United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Environmental Information
(2831R)
EPA-220-R-00-003
August2OOO
www.epa.gov/empact
&EPA
EMPACT Local Urban
Environmental Issues Study of
86 Metropolitan Areas
I' P A P T
. JL £\. x-/ JL
Environmental Monitoring for Public Access
& Community Tracking
-------
' IP!
'•lit1.:
!:|!|
ilillhi.!..
iiip
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary i
Chapter I Introduction
I. Purpose 1-1
II. Previous Research 1-1
III. Unique Features of the Survey 1-2
Chapter II Methods
I. Survey Development and Peer Review II-l
II. Survey Instrument II-l
III. Survey Methods II-2
IV. Data Collection Methods II-2
V. Quality Control Procedures II-3
VI. Analysis II-3
Chapter III Local Urban Environmental Issues
I. Environmental Issues Results III-l
II. Environmental vs. Non-Environmental III-2
III. Overview of Local Environmental Issues III-3
IV Local Environmental Issues: Better, Worse, or the Same
During the Last Five Years III-4
V. Differences in Local Environmental Concerns Among
BMP ACT MS As : 111-12
VI. Overview of Local Environmental Issues by Demographics Ill-14
Chapter IV Sources of Local Information
I. Introduction : IV-1
II. Sources of Local Environmental Information IV-1
III. Quality of Information Sources IV-2
IV. Other Sources of Local Environmental Information IV-3
Chapter V. Discussion
V. Discussion : V-l
-------
Appendixes
JSr,;-sr5fiBi "iilfiijE |
'• i !•"'•: 'J,,!" .- • : , • "'
'i'1 ••" ''' > "|l,!'| "' j"''i ' ." " '" . ' ' ' ', ','• ' ' ' ' ' '", •', •,",', •, '' '"','"'' ' ' "
'Appendix-A -EMPACT Metropolitan Areas A-l
^^^^^^^ .! B_I
Appendix - C - National Urban Profile....,.! ..^ C-l
^Appendix - D - Regional Profiles..... ....I..'........"..!'....'„! .'..' .' D-l
.^Appendix - E - Four MSA Profiles E-l
':., ' ' "! " '•' ''•'• ' '' '" •' i Tables
• !Table,;l:,
Minii
lit"
f ,
HIM liilliitiiliiililir ,!
itviil ',.
I
• ' P ! ' '
i?1J ij I
TableS:
Table 4:
Table 5:
Table 6:
Table 7:
Quality Control Procedures H-3
EMPACT Proportion of Total MSA population by EPA
Region .....II-4
Local Urban Environmental Issues Queried HI-1
Local Urban Non-environmental Issues Queried III-2
Fjve Most .Important Local Environmental Issues:
'''' '''''''''''"'
Five Most Important Local Environmental Issues in Four
Geographically Diverse MS As: Ratings of Better or Worse
H During the Last 5 Years 111-13
Mean Importance Ranking of Local Environmental Issues
••••' - ...1.1...::.................... ,,..111-14
Figures
^.Figure 1:
:;,;!;! jpigure 2:
Local Environmental Issues Mean Importance Ratings III-3
Local Environmental Issues Improvement or Decline
''-*f)uring the Last Five Years III-4
Quality of Drinking Water by Region: Improvement
or D'ecline IDuring Last Five Years i.V...!!.]™".!.."!'.1!.'.....!."...'.'.'.. III-5
Long-Term Supply of Drinking Water by Region:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years! ".'...'..".. ...111-5
Urban Water Pollution by Region: Improvement or
;Decline During Last Five Years IH-6
Protection of Ground Water and Wells by Region:
• Jmprovement or Decline During Last Five Years III-6
Adequacy of Sewage Treatment Facilities by Region:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years III-7
Depletion of the Water Table by Region: Improvement
of Decline During Last Five Years III-7
Air Pollution from Cars by Region: Improvement or
Decline During Last Five Years HI-8
Air Pollution from Businesses and Industries by Region:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years III-8
Qzone Alerts in the Community by Region: Improvement
or Decline During Last Five Years III-9
Si!
-.!•!•:>. ^ I
i"; e, H
-, "'i* 'i* ]"»'
-------
Figure 12: Air Pollution from Burning Leaves by Region: Improvement
or Decline During Last Five Years - III-9
Figure 13: Local Hazardous Waste Dumping by Region: Improvement
or Decline During Last Five Years 111-10
Figure 14: Use of Potentially Harmful Pesticides by Region;
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years. 111-10
Figure 15: Location of Landfills by Region: Improvement or Decline
During Last Five Years III-ll
Figure 16: Adequacy of Landfills by Region: Improvement or Decline
During Last Five Years i .111-11
Figure 17: Animal Waste Disposal by Region: Improvement or
Decline During Last Five Years '..' 111-12
Figure 18: Most Common Sources of Local Environmental Information..... IV-1
Figure 19: Quality of Local Environmental Information from Selected
Sources IV-2
Figure 20: Other Sources of Information on Local Environmental Issues FV-3
Figure 21: Internet Usage IV-4
Figure 22: Percentage of Project Funding by Media V-3
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Executive Summary;
BMP ACT is an interagency Presidential Initiative charged with providing 86 of the nation's
largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) with the capacity to monitor local environmental
parameters of greatest interest to their citizens, and helping these communities make this
information readily available and understandable. Pursuant to this charge, BMP ACT developed
a survey to identify local environmental issues of greatest concern to citizens in each of the 86
BMP ACT metropolitan areas. The survey was developed with input from key EPA staff and
Federal stakeholders; then thoroughly reviewed by professionals in EPA, other Federal agencies,
academia, and the private sector. The survey was conducted in March and April of 1999 using
Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI). At least 100 respondents were sampled
from each MSA, for a total of 8,777 Interviews. All citizens with telephone service in the 86
EMPACT MSA's had'an equal probability of being interviewecJL
The areas surveyed include only the 86 EMPACT MSAs. Other MSAs, smaller communities
and rural areas were excluded. Therefore, the results do not reflect national opinion, but are a
good indicator of opinion among residents of metropolitan areas. Over 81% of the residents
living in a metropolitan statistical area, live in one of the EMPACT MSAs.
Summary of Findings _ _^^
The following are key findings from the analysis of the EMPACT survey data:
Citizens consider environmental issues at least as important as non-environmental
issues, and in many cases, more important to their local area. While public education
was considered the most important local issue (8.6*), the quality of drinking water was
second (8.5), followed by the adequacy of the long-term water supply (8.5), the pollution
of streams and lakes (8.4), and the protection of groundwater and wells (8.3).
Water issues are the most important local environmental issues to citizens. The top five
most important local environmental issues relate to water: the quality of drinking water
(8.5); the long-term water supply (8.5); the pollution of streams, rivers, and lakes (8.4); the
protection of groundwater and wells (8.3); and the adequacy of sewage treatment facilities
Citizens cited air pollution from cars as becoming worse, more so than any other local
environmental issue. Nearly half of citizens (42%) Indicated that air pollution from cars
has become worse during the last five years. This is followed by the pollution of streams,
rivers, and lakes (34%**), the depletion of the water table (33%), the adequacy of landfills
(30%), and community ozone alerts (25%).
EPA—EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
-------
„ I
Executive Summary
There are significant differences in local environmental concerns among the MSA's in
different EPA Regions. The most notable differences are between BMP ACT MSA's in
Region's 1 and 10. Citizens living in Region 1 EMPACT MSA's are more likely to report
that Ipcal environmental conditions are improving; whereas, citizens in Region 10
EMPACT MSA's are more likely to report that the local environmental issues of greatest
concern to them are becoming worse.
There are significant differences in local environmental concerns among MSA's.
Citizens in individual MSA's report differences in the range of issues they perceive as
becoming better or worse. For example, citizens in Phoenix-Mesa, Arizona indicate that
water table depletion has become worse (60%). Similarly, citizens in Las Vegas, Nevada,
are very likely to report that air pollution from cars has become worse (78%).
There are significant differences in local environmental concerns among demographic
groups. The perception that local environmental issues were getting worse, or better,
differed by demographic groups. More so than other segments of the population in the
study, citizens with higher education and household income perceive that landfill issues
(location and adequacy of landfills) and water table issues (protection of groundwater and
depletion of the aquifer) are becoming worse, hi contrast, lower income groups perceive
mat air pollution (from both cars and industry) and local waste dumping are becoming
worse.
Citizens consider television and newspapers the best sources for information about local
environmental issues. Citizens predominantly obtain information about local
environmental issues from newspapers and television. Similarly, citizens also report that
the quality of local environmental information is best from television (25% "excellent",
45% "good") and newspapers (27% "excellent", 48% "good"). Citizens report that
governmental agencies are not quality sources of information about local environmental
issues. At least 50% of the respondents give "fair" or "poor" ratings for each of federal,
state, and local agencies..
**
Respondents were asked to indicate how important each of 29 issues was in their community using a
scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being "extremely important" and 1 being "not important at all."
"Importance" ratings referenced in the Executive Summary are means.
for each environmental issue that a respondent rated 6 or greater in importance, the respondent was
asked:
"For (INSERT ISSUE), would you say it has gotten better, worse, or stayed the same in the last five
years in the (INSERT NAME OF MSA) area?
EPA—EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
n
-------
Chapter I
Introduction
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Chapter I. Introduction
I. Purpose
BMP ACT is an interagency Presidential Initiative charged with providing 86 of the nation's largest
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) with the capacity to monitor local environmental parameters
of greatest interest to their citizens, and helping these communities make this information readily
available and understandable. (Appendix A contains an alphabetical listing of the 86 BMP ACT
MS As and a listing of BMP ACT MS As by EPA Region). To meet this charge, BMP ACT is a
"customer-driven" program that attempts to meet the needs and preferences of its customers; the 86
designated BMP ACT MSA's and their residents. In order to injure that BMP ACT funded research
and grants focus on the local environmental parameters of greatest interest to citizens, information
about the local environmental issues of greatest concern to the citizens in each of the 86 BMP ACT
MS A's was critical. Therefore, BMP ACT developed a survey to identify local environmental issues
of greatest concern to citizens in each of the 86 BMP ACT MSA's. This information will be used
by BMP ACT to direct resource allocations and evaluate research proposals and the program's
portfolio of initiatives. The information from the survey will also be provided to BMP ACT projects
and federal partners to support' their work in providing | citizens with easily accessible,
understandable, time-relevant information about environmental conditions in their communities.
II. Previous Research
BMP ACT and its contractor conducted searches of all relevant electronic data bases (e.g., Roper
Polls and the University of North Carolina State Polls), reviewed related literature, consulted with
experts in the areas of environmental and survey research, and maintained continuing
communications with other EPA organizations and Federall agencies with related missions. These
efforts identified no previous, current, or planned efforts to conduct a national survey of urban
residents' concerns with local environmental issues.
The most relevant surveys identified were conducted by State polls and academic polling
organizations. However, these polls queried environmental issues on the national, regional and state
levels. The identified state level studies, queried respondents about environmental issues in their
state of residence. Thus, the environmental issues queried focused on a broader geographic area than
the respondent's area of residence and the sample included non urban residents. Many of the polls
conducted on the regional and state levels were over twenty years old. Only one metropolitan poll
in Las Vegas, Nevada included questions about local urban environmental issues at the community
level.
Survey questions that query a broad sample of citizens (i.e., urban, small town, and rural residents)
about the importance of environmental issues at a national, regional or state level may be of little use
in identifying local environmental issues of greatest importance to residents of a specific
metropolitan area. First, when queried about environmental issues in general or at the national and
regional levels, respondents frequently focus on broad issues, such as ozone depletion. Second,
residents of metropolitan areas, small towns, and rural areas are; likely to be concerned about very
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
1-1
-------
Chapter I. Introduction
different local environmental issues in their communities. Lastly, even if a national or state level
survey were to ask respondents from urban areas about environmental concerns in their city of
residence, the aggregate results would be of little use because of likely variation in local issues
across cities.
' ' ji ' ' l!l;' " '' "' ' , [
It is the BMP ACT Program's anecdotal experience that many MSA's have unique environmental
issues or place a unique emphasis on particular local environmental issues. However, there are no
comprehensive, scientifically valid information sources on which to validate these observations
across the 86 BMP ACT MSA's.
IH. Unique Features of the Survey
•• : " ' ' !': '" •" • • • !
The BMP ACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas was undertaken
to support the BMP ACT program. Therefore, the inquiry and sample were restricted. The primary
focus was upon the importance of local issues in the respondent's community. Additional areas of
inquiry were also restricted to questions about the urban area in which the respondent resided.
Therefore, survey results do not reflect national opinion, in that residents of smaller MSA's and rural
areas were not included in the survey.
The Metropolitan Statistical Areas surveyed include only the designated 86 BMP ACT MSA's.
BMP ACT MSA's were identified programmatically to insure inclusion of the 75 largest U.S. MSA's
and inclusion of an additional ten MSA's to insure participation by all fifty states. These MSA's are
not a statistical sample of all U.S. MSAs.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
1-2
-------
Chapter II
Methods
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Chapter II. Methods
I. Survey Development and Peer Review
The survey design and questionnaire were peer reviewed by four outside peer reviewers and one
EPA statistician. BMP ACT and its contractor, Macro International, consulted with a broad range
of experts and professionals including staff within EPA and other Federal agencies, outside
academics, survey practitioners, and key stakeholders. Throughout the survey development
process, their feedback was used to refine the survey structure; and content, revise the
questionnaire, develop the survey methodology and sampling plan, and create the analysis plan.
II. Survey Instrument _
f
The survey instrument contained 66 questions divided into four sections:
i
Local environmental concerns '
• Non-environmental concerns
• Communications issues :
• Respondent demographics ;
The survey instrument will help the EMPACT Program and BMP ACT Projects more clearly
understand citizens': j
• Local environmental concerns: The instrument captures respondent perceptions of
predominant local environmental issues in their communities. It is important to note that the
EMPACT survey asked citizens to identify and describe the importance of local
environmental issues. These opinions may differ from scientific and technical assessments of
environmental conditions in these metropolitan areas.
• Context for prioritizing local environmental concerns: This allows EMPACT to compare
perceptions of local environmental concerns versus other non-environmental concerns
(e.g.,local crime rate, quality of public education, availability of public transportation). These
responses provide insight into the importance citizens place on a broad range of issues facing
their communities. Many of the non-environmental concerns are tangentially related to broad
environmental issues such as urban sprawl.
• Sources of local environmental information: EMPACT will be able to identify how
citizens typically obtain information (active and passive information acquisition) about local
environmental issues and how they rate the quality of the local information provided by
various sources. This provides EMPACT Projects with additional information about their
customers' opinions and preferences regarding providers of information about local
environmental conditions and issues.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
11-1
-------
Chapter II. Methods
A copy of the survey instrument is attached as Appendix B.
III. Survey Methods
The survey was conducted in March and April of 1999. Macro completed at least 100
interviews for each of the 86 EMPACT metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), for a total of
8777 interviews (Designated EMPACT Metro Areas are listed in Appendix A.) This
sampling methodology balanced two competing demands—ensuring valid sample sizes for each
city while also using maintaining cost efficiency. As a result, the study was able to achieve
sound statistical precision:
• For all 86 MSAs combined, the sampling error is ±1.05% at a 95% confidence level
• For each individual MSA, the sampling error is ±9.80 at a 95% confidence level
This signifies that, with 95% certainty, the mean percentage response to any question using the
statistical sample is within the designated sampling error of the true percentage in the sampled
population. For example, if 60.00% of the respondents in all MSAs respond "Yes" to a question,
the true value in the population is between 58.95% and 61.05% with 95% certainty.
For analysis purposes, data at the national and regional levels have been weighted to recent
population estimates (U.S. Census Bureau, July 1997 estimates) to accurately reflect the nation
or region as a whole. For example, it would be inaccurate to equally represent 100 Cheyenne
MSA respondents and 100 Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County MSA respondents at a
national level, since the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County MSA respondents represent a
much larger population.
IV, Data Collection Methods
Macro collected the survey data using a computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI)
system. The CATI system allows for efficient collection of data while maintaining rigorous
quality control (e.g., built-in skip patterns, instant identification of out-of-range responses).
However, inherent in any telephone survey of the general population, minimal bias exist due to a
small percentage of households (less than 3%) that do not have telephone service, and are
therefore ineligible to be chosen for this study.
Before fielding the survey, Macro programmed the survey into the CATI system and performed
rigorous testing to ensure that survey functioned as designed. Once the CATI programming was
completed, Macro comprehensively trained the in-house interviewers to familiarize them with
the survey methodology and to provide them with background information about the EMPACT.
Experienced supervisors at the data collection site provided continuous oversight throughout the
survey fielding process. Interviewers were randomly remotely monitored to ensure interviewer
competence and data accuracy. EMPACT staff and Agency Steering Committee members were
also able to remotely monitor interviewers throughout the data collection.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
11-2
-------
Chapter II. Methods
After Macro completed the data collection, Macro programmers performed a series of validity
checks to ensure the integrity of the database. Once it had been determined that the data was
clean and reliable, Macro began the process of analyzing the data.
V. Quality Control Procedures _j
Table 1 Quality Control Procedures details the quality control procedures used in the data
collection process. '•
Table 1. Quality Control Procedure . .',
Survey Step
Quality Goiitroi Procedures
CATI Programming
The programmed survey was compared to the paper version by three project
staff not involved in the programming to identify any programming errors
The CATI system guarantees that out-of-range responses can not be recorded
(error message immediately appears) and that skip patterns are followed
correctly ;
Interviewer Training
• Macro used only experienced trained interviewers who have been certified to
interview on the BMP ACT study by completing project training
« Interviewers were required to practice on two supervisor-monitored interviews
before being certified for the project. ;
Interviewing
Supervisors randomly monitored 20% of interviews. If the interviewer were to
vary from the written protocol or introduces improper queries, the interviewer is
taken off-line for additional training. .
Supervisors reviewed daily production reports that detail disposition of all
survey records. i
BMP ACT staff and Steering Committee remotely access interviews.
Database Development
Programmers and analysts continually download data to verify inconsistencies
do not occur ;
Programming supervisor randomly verifies 5% of survey records
VI. Analysis
In this report, survey results are provided at three levels:
National urban results. The report discusses results for the combined 86 BMP ACT
MS As to gauge the overall importance of local urban environmental concerns, the overall
perceptions of local environmental trends, and sources of local urban environmental
information. These results have been analyzed demographically where appropriate. A
national-level profile of survey results is attached as Appendix C.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
II-3
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Chapter II
Methods
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Chapter II. Methods
I. Survey Development and Peer Review
The survey design and questionnaire were peer reviewed by four outside peer reviewers and one
EPA statistician. BMP ACT and its contractor, Macro International, consulted with a broad range
of experts and professionals including staff within EPA and other Federal agencies, outside
academics, survey practitioners, and key stakeholders. Throughout the survey development
process, their feedback was used to refine the survey structure 'and content, revise the
questionnaire, develop the survey methodology and sampling plan, and create the analysis plan.
II. Survey Instrument
The survey instrument contained 66 questions divided into four sections:
• Local environmental concerns
• Non-environmental concerns
• Communications issues
• Respondent demographics j
The survey instrument will help the BMP ACT Program and EfyPACT Projects more clearly
understand citizens':
• Local environmental concerns: The instrument captures respondent perceptions of
predominant local environmental issues in their communities. It is important to note that the
BMP ACT survey asked citizens to identify and describe the importance of local
environmental issues. These opinions may differ from scientific and technical assessments of
environmental conditions in these metropolitan areas.
• Context for prioritizing local environmental concerns: This allows BMP ACT to compare
perceptions of local environmental concerns versus other npn-environmental concerns
(e.g.,local crime rate, quality of public education, availability of public transportation). These
responses provide insight into the importance citizens place on a broad range of issues facing
their communities. Many of the non-environmental concerns are tangentially related to broad
environmental issues such as urban sprawl.
• Sources of local environmental information: BMP ACT will be able to identify how
citizens typically obtain information (active and passive information acquisition) about local
environmental issues and how they rate the quality of the local information provided by
various sources. This provides BMP ACT Projects with additional information about their
customers' opinions and preferences regarding providers of information about local
environmental conditions and issues.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
11-1
-------
'ill
Chapter II. Methods
A copy of the survey instrument is attached as Appendix B.
If ! '»' ' : I"? ''' '• '" ii1 ' '" , " "; :" ," ' ' „ ' '
III. Survey Methods
The survey was conducted in March and April of 1999. Macro completed at least 100
interviews for each of the 86 EMPACT metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), for a total of
8777 interviews (Designated EMPACT Metro Areas are listed in Appendix A ) This
sampling methodology balanced two competing demands—ensuring valid sample sizes for each
city while also using maintaining cost efficiency. As a result, the study was able to achieve
sound statistical precision:
• For all 86 MSAs combined, the sampling error is ±1.05% at a 95% confidence level
• For each individual MSA, the sampling error is ±9.80 at a 95% confidence level
1 ! ,, •' "ItI' ' , . ' .' i,1' ! , • . ' " I' • I" , „' • , ', , Ii" ". . J
This signifies that, with 95% certainty, the mean percentage response to any question using the
statistical sample is within the designated sampling error of the true percentage in the sampled
population. For example, if 60.00% of the respondents in all MSAs respond "Yes" to a question,
the true value in the population is between 58.95% and 61.05% with 95% certainty.
For analysis purposes, data at the national and regional levels have been weighted to recent
population estimates (U.S. Census Bureau, July 1997 estimates) to accurately reflect the nation
or region as a whole. For example, it would be inaccurate to equally represent 100 Cheyenne
MSA respondents and 100 Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County MSA respondents at a
national level, since the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County MSA respondents represent a
much larger population.
IV. Data Collection Methods
Macro collected the survey data using a computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI)
System. The CATI system allows for efficient collection of data while maintaining rigorous
quality control (e.g., built-in skip patterns, instant identification of out-of-range responses).
however, inherent in any telephone survey of the general population, minimal bias exist due to a
small percentage of households (less than 3%) that do not have telephone service, and are
therefore ineligible to be chosen for this study.
..Before fielding the survey, Macro programmed the survey into the CATI system and performed
rigorous testing to ensure that survey functioned as designed. Once the CATI programming was
completed, Macro comprehensively trained the in-house interviewers to familiarize them with
the survey methodology and to provide them with background information about the EMPACT.
Experienced supervisors at the data collection site provided continuous oversight throughout the
survey fielding process. Interviewers were randomly remotely monitored to ensure interviewer
Competence and data accuracy. EMPACT staff and Agency Steering Committee members were
also able to remotely monitor interviewers throughout the data collection.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
' •"•' ' : ••••• " H-2
-------
Chapter II. Methods
After Macro completed the data collection, Macro programmers performed a series of validity
checks to ensure the integrity of the database. Once it had been determined that the data was
clean and reliable, Macro began the process of analyzing the data.
V. Quality Control Procedures
Table 1 Quality Control Procedures details the quality control procedures used in the data
collection process. :
Table 1. Quality Control Procedure
Survey Step
Quality Control Procedures
CATI Programming
The programmed survey was compared to the paper version by three project
staff not involved in the programming to idpnrify any programming errors
The CATI system guarantees that out-of-range responses can not be recorded
(error message immediately appears) and that skip patterns are followed
correctly
Interviewer Training
« Macro used only experienced trained interviewers who have been certified to
interview on the EMPACT study by completing project training
• Interviewers were required to practice on two supervisor-monitored interviews
before being certified for the project.
Interviewing
Supervisors randomly monitored 20% of interviews. If the interviewer were to
vary from the written protocol or introduces improper queries, the interviewer is
taken off-line for additional training. ;
Supervisors reviewed daily production reports that detail disposition of all
survey records.
EMPACT staff and Steering Committee remotely access interviews.
Database Development
Programmers and analysts continually download data to verify inconsistencies
do not occur
Programming supervisor randomly verifies 5% of survey records
VI. Analysis
In this report, survey results are provided at three levels:
National urban results. The report discusses results fat the combined 86 EMPACT
MSAs to gauge the overall importance of local urban environmental concerns, the overall
perceptions of local environmental trends, and sources pf local urban environmental
information. These results have been analyzed demographically where appropriate. A
national-level profile of survey results is attached as Appendix C.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
II-3
-------
Chapter II. Methods
Regional urban results. In addition to the national-level results, the report also includes
information about local urban environmental issues delineated by BMP ACT MS As
located m each of the 10 EPA regions. The report will address the differences and
f™?*168 of findipgs among the regions. Profiles for each of the EPA regions are
attached as Appendix D.
MSA results ^ The report will illustrate the differences in local environmental concerns
*S°J!S EMpACT MSAs. In this report, the discussion will be limited to four MSAs
fj If for t!iese ¥S As a*6 Cached in Appendix E.
'
Results at the national urban and regional urban levels have been weighted to reflect the
population m each MSA based on July 1998 population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau
Therefore highly populated MSAs will be more highly represented in the regional and national '
: ; results, allowing for a more accurate data analysis and presentation of results.
It is important to note that national urban and rW
-------
Chapter III
Local Urban Environmental Issues
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Chapter ill. Local Urban Environmental Issues
I. Environmental Issues ;
Respondents were asked to rate 29 local issues, 15 environmental issues and 14
non-environmental issues (See Tables 3 and 4). This section of the report summarizes
respondent data on 15 local urban environmental issues which are listed in Table 3 Local Urban
Environmental Issues Queried.
Table 3. Local Urban Environmental Issues Queried
Water
Quality of drinking water from
public water systems
Protection of ground water and
wells
Depletion of the water table
Pollution of streams, rivers,
lakes, and oceans in the urban
area
Adequacy of long-term supply of
drinking water
Adequacy of sewage treatment
facilities
',.-'" Mr - •-. -• --• ' :;.
Air pollution from cars
Air pollution from businesses or
industrial sites
Air pollution from burning leaves •
Ozone alerts in the community
Waste
Adequacy of landfills
Location of landfills
Hazardous waste dumping in
the local area
Use of potentially harmful
pesticides
Disposal of animal waste
For each of the 29 local issues, respondents were asked to rate h6w important the issue is in their
specific metropolitan statistical area (MSA) on a scale of one to ten, with one being not
important at all and ten being extremely important. To minimize potential bias due the ordering
of survey questions, the local environmental issues were randomized together with non-
environmental issues for each respondent.
For each environmental issue a respondent rated six or higher, the respondent was then asked
whether s/he believed the issue has gotten better, worse, or has stayed the same during the last
five years. The findings in this report focus primarily on this data about environmental trends,
because it best highlights respondent perceptions of environmental concerns and trends in their
community. '
For each environmental issue a respondent rated six or grea.ter, the respondent was also asked if
s/he had been actively involved in this issue (e.g. written letters,;attended public meetings, joined
an advocacy group). Lastly, respondents were asked if they or aiiyone in their family had been
negatively affected by any of these environmental issues. Both questions are indicators of levels
of potential interest and involvement.
All findings in this report are based on ordinal data, meaning respondents were asked to report
their answers on a scale whose values are defined by the respondent. Response categories form
an ordered series. Ordinal scales permit discussion of "moreness" or "lessness," but make no
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
111-1
-------
m : : :i : : : : V n : ;
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
assumptions as to how much more or less. Therefore, results of this study should not be
interpreted as interval data, in which an answer of "four" can be characterized as "twice as <>ood"
as a rating of "two".
To simplify the following discussions of survey findings, references will be made to national
urban and regional urban findings. National urban findings relate to overall survey findings for
a11 ?£ EM?AC?™SAs across the country. No generalizations can be made to non-MSA or rural
populations. Similarly, regional urban findings refer to combined survey findings for all
BMP ACT MSAs within an EPA Region. For example, the findings for Region 1 reflect the
responses from citizens sampled from the seven BMP ACT MSAs (Boston, MA- Bridgeport CT-
: Burlmgton, VT; Hartford, CT; Portland, ME; Providence, RI, and Springfield, MA) located'in '
EPA s Region 1. Therefore, generalizations cannot be made to. the entire regional population.
Appendix A contains an alphabetical listing of the 86 BMP ACT MSAs and a listing of the
EMPACT MSAs by the EPA Region in which they are located.
Environmental Issues vs. Non-Environmental Issues
., I.; In),
In addition to rating local environmental issues, respondents were also asked to rate the
^PortancH °f 14 non-environmental issues in Table 4 Local Non-environmental Issues Queried
Aj? notecl above, the ordering of the 29 combined environmental and non-environmental issues
were randomized.
Table 4. Local Urban Non-environmental Issues Queried
Local crime rate
Illegal drug use
Quality of public education
Adequacy of local highway system
Availability of housing for low
income citizens
Ability of the community to
respond to natural disasters
Availability of public
transportation
Favorable business climate
Rate of unemployment
Level of local taxes
Poverty in local community
Adequacy of municipal services
(e.g., trash and snow removal,
police and fire protection)
Rate of urban growth
Health of the local economy
As a whole, respondents rate local environmental issues as slightly more important than non-
environmental issues. Compared to the six local environmental issues with mean importance
ratings of at least 8.00, only three non-environmental issues are rated as highly. The non-
environrnental issues that are most important to respondents are the quality of public education,
the local crime rate, and illegal drug use.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
111-2
-------
Chapter 111. Local Urban Environmental Issues
HI. Overview: Importance of Local Environmental Issues
i
Nationally, six of the seven most important local environmental issues to respondents relate to
water. It should be noted that, although significant issues exist among the different local
environmental issues, a large percentage of respondents rated each issue as six or higher.
Figure 1. Local Environmental Issues Mean Importance Ratings
Quality of drinking w ater
Long-term supply of drinking w ater
Pollution of streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans
Protection of ground w ater/w ells
Adequacy of sewage treatment facilities
Local hazardous w aste dumping
Depletion of w ater table
Air pollution-cars
Harmful pesticides
Location of landfills
Air pollution-businesses/industry
Adequacy of landfills
Ozone alerts
Animal w aste disposal
Air pollution-burning leaves
8.54
a 8.52
8.44
[8.35
8.12
8.08
7.88
\
7.54
7.51
7.07
6.45
6.06
)4.44
45 6
Other general trends obtained from the data include:
10
Although water issues are generally ranked important by respondents, two waste issues
(adequacy of sewage treatment facilities and local hazardous waste) are ranked among the
seven most important local environmental issues. .
Overall, waste issues are ranked similar in importance to: air issues; however, respondents
are more likely to be actively involved in air issues. :
Respondents in Region 8 report relatively low importance ratings for every local
environmental issue. However, for many issues, respondents in Region 8 are more likely
to indicate that the issue has become worse during the last five years.
The importance of specific issues varies slightly by region. Although nationally the
pollution of streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans is ranked third in importance, it is ranked
first by respondents from BMP ACT MS As in Regions 1 and 10. Similarly, the long-term
supply of drinking water, which is ranked first in Region' 2, Region 4, Region 6, and
Region 8, is the fourth most important issue in Region 10.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
III-3
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
v|.:', ; ' '";.?-; '7; ' " '."•: .; ' ','/':;;.;•; , „,"::; .!;,:,;;;:,.:'.:;:,;..;;.' .::. ,. :; ; /,.!
IV. Local Environmental Issues: Better, Worse, or the Same During
": :, the Last Five Years '..'
Although respondents rate water issues highest in importance, they are more likely to believe
that the quality of air issues has declined during the last five years than water issues (See Table
6). When asked whether each issue has become better, has stayed the same, or has become
; worse during the last five years, 42% of respondents report that air pollution from cars has
become worse.
The following section will focus on the responses about whether specific local environmental
conditions have gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse during the last five years. Each
• section discusses some overall non-statistical generalizations that can be made about each local
e|ivupnni|ntal issue by EPA Region. The issues are grouped by type of issues (i.e., water, air,
and waste). Within each type, issues are ordered by importance. The data included within
each section reflects perceptions of the local environmental issues for respondents who rated
each issues as a six or higher.
':: '' ' '"!»B ',,.',,' ,|"i' ,| , ' , ' i \ , „
Figure 2. Local Environmental Issues Improvement or Decline During the Last Five Years
Quality of drinking w ater
Long-term supply of drinking water
Pollution of streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans
,;' Protection of ground w ater/w ells
,, Adequacy of sewage treatment facilities
" ; ; Local hazardous w aste dumping
Depletion of w ater table
• : Air pollution-cars
Harmful pesticides
:, Location of landfills
Air pollution-' businesses/Industry
Adequacy of landfills
Ozone alerts
Animal w aste disposal
I!,",,' . , i* .'
, ,: Air pollution-burning leaves
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I Better DSame
El Worse
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
III-4
: i ,.
-------
Chapter HI. Local Urban Environmental Issues
A. Quality of Drinking Water from Public Water Systems
When asked whether the quality of drinking water has become better, has stayed the same,
or has become worse during the last five years, respondents in Region 2, Region 8, Region
9, and Region 10 are more likely to report that the quality of drinking water has declined
than to report it has improved.
Figure 3. Quality of Drinking Water by Region: Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
50%.,
40%
30%.
20%.
10%.
0%
D Better H Worse
34%
33%
28%
|20%
mS
30%
25% 25o/0
5 67 8 9 10
Region
B. Long-Term Supply of Drinking Water
Respondents in Region 4, Region 8, and Region 9 are most likely to report a decline during
the last five years than respondents in other regions.
Figure 4. Long-Term Supply of Drinking Water by Region: Improvement or Decline During Last
Five Years
50%
40%.
30%.
20%.
10%.
0%
26%
D Better s Worse
26%
22%
'21%20% 20%
23°/
23%
25% 24%
19%
; 28%
181}
2 3 4 5 6 7 8910
Region i
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
III-5
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
C. Pollution of Streams, Lakes, Rivers, and Oceans in the Urban Area
Respondents in Region 4, Region 9, and Region 10 are most likely to report that urban
water pollution has become worse during the last five years. Conversely, respondents in
Region 1 and Region 2 are least likely to report a decline and are overwhelmingly most
likely to report that urban water pollution has improved. This finding is very interesting,
as it shows the disparity between the perceptions of East Coast respondents and West
Coast respondents.
Figure 5. Urban Water Pollution by Region: Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
D Better E
I Worse
49%
10
D. Protection of Ground Water and Wells
Respondents located in Region 8 and Region 9 are more likely to report a decline in the
protection of ground water and wells during the last five years than to report an
improvement. However, respondents in Region 1 and Region 6 report that the protection
of ground water and wells has become better. :
Figure 6. Protection of Ground Water and Wells by Region: Improvement or Decline During Last
Five Years
50%,
40%.
10
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
HI-6
-------
Chapter 111. Local Urban Environmental issues
E- Adequacy of Sewage Treatment Facilities
Respondents in Region 1, Region 5, and Region 6 are most likely to report that the
adequacy of sewage treatment facilities has improved during the last five years.
Respondents from Region 8 are least likely to report an improvement.
Figure 7. Adequacy of Sewage Treatment Facilities by Region: Improvement or Decline During
Last Five Years
50%
10
F. Depletion of the Water Table
Respondents in Region 8 are least likely to report that wafer table depletion has become
better during the last five years and are significantly more likely to report that it has
become worse. Respondents in Region 5 and Region 7 are least likely to report a decline,
however, like all regions they are still more likely to report a decline than an improvement.
Figure 8. Depletion of the Water Table by Region: Improvement or Decline During Last Five
Years
D Better I
1 Worse
46%
36%
10
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
III-7
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
G. Air pollution from Cars
Nearly two thirds of respondents in Region 10 (65%) report that car pollution has become
worse during the last five years and only 18% report that it has improved. This is, by far,
the highest percentage of any region. Also, more than half of respondents in Region 8
(52%) believe that car pollution has worsened during the past five years. As a whole,
respondents in the Western United States are more likely to report that air pollution from
cars has become worse than those in the East and Midwest.
Figure 9. Air Pollution from Cars by Region: Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
10
H. Air Pollution from Businesses and industries
Respondents in the Northeast are most likely to report that air pollution from businesses
and industry has become better during the last five years. Forty-three percent of
respondents in Region 1 report that air pollution from businesses and industry has
improved during the last five years, the highest percentage of any region. In three other
regions, Region 2, Region 5, and Region 7, more respondents report that the pollution has
improved rather than declined. In two regions, Region 8 and Region 9, considerably more
respondents report that this issue has gotten worse than reported that it has gotten better.
Figure 10. Air Pollution from Businesses and Industries by Region: Improvement or Decline
During Last Five Years
23456789 10
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
III-8
-------
Chapter HI. Local Urban Environmental Issues
f. Ozone Alerts in the Community '
Respondents in Region 2 and Region 7 are most likely to report that the alerts have
improved during the last five years.
I
Figure 11. Ozone Alerts in the Community by Region: Improvement or Decline During Last Five
Years
10
J. Air Pollution from Burning Leaves
Air pollution from burning leaves receives the lowest importance ratings of any local
environmental issue.
A large percentage of respondents report that air pollution from burning leaves has
improved during the last five years. Relative to other issues, few respondents report that
the air pollution from burning leaves has become worse. Respondents in Region 2 and
Region 5 are most likely to report an improvement in air pollution from burning leaves.
Figure 12. Air Pollution from Burning Leaves by Region: Improvement or Decline During Last
Five Years
70%,
60%.
50%.
40%.
30%.
20%.
10%.
0%
61°/
44%
f=
7%
1
39%
7%
H
31%
6%
m
i 21%
1
mx
1
L
M"/
D Better H Worse
47% ;
6%
11
42«
*—^
f.
10%
9
-£=
37% 38% 38%
17%
1
J
^=
7%
m
c=
6%
m
cr.
12%
1
1 2 3 4 56 7 89 10
Region
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
111-9
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
K. Local Hazardous Waste Dumping
,;n "' , , :"",'„ i , ,i, . , ,, i . i,
Respondents in Region 1 and Region 10 are most likely to report that local hazardous
waste dumping has improved during the last five years. Respondents from Region 7 are
most likely to report a decline.
Figure 13. Local Hazardous Waste Dumping by Region: Improvement or Decline During Last
Five Years
10
L. Use of Potentially Harmful Pesticides
Respondents in Region 1 are most likely to report that the use of harmful pesticides has
improved during the last five years. Respondents from Region 8 and Region 9 are least
likely to report an improvement. Respondents from Region 3 and Region 10 are most
likely to report a decline.
Figure 14. Use of Potentially Harmful Pesticides by Region: Improvement or Decline During
Last Five Years
3%
10
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
111-10
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
M. Location of Landfills
Respondents in Region 1 and Region 2 are most likely to report that the location of
landfills has improved during the last five years. Respondents in Region ? are much more
likely to report that the locations have become worse thaii report that it has improved.
Figure 15. Location of Landfills by Region: Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
10
N. Adequacy of Landfills
Respondents in Region 1 and Region 10 are most likely to report that the adequacy of
landfills has become worse during the last five years. •
I
Figure 16. Adequacy of Landfills by Region: Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
70%
60%.
50%.
41%
38%
35%
10
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
111-11
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
O. Disposal of Animal Waste
Respondents in Region 2 are most likely to report that animal waste disposal has become
worse during the last five years and are also most likely to report that disposal of animal
waste has improved.
•' Jll ! "' , ,
Figure 17. Animal Waste Disposal by Region: Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
D Better !
I Worse
19%
.17%
10
V. Differences in Local Environmental Concerns Among EMPACT
MSA's
There is some variation in the most important local environmental issues identified by citizens
in different MSAs. In this section, MSA variations are illustrated using four EMPACT MS As
(Albuquerque, NM; Boston, MA; Louisville, KY; and Seattle, WA) located in different parts of
the country. For example, there was variation in the five most important local environmental
issues identified by respondents from these four MSAs. Respondents from all four MSAs rated
three common issues among the five most important in their communities; "long-term water
supply," "quality of drinking water," and "protection of groundwater and wells." The other
two most important issues in each MSA were other water issues, waste issues, and for one
MSA, Albuquerque, pollution from cars. Table 5. Five Most Important Local Environmental
Issues: Four Geographically Diverse MSAs lists the numeric importance ranking and mean
ranking of eight local environmental issues for these four MSAs. One example of variation
among these MSAs is the importance ranking of "water table depletion." This is ranked the
second most important environmental issue by Albuquerque respondents; but ranked 7, 8 and
11 respectively by respondents from Boston, Seattle, and Louisville. There are also variations
among MSAs regarding perceived environmental trends; whether an issue has gotten better,
stayed the same, or worsened in the last five years. Table 6. Five Most Important Local
Environmental Issues for Four Geographically Diverse MSAs: Ratings of Better of Worse
During the Last 5 Years illustrates this variation among four MSAs.
EPA-EMPACT Lppal Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
11-12
ijllil ;„ '.;• '.'
-------
Chapter ill. Local Urban Environmental (Issues
Table 5. Five Most Important Local Environmental Issues: Four Geographically Diverse MSAs
"^
Long-term water
supply
Protection of ground
water & wells
Quality of drinking
water
Pollution of
stream/lakes
Local waste dumping
Adequacy of sewage
treatment
Water table depletion
Pollution from cars
Albuquerque -,
.' Ranking/Rating
1
3
4
6
8
7
2
5
(8.5)
(8.3)
(7.8)
(7.4)
(7.1)
(7.2)
(8.5)
(7.5)
Boston , ;
Ranking/Rating''
4
3
5
1
2
6
7
9
(8.4)
(8.5)
(8.4)
(8.6)
(8.5)
(8.2)
(7.7)
(7.2)
' Louisville /
- Rankin^Ratiag
1
5
[
2
3,
8
4
11
7
(8.2)
(7.3)
(8.1)
(8.0)
(7.0)
(7.8)
(6.8)
(7.1)
, Seattle,;
Backing/Rating
4
3
2
1
5
6
8
8
(8.5)
(8.5)
(8.5)
(8.7)
(8.3)
(8.2)
(7.7)
(7.7)
Table 6. Five Most Important Local Environmental Issues in Fpur Geographically Diverse MSAs:
Ratings of Better or Worse During the Last 5 Years !
' ' " -<• /
Long-term water
supply
Protection of ground
water & wells
Quality of Drinking
water
Pollution of
streams/lakes
Local waste dumping
Adequacy of sewage
treatment
Water table depletion
Pollution from cars
Albuquerque ,
- ' Better/Worse '
15%
31%
21%
31%
28%
38%
15%
42%
(46%)
(34%)
(18%)
(32%)
(23%)
(10%)
(63%)
(36%)
Boston
"~ BetterAV»rse
30%
52%
37%
70%
51%
44%
12%
30%
(24%)
(13%),
(24%) :
(14%)
(19%)
(18%);
(44%) i
(36%) .
Louisville
Better/Worse
37%
32%
43%
42%
29%
49%
27%
53%
(10%)
(20%)
(20%)
(25%)
(14%)
(13%)
(15%)
(12%)
Seattle
Better/Worse
18%
18%
15%
27%
45%
25%
20%
13%
(25%)
(33%)
(33%)
(51%)
(19%)
(21%)
(38%)
(70%)
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
1-13
-------
Chapter 111. Local Urban Environmental Issues
VI. Overview of Local Environmental issues by Demographics
An analysis was conducted with the environmental importance rankings and the demographic
variables. A significant finding was that attitudes about the importance of local environmental
issues varied by race. Table 7 Mean Importance Rankings of Local Environmental Issues Bv
Race illustrates these results. The bolded figures are significantly different from the mean
importance ratings for the overall group. Hispanic and African-American respondents tended
to rate local environmental issues significantly higher than other groups. Conversely,
Caucasian respondents tended to rate environmental issues significantly lower.
Table 7. Mean Importance Ranking of Local Environmental Issues By Race
Pollution- cars
Pollution- industry
Pollution- burning
leaves
Landfill adequacy
Landfill location
Local waste dumping
Harmful pesticides
Animal waste disposal
Quality of drinking
water
Ground water and
wells
Water table depletion
Pollution of
streams/lakes
Long-term water
supply
Adequacy of sewage
treatment
Total
7.5
7.4
4.4
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
7.5
6.1
8.5
8.4
7.9
8.4
8.5
8.1 •
Hispanic
' - . 7.9 -•*•«:
7.6
5.3
7.3
7.5
7.4
',,8.2v ••.*
'-W -
••,,6.7; ,v;
8.6
8.5
8.1
8.6
8.3
8.2
':WAsfitti -
7.4
6.9
4.7
6.0
6.6
6.8
7.7
7.4
5.7
8.0
7.6
7.1
- -7,8 <
8.0
7.4
African
American
7.6
7.7
5.4 -
7.1
7.2
7.7
8.1
7,7
7.0
8.5
8.2
8.0
8.4
8.7
,8.4
Caucasian
7.0
7.0
4.1
5.8 -
6.8
7.2
7.8
7.2 •;
5.7
8.3
8.2
7,7
8.3
8.3
7.9
••••- 1
Native 1
'American |
7.2 • 1
7.1
4.5
6.5
6.9
7.2
8.0
7.3
6.3
8.4
8.3
7.9
8.5
8.4
7.9
••••^
Note: the shaded figures indicate those measures significantly different from the aggregate of the other MSAs.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
lil-14
-------
Chapter IV I
Sources of Local Environmental Information
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Chapter IV. Sources of Local Environmental Information
I. Introduction
In addition to obtaining data about the importance of local environmental issues, the EMPACT
Local Urban Environmental Issues Survey also gathered data about how people generally •
obtain information about local environmental issues in their communities. This chapter
summarizes data about commonly reported information sources j the quality of local urban
environmental information provided by selected sources, and Internet usage.
II. Sources of Local Environmental Information
The survey asked respondents to identify the sources from which they hear or learn about
urban environmental issues and conditions in their local area. Respondents were allowed to
mention one or more sources.
i • " " '
Nearly three-quarters of respondents (72%) report that they obtain their information from
newspapers, more than any other information source. Sixty-two percent (62%) of respondents
report receiving local environmental information from television. Only 3 % report receiving
local environmental information from the Internet. Several other sources, such as billboards,
bus-side ads, posters, hotlines, universities, state governments, ;and the Federal Government
were also mentioned, but by fewer than 1% of the respondents.
Figure 18. Most Common Sources of Local Environmental Information
Newspapers
Television
Radio
Magazine
Word of mouth
Internet
72%
19%
6%
5%
3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
IV-1
-------
Chapter IV. Sources of Local Environmental Information
• ' 1
III. Quality of Information Sources
Respondents were also asked to rate the quality of the local environmental information that
they received from selected information sources on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being excellent
and 1 being very poor. The responses were categorized as follows:
! ' • ' ' !
• Excellent (9 or 10)
• Good (6, 7, or 8)
• Fair (4 or 5)
• Poor (1, 2, or 3)
Respondents report that the most often used sources, newspapers and television, provide the
highest quality local information. The three government sources received the lowest rating
with more than 50% rating each "fair" or "poor". The significantly least rated government'
source of local environmental information is the Federal Government (65% fair or poor)
followed by state government (59 %), and local government (55 %).
Figure 19. Quality of Local Environmental Information from Selected Sources
Television
Newspapers
' Radio
Federal government
State government
Local government
Bwironmenta! groups
Schools and colleges
0%
45%
oo />
26%
32 /o
35%
48%
"38% j ^:T
765*5
j/ ' (te* £j '$> *
; ',55%:
- i
°~^ t
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
E3 Excellent
DGood
H Fair/Poor
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
IV-2
-------
Chapter IV. Sources of Local Environmental Information
IV- Other Sources of Local Environmental Information
The survey asked whether the respondent or any other adult in the respondent's household has
obtained environmental information by: ;
• Requesting information in-person, in writing, or by telephone
• Subscribing to an environmental publication such as a magazine
• Reading a book or brochure or having done a library search
• Joining an environmental group i
• Searching the Internet '
• Attending a public meeting for information :
This question did not specifically focus on local urban environmental issues, but on
environmental issues in general. . :
Almost half of respondents (44 %) report that a member of their household has read a book or,
brochure or has done a library search for environmental information. Interestingly, although
respondents were unlikely to mention the Internet when asked to list their sources of local
environmental information, more than one quarter (28%) report that a member of their
household has done an Internet search for environmental information. This may be because the
latter question pertained to all environmental information (not just local) and asked the
respondent to answer regarding all members of the household.:
Figure 20. Other Sources of information on Local Environmental Issues
Read book/brochure or
library research
Searched the Internet
Attended public meeting
Requested info in-person/
w riting/ phone
Subscribe to environmental
publication
Joined environmental group
44%
28%
22%
19%
16%
12%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
IV-3
-------
Chapter IV. Sources of Local Environmental Information
A. Internet Access
When asked if they had access to the Internet, 59% of respondents report that they do.
Of those who have access to the Internet, 77% report using the Internet during the last
few days and 89% report using it during the last week. Because this study was a
telephone survey and all respondents had residential telephone service, these results may
be higher than actual Internet saturation in the 86 BMP ACT MS As. It should also be noted
that Internet saturation is generally higher in urban populations than in the overall United
States population.
Figure 21. Internet Usage
77%
80%.
60%.
40%.
20%.
Last few days
In the last
week
1%
In the last In the last year Longer than a
month year
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
IV-4
-------
Chapter V
Discussion
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Chapter V. Discussion
The BMP ACT Survey findings indicate that local environmentalissues are very important to citizens
living in 86 of the nation's largest metropolitan areas; as important as non-environmental issues, and
in many cases, more important. The findings also indicate that citizens in all demographic strata
consider local environmental issues in their communities important, but that demographic groups
differ as to the environmental issues they consider most important. These survey findings reflect the
opinions of citizens living in 86 metropolitan areas and cannot be generalized to residents of small
communities and rural areas. Citizens' opinions are broadly based and include a host experiences
and factors deemed important to the quality-of-life they want for'themselves, their children and their
community. ;
The findings also indicate that the local environmental issues most important to citizens vary across
the 86 MSAs. Citizens' perceptions of whether their most important local environmental issues have
improved or deteriorated also vary by MSAs, among the MSAs grouped by EPA Regions, and
among demographic groups. These differences point to the different local environmental issues and
environmental trends facing different urban areas. The variations among different demographic
groupings point to differing opinions about what local environmental issues are most important and
trends in local environmental quality. :
The results raise interesting questions about citizen opinion and perception versus scientific
assessment. How accurate are citizens' perceptions of local environmental improvement or decline
as compared to scientifically measured environmental parameters? A close look at the findings may
reveal instances where citizens' concerns, or even optimism, wijth a local environmental issue may
be inconsistent with the scientific evidence (e.g., monitoring data). Any such inconsistency would
not discount the importance of citizens' opinions. As noted above, citizens' opinions are more broad
based, often including decades of personal observation and experience in an area, as well as years
of publicity around a subject. Consequently, differences between public opinion and scientific
evidence should be explored and may identify opportunities [ for public discourse about local
environmental issues, educational needs, resource allocations, community and individual decision-
making, and overall quality-of-life standards and goals ',
The findings were used in the BMP ACT grants review relevancy process to guide reviewers in
considering the most important projects to fund. It is important to emphasize that the findings
were a guide and not the sole criteria for determining the relevancy of a grant proposal to the
BMP ACT Program. It is possible for example, that a grant that addressed an issue of high
concern to citizens in an MSA was not as worthy as one that did not address concerns directly.
The scientific urgency of the local environmental issue was also considered.
EPA—EMPACT Study Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
V-1
-------
Chapter V. Discussion
The survey findings were also used to evaluate the extent to which the BMP ACT Program,
through the funding of its Metro grants, EPA-led and Research grants, was addressing the most
identified local environmental concerns of people living in the 86 metropolitan areas. The
survey results show that residents in these metropolitan areas are most concerned with water
related issues, including drinking water quality and water pollution. As Figure 22 shows,
BMP ACT has placed a major emphasis on water related issues, investing 48.1% of its project
funding in water projects. There are currently over 19 separate BMP ACT Projects monitoring
water quality parameters in over 25 separate areas communities.
Figure 22. Percentage of Project Funding by Media
Chart 1 - Percentage of Project Funding by Media
FY98
FY99
8.8%
13.3%
9.7%
33.4%
8.9%
48.1%
32.3%
@ Air Projects
II Water Projects
ff Multi-Media Projects
B Other
This survey is an important step in understanding citizens' perceptions of local environmental
issues in the urban areas in which they live. Many studies have been conducted on
environmental issues, but none have taken a comprehensive look at local environmental issues as
broadly as this study has.
EPA—EMPACT Study Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
V-2
-------
Appendix A
EMPACT Metropolitan Areas
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
EM PACT Metropolitan Area
Albany- Schenectady- Troy, NY
Albuquerque, NM
Allentown- Bethlehem- Easton, PA
Anchorage, AK
Atlanta, GA
Austin- San Marcos, TX
Bakersfield, CA
Billings, MT
Birmingham, AL
Boise, ID
Boston, MA- NH
Bridgeport, CT
Buffalo- Niagara Falls, NY
Burlington, VT
Charleston- North Charleston, SC
Charleston, WV
Charlotte- Gastonia- Rock Hill, NC- SC
Cheyenne, WY
Chicago- Gary- Kenosha, IL-IN- WI
Cincinnati- Hamilton, OH- KT- IN
Cleveland- Akron, OH
Columbus, OH
Dallas- Fort Worth, TX
Dayton- Springfield, OH
Denver- Boulder- Greeley, CO
Detroit- Ann Arbor- Flint, MI
EL Paso, TX
Fargo- Moorhead, ND- MN
Fresno, CA
Grand Rapids- Muskegon-Holland, MI
Greensboro- Winston Salem- High Point, NC
Greenville- Spartanburg- Anderson, SC
Harrisburg- Lebanon- Carlisle, PA
Hartford, CT
Honolulu, HI
Houston- Galveston- Brazoria, TX
Indianapolis, IN
Jackson, MS
Jacksonville, FL
Kansas City, MO- KS
Knoxville, TN
Las Vegas, NV
EPA—EMPACT Study Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
A-1
-------
EM PACT Metropolitan Area
Little Rock- North Little Rock, AR
Los Angeles- Riverside- Orange County, CA
Louisville, KY- IN
Memphis, TN- AR- MS
Miami- Fort Lauderdale, FL
Milwaukee- Racine, WI
Minneapolis- St. Paul, MN
Nashville, TN
New Orleans, LA
New York- Northern New Jersey- Long Island, NY- NJ- CT- PA
Norfolk- Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA- NC
Oklahoma City, OK
Omaha, NE-IA
Orlando, FL
Philadelphia- Wilmington- Atlantic City, PA- NJ- DE- MD
Phoenix- Mesa, AZ
Pittsburgh, PA
Portland, ME
Portland- Salem, OR- WA
Providence- Fall River-Warwick, RI- MA
Raleigh- Durham- Chapel Hill, NC
Richmond- Petersburg, VA
Rochester, NY
Sacramento- Yolo, CA
Salt Lake City- Ogden, UT
San Antonio, TX
San Diego, CA
San Francisco- Oakland- San Jose, CA
San Juan, PR
Scranton- Wilkes- Barre- Hazleton, PA
Seattle- Tacoma- Bremerton, WA
Sioux Falls, SD
Springfield, MA
St. Louis- E. St. Louis, MO- IL
Stockton- Lodi, CA
Syracuse, NY
Tampa- St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL
Toledo, OH
Tucson, AZ
Tulsa, OK
Washington- Baltimore, DC- MD - VA - WV
West Palm Beach- Boca Raton, FL
Wichita, KS
Youngstown-Warren, OH
EPA—EMPACT Study Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas ~
A-2
-------
EMPACT Metropolitan Area
Region I
Boston, MA-NH ' ;
Bridgeport, CT
Burlington, VT
Hartford, CT ,
Portland, ME i
Providence- Fall River-Warwick, RI- MA
Springfield, MA ;
Region II
Albany- Schenectady- Troy, NY
Buffalo- Niagara Falls, NY i
New York- Northern New Jersey- Long Island, NY- NJ- CT- PA
Rochester, NY
San Juan, PR ',
Syracuse, NY ,
Region III
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA
Charleston, WV :
Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle, PA [
Norfolk- Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA- NC '
Philadelphia- Wilmington- Atlantic City, PA- NJ- DE- MD
Pittsburgh, PA
Richmond- Petersburg, VA i
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton, PA ;
Washington- Baltimore, DC- MD - VA - WV i
Region IV
Atlanta, GA
Birmingham, AL
Charleston- North Charleston, SC
Charlotte- Gastonia- Rock Hill, NC- SC
Greensboro- Winston Salem- High Point, NC
Greenville- Spartanburg- Anderson, SC
Jackson, MS
Jacksonville, FL
Knoxville, TN
EPA—EMPACT Study Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
A-3
-------
EMPACT Metropolitan Area
Louisville, KY- IN
Memphis, TN- AR- MS
Miami- Fort Lauderdale, FL
Nashville, TN
Orlando, FL
Raleigh- Durham- Chapel Hill, NC
Tampa- St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL
West Palm Beach- Boca Raton, FL
Region V
Chicago- Gary- Kenosha, IL-IN- WI
Cincinnati- Hamilton, OH- KT- IN
Cleveland- Akron, OH
Columbus, OH
Dayton- Springfield, OH
Detroit- Ann Arbor- Flint, MI
Fargo- Moorhead, ND- MN
Grand Rapids- Muskegon-Holland, MI
Indianapolis, IN
Louisville, KY- IN
Milwaukee- Racine, WI
Minneapolis- St. Paul, MN
St. Louis- E. St. Louis, MO- IL
Toledo, OH
Youngstown-Warren, OH
Region VI
Albuquerque, NM
Austin- San Marcos, TX
Dallas- Fort Worth, TX
EL Paso, TX
Houston- Galveston- Brazoria, TX
Little Rock- North Little Rock, AR
Memphis, TN- AR- MS
New Orleans, LA
Oklahoma City, OK
San Antonio, TX
Tulsa, OK
EPA—EMPACT Study Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
A-4
-------
EM PACT Metropolitan Area
Region VII
Kansas City, MO- KS
Omaha, NE- IA
St. Louis- E. St. Louis, MO- IL
Wichita, KS
Region VIII
Billings, MT
Cheyenne, WY
Denver- Boulder- Greeley, CO
Fargo- Moorhead, ND- MN
Salt Lake City- Ogden, UT
Sioux Falls, SD
Region IX
Bakersfield, CA
Fresno, CA
Honolulu, HI
Las Vegas, NV
Los Angeles- Riverside- Orange County, CA
Phoenix- Mesa, AZ
Sacramento- Yolo, CA
San Diego, CA
San Francisco- Oakland- San Jose, CA
Stockton- Lodi, CA
Tucson, AZ
Region X
Anchorage, AK
Boise, ID
Portland- Salem, OR- WA
Seattle- Tacoma- Bremerton, WA
EPA—EMPACT Study Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
A-5
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix B
Survey Instrument
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Survey pf 86 Cities Appendix B
I. Introduction
[As the CATI system queues up and dials the phone number, the interviewer's screen will indicate the
needed gender of the respondent. The CATI system is programmed to track respondent gender for
completed interviews and to specify the needed gender for each subsequent interview. Gender
designation is essential to ensuring representative proportions of males and females. Research has
demonstrated females tend to answer phone calls disproportionately.]
[Upon contacting the potential respondent, the interviewer will say the following.]
Hello, I am calling from Macro International. We are conducting a brief survey for the United
State's Environmental Protection Agency, also known as the EPA. Is sorjneone available in your household
to complete this survey 18 of age or older and also [indicate needed gender]? [IF NECESSARY: The
survey will take only 12 minutes.] :
[If they say they are eligible and will take the survey, then go to Part 1. If they say they are eligible but
do not want to take the survey, thank and terminate. If they say someone else is eligible then go to
introduction Part 2]
Parti
Thank you for participating in this survey. This information will help EPA and other federal agencies that are
working with communities to give citizens the kinds of information they want. Your answers and comments
are confidential and used only in summary form together with other people's opinions.
Q.A Have you participated in an EPA survey in the last six months?
1.
2.
3.
Yes
No
Do not know
[THANK AND TERMINATE]
[GO TO SECTION II]
[THANK AND TERMINATE]
Part 2
Q.B Are they available now?
1. Yes
2.
3.
No
Do not know
[If they do not volunteer to check, ask them to do so. If
they return and say the eligible respondent is not
available then go to Q2. If the eligible respondent returns,
then go to Part 3] i
[SCHEDULE CALLBACK. IF REFUSE CALLBACK -
TERMINATE] ;
[THANK AND TERMINATE]
calling from Macro International. We are conducting a brief survey for the United
PartS
Hello I am _ .
States Environmental Protection Agency, also known as the EPA. EPA is interested in your opinions and
concerns about the environment and other issues in the FPLACE NAME OF MSA HERE] area. This
information will help EPA and other federal agencies that work with communities to give their citizens the kinds
of information they want. Your answers and comments are confidential and used only in summary form
together with other people's opinions. [IF NECESSARY: The survey will take only 12 minutes.]
-------
E1V1PACT Local Urban Environmental issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B
Q.C First, I would just like to confirm - Are you at least 18 years old?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Do Not Know/refused
[TERMINATE]
[TERMINATE]
Q.D Have you participated in an EPA survey in the last six months?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Do not know
[THANK AND TERMINATE]
[GO TO SECTION II]
[THANK AND TERMINATE]
-------
EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B
II. Local Urban Environmental and Non-environmental Issues
Q.1 First, I am going to read you a list of different issues that may or may not occur in the [PLACE NAME
OF MSA HERE! area. ;
Please tell me how important is each of these issues in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE! area. Please use
a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being "extremely important" and 1 being "not important at all".
[All of the issues, environmental and non-environmental, will be presented together in a random order.
The CATI system will re-randomize the list for each respondent]
AIR
•Issue:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Air pollution from cars
Air pollution from businesses or
industrial sites
Air pollution from burning leaves
Ozone alerts in the. community
Rating
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
' 5
' 5
fi
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
R
8
8
8
q
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
DK
DK
DK
DK
WASTE
-Issue: . . /_:.-•' ; c V- - ;-i-w,.- vi
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The adequacy of landfills
Location of landfills
Hazardous waste dumping in the local
area
Use of potentially harmful pesticides
Disposal of animal waste
f&niig ^r.^VTV:' -' ;,"',:. :;^'VX..- •
1
1
i
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5j
5!
5;
5.
5
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
WATER
issue-:- ... ./'A ';.;
10. The quality of drinking water from public
water systems
1 1 . Protection of ground water and wells
12. Depletion of the water table
13. Pollution of streams, rivers, lakes, and
oceans in the urban area
14. Adequate long-term supply of drinking
water
1 5. Adequacy of sewage treatment facilities
Rating ' .
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5'
5-
5!
5;
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
-------
EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B
NON-ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Issue:
16. Local crime rate
17. Illegal drug use
18. Quality of public education
19. Adequacy of local highway system
20. Availability of housing for low income
citizens
21 . Ability of the community to respond to
natural disasters
22. Availability of public transportation
23. Favorable business climate
24. Rate of unemployment
25. Level of local taxes
26. Poverty in local community
27. Adequacy of municipal services (e.g.,
trash and snow removal, police and fire
protection)
28. Rate of urban growth
29. Health of the local economy
Rating
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
-------
EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B
Other Issues :
[These issues will be asked after the environmental and non-environmental questions. They will not
be randomized.]
Q. 1a Can you think of any other issues in the PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE] area?
RECORD I
Please tell me how important is this issue in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE] area. Please use a scale
of 1 to 10, with 10 being "extremely important" and 1 being "not important at all".
123456789 10 DK
| After survey is completed, need to specify whether the issue is environmental or not.
Q.1b Can you think of any other issue in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE] area?
RECORD ;
Please tell me how important is this issue in the fPLACE NAME OF MSA HERE] area Please use a scale of
1 to 10, with 10 being "extremely important" and 1 being "not important at all".
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DK
I After survey is completed, need_to specify whether the issue is environmental or not.
Q.2. Now I would like to ask about the ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES you rated "Important". Please tell me
whether you think that these environmental issues have gotten better, worse or stayed about the same
in the last five years in the fPLACE NAME OF MSA HERE! area.
[The CATI system will recall all environmental issues rated 6 or higher and use in the following
routine] '
Q2a. For [INSERT FIRST ISSUE1. would you say it has gotten better, worse or stayed the same in the last
five years in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE] area? i
1.
2.
3.
4.
Better
Worse
Same
DK/Refused
Q2b. For HNSERT FIRST ISSUE], is this an issue in which you have been actively involved, for example,
written letters, attended public meetings, joined an advocacy group?
1. Yes I
2. No :
3. Do not know/Refused ,
-------
EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B
Q3a. What about [INSERT NEXT 1SSUE1. would you say it has gotten better, worse or stayed the same in
the last five years in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE] area?
1,
2.
3.
4.
Better
Worse
Same
DK/Refused
Q3b. For [INSERT NEXT ISSUE1. is this an issue in which you have been actively involved, for example,
written letters, attended public meetings, joined an advocacy group?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Do not know/Refused
[The CATI system will continue until all issues are rated.]
Q4a. Have you or anyone else in your family been negatively affected by these environmental issues.
By negatively affected, I mean negative influence on health, things like allergies or breathing problems.
1. Yes
2. No
3. Do not know/Refused
[CONTINUE TO Q.5]
[SKIP TO NEXT SECTION]
[SKIP TO NEXT SECTION]
Q4b. Who in your family has been negatively affected?
[SELECT ALL THAT APPLY]
1. Self
2. Children
3. Spouse or significant other
4. Elderly family members
5. Pets
6. Other
7. Do not know/Refused
-------
EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Survey; of 86 Cities Appendix B
III. Communications Issues
Q5. From what sources do you usually hear or learn about urban environmental issues and conditions in
the {PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE] area? ,
[DO NOT READ LIST. ENTER ALL RESPONSES.] j .
Q5a IF ONLY "TV" MENTIONED IN Q.1, ASK: From sources other than TV, do you usually hear or learn
about urban environmental issues and conditions in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE] area?
Q.6 If you needed particular information on urban environmental issues and conditions in the [PLACE
NAME OF MSA HERE] area, where would you be likely to look fo!r it?
Q.6a IF ONLY "TV" MENTIONED IN Q.2, ASK: Where else, besides TV, would you be likely to look for
information on urban environmental issues and conditions in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE] area?
[DO NOT READ LIST. ENTER ALL RESPONSES.]
Q5/5a
Billboards 1
Bus-side ads 2
Posters 3
Personal experience 4
Internet 5
Kids 6
Leaflets 7
Library 8
Personal observation 9
Word-of mouth 10
Q6/6a
1
2
3
4
5
6
"7
8
9
10
Media
Television
Radio
Newspapers
Magazines
School
Hotlines/800 numbers
Organizations
Local Schools
Universities/Community Colleges
Local government
State government
Federal government
Environmental groups
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
11
12
.13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Other [RECORD]
23
23
-------
Q.7 Now I would like you to rate the following sources on how well they provide you with information about
environmental cond,t,ons in the PLACE NAME OF MSA HPPPT ^ Plea8ye rate these sourcesS°ng
a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being EXCELLENT and 1 being VERY POOR.
Let's start with [READ EACH. CIRCLE APPROPRIATE RATING]
[The CATI system will randomize the list for each respondent.]
Issue:
1.
2.
3.
4.
6.
b.
7.
8.
Television
Radio
Newspaper
Federal government
State government
Local government
Environmental groups
Schools, colleges or
universities.
Rating
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
R
R
R
fi
R
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
R
8
g
g
8
8
8
8
q
q
9
q
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
Q.8
The next few questions are about your household and the environment. When we use the word
environment" we mean the air you breathe, the water you drink, or other aspects of the natural
environment in the area where you live and work, including the climate or wild animals When you
think about the environment this way, have you or anyone else in your household age 18 and older-
•.• • -•• •••- ':• •••
1. Requested environmental information in person,
in writing, or by phone?
2. Subscribed to an environmental publication
such as a magazine?
3. Read a book or brochure or done a library
search about an environmental issue?
4. Joined an environmental group to get
information?
Searched the World Wide Web or Internet for
environmental information?
Attended a public meeting to get information
about an environmental issue?
Yes
1
1
1
1
1
1
No
2
2
2
2
2
2
Don't Know
7
7
7
7
7
7
Refuse
0
Q
0
Q
-------
EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B
Q9. Do you currently have access to the World Wide Web or Internet?
Yes
No
Do not know
[ASK Q.6] ;
[SKIP TO NEXT SECTION]
[SKIP TO NEXT SECTION]
Q10. Do you have World Wide Web or Internet access at...? [READ LIST. ENTER RESPONSES]
[READ ALL] YES NO DK
Home
Work
A local library
A local school
Some other place
RECORD OTHER
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
I DK
DK
DK
; DK
DK
Q11. When was the last time you used the World Wide Web or Internet? [READ LIST UNTIL FIRST ?YES?
RESPONSE]
[READ] YES
In the last few days 1
In the last week 1
In the last month 1
In the last year 1
Longer than a year 1
NO
2
2
2
2
2
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
-------
EMPACT Local Urban Environmental issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B
IV. DEMOGRAPHICS
These last few questions are just to help us classify respondents for analytical purposes.
Q12. What best describes the type of neighborhood you live in? [READ LIST]
1. Urban or city
2. Suburbs
3 Rural
4 Other
5. DK/Refused
[RECORD]
[DO NOT READ]
Q13. Is your home a ... [READ LIST]?
1. Single-Family Detached
2. Duplex, triplex or townhouse/ rowhouse
3. Apartment or condominium
4. Trailer or mobile home
5. Other [RECORD]
6. DK/Refused [DO NOT READ]
Q14. Do you own or rent your residence?
1.
2.
3.
4
Own
Rent
Other
DNK/Refused
[RECORD]
[DO NOT READ]
Q15. How long have you lived in your residence?
YRS
Q16. How long have you lived in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE] area?
YRS
-------
EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B
Q17. What is your age? (RECORD ANSWER) [IF NECESSARY, ASK: Is it between ... (READ LIST)]
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
• 11.
12.
13.
18-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
'60-64
65-69
70-74
75 or older
Refused
[DO NOT READ]
Q18. Which of the following best describes your household?
[READ LIST UNTIL FIRST YES RESPONSE.]
1. Individual living alone
2. Single head of household with children living at home
3. Couple with children living at home
4. Couple with children not living at home
5. Couple without children
6. Single or couple living with other adults
7. Other [RECORD]
8. Refused [DO NOT READ]
Q19. What is your zip code?
Q20. Do you consider yourself to be Hispanic?
1.
2.
3.
Yes
No
DK or refused
[DO NOT READ]
Q21. For classification purposes, to which of the following categories do you belong? (READ LIST)
1. American Indian or Alaskan Native
2. Asian :
3 Black or African American :
4 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
5. White
6. Other :
7. DK or refused [DO NOT READ] i
-------
EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B
Q22. What language is most often spoken in your home? (RECORD ONE ANSWER)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
English
Spanish
French
German
Vietnamese
Cambodian
Mandarin
Cantonese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Polish
Russian
Other
DK/Refused
[RECORD]
[DO NOT READ]
Q23. Please tell me which best describes your highest level of education.
[READ LIST UNTIL FIRST YES RESPONSE.]
1. Below high school
2. High school but no diploma
3. High school diploma
4. Some college but not a bachelor's nor associate's degree
5. Associate's degree
6. Bachelor's degree
7. Some graduate or professional school but no degree
8. Graduate or professional degree
9. Graduate or professional degree plus additional studies
10. Other
11. DK/Refused
Q24. Lastly, I am going to read several income categories. Please stop me when I read the category that
best describes your 1997 total household income before taxes.
1 Under $10,000
2 $10,000-$19,999
3 $20,000-$29,999
4 $30,000-$39,999
5 $40,000-$49,999
6 $50,000-$59,999
7 $60,000-$69,999
8 $70,000-$79,999
9 $80,000-$89,999
10 $90,000-$99,999
11. $100,000 and over
12. Refused [DO NOT READ]
That was the last question I have for you. Thank you very much for taking the time to participate in
this study.
-------
Appendix C
National Urban Profile
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Nation
Ratings of Local Environmental issues
Better, Same, or Worse During Last 5 Years
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
Harmful pesticides
Landfill adequacy
Landfill location
""Local waste dumping
Long-term water supply
Ozone alerts
Pollution- burning leaves
Pollution- cars
Pollution- industry
•"Pollution of streams/lakes
""Quality of drinking water
Water table depletion
^ &',-;. '& 2$Mfi*v<*3 -•**<£*?{ ' • rmjp ,
«^.S?Si.''-r^:-.--i.i^j%at;u^^^(- •• -ivj ~~~ L^ !
SSSS4? "SWA
WK<«4&4
t""*i""' ' ' zZ^° !(////////////$*( "/aW//ji'////'s/\
KSfe-;£^18%'s», *«i'y.-.| : •• — jppT :
W4Z&*&££&a
cwi^giA
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix I)
Regional Profiles
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Region 1
Adequacy of sewage treatment [.^gc;.
Anima! waste disposal \m^:
"Ground water and wells •l;;Vr.i;
Harmful pesticides ITT
""Landfill adequacy (3
Landfill location jyj
j
'"Local waste dumping Eg
Pollution-industry | ...
"•Pollution of streams/lakes I
"'Quality of drinking water f~T"
Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Better, Same, or Worse During Last 5 f^ears
»:40*fe« •*5.'..3slW'«1s»
Long-term water supply [•••jgay.-sa"^
Ozone alerts | ——
Pollution- burning leaves | ....—
Pollution- cars I " " *>
T^-
~?37!
Water table depletion |j:V^t0^ji ss&T
44%
4V%
44%
T5%-
1 sy% .
~55%~
'i-?M&\
41%
-2TO-
4B7o
-m.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
"• Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
Q Better
DSame
0 Worse
60% . 70% 80% 90%
100%
Most Important Local Environmental Issues Most Important Local Non-Environmental Issues
Mean Importance Ratings
Pollution of
streams/lakes
Long-term water
supply
Quality of drinking
8.6
Ground water and
wells
Adequacy of sewage
•3v H-V * v 1 8.3
0123456789 10
Mean Importance Ratings
Public education
Illegal drug use
Local crime rate j
Local economy I
0'12345
I 8.6
J7-8
]7.8
J7-7
17.6
Percentage of respondents whose families have been negatively affected by local environmental issues... 30%
-------
Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Better, Same, or Worse During Last 5 Years
Adequacy of sewage treatment | .32%- . j ~"~ 5.5^
""Harmful pesticides | 40% ' | 44^ —
— tandliil aoequacy | 23% ( 46%
-
— Lanoim (ocauon ( - s>/% -. j 49%
"
—Local waste dumping | . ,3»%.--, • , i 43%
""Long-term water supply f^~ V>% • . | 57%-
""Ozone alerts [ 33% """ ~ ^~T — j ~~ ^jty
HOBUIKXI- ouming leaves | T 61% ; :::.-,• ;....'. -..•,:.:• •• ... )
Poflution- cars | •• w& - | 30% "fTTTTTTTZ
Holtuuon- mausiry 1 «?&)% --.-i, .-!-''.( 40% " -
•""PolutKxi of streams/lakes I 44% — . . ^. | Jjtju^
Water taoie depletion | '". 1b% ) J>1%
t22£216°/°22££23
kx^^^^21 VtSS/SSS/A
\/s//y////25"/>yx>^xx ' /o%wxxx>wi
frtf/stttt^
!
r>^^^^^^32%x^^^x^^i
0% , 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
"" Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
Q Better
DSarne
13 Worse
Most Important Local Environmental Issues Most Important Local Non-Environmental Issues
Mean Importance Ratings
Long-term water
supply
Pollution of
Quality of drinking
water
Ground water and
weSs
Local waste
J8.8
I 8.7
| 8.6
I 8.6
• I 8-4
0123456789 10
Mean Importance Ratings
Public education
Illegal drug use L
Local crime rate (v!
I 8.6
|82
^ iXKS ^^-ifSfyma&f^^ •' ':»$?-• el 8.1
Local taxes t'-'^Hi • .';'%''i':i.!SS>':S/; : W" 8 0
'•• ..-—r: - : >". • ^- :.... :. -^..:: ••*• •••-. ••>• --^ ,: • : ». • -*,* I "'«
Natural disasters W'^^-W'i&ifS'i i£ :^K:' -•-• % • i :'-?•.•»" '••'•' '--xs^, : v;) 7 g
11 ' :- "' " ' ''mv:r ~ ' '' ' ' " ^
012345678:
Percentage of respondents whose families have been negatively affected by local environmental issues 35%
-------
Region 3
Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Better, Same, or Worse During Last 5 Years
Adequacy of sewage treatment |
Animal waste disposal |
Ground water and wells j
Harmful pesticides |
Landfill adequacy ]
Landfill location |
Local waste dumping |
Long-term water supply |
Ozone alerts
Pollution- burning leaves
5B9
"35%
@ Better
DSame
0 Worse
Pollution- cars £
Pollution-industry £
•"Pollution of streams/lakes F
•"Quality of drinking water Q
Water table depletion F
25% -!
10%
20% 30% 40%
•" Denotes'issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
60% 70%
90% 100%
I : •...-'-?. ,: ,'.. .ULi^W^rf^'s^B-^^Sa^ys^
Most Important Local Environmental Issues
s~ >
Mean Importance Ratings
PolluliUH Of 1 _,»„ "'" ' """ ••'" ' gg
Ground walei dnu ,————-.•• y ^r ^ ""^ I 82
U,uil «UiU- f|^fi(«|5j;:^*|gj*Sf»<«fg^%^«fe;J™^^»^^^x»^^*^
Most Important Local Non-Environmental Issues
f~ "X
i Mean Importance Ratings
Public education j "" - | 8.7
Illegal drug use [ \ . -- | 8.4
.
Local crime rate | ^^ ^vw ^«t'!K^''>r ^ *£~ •> ^ ~ ^'^
Local taxes p ^ ^"^ ^ ^ -^ •< * *s ^ m ^** \ 7.8
Adcquo^-y uf^ hlUIUUUdl jj^p^^^t^^jfi^^jgll^.,}^- !j|| 7.7 -
012345678910
wplv affprtfiri hv local environmental issues 32%
-------
Region 4
Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Better, Same, or Worse During Last 5 Years
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
Harmful pesticides
Landfill adequacy
Landfill location
Local waste dumping
Long-term water supply
Ozone alerts
Pollution- burning leaves
"'Pollution-cars
Pollution- industry
•"Podulion of streams/lakes
Quality of drinking water
Water table depletion
El Better
DSame
0 Worse
o%
10%
20% 30% 40% 50%
— Denotes issues in whcch at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
60% 70%
90% 100%
V
Most Important Local Environmental issues
/" ,
•>
Mean Importance Ratings
Lono.larm ivator .
"Tt*f 1 "" "..T. •...;.,., ;,v.. , ;•., ,,-;,;,^rf-v,| 37
waiw L' ' '. •.....•? :•....-...-•-,- |8.5
PnU.^)^ ^f
Otiamcllalm \ , ' ', ' ,", " - -J 8.5
G»™mrituai»f ant} j
«»a? ; ..;.„„„„'-' • :.•••:.•• '•••!•,-.. • -;| 8.4
ir«aimw4 I.,,:.,....",. •' "- ."..'•-',- -' •";/'"; •"•."/'•• j 8.3
012345678910
^_ _
<
Most Important Local Non-Environmentallssues
( ~ ' x
Mean Importance Ratings
HublicBuucaton fey^^r ^^^.^^.^^/v:^^^,;:^^-^ g y
Illegal drug use i'"^^ ••..•'"• ;v-^";-^"""..^"^'V--'" •."•'-> ;•« ^v.'-."."-.'-"!'." \
— — r,,,,,,,,™ , " I O.O
f o.U
— — | '.o
0 1 2 3 456 7 8 g 1£)
S ! r •• J
Percentage of respondents whose families have been negatively affected by local environmental i.
issues.
33%
-------
Region 5
Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Better, Same, or Worse During Last 5 Years
Adequacy of sewage treatment taiB
Animal waste disposal lifty
Ground water and wells \^j™>.
Harmful pesticides £
Landfill adequacy £
Landfill location BSi"jfej
Local waste dumping j-;%>;..^;;
Long-term water supply jciKsStrj
Ozone alerts I ;»?!**
Pollution- burning leaves j;&;>.^:^vr--^ '• :^:54%r:-:^:A:v^:"V^^4v^l"
Pollution- cars |.>j;;^?>;S
Pollution-industry j^^:;t^%::^:~^^:c
"Pollution of streams/lakes »«««-;»stSB'Bt
Quality of drinking water Iveil-Sx'yxfStyiiit::^^^!:^ ;;.~
Water table depletion KgJgi5a3gSfe;i-:y| '
O Better
DSame
0 Worse
20%
40%
80%
100%
•" Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
Most Important Local Environmental Issues Most Important Local Non-Environmental Issues
Mean Importance Ratings
Quality of drinking ,
water
Pollution of !
streams/lakes
Long-term water
supply
Ground water and ,
wells
Adequacy of sewage \
treatment i
] 8.4
]8.4
I 8.3
01234567
Mean Importance Ratings
Public education fe1*||^3|^%:^f^'?;VX-
-------
Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Better, Same, or Worse During Last 5 Years
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal I . 21%
•"Long-term waier supply £
•"Ozone alerts rj
Poltution-burning leaves r~
"'Pollution-cars £
—Pollution- industry £
•"Position of streams/lakes t~
'"Quality o! drinking water (~
Water table depletion F
-5W
Ground water and wells | "
•"Harmful pesticides |
Landfill adequacy I *£L% •. ~"~
Landfill location I . . . • 18^>. .. i
'"Local waste dumping i
TWS
;./.- 3i%T
jja^ >
....,,... - 42
"JS5
64%
~54Tr
~?s«ir
56%"
~4TO
~?4ir
35%
~4^5
~77Z7/7;W
jE225Se3524°/<
v/s/s/MTT;^ 'hf/MS///////),
"4^%~
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% '' 70% 80% 90% 100%
*" Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
X.
Q Better
DSame
0 Worse
Most Important Local Environmental Issues Most Important Local Non-Environmental Issues
Mean Importance Ratings
Long-term water
supply
I 8.5
Quality of drinking i . .. _ _
' ""h :'»•:.' ••'»' ^•<;:^frVi«>f'-.V^;--:>^.-V::.-.-;-:i 8.3
, ...... ,.,..„„,,,„.,, ...... p,,,w.,,.. .....^.,)82
slreams^akes I ' - — - — •.."- •' '"' '-•'•'•-• •'•••• " -'I °-ji
Ground water and i - - -
went I
Adequacy of sewage
i - ; - f— -r - r-rr^ — ^-rrr - . _ „
I '•" " '':" ........ ...... " •^•^i---*-^ '"-<' ^"M 8.0
012345678'910
Mean Importance Ratings
Public education
Local crime rate I - *
Illegal drug use j
Natural disasters
Adequacy of municipal
services
I 8.6
I 8.2
]7.9
[7.8
01234567
Percentage of respondents whose families have been negatively affected by local environmental issues 37%
-------
Region 7
Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Better, Same, or Worse During Last. 5 Years
Adequacy of sewage treatment P
Animal waste disposal £
Ground water and wells £
Harmful pesticides £
Landfill adequacy £[
Landfill location £
'"Local waste dumping JT
Long-term water supply £
Ozone alerts £[
"'Pollution- burning leaves j£
Pollution-cars |™
-53%
J_
46%
Pollution- industry j i.
"Pollution of streams/lakes [;;;
Sit%
"55%"
Quality of drinking water P
Water table depletion j
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
"• Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
B Better
D Same
0 Worse
50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
. •- = -^^:^n,^>.^*-^£^^'^^^ 'x*i3to%43&®-2---*.: ^lis^^^^S^g-asaw'i-
Most Important Local Environmental Issues
x' x.
Mean Importance Ratings
water I * f :,,V, ,,,"! 8'7
supply I.., ^ ..:,.:, ,~ * ,:!*,, „ I8'6
wells I,' .,«'":,*'„"'*""'' '•'" "v I 8'^
0123456789 10
V • ^
Most Important Local Non-Environmental Issues
Mean Importance Ratings
Public education j ^ - » - - •» | g_g
Local crime rate | / 8.4
'
Illegal drug use |v^^^^^ ftf ^ A f^ 8.4
Natural disasters j * \ ^ ^ , " H ~ s - K_ ¥v | 8.0
0123456789 10
V ^
Percentage of respondents whose families have been negatively affected by local environmental issues 26%
-------
Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Better, Same, or Worse During Last 5 Years
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ozone alerts F,
Pollution-burning leaves F_
•"Pollution-cars F_
Pollution-industry F_
•"PoBulion of streams/lakes F
-BW
'"Ground water and wells Fl—'—T595 T
* i
Harmful pesticides | . 31% ,' '
Landfill adequacy | i6% I
Landfill location | . H4% ;,.-(
'"Local waste dumping I .• - ; ..-,;
j
Long-term water supply | : ; i/% ,•
55^-
0 Better
DSame
0 Worse
1S%
Quality of drinking water | 1<}% f
Wateru,b.edepletion l_^i . 4ri% ^^^f^^^^^^^^
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
'" Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
\_
Most Important Local Environmental Issues Most Important Local Non-Environmental Issues
Mean Importance Ratings
Long-term water
supply L
Quality of dnnking
water
Pdiution of
streams/lakes
Ground water and
wells
Water table
I 8.1
J8.1
depletion L
I 7.9
01234567
9 10
Mean Importance Ratings
Public education
8.4
Local crime rate
Local economy
]7.7
17.7
Natural disasters
Illegal drug use
0 1 2 3 4 s 6 7
| 7.5
I 7.5
Percentage of respondents whose families have been negatively affected by local environmental issues 32%
-------
Region 9
Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Better, Same, or Worse During Last 5 Years
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
Harmful pesticides (|
Landfill adequacy g
Landfill location £
""Local waste dumping rj
Long-term water supply [^
Ozone alerts £
Pollution- burning leaves £j
"•Pollution-cars £
Pollution-industry £
""Pollution of streams/lakes £
Quality of drinking water £
Water table depletion (""
Q Better
O Same
0 Worse
°% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
• Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Most Important Local Environmental Issues Most Important Local Non-Environmental Issues
r : N
Mean Importance Ratings
'««tar "I "-W*^. '- ,*'~\ - ^ - | 8.8
Ground water and r-
woii= |'""Vm-*» „" «. ^~^' '~ ^"" | 8.6
Long-term water i
«tpply I *> " ' •< "a'-*^ _ -. | 8.6
Pollution of r1"
<;troom<:/l=U-oe I '"'"'•'»'/•»'*, ^ I 8.4
Adequacy of sewage i, ._.•,,„ ,, ^ ,. ,„ , „„. _,.
troatmonl { "i, ,^ ^ " " *..•?? !C ' * '*. * >- * 8.2
0123456789 10
V j
x ; — , — ^^
Mean Importance Ratings
,- :':
ruDiic education ffmi'J=^^^KyU^^?MiV^'^!!SSSIS,fySif-'S\ 8.6
" I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 • 10
^ J
Percentage of respondents whose families have been negatively affected by local environmental issues 36%
-------
Region 10
Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Better, Same, or Worse During Last 5 Years
Adequacy of sewage treatment t~~~
•"Animal waste disposal Q
Ground water and wells r"
•"Harmful pesticides £
Landfill adequacy t~
LandfiB location | is% |'
"Local waste dumping £
Long-term water supply £
Ozone alerts fj
PpSution-burning leaves £
JL
D Better
DSame
0 Worse
•"Pollution-cars | .-, . . 1B%
W/////////?//////^^/?///?^
PolluUon-industry |-.jit,( ' ':g-!25%.;
"Po«ution erf stream&takes T
-." v, '.ao%
Quality of dnnklng water | 16% |~
Water table depletion | ., ,,IB% T"
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
•™ Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
50% 60% 70%
—'-*
-------
Appendix E
Four MSA Profiles
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Albuquerque
Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Better, Same, or Worse During Last 5 Years
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
""Ground water and wells («
Harmful pesticides (
Landfill adequacy J
Landfill location [
Local waste dumping
""Long-term water supply
Ozone alerts
Pollution- burning leaves
""Pollution- cars
m Better
D Same
Pollution- industry £
Pollution of streams/lakes £5
Quality of drinking water PJ
""Water table depletion R
0%
10%
20% . 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% . 80%
*** Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
90% 100%
Most Important Local Environmental Issues Most Important Local Non-Environmental Issues
Long-term water
Water table
Pollution- cars
c
V
Mean Importance Ratings
I 8.5
* - -^ »'-- "*"• ' c- -> ' J8.3
»<• •»" ~\ "^ 'jf^ ' ^ -» 1 7.8
„• A -, (7.5
123456789 10
i Mean Importance Ratings
Local crime rate r:"""v-v--'----'---""^" ...----I,,,,,,,...,..,...... _.....,, , ^
,„,,.!
0123456789 10
V ': ^
Percentage of respondents whose families have been negatively affected by local environmental issues.
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
31%
-------
Albuquerque
Importance Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
Harmful pesticides
Landfill adequacy
LandM location
Local waste dumping
Long-term water supply
Ozone alerts
PoiluUon- burning leaves
Pollution- cars
Pollution- industry
Pollution of streams/lakes
Quality of drinking water
Water table depletion
fl 7-2
5 3
LiJlj8-3
6.7
6.5
7.4
7.8
§5jy8.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
S.O 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
Boston
Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Better, Same, or Worse During Last 5 Years
"Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
"'Ground water and wells
Harmful pesticides
"'Landfill adequacy
Landfill location
'"Local waste dumping j
'"Long-term water supply |
Ozone alerts j
-i
""Pollution- burning leaves |
Pollution- cars |
Pollution- industry |
'"Pollution of streams/lakes j
"•Quality of drinking water j
Water table depletion j
12DW
"SB'S
0 Better
DSame
13 Worse
7I39T
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
" Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
.1.'iiiJjui.4FV •»
90% 100%
Most Important Local Environmental Issues Most Important Local Non-Environmental Issues
Mean Importance Ratings
Pollution of j t ^
Local waste i • f '>'-<' ^ " ' I a c
Ground water and t " v ' ,. i 0 c
Long-term water i , ,„, t ,,,,, „.
„ .. j " * MVX s>- "?• 8.4
supply i „„„„„., ,, , , „, , **" , ' ,,„• , I "-^
Quality of drinking r
,uf.(or L_ .r±r. - ""„ 1 8.4
123456789 10
V ^
s • ^^
Mean Importance Ratings
Natural disasters | -,',s. 4^~-|74
01 23456789 10
N. ^
Percentage of respondents whose families have been negatively affected by local environmental issues 28%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
Boston
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Ananal waste disposal
Ground xvater and wells
Harmful pesticides
landfill adequacy
Landfill location
Local waste dumping
tons-term water supply
Ozone alerts
Pottulion- burning leaves
PoBution-cars
Pollution- industry
Pollution of streams/lakes
Quality of drinking water
Water table depletion
0.0
Importance Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
8.2
6.9
5.6
1.0 2.0
3.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
[7.7
8.0 9.0
10.0
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
Louisville
Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Better, Same, or Worse During Last 5 Years
Adequacy of sewage treatment
39
Animal waste disposal JT
Ground water and wells £
Harmful pesticides f"
l3a%-
Landfill adequacy £
Landfill location f~
Local waste dumping |™
Long-term water supply J7
Ozone alerts F
D Same
Pollution- burning leaves j~
"'Pollution-cars (T
Pollution- industry |™
Pollution of streams/fakes f™
Quality of drinking water [T
Water table depletion £
_L
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
*** Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
100%
v
•..^•jmaa^sajM.JtT:..!
Most Important Local Environmental Issues Most Important Local Non-Environmental Issues
c ^
Mean Importance Ratings
Long-term water i • _ n
supply I ',,,-T — li_£ — Z_Z_I1..£. iJi 1 °-*-
Quality of drinking \ "' ' u"iu ». , m .
water 1 MM r. . __._.' **• ' 1
streams/lakes 1 • 32 — £ 1 °
sewage treatment 1 .__...._.,„..*. ,.:— ,:::. 2. i
wells I » X. :., -nS S..I ' ••*
0123456789 10
V ^
r ~\
, Mean Importance Ratings
i
Public education L ^s'* ~ •( 8.5
: -
Illegal drug use i , , ^ ] 8.1
Natural disastefs | _ ^ / ^ , •>. | 8.0
! -
oa«,ly.ap ' I "^ - ^ "-^ ^^ ^ 1 «.U
Local crime rate 1 . , » | 7.9
;012345678910
V : ' ^
Percentage of respondents whose families have been negatively affected by local environmental issues.
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
29%
-------
Louisville
Adeootcy ot sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
Harmful pesticides
Landfill adequacy
Landfill location
Local waste dumping
Long-term water supply
Ozone alerts
Pohilion- burning leaves
Pollution- cars
Pollution- industry
PoHuUon of streams/lakes
Quality of drinking water
Water table depletion
0.0
Importance Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
6.8
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
6.0
r.o
X.
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
Seattle/Tacoma/Brernerton
Adequacy of sewage treatment |iB&«!
Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Better, Same, or Worse During Last 5 Years
""Animal waste disposal p
Ground water and wells [T
ia,7o•••'
•"Harmful pesticides \.-^:.^^^>^\ K;.J &K -.:
Landfill adequacy £
Landfill location [
•"Local waste dumping J
Long-term water supply £
Ozone alerts £
Pollution- burning leaves |
•"Pollution-cars f
- T
0 Better
DSame
0 Worse
70%?^
Pollution- industry j^c-iv
•"Pollution of streams/lakes t>feie»
Quality of drinking water l^jiCfi
Water table depletion I..
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
*** Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
90%
100%
i^
Most Important Local Environmental Issues Most Important Local Non-Environmental Issues
x- x
Mean Importance Ratings
-tram-forr- ^^•^^l^^sssms^^$ff-f^m;'^ma£^\ 8.7
dumping
01 23456789 10
V ^
Mean importance Ratings
Public education J „ » / i x "I 8.7
-
.
Local crime rate j - y ( I 7.8
Local economy p (, ^^ v & <#& ~ ^ ^ I 7.7
0-1 23456789 10
V ' ^
: of respondents whose families have been negatively affected by local environmental issues 32%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
Seattle/Tacoma/Bremerton
Importance Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Adequacy of sewage treatment
1 Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
Harmful pesticides
• ?'
Landfill adequacy
'I'll!1
Landfill location
Local waste dumping
Long-term water supply
Ozone alerts
Pollution- burning leaves
PoBution--cars
Pollution- industry
Pollution of streams/lakes
Quality of drinking water
Water table depletion
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
------- |