EPA-230-01-90-073
The Inside Story:
A Guide to Indoor Air Quality
How Well Is It Working?
Donna Synstelien
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. i
January 10, 1990
-------
problem risk communication programs" encounter: 'not all who
receive published information will actually read it. '
Knowledge about indoor air pollution was measured by .the
respondent's agreement or disagreement with several messages
contained in the booklet. Those who read the booklet were more
likely to know that mitigation is not always costly. Readers
tended to cite the general description of what causes indoor air
pollution and the radon section as the most informative or
helpful parts of the booklet. "
The greatest number of mitigating actions taken against any
one pollutant were those taken against environmental tobacco
smoke. Over half of the households ,surveyed said they already
had reduced, or were reducing, tobacco smoke in their homes.
This may be a result of recent public opinion changes against
smoking, and the increased attention given to the negative health
effects of both active and passive smoking. No significant ,' ' '
difference was found between readers and nonreaders in their , .
mitigating efforts with respect to environmental tobacco smoke.
For the group of readers the average number of mitigating
actions per household was 3.3 .actions, compared to the average of
2.3 actions for nonreaders. The difference between these two-
'averages was found to be statistically significanti Readers ;
reported higher numbers of actions taken to reduce indocr0air
pollution in all ten areas of indoor air pollution-recorded. The
£iost significant differences were the increased number of ,
.^mitigating activities that readers took toward radon and
11
-------
.The following report is an evaluation done by the Office.of
Policy, Planning and Evaluation for Bob Axelrad and Betsy Agle of
the Office of Air and Radiation. This document was prepared with
guidance aridN help from Ann Fisher and Reed Johnson of the Office
i .- , ' ' - ' ',,.! . ,'
of Policy Analysis as part of the Risk Communication Program.
The^study reported in this document was conducted; by the United
States Environmental Protection.Agency (EPA). Itj bias been
subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative! review, and
approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade
nam*s or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for vise. , !
-------
-------
v. -. . ;: -. : ,.-;, .... * Executive Summary - - .[*'' . . . " '. - '
Responding to the increased public interest 'in ,indppr air
. - . - f = . r
pollution, the U.S. EPA Office of Air and-Radiation (OAR) in
cooperation with the U.S.. Consumer Product Safety] Commission
" ' " ' -' ' '.'..' '. " * ' ' - ' . . !' '. ' .
developed a booklet entitled, The Inside Storv: A Guide to
Indoor Air Quality. This booklet was designed to; provide
information on indoor air pollution,to the general public. An
evaluation was conducted by the Office of Policy, i Planning and
Evaluation (OPPE), in conjunction with OAR, to determine the
' ' . - " ' ' - " ' !' - . ' ' '
effectiveness of the'booklet«
'. , :. ' ' - t ' .">'! : .'' "- :
The objectives of this indoor air quality information effort
were to inform and ra,ise the consciousness of the! readers, and
provide realistic pollution prevention solutions jthat readers
could implement in their homes. To analyze the bpoklet's success
in these areas 'OPPE conducted a surviey of a representative group
' , . . ."''.. ..' i- . ''.'..-''..'.
of those individuals who had previously requested the booklet " .
from EPA,1 s Public Information.-'Center (PIC) . A total of one
hundred forty-four interviews were completed in July of. 1989 .-. ':
(70.2%, completion rate).
Although all respondents had taken the initiative to write
" ' ' ' . - ' ! ' - - ....
, or call PIC and request the booklet, only fifty-four percent of
the respondents reported having read it. Little iinformation is ;
.available>-to help us know whether this number is a large or small
percentage of the respondents. This study appears to be one of
the first attempts to determine how requested materials a°re used
by households, and we believe further research in this area
A . . . - :' :- ". .- " ' "'." -;- ' '. ' " -. ^-. V. '.' ' ' '"
should be undertaken. However, this serves to illustrate a
' ' ' "
-------
-------
formaldehyde. , '.. .':
' Although measuring increases in knowledge is difficult,
analytical testing was Undertaken. However, the Analysis did npt
. ' "'. ' ... . " -'''''..;.'.';'.. '". ' . ; -'"\". "-. : ;" ". - ""'" : ' ''
yield any determinate results supporting, or.rejecting, a ...,-
significant relationship .between the level of knowledge about
indoor air pollution (as defined by the quiz score) and
mitigating actions taken. Total quiz scores did jiot differ
' ' ' r -= : ,_ . '." V ","-'"' ,-'"'"'
significantly between readers and nonreaders. Whereas analysis
was unable to support The Inside Story as a strong source of
."',-'',, 'J', ' ' ' ' '
- ' - ..'... -- -1 ' - ;' '-I- -'-'--'-. -.",
information for'its readers, it may reinforce perceptions,
attitudes, intentions, and.actions of those who already have a
'"'", i ' '.' "
higher level of awareness about indoor air pollution.- That may
be why readers took more remediating actions than nonreaders.
Cautious optimism can 'thus be given to the booklet as a potential
source of motivation to readers to undertake specific activities.
It should be noted that, in general, risk communication-is very
difficult. . ; ; .- ' ;| '. / ....
, './ , -; ..'...-.'--' '''? i ...'' . ''/
Overall, the reaction to the booklet from its readers was
very favorable. All who read the booklet felt it was written in
a language they could easily understand and was Well-rorganized.
"' ' '-. ' ' . ' /'.:. ' ' ' ' ' ' -. ' ' - f ..- - ' '" '- ' ..-
It identified sources of indoor air pollution in [their homes as
' '"',/'' ' !' ;
well as ways to reduce the pollution.
.V
111
-------
..''"' ''. , ''. 2
Agency's Public Information Center (PIC) began distributing the
» - .. . ., ...
booklet as it was requested . Later that same month PIC began to
/ . . . '_ . , '-..'
^ ..
retain all requests-for information on indoor air pollution or
for The Inside story, to facilitate ari evaluation of the
effectiveness of the booklet. This evaluation was conducted by
the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE), in
.*
conjunction with OAR, arid its results are reported here.
Objectives " '
A primary obj ective of any information program is to convey
specific knowledge to an audience. In the communication of risk,
there is a particular emphasis on conveying information about a
level of risk, so that people can develop an understanding and a '
realistic perspective of their own risk.
Although some information programs may strive specifically
to change behavior, this indoor-air quality information program
was not conducted to promote mitigation activities per se.
Rather, its objectives were to inform, raise consciousness.and
provide realistic pollution prevention solutions that could be
easily implemented in respondents' homes. Because the risks
conveyed in the booklet are verglow probability risks7~^-bimodal
distribution of responses was likely'to occur: at the low end of
1This booklet also has been distributed through the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, EPA's regional offices, and the Consumer
Information Center in Pueblo, CO. . ,
-------
TABtE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ' .... . , '
INTRODUCTION. ,
Objectives -
Evaluation
EVALUATION PROCEDURE
Sample Selection -
Survey Design ,. .
Profile of Respondents and their Households .
RESULTS
Reading the Booklet - v
Judgments about Pollution
Learning!
How Respondents Felt about the Booklet
: - . ". - . ' . i- , ' ' ' : ' ' '-.-.
Mitigating Actions
Analysis . ' ,
CONCLUSION . ;
APPENDIX A' Questionnaire -
APPENDIX B Profile of Respondents and their
, Households: General Distribution
Results
1
2
.4 '
5
5
6
8
"9
9
12
14
17
20
25
-------
Evaluation -, .
* . "".'"'
* ' .
Improvement of r-isk communication, programs cannot take, place
without building on the evaluation of existing programs. The
magnitude of the evaluation process, however/ should be scaled to
the overall scope of the information package being reviewed, the
resources available, and the importance of the information
program. .
The quality of indoor air is one .of the program areas under
the auspices of OAR; and within the indoor air program, The "
Inside storv is only one of the efforts of the program.
Nonetheless, this booklet is the main component of the
information dissemination process, and merits evaluation to'
determine its reception and effectiveness. Development and v /,
distribution of the booklet itself have not been so costly and
extensive as to justify an expensive, elaborate evaluation, and
with these points in mind, an evaluation was designed that would
provide valid and useful results without requiring an,undue
amount of resources. The requests for information that had come
to PIC were a good starting point for evaluation and had already
been collected at a minimal cost. These requests had been
retained by PIC without any specific evaluation plan, and .
therefore were not organized in any particular way; but they
could still' be used to gather information,from people who had
requested the-booklet. , : ' ... .
-------
INTRODUCTION
The focus on energy* .conservation in the past
decade and a
half has resulted in increasingly "tight homes,'1 weatherized to
'reduce energy expenses. Thesje efforts, however, have also served
to reduce the number of air exchanges per hour between inside and
outside air for those households. In addition to
tighter homes,
i.
there has also been increased attention given to i:adon and its
health effects. In 1984 a nuclear power, plant worker .in
"Boyertown, .PA, set off the. radiation alarm on his
way to work;
his home was found to contain very high levels of the naturally
occurring radon gas. Since then, awareness and concern about
radon and its potential dangers have been increasing. Both the
' weatherization efforts and the recent emphasis on radon in homes
have called attention to the possibility that indoor air may
contain elements hazardous to human .health. This
attention,
along with new scientific studies on the health effects of
various indoor air'pollutants,:has led to greater
public for information on the health effects from
demand by the
exposure and
effective mitigation procedures. V
. Responding to this increased interest in indoor air/the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).Office of,Air and
Radiation (OAR) in cooperation with the U.S. Consjimer Product
Safety Commission developed a booklet, The Inside! storv; A Guide
to Indoor Air Quality. This booklet was designed! specifically to
disseminate information on indoor air pollution .tb.the general
* .'.''' ...'.' ' ; '' ' ''" ' - ;..-- .'' ' '" ' '. ' : ''
-^.public. In November of 1988 the Environmental Protection
** ... . - ': / - --- - - '-..- . ^" ' " .
-------
' ' - ..'.'' . 6
sample. This was done to .avoid having to draw a replacement
sample later as households were declared unreachable. Given an
estimated 9000 requests, it was concluded that every 20th request
should be drawn from the boxes..
Although systematic sampling was used, this sample can be
considered a simple random sample given the formation of the
population from which the sample was drawn. The .cards and
letters were put in boxes in no particular order when they were
received by PIC. In addition, they we're consolidated into two
very large boxes .for. transporting to the survey location. Given
the haphazard way the requests had been treated, the sample was
assumed to have the characteristic^ of a simple random sample for
the purposes of analysis.
The interviews were conducted in July of 1989. All sample
respondents had requested the booklet at least one month prior to
their interview, and some of them could have received the booklet
as much as eight months before the interview.
Survey Design3
The questionnaire was .designed to be implemented over the
telephone and to take no more than 10-15 minutes to complete.
i 3This telephone survey was designed and implemented following
* Dillman's Total Design Method, as described in his book/ Mail
'
and Telephone Surveys;' The Total Design Method , 197 8 , New York , NY ,
^Tohn Wiley & Sons. A copy of the questionnaire is included as
.Appendix A. . - !
-------
the bimodal response distribution there is -"not'-enough11 .-concern
generated, while at the high end there is"overconcern" for the
1 *""', ''<-. ,'-',' -
risk;2 '. - ' . -. .- ''. ' " I .'. ., ' ''
. It must be noted here that the appropriate level of concern
for any pollutant, even in light of the best scientific evidence
''.'-' -'''.'
available, remains at least in part a subjective value judgement.
A main objective in the communication of risk information is to
enable individuals to make informed decisions iaboikt how concerned
. - , ' ' ' ' .'-'.'!'''-- ' v'
they should be. For example, even risk-averse people may have a
low level of concern for a risk if they fully understand all the
information about that specific risk. Whether high or low levels
of concern are the result, information programs like this one
endeavor to insure risk perceptions are not basedjon incomplete
or incorrect information.
2A unimodal distribution is a standard distribution with one
point of. .central tendency, while a bimodal distribution has two
points. Graphically illustrated:
unimodal
# of.
respondents
'#'-of.
respondents
intensity of
concern
intensity of
cohcerri
* Economics and Psychology Policy Research for Environmental
Management: An Evaluation of Strategies for Solving the Radon
5 Problem. USEPA, May 1989, pp. 16.^17. -
-------
Completed Interviews 144
Refusals / ,24
Respondent not home. . ' 18
No answer/answering machine 14 ;
Incommunicable4 ' 5
TOTAL . 205
; . Completion Rate 70.2% , . ,
A total of one hundred forty-four interviews was completed, for a
;'
70.2% completion rate. There were a total of si^'ty-nine
households whose numbers were either,not listed, unpublished on
request, or had been disconnected. Thus, efforts were'made to
contact a total of 2,74 households, resulting in an overall
completion rate of 52.6%.
The questionnaire was divided into three main sections. The'
\ _ , ' .
first section measured the respondent's knowledge about and
concern for indoor air pollution, the second attempted to
determine whether any mitigating actions had been taken or were
scheduled to take place, and the third requested socio- ,-
demographic information. ,
Profile Of Respondents And Their Households5
The "average" respondent was a homeowner living in a single
4Several households were unable to Despond to questions
because respondents were very hard of hearing or otherwise impaired
so that communication was not good enough for the interviewer to
* conduct complete interviews. Those- individuals make up the
^"incommunicable" category. '
%' 5A more,detailed description of socio-deraographic information
.is included as Appendix B. >
-------
EVALUATION PROCEDURE.
Sample Selection
.-'.- The evaluation of this booklet was conducted] by surveying a
' ' ' , ' , ' -' ' . r ' ' . ,
representative, group of individuals who requested! the booklet
from EPA1s'PIC. This group was identified from cards and letters
sent to PIC, and telephone request forms completed by the PIC
employees. The requests had been placed in boxes with no system
' . '' . ' . :."'.'. ^ "''' r r ' - ,
of numbering or categorization. The b.oxes contained,
approximately nine thousand requests received by PIC from
November of 1988 through May, 1989. Approximately 50% of the
'. ' ' '''''.' ' . i. ''.-.
9000 requests.were ineligible for this study, because they were
from businesses, not individuals. .
. ' ' -.'"' ' - . - i - ,
Following consultation with OPPE's Statistical Policy Staff
' . . " ' . . : i ' ' -
and considering time, and resource constraints, a reasonable
target sample size was determined to be 150 households. There
, '.,' .. ''. ' . . , .. I" . ' ' '
were no phone numbers listed with .the .household names and
';. '.''. -' . '.;..- '".- ' .. , +.'; . - . . ' ;
addresses, so it was estimated that 50 households! would not be
reached due to unavailable or unpublished phone numbers.
' Accounting for, the 50% expected to be ineligible,] the households
whose phone numbers, could not be obtained -, and an expected
-'',' " ' '.- " ' ],)' ' - . ' :
response rate of 70% meant that 450 names were needed-drawing a
.. replacement sample in the original sample. Drawing a sample from
' , ' '..'' :.- ..'-...''.':' I "-' ; ' - *
the boxes of requests was cumbersome given the si2e and the .
arrangement of the requests, so the number of unusable requests
was estimated and added to ,the number to be drawn
in the first
-------
''-" " .' .,.'.'...'.' -1Q:
information will actually "read it. However, this is only one of
the difficulties with information programs* First, an
» " ' ' '''.," '
information program of this kind must get people's attention in
order to make them aware that information is available.. Having '
gotten their attention, the program .must then induce people to
make note of the'address or phone number where the information
- / " . ' ' - '
can be obtained. Finally, it must motivate them tp write or call,
for the information that can help them to understand the risks
they face. The results of this survey, indicate that, even when
individuals have completed this process, there is still ho
guarantee that the information actually will be communicated. It
' . ' . - ' .- x.'-.'''...
seems that only the most interested individuals are likely to be
motivated enough to complete the entire sequence of activities
and thereby absorb the information. -
A search of the literature in an attempt.to-compare the
fifty-four percent reading rate with similar risk communication
\ ' ' . ' . . ' -
efforts revealed that relatively little.is known about people's
* ' , i "'''.'' ^ '
actual use of informational materials, whether they request the
materials or they receive materials through general information
dissemination programs. The available .analyses are very sketchy
and tend to be very specific, while not identical, a study by'
the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) resembles our
-------
-The interviews were conducted by one person and ;j:hus any . .
'. ' ' - '' ' . f, '. - '' :' -
interviewer bias will be considered consistent. '
. - . , ' . '.'-'-,'.-...-
.- ' ' :"*:":-.' '..'.> .'"
After introducing the interviewer/ the purpose of the survey
was explained as well as how the household was selected for the .
survey. Upon verifying that the booklet was received by the
household, the interviewer identified the person! in the household
most familiar with The Inside Story; A Guide toiIndoor Air '
Quality and proceeded with the survey, given .the
availability of
the respondent. Households where the .respondents were not
available on the first contact were queried as tp when the
respondent would be available, .and further calls
were conducted
only during the recommended times. Of those calls where
respondents were unavailable, two-thirds were called at' least
five times. Those called less than five times were identified as
being available only at very specific times of the week and
successive efforts were not able to reach the>individuals even
' . . ' - i '" ' .:-
during the prescribed times. All no-answer or aftswering-machine
households were called a minimum.of six times at different times
of the day over a period of two weeks, in an attempt to-find
residents at home. A summary of the interview results is as
follows: " ;. '
-------
_ -. , . . - ' . :: ' 12
ten to thirty minutes reading it. The second largest group of
' - * " ' '"'' ' i' ' . - '
'readers, 21%, spent thirty to sixty minutes reading the booklet,
while 13% read for less than ten minutes and 12% estimated they
had read for over an hour'.
Judgements -About Pollution ,
i
Questions 2 and 3 asked the respondents to. give their
opinion of the importance of several types of pollution, one
f . ' ' '
being indoor air pollution. The third question asked the
respondents to assign a value, from one (not serious) to ten
(very serious),'indicating how serious they thought the risks
from specif ic types of pollution.,were to their households. The
respondents used the same'1 scale for the three risks listed, thus,
after stating a,particular level of concern,for the first
pollutant, lead in drinking water,, the scale of seriousness
became a relative one. Hazardous waste in landfills,, listed
second, evoked a level of concern relative to the concern the
individual had reported for lead in drinking water. Indoor air
pollution, listed last, was given a level of .concern relative to
both, of the prior responses. Although indoor air pollution did
cause concern among the respondents, its risks were viewed as
being less serious than risks from hazardous waste in landfills.
s The frequency distribution for the responses on the
\* . * - .'-.'.-.
\eriousness of lead in drinking water indicates a bimodal pattern
resulting from the fact that many respondents expressed strong.
-------
.. . . ... ..
family home that had, been built between 19.4Q and 11976. The
respondent had been living in the home, for 13.8 years and was not
planning to move in the next year or two. The hcifme had a
basement, but it was not considered to be living spade by the
respondent. The mean household was a nonsmoking household,
consisting of 2.7 persons, .4 under the age of 12, and .8 over
.the age of 60. The respondent was Caucasian with a college
degree and income between ,$35,000 and $50,000.
1 The respondent had an equal chance of beingjmale- or female;
- .-"'' . . . ;- . ' I;' - '' ' ' , ' >'
and, although the respondents ranged widely in rairige with age,
:the higher age groups were more highly represented. "
RESULTS ,-
Reading The Booklet
The first question asked the respondent how long he or she
' . "'"' .--'"' ' /
spent reading the booklet, determining whether or not the booklet
had been read. Fifty-four percent (53.5%) of th^ respondents
surveyed 'reported having read the booklet, even though all of
. . '. - ''." '"'.-''.'' .'.".'.-...'"' "!' :'.' ; '
them;had taken the initiative to write or call EI>A's PIC and
request it. Only part of the questionnaire was Used for
respondents who had not read the booklet6. '
This fir;st result illustrates one of the problems risk
communication programs encounter: not all who receive the
' '
Those not haying read the booklet were asked questions 2-4,
8-18, and 21-37. ,
-------
Seriousness of Indoor Air Pollution
1 23/4 5 ^6 7 8 9 10 .
Scal'e of Seriousness'
-------
'.-; ; \". i-i
evaluation effort.7 Households were interviewed regarding the
use of .the brpchure, "Understanding AIDS,"that was'sent to all
' ' " .'' » i , . " - >i ', - " - - -
» " ' - - "
households in ,the United States by the Center fori Disease Control
(CDC) in June of 1988. Half of those who received the booklet
actually read it; approximately the same result that was obtained
'. ' . -.'.' ' '; ' - : - 8 v $.: ": ' ''.
in the indoor air quality booklet survey. One might expect
fewer people to read an unsolicited leaflet. On (the other hand,
'. ''' - ' '; " ' ,! . "* ' ...
at the time of the mass mailing of "Understanding! AIDS," public
- ' " - . ' .' ' r. - :f '-.*
awareness of AIDS was high, which might have causje more people to
read the unsolicited leaflet. These factors make the results
from the NCHS study difficult to compare with our! study of The
Inside story. These studies represent early attempts to measure
the use of informational- materials and ensuing responses by the
readers. Further research should be undertaken t|o increase our
knowledge on whether these figures are typical.
The time allotted to actually reading the booklet varied
among the group ,of readers, with the majority of those reading it
reporting they spent less than an hour studying the booklet.
About half (51%) of those ,who read the booklet stated they spent
7Nati6nal Center for Health Statistics, D.A. Dawsqn. AIDS
Knowledge and Attitudes for/July 1988, Provisional data from the
National Health Interview, survey. Advance Data! From Vital and
Health Statistics. No. 161. DHHS Pub. No. (PHS)J89-1250. Public
Health Service. Hyattsville, MD. i
8When interviewed in July of 1988, only sixty-three percent of
all responding adults recalled haying received the booklet. Of
* those recalling they received the booklet, isevehty-nine percent
^ reported having read some or all .of the brochure, and : twenty
percent reported they had not read any portion of the booklet.'
% NCHS, Dawson, p.2. " . . '
-------
Learning " ,
* ' '' - ' .-.'."
» * - '
Question 4 was designed to determine what people learned
from the booklet. The seven statements read to the respondent
were main messages contained in the booklet and were used to
determine whether the booklet,successfully communicated those ..
points. We cannot determine from "correct" answers that the
information was necessarily derived from the booklet: the
respondents could have acquired that information from other
sources. Unfortunately, the timing and scope of the evaluation
precluded a control sample ,who had not had access to the booklet;
thus,, before-and-after answer comparisons could not be made.
However, a comparison was.made within the sample between those
who' had read the booklet and those who had not. Those who .had
not read the booklet can be considered' a well-informed comparison
1 '-'"' ' ' , '
group because its members had taken the initiative to order the
booklet. Any difference in-knowledge between this group and;
those who had read the booklet would be expected to understate
the comparison with the general public. Incorrect answers from
those who had read the booklet would appear to indicate that the
booklet did not convey the desired information.
The booklet states that most indoor air pollution comes from
1 ' . .' ^ . ' ' ' ' <* -
ordinary household products, not nearby industries, 'it also
stresses that source removal is usually the best way to reduce
*the pollution. Other .survey answers sought were: health effects
can be long term; homes do not need to be tested for a wide range
co ' " ' ' ' .-..'. .'.''.
-------
Seriousness of Lead in'Drinking-'.Water
1 " 2 3. 4 -5'..6.-;7 .8 9 10
' Scale of Seriousness
Seriousness of Hazardous Waste in Landfills
Frequency . -:.''''
i 2 34 5. 6 7 8 9 '10
Scale of Seriousness .
-------
, ' ''-.''"';' .16
recommended it only for radon. Yet, 78% of the readers and 72%
* - - ' ' - r,
of the nonreaders said households should test for-a widevariety
1 - ' ' > '
of pollutants. .(This was the only statement that a higher
' ' i '
percentage of readers than nonreaders answered incorrectly,
':--'' ''. ' . ' ' " ' \ .'
although the'difference was not statistically significant.)
.Respondents may have been influenced to support testing for
, ' '
pollutants if they perceived'testing to,be the "socially
s ' . " .-
acceptable" answer to the question. Moreover, respondents may
have felt uncomfortable saying that testing was not.-, needed;
additional information and scientific testing may be perceived as
"good" and necessary, no matter what the cost. In addition, the
booklet did not recommend widespread testing, but neither/did it
explicitly reject it. Aside from radon, the booklet, states that
testing for pollutants should be. undertaken "when, there are
either health symptoms or signs of poor air flow and specific
sources or pollutants have been identified as possible causes of.
indoor air quality problems."10 The booklet did not specify that
testing was not necessary for .any of the pollutants. Thus, the
individual was left with the subjective decision to test or not.
* * , - . - "' - ' '
A significant difference was found between readers .and
nonreaders, in the statement that mitigation is always expensive
(see Figure 2) .11 Eifty^-eight percent of -the nonreaders thought
mitigation efforts could be inexpensive, while 71% of the readers
* - 10The Inside s-fcorvt'.'- A Guide to Indoor Air Quality. USEPA,
* Sept. 1988, EPA^400/1-88/004, p. 9. ,
11At the 90% confidence level. , -"
-------
:'.;-.':,' : -'... - -.'.;. '...'' \ ' ': ' ' 13
cqricern for lead in drinking water and an almost ; equal amount
.displayed very little concern. Relatively few respondents showed
a moderate level of.concern. However, neither the seriousness of
indoor-air pollution nor hazardous waste responses revealed this
' * ' " . - . . . .!.,' '
pattern* The rating of the risks in this study may be in part .
attributed to the visibility given to hazardous waste sites by
the media and the physical cues evident around the sites as,
compared to lead in drinking water or indoor airjpollution.
-Benign experience also could explain some of theidifference in
perceptions.9 More people have had benign experiences with
indoor air pollution in their homes than have experienced an
unpleasant odor from a landfill or.heard accounts;true or not--
' ' '.-'-- - i ' - -- - ' - - -V '' '- -''.--
about a contaminated landfill or Superfund site. Thejpattern of
concern for lead in drinking water may be because* some
respondents were convinced there was no lead in tpheir drinking
water, therefore, it was not a concern. On the other hand,
publicity in the past few years about the adverse health effects
of lead in the environment may have contributed to the high
.levels of concern reported among some individuals;.
9Fisher,. Ann and Lennart Sjoberg, "Radon Risks: People's
* Perceptions and Reactions," Forthcoming in Environmental Radon;
* Occurrence. Control and Health Hazards, eds. Shyamail K. Majumdar,
^ Robert E. Schmals, and E. Willard Miller,.,'Pennsylvania-.-Academy of
Science. ,
-------
-------
15
of pollutants; radon is only one of many indoor pollutants; and
common everyday practices- can be changed to reduce indoor air
'."'- W _ ','*.'.
pollution without monetary expenditure.
Question . .
Industry causes IAP
Household products cause IAP
Source removal effectiveness
Short-term health effects
Should test homes ;
Radon only major pollutant
Mitigation expensive
Table I **
Agree
Disagree
.Don't know
26.4%
*90.3
*93.7
5.6 ,
75.0'
4.9
*57.6%
: ' 6.2!"-." ;
- 4 ."2K ' '
*84.7]
*18 . 7|
*S7.-5'' ' '
1,6.0%"
3.5
2.1
9.7
6*2
''7.6
13 . 9
20.8,
* Denotes correct answers as given by the bcjoklet.
** N=144; Row. sums may not equal 100% due tc; rounding.
Three of the results shown in Table I should be; roted here.
First, over a quarter of the respondents thought industry was the
main cause, of indoor air pollution, while another 16% were not
certain. Second, almost 35%, of the respondents elither did not
know about .the levels of cost involved in mitigatlion activities
or thought they were-expensive., Finally, three-fourths of the
respondents felt that homes should be tested for' a wide variety
'''-.". ' . ' ' - ' ' . '!' . '
of pollutants. . |
The responses indicating a perceived need tq test for a wide
range of indoor air pollutants are important, given the booklet's
message and Its recommendations. The booklet did, not advocate
extensive testing for indoor air.pollutants, and [specifically
-------
' ' . 18
Of the statements about the booklet, the statement that
received the least amount'of agreement, yet still received a
t '' ' h
favorable response from^83% of the respondents, was the statement
that said the booklet covered the needs of.the respondent. _
Several people (8% of the 77 readers) had been looking for
specific pieces of information and did not find them or were
well-informed prior to reading the booklet so that'the booklet
did not add to their knowledge as they had anticipated it would
or had wanted it to. . , \
Question 6 measured the individual's perception of the
information obtained from the booklet regarding indoor air ;
pollution. It could be argued that there was a socially
acceptable answer to this question: because the respondent read
the booklet he or she should have learned from the booklet. A
supposedly appropriate and desired answer,could exaggerate the
degree of learning reported by the respondent. However, it was
important to try to capture the individual's own feeling toward
understanding, indoor,air quality and how much information, he; or
she felt was gained> from the booklet. Subjective assessments of
effectiveness have been, found to be poor predictors of.learning;
thus, whether information and understanding were actually
transferred was measured by the questions on specific information
and behavior.12 "
12Smith, V. Kerry, William .H. Desvousges, Ann Fisher, F. Reed
Johnson, Communicating Padon Risk Effectively; A Mid-Course
Evaluation. USEPA, July 1987, EPA/230/07/87/029, p. 6-12.
-------
FIGURE
Reader and' Non-readerComparison
Question 4g.,, Mitigation/is expensive
Percent ' -;'.-.'
Agree Disagree . Don.'t, .know
. , . ' '.: .Response ''/
|| Reoaers
53 Non-readers
Question 4a., Industry causes Indoor Airj Poll. :
Readers'
|..-. -; , .. ' .
iNonreaders
.Agree
. Disagree
Response
Don't know
-------
' -.'' . ' ; ''.;. '.20
about 2 points.) This may indicate why readers took more , .
* . ' .' ' '
actions. Even though they did not score better on the quiz/ they
believed they had learned.from the booklet, and thus may have had
more confidence in their ability to undertake mitigating actions.
In question 7. the respondents were,asked about the specific
areas of concern or of greatest interest they found in the
1 .* ' L. ' .
' booklet. Only 35 of the 77 readers were able to1 recall a section
' .. '. ' .. .t '.
of sections of the booklet. Those who did respond cited the
general description of causes of indoor air pollution and the
.radon section as the most informative or helpful. Fourteen of!.
the 35 responding (40%) listed the radon section/ while thirteen
individuals (36%) listed the general description. It should.be
noted that there was some difficulty in getting responses to this
, " . . . , "'.'' . \, '"'::,'....
question since some of the respondents had read this booklet
several months earlier.
Mitigating Actions '; -.
The second section-elicited information on the respondent's .,...,
testing and mitigating activities. Questions 8-18 were designed
to determine behavioral responses on the part of the individual
and asked the respondent about his/her specific actions to reduce
indoor air pollutants. Potential actions .listed are those
specifically recommended in the booklet, but the interviewer did
* . . . ..''."'' .. . .'.'' '-. , ;
* not read these to the respondent. This set of questions was
\ ' ' ,''' '.-.- ''''
* designed to determine whether any mitigating action was planned
-------
17
said mitigation was" not expensive'. Interesting though not
significant was the difference found between the readers and
indoorlair
.' nonreaders on the statement that industry caused
pollution. Almost two-thirds (64%) of the readers felt, that
industry did not cause indoor air pollution compared to a little ,
more than half of the nonreaders who-thought industry was not
responsible. The remaining statements in question 4 also failed.
to show a significant difference between readers
and nonreaders.
How Respondents Felt About The Booklet
The focus of this section of the survey then turns
'specifically to the booklet. Question.5 continues in the same
format as question 4, asking about the layout of
how it was perceived by the respondent. Overall,
the booklet from its readers was very favorable:
"".' : Table II ** ''.
the,booklet, and
) - ' . . "
the reaction to
Agree
Disagreie
Don't know
Question
Everyday English
Difficult organization ,
Covered heeds
Identified IAP sources
\Identified ways to reduce IAP
**N=76,v Thisquestion was asked only of those who reported
100,,.
3.
'82.
89.
86.
0% O.C
9 86. S
9 .7.9
5'. '..''. 3. S
% 0.0%
' 9.2
- .' ' " 9 '.'2 .
6.6
8 . . 3»?l :--.- '.. .9. '-'2 ,
having read the booklet. Row sums may not equal
rounding. ,
100% due to
All who read the booklet felt it was written in a! language they
a- could easily understand..
-------
-.'''"',. ' .'.' . . . ."' 22
biological contaminants, such as mold and /mildew, in their
cleaning activities and indicated increased use of dehumidifiers ,
» ' f - - . , f
in their homes. The major radon action taken was testing; many
households said they either had tested or were planning to test
their homes in the near future. Most who "had tested did not find
high levels of radon. in their homes.13 Those respondents taking
action in the areas of pesticides .or organic chemicals and gases
described their activities as reducing storage of the substances
in the house and using the products only outside or in well-
ventilated areas. Removal of respirable particles from many .
households was accomplished by central heating and cooling
systems that filtered the circulating air. Many respondents
reported having their systems professionally checked on an annual
or biannual basis as well as changing the filters regularly.
'The average number of actions taken per household for the
entire sample was 2.8 actions. For the group of readers the
average number of actions per household was slightly higher at
3.3 actions per household, while the nonreader subset was
slightly lower at 2.3 actions. A t-test between the readers and
the nonreaders reveals that these differences are significant at
the 99% confidence level.
There were consistent differences in mitigating actions
. between those who had read and those who had not read the;
booklet. Readers reported higher numbers of actions taken to
_ _
vf - - *' : ' ' . ' , ' ' .
13High levels are defined here as .greater than the EPA
'guideline action level of 4 pCi/1. ;
-------
' . . . -=.-.. .' : .- -.: = . - 19
. ' . - .-,. ,!,-', ' '. .
' ' . . ' ' ' " " ' ' " i""" ''*'."'.' " ,
The respondents were asked to indicate on a [scale "from one
to ten how" informed they-felt; they were.both before and after
they read the booklet. It should be recognized here that each
respondent attached a specific subjective value t;o the scale in
i '."-..': ' . "-'-'- ' . '..'.. '!..' -..-... '.
determining where they belonged on the scale. Onie person's
opinion of, what it means to be well informed may differ strongly
'' : ' ' ' ' ' ' :'['.' ~ ','''"' '''.'-
from another's position on the same question. Thus, the focus in
these calculations was the difference between the two numbers
reported by the person. This allows a* relative ,qr ordinal '
comparison of degrees of perceived learning instead,of trying .to
determine an absolute or: cardinal level of learning, Gains an
perceived knowledge were reported in relative nunlbers by all
, ' - . - - . ' .i.-. .-..
' ; ' :! . . . / .' ..
respondents who had read the booklet (see Table I;II) .
Table III , '
Perceived
Knowledge Increase
0 points
1 » . .
2 ' ' " '
3 "
4 :
5 "
6 "
7 .''
: 8-' '.'« -.
Frequency
9
15 .
19
14
10
5- '/
1.
Pelrcient
- .' . | ' , '-
1:1.7%
19. 5
;2|4".7-
l!8,2
i3 c 0
.60 5.
' -1^3.
|3.9 '
N=77
10:0.0
The greatest number of respondents (19 persons25%) felt they
had increased their knowledge by two points on the scale, (The
mean level of knowledge reported before reading tlhe booklet was
4.9 and after, reading the booklet was 7.5, an average gain of
-------
; ' '- ' ' . " . . : -. 24
cannot be interpreted as determining what, if arty, degree of
action was taken. Many actions taken by households do not
require a purchase but rather necessitate a change, in habits or
lifestyle. Over fifty percent of the respondents (56%) had not
spent any money,on mitigating efforts. The largest group of
respondents who had spent money on efforts to reduce indopr air
pollution (28%) spent less than-one hundred dollars on their
purchases. These reported expenditures do, however, represent
only a possible lower bound on welfare costs of reductions in
indoor air pollution- Subjective costs associated with a change
in habit or lifestyle can be an additional source of welfare
costs, thereby increasing total welfare costs of reducing indoor
air pollution to the individual. .
Questions 19 and 20 determined whether the .booklet had been
used as a source for further-information. Eight percent of those
who read the booklet contacted sources listed in the booklet.
This suggests that the booklet met the perceived needs of the
remaining readers, as well as helping the eight percent get the
additional information they wanted. Thirty-eight percent of the
respondents reported having shared the booklet with someone
outside their household, particularly.'family arid associates.
The final section was made up of fifteen basic socio- ,
demographic information questions. This information was sed to
construct the, profile of households previously discussed.
-------
:. ' . 21
for the immediate future as well as actions already taken. Only
actions already taken or specific actions planned were of .
.'.'-' . * . . ' ' ("-. -
interest here, because vague good intentions often fail to be
implemented. Only 12% of the respondents said they -had taken or
were planning to take QO remediating actions whatsoever.
The1 greatest number of actions taken againstjany one
pollutant were those taken against environmental tobacco smoke.
, ? - ' - " *'l "
Over half, of the households surveyed said they hail or were
reducing smoke in their homes. This may be a result of .recent"
public opinion changes about smoking, and increased "attention
given to the negative health effects of both actiye and passive
smoking. There was no significant difference between readers and
nonreaders in their mitigating ;efforts with respect to
- *' - .... ' ' ,. ' : ''!' .. '
' . ."'-- -t .' ...''..
environmental tobacco smoke. ' I
...' ' ' |. . . i .
., " Far.fewer households reported taking action .on the other
pollutants covered in the survey. Table IV shows
the mitigation
response rate for-each-pollutant. . . ,--'
' -,., Table IV
Pollutant Action^
Environmental tobacco smoke 55.$%
Biological contaminants .46.^
Radon . , ' ,37.5
Pesticides / 27«?
Respirable Particles 25.0
Organic chemicals and gases , . 22.2
. Carbon .monoxide & nit. dioxide . 13.2
'Lead; "' ' " ' _ ' '.-..'-.., .''/-. .12.*5
Formaldehyde , . 8*|3
Asbestos 6.9
Many households reported being specifically aware
of reducing
-------
'. ''.- ' '''' '-.26
as the action level separating the lower from higher action level
respondents. Table VI. indicates for those who undertook one to, *
three actions, only the presence of.at least one smoker in the
household was significant;, having a negative effect on the level
of actions undertaken. " ,
More variables were significant for those who undertook four
or more actions. Asymptotic t-test scores for readers and the
seriousness scale assigned to indoor air pollution by the
respondent were positive and significant. The smoker variable
was again negative and significant for this group.
The quiz score proxy for knowledge was positive but
insignificant, indicating that more knowledge did not: necessarily
mean more mitigating activity. It should also be noted that/ ' -
'education, age, income, and presence of children failed to enter
significantly in earlier computer runs, so were dropped for this
analysis.
The scores from each part of question 4 (the quiz question)
were consolidated to construct a total quiz score..15 Table VII
shows, as would be expected, those respondents who were better
educated scored significantly higher on the test. However, the
fact that a respondent was a reader had no significant impact on
the total quiz score. Age and sex influences were also
controlled for. ; ' . , ,
v 15Parts (b) and (c) were receded with "strongly agree"
Hreceiving a value o'f four points. This allowed all .correct answers
to have a maximum value of four points, thus,- the total number of
.points possible on "the information quiz was 28.
-------
: - '; '. '. :; 23
reduce indoor air pollution in all areas of indoor air pollution
recorded. Although the difference between the means; of the two
groups was significant for the sum of all the mitigating actions
taken, not all of the differences in means .for individual actions
were significant, as shown in Table V. ,
Table V
Percent Taking Action
',-( .
Readers
57
51
48
'3.1
28
24
15
16
.13
. 7
1 !
.1%
.9
.
i?
. <5
.->
. 6.-' - -
.9
O;'.
.8
Nonreaders
53
40
25
23
20
19
10
7
3
6
.7%
.3
.4
.9
.9
.4
.4
.5
.0
.0
^ -''
*
***.
**
***
Pollutant , ,
Environmental tobacco smoke
Biological contaminants
Radon
Pesticides . .
Respirable Particles
Organic chemicals and gases
Carbon monoxide & nit. dioxide
Lead
Formaldehyde
Asbestos ":'
Individual means tests results;
***:95% confidence level >
** 90% confidence level
* 80% confidence level
The greatest significance in the differencesjbetween the. L
readers and the nonreaders was found in the mitigating activities
for, radon .and formaldehyde. No significant difference was found
for tobacco smoke, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide, organic
chemicals and gases, asbestos, respirable particles and ,
pesticides. As previously,suggested, the lack of | difference
between - readers and nonreaders for environmental tobacco smoke
may reflect current general attitudes about smoki;fig.,
Question 18 inquired how much .money had been[ invested in
\ reducing indoor air pollution in the last year. This question
-------
-------
25
Analysis
-Multiple influences affecting the data prompted the use of .
regression analysis: .a set of statistical' techniques used to
estimate the importance of the influence of individual factors on
data collected. Regression analysis was used to [attempt to
'predict the mitigating action leyels of the respondents (DUMACT),
the scores of the respondents on the questions regarding facts
about indoor air pollution (QSCORE), and the scores ,of the
readers in their evaluation of the booklet (BKSGO'RE)...
The logit method was used to predict the mitiigating action
levels of the respondents.14 Respondents taking action were
divided into two categories: those completing onje to three
actions and those performing four or more activities. This
division reflected the pattern of responses observed in the data
','"- -' ': ' ' ' ..- ; - ' - .'!'-. .."'"
and recognizes differences in the level of difficulty,
. .. - ' ' -' . I \
involvement,. and cost of remediating activities. .For example,
mitigating activities for some respondents cbnsisted of
discouraging smoking inside 'their house and using! a disinfectant
in their regular household cleaning activities. iThese activities
. - , '. 1-" ' _ '
are much less costly and difficult than installing an exhaust fan
in a kitchen or bathroom. Because respondents wh;o engaged in
higher motivation activities had generally completed low
motivation actions as well, the average of three actions was used
1*This particular regression technique is well suited to "the
qualitative, data obtained from this survey.
-------
-------
, Table VI.
Maximum Likelihood Estimates of Levels of
Mitigating Actions Taken
Explanatory Variables
READER
SERIOUSNESS SCALE
SMOKER
QUIZ SCORE
Dependent Variables
^3 Actions >3 Actions
-1.688
(-2.750) ***
0.001
(0.013)
0.454
(0.746)
0.076
(0.684)
1 . 404
."'.'. (2,= 085)
0.288
(2.243)
-1.210 i
(-1.716) i*
0.092 !
(0.847) :i
Log-likelihood=-114.38
Two-tailed tests; N=140
Results listed: Coefficient
1 .',' (T-ratio)
*** 99%'significance
. ;** 9,5% significance
, * 90% significance
-------
' " . '.' ' .' , ; ; > '-. .-. -,- 28 .
effective ways to reduce this pollution: , Thus, the booklet did
> . . - . ' - \ . '
meet its goal of being a readable and informative resource ,;
document .
The1 booklet also appears to have been successful in
increasing mitigating activities. Comparing the actions of those
who read the booklet and those who did not read the booklet;.
reveals that readers took more remediating actions than
nonreaders. However, careful consideration should be .given to
the statements that can be made about 'this relationship. It may
be that those who read the booklet had a greater initial concern
1 *'"","' -
about indoor air pollution and therefore a greater ; likelihood of
taking action. They may already have been well-informed and,
taking measures to reduce indoor air pollution before receiving
the' booklet, or they might have taken some of the measures even
if they had not read the booklet. Even with these caveats, it
appears that cautious optimism can be given to the booklet as a
potential source of motivation to readers to undertake specific
mitigating activities. . ,:: , ,
«* * ' > ' . . i. .
The purpose of The inside Story was to disseminate -knowledge
and raise awareness, and provide information about pollution
prevention that could be implemented in people's homes, but not
necessarily to motivate people to undertake mitigating '
" ' - ' , o ' , .
activities. Evaluating this goal, however, is not an easy task.
i First, no control group or baseline measure existed to help
determine by how much the target group's' knowledge and awareness
. .
increased. No data collection was done prior to release of the
"
-------
Table VII
Ordinary Least Squares Estimates
of Quiz Scores
Explanatory -Variables:
READER ,
SMOKER
EDUCATION '
-2.542
(-1.441)
-0,560
(-1.470)
: 0.577
(2.453) **
Two-tailed tests; N=140; adj r-square 0.119
..:- Table VIII .,
Ordinary Least Squares Estimates
of Booklet Rating
Note: The lower the booklet rating, the more highly the booklet
was evaluated. ,
Explanatory Variables:
QUIZ SCORE
PERCEIVED KNOWLEDGE LEVEL
AFTER READING BOOKLET
PERCEIVED KNOWLEDGE
INCREASE .'' ."
EDUCATION .-' .--'-'
-0.056
(-1.182)
-0.190
(-2', 090). **
-0.176
(-2.305) **
0.091 .
(0.772) ,
Two-tailed tests; N=56; adj r-square 0.204
Note:
***
**
*
99% significance
95% significance
90% significance
Results listed!
rAge and sex were controlled for.
Coefficient
(T-ratio)
-------
30
17
indicates that effective risk communication is very difficult.
In light of such studies -the results of this survey should not be
viewed as overly negative. Given the difficulty of effective
risk communication and the even greater task of-evaluating the
effectiveness, the program office" should be commended for
allowing this evaluation of their efforts. The evaluation cannot
I'..' . '
demonstrate an increase in knowledge and awareness, which was the
primary objective of the booklet. However, the booklet .
apparently did lead to significantly more protective behavior.
For such a small scale risk communication effort, that outcome
' ; '-...':.' / '
can be considered successful. This evaluation may not have
produced highly significant "results; however, it suggests that we
know relatively little about the relationship between;awareness,
knowledge and mitigating behavior. Only by such effortsboth in
risk communication and evaluation of these programs--will, more be
learned about the risk communication process and the success of
these programs. '"'.'-
k 17See Covello, .V.T., D. von Winterfeldt, and P. Sloyic, "Risk
Communication: A Review of the Literature," 1987,. Risk Abstracts,
4, pp. 171-182.'
-------
.---. . / 27
Estimation of the readers' evaluation of the [booklet was
done using ordinary least squares, a standard regression analysis
technique. The scores from-question 5 were consolidated using a
method similar to that used for the quiz score. (Given the
coding method, the lower the sum of the values, the higher the
" ' " ' ..... , - . . : ' ' - . " )
booklet was evaluated or "graded.") The respondents who felt
* i * ' ' . ! \ '
they had learned more from the.booklet gave it a tflore positive
evaluation, as did those who gave themselves a high value for how
well they felt they were informed after they read [.the. booklet.16 ,
What again was noticeably absent from the significant variables
..- '' ' '- ' . . . 1':' '.''' .'"'':
in the estimated equation was the quiz score. Thcjse whose quiz ,
scores showed higher levels of knowledge about .indoor air
pollution did not necessarily rate the booklet more favorably.
Education,also failed to enter the equation significantly, (sefe
" . ' . ..''''',.' '- ' :. ' '. ' - . . . -I'"' - ' . .'-
Table VIII) .Age and sex were controlled for in this estimation;
CONCLUSION
The .reception of The Inside Story was positive and, in
general, the booklet was very favorably evaluated [by.its'readers,
The readers, felt the. booklet was well-organized, and conveyed
both the sources of indoor" air pollution in their
homes arid
. . 16There is a positive correlation between these two variables
* .implying the presence of multicollinearity in i the estimation
equation. This statistical problem should be noted, but given the
.^constraints of this evaluation, no attempt was made to correct, for
'this in the data set. i ,
-------
-------
. .. . . . - . 29
booklet against which a later level of knowledge could be
measured. Second, and more importantly, establishing the - .
direction of causality in any analysis of the acquisition of ,
i -.,-''- "--.' -
knowledge in an uncontrolled environment is problematic:
knowledge cannot easily be attributed to one particular source,
.given our inability to control all other sources of information
influencing" the individual. Specifically,'we arejunable to
establish that this booklet served as the source of the knowledge
held by the respondents, of the survey.' , " ... .
Despite these and other-difficulties inherent iri measuring
increased knowledge, this study did attempt to evaluate the
ability of this booklet to inform its readers. The analytical
results provide no evidence that The Inside Storyiactually
improved knowledge; and raised awareness of its readers.
Unfortunately, these regression results a.lso do not yield any
strong recommendations about how to improve quiz scores or
mitigating behavior. Even so, the readers felt their knowledge
had been increased by reading the booklet and the^ did take
significantly more mitigating actions.. This in itself justifies
"the effort and^resources used for'The Inside Story* .It is also
conceivable that this group actually was less well-informed than,
non-readers before reading .the booklet.
In conclusion, the little evidence there is avsiilable
-------
3. On a scale from 1 to, 10, with-one meaning not at all serious,
and 10 meaning, very serious, tell me .how serious you think the
risks from each of the following' types of pollution are '.to your
household. - .
* . ' . , . i
*. * - . * - >.
a. first, lead in drinking water '. '
b. hazardous wastes in .landfills ^___
c. indoor air pollution : __'
4. I'm going to read several statements. Please tell me whether
you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with each
statement. If you don't know, just say "don't know."
123,4 99
a. Most indoor air pollution comes from nearby ,,
industries .......................*... .SA A D ,SD DK
b. Ordinary household products can cause indoor
air pollution -...-.-. .-..... ..-> - * -SA A D' SD DK
c. The best way to reduce indoor air pollution
usually is to remove the source of the pollution..,..SA A D, SD DK
d. The only health effects coming from indoor air
pollution are short-term..... ....... , ...;.. SA A D SD DK
e. Most people 'need to test their homes for a wide ,..-..
variety of indoor air pollutants > .. . SA A D SD DK
f. Radon is the only major indoor air pollutant..SA A D SD DK
g. Reducing indoor air pollution is always very
expensive .. .-..;. <.-.. .-*,. .SA A D SD DK
Now some statements about the booklet; again, strongly agre.e,
agree, disagree, strongly disagree.
? : ',..' ' 1 2 3 4 99
5. a. The booklet was written in everyday English...SA A D SD DK-
b. The organization of the booklet was hard to
follow o .... .......... .. . . . .SA A,,D SD DK
c. The« booklet covered what you needed to know...SA A D SD DK
d. The booklet helped you identify possible .
sources of indoor air pollution in,your home.;.SA A D SD, DK
e-. The booklet described practical ways to
reduce indoor air pollution in your home..... .SA A D SD DK
6. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 meaning not informed and 10
meaning very informed, how informed did you' feel you were about
indoor air pollution: .
a. before you received the Guide to Indoor Air Quality? '
b. after you received the booklet? " .'.''
7. Can you think of any particular information in the booklet that
you found most informative or helpful?
J CIRCLE ALL THOSE ANSWERS WHICH APPLY. ANSWERS ARE NOT READ
*S a. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF CAUSES OF INDOOR AIR POLLUTION. . 01
-------
sAppendix -A .
OBS #
Name
Address
PhOne
Date Time
REGION
Result
Recall Code
Abbreviations:
NA = no answer
NH = respondent not home
WR = will return
DISC = disconnect
AM = answering machine
WN = wrong number
1C = int:erview completed
PIC = pcirtially Completed
RC = retiurn call
ET eastern time
I'!' ,-",.-
I = IDENTICAL TO A PRIOR QUESTION
VS = VERY SIMILAR TO A PRIOR QUESTION
. S = SIMILAR OR BASED ON A PRIOR QUESTION
********************* ALL CAPS ARE NOT READ ***^*****************
Hello. Is this the
(last name)
residence?
and it was .for
(IF NO, The number I was calling is . -
' residence.)
(full name)
(IF WRONG NUMBER, I am sorry to have bothered you.)
My name is ". ..' and I'm conducting a study to determine
the effectiveness of the recent publication, Tha Inside Story: A
Guide to Indoor Air Quality. This is not a sal
-------
b. DISCOURAGE OTHERS FROM SMOKING
C. ASK SMOKERS"TO SMOKE OUTSIDE
d. PLANS TO __ "
e. OTHER (SPECIFY)
10. Biological contaminants, such as bacteria or mold
»','' ^ .
NO .01
YES. .- ." ...-. . '- ; «.-......... .02
What have you done or are you doing?
a. INSTALL FANS VENTED TO THE OUTDOORS IN THE KITCHEN
AND/OR BATHROOM(S) ^
b. INCREASE USE OF THE FANS VENTED TO THE OUTDOORS IN
THE KITCHEN AND/OR BATHROOM(S)
C. VENT CLOTHES DRYER OUTSIDE
d. CLEAN HUMIDIFIER MORE FREQUENTLY ' ,
e. USE ONLY DISTILLED WATER IN THE HUMIDIFIER
f. EMPTY WATER TPAYS IN APPLIANCES MORE FREQUENTLY -
g. CLEAN AND DRY, OR REMOVE> WATER-DAMAGED CARPET(S)
h. DECREASE USE OF BASEMENT AS A LIVING AREA
i. CONSCIOUSLY ATTEMPT TO MAINTAIN HUMIDITY AT 30^50%.
j . VENTILATE THE ATTIC AND CRAWL SPACE ' TO PREVENT
MOISTURE BUILD-UP
k. PLANS TO . - '" - '
1. OTHER (SPECIFY)
11. Carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide
NO .. . .......... .............................01
YES . . « .......... .02
' - '-- ' \
What have you done or are you doing? ,
a. PROPERLY ADJUST GAS APPLIANCES
b. VENT GAS SPACE HEATERS AND FURNACES
c. PROPER FUEL IN KEROSENE SPACE HEATERS ,
d. INSTALL EXHAUST FAN, VENTED TO THE OUTDOORS, OVER GAS
STOVE '.''. .
e. f INCREASE ' USAGE OF EXHAUST FANS, VENTED TO THE
OUTDOORS, OVER GAS. STOVE ' <
f. CHOOSE PROPERLY SIZED WOOD STOVES CERTIFIED. TO MEET
EPA EMISSIONS STANDARDS
g. CHECK SEAL ON WOOD STOVE DOOR ,
h. TRAINED PROFESSIONAL VISITINSPECT, CLEAN AND TUNE-
UP CENTRAL HEATING SYSTEM .
i. DECREASE IDLING OF CAR-IN GARAGE
j. PLANS TO
'C. OTHER (SPECIFY)
12. Respirable particles, which are released,when fuels are not
completely burned,
* NO ... ..... ...... ... . " " -.-.- ' .-. -01
* YES ......... . .02
-------
Your household was chosen randomly from the group of people who
requested this publication from the, Environmental .Protection
Agency. :'. , -' '."" ''- -.-.- } , .: " ,'., v * :
'V ' . ' '' ' ' '. '[ . ' '
I'd like to ask you some questions about the" bpoklet. It's very
important to us to know; what you think,,so we cain tell whether our
efforts to . inform you are working. All answers you give will be
kept.strictly confidential. This will only take a few minutes.
USE, IF RELUCTANT: Again, this is not a sales, cell!.
sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency.
It is a study
1. First of all, did your household receive the Guide to Indoor
Air Quality from EPA? (It has a blue and grey isover.)
." * ' ' ''. '"""
A. NO............................. f.......^.. .......01
I'm sorry. One was sent to your household but apparently
failed to reach you. Would you like me to arrange for another copy
to be sent to you? (REAFFIRM ADDRESS)' May I ask you a few general
questions about the environment? CONTINUE WITH]QUESTIONS 2-4 AND
8-37, SKIPPING QUESTIONS 19 AND 20.
B. YES,
02
'**- Are you the person in your household most familiar
with the booklet? ' | : -
i) NO-May I speak with him/her?
.."--is. there a convenient time wheri he/she will be
available to talk with me? SCHEDULE CALLBACK , ;
.... ii) YES . . ; ' . '. ! /._... ,, -.- .. ,
** About how much time did you spend reading this booklet?
a. LESS THAN 10 MINUTES.;......
b. 10 TO 30 MINUTES. ....................."...,...........'.. .02
C. 30 TO 60 MINUTES. . .1. .... .03
d. OVER AN HOUR. ..,,..,.................w,..,.w... .,....'.. .04
e, DID NOT READ. . . . ... ........ . .. . . . . . |. . . . . .'. . ... .00.
* IF 0 MINUTES, CONTINUE WITH QUESTIONS 2-4 AND 8-37,
SKIPPING QUESTIONS 19 AND 20
2., Compared to other environmental issues that! might affect your
health, do you think indoor air pollution is: j
a. more important................................. ....... . . 01
b. just as Important. 02
c. or less important.......................................03
d. DON' T KNOW. . . . . ..... . 1. . ! ...... 04
-------
f SELECT PEST CONTROL COMPANY CAREFULLY . '
g!" DECREASE STORAGE OF UNHEEDED PESTICIDES INSIDE THE
HOME ' ' '
h DISPOSAL OF UNWANTED CONTAINERS MORE'SAFELY '
i. STORAGE OF CLOTHES WITH MOTH REPELLENTS IN SEPARATELY;
VENTILATED AREAS '.
j INDOOR SPACES CLEAN AND WELL-VENTILATED IN ORDER TO
ELIMINATE OR MINIMIZE USE OF AIR FRESHENERS -
k. PLANS. TO
1. OTHER (SPECIFY)
16. Asbestos
NO ........ ......,..........,.,.....:.......,:... ...... :'<£
YES ............ ..... ---- ........ ...... .-. . ... ......... ..... u*
. ' 4 ' . ( ' , '
What have you done or are you' doing? '
'a. PROFESSIONAL ADVICE TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL ASBESTOS
PROBLEMS
b. TRAINED AND QUALIFIED CONTRACTORS
C. REPLACE WOODSTOVE DOOR GASKETS' WHICH MAY CONTAIN
ASBESTOS/ FOLLOWING PROPER PROCEDURE
d. PLANS TO ' . _ _ -
' e. OTHER (SPECIFY) ' -
17. Lead .-.' :
NO
YES
What have you done or are you doing?
a. PAINT TESTED FOR LEAD
b. MORE CARE IN NOT DISTURBING LEAD-BASED PAINT
c. COVER LEAD-BASED PAINT WITH WALLPAPER OR OTHER
BUILDING MATERIAL ,,
d. USE WELL VENTILATED AREAS. FOR HOBBIES AND HOUSEHOLD
MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES INVOLVING LEAD .;
e. CONSULT HEALTH DEPARTMENT ABOUT REMOVAL AND CLEANUP
IF LEAD EXPOSURE IS SUSPECTED
f. TEST BLOOD LEVELS >
g. TEST DRINKING WATER FOR JJEAD ' ,
h. PLANS TO
i. OTHER (SPECIFY)
In the past year, about how much money have you spent on
testing for or reducing indoor air pollution in your home?
a.
b.
c.
.
e.
.
< $100 ................>««'..
$100 - 199 .v..........r..v
,......,..:.. 01
........ .... .02
04
i J . . . i 05
06
-------
b. HOW INDOOR AIR POLLUTION AFFECTS YOUR HEALTH......' 02
C. DESCRIPTION OF STEPS .Tp REDUCE INDOOR AIR POLLUTANTS.:.03
d. REFERENCE GUIDE (MIDDLE OF BOOKLET) . ... ..!......... .'....-.. . . 04
e. MEASURING POLLUTANTS IN. THE HOME . . ................. 05
f. ADDITIONAL' SOURCES. OF INFORMATION. . .|. . ,.'. . .... ...... 06
g. BUILDING A NEW HOME ... . . . . 07
h. INFORMATION ON "WEATHERIZING HOMES. ... . ... . . ... . 08
i. SICK BUILDING SYNDROME. . . . ... . . 09
j, APARTMENT LIVING.. . . ...... . . . ......... . . |i . .10
k. RADON. .''. . ... . . . . . ..... ... . . . . . , .11
1. ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE.. . . , ... . . ... . . i. > . . . . ... .12
m. BIOLOGICAL CONTAMINANTS, SUCH AS BACTERIA AND MOLD.. .':.13
n. .CARBON MONOXIDE. . . . . . . .. ... .;. . . . L . ., . . . . . ....... 14
o. NITROGEN DIOXIDE. .... ... .J. . . ..... 15
p. RESPIRABLE .PARTICLES THAT ARE RELEASED WHEN FUELS ARE
INCOMPLETELY BURNED. .-. ..,... 16
q. ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND GASES, SUCH AS PAINTS, VARNISHES
AND FUELS, ; ., .................... . .. . . .... ..'...- . .17
.r. FORMALDEHYDE ...,., , .... .' . . . ...'. . , , . . .1 8
S. PESTICIDES . . . , '..,.. . ..-. .,;.. ..... .':. . . 19
t. ASBESTOS. ....................... . . I .'... . ; . ... .20
U. .LEAD. . . ... . . . ..... ....... ... .'. 4 ........... . . .21
v. OTHER (SPECIFY) , \ ; ,. . I , ' . . ' ...22
W.. DON'T KNOW/NO OPINION. . -... L . .99
INDICATE ALL THAT APPLY.
ANSWERS ARE HOT READ.
** Within the last year, have you taken, or do you have plans to
take, any measures to reduce :.- " ____L ' ' " in your
home? . , , ,
\
8. Radon
NO. .
YES
01
02
PCI/L
PROFESSIONAL
ADVICE
What have you done or are you doing?
a. TEST HOME RADON LEVELS » ;
b. MORE INFORMATION OR
(E.G. EPA GUIDELINES)
C. SEAL CRACKS AND OTHER OPENINGS IN BASEMENT FLOOR
d. INCREASE VENTILATION , '
e. TREAT RADON CONTAMINATED WELL WATER
f. DECREASE SMOKING IN HOME I
g. PLANS TO ' ;
h. OTHER (SPECIFY) -..
' ' . . - ' \ "
Environmental tobacco smoke
NO.,
YES.
,01
,02
What have you done or are you doing?
a. STOP SMOKING
-------
(VS) ,
25. Are you planning to move during the next year or two?
a. NO ,.,;.......-................... .-':°i
b. YES '. v- -02
C. MAYBE * > ..... v « .......... . .03
(I) ' . ' ..-.' .' ' . ' "'".'
26. Does your home have a basement?
a. NO (GO TO 28) o. .......... ....01
b. YES . . . . ...... i y v- 02
27. Is any part of your basement used as living space by you
,or your family? ' ', / .',-."
a. NO... 01
b. YES . . . . 02
28. How many people are in your household? ____
(I) .
29. How many under the age of 12? _ - __ _
30. How many over the age of 60? -- _ - :
31. Does anyone in your household smoke cigarettes or other
tobacco products? ,
.....................01
a. NO.
b. YES
32. What was the highest grade of school that you completed?
" a. NO SCHOOL ------ ---- .............. ---- ................. ..01
b. GRADE SCHOOL (1-8) ............ ....... ,..............'... .02
c. SOME HIGH SCHOOL (9-11) . . ..,. . . . ---- ', ..... - v ---- " ' > ' ' * ' °^
d. HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE (12) . . .. ........ . > ----- ..... . PJ
' e. SOME COLLEGE (13-15) ...,. . . .' ---- . ..... -.- .......... ..-. .- °J
f. COLLEGE GRADUATE (16) ............... ...... ............. 06
g. POSTGRADUATE .(1.7+) - ' . ; ' .*..."; ----- ; °7
(VS) .
33. Please tell me which age category you ar,e in.
a. 18 - 24. ........... ....................................01
b, 25 - 34
C. 35 - 44
_
d. 45 - 54 ..... ------- :. ........... ................... ..... ...04
e. 55 - 64. .......... :. ....... ................^.............05
f . 65 and over . ...... ............ « * ..... .............. . . . u«
-------
What have you done or are you doing? r
. 'a. VENT FURNACES. TO THE OUTDOORS -
b. , CHOOSE PROPERLY SIZED WOOD STOVES . CERTIFIED TO MEET
,EPA EMISSIONS STANDARDS
C.. CHECK SEAL. ON DOOR OF WOOD STOVE
d. CHANGE FILTERS ON CENTRAL HEATING AflfD COOLING SYSTEMS
AND AIR CLEANERS
e. TRAINED PROFESSIONAL VISITINSPECT!, CLEAN AND TUNE-
UP CENTRAL HEATING SYSTEM .
f. PLANS TO '-.' -. . ' : ' '
g. OTHER (SPECIFY) ..
13. Organic chemicals and gases, such as from paints and fuels?
NO. ,
YES,
t'
01
02
What have you done or are you doing?
a. MORE AWARE OF MANUFACTURER'S DIRECTIONS
b. USE PRODUCTS OUTDOORS OR IN WELL-VEN(TI3LATED
. AREAS . ' ' . '. , . "[" '..
C. DISCARD UNUSED OR LITTLE-USED CONTAINERS
SAFELY '..','
: d. BUY QUANTITIES TO BE USED SOON
e. PLANS TO
f. OTHER (SPECIFY)
14. Formaldehyde
NO. ,
YES,
01
02.
What have you done or are you doing?
a. USE EXTERIOR GRADE, LOWER EMITTING, PRESSED WOOD
PRODUCTS : '
b': MAINTAIN MODERATE TEMPERATURES AND REDUCE HUMIDITY
LEVELS TO 30-50% . | >
C. IlfCREASE VENTILATION, PARTICULARLY AFTER NEW SOURCES
OF EMISSION HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED.
d. PLANS. TO ':'..-'
e. .OTHER (SPECIFY) .
15. Exposure to pesticides
NO. ,
YES,
What haye you done or are you doing?
a. MORE AWARE OF MANUFACTURER'S DIRECTIONS
b. MIX OR DILUTE OUTDOORS
APPLY ONLY IN RECOMMENDED QUANTITIES
01
02
d. TAKE PETS OR PLANTS OUTDOORS Td APP^Y
e. GREATER USE OF NON-CHEMICAL METHODS
OF PEST CONTROL
-------
X
H
-------
19.' Have you 'contacted any of the sources listed in .the booklet?
.. a. NO. .:. ...\ . . . . . . . ------ ........ .......... ... ........-.*. .-..;. ..,.01
b'. ',YES .'..... ........ ..... . . . . , ... . . . ---- v. . . ;.'... . . .' ____ .;. . . . .02
'... ' ' -' -".. ' :(' :':- ""
Which bne(s)? .. _ - ; . '-j _ -.; . . . '
. '_ ;..-.- i .'-.-- ' ..._i: .-..LI. ....... ' ' |- ' ' "
20. Have you shared the booklet or recommendeid the booklet to
others not in your household?, ."!'..,,
a. NO. .... ........ ...... ...; .......... ... ....... .'; ....... .01
> YES "''"'.-' . : '"' '' .1 . ' '. ' .'. :
Who would that be? !
FAMILY/RELATIVES NOT LIVING WITH THEM1. . . _____ . . . . . . . . 02
: FRIENDS/NEIGHBORS ....... ...... ,.. ..... ............. ^ .03
OTHER ( S PEC J FY ) . , _____ _ ' . ' . ' . . , ..04
****************************^
. ' '' ' ' . - f ' ' ''..'
Now just a few general background questions and we'll be finished.
(D -':.' . .;..' ,' \ ' '. ." ' ..
21. About how many years have you lived at this address?
. :: . '. " ., : " ' '^ " ' : - r.
22. Do you own your own home? . , , ."
a. NO.......... ---- . ....... .....\. ............... ...... ...01
b. YES. . . . ... ... .... ... . ------ . ....--. ...... ... ., .ii ..... ..... ____ 02-
C. DON'T -KNOW. .. . . ...... . ... . . . . _____ ..... ---- . . . . ....... . . . .99
'.'.. J .
23. What type of home is it?
1 , " . ' i - ...
a . SINGLE-FAMILY HOME ......... . . . . . , , ..................... 0 1
b. MOBILE HOME. ......................... _____ j. . .". . . . ... .... .Q2
. C. DUPLEX. .......:. . . ---- . . . ---- ...... ..... !. . ; . ... . . . '; . . . ,03
' d. TOWN-HOUSE ---- ..'......' ------ . .. ---- ............... ---- ....04
' -e . CONDOMINIUM. .... .... ... ......... . . . . . ." ..... .... ..-. .......; 05
-.'"' f.. APARTMENT.... ...-,... ..... v. '. ........... -.\. .............. 06
..' ' g.. , OTHER (SPECIFY) . ' .. ' '.' ". . .'. ' ! _ ____. ---- .' . . . . . 07
h. DON'T KNOW. ....... ------ ............ .....,|.., ............. .99
- .-.CD -. . ".- ': - *'. '. . .-" '..:'
24. To the best of your knowledge was your homei built:
a. before 1940. ...... ................. ..... . . ... .... .;..'. .... .01
b. between 1940 and 1976. ......... .-. . .",. .... .> ......... ... . 02
c. or after 1976. ..................... ..... I. '..'.. .\\ ....... .03
.« . d. DON'T KNOW. .. . , . .*. . . ..... ........ ..... . .i... ----- ........99
-------
the age of 12. About twelve percent reported having one member
of the household- in that age group, 9% had two persons, and 2%
* ' -.''.' "
had three under age 12. 'in the "over 60" category, 56% of the
respondents reported no one in the household in that group. ,
There were 14% with one person in that classification, 28% with
2, and 3% with 3 members over, age. 60. '
; ? ' "
The respondents themselves ranged widely in age, with more
representation of the higher age groups. The age group 65 years
old and over had the largest representation making up 28% of the
respondents. Thereafter, representation In the survey decreased
with age: ages 55 to 64, 23%; ages 45 to 54, 17%; ages 35 to 44,
16%; ages 25 to 34, 15%; and for the age group 18 to 24, there
was only one representative (.7%). . . .
The respondents of- this survey were for the most part well
educated; almost,eighty percent of those interviewed had at least
some college experience. Over thirty percent (32%) of the
respondents had four year college degrees, an additional -24% had
some college background, and 22%'had post graduate education.
The majority of the respondents;were Caucasian in their
racial background (98%, N=143). The two 'sexes were.evenly
represented in the survey: male, 51%, female 49% *
Of those who did report their income (N=123), the category
most highly represented was the $35-50K range with 22% of the
t - . ' '
respondents. Three categories were equally represented, each
with 15% of those responding: $25-35K, $50-65K, and $80K and
.^over. Thirteen percent were in the $i5-25K range,.while 12% were
*?, ' '. ' . - .'..'
in the $65-80K range. Only about seven percent of participating
-------
(VS-) , ',, -v - . ; , ;
34. What is your racial or ethnic background?
a. WHITE OR. CAUCASIAN... . . . i . .....'.,... i ....... 01
b. BLACK OR NEGRO...... ............. 02
C. HISPANIC ...:........!.'!! !o3
d. ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER. . . . ... . ... . . . . ...'.-.- '.!!'" 04
e. NATIVE AMERICAN INDIAN ........... . . . . ,. ...... 05
f. .REFUSAL. ...... .' ... ......... .,. . ,. '.'. . . ... .-.99
(D ''.;.'''-. ,'' . ' ,. -' ' '
35. What is your sex? (ASK ONLY IF UNCLEAR)
a. MALE. . . . ... .... ........................ .1. . . . , 01
b. FEMALE . . .. . .. ... . L . ...... ... '."'.] '. 02
' ' p . ' - '.- . '' ' ' .
(vs) .'' - : " : ' ,'; ': ' ' ' ', .v I ' ':' -..".- -. ' '
36. I'm going to read a list of broad income categories for family
income from all sources before taxes during 19£f8. (1986 USED IN
MD STUDY) Please tell me to stop when T get to I yours.
a. $5, QQO or under. ....."......., .01
b. $5,001 - 15,000. . . . . . . . ..... ... ..-. . . . L .-. . . ,. . . . 02
C. $15,001 - 25,00.0. ... ..... . .1 . ... . [o3
d. $25,001 - 35,000. ......"......... ...1..,. -.'.' 04
e.. $35,001 - 50,000..... .1. ........ ..05
f. $50,001-65,000 .. . . .. L . ......... .V. .. .06
g. $65,001 - 80,000. . ... .... .-. ... ........ 4 ...... .'; .07
h. $80,001 and over..'. L...-............ .08
" 1. REFUSAL. ............ ...... ............... I ..... ... ....... 99
Thank you very much for your cooperation, j
37. Is there anything you could suggest to improve this booklet-
or future information on indoor air quality? '(j?OR THOSE WHO HAVE
NOT READ THE BOOKLET: Is there , any specific I information about
indoor air quality, you would find useful?) !
Again, thank you. Your responses will be combinfed with others and
analyzed to help us improve our communicationsl about indoor air
quality. ' '
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
Profile of Respondents an,d Their Households:
" ' " " . * "
General Distribution Results
The majority of the respondents (89%) in the survey were
homeowners, and most lived in detached, sirigie-faniily dwellings
(82% of the total respondents). For the remainder of the
' ' -.'"' .. ' '[ - -.. '''...-. .
respondents, 6% each lived in townhouses and apartments, 4% lived
in condominiums, 2% were in duplexes.... Only one, household (.7%)
lived in a mobile home.
Fifty-eight percent of the respondents lived
in homes built
between 1940 and 1976; 25% were in homes built since 1976, and
17% resided in homes built before 1940. Most (80%!) were not
planning to move in the next year or two, 10% were; planning"to
move, and an additional 10% thought they may be moving.
Two-thirds of the respondents had basements i[n their homes.
Of those, only 20% said their basement was used as living space
, by their household. x . -
Although the mean number of occupants in,the household, was
2.7, the largest percentage of households, 51%, consisted of two
persons. Those with three in. the household made up 17% of the
.sample; four persons, 16%; and those with 1 or 5 pjersons each had
8% of the respondents. One household (.7%) reported having 6
persons in it. : -
4 . :The distribution of specific age groups' in the reporting
**',', . . - ' - ",.'*'"' "' ', ' '
.households revealed 77% of the households had no ralembers under
-------
-------
respondents reported incomes of less £han fifteen thousand
dollars.
-------
------- |