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'
                                                |..-.   -;  ,  .. ' .

                                                iNon—readers
               .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 persons—25%)  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  efforts—both 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 VISIT—INSPECT, 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 VISIT—INSPECT!,  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.


-------

-------