due to their interrelatedness to these two variables (i.e., "experience with
land application" and "willingness to allow one's land to be used for land
application"). The results of this multiple classification analysis (MCA) are
shown in Table 11B. In Table 11B it can be seen that many of the interactions
that were found to be significant (Table 11A) can be explained because of the
two variables concerning experience and willingness to use sludge. The four
remaining significances indicate the following four trends. One, that people
who live on a small farmunder 100 acresmore strongly agree with Factor
1 - "Sludge is a good source of nitrogen fertilizer," than do people who live
on larger farms. The means, on a 5 point scale, l=strongly disagree,
5=strongly agree, are:
Less than 100 acres = 3.3810
101-300 acres = 3.1654
Over 300 acres = 3.1672
Two, that property owners agree to a greater degree with Factor 3 - "Sludge
has minimal impacts on water quality, odor, health or prevalance of insects."
than do tenants. The means are:
Property owners = 2.8626
Tenants = 2.6254
Three, that people over 65 and, four, that farmers each agree with Factor 4 -
"Sludge has undesirable impacts in the areas of soil compaction, disease and
insects and has minimal usefulness as a soil conditioner," the means for age
are:
65+ = 3.1201
51-65 = 2.9941
36-50 = 2.8513
26-35 = 2.9511
18-25 = 2.9375
the means for occupation are:
Farmers = 3.0815
Non-farmers = 2.9246
As stated previously, willingness to allow sludge usage was consistently
significant in relation to all 5 factors. And, experience with the land
24
-------
CJ
En
i i
CJ
CM
CO
o
CO
fx
0
H
U
En
Ed
pr
£_,
O Ed
H CJ
O CO
Ed ^D
H
< Ed
rJ O
Ed C!
, 1
CO CO
Q
CO QiS
CJ <
M 3:
H O
CO H
i i
Q£ CO
Ed Ed
H Q
< H
(V| H*
< H
U <
/\
2
1 i
O
CJ
CJ
00
.
f H
,_(
Ed
3
<^
H
^
0
3S
PQ 03
S-J
O
4-J
CJ
CO
En
m
^j-
ro
CN
,-H
X
s-
o
CJ
CO
En
m
»^
CO
CN
P i
cc ir\ -<
^
oo r^ ON
i 1 O O">
O O> CTN
O VO r-H
ON CN 00
tn
.
X -X
CN oo i CN CO
O O c-O
O O rn
. . .
X -X
in o o>
oo o i
-^ c c
. . .
o ^o m
^C ^O CN
O CN CN
.
00 OO OO
O*1* O"^ OO
O CO ^
4J
SH
cu
c-
c
}H
C.
cO
3
O
i^l
cu x a
e£ cu >-i
< CO <
in
CO
°^
-,
"Si
CO
c^
00
vD
00
^
v£>
CN
,-H
r~»
^^
0s*
X
^H
O
o
CO
f~-»
^c
CO
<)
r~-
CN
O^
CN
C
o
oo
-j£
CN
o
c
TJ
a
E
i_i
CO
U-l
SH
O
T3
CU
^
^
0
03
OJ
s-
CJ
CO
u
0
in
CU
o
E
3
C
rH
CO
4-1
C
H
Ed Ed
hJ 1 J
PQ PQ
CJ CJ
fi HH
PH CM
P_j ^__4
-i "r-i
^J
J^ CU 3 CO
4-i cc o cu
H "U 1 1 r-i
J5 3 r i P
rH CO 03
cu 03 -a
CJ 3 C
C CU O CO
CU &C r*1 "~~(
H CO
IH ^ "U i-1
CU 0 rH 0
C- 03 3 L
X 0
Ed 3:
CU
CJ
C
CO
CJ
H
U i
H
C
&c
H
X
UH
O
4-1
X
a
4-1
CU
CJ
C
CO
H
CO
>
u_
0
X
H
03
>i
rH
CO
C
CO
C
CO
OC
C
H
X
3
4-1
C
CO
CJ
H
U-,
H
C
5£
H
CO
X
25
-------
application of sewage sludge was related to all but one of the factors. These
relationships are presented in Table 12. Specifically, one can see that
people who would allow sludge to be spread on their land: (1) believe that
sludge is a good source of nitrogen fertilizer; (2) do not feel as great a
need as unwilling people that chemical analysis of the sludge and land should
be conducted prior to application; (3) believe that sludge has minimal impacts
on water quality, odor, health or prevalence of insects; (4) do not believe
that sludge has undesirable impacts in the areas of soil compaction, disease
and insects and has minimal usefulness as a soil conditioner; and, (5) believe
that sludge should not be applied to land used for dairy pasture or on
growing crops. Similarly, people who have had sludge spread on their land
hold similar views, except that their belief that sludge should not be
applied to land used for dairy pasture or on growing crops is not as strong
as that of groups with less experience.
Knowledge and Interest
Sewage sludge knowledge, both current and interest in the subject
(Items 35-75), was analyzed in relation to place of residence. For the
total sample, each of the 41 knowledge questions were analyzed in terms of
means for both current knowledge and interest in the specific subject area.
The difference of these means was analyzed by place of residence (i.e., the
three subsamples): farm, non-farm rural, and urban/suburban.
In general, people who live on a farm start out with the greatest
knowledge, followed by the non-farm rural group, and then the urban/suburban
group. The farm group, in addition to starting out with the greatest
knowledge, also has the greatest interest level. (This is not surprising
since these are the people who are going to have to decide whether or not
they want to use municipal sewage sludge.) The difference in the means
also tends to be greatest among the farm group. These means and differences
between means are provided in Table 13.
As shown in Table 13, questions 35 and 36 (i.e., landscape character-
istics to consider in landspreading sludge; and physical properties of the
soil to consider in landspreading) have the greatest current knowledge,
namely, a mean of 2.0 out of a maximum 5.0. However, on these two questions,
the interest in knowing (2.9) is not much greater than the current knowledge.
Interest in knowing for these two items is among the lowest for all the
items.
Questions 57 and 58 (i.e., presence of disease causing bacteria in
sewage sludge and threat to human health; and, presence of heavy metals in
sludge and dangers to crops, animal, and human health) are the areas where
people (i.e., the total sample) have the greatest interest in knowing,
namely, a mean of 3.5. The latter question on heavy metals also exhibits
the greatest difference between the current knowledge and the interest in
knowing means; namely a difference of 2.0. This is true because the current
knowledge mean is 1.5 and the interest in knowing mean is 3.5. This large
difference between current knowledge and interest in knowing with respect to
the heavy metals question is consistent for each of the three place of
residence subgroups.
26
-------
TABLE 12. MEAN* SCORES OF WILLINGNESS TO ALLOW SLUDGE USAGE
AND EXPERIENCE WITH SLUDGE BY THE 5 FACTORS
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5
A. Would you allow your land
to be used for land-
spreading of sludge?
No
Yes
B. Experience with land
application of sewage
sludge
Sludge has been spread
on my land
Sludge has been spread
on a neighbor's land or
in the community
Have heard of the land
application of sludge
Have not heard of the
land application of
sludge
3.0844
3.4024
N.S
N.S
N.S
N.S
3.9610 2.3870 3.2434 3.0442
3.7082 3.1467 2.7026 2.5551
3.6209 3.1537 2.6715 2.6375
3.8505 2.7964 3.0214 2.8917
3.8850 2.8245 2.9174 2.7499
3.7097 2.5352 3.0808 2.8396
* Mean score of a 5-point agreement scale, 1 = strongly disagree, 5 =
strongly agree.
27
-------
o
z
M
&
O
JS
M
H
CO
s
w
H
IS
M
Q
<3
!>
a
M C
H
CX
o
c^
CU
4J 6C
C 13
CU CU
5-1 rH
P O
u c
c
CN.
1 CJ
T3 *H
C rH
cO xi
rH 3
o,
c
H »«
CO
M cu
cu o
TJ M
H 3
CO O
d co
o
U >-i
0)
O 4-1
4-> CO
s
CO
a >
H CU
4-1 a
CO O
H rH
>-t CO
CU v'
4-1
O a)
CO 60
>-! TJ
CO D
X rH
o co
0) 60
ex c
CO -H
O T3 /-N
CO CO CO
TJ CU 13
C 5-i CO
CO CX O
i-J CO 5-(
CN
s
1
S-S
o«
co
co
o
en
5-i
5-i 0)
CO 4-1
f
s
i
s
I
coo)
i
:
1
B
O.
-------
^
nd
cu
P
C3
H
4-1
C3
0
O
^
i i
w
PQ
rH
rH
co m
O rH
co H
C3
cu nd
B £3 C
cO cO
C3 43 ro
CU C3 5-1
CU CO P rH
IS 43 43
4-1 5-1 P
CU P CO
43
cu B
o C
f3 CO i 1
CU M-l CO <*
5-115-4
CU C P rH
M-l O 5-i
M-l ^
H
° B
cO
PH -!
00
4-J f3
CO *H
CU £ -H
5-i O
CU f3 rn
1 I tv*
4 ' t-X
c
CO M C
C -H
CO
cu
4-1 00
C3 rrd
cu cu ^0
5-1 rH
5-4 [S rH
P 0
"5
1 1
cu
C3
o
O
p
P
H
CO
CO
CO
4-1
O
CX
nd
CO
CO
p
o
43
CX
CO
o
CX
« cu
c oo
cu nd
00 P
O rH
5-1 CO
4-1
H MH
JS 0
^
1 1
CO
1 1
m
rH
m
i i
o>
CN
m
i i
nd
p-
CO
>->
j_i
nd
,.
o
cu
CO
p
C
CO
4-1
H
! I
H
8
rH
H
CO
>
CO CU
00
CU Td
> p
Comparati
liquid si
m
i i
^r
i i
^
i i
vD
i i
O
m
m
i i
CO
cu
cu
C r**
rH CU
H «4H
O CO
CO CO
P*, cu
CU CO
C 0
H
B -tJ
C co
CU 43
4-J 4-J
CU
nd cu
00
CO nd
cO P
rH
CO CO
^
O
^
m
rH
5-i
CU
N
H
rH
H CO
4-1 rH
5-1 'H
cu o
M-l CO
rH nd
CO CU
H nd
o c
5-i CU
cu B
1 1
o
O 0)
00
C P
cO i 1
CO
00
c c
H O
Soil test
required
vO
rH
m
*
i i
vO
rH
^
^
O
m
i i
m
en"
m
*
i t
cu
00
id
P
C rH
H CO
i^MH
4-1 O
H
rH CO
CO 4-J
CXrH
H P
O CO
H CU
C 5-i
B rC
4-1
CU -H
4-1
CO
M-4 5-4
O CU
C
CO £
cu o
H nd
P C3
H CO
t-H rH
H
Responsib
providing
analysis.
r*.
rH
1^
*
vO
*
r 1
o>
t i
CN
m
f3
p
O
E
CO
CU
4-1
CO
Td cx
C 0
CO 5-i
0
CO
rH 43
cu
H nd
P^ cu
CX 5-4
0 0
5^ CO
O ^
c^
M-l
o to
rH
00 cO
Monitorin
heavy met
CO
i i
CO
r^
r^
*
rH
O^
,H
cn
m
nd
5-i CO
cu cu
4-1 rH
CO
3 o'
M-l C
O -H
N
00 ^
Monitorin
elements
nitrates .
ON
i 1
o*\
f_l
00
1
o
CN
m
m
vo
,
43
C3 4-J
H rH
CO
co cu
H 43
5-i
CU C
4-1 CO
o E
CO p
43 43
00 O
C 4-1
H
CO 4-)
p CO
CO CU
U VH
CU 4-1
CO
CO nd
CU C
CO CO
H
nd CU
00
M-I nd
0 P
Presence
sewage si
o
CN
0
CN
O
CXI
O
rH
m
m
nd
cu
m c
*H
^ C
a
CO
5-i
cu
00
a
cO
nd
nd
C
cO
CU 43
00 4J
nd rH
P CO
i-H CU
CO 43
a c
H cO
E
CO P
rH 43
CO
4-J nd
CU C
E CO
^> *>
> rH
cO CO
cu 6
^ C
M-l CO
O
Presence
to crops,
29
-------
,-N
Td
cu
3
C
H
4-1
c
O
CJ
CO
rH
W
i-J
CQ
H
rH
0) O~N vD CO
4J t
CO H
C
03
QJ Td
e c c
03 03
C x> O r~- CN
CU C S-<
CU 03 3 CN r 1 rH
£ X) X
CU ^3 CO
X
cu g
CJ SH
C 03 rH
CU M-l 03 ON vD CO
>H | !H . .
M-l O ^
M I £2
H
Q
C 00 v£> CO
03
00
4-1 C
CO -H
CU 5 CO sj O
(HO
CU C co ro co
c
CO M C
C -H
03
cu
S cu
4-1 00
C T3
cu cu m oo r^.
(H rH . .
CJ) C
c
o
c
C «H
o
H CO
4-1 C
. rj
03 O
CJ -H
H 4-1
Threats to wildlife of sludge appl
forest and recreational areas.
Odor and insect nuisance considera
landspreading sludge.
Sludge application techniques
rH
'
O
CN
^
CN
00
K*~V
rH
cx
a
03
td
Machinery required to transport an
sludge.
^
CO
co
vO
°^
CN
"?
0 C
03 O
MH -H
i-l 4-1
3 a
co cu
r~i
^^ C
Comparison of sludge application b
spreading to application by soil i
m
^
00
i i
CO
m
I
*rd
C
03
rH
00
e
Recommended hygiene practices duri
spreading.
CN
H
CN
CO
ON
CN
^
Td
CU
CO
3
03
CJ
C
Means of preventing soil compact io
by machinery.
in
^
^
*
CN
CO
^
CU
00
3
rH
CO
M-l
O
CO
Economical advantages to landowner
use.
CO
CO
^
<^
CN
^
%
CO
CU
H
4J
C
3
O
Availability of sludge in Ohio's c
CO
CO
*
0^
CN
in
CU
00
3
CO
00
c
H
C
Sources and requirements for obtai
in Ohio's counties.
oo
r-
00
o
CN
CN
CO
*
CU
4-1
M-l
O
CO
CU
H
4-1
Responsibilities and legal liabili
landowner in landspreading sludge.
P^
^
00
CN
CO
m
c
o
H
4_l
CJ
CU
4J CD
Role of the Ohio Environmental Pro
Agency and local health department:
in
^
°:
i i
CO
m
j_.
0)
c
o
£j
03
rH
C
Value of a written contract betweei
and municipality.
-a
cu
3
C
30
-------
TJ
QJ
3
C
H
4-1
C
o
o
r (
w
PQ
H
co
03
QJ
g
C
QJ
QJ
4-1
QJ
QJ
a
C
QJ
5-1
QJ
ll 1
MH
H
O
co
C
CO
QJ
j^
rH
03
4J
0
H
in
i i
T3
C C
03 0)
rQ
C 5-J
03 3
"S 'B
p to
e
p
CO rH
M-l CO
1 5-1
C 3
O 5-i
o-
i i
^3-
! 1
g
03
00
CO «H
QJ £
5-i O
QJ C
4-J ^i
M £
H
v£>
t 1
1 1
CO
QJ
4J 00
C f"O
QJ QJ
*"" ^
3 O
0 C
vO
to
QJ
CO
CO
QJ
O
O
5-1
a
4-1
C
QJ
g
4-1
CO
QJ
5-J
4-J
QJ
00
T3
3
rH
CO
QJ
60
03
[5
QJ
C/J
00
1 1
r^
i i
r~^.
r i
(^
i i
CO
CO
m
M-l
0
C
o
H
4-J
a
3
5-4
4-1
CO
QJ
T3
QJ CO
rC "H
4-1 5-1
QJ
5-1 4-1
0 CJ
M-l CO
o
4-1
C 00
QJ C
g -H
4-J CO
CO 3
QJ CO
5-i 0
4-1
QJ
QJ CO
00 CO
TJ QJ
3 to
rH -H
en TJ
v£>
1 1
m
r 1
'vC
<
1
J
. 1
CO
in
00
c
H
-o
CO
QJ
5-i
a
to
TJ
g
CO
rH
QJ
C
O
TJ
QJ
J>
CO
jrl
_(",
O
H
t~l
jj
to
QJ
H
4-J
C
3
O
CJ
O
H
,d
O
r-
T 1
vD
'
vD
t i
OO
i i
0
CO
CO
QJ
00
CO
£5
QJ
CO
rH
CO
a
H
o
H
c
3
g
5-i
O
M-l
TJ
QJ
"Tj
QJ
QJ
C
O rH
H CO
& to
O 0
CL
C to
H -H
T3
QJ
00 QJ
CO 00
QJ T3
r-J 3
CJ rH
<3 to
31
-------
A large difference between the two means (i.e., 2.0) also exists for
the farm group for questions 57 and 69 (i.e., presence of disease causing
bacteria in sewage sludge and threat to human health; and responsibilities
and legal liabilities of the land owner in landspreading sludge). This large
difference between the knowledge and interest means also exists for the
urban/suburban group for question 59 (i.e., threats to wildlife of sludge
application on forest and recreational areas).
The range of the differences between means presented in Table 13 is
from 0.8 to 2.0. Any difference in the means which is greater than 1.5
should probably be considered an important area for education.
Survey Conclusions
In conclusion, the questionnaire that was sent to Ohio residents to
measure their attitudes toward the land application of municipal sewage
sludge found, in general, that the more people know about sludge, the less
they restrict its usage. The group within the general population that knows
the most about municipal sewage sludge are the farmers that have used it.
An educational program in which these sludge users discuss the topic with
their fellow farmers might be an optimum approach in changing the attitudes
of individuals who currently have negative feelings about sludge. It also
might be beneficial to find out from those people who have used sludge the
advantages of municipal sewage sludge usage. These advantages could then
be used as a basis for other information programs. The Ohio Farm Bureau's
"Sludge Demonstration" project may demonstrate such "advantages."
It was also found through the survey that women in general know less
about sludge than do men, and therefore have more negative feelings about its
usage. Thus, an effective educational program aimed at women would probably
be essential to insure community acceptance of land application. The
education of women regarding land application could be of great importance
within the farm community. (It is impossible to say how many male farmers
would not allow the usage of municipal sewage sludge, because their wives,
who may know very little about the subject, are opposed to land application.)
As stated previously, the survey demonstrated that the more people know
about sludge, the more they are willing to use it and/or accept land
application in the community. Therefore, it appears reasonable that the
continual dissemination of accurate and balanced information on this topic
can only have positive effects.
Consideration was given to integration of the results of the survey with
those of other surveys of attitudes toward the land application of sewage
sludge. However, such integration, with the two other surveys which were
identified, did not appear to be meaningful because of differences in
response categories and because the other surveys were based on extremely
small samples.
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM
The educational program was developed and implemented through the
following steps:
32
-------
o Development of the educational program materials
o Development of pre-/post- meeting evaluation instruments
o Implementation of the educational meetings.
Each of these steps is discussed in the following pages. Also referenced
are the field trips which were dependent on implementation of the sludge
demonstration project.
Development of the Educational Program Materials
The educational program was developed on the basis of a preliminary
analysis of the survey data in the area of current knowledge and interest
in knowing. A draft outline of the educational program was developed
utilizing the survey information. This draft outline, together with the
preliminary analysis of survey results, was provided to subject matter
experts^ in the Ohio State University's Department of Agronomy and Department
of Agricultural Engineering. These subject matter experts developed a
detailed content outline for a series of 35min slides to be used during the
educational presentation. The content of the slide presentation consisted
of "text" slides and "photographs." The "text" slides were produced by
Battelle. A color format was used. The "photograph" slides were provided
by the subject matter experts.2 Battelle produced three complete sets of
the slide program. Two sets of the slide program were provided to the two
Ohio State University subject matter experts for use in their presentation
at the farm and non-farm rural group meetings. One copy of the slide program
was retained by the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation for use at the urban/suburban
group meetings and for our project files.
Development of the Pre-/Post-Meeting Evaluation Instruments
The pre-/post- meeting evaluation instruments were designed to be
filled out in a short amount of time in order to conserve meeting time for
the educational program and to maintain attendee motivation. Basically, a
subset of items were selected from the survey questionnaire in the areas of
background information and attitudes. In some instances the format of the
items was changed. Two forms of the pre-/post- meeting evaluation instrument
were developed. Form 1 was tailored primarily for a farm population. Form 2
was tailored for a non-farm or urban population.
Educational Meetings
Two series of educational meetings were held. The first series was
^These two subject matter experts gave the educational presentations
directed toward the farm group.
^Slides which were part of existing sludge education programs, principally
the educational program utilized by the City of Defiance, Ohio, Water
Pollution Control Department, were provided to the subject matter experts
for their review.
33
-------
directed primarily toward the farm population, although non-farm rural and
urban/suburban participants were not excluded. A meeting was held for the
farm population in each of the eight Ohio counties which were surveyed.
Locations and dates for the first series of educational meetings were:
Jackson County - March 30, 1978
Montgomery County - April 5, 1978
Pickaway County - April 6, 1978
Greene County - April 11, 1978
Defiance County - April 12, 1978
Medina County - April 13, 1978
Franklin County - April 19, 1978
Muskingum County - April 20, 1978
The meetings were scheduled in the evening, from 8:00 p.m. to approximately
9:30 p.m. for the convenience of the public. All meetings were held on
Tuesdays, Wednesdays, or Thursdays, and during a time of year when it was
expected that farmers would find it convenient to attend. Information
obtained from local extension agents confirmed that seasonal farm work was
not a problem with attendance, particularly in view of the extensive amount
of rain during this period. The meetings were arranged by the local
agricultural extension agent and/or Ohio Farm Bureau organization director
at centrally located public places, in order to encourage attendance.
Publicity for the meetings included personal contacts by the extension
agents and OFB organization directors, news paper notices, radio notices,
newspaper ads, and a variety of newsletters. Door prizes were offered as a
token incentive to attend, and so that registration cards for the prizes
could be used as an attendance list for mailing the post-meeting evaluation
instrument. Attendance at the meetings ranged from a low of 8 participants
in Medina County to a high of 35 in Franklin County. Participants were
mostly farmers but did include some non-farm interested citizens.
Participants were asked to fill out the pre-meeting evaluation instru-
ment prior to the start of the meeting. The meetings began normally at
about 8:15 p.m. with a description of the purpose of the program and
introduction of the speakers. Either Dr. Richard White or Dr. Robert Miller1,
both of Ohio State University presented the educational slide program which
took about 45 minutes, after which the meeting was opened for questions
until adjournment. In general, a large number of questions were asked.
1-Dr. Richard White is an associate professor and extension agricultural
engineer, The Ohio State University, Department of Agricultural Engineering.
Dr. Robert Miller is a professor, The Ohio State University, Department of
Agronomy.
34
-------
The meetings were formally adjourned at 9:30 p.m., but response to
additional questions usually continued to 10:00-10:30 p.m.
The second series of educational meetings were directed primarily toward
the urban/suburban population, although the farm and non-farm rural popula-
tion were not excluded. Because of concern about attendance of the urban/
suburban population at an advertised meeting, it was decided to reach this
population group through educational meetings presented as part of a civic
club or organization's regularly scheduled meeting. Civic clubs which
participated were: Lions International, Rotary Internationl, Ruritan
National, Sertoma International, and the Upper Arlington Extension Homemakers
Club.
A meeting was held for a civic club in six of the Ohio counties which
were surveyed. Meetings for the urban/suburban group could not be
scheduled for Muskingum and Montgomery Counties. However, a substitute was
found for Muskingum County (i.e., Belmont County). Locations and dates for
the second series of educational meetings were:
Jackson County - May 3, 1978
Belmont County - May 16, 1978
Franklin County - May 18, 1978
Medina County - May 22, 1978
Defiance County - May 25, 1978
Greene County - May 31, 1978
Pickaway County - June 1, 1978
Some of these meetings were held in the evening, following dinner and some of
the meetings were held in the early afternoon, following lunch. Attendance
at the meetings ranged from a low of 21 to a high of 74. Participants were
mostly non-farmers from urban, suburban or non-farm rural areas, although
some farmers were in attendance.
Participants were asked to fill out the pre-meeting evaluation instru-
ment prior to the start of the educational presentation. The educational
slide presentation was tailored to the available time (35-45 minutes) and
was presented by Mr. Ned Musselman of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation and
Mr. Lawrence Welling of Battelle-Columbus. Following the presentation, the
meeting was opened for questions. The extent of questioning was dependent
upon available time. With respect to the meetings in Jackson County and
Belmont County, names and addresses of attendees were obtained for purposes
of mailing the post-meeting evaluation instrument. The post-meeting
evaluation instrument was administered immediately following the educational
presentation at the other meetings.
35
-------
Field Trips
As originally planned, field trips to demonstration sites in the four
Ohio counties participating in the demonstration project were to be conducted
by Farm Bureau personnel. Due to delays in obtaining funding for the
demonstration project, the Farm Bureau was not able to implement the
demonstration project as early as scheduled. Consequently, an evaluation of
such field trips was not possible as part of this study on the effectiveness
of land application education methods.
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM
The effectiveness of the educational program was determined through the
following two steps:
o Adminstration of the pre-/post- meeting evaluation
instruments.
o Analysis of educational program effectiveness data.
Both of these steps are described in the following pages.
Administration of the Pre-/Post- Meeting Evaluation Instruments
A slightly different methodology for the two series of educational
meetings was followed in the adminstration of the pre-/post- meeting
evaluation instruments. Two somewhat different forms of meeting evaluation
instruments were used for the two series of educational meetings. Form I
was used for the first series of meetings. Form II was used for the second
series of meetings. No personal identification information was collected on
the evaluation instruments in order to preserve anonymity.
Educational Meeting-Series Number 1
For the first series of educational meetings (i.e., those directed
primarily toward the farm population) the pre-meeting evaluation instrument
(Form I) was administered and collected immediately prior to the educational
presentation. At the same time, attendees were asked to fill out a name and
address card. This name and address card was used for the selection of door
prize winners (an attendance incentive) and also to mail out the post-meeting
evaluation instrument. The post-meeting evaluation instrument (Form I) was
mailed approximately two weeks after the date of the meeting.
Generally, most attendees filled out the pre-meeting instrument. As
shown in Table 14A, the total response rate of post-meeting instruments was
54.5%. Medina County had the highest response rate (100.00%) and Greene
County had the lowest response rate (33.3%).
Educational Meeting-Series Number 2
For the second series of educational meetings (i.e., those directed
primarily toward the non-farm, urban/suburban population) the pre-meeting
evaluation instrument (Form II) was administered and collected immediately
36
-------
TABLE 14. EVALUATIVE RESPONSE RATE OF EDUCATIONAL MEETINGS
A
Form 1
County Pre Post(*) %
Medina (A) 4 4 100.0
Defiance (D) 15 7 46.7
Franklin (F) 30 18 60.0
Greene (G) 9 3 33.3
Jackson (J) 7 5 71.4
Muskingum (K) 18 9 50.0
Montgomery (M) 7 3 42.9
Pickaway (P) 22 12 54.5
Belmont (B) -
Total 112 61 54.5
:B
Form 2
Pre Post %
54 45 83.1
22 22 100.0
21 18 85.7
29 18 62.1
24 7* 29.2
_
-
62 51 82.3
29 11* 37.9
241 172 71.4
(*) Post test mailed.
Questionnaires that were handed back blank were not counted. There
were also people who did not fill out a pre-meeting questionnaire,
but whose name and address were obtained. These individuals may have
returned the post-meeting questionnaire. This may result in a
slight variance in the percentage of responses.
37
-------
prior to the educational presentation. For two of the counties, namely
Jackson County and Belmont County, meeting attendees were also asked to fill
out a name and address card. For these two counties, the post-meeting
instrument (Form II) was identical to the pre-meeting instrument (Form II)
and was mailed approximately two weeks after the date of the meeting. For
the other five Series 2 educational meetings, the pre-meeting evaluation
instrument (Form II) was administered and collected immediately prior to the
educational presentation, and the post-meeting instrument (Form II) was
administered and collected immediately following the meeting or question and
answer period.
As shown in Table 14B, the total response rate of post-meeting instru-
ments was 71.4%. Defiance County had the highest response rate (100.0%)
and Jackson County had the lowest response rate (29.2%). However, it must
be remembered that post-meeting instruments for the Jackson meeting were sent
and returned by mail.
Analysis of Educational Program Effectiveness
The effectiveness of the educational program was determined by an
analysis of the responses on the pre- and post- meeting evaluation instru-
ments. This analysis is discussed separately in the following pages for the
first series of educational meetings (Form I evaluation instrument) and for
the second series of educational meetings (Form II evaluation instrument).
Form I
Form I was designed to be filled out by a farm population. The 27
questions can be divided into background information and attitudes. The
background information for both the pre- and post- meeting instruments are
presented because the return rate of the post-meeting instrument is only
54% of the pre-test. This information is presented in Table 15. As shown
in Table 15, the targeted population was reached via the first series of
meetings. The pre-test results show that 65.2% live on a farm and 75.0% are
at least part-time farmers. For the post-test, an almost identical 65.6%
live on a farm and 76.4% are at least part-time farmers. Prior to the
particular meeting in the respective counties, only 18.0% of the attendees
had previously attended a meeting on sludge. Among the people who attended
the educational meetings, 8.4% had used sludge themselves (this compares with
4.7% of the surveyed Ohio population). In addition: 8.4% of the attendees
had seen it in use; 54.2% had read articles on the subject or attended
educational meetings; and 24.3% had no specific source of information on
sludge. When this group was asked if they would be willing to use sludge,
42.9% of the pre-test indicated they would, compared to 47.5% of the post-
test. While there is an increase in willingness to use sludge, it is not
significant.
Also no_^ significant were the differences in attitudes in the questions
related to use of sludge, both personal use and a neighbor's use. (See
Table 16.) There were significant results on 13 of the 18 specific
attitudinal questions. In all but one case the mean increased, which means
the respondents' attitudes were more favorable. (These significances were
for questions 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 26 and 27.) The
38
-------
TABLE 15. BACKGROUND VARIABLES ON FORM 1 (FARM POPULATION)
Pre-test
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Place of residence
Farm
Non-farm, rural
Urban or suburban
Total
Principal occupation is farming
No
Yes
Total
Part-time fanner
No
Yes
Full-time farmer
Total
Would you allow your land to be used
for the landspreading of sludge?
No
Yes
Don't know
Do not live on a farm
Total
Attended meeting on sludge disposal
No
Yes
Total
No.
73
14
25
112
61
51
112
28
36
48
112
16
48
19
29
112
91
20
111
%
65.1
12.5
22.3
100.0
54.5
45.5
100.0
25.0
32.1
42.9
100.0
14.3
42.9
17.0
25.9
100.0
82.0
18.0
100.0
Post-test
No.
40
5
16
61
36
25
61
15
23
23
61
13
29
6
13
61
%
65.6
8.2
26.2
100.0
59.0
41.0
100.0
24.6
37.7
37.7
100.0
21.3
47.5
9.8
21.3
100.0
Source of information regarding land
application of municipal sewage sludge
Have attended educational meetings
or programs on the land application
of sewage sludge 12 11.2
Have read articles or brochures on
the land application of sewage
sludge 32 29.9
Farm Bureau meetings 14 13.1
Have used it myself 8 7.5
Have seen it in use 9 8.4
Other 6 5.6
No source of information 107 100.0
(continued)
39
-------
TABLE 15 (continued)
Pre-test Post-test
No. % No.
Definition of sewage sludge
A product from municipal sewage treatment
plants 91 87.5 56 91.8
Septic tank pumpings 1 1.0 0 0
Raw, untreated sewage 0 0 1 16
Any animal waste materials l I.Q 0 *Q
More than one of the above 9 8.7 4 66
Other 2 l'.9 0 *0
Total 104 100.0 61 100.0
40
-------
TABLE 16. ATTITUDINAL VARIABLES FOR FORM 1 (FARM POPULATION)
Means T-value
Pre-test Post-test 2-Tail prob
How would you react to having sludge
spread on your land?
How would you feel about sludge being
spread on a neighbor's fields?
4.368
4.427
4.372*
4.527*
.979
.519
It is important for the farm community
to use sludge to help the cities and
the sewage districts. 3.275 3.639** .019"
The use of sludge on farm land will help
protect the environment, since land
spreading is a more environmentally
acceptable means of disposal than other
methods. 3.477 3.787** .027"
The only reason farmers should use
sludge is to take advantage of its
fertilizer and soil conditioning value. 3.464 3.180** .106
Significant soil compaction will occur
during sludge spreading no matter what
equipment or methods are used.
There is little chance that sewage
sludge can spread human disease.
Sewage sludge is a good source of
nitrogen fertilizer.
A farmer needs a legal contract to pro-
tect his rights and liability any time
he allows sludge to be spread on his land. 3.477 3.836** .016"
The amount of sludge which would have to
be applied before any changes occur in
soil structure is so great that the use-
fulness of sludge as a soil conditioner
is minimal. 2.891 2.966** .600
There is a minimal, organic odor present
when sludge is first applied that
quickly disappears as the sludge dries
out. 3.414 3.867** .000"
Applying sewage sludge to pasture land
is likely to contribute to the spread
of disease among livestock. 2.746 3.050** .050H
(continued)
2.682
3.315
3.179
2.443**
3.623**
3.770**
.086
.017+
.000+
41
-------
TABLE 16 (continued)
Means
T-value
Pre-test Post-test 2-Tail prob
Almost all of Ohio's crop and pasture
land is appropriate for land application
of sludge. 3.982
If properly applied, there is little
chance of runoff of sewage sludge into
ponds and streams during or after
application. 3.405
Sewage sludge provides a source of
nitrogen which is significantly
cheaper than commercial fertilizers. 3.351
Sludge should not be applied to dairy
farm pasture land. 3.297
Heavy metals (e.g., zinc, lead, cadmium,
copper, mercury, etc.) in sewage sludge
always have detrimental effects on soil
productivity. 3.000
Landspreading of sewage sludge produces
serious insect problems. 2.764
A complete chemical analysis of sludge
should be conducted prior to land
application. 3.982
A complete soil analysis should be
performed prior to sludge application. 3.882
3.082** .528
3.951** .000+
3.787** .000+
3.983** .000+
2.885** .417
2.262** .000+
4.361** .000+
4.180** .021+
* These questions use a 5-point favorability scale; 2 = very unfavorable,
6 = very favorable.
**These questions use a 5-point agreement scale; 1 = strongly disagree,
5 = strongly agree.
+ Significant
42
-------
remaining question, 25, was worded negatively: "Landspreading of sewage
sludge produces an insect problem," so the decreased change in the mean from
2.764 in the pre-test to 2.262 in the post-test was desirable.
Form II
Form II was designed to be filled out by a non-farm population. The
15 questions can be divided into background information and attitudes. The
background information for both the pre- and post- tests are presented
because the rate of return of the post-test is only 71% of the pre-test.
This information is presented in Table 17. As shown in Table 17, the
targeted population was reached via the second series of meetings. In the
pre-test 87.1% do not live on a farm and 80.9% do not farm. Similarly, in
the post-test, 86.0% do not live on a farm and 80.1% do not farm. Prior to
these meetings only 9.2% of the attendees had specific information on
municipal sewage sludge. This would account for the 38.0% who, prior to the
meeting, indicate that they "don't know" the most environmentally and
economically sound means of sewage sludge disposal. An additional 23.6%
indicated an approach other than land application as the most environmentally
and economically sound means of sludge disposal. This compares with 9.4% who
"don't know" and 7.0% who indicate a method other than land application,
after listening to the educational presentation. These results, which are
significant, at a .0000 level using a Chi-Square Test of Significance
indicate that the advantages and benefits of land application were success-
fully transmitted during the meetings. Also significant at the .0000 level
was the knowledge of what sewage sludge is. Prior to the meeting 70.5% knew
the correct definition, compared to 91.7% after the meeting.
In addition, there was a significant change in this group's attitude
toward both a neighbor or anyone in the community spreading sludge on their
land. On this item, the mean increased from 3.089 to 3.564 for a neighbor's
land and from 3.278 to 3.768 for land in the community. A larger mean
indicates a more favorable response (See Table 18). There were significant
results on 7 of the 8 specific attitudinal questions. These significances
were for all but question 14 (i.e., the sewer sludge of most major cities
should not be used for land application because of detrimental levels of
heavy metals). For all but one of these 7 items for which significant
results were obtained, the mean increased, which means the respondents'
attitudes were more favorable. The remaining question, 15, was a negatively
worded question: "Landspreading of sewage sludge produces serious insect
problems," therefore the decreased change in the mean form 2.756 in the pre-
test to 2.452 in the post-test was desirable.
The impression that is left after the comparisons between pre- and
post- results of both groups is that a greater amount of attitudinal change
had taken place in the group that was principally non-farm directed (Form II)
than in the group that was principally farm directed (Form I). In Table 19
it can be seen that this impression is basically not true and that the
impression is created because of the differing lengths of the two different
pre-/post- meeting evaluation instruments. (In Form I, 13 of 20 attitude
questions changed significantly; while in Form II, 9 out of 10 attitude
questions changed significantly.) Table 19, which presents items which were
43
-------
TABLE 17. BACKGROUND VARIABLES ON FORM 2 (NON-FARM POPULATION)
Pre-test
Place of residence
Farm
Non-farm rural
Urban or suburban
Total
Relationship to farming
Full-time farmer
Part-time farmer
Non- farmer
Total
Experience with land application of municipal
sewage sludge
Specific information
Heard of it, no specific information
Have not heard of it
Total
The most environmentally and economically
sound means of sewage sludge disposal is:
Ocean dumping
Incineration
Applying to farm land
Placing in lagoons
Drying and land fill
Other
Don ' t know
Total
Definition of sewage sludge
A product from municipal sewage treatment
plants
Septic tank pumpings
Raw, untreated sewage
Any animal waste materials
More than one of the above
Other
Don't know
Total
No.
31
39
171
241
14
32
195
241
22
167
51
240
1
7
91
5
37
6
90
237
170
10
26
3
13
1
18
241
%
12.9
16.2
71.0
100.0
5.8
13.3
80.9
100.0
9.2
69.6
21.2
100.0
.4
3.0
38.4
2.1
15.6
2.5
38.0
100.0
70.5
4.1
10.8
1.2
5.4
.4
7.5
100.0
Post-test
No.
24
28
119
171
11
23
137
171
1
3
143
0
8
0
16
171
155
3
5
2
1
1
2
169
%
14.0
16.4
69.6
100.0
6.4
13.5
80.1
100.0
.6
1.8
83.6
0
4.7
0
9.4
100.0
91.7
1.8
3.0
1.2
.6
.6
1.2
100.0
44
-------
TABLE 18. ATTITUDINAL VARIABLES FOR FORM 2 (NON-FARM POPULATION)
Means
T value
Pre-test Post-test 2-Tail prob
How would you feel about sludge being
spread on a neighbor's fields?
How would you feel about sludge being
spread on farm land in your community?
It is important for the farm community
to use sludge to help the cities and the
sewage districts.
The use of sludge on farm land will help
protect the environment, since land
spreading is a more environmentally
acceptable means of disposal than other
methods.
There is little chance that sewage
sludge can spread human disease.
There is a minimal, organic odor
present when sludge is first applied that
quickly disappears as the sludge dries
out.
If properly applied, there is little
chance of runoff of sewage sludge into
ponds and streams during or after
application.
Sludge should not be applied to dairy
farm pasture land.
The sewage sludge of most major cities
should not be used for land application
because of detrimental levels of heavy
metals.
Landspreading of sewage sludge produces
serious insect problems.
3.089
3.221
3.564*
3.279 3.768*
3.889**
.009+
.000"
.000"
3.336 3.904** .000+
3.172 3.610** .000+
3.395 3.800** .000+
3.263 3.839** .000+
3.210 4.018** .000+
2.939 2.894** .597
2.756 2.452** .000+
* These questions use a 5-point favorability scale; 1 = very unfavorable,
5 = very favorable.
** These questions use a 5-point agreement scale; 1 = strongly disagree,
5 = strongly agree.
+ Significant
45
-------
C/}
PH
0
O
<
o
H
CJ
ED
Q
W
0
§
t"H
W
ffi
H
O
PH
C/2
H
r-1
I]
*^3
U
H- 1
H
W
Q
1 I
PH
O
.RISON
<;
PH
w {
§
CJ
i i
TABLE
P1-* C
o
IH -H
0 4-1
0
CO CU CU CO
H O O H
co C c cu
>> M-l CO CO 4-1
rH O -H O fi
CO w -H -H
C cO IH
^ ^ *H ^i
C co
toO £
H 1
CO CM
4-1 4-J
x-s CO CO
E 0 CU
CN H PH 4-J
CO
E 4-1
JH 1
o c
PH O 1 4-i
£; cu co
K ^-^ H CU
CO PH 4-J
C
CO
CU
feH
S
1
4-J 4-1
CO CO
r-< ^ O \ m. r i 0*1
O O CO v£) vD CO I-H
...
ON CO CO CO CO h- co r>- ^-i co CM
c^ OO CM vO m 00 vO
^O r^ vo 00 CT* ON CM
CO CO CO CO CO CO CM
m r^. in
^ r^> I-H i i Q ON ^O
CN H GO CO
CL* CUC'^CUOCO cO o E
CU CCCUCU'OCOCOO CO CflCUCO toOrH
E-C COOJnEO CU 4-ICU -HCOE'TJ TD,Q
^j rHWO,C!4-iCOOCOCu cOCCU PO
COO -H E CO «H «H W CX CU4HCUO-H rHM
M-l 4-J CU E ? f~l CU (~| t3 C *H CO V-l O V-t *H rH CO o.
top HCco,nE4-i comco-cu 4->4Jex«
OJCUCO cOCU cO CtoO H4JXJMHCOCOCXT3CU4-I
4-ITJCU (U-HCXCUOEO'H O OTJ-H cOcOCU
pco CrC ^ »>cc:rHcurH^co
MrH O4-ltoOO4J COjS *OlrHCOT3pCOCL,XJ CUC
OCOQJ COOX: rHto0^5CUCU5H CX CUCO-H
4-1 ,C (U4-J'HcO OT3 COT3O-H-H C0c04-i}n
CU 4J toO O T3 C CO E P **^ ^H rH *4H T3 O P < i | ^0
4-JCO T3CUcO>^cO CUCU-HrHpTj CXOC!-i C4J Op
CO C rHOWrH4-l4-iCX-H CUcOCUCX4-irOcOtoO-H
4-JOCO COMCXCO 4-ICOEC4-I&0 O 4-(i ICXC>H
W 4-J fj( CO 4«J f~H *^ ^ cQ rrt ^\ Cj O CtJ 3 *rH CU
O CO MH T3GcOrHC cO,CrCPrHc04~i OE13CO
at^cucfl ocxccuco co £4-irH ^XCM^JH co
E4J-H4-1 i i co E o coo co co cuo -HO coco cuco
H.H4JOCUCUrHCCX'H 'H4-113 CX IH 2 CU
C'H-HCO^ OCO CU CCUOJOCUCUtoOCU CXO
CO p O J-i p CU JH «H CU toO CU CU *H t(~! ^-> rH 00 ti toO !>< CO p
ECUCO CUrHC> CUP CUCUCX 4J ll M p -H *C *O
4-IOJS'H .C'H'HCM-I ,T3rH ,C!>HCXCO 4H'Hr-4p rHCO CO?H
MO4-IT3 H^COCUO HCO HCXCOCO MrHCOT3 COT3 hJPn
r^ co o . i CM co LO
-H 1 f-H , ( r-H
o> I-H H CU
00 rH
crt (~i
V\J rLJ
CO
j
toO CU
C CU
O CO
4-1 >
CO CU
o
II C
cO
LP| O
H
> UH
CU 'H
CU C
>H bo
toC-H
cO co
CO
H MH
T3 O
rH CU
toO >
C CU
O rH
4-1 0)
CO ,C
II
$H
i o
0) 4-1
CO CO
o o
CO -H
M-l
4-1 *rH
C C
QJ toO
E vH
0) CO
CU
rH CU
toO >H
CO CO
4-) CO
c ex
H P CM
O O
ex >H E
1 toO C
LT> O
C ["T i
MH *iH
O J2 M
4-1 O
CU 'H MH
o oo
O CO ^H
co cu
O CU
C C rH
CO CU ,Q
CU M CO
S CU H
-X
46
-------
included in both Form I and in Form II1, demonstrates that there are only two
cases where the differences within Form I are significantly different than
the differences within Form II. The first of these two significant results
is for the question pertaining to the farm community using sludge to help the
cities, F=.049. Here, the two groups started out with similar attitudes,
but: there was a greater amount of positive attitudinal change for the non-
farm group. The second significant result pertains to the question on
the use of sludge on farm land to help protect the environment, F=.035.
Here the farm group started out with more agreement on this question and the
non-farm group ended up with more agreement on this question. For the
remaining items, the degree of change on the pre-/post- test (Form I) for
the farm group was not significantly different from the degree of change on
the pre-/post- test (Form II) for the non-farm group.
In summary, the analysis of the educational programs indicates that
this approach can be considered a successful means of conveying information
about the land application of municipal sewage sludge.
1 The differences within groups were significant for all of these items
47
-------
SECTION 4
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
o For people who live on a farm, willingness to use sludge is
not related to age, farming as a principal occupation, or
size of farm.
o Males who live on a farm are much more willing to use sludge
on their own farmland than are females who live on a farm.
o Farm residents who have not heard of sludge are much more
likely than average to say no to its usage.
o Farm residents who have used sludge in the past are much
less likely than average to say no to its usage.
o There is not a significant difference between males and
females in willingness to use sludge when sludge has been
spread on their own land, or when it has been spread on a
neighbor's land.
o For farm residents who have heard of sludge but have not had
personal contact (i.e., sludge has not been spread on their
land nor on a neighbor's land), males are significantly more
willing to use sludge than are females.
o For people who have not heard of sludge, only one out of
five women would be willing to have it spread, while
slightly less than one half of the males in this category
would consent to its use.
o People who live on farms view land application to be
primarily a means of helping the cities with their disposal
problem. People who do not live on a farm place a pro-
portionally greater value on land application as a means of
helping the farmers utilize the fertilizer and soil condition-
ing properties of sludge.
o Property ownership, place of residence, occupation, and size
of farm are not significantly related to reactions to spread-
ing sludge on one's own land; on a neighbor's land; or
perceived neighbor's reaction to sludge spreading on one's
own land.
48
-------
o Age and source of sludge information are significantly related
to reactions to spreading sludge on one's own land; on a
neighbor's land and, perceived reaction of a neighbor to
sludge spreading on one's own land. People 65 and older are
clearly more unfavorable toward one's own use of sludge and
toward a neighbor's use of sludge. Also, people with no
source of information on sludge are more unfavorable toward
one's own use of sludge and toward a neighbor's use of sludge.
o Sex, personal experience with sludge, and choice of sludge
definition are also significantly related to personal sludge
reactions. Females are much more negative than males to
their reaction to personal usage of sludge, to a neighbor's
usage, and in their perception of a neighbor's reaction to
their own usage. Farmers who have used sludge have more
favorable reactions to their own usage and to a neighbor's
usage, than do farmers who have not used sludge. They also
perceive neighbors to be more favorable. Farmers who have
not heard of sludge react unfavorably to these three items.
Finally, people who choose the correct definition of sludge
have a more favorable reaction to sludge use.
o People who live on a small farm (i.e., under 100 acres) more
strongly agree with Factor 1 - "Sludge is a good source of
nitrogen fertilizer" - than do people who live on larger farms
o Property owners agree to a greater degree with Factor 3 -
"Sludge has minimal impacts on water quality, odor, health or
prevalence of insects," than do tenants.
o People over 65 and farmers, in general, each agree with Factor
4 - "Sludge has undesirable impacts in the areas of soil
compaction, disease and insects, and has minimal usefulness as
a soil conditioner."
o People who would allow sludge to be spread on their land:
believe that sludge is a good source of nitrogen fertilizer;
do not feel as great a need as unwilling people that chemical
analysis of the sludge and land should be conducted prior to
application; believe that sludge has minimal impacts on water
quality, odor, health, or prevalence of insects; do not
believe that sludge has undesirable impacts in the areas of
soil compaction, disease and insects, and has minimal useful-
ness as a soil conditioner; and, believe that sludge should
not be applied to land used for dairy pasture or on growing
crops.
o People who have had sludge spread on their own land hold
similar views to those expressed in the previous item,
except that their belief that sludge should not be applied to
land used for dairy pasture or on growing crops is not as
strong as that of groups with less experience.
49
-------
o People who live on a farm start out with the greatest
knowledge about sludge, followed by the non-farm rural
group, and then the urban/suburban group.
o The farm group, in addition to starting out with the greatest
knowledge, also has the greatest interest in finding out
more about sludge.
o "Landscape characteristics to consider in landspreading
sludge"; and, "the physical properties of the soil to consider
in landspreading,11 have the greatest current knowledge.
However, interest in knowing is not much greater than current
knowledge.
o "The presence of disease-causing bacteria in sewage sludge
and threat to human health;" and, "the presence of heavy
metals in sludge and dangers to crops, animals, and human
health" are areas where people have the greatest interest in
knowing.
o The question on heavy metals also exhibits the greatest
difference between the current knowledge and the interest in
knowing means. This is consistent for each of the three
places of residence subgroups (i.e., farm, non-farm rural and
urban and suburban).
o A large difference between the current knowledge and the
interest in knowing means also exists for the farm group for
the item on the "legal liabilities of the land owner in
landspreading sludge."
o This large difference between the current knowledge and the
interest in knowing means also exists for the urban and
suburban group for the item on the "threats to wildlife of
sludge application on forest and recreational areas."
o The educational program presented to the farm group resulted
in significant and favorable attitude changes on 13 of the
18 specific attitudinal questions that this group was
questioned about.
o The educational program presented to the non-farm group
resulted in significant and favorable attitude changes on
7 of the 8 specific attitudinal questions this group was
questioned about.
50
-------
REFERENCES
1. Carroll, T. E., Maase, D. L., Genco, J. M., and Ifeadi, C. N. Review
of Landspreading of Liquid Municipal Sewage Sludge. Battelle final
report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974.
2. Galloway, H. M. Public Views on Wastewater Cleanup on Land: Suggestions
for Public Education Programs. Journal of Agronomy Education, Vol. 4,
1975.
3. Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Research Bulletin 1079;
and Cooperative Extension Service, The Ohio State University, Bulletin
598, Ohio Guide for Land Application of Sewage Sludge.
4. Schindler, R. and Hastings, C. A Lesson Plan Development Outline: A
Suggested Procedure for Developing an Educational Program on Application
of Sewage Sludge to Farm Land. Unpublished paper, 1976.
51
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-80-103
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE INFORMATION PROGRAMS AFFECT ATTITUDES
TOWARD SEWAGE SLUDGE USE IN AGRICULTURE
5. REPORT DATE
July 1980 (issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
?.AUTHOR(s) Ned M> Musselman, Lawrence G. Welling,
Sandy C. Newman, David A. Sharp
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Ohio Farm Bureau Development Corporation
Columbus, Ohio 43216
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
P.
11.
NO.
R804703
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer, G. K. Dotson (513) 684-7661
16. ABSTRACT ' ~
A survey was conducted of rural farmers, rural nonfarmers, urban and suburban
residents to determine attitudes toward land application of sludge. After a thorough
educational meeting devoted to a discussion of benefits and risks in sludge use, the
groups were again quizzed and the answers compared to assess the effectiveness of the
educational program. It was found that farmers who had used sludge, or were acquaint-
ed with its use, were more amenable to its use than those with no prior experience
with it. There was also some correlation with sex and age. Women and people over 65
are less receptive to sludge use than younger men. Educational meetings changed
attitudes significantly among those who participated, but attendance was low even
though the meetings were publicized.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Sludge disposal
Water quality
Metals
Sewage sludge
Soil conditioners
Land application
Community attitudes
13B
3. DISTRIBUTION STATEMEN"
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unnlassifi
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
21. NO. OF PAGES
60
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
52
U.S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980-657-165/0137
------- |