The National
Report Card on
Environmental
Knowledge.
»&? ^^^ *
'"v
Attitudes and
haviors
The Seventh The National Roper Starch Worldwide
Annual Survey of Environmental Education Turning Data into
Adult Americans & Training Foundation Intelligence Worldwide
DECEMBER 1998
-------
Reprinted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with permission from
The National Environmental Education & Training foundation
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)
-------
The National Report Card on
Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes and
Behaviors
The Seventh Annual Survey of Adult Americans
The National Environmental Education & Training Foundation and
Roper Starch Worldwide Turning Data into Intelligence Worldwide
December 1998
Copyright ©1998
The National Environmental Education & Training Foundation
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means
without written permission from the publisher,
National Environmental Education & Training Foundation,
734 15th Street NW, Suite 420, Washington, DC 20005;
202-628-8200, fax 202-628-8204, email neetf@neetf.org.
The National Environmental Education & Training Foundation
-------
Acknowledgments
The Trustees and staff of The National Environmental Education & Training Foundation are
grateful to all of those who helped support this survey.
The 1998 NEETF/Roper Survey could not have been done without the financial and technical
support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's offices of Environmental Education and
Office of Groundwater & Drinking Water. We were also fortunate to receive support for this
effort from the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association, National Forest Foundation and
Phillips Petroleum Company. The Beldon Fund, George Gund Foundation, Compton
Foundation and Wallace Genetic Foundation have also provided generous support for the survey
in recent years. We also greatly appreciate the work done on the survey by David Lintern of
Roper Starch Worldwide who, as account manager, oversaw field research, analysis and writing
of the report.
-------
Table of Contents
MAIN STREET AMERICA'S VIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENT..
.1
INTRODUCTION 3
OVERVIEW AND HIGHLIGHTS 4
PART I. ENVIRONMENTAL KNOWLEDGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL MYTHS '. 13
AMERICANS RATE THEIR OWN ENVIRONMENTAL KNOWLEDGE 13
MEASURING BELIEF IN ENVIRONMENTAL MYTHS 14
SEEING THE TRUTH THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL MYTHS 17
MYTH BY MYTH 22
GOVERNMENT PROTECTING THE PUBLIC 30
PART II. SUPPORT FOR GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT 32
A CONSENSUS MAINTAINED: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CAN WORK
-19
TOGETHER
WHEN FORCED TO CHOOSE, AMERICANS PREFER ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 33
MANY AMERICANS CONTINUE TO FEEL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS Do NOT Go FAR ENOUGH 35
CLOUDS ON THE HORIZON: ENVIRONMENTAL CATASTROPHE AHEAD 38
How PARENTS SEE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 40
THE IMPACT OF A HIGHER LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE ON ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES 40
THE ENVIRONMENTAL GENDER GAP—1998 43
PART III. ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES. 46
THE ENVIRONMENT IN DAY-TO-DAY LIFE 46
AN ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AGENDA: RECOMMENDATIONS 52
CONCLUSION 54
METHODOLOGY 55
APPENDIX 57
-------
-------
Figures
Figure
1: Knowledge of Environmental Issues and Problems
2: Percentage Giving "Myth" Response
3: Belief in Environmental Myths by Self-Reported Environmental Knowledge
4: Percentage Giving Correct Answer
5: Seeing the Truth Through Environmental Myths by Self-Reported Environmental Knowledge
6: Seeing the Truth Through Environmental Myths by Gender
7: Seeing the Truth Through Environmental Myths by Education
8: True/False Questions: Percentage Giving "Myth" Response
9: True/False Questions: Percentage Giving "Myth" Response by Education
10: True/False Questions: Percentage Giving Correct Answer
11: Environmental Protection and Economic Development Can Go Hand in Hand
12: When Compromise is Impossible, Environment Favored Over Development
13: Opinion of Environmental Laws and Regulations
14: Attitudes Toward Environmental Laws by Gender and Age
15: Current Regulation of Specific Environmental Issues
16: Environmental Catastrophe Imminent
17: Environmental Activities Done Frequently in Day-to-Day Life
18: Environmental Activities Performed Frequently by Gender
19: Frequency of Environmental Activities Performed
20: Activities Done Frequently hi Day-to-Day Life that Benefit the Environment by Self-Reported
Environmental Knowledge
A: Seven Year Trend: A Summary of Changes and Attitudes Over Time
B: The Environmental Gender Gap
Page
13
15
16
18
19
20
21
28
29
29
33
34
35
36
37
39
47
48
49
51
57
58
-------
-------
Main Street America's View of the Environment
The 1998 NEETF/Roper Survey reveals there is persistent misinformation concerning the
environment in America. These "myths" can stand in the way of our addressing more immediate
and wide-ranging issues. What follows is a summary of some of these misperceptions through
the eyes of the average American.
Pollution-Free Energy - A majority of the public thinks (incorrectly) that energy is
produced in non air-polluting ways in America, mostly by hydroelectric power. Only one in
three sees coal burning as an issue.
Widespread Industrial Water Pollution - Nearly half think the leading cause of water
pollution is factories. Pollution running off the land (our leading problem) is not identified
by four of five Americans.
Dangerous Spray Cans - Americans think ozone-depleting CFCs come mostly from aerosol
cans despite a 1978 ban. Only one in three sees air conditioners and refrigerators as the issue.
Safe Underground Nuclear Storage - Many Americans think spent fuel from nuclear plants
goes to a deep underground safe haven out West. Just one in six knows that a permanent
storage has yet to be found.
Diaper-Clogged Landfills - Much of the public sees disposable diapers as the main source
of waste in landfills. Just one in four sees the vast amount of paper we pour into crowded
landfills as the issue.
Worldwide Famine - Americans incorrectly believe famine, not pollution, is the leading
cause of childhood death worldwide. Only one in eleven knows micro-organisms in the
water are the cause.
Rampant Oil Spills - Only one in six Americans knows that changing one's car oil is the
main source of petroleum pollution in rivers, lakes and bays—most think it is oil rigs, tankers
and refineries.
Animals Ensnared in Beverage Six-pack Rings - Millions of Americans snip six-pack
rings, seen by a majority as the leading entanglement problem. Unfortunately millions more
cut and leave their fishing lines out in the wild (the leading cause of entanglement).
-------
Routinely Tested Bottled Water — A majority think it is regularly tested by the government.
It is not.
j
Tested-Safe Household Chemicals - A majority assume that some government agency must
also be screening household chemicals for health and environmental safety. None does.
Tap Water Tested Routinely for Animal Waste and Pesticides - A majority of Americans
think the water utilities routinely test for these pollutants, when only a few test for these
pollutants.
-------
Introduction
The National Environmental Education & Training Foundation (NEETF) commissioned a Roper
Starch Worldwide survey to help America's leaders—educators, policy makers, business
executives, media representatives and the general public—better understand what Americans
know about the environment. The survey includes an assessment of their attitudes and behaviors
around environmental issues as well. Using a quiz style format, The 1998 National Report Card
(also referred to as the NEETF/Roper Survey) examines the public's belief in environmental
"myths"—outdated or erroneous information about the environment. This misinformation must
be corrected if the public is to understand why laws are passed to protect the environment and
how they, themselves, can become a part of the solution.
The 1998 NEETF/Roper Survey is a continuation of seven straight years of data gathering about
Americans' views on the environment. The National Report Card was launched in 1992 by
Times Mirror Magazines in collaboration with Roper Starch. Times Mirror commissioned each
of the first four years of the survey, and NEETF took over the project in 1995.
The National Environmental Education & Training Foundation is a private nonprofit
organization authorized by Congress in 1990. The Foundation strives to help America meet
critical national challenges by connecting environmental learning to progress on issues of
national concern such as health care, educational excellence, our competitive position in business
and effective community participation in managing our natural resources. In addition to making
leveraged challenge grants for outstanding environmental projects across the nation, NEETF
seeks funds to support several innovative environmental education programs, which include,
along with The National Report Card:
• Wellness & The Environment—integrating environmental health into our public health and
health care systems.
• Safe Drinking Water Program—providing an educational backdrop to government
Consumer Confidence Reports on drinking water.
• Institute for Corporate Environmental Mentoring—fostering business-to-business
mentoring to help companies improve environmental and economic performance.
• Environmental Education and Academic Excellence—promoting effective, science-based
and objective environmental education as beneficial to students' academic performance.
• National Public Lands Day—a nationwide, volunteer driven program improving and
enhancing national parks, forests, lakes, wildlife habitats and other public land sites.
-------
Overview and Highlights
Overview and Highlights
As with its six predecessors, the 1998 NEETF/Roper Survey investigates environmental
knowledge, attitudes and behaviors among adult Americans. While the environment is not
always a daily front-page issue, in the late 1990s, the subject is as full of public importance and
controversial positions and statements as ever. Water and air pollution, toxic waste, Superfund
sites, the use of public lands for commercial purposes and the protection of endangered species
are all issues facing the nation today. Attitudes about the issues vary by region, and even by
household.
What are the sources of these differing attitudes? Are the positions people hold based on fact or
fiction? To determine the extent to which Americans support inaccurate positions, this year's
study includes a section centered around some common misperceptions or "environmental
myths"—popular but incorrect information about environmental issues and problems. Once such
myths are identified, educational programs can be created to address the differences between fact
and fiction, fostering a population that better understands why laws are passed to protect the
environment and how their own actions have an impact on the environment.
For the most part, general attitudes toward the environment and toward laws and regulations
designed to protect the environment have remained stable over the last few years. While
government intervention is questioned in many arenas of public life, Americans continue to
largely support government programs when the environment is the area in question. And, many
feel that the next few years will be critical for the long-term health of the planet.
The 1998 National Report Card: Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors evaluates
public attitudes as they exist today and have changed over the past seven years. It is based on a
nationally representative sample of 2,000 Americans, age 18 and older, surveyed by Roper
Starch Worldwide in May 1998.
-------
Overview and Highlights
Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Myths
Although many Americans report that they possess some environmental knowledge, when asked
to distinguish between environmental myths and environmental truths, the public encounters
considerable difficulty. Not only do prevailing myths exist, but misconceptions are widespread
on a number of issues. Thus, examining the responses of those who give the myth response is as
enlightening for planning environmental education programs and policy initiatives as is
calculating the percentages of those who identify the correct answers.
• For the fourth year in a row, about two-thirds of the American public rate themselves as
having either "a lot" (10%) or "a fair amount" (58%) of knowledge about environmental
issues and problems. As in past years, men are more likely than women to report they have
at least a fair amount of environmental knowledge.
• However, the environmental myths section in this report leads us to question these
expressions of environmental knowledge. Presented with ten questions that each contained a
myth answer, two plausible but incorrect answers and a correct answer, the myth response
receives a plurality in seven cases. In fact, for three of the ten questions, a majority of
Americans gave the incorrect myth answer.
• The pervasiveness of environmental myths is surprising, as there are few consistent trends
among demographic subgroups. Even those who say they know "a lot" about the
environment support the myth response for several issues. The fact that there are few
differences among subgroups—education, income—highlights the universal and persistent
nature of the incorrect beliefs and the need for further environmental education for all
Americans.
• Looked at from the perspective of correctly identifying environmental truths, Americans
average just 2.2 correct answers out of 10 (random guesses would have produced 2.5 correct
responses). In addition, two important subgroup differences emerge. First, men are more
likely than women to correctly answer seven of the 10 questions (though men average just
2.7 correct answers). Second, Americans with a college degree are consistently more likely
than those with a high school education or less to give the correct answer (though even those
with a college degree average just 3.1 correct answers).
-------
Overview and Highlights
Specific responses to myth questions are:
• How Most Electricity in the United States is Generated—Just 27% of Americans know that
most of our electricity (70% of total production) is produced by burning coal and other
flammable materials. The myth response to the electricity question is "hydropower" which
provides only about 10% of America's power needs and is a major portion of the energy
market in just one region—the Northwest. But, 38% of Americans see dams as our leading
method of electricity production. Hydro, nuclear and solar power account for about 30% of
our total energy supply, and yet 55% of Americans—a clear majority—think that most of our
energy comes from these non-air-polluting sources.
• Pollution of Rivers and Streams—Only one in five Americans (22%) knows that run-off is
the most common form of pollution of streams, rivers and oceans while nearly half (47%)
think the most common form is waste dumped by factories. Another 15% of Americans
think garbage dumping by cities is the main cause of water pollution.
• Recycling of Paper—When asked about the environmental benefit of recycling paper, the
concept of recycling for tree-saving prevails on a 63% basis over the reduction of waste
headed for crowded landfills (24%). The general public is highly attuned to the idea that
trees are valuable natural resources and habitat for wildlife. The public does not recognize,
however, the goal of reducing waste going to landfills as a significant benefit of recycling
programs.
• Wildlife Entanglement—The 1980s Images of dead or injured birds or fish entangled in
plastic beverage six-pack rings had a great impact; 56% of Americans say the rings are the
main cause offish and wildlife entanglement. However, the main cause of such
entanglement, according to the Center for Marine Conservation in Washington, D.C., is
abandoned fishing line left by America's 70 million anglers—a fact known by just 10% of
Americans.
• Spent Nuclear Fuel—A total of 34% of Americans believe that the used fuel rods at nuclear
plants are safely stored hi a deep underground facility in the West. Half as many (17%)
know the rods are stored temporarily on the plant site and are monitored pending longer-term
solutions. Fully 35% do not know what happens to the spent fuel rods.
-------
Overview and Highlights
Leading Cause of Childhood Death Wofldwide—Only 9% of the American public
understands that micro-organisms in water supplies are the leading cause of childhood death
worldwide. The majority of Americans (55%) have most likely been influenced by
harrowing public reports of famine and starvation in the world and believe it is a lack of food
that causes childhood death more than contaminated water.
• Main Source of Oil in Rivers, Lakes and Bays—About one in seven Americans (16%)
knows that individuals changing motor oil is the main source of oil getting into our surface
water, while 40% think (incorrectly) that the source is oil spills from ships and offshore oil
wells. Another 17% think it is mostly from discharges from coastal oil refineries.
• Current Source of Chlorqfluorocarbons (CFCs)—A CFC ban for aerosol cans took place in
1978 when suspicion grew that the chemical may deplete protective ozone in the Earth's
upper atmosphere, and yet 32% of Americans still believe that spray cans are the only source
of CFCs in America today. CFCs are still in auto air conditioners and refrigerators, yet only
33% of Americans are aware of this fact. Another 9% think styrofoam cups are the only
source of CFCs, while 20% of Americans respond that they do not know.
• Greatest Source of Landfill Material—Nearly one-quarter of Americans (23%) know that
paper is the greatest source of landfill material, while 29% think that the disposable diaper is
the greatest threat to our crowded landfills.
• Definition of a Watershed—About two out of five Americans (41%) are able to identify the
term watershed as a land area that drains into a specific body of water. Yet, 35% choose not
to venture a guess even when presented choices of definitions.
Continued Support for Government's Role in Protecting the Environment
Though they may not believe all the information the government provides about the
environment, Americans generally express a desire for the government to remain involved in
environmental protection. In fact, over the last few years, attitudes toward the government's
intervention in the environment have been supportive arid stable. Whether this trend is a
permanent change in attitude or a result of the thriving national economy will be determined only
over time.
-------
Overview and Highlights
The majority of the American public (62%) continues to say that environmental protection
and economic development can go "hand in hand." A slowly rising minority (28%,
statistically unchanged from 1997, but up five percentage points from 1995) believe that a
choice must be made between the two spheres.
When forced to choose one over the other, environmental protection (71%) is considered
vastly more important than economic development (17%). In fact, it appears that most of
those who say a choice is necessary between the environment and the economy come down
on the side of environmental protection (choosing the environment is up eight percentage
points since 1995).
With regard to current laws and regulations protecting the environment, attitudes have been
stable since 1995. A plurality (46%) believe current laws do not go far enough. Just under a
third say laws have struck about the right balance, while 17% say that the laws currently on
the books go too far. Gender and age differences continue to exist, with women and those
under the age of 45 more likely to say current laws do not go far enough, and men and those
age 45 or older are more likely to say current laws go too far. These attitudes and trends are
also evident when the public is asked about five specific areas of regulation: water pollution,
air pollution, protection of wild or natural areas, protection of wetlands and protection of
endangered species of plants, animals and insects.
Endangered species seems to be a "hot button" for those who dislike current environmental
regulations. While 18% of all Americans say that laws protecting endangered species go too
far, among those who think environmental laws in general go too far, 51% think regulations
protecting endangered species go too far, for a difference of 33 percentage points. By way of
comparison, those who think environmental regulations overall go too far are 24 points more
likely than the national average to think that laws protecting wetlands go too far; 24 points
more likely to have this opinion of laws protecting wild or natural areas; 21 points more
likely to feel laws to fight air pollution go too far; and 12 points more likely to hold this
belief about laws to fight water pollution.
Concern about the planet's future remains high: a majority of Americans (57%) continue to
agree that "the next 10 years are the last decade when humans will have a chance to save the
earth from environmental catastrophe." This concern has risen since 1995 by ten percentage
pouits (from 47% to 57%).
-------
Overview and Highlights
• Even when Government does not play a role, Americans may assume it does. Fully 65%—or
two out of three—Americans assume (incorrectly) that household and industrial chemicals
are routinely tested by the Environmental Protection Agency or some other government
agency.
• Some 59% of Americans say (incorrectly) that tap water is routinely tested and filtered to
remove contamination from livestock and pesticide run-off.
• More than half of Americans (51 %) say (incorrectly) that bottled water is tested for safety
and purity by a government agency. Just 42% of Americans know it is not tested.
The Impact of a Higher Level of Environmental Knowledge on Environmental Attitudes
The 1998 NEETF/Roper Survey looked at prevailing environmental myths to determine their
persistence and whether they are actually blocking a more appropriate up-to-date focus on
current environmental problems. Because the average mean response on the 1998 NEETF/Roper
Survey myths quiz was 2.2 correct answers (out often questions), we formed a low-knowledge
group at three or fewer correct responses and a high-knowledge group of four or more correct
responses. Each group's responses were then compared on key questions:
• On the question of whether the environment and the economy can go hand in hand, there was
little difference between the high-environmental-knowledge group (65%) and low-
environmental-knowledge group (62%) with the majority of both groups believing a balance
can be found between the environment and the economy.
• On whether one would pick the environment or the economy if one must choose between
them, 73% of the low-knowledge group would pick the environment as compared to 66% of
the high-knowledge group.
• On whether environmental regulation has gone too far, not far enough or has achieved the
right balance, the most telling difference between the high-knowledge and low-knowledge
groups is between those who feel that the right balance has been achieved. A total of 29% of
the low-knowledge group thinks there is balance while 35% of the high-knowledge group
sees .regulation as having achieved balance.
-------
Overview and Highlights
On air pollution regulation, the low-knowledge group is five percentage points (at 61%) more
likely than the high-knowledge group (56%) to think that regulation of air pollution has not
gone far enough and nine percentage points less likely (24% versus 33%) to think that
balanced air pollution regulation has been achieved.
On the regulation of wild or natural areas, there is no statistical difference between the high-
knowledge and low-knowledge groups.
On the regulation of endangered species, there are considerable differences between the high-
and low-knowledge groups. A total of 15% of the low-knowledge group feel endangered
species regulation has gone too far, while 23% of the high-knowledge group hold that belief.
Correspondingly, 47% of the low-knowledge group feel that endangered species regulation
should go further as compared to 40% of the high-knowledge group.
On water pollution regulation, 73% of the low-knowledge group think that water pollution
regulation should go further, while 63% of.the high-knowledge group have that feeling. And,
18% of the low-knowledge group feel the right balance has been achieved, and 30% of the
high-knowledge group have that belief.
On whether we face an environmental catastrophe in the next ten years, 59% of the low-
knowledge group agrees we could face a catastrophe in the next ten years compared to 47%
of the high-knowledge group.
10
-------
Overview and Highlights
Environmental Activities
Whether they realize it or not, many Americans perform activities each day that benefit the
environment. Some conserve water, others volunteer time and effort to clean up public lands,
and others simply recycle some of the products and containers they use everyday. These
activities are important because they involve Americans in the environment and its protection,
(even if only through indirect means) and are part of the Concern - Education - Behavior nexus
developed in the last two NEETF/Roper studies.
• Asked the frequency with which they do each of 11 environmental activities, a majority of
the public performs the following four "frequently": turning off lights and appliances when
leaving a room (85%); recycling things such as newspapers, cans and glass (65%); trying to
cut down on the amount of trash and garbage their household creates (62%); and conserving
water in then1 home and yard (61%).
• It should be noted that each of the most frequently engaged activities can be done around the
household and is not necessarily linked directly with the environment. By comparison,
activities that directly reflect concern about the environment are performed frequently by no
more than one American in ten.
• There is a definite relationship between environmental knowledge, concerns and behaviors.
For nine of the eleven activities that benefit the environment, the likelihood that people
perform each activity frequently increases proportionately with their environmental
knowledge. The only exceptions are turning off lights and appliances (which nearly
everyone does) and the use of alternative forms of transportation (which may depend more on
regional infrastructure and availability than concern about the environment).
• Clearly, concern about and knowledge of the environment do have an effect on the likelihood
of engaging in day-to-day activities that directly or indirectly benefit the environment. Thus,
increasing environmental knowledge for all Americans should increase individual
involvement in environmental affairs, and should help Americans to understand the impact of
decisions affecting the environment.
11
-------
Part One — Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Myths
Part One
Environmental Knowledge and
Environmental Myths
12
-------
Part One — Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Myths
Part I.
Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Myths
While two-thirds of Americans report that they know either "a lot" or "a fair amount" about the
environment (statistically unchanged from the 1997 NEETF/Roper Survey), when specifically
tested on their environmental knowledge, many Americans have misinformation and express
beliefs which are, in fact, myths. This is true even among those who say they have a fairly high
level of environmental knowledge. Thus, examining who gives the myth responses is as
enlightening for planning environmental education programs and policy initiatives as looking at
the percentages of people who answer each question correctly.
Americans Rate their Own Environmental Knowledge
For the fourth year in a row, Americans were asked to define the extent of their own knowledge
about environmental issues and problems. And, for the fourth year in a row, about two-thirds
report that they know either "a lot" (10%) or "a fair amount" (58%) about the topic, while the
remainder say they know "only a little" (27%) or "practically nothing" (5%). It should be noted
that while the percentage saying they know a lot is unchanged over time, the percentage giving
the "a fair amount" response has increased since 1996 (up 5 percentage points).
Figure 1: Knowledge of Environmental Issues and Problems
A Lot
A Fair Amount
Only a Little Practically Nothing
1998
1997
1996
1995
Question wording: In general, how much do you feel you know about environmental issues and problems—would you
say you know a lot, a fair amount, only a little, or practically nothing?
13
-------
Part One — Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Myths
As seen in previous years, there are important differences among gender, education and age
subgroups for the combined know "a lot" and know "a fair amount" figures. On a self-reported
basis, 72% of men say they know at least a fair amount about environmental issues (13% "a
lot"), compared to 65% of women (8% "a lot"). Self-reported environmental knowledge
increases dramatically with education, from 60% among those who are high school graduates, to
75% of those with some college, and to 81% of those with at least a college degree.
In a pattern also seen hi 1997, self-reported environmental knowledge peaks among those age 35-
44 (70%) and 45-64 (73%), compared to 66% among 18-34 year olds and 59% among those 65
or older. Despite increased emphasis on environmental education in schools and colleges in the
last two decades, it may be that life experience and exposure to popular media such as
newspapers and television have provided Americans age 35 to 64 with the information they
believe makes them knowledgeable about environmental issues and problems.
Measuring Belief in Environmental Myths
In an attempt to measure how much Americans really know about the environment, as opposed
to what they think they know, the 1998 NEETF/Roper Survey asked the public ten multiple-
choice questions and five true/false questions. Each of the multiple-choice questions had four
possible answers—the correct answer, two plausible sounding but incorrect answers and one
myth answer. Americans were also given the option to say that they "don't know" the answer.
Each question addressed an issue that has been covered hi the media over the past year.
In reviewing the results, it becomes clear that belief in environmental myths is pervasive, often
obscuring the work that has been done to promote a healthy environment. And, since family
members are the fourth largest source of environmental information for young people today, after
television, school and newspaper articles (NEETF/Roper Youth Report, 1994), this trend is
especially alarming as kids often adopt the attitudes and opinions of the adults around .them.
14
-------
Part One — Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Myths
Focusing first on the ten multiple-choice questions, the myth answer is given most often in seven
cases. In fact, in three cases, a majority of Americans give the incorrect myth response:
Figure 2: Percentage Giving Myth Response
Content of Environmental Knowledge Question
The goal of paper recycling programs
Leading cause of entanglement
Leading cause of childhood death worldwide
Most common source of water pollution
Primary source of oil found in rivers, lakes, bays
How most electricity hi the United States is generated
How the United States disposes of spent nuclear fuel
Only current sources of CFCs in the United States
Greatest source of landfill material
Definition of a watershed
Percentage Who Gave
Myth Response
63%
56%
55%
47%
40%
38%
34%
32%
29%
11%
In other words, despite the fact that two-thirds of the American public report knowing at least a
fair amount about the environment, many actually subscribe to environmental myths. Moreover,
for several issues, those who think they know the most, are the ones who are actually most likely
to believe the environmental myth. When asked about the leading cause of wildlife
entanglement, 64% of those who say they know a lot about the environment give the myth
response, compared to 59% of those who say they know a fan: amount and 48% of those who say
they know only a little or practically nothing about environmental issues and problems.
Similarly whereas 45% of those with the most self-reported knowledge give the myth response
when asked about how the United States currently disposes of spent nuclear fuel, this falls to
38% of those with a fair amount of knowledge and 24% of those with only a little or practically
no environmental knowledge. This pattern also holds true for the greatest source of landfill
material.
15
-------
Part One — Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Myths
Figure 3: Belief in Environmental Myths by Self-Reported Environmental Knowledge
Total
Content of question: Myth
The goal of paper recycling programs 63
Leading cause of entanglement 56
Leading cause of childhood death
worldwide 55
Most common source of water pollution 47
Primary source of oil in rivers, lakes
and bays 40
How most of the electricity in the
United States is generated 38
How the United States disposes of spent
nuclear fuel 34
Only current source of CFCs in the 32
United States
Greatest source of landfill material 29
Definition of a watershed 1 1
Self-Reported
Environmental Knowledge
Little/
A lot A fair amount practically nothing
63 65 59
64 59 48
60 53 55
36 48 47
40 40 40
39 40 34
45 38 24
30 30 34
36 29 27
5 10 16
Among the demographic subgroups, men and women are equally likely to give the incorrect
myth answers to seven of the ten questions. The exceptions are:
• most common water pollution source—50% of women believe the myth versus 43% of men;
• how the United States disposes of spent nuclear fuel—43% of men believe the myth, versus
26% of women; and
• greatest source of landfill material—more women (34%) believe the myth than men (24%).
16
-------
Part One — Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Myths
Formal education has a mixed impact on responses to the ten questions. For two items^ "primary
source of oil found in rivers, lakes, bays" and "greatest source of landfill material," as
educational level increases, the percentage giving the myth response decreases. However, for
two other items, "leading cause of entanglement" and "how the United States disposes of spent
nuclear fuel," the percentage giving the myth response actually increases with education. (For
the other issues, results are not affected by level of education).
There are no consistent trends by age or region. In fact, the relatively few differences among
demographic subgroups in supporting the environmental myths highlights the universality of the
incorrect beliefs, and the need for more environmental education for all Americans.
Seeing the Truth Through Environmental Myths
Since many Americans believe in the environmental myths, while others give either of the two
plausible, but incorrect responses, the percentage who correctly answer each of the ten questions
is relatively small. As seen in the table on the following page, at most 41% and as few as 9%
give the correct answer to any one of the questions. These low figures are especially important
since knowledge is often linked to behavior (a pattern explored in Part Three of this report), and
changing the public's behavior is the goal of laws and regulations to protect the environment. In
fact, Americans correctly answer an average of just 2.2 questions. Random guesses would have
produced 2.5 correct responses due to the four-answer multiple choice format of the quiz.
17
-------
Part One — Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Myths
Figure 4: Percentage Giving Correct Answer
Content of Environmental Knowledge Question
Definition of a watershed
Only current sources of CFCs in the United States
How most electricity in the United States is generated
The goal of paper recycling programs
Greatest source of landfill material
Most common source of water pollution
How the United States disposes of spent nuclear fuel
Primary source of oil found in rivers, lakes, bays
Leading cause of entanglement
Leading cause of childhood death worldwide
Percentage Who Answered
Question Correctly
41%
!
33%
27%
24%
23%
22%
17%
16%
10%
9%
While in some cases high self-reported environmental knowledge corresponds with high belief in
environmental myths, those who say they know a lot about the environment do give the correct
response more often than the other knowledge subgroups for six issues. For example, though
just one-third of all Americans in general can identify the only current sources of CFCs in the
United States, 44% of those who say they have a lot of environmental knowledge answer this
question correctly, compared to 35% of those who say they have a fair amount of knowledge and
26% of those who say they possess only a little or practically no environmental knowledge.
is
-------
Part One — Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Myths
Figure 5: Seeing the Truth Through Environmental Myths by Self-Reported
Environmental Knowledge
Self-Reported
Environmental Knowledge
Definition of watershed
Only current source of CFCs in the
United States
How most of the electricity in the
United States is generated
The goal of paper recycling program
The greatest source of landfill material
Most common source of water
pollution
How the United States disposed of
spent nuclear fuel
Primary source Of oil in nation's rivers,
lakes, bays
The leading catise of entanglement
The leading cause bf childhood death
worldwide
Total
Correct
41
33
27
24
23
22
17
16
10
9
A lot
58
44
35
21
22
31
20
25
8
18
A fair amount
43
35
30
25
26
23
19
16
10
10
Little/
practically nothing
30
26
20
24
18
18
13
11
10
6
However, those who say they have a lot of environmental knowledge correctly answer an
average of only 2.8 questions, slightly higher than the 2.4 average for those saying they have a
fair amount of environmental knowledge and just one question better than those who say they
know only a little or practically nothing of environmental issues and problems (1.8 correct).
Thus, the self-reported level of environmental knowledge can be a useful, but not always reliable,
method of measuring actual environmental knowledge.
19
-------
Part One — Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Myths
That said, men—discussed earlier as reporting greater environmental knowledge than women-
are more likely than women to give the correct answer to seven of the ten questions. This "gap"
in knowledge is especially evident for the definition of a watershed (49% of men answered
correctly versus 33% of women), how most electricity in the United States is generated (36%
versus 19%), and the most common source of water pollution (29% versus 15%). The reason for
this gap is unclear and requires further study. While men know more about the environment,
there is still a long way to go before they can be considered knowledgeable on environmental
issues: men average only 2.7 correct answers. Women fare even worse, with an average of just
1.8 correct answers.
Figure 6: Seeing the Truth Through Environmental Myths by Gender
Gender
Definition of watershed
Only current source of CFCs in the
United States
How most of the electricity in United
States is generated
The goal of paper recycling programs
The greatest source of landfill material
Most common source of water pollution
How United States disposed of spent
nuclear fuel
Primary source of oil in nation's rivers,
lakes, bays
The leading cause of entanglement
The leading cause of childhood death
worldwide
Total
Correct
41
33
27
24
23
22
17
16
10
9
Male
49
37
36
25
28
29
21
20
9
11
Female
33
30
19
24
19
15
14
11
10
8
-------
Part One — Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Myths
Though level of education had a mixed impact on belief in environmental myths, when it comes
to answering the questions correctly, education has a single, consistent effect: Americans with a
college degree are significantly more likely to give the correct answer than those with a high
school education or less. For example, while 32% of those with a high school education know
the definition of a watershed, this figure rises to 44% among those with some college and to 60%
among college graduates (the only exception to this is the issue of entanglement, which few
answer correctly regardless of education level).
Still, there is work to be done at all levels, as those with a high school education average just 1.8
correct questions, those with some college average 2.4 correct and college graduates answer an
average of only 3.1 questions correctly.
Figure 7: Seeing the Truth Through Environmental Myths by Education
Education
Definition of watershed
Only current source of CFCs in the
United States
How most of the electricity in the
United States is generated
The goal of paper recycling programs
The greatest source of landfill materials
Most common source of water pollution
How United States disposed of spent
nuclear fuel
Primary source of oil hi nation's rivers,
lakes, bays
The leading cause of entanglement
The leading cause of childhood death
worldwide
Total
Correct
41
33
27
24
23
22
17
16
10
9
High school
graduate or less
32
30
22
19
19
17
13
12
10
6
Some
college
44
30
28
31
25
22
17
20
10
11
College graduate
or more
60
45
39
30
31
34
28
20
8
16
21
-------
Part One — Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Myths
Myth by Myth
What follows is an analysis of how each question in the ten-question multiple choice myth quiz
was handled by the public:
-How is Most Electricity in the United States Generated?
This question was asked for the second straight year, and there was no significant variation from
the previous year's responses. Only 27% of Americans know that most of our electricity (some
70% of all electricity) is produced by burning coal and other flammable materials. Coal-burning
has implications for air quality hi both the United States and in the larger context of the global
warming debate. Importantly, most of the coal burned today is for energy purposes.
The myth response to the electricity question is hydropower which, ironically, provides just
about 10% of America's power needs and is only a major portion of the energy market in just
one region—the Northwest. However, 38% of Americans see dams as our leading method of
electricity production, in spite of the fact that water power accounts for such a small percentage
of the total for the nation. As expected, the western region of the country (which includes the
Pacific Northwest) gives the highest rating to hydropower, at 44%. What accounts for this
misperception? One can only speculate that it may reflect the view of American dams as
engineering wonders and as heroic works—similar to many of the nation's large bridges. Dams
might also reflect a powerful theme—harnessing the forces of nature—and for that reason are
larger-than-life in the American mind. Nonetheless, the hydropower myth is very strong with
two of five Americans believing damS are America's major power producer.
Indeed, hydro, nuclear and solar power account for about 30% of our total energy supply and yet
55% of Americans, a clear majority, think that most of our energy comes from these non-air-
polluting sources. The 1997 NEETF/Roper Survey showed that two of three Americans are
aware that motor vehicles emit carbon directly into the atmosphere, but in the 1998 survey,
power production using coal, which is also a major source of carbon, is understood by just one in
four Americans. Policymakers concerned with air pollution and global warming issues should
heed the role of the hydropower myth and other misconceptions in having the public understand
the global warming and "greenhouse gases" debate.
22
-------
Part One — Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Myths
There are also noteworthy regional variations to the responses to this question. In the Northeast,
which has more of an industrial heritage, 34% know that coal is the major energy source for
electricity production. In the West, where much of the power is produced by large hydroelectric
power dams, 44% of its residents think water power is the main energy source for the nation.
-Main Form of Pollution of Rivers and Streams
This question was also asked for a second straight year with little variation hi response rates. It
points out how few Americans understand that precipitation running off from farm fields, roads,
parking lots and lawns (called "non-point source" pollution) is the leading cause of water
pollution in America today. Just 22% of Americans know that run-off is the most common form
of pollution of streams, rivers and oceans while nearly half (47%) think the most common form
is waste dumped by factories. Another 15% of Americans believe garbage dumping by cities is
the main cause of water pollution. Factories and municipalities remain a cause of water pollution
in America today and surely must continue their clean-up efforts, but they are no longer the
leading cause as they were in the 1960s and 1970s.
Many government programs are acknowledging the importance of looking closely at run-off
pollution and are focusing on land use management, improved farming and timber practices and
more. But, for these programs to ultimately be successful, there must be widespread
understanding of the run-off problem—how to prevent it and how to clean it up. The 1998
NEETF/Roper Survey shows that Americans are far from having such understanding.
Indeed, Americans routinely identify clean and safe water as a top priority, but they seem
reluctant to accept that their own day-to-day actions have a substantial effect on water quality.
As Congress looks to re-authorize the Clean Water Act and various states consider changes in
their own water quality programs, the lack of understanding of water pollution and its major
causes stands as a serious impediment to appropriate policies and actions.
-Primary Goal of Recycling Paper
Recycling programs are highly popular throughout America. And, paper recycling is an
important part of any community-wide recycling effort. It is clear that recycling is an idea that
has caught on in America as something positive mat can be done to protect the environment.
But, the goals of recycling need to be better understood by the public.
23
-------
Part One — Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Myths
Many Americans have the notion that recycling paper is primarily done to reduce the number of
trees cut for paper production. It stands to reason that reusing paper would have that effect. But,
when asked about the environmental benefit of recycling paper, many Americans fail to
recognize the important role recycling plays in reducing wastes going to landfills—the tree-
saving concept still prevails on a 63% to 24% basis.
i
Most paper hi America does not come from wild forests but instead comes from planted forests
where trees are grown primarily for the purpose of later harvest. Professional foresters see the
idea that recycling paper saves trees as failing to recognize that most of the trees used to make
paper were planted for harvest to begin with, and the area is usually re-planted once cut. The
general public is probably more attuned to the concept that trees are valuable natural resources,
unique in nature and habitat for wildlife. Irrespective of one's view on cutting trees for paper,
America has very serious problems identifying needed landfill space.
-Wildlife Entanglement
The 1980s images of dead or injured birds or fish entangled hi plastic beverage six-pack rings
had a great impact on people all over America. In kitchens, in schools, on boats and at campsites
across the nation, children and adults alike conscientiously snip empty beverage six-pack rings
with knives and scissors to keep wild animals from becoming snared and possibly harmed. This
"snipping" practice is widespread and is clear evidence of how the public can be mobilized
around an issue (particularly one involving consumer practices) and how we can change the
public's behavior.
However, plastic six pack rings are hi fact not the leading cause offish and wildlife entanglement
in the United States or elsewhere. The main cause of such entanglement by far, according to the
Center for Marine Conservation in Washington, DC, is abandoned fishing line—a fact known
only by 10% of the survey respondents. Millions of anglers throughout America may be
dutifully snipping their six pack rings, but are just as readily cutting snagged fishing lines and
leaving them hi the wild to trap fish and wildlife. The myth—it is important to snip plastic
rings—is enhanced by the fact that all such rings are now designed to become brittle and
breakable when exposed to direct sunlight such as they would if left outside floating on a lake or
river.
24
-------
Part One — Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Myths
-Spent Nuclear Fuel
There are 105 nuclear power plants in the United States generating approximately 20% of the
nation's power. These plants make use of nuclear fuel rods that maintain a controlled nuclear
reaction to power the plant and generate electricity. These fuel rods can produce energy for three
to five years and then are no longer useful for that purpose. Though "spent" for fuel purposes the
rods are still radioactive and will be for decades to come. They must be handled safely. Since
nuclear power plants were first placed into service some three decades ago, a long-term solution
to how to permanently store spent fuel rods has not been found. It is a troubling issue for the
public, the government and the utility companies alike.
There has, however, been considerable coverage of efforts to store the rods long-term in
underground caves in the West or in other "safe" places. But, these solutions have never come to
fruition and the issue has remained controversial and unresolved. Instead, there are temporary
handling facilities at each of the nuclear plants that hold the spent fuel rods pending a more
permanent solution.
A total of 34% of Americans believe that the spent fuel rods are safely stored in a deep
underground facility in the West. Just 17% correctly know that the rods are stored temporarily
on site and are monitored. Significantly, 35% say they do not know what happens to the spent
fuel. It would seem that media coverage of the controversies around storing the waste on a
permanent basis may have led to the evolution of a myth that the problem has been taken care of
and safe permanent facilities have been developed. Even in the West, where one might expect
residents to know that deep underground nuclear fuel handling facilities have never been
established there, 37% (the most of any region) think such facilities exist.
-Leading Cause of Childhood Death Worldwide
The role of the environment in worldwide loss of life is one of the most critical and least
understood of any of the environmental myths addressed in The 1998 National Report Card.
Public health officials around the world have documented that literally millions of child deaths
each year are the result of microorganisms and other pollutants in water supplies. These often
lead to gastrointestinal disease which in turn leads to dehydration and even starvation. But, only
9% of the American public understands this fact.
25
-------
Part One — Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Myths
The truth is that poor public health practices and unsafe water are killing so many of the world's
children each year. The majority of Americans (55%) have most likely been influenced by
harrowing public reports of famine and starvation in the world and believe it is a lack of food
rather than contaminated water that causes most childhood deaths.
The prevalence of the myth that lack of food is the main cause of childhood death could divert
attention from the need for effective public health and environmental protection efforts in many
nations around the world.
-Main Source of Oil into Rivers Lakes and Bays
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, many millions of gallons of petroleum
find their way into the rivers, lakes and bays of the nation each year. Indeed, there was a time,
some 30 years ago, when much of this petroleum came from American industries ranging from
production factories to oil refineries. Today, however, the automobile produces most of this
petroleum and the oil itself comes from individuals changing their car oil and dumping it down a
nearby storm drain or pouring it into the ground. Mid 1990s estimates were that 17 million
gallons per day—more than the Valdez oil spill—were dumped by individuals. But, just 16% of
the American public know this fact, while 40% believe the oil comes primarily from ships and
offshore oil well spills, and 17% think it comes mostly from coastal oil refinery discharges.
As with the most common cause of water pollution, Americans see larger facilities as the main
problem rather than their own actions. Certainly steps must be taken by the petroleum industry
to prevent oil spills and other pollution problems. But, America's car owners must come to
understand they are now the number one oil pollution source, if this problem is to be overcome.
A noteworthy regional variation is that just 11% of people from the Northeast answer this
question correctly while 20% of people hi the West got the answer right.
-Current Source of Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
In 1978 Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were banned in aerosol spray cans in the American markets
due to concern about their release into the Earth's upper atmosphere and their potential impact on
the globe's protective ozone layer. Yet, 32% of Americans still say that spray cans are the only
source of CFCs hi America today. The fact is that CFCs are still in auto air conditioners and
refrigerators, which only 33% of Americans seem to recognize. Another 9% think Styrofoam
cups are the only source of CFCs, while 20% of Americans say they do not know.
26
-------
Part One — Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Myths
A media-based consumer awareness campaign produced profound public sensitivity to the spray
can issue, but efforts to make people aware that CFCs have been banned from aerosol cans did
not reach the same awareness level. Some spray can producers may actually add to the confusion
by promoting their products as "CFC-free" due to the strength and persistence of this myth. In
the Northeast, 39% answered that spray cans were the leading CFC source while 27% of those in
the West gave that answer.
-Greatest Source of Landfill Material
Notwithstanding the move into the computer age and the beginning of a switch to a paper-free
society, paper products are still the number one source of landfill material in America. However,
only about one American in four (23%) knows this, while 29% incorrectly think that disposable
diapers are the greatest threat to our crowded landfills. This comes in part from yet another
media-based consumer awareness campaign that, in the early-to-mid 1980s, cited diapers as a
significant environmental problem. But the myth soon evolved so that diapers are seen by many
as the leading source of landfill material. Indeed, diapers are a source of landfill material and
efforts to reduce waste of all sorts should continue. But, newspapers, boxes, packaging and
office paper should be clearly understood as the greatest single source and a necessary focus of
reduction, reuse and recycling programs.
Only 18% of Northeast residents responded correctly to this question while 27% of
Midwesterners gave the right answer. By comparison, 33% of those from the Northeast gave the
myth answer while just 26% of Midwesterners provided that response.
-Definition of a Watershed
In public policy discussions of water quality at the federal, state and local levels, the term
"watershed" is mentioned with great frequency. It is defined as "an area of land that, due to its
natural drainage pattern, collects precipitation and deposits it into a particular body of water." In
the West these land areas are often called "drainages" and throughout the nation they are
sometimes referred to as river or stream "basins."
27
-------
Part One — Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Myths
The 1998 NEETF/Roper Survey provided the public with several possible definitions of a
"watershed." A total of 41% of Americans are able to identify the term watershed as an area of
land that drains into a specific body of water. But 35% are unable to venture a guess even when
presented with choices of definitions. When considering that many of our water pollution
problems come from run-off, there is clear logic to addressing water pollution issues through a
drainage basin or watershed approach. The problem is that the public needs to be more aware of
what a watershed is and what effect watersheds can have on their own activities. We note that
The 1998 NEETF/Roper Survey asks people to choose a definition and does not ask them to
define the term on their own. Actual knowledge of what a watershed really is (without
prompting) would probably be considerably lower than 41%.
A second group of questions about environmental myths and truths was presented in a true/false
format. Even when given only two choices, a majority of Americans opt for the myth response
in three of five cases. (No more than 8% of Americans opt for the "don't know" response in
each question.) The topic providing the greatest percentage of myth responses is government
testing of industrial and household chemicals, which 65% answer incorrectly.
Figure 8: True/False Questions: Percentage Giving Myth Response
Content of True/False Question
Government testing of industrial and household
chemicals
Testing of tap water for contaminants
Government testing of bottled water
Use of trees in national forests
Replacement of extinct species
Percentage Who Gave
Myth Response
65%
59%
51%
19%
17%
Unlike several of the multiple-choice questions, responses to the true/false questions do not vary
by level of self-reported environmental knowledge. The percentage giving the myth response
varies little by gender (only for government testing of industrial and household chemicals, which
is higher among men, 70%, than women, 61%) or region (only for government testing of bottled
water does one region—the South, 58%, stand out from the rest of the nation), while no
consistent trends are evident by age (though 59% of those age 18-34 give the myth response for
government testing of bottled water, compared to 51% overall).
28
-------
Part One — Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Myths
Agreement with the myth choice decreases significantly as education level increases for three of
the questions, but is similar for the other two:
Figure 9: True/False Questions.
Content of True/False Question
Government testing of industrial and
household chemicals
Testing of tap water for contaminants
Government testing of bottled water
Use of trees in national forests
Replacement of extinct species
Percentage Giving Myth Response by
Total Myth
Response
65
59
51
19
17
Education
Education
High School
or Less
66
59
53
19
21
Some
College
69
60
55
16
12
College
Graduate
60
59
40
23
11
As with the multiple-choice questions, belief in the environmental myths is widespread among
all Americans.
There are some subgroup differences in responses to the true/false questions compared to the
multiple choice questions. For instance college graduates are more likely than those with less
education to give the correct response for replacement of extinct species, government testing of
bottled water, and government testing of industrial and household chemicals.
Figure 10: True/False Questions: Percentage Giving Correct Answer
Content of True/False Question
Use of trees hi national forests
Replacement of extinct species
Government testing of bottled water
Testing of tap water for contaminants
Government testing of industrial and household chemicals
Percentage Who Answered
Question Correctly
79%
78%
42%
35%
27%
29
-------
Part One — Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Myths
Government Protecting the Public
Some of the 1998 NEETF/Roper Survey's true/false questions looked at people's perceptions of
how protected they are by government. In general, Americans who otherwise may question
government involvement in private matters expect the government to protect public health and
the environment. Highlights of the three true/false questions generally answered incorrectly
demonstrate this reliance by the public.
-Industrial and household chemicals are routinely tested and approved for safe use by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency or other federal agency
Two out of three Americans (65%) assume this statement is true even though it is not. Only 27%
gave the correct response and 8% did not know. Those who live in the West have a clearer grasp
of this fact, although 57% (still a strong majority) make the incorrect assumption.
-Tap water is routinely tested and filtered to remove contamination from livestock and
pesticide run-off
A significant majority of Americans (59%) thinks this statement is true. However, water utilities
do not routinely test for these two forms of water pollution. Moreover, most water treatment
systems cannot filter out these pollutants due to dated technology. Indeed, most of the water
plant filtering systems in use in America today are unable to screen out chemicals and such
chlorine-resistant micro-organisms as Cryptosporidium and Giardia. The testing of drinking
water certainly takes place on a regular basis and water utilities are diligent in trying to provide
safe and pure water to the public. But, there are certain pollutants that routinely get through the
treatment systems and a majority of the public does not recognize this fact.
-No government agency tests bottled water for safety and purity
More than half of Americans (51%) believe this statement to be false. They think (incorrectly)
that bottled water is tested for safety and purity. Just 42% of Americans know it is not tested.
This misapprehension is ironic because the survey research indicates that many people turn to
bottled water because of a lack of faith hi the purity of tap water.
Overall, these true/false statements and the public's response to them indicate high levels of faith
in the government's protection of public health and safety, even when such faith is largely
unfounded. Perhaps one of the most pervasive environmental myths of this decade is the notion
that people are being protected when they are not.
30
-------
Part Two — Continued Support for Government's Role in Protecting the Environment
Part Two
Continued Support for Government's Role in
Protecting the Environment
31
-------
Part Two — Continued Support for Government's Role in Protecting the Environment
Part II. Support for Government's Role in Protecting the Environment
Americans generally express a desire for the government to play an active role in protecting the
environment. Support for environmental protection over economic development is at an all-time
high in the seven years of the study. In general though, attitudes toward environmental
protection laws are unchanged, while environmental protection laws for two of five specific areas
(protecting endangered species and protecting wetlands) register a decrease in the percentage
believing the laws go too far.
A Consensus Maintained: Environmental Protection and Economic Development
Can Work Together
Can environmental protection and economic development go hand in hand? This important
question about the relationship between the environment and the economy has been asked of the
American public each of the seven years of this study. As in the previous six years, Americans
in 1998 firmly believe that protecting the environment and developing the economy can go hand
hi hand. Of those surveyed, 62% agree with this option, rather than the alternative—one must be
chosen over the other (28%).
32
-------
Part Two — Continued Support for Government's Role in Protecting the Environment
Figure 11: Environmental Protection and Economic Development Can Go Hand in Hand
1992
1993
1994
1995 | | 1996
1997
1998
63%
28
12
10
11 12 11
bl
£y
Can Go Hand in Hand Must Choose Between Depends/Don't Know
Environment
and Development
Question wording: Most of the time, do you think environmental protection and economic development can go hand
in hand, or that we must choose between environmental protection and economic development?
These responses are fairly consistent among demographic subgroups, varying only by education
level—60% of Americans with a high school education or less opt for the hand in hand option,
compared to 65% of those with, a college degree. Women are slightly more likely than men to
say that environmental protection and economic development can go together.
When Forced to Choose, Americans Prefer Environmental Protection to Economic
Development
Further investigation shows that people's sentiments clearly lie with protecting the environment.
People were asked whether, in the case of a forced choice between the two, they would choose
environmental protection or economic development.
33
-------
Part Two — Continued Support for Government's Role in Protecting the Environment
Even more than in the past, Americans choose to protect the environment when a compromise is
impossible. Fully, 71% give this response, while just 17% opt for economic development. The
percentage saying they would prefer environmental protection is at an all-time high—up eight
points since 1996 and up twelve points from the low seen in 1993 (59%).
Figure 12: When Compromise is Impossible, Environment Favored Over Development
1992
1993
1995 || 1996
1997 fe¥l 1998
64%
12
Environmental
Protection
Economic
Development
Depends/
Don't Know (vol.)
Question wording: When it is impossible to find a reasonable compromise between economic development and
environmental protection, which do you usually believe is more important: economic
development or environmental protection?
There are important differences among several demographic subgroups. For example, women
are considerably more likely than men to opt for protecting the environment (74% versus 68%).
Also, whereas environmental protection is the choice for 77% of Americans age 18-34, this falls
to 69% of those age 35-44 and to 66% of those age 65 and over. As education level increases,
though, preference for the environmental protection option decreases, from 73% among those
Americans with a high school education or less to 67% among those who are college graduates.
34
-------
Part Two — Continued Support for Government's Role in Protecting the Environment
Many Americans Continue to Feel Environmental Regulations Do Not Go Far Enough
As long as there have been laws protecting the environment, there have been discussions about
the extent and impact of the laws. When this survey was first conducted in 1992, 63% said that
environmental laws and regulations did not go far enough. After a large decline in the mid-
1990s, the percentage holding this opinion has remained steady for the past four years, holding at
a few percentage points below 50%. Though lower over time, the "not gone far enough" position
remains the most popular, cited by 46% in 1998. This figure compares to the 29% who say that
current laws have struck "about the right balance," and just 17% who would argue that current
regulations "go too far."
Figure 13: Opinion of Environmental Laws and Regulations
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
63%
Not Gone
Far Enough
10
About the Gone Too Far Don't Know
Right Balance
Question wording: There are differing opinions about how far we've gone with environmental protection laws and
regulations. At the present time, do you think environmental protection laws and regulations- have
gone too far, not far enough, or have struck about the right balance?
35
-------
Part Two — Continued Support for Government's Role in Protecting the Environment
Gender and age are again keys to understanding attitudes on this issue, as they were in previous
NEETF/Roper studies. While women are significantly more likely than men to say that current
laws and regulations do not go far enough, men are more likely to state that current laws go too
far or have struck about the right balance. With regard to age, the percentage saying that laws for
protecting the environment do not go far enough decreases from 55% among 18-34 year olds to
36% among those age 65 and over. At the same time, the percentage holding the "gone too far"
viewpoint increases from 11% among 18-34 year olds to 25% of those age 65 and over. Clearly,
there are gender and generation gaps in attitudes toward environmental laws and regulations.
Figure 14: Attitudes Toward Environmental Laws by Gender and Age
Extent of current
Environmental Laws
Gone too far
Not far enough
Struck about the right
balance
Don't know
Gender
Age
Total
17
46
29
8
Men
21
41
32
6
Women
13
51
27
9
18-34
11
55
29
5
35-44
15
46
33
7
45-64
21
41
29
9
65+
25
36
26
12
When asked to consider laws for the protection of five specific parts of the natural environment,
Americans clearly rank two as more important than the others—water and air. (Water quality
has already been shown to be a concern for many Americans.) Whereas 46% state that
environmental laws overall have not gone far enough, 72% say that environmental laws and
regulations to prevent water pollution have not gone far enough, and 61% hold the same opinion
of laws to prevent air pollution. However, for the other three issues, protection of wild or natural
areas, protection of wetlands and endangered species, no more than 50% agree that current laws
do not go far enough.
Still, in all five cases, more Americans continue to say that current laws do not go far enough
than say that the laws go too far or have struck the right balance. In addition, Americans have
largely settled into their positions on these issues, as attitudes toward regulations to protect these
five areas of the environment have remained steady since 1995.
36
-------
Part Two — Continued Support for Government's Role in Protecting the Environment
Figure 15: Current Regulation of Specific Environmental Issues
Gone
Too Far
About the
Right Balance
Not Gone Not Gone Far Enough
Far Enough 1997 1992
Water Pollution
Air Pollution
Wild or Natural Areas
Wetlands
Endangered Species
72%
79%
62 72
48 59
44 53
42
51
Question wording: Thinking now about some specific areas, at the present time, do you think laws and regulations for
(INSERT ISSUE FROM ABOVE) have gone too far, not far enough, or have struck about the right
balance?
As might be expected, there are large differences within the gender and age subgroups. For each
of the five issues, women opt for the "not gone far enough" option more often than men. As with
environmental laws overall, men are more likely than women to say regulations go too far,
especially for endangered species, wetlands and air pollution.
The generation gap is in evidence when it comes to attitudes toward specific environmental laws
and regulations. Americans age 18-34 are consistently more likely than those older than 34 to
say current laws for the five specific environmental issues do not go far enough, while those 65
and over are consistently the most likely to say current laws go too far.
37
-------
Part Two — Continued Support for Government's Role in Protecting the Environment
In addition, Westerners are significantly more likely than residents of other parts of the country
to state that current laws protecting endangered species of plants, animals and insects go too far,
perhaps a reflection of laws concerning the spotted owl, river trout, or the stands of redwoods.
Over one-quarter of Westerners (28%) are of this opinion, compared to 18% of those in the
South, 14% of those in the Midwest and 12% of those in the Northeast.
Interestingly, endangered species seems to be a "hot button" for those who dislike current
environmental regulations. For example, 18% of all Americans say that laws protecting
endangered species go too far. Among those who think environmental laws in general go too far,
however, folly 51% think regulations protecting endangered species go too far, for a difference
of 33 percentage points. By way of comparison, those who think environmental regulations in
general go too far are 24 points more likely than the national average to think that laws
protecting wetlands go too far; 24 points more likely to have this opinion of laws protecting wild
or natural areas; 21 points more likely to feel that laws which fight air pollution go too far; and
12 points more likely to believe water protection laws go too far. Laws for the protection of
endangered species are the key point of contention for those Americans who think current
environmental regulations go too far.
Clouds on the Horizon: Environmental Catastrophe Ahead
While most Americans do not go to sleep expecting to wake up to an environmentally decimated
planet, many feel that something needs to be done soon. This attitude is reflected in the fact that
a majority of Americans (57%) agree with the following statement: "The next 10 years are the
last decade when humans will have a chance to save the earth from environmental catastrophe."
This attitude is unchanged from 1997—evidence that concern about the earth's environmental
future continues. The 1998 figure is ten percentage points higher than the 1995 figure of 47%.
38
-------
Part Two — Continued Support for Government's Role in Protecting the Environment
Figure 16: Environmental Catastrophe Imminent
Agree
The next ten years are the last decade when
humans will have a chance to save the earth
from environmental catastrophe
Agree
57%
1992* 1993* 1994* 1995* 1996* 1997 1998
49% 51% 52% 47% 48% 59% 57%
Question wording: Please tell me whether you strongly agree, mostly agree, mostly disagree, or strongly disagree
with the following statement...
* Prior to 1997, statement was asked as "The 1990 's is the last decade when humans will have a chance to save the
earth from the environmental catastrophe."
Once again, there are differences by gender and age. Women are 7 percentage points more likely
than men to agree with the statement, that is, to agree that environmental catastrophe could occur
in the next ten years if something is not done to protect the planet. There is a noticeable
difference in opinion among those under and over the age of 45: 61% of Americans age 18-44
agree with the statement, compared to 53% of Americans age 45 and over. The source of this
difference is unclear, though it may be related to educational attainment. Disagreement with this
phrase increases from 36% among those with a high school education or less, to 39% of those
with some college, to 42% of those with at least a college degree, perhaps indicating a skepticism
is developed by higher levels of educational attainment.
There are also differences depending on general attitudes toward environmental regulations. The
survey shows that among those who believe current laws and regulations protecting the
environment strike the right balance, 55 % also agree that humankind must act to save the earth.
This figure rises to 68% for those who think current laws do not go far enough, and falls to 39%
among those who say current laws go too far. In other words, as concern about the environment
increases (reflected in the desire for current environmental laws to go further), so does the belief
that mankind must act (pass laws) to prevent environmental catastrophe.
39
-------
Part Two — Continued Support for Government's Role in Protecting the Environment
How Parents See Environmental Issues
The 1998 NEETF/Roper Survey provides an opportunity to look at the attitudes and interests of
parents in America and compare them to adults without children. The survey reveals some
significant differences between the environmental attitudes of these two groups. These
differences may reflect parents' role as caretakers of their children.
When asked whether they would choose the environment or the economy, if such a choice had to
be made, parents (74%) are somewhat more likely to say they would choose the environment
than are adults without children (69%). When asked if they think government regulation of the
environment has gone too far or not far enough, parents view regulation of air and water
pollution more favorably than do other adults: 76% of parents as compared to 70% of other
adults think water pollution regulation has not gone far enough; and 64% of parents versus 58%
of non-parents think that air pollution regulation has not gone far enough.
On both issues it seems that parents might be more attuned to the overall health of their families
and so would be more mindful of threats to family health such as water and air pollution. This
"health connection" seems to be supported when one notes that similar differences between
parents and non-parents are not evident on the subjects of regulation of wild and natural areas,
endangered species and wetlands.
For a second straight year there was no evidence that parents have higher levels of environmental
knowledge than other adults. This is important to note because it is the prevailing view of the
public, as well as the professional field of environmental education, that children learn about the
environment in schools and then impart their new-found knowledge to their parents.
The Impact of a Higher Level of Knowledge on Environmental Attitudes
The 1997 NEETF/Roper Survey presented adult Americans with a basic quiz on environmental
knowledge to see if they have an understanding of environmental subjects and issues. The
results of this quiz revealed that only about one third of Americans (32%) have a passing
knowledge of the environment. The 1997 survey also revealed a strong relationship between
higher levels of knowledge and views on environmental regulation. It should be noted that
higher levels of knowledge also correspond somewhat to higher income and education levels.
40
-------
Part Two — Continued Support for Government's Role in Protecting the Environment
As noted earlier, the 1998 NEETF/Roper Survey looks at prevailing environmental myths to
determine their persistence and whether they are actually preventing individuals from learning
accurate information about current environmental problems. Because the average mean response
on the 1998 NEETF/Roper myths quiz was 2.2 correct answers (out often questions), the public
was split into two groups: a low-knowledge group at three or fewer correct responses (74%); and
a high-knowledge group of four or more correct responses (26%). Each group's responses were
then compared on key questions as follows:
-Can the environment and the economy go hand in hand?
There was little difference between the high-knowledge group (65%) and low-knowledge group
(62%), as the majority of both groups believe a balance can be found between the environment
and the economy.
-Ifyou must choose would you pick the environment or the economy?
Fully, 73% of the low-knowledge group would pick the environment over the economy as
opposed to 66% of the high-knowledge group. One should note that other characteristics of the
high-knowledge group, such as higher education levels and higher income levels, also correlate
to less support for the environment.
-Has environmental regulation gone too far, not far enough or has it achieved the right
balance?
For the most part, there is no real statistical difference between the high-knowledge and low-
knowledge groups on their opinions of whether overall environmental regulation has gone too far
(low group, 17% and high group, 15%) or whether it has not gone far enough (low group, 45%
and high group, 43%). The most telling difference between the groups is those who say that the
right balance has been achieved. While 29% of the low-knowledge group thinks there is balance,
35% of the high-knowledge group sees regulation as having achieved balance.
41
-------
Part TVo — Continued Support for Government's Role in Protecting the Environment
-Airpollution regulation
The low-knowledge group is five percentage points (61%) more likely than the high-knowledge
group (56%) to think that regulation of air pollution has not gone far enough, and 11 percentage
points less likely (24% versus 35%) to think that balance respecting air pollution regulation has
been achieved.
-Regulation of wetlands and wild or natural areas
There is no statistical difference between the high-knowledge and low-knowledge groups
respecting the regulation of wetlands and wild and natural areas.
-Regulation of endangered species
There are considerable differences between the high and low-knowledge groups when it comes to
endangered species programs. Whereas 15% of the low-knowledge group feel endangered
species regulation has gone too far, 23% of the high-knowledge group hold this belief.
Correspondingly, 47% of the low-knowledge group feel that endangered species regulation
should go further, as opposed to 40% of the high-knowledge group.
-Waterpollution regulation
Of those surveyed, 73% of the low-knowledge group think that water pollution regulation should
go further compared to 63% of the high-knowledge group. In addition, 18% of the low-
knowledge group and 30% of the high-knowledge group feel that the right balance in water
pollution regulation has been achieved.
-Environmental Catastrophe on the Horizon?
When asked whether the next ten years is our last chance to avoid a major environmental
catastrophe, 59% of the low-knowledge group agreed, 47% of the high-knowledge group agreed.
Conversely, 35% of the low-knowledge group disagreed with the statement, while 50% of the
high-knowledge group disagreed.
42
-------
Part Two — Continued Support for Government's Role in Protecting the Environment
The Environmental Gender Gap—1998
In past National Report Cards, as well as the 1998 survey, a notable difference between the
environmental attitudes of men and women has repeatedly surfaced. While a large majority of
all Americans (71%) favor the environment over the economy, if a choice between them must be
made, fully 74% of women favor the environment compared to 68% of men. This stronger pro-
environment feeling of women in America is evident from the responses they give to many
questions in The 1998 National Report Card. For example, 21% of men think environmental
regulation has gone too far while just 13% of women feel that way. Conversely, a majority
(51 %) of women feel that regulation should go further while a 41 % plurality of men hold that
belief.
Moreover, there is an 11 point difference between men and women (55% versus 66%) on
whether government regulation and programs to fight air pollution should go further. Similarly,
76% of women feel that the regulation of water pollution needs to go further as compared to 69%
of men. There are similar gender-based point spreads for regulations of wild areas, wetlands and
endangered species.
Women are also somewhat more inclined than men to worry about our environmental future. A
majority of women (61%) agree that the next ten years is our last chance to avoid a major
environmental catastrophe while just 53% of men hold that opinion.
Both men and women consistently support environmental protection programs, but for the
seventh straight year of the NEETF/Roper Survey, the pro-environment feelings of American
women remain stronger than those of men.
A portion of The 1998 National Report Card also looks at the frequency with which Americans
engage in certain environmental activities on their own (see Part Three). These range from such
individual activities as decreasing the amount of chemicals used in lawn care to volunteering for
local environmental groups. Generally there are few differences between the rates of
involvement of men and women in these activities.
43
-------
Part Two — Continued Support for Government's Role in Protecting the Environment
Those that do exist, however, show that women play a strong economic role in the household.
Women are clearly more involved then men with such activities as buying environmentally safe
products and cutting down on the waste of water and electricity. With each of these activities
women are a few percentage points higher hi their rates of involvement. A place where men
seem to be more engaged in personal environmental activities is in working on wildlife habitat
improvement projects. This may have to do with participation rates in the outdoor recreation
activities of hunting and fishing. Men are five times more likely than women to hunt and are two
times more likely to be anglers.
The NEETF/Roper Survey also assesses environmental knowledge in America. For the second
straight year, and despite the more pro-environment position of American women, they appear
less knowledgeable than men about the environment. The 1997 NEETF/Roper Survey revealed
that 43% of men passed with nine or more correct responses to a 12-question quiz on basic
environmental knowledge compared to just 20% of women.
The 1998 NEETF/Roper Survey looks at how Americans would respond when asked questions
on subjects imbued with prevailing environmental myths. The 1998 myths quiz (quite different
from the more general 1997 quiz) shows the power that certain environmental myths have in
America. Indeed, the mean number of correct responses to the ten myth questions was just 2.2.
Therefore, in order to separate out a high-knowledge group from the universe of respondents the
dividing line is three or fewer correct answers versus four or more correct. Fully, 69% of the
higher-knowledge group are men while 31% are women (see Part One).
The exact reasons for this difference are not well understood and require more research. There
are, for instance, no significant education level differences between men and women in the
survey sample. Discussions with professional educators may provide a clue, however. They
think the difference might be accounted for by the two-to-one ratio of men to women in science-
based education and employment in America. Many of the environmental issues covered in the
1997 and 1998 NEETF/Roper Surveys have scientific underpinnings, and the specific knowledge
of a scientific subject or professional experience with science may make the difference between a
higher or lower score in the quiz.
44
-------
Part Three — Environmental Activities
Part Three
Environmental Activities
45
-------
Part Three — Environmental Activities
Part III. Environmental Activities
Though they may not realize it, many Americans perform activities each day that benefit the
environment in some way. Combined with concerns about and knowledge of the environment,
activities that benefit the natural world are the third point in the environment nexus (concern-
education-behavior)., a model identified and defined in the 1996 and 1997 NEETF/Roper
Surveys.
The Environment in Day-to-Day Life
i
Whether of their own initiative or compelled into action by laws and regulations, many
Americans frequently engage in behaviors that benefit the environment. Asked the frequency
with which they do each of eleven activities that benefit the environment, a majority of the public
performs four "frequently." One of the most simple behaviors tops the list: 85% report that they
frequently turn off lights and electrical appliances when not in use. Whether people consciously
do this to benefit the environment or to save money on the electric bill is less important than the
fact that they are performing this activity, which protects the environment by reducing the need
for power generation at electric plants that burn oil, coal or wood. About six Americans in ten
frequently perform three other activities that actually benefit the environment: 65% say they
recycle newspapers, cans and glass; 62% say they try to cut down on the amount of trash their
households create; and 61% say they conserve water in their homes and yards.
It should be noted that the activities performed most frequently have two things in common.
First, they can be done easily at home. Second, they are not necessarily linked with the
environment. In fact, fewer than one American in ten says he or she frequently performs the four
listed activities that directly state their impact on the environment.
46
-------
Part Three — Environmental Activities
Figure 17: Environmental Activities Done Frequently in Day-to-Day Life
Turn off lights and electrical
appliances when not in use
Recycle things such as
newspaper, cans and glass
Try to cut down on the amount
of trash and garbage you create
Conserve water in your
home and yard
Buy biodegradable or
recyclable products
Avoid using chemicals
in your yard and garden
Use other types of transportation, such
as biking or the bus, instead of driving
your car
Help a group improve
fish and wildlife habitat
Participate in a public
land clean-up day
Do other volunteer work for a
group that helps the environment
Make an environmental presentation to
a school or community group
85%
I
Question wording: Now I would like to ask you about some of the things you may do in your day-to-day life. For
each of the following things, would you please tell me whether you never do it, sometimes do it,
or frequently do it. (First/Next)... (Ask about each)
The likelihood of performing several of the listed activities "frequently" varies by gender.
Women are more likely than men to say they frequently turn off lights and appliances when
leaving a room, try to cut down on trash created, conserve water, in the home and yard, buy
biodegradable or recyclable products, and avoid using chemicals in the home or garden. Men are
more likely than women to say they frequently "help a group improve fish and wildlife habitat."
47
-------
Part Three — Environmental Activities
Figure 18: Environmental Activities Performed Frequently by Gender
Turn off lights and electrical appliances
when not in use
Recycle things such as newspaper, cans
and glass
Try to cut down on the amount of trash
and garbage you create
Conserve water in your home and yard
Buy biodegradable or recyclable
products
Avoid using chemicals in your yard and
garden
Use other types of transportation, such
as biking or the bus, instead of
driving your car
Help a group improve fish and wildlife
habitat
Participate in a public land clean-up day
Do other volunteer work for a group
that helps the environment
Make an environmental presentation to
a school or community group
Total
85
65
62
61
50
39
16
9
8
8
5
Male
83
64
58
58
43
35
16
13
7
9
5
Gender
Female
87
67
66
64
57
42
17
6
8
7
5
Interestingly, only one activity varies significantly by region. Perhaps due to different laws in
different areas, "frequent" recycling of newspapers, cans and glass is highest in the Northeast
(82%) and lowest in the South (55%), with the West (72%) and Midwest (62%) closer to the
national average.
48
-------
Part Three — Environmental Activities
In an effort to reduce the bias that may be associated with performing the activities directly
linked to the environment, those who perform each activity "sometimes" were combined with
those who do each activity "frequently" to establish an "ever perform" figure. Thus, over four
Americans in ten say that they participate in a public land clean-up day, while just over a third
say they do other volunteer work for groups that help the environment. In other words, though
they may notfrequently engage in these activities, many Americans do find some time to do
work that benefits the environment.
Figure 19: Frequency of Environmental Activities Performed
How Often
Perform Activity
Participate in a public land
clean-up day
Do other volunteer work for
a group that helps the
environment
Help a group improve fish
and wildlife habitat
Make an environmental
presentation to a school or
community group
Frequently Sometimes Ever Perform
8 34 42
8 28 36
9 20 29
5 12 17
Never Perform
58
64
70
82
49
-------
Part Three — Environmental Activities
As seen in the 1996 and 1997 NEETF/Roper studies, a relationship exists between environmental
concerns, knowledge and behaviors. A schematic of this relationship would look something like
this:
Concern
Education
Behavior
Americans' deep concern for the environment is reflected in the plurality of those surveyed who
think current environmental regulations do not go far enough and the majority who think the next
ten years are the last decade to save the planet from environmental catastrophe. The survey also
shows that Americans tend to believe environmental myths rather than truths. Furthermore, even
those who say they have "a lot" or "a fair amount" of environmental knowledge believe
inaccurate information.
Still, as seen in the table on the next page, there is often a relationship between knowledge and
behavior. For nine of the eleven activities that benefit the environment, the likelihood that
people perform those activities frequently increases proportionately with their self-reported
environmental knowledge. The only exceptions are the turning off of lights and appliances
(which nearly everyone does) and the use of alternative forms of transportation (which may
depend more on regional infrastructure and availability than concern about the environment).
50
-------
Part Three — Environmental Activities
Figure 20: Activities Done Frequently in Day-to-Day Life that Benefit the Environment
by Self-Reported Environmental Knowledge
Turn off lights and electrical appliances
when not in use
Recycle newspaper, cans and glass
Try to cut down on the amount of trash and
garbage you create
Conserve water in your home and yard
Buy biodegradable or recyclable products
Avoid using chemicals in yard and garden
Use other types of transportation; biking or
the bus, instead of driving your car
Help a group improve fish and wildlife
habitat
Participate in a public land clean-up day
Do other volunteer work for a group that
helps the environment
Make an environmental presentation to a
school or community group
Total
85
65
62
61
50
39
16
9
8
8
5
A lot
82
74
68
71
58
50
16
23
14
19
11
Self-Reported Environmental
Knowledge
A fair amount Little/Practically Nothing
87
69
63
62
55
39
18
8
7
7
4
82
56
59
56
40
34
14
7
6
4
5
Clearly, concern about and knowledge of the environment do have an effect on the likelihood of
engaging in day-to-day activities that directly or indirectly benefit the environment. According
to the figures discussed earlier, increasing environmental knowledge for all Americans should
increase individual involvement in environmental affairs. Therefore, education about the
environment is required if Americans are to 1) understand how their decisions affect the
environment, 2) be able to communicate their attitudes toward the environment to others (such as
their firm belief in a balance between environmental protection and economic development) and
3) become more involved in environmental activities.
51
-------
Part Tltree—Environmental Activities
An Environmental Education Agenda: Recommendations
The National Environmental Education & Training Foundation is a leading source of information
and programs concerning environmental education in America. The following recommendations
are a compendium of "lessons learned" from several years of National Report Card data and
experience gained from other sources.
Educators and policymakers should be very clear on where old news and persistent
environmental myths are clouding the public's understanding of the most pressing
environmental problems.
The 1998 NEETF/Roper Survey makes it clear that there are a number of persistent
environmental myths around current environmental problems that are diverting public attention
and discussions from some of the leading environmental problems facing us today. Examples of
these inaccurate beliefs exist around water quality issues, air quality issues, wildlife preservation
and more. Efforts to make the public more aware of the primary problems may need to
correspond with an active effort to place some of these myths in a more accurate perspective.
i
We must make sure that professionals in the environmental field do not assume the public
knows more than it really does about environmental issues.
NEETF is concerned about a tendency of those working hi the field of the environment—
companies, government and non-governmental organizations—to assume that average
Americans know more than they do about the environment. Any technical field has this
problem. But, the environmental community's long-term goal of environmental literacy for all
Americans demands that there be a good assessment of public knowledge.
Professionals in the environmental field should guard against using technical language and
professional jargon when communicating with the public.
The environmental field has its own language and way of describing its goals and activities. This
language can be quite technical and fairly internal to the field. Because this same field has a goal
of seeing the public well educated on the environment, it is important that environmental
educators use everyday language in communicating with the public.
52
-------
Part Three — Environmental Activities
As environmental issues and their solutions become more complex, there must be greater use
of visual presentations of issues and approaches.
Complex interrelationships in ecosystems, biotechnology, global warming, hydrologic cycles and
other issues are difficult to describe using words alone. The 1997 and 1998 National Report
Card data reveal that the greatest gaps in public understanding of the environment are related to
the more complex subjects which do lend themselves to effective graphic presentation.
Educators and policy makers need to better recognize the relationship between scientific
knowledge and basic environmental literacy.
The 1997 NEETF/Roper Survey revealed that only 40% of American men and 20% of American
women passed a basic test on environmental knowledge. Because education levels of men and
women in the survey were the same, the difference could lie in the amount of science education
men and women receive. More research needs to be done on this subject. Recent studies have
shown that higher education in science occurs on a two to one basis of men to women in America
today. There is a reasonable likelihood that increased emphasis on science education would go
far to increase environmental literacy.
We must educate members of the media more effectively on environmental issues.
There are numerous indications in the National Report Card data over the years that the media
plays a critical role in informing the public about the environment. There may be a particular
need to place more emphasis on educating members of the public media on complex
environmental issues and approaches.
Because public environmental discussions—in legislation, the courts and the media—tend to
become polarized, we need to emphasize the importance of the "innovative middle ground."
Policy makers, legislators, agency representatives and others are often diverted from "win-win"
approaches to environmental issues because environmental debates can so quickly become
polarized and contentious. These individuals need to be encouraged to seek effective middle
ground solutions and not become entrenched in a polarized debate.
53
-------
Conclusion
Overall, America's report card on environmental knowledge is not good. Designed in part to
highlight some of the myths surrounding environmental issues and problems, the 1998
NEETF/Roper Survey demonstrates the power of myth in the context of the environment. What
may be especially alarming is the widespread and persistent nature of the misinformation among
most demographic subgroups. Clearly, there is a need to provide environmental information in a
form that the American public can more easily remember and internalize. Once the public
understands what it is hearing and knows why it is important, environmental myths will begin to
disappear. The responsibility for moving in the direction of greater information and
understanding rests with public agencies, non-governmental organizations, the environmental
community and the media.
However, belief hi environmental myths is by no means an indication of apathy toward the
environment. In fact, Americans are concerned about the environment. Three-quarters of the
American public express concern about the quality and safety of their tap water; a majority think
the next 10 years are the last decade to save the planet from environmental catastrophe; and a
plurality think current environmental regulations do not go far enough. Moreover, the
percentage of Americans who would choose environmental protection over economic
development, if a choice was necessary, is at its highest point in the seven years of this study.
Americans are concerned about the environment and generally want the government to be
actively involved hi its protection.
Not only do laws and regulations provide information and change attitudes, they also affect
behavior. However, changing behavior is more difficult than changing attitudes. Laws requiring
recycling make people think twice before disposing of a newspaper or plastic container (even if
they are not aware of the ultimate reason for doing so). Currently, though, Americans are more
likely to engage hi activities that indirectly benefit the environment—such as turning off lights or
recycling—than to take direct action that helps the environment—such as participating in a
public land clean up day. It may be that the nature of the activity, passive or active, determines
how often people engage in it, rather than its environmental impact.
Fortunately, there is a direct relationship between environmental knowledge and the frequency of
participating hi activities that benefit the environment. Americans who say they know a lot
about the environment (even if some of their information is erroneous) are consistently more
likely than those who report less environmental knowledge to frequently perform activities that
benefit the environment. Still, those with a lot of environmental knowledge continue to be a
minority of the American public. Therefore, large shifts in behavior won't be evident until
everyone becomes more knowledgeable about the environment and realizes that his or her own
actions are often part of the problem, but could just as easily be part of the solution.
54
-------
Methodology
Description of the Sample
A nationwide cross-section of 2,004 adults, 18 years of age and older, was interviewed in The
National Environmental Education & Training Foundation Environmental Attitudes and
Knowledge Survey. Interviews were conducted by telephone from April 29 to May 17, 1998.
Results are projectable to the total adult population of the continental United States who would
be willing to be interviewed in a telephone study of this kind.
The margin of error due to sampling is plus or minus two percentage points at the .95 confidence
level, although it is larger for the results for smaller subgroups of the public. For example, the
sampling error is plus or minus four percentage points for results among the 667 adults in the
sample aged 18-34. The myths section was included in half of the sample (1,000 interviews) and
a separate section on "drinking water" was administered to. 1,000 interviews (not contained in
this report). Previous versions of this study (known as the Times Mirror Magazines National
Environmental Forum from 1992 to 1995) had a plus or minus three percentage point margin of
sampling error.
Sampling Method
The basic sample was drawn at random from the adult population of the continental United
States, excluding institutionalized segments of the public (such as those in Army camps, nursing
homes, and prisons).
Households contacted for the survey were selected at random by a procedure known as random
digit dialing, which ensures that households with unlisted telephone numbers, as well as those
with listed numbers, are included in the sample.
All interviews were conducted during evening hours on weekdays and all day on weekends to
ensure that both working as well as non-working segments of the population would be included.
55
-------
Weighting Procedure
The demographic characteristics of the random sample were compared with the most recent
Census Bureau estimates and corrective weights were applied to ensure proper representation
based on age, sex and educational attainment.
Percentages Not Totaling 100%
i
Responses were computerized and rounded off to the nearest whole percentage. As a result,
percentages hi certain charts and columns may sometimes total slightly more or less than 100%.
Also, in certain charts and analyses, the results of those who said "don't know" or chose not to
answer may have been omitted.
Spacing/Layout
By slightly modifying spacing, font and point size throughout the document we were able to
reduce the number of pages of paper needed to produce this report. These minor formatting
changes represent nearly a 10% reduction in document length.
© 1998 Roper Starch Worldwide
56
-------
Appendix
Figure A: Seven Year Trend: A Summary of Changes and Attitudes Over Time
Total Public
1992
Total Public
1998
Changed Over the Last Five Years:
Environmental Laws and Regulations:
Not Gone Far Enough
Struck the Right Balance
Gone Too Far
63
17
10
46
29
17
Environmental Laws and Regulations: Not Gone Far Enough, For:
Water Pollution
Air Pollution
Wild and Natural Areas
Wetlands
Endangered Species
79
72
59
53
51
72
61
50
46
44
If No Compromise is Possible:
Favor Economic Development
Favor Environmental Protection
17
64
17
71
Stayed Statistically the Same Over the Last Five Years:
Environmental Protection and Economic Development Can Go
Hand in Hand
Must Choose Between the Environment and the Economy
63
25
62
28
Agreement with Phrase: The 1990s (or the next ten years) is the last
decade when humans will have a chance to save the earth from
environmental catastrophe
49
48
57
-------
Figure B: The Environmental Gender Gap
Males
If No Compromise is Possible Between Environmental Protection
and Economic Development:
Favor economic development
Favor environmental protection
Environmental Laws and Regulations:
Not gone far enough
Struck the right balance
Gone too far
Environmental Laws and Regulations: Not gone far enough, for:
Water pollution
Air pollution
Wild and natural areas
Wetlands
Endangered species
Environmental Knowledge:
A lot / A fair amount
Only a little / practically nothing
Agreement with Phrase: The 1990s (or the next ten years) is the last
decade when humans will have a chance to save the earth from
environmental catastrophe
25
58
38
29
23
68
58
47
45
39
68
31
46
Females
17
69
51
26
14
78
71
53
49
49
57
43
50
58
------- |