jj i.;,- INTERVIEW .QUESTIONS . / ,. '••
1. Was there anything"positive or negative which struck you in the-
information you:, were asked to read about the waste site?
2. Specifically, anything positive or negative about the "
notice? !•• • ,-...-
water .advisory
You may want to go back and /glance at it
again.
3. Specifically, anything positive or negative iabout ,the
s c en e r i o ?
management
Ypu may want to. go. back and glance at it
again,
«n
Agency, (EPA) provide the public about such
sites.?
Was there more i
you would preferred
information
, or a different kiod of information, that
in reading about the hypothetical waste site?
-------
9. Do you belong to any community groups such as Che P.T.A1. , Kivanis,
Elks, or others? YES . N0.^ . .
If YES: ' ; ' ' ." -
Which groups are you a member of? "'• • . •' .
Do you attend meetings regularly?
Do you hold any offices in these groups?^
10. Which of the following most accurately describes your frequency of
attendance at religious services?
I DON'T ATTEND AT ALL., 1
I ATTEND SEVERAL TIMES A YEAR.....2
I ATTEND AT LEAST ONCE A MONTH....3 •
I ATTEND EVERY WEEK....... .....4 : ' .. = .'
I ATTEND MORE THAN ONCE A WEEK....5
11. What was your approximate family income frora all sources^ before
taxes, in 1987? .
LESS THAN $9,999... .'...1
$10,000 TO $19,999 2 ;
$20,000 TO $29,999.....3
• $30,000 TO $39,999 4
$40,000 TO $49,999.....5
$50,000 TO $59,999 6
$60,000 OR MORE .7 -
12. As far as you know, are there any toxic waste problems in your
immediate area? YES NO .>
If YES, what is the nature of these problems?
Have you been personally involved in this issue? YES ; NO
How? . , .
13. Are there any controversial public policy iasues, not related to
toxic wastes, in your community? YES NO
If YES, what is the nature of this issue?
you been personally involved in this issue? YES^ NO.
If TES, how? '
14. Ar« you aware of any toxic waste site problems that have been
discussed in newspapers, magazines, and T.V. shows? (Love Canal,
for example). Specifies , '• \ • •
Any in your State?
-------
something about Che;
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Finally, we need some backround information on'you so Chat we know
kinds of people who participated in this research.
1. Your present age:
years,
2. Sex: MALE 1 *' . .- ' - I .
-, - "FEMALE J2 '. " '' .; vi'. ' / , .'•-..
,3. Are you presently married? : [
YES......1 ••' ' •• ' . ' "...': '• ' ./ '-. . '
; NO 2 • ' . ;''.,'..."
. -'l • ' , , ' • J _ , „
4. Do you have children?
YES ..1 - '. ' .^ '--''. ' ";•.:•. .'..'•-
NO.......2 '' i • ' -.•'•'....]. . "• ...'••
(If "YES," how many? j-
5. Do you own your own home? :
YES....1 - >,. ' • .-.'•'•' '• " ' •'- • •;
NO.....2 ••['';.•" '. ; :' ' • " ' " ' .'.- '
: • • li •"••" '•• "• ' • "• .-I' ; -• • • '' - ' - • '..•- :'
6. Are you presently: •!"•'''
EMPLOYED (FULL TIME)....! J
EMPLOYED (PART TIME) 2
UNEMPLOYED ...... 3
RETIRED... '...........4 ;
FULL-TIME HOME>1AKER......5 ' . '.; ".'-,.
7. If employed: Briefly describe the kind of work you do.
. •. i.r ' . •',''"''" ;" ' •' • '
8. What is the highest level of education that :you have completed?
(Circle .Number) !' «
NO FORMAL EDUCATION ..... ......... j.. .1
SOME GRADE SCHOOL ....2
COMPLETED GRADE SCHOOL..'. 3
SOME HIGH SCHOOL ,. ....4
COMPLETED HIGH SCHOOL........;.. '......;...5
TECHNICAL OR afHER POST^-HIGH SCHOOL
EDUCATION (NOT COLLEGE). .....6
SOW COLLEGE........... ...7
. • • • . HAJOR?; I' .. '..-. . ' .-• ;- .. ; ;
COMPLETED COLLEGE . ."g
MAJOR? i'. ' • ;..' . • •' '-' • • ' ' ' •'
SOM1E GRADUATE WORK ."9 .
•' MAJOR? .-I'-', ' , .. • ..
A GRADUATE DEGREE 10
' " '' ' '
-------
6. From Che standpoint of environmental pollution, is the United States
Coda7 nore or less.safe than it was 30 years ago?
MUCH SAFER 1
SOMEWHAT SAFER 2 :
ABOUT THE SAME 3
SOMEWHAT LESS SAFE...4
MUCH LESS SAFE 5
7. Are federal government agencies, such as EPA, more or less honest
today than similar government agencies 30 years ago?
MUCH MORE HONEST 1
SOMEWHAT MORE HONEST 2
ABOUT THE SAME..". 3
SOMEWHAT LESS HONEST 4 . ' • '
MUCH LESS HONEST........5
i ' ^
8. Are state government agencies, such as the. Department of
Environmental Resources (DER), more or less honest today than
similar government agencies 30 years ago?
MUCH MORE HONEST 1
SOMEWHAT MORE HONEST....2
ABOUT THE SAME ;...'•. 3'
SOMEWHAT .LESS HONEST....4
MUCH LESS HONEST........5
9. In your estimation, do scientists know enough about the impact of
chemicals on our health to adequately protect us?
YES, THEY DEFINITELY KNOW ENOUGH 1
I HAVE SOME DOUBT THAT THEY KNOW ENOUGH.....2
I HAVE SERIOUS DOUBTS THAT THEY KNOW ENOUGH.!
NO, THEY DEFINITELY DO NOT KNOW ENOUGH 4 ,
/
10. Do you think that industries which use toxic chemicals are seriously
interested in protecting public health?
YES, IT IS ONE OF THEIR PRIMARY CONCERNS 1
THEY HAVE SOME INTEREST IN IT..... ..... .........2
THEY HAVE LITTLE INTEREST IN IT i...... "3
THEY HAVE NO INTEREST IN IT AT ALL.... ............!!! .'J4
11. Do you think that the government agencies (federal/state) which are
supposed to regulate the chemical industry are seriously interested
in protecting public health?
YM. IT IS THEIR MAJOR CONCERN... ......... , .....1
T1ET HAVE SOME INTEREST IN IT '...... " * 2
TH1T HAVE LITTLE INTEREST IN IT ...!.'! 3
THEY HAVE NO INTEREST IN IT AT ALL. ]'.] ""4
-------
11, Thinking back lover Chat list of activities, you just
w«t
PTTHTTP «««e,c SUPPORT ** IN EVERYTHING, EVEN MARCHING IN
PUBLIC PROTESTS OR BRINGING,A LAW SUIT.......'.. ..i
,.Y. .,.,..|? .'..;,. .2 •
THEY PROBABLY WOULDN'T CARE WHETHER I GOT INVOLVED QR NOT...3 \
THEY PROBABL'ir WOULDN'T SUPPORT ME AT ALLL ... '.. ... '. 4 ''
select that answer which most closely reflects
1. In.your estimation, how much can you trust local officials to
you the truth in situations like this?
YOU CANNOT TRUST THEM AT ALL. 1 V
YOU CANNOT TRUST THEM VERY MUCH....2
YOU CAN TRUST THEM SOMEWHAT........3 ' :'
; YOU CAN TRUST'THEM A LOT.',.,..., i... 4 ; : .
,:- • : -if- • • "•''•.'...-..,. . '• .. .jr,' • . • • , . .•_.;;'
2' De Irtmen8timati^' H°W ****•'<**'7** trust State officials, like the
YOU CANNOT TRUST THEM AT ALL.......1 '
'," YOU CANNOT TRUST THEM, VERY MUCH....2 ,:
YOU CAN TRUST THEM SOMEWHAT, ...3
YOU CAN TRUST THEM A LOT...........4 |
3. In your estimatibn, how much can you trust Federal officials, like
YOU CANNOT TRUST THEM AT ALL 1 I
YOU CANNOT TRUST THEM VERY MUCH... '.2
YOU CAN TRUST THEM SOMEWHAT........3 " .! '
YOU CAN TRUST :rHEM A LOT.... ..4 i
.'.; . il.-'- ....' . •• • . 7 * f • • • . , - • •
4' ?h^r.Vthaf r*'; ^ " reflly P°8iible to control a problem like
l^WQ 'ftWTWTf B*T V • ' ' i ^w™ l»W miC, COuuDUnXCV •
• •w 9 •*&* " ••••••••••* '1:- '
. FiOBABLY, AT LEAST I THINK So!!!.*2 i
P10BABLY, NOT....................3 1
no, DEFINITELY]NOT.. ......'.u ';'.'
i •' ','-." f '"•$•'"> '•',••.- „.'•.", '•'•,.'-'
5. In situations like this do you think the Federal Agencies use the
Ivailabl!CClVe ClM^p »«thod available, the :ch«apest cleanup method
available, or something that is in between?
THE MOST EFFECTIVE METHOD, REGARDLESS OF COST.... l
AN EFFECTIVE METHOD WHICH MAY HAVE QUESTIONABLE ELEMENTS'
BUT PROVIDES; PROTECTION AT MODERATE COST...... 2
THE CHEAPEST METHOD, WHETHER EFFECTIVE Q^ NOT. ........ .'..' 3
1 f -' ' ' . ' \"\ ..-..,-, ...-.". ' - ;t',-. ;.., . '.- ; '•...,'- . '•-''.:*'. ..-',-' ,':
8 :.
r •
-------
10. Here is a. list of things that people can do in situations like -this.
For each activity, select that option that reflects how -likely it is
that you would engage in that activity. , ' .
OPTIONS . >
I DEFINITELY WOULD DO THIS... 1 ' , ,
I PROBABLY WOULD DO THIS. .. 1.-.-,. .2'.
I PROBABLY WOULDN'T DO THIS......3, , - ' .
I DEFINITELY WOULD NOT DO THIS...4 ,
LIST " "-.•••.- •;• .•"" . • ;: • ' ,
TRY TO GET MORE INFORMATION ABOUT,THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM '
' TALK ABOUT THE PROBLEM WITH FAMILY AND "FRIENDS _____
TRY-TO CONVINCE FRIENDS AND RELATIVES TO USE BOTTLED WATER
SPEAK DP AT A PUBLIC MEETING WHICH INCLUDES EPA OFFICIALS . /
MARCH IN A PROTEST PICKET LINE, EVEN IF IT MEANT BEING ARRESTED
TRY TO CONVINCE FRIENDS AND RELATIVES TO MOVE OUT OF THE AREA '
SERVE ON A COMMITTEE OF CONCERNED CITIZENS _
GO DOOR TO DOOR .TO CONVINCE YOUR NEIGHBORS TO GET MORE INVOLVED
IN THE PROBLEM _____ '
' \ • '. - "•
WRITE OR'CALL MY CONGRESSMAN TO GET EPA TO REMOVE ALL THE WASTE
IMMEDIATELY __/ -
ORGANIZE A MEETING TO PROTEST THE WAY THE PROBLEM IS BEING HANDLED
. ' TESTIFY AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN AT A LEGAL HEARING ' ; ~
BUY BOTTLED WATER -
HAVE A WATER-TREATMENT SYSTEM INSTALLED AT MY OWN EXPENSE _____
MOVE OUT OF THE AREA AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
SUE -..-", ' .'•'-"-.' ' •'" • '
-------
9. Now here is th&t same list of activities that may be a threat to
health and safety,1 Again', .tell me how much oi: a threat you think
drinking.and bathing in the local water is conpared to each activity.
HOWEVER. THIS TIME, MAKE YOUR JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS OF HOW HUGH A THREV
YOU THINK THE. WATER WAS AFTER THE EPA CLEANUPj'
IS DRINKING THE LOJCAL
WATER MORE OR LESS •OF
A THREAT THAN-SMOKING
TWO PACKS A DAY FOR
ONE. YEAR? ;;
(After Cleanup) i
^^«_^AHV i f
I
IS DRINKING THE LO^AL
WATER MORE OR LESS] OF
A THREAT THAN LIVING
NEAR A NUCLEAR POWER
PLANT FOR ONE YEAR?
(After Cleanup) j:
IS DRINKING' THE LOCAL
WATER MORE OR LESS I • OF
A THREAT THAN DRIVING
A CAR FOR TWO HOURS A
DAY FOR ONE YEAR?
(After Cleanup) "!''..
'IS DRINKING THE LOCAL
WATER MORE OR LESSJ;OF
A THREAT THAN RIDING A
BICYCLE EVERY DAY FOR
ONE YEAR? , [
(After Cleanup)
I.
11
IS DRINKING THE LOCAL
WATER MORE OR LESS OF
A THREAT THAN HAVING
ONE CHEST X-RAY IN !bNE
YEAR? . i |; \
(Aftar Cleanup) j;
'. ,• "' '.' 1L
IS DRINKING THE LCKIAL
WATER M01E OR LESS OF
A THREAT THAN EATING
FRUIT EVERY DAY FOR: ONE
YEAR WHICH WAS SPRAYED
WITH PESTICIDES WHILE
GROWING? j
(After Cleanup) i
MUCH .' .., SOMEWHAT ; SOMEWHAT
MORE OF MORE OF TOE LESS OF
A THREAT A "THREAT SAME A THREAT'
MUCH •
LESS .OF
A THREAT
-------
Below is a list of activities which tnay also involve a-threat, to.
a person's" health-and safety. Tell me how much of a threat you think"
drinking and bathing in the local water for one year is compared•to
each activity. MAKE YOUR JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS OF HOW ;MUCH OF A
THREAT YOU THINK THE WATER WAS BEFORE THE EPA CLEANUP. For example,
if you think that drinking and bathing in the local water for one
year is about the same degree of threat as riding a bicycle every day
for one year, you would circle number, 3 (THE SAME). :
MUCH
MORE OF
A THREAT
SOMEWHAT
MORE OF THE
A THREAT SAME
SOMEWHAT MUCH
LESS OF LESS OF
A THREAT A THREAT
IS DRINKING THE LOCAL
WATER MORE OR LESS OF
A THREAT THAN SMOKING
TWO PACKS A DAY FOR
ONE YEAR?
(Before Cleanup)
IS DRINKING THE LOCAL
WATER MORE OR LESS OF
A THREAT THAN LIVING
NEAR A NUCLEAR POWER
PLANT FOR ONE YEAR?
(Before Cleanup)
IS DRINKING THE LOCAL
WATER MORE OR LESS OF
A THREAT THAN DRIVING
A CAR FOR TWO HOURS A
DAY FOR ONE YEAR?
(Before Cleanup)
IS DRINKING THE LOCAL
WATER MORE OR LESS OF
A THREAT THAN RIDING A
BICYCLE EVERY DAY FOR
ONE YEAR?
(Before Cleanup)
'IS DRINKING THE LOCAL
WATER MORE OR LESS OF
A THREAT THAN HAVING
ONE CHEST X-RAY IN ONE
YEAR? (B«fore Cleanup)
IS DRINKING THE LOCAL
WATER MORE OR LESS OF :
A THREAT THAN EATING
FRUIT EVERY DAY FOR ONE
YEAR WHICH WAS SPRAYED
WITH PESTICIDES WHILE
GROWING? (Before Cleanup)
-------
• I - POST-QUESTIONNAIRE i '••'".
i ' .-, . - -,k ., - ..... .. . ...
1. How concerned would you be about living within one mile "of this site
prior to the cleanup attempt? • -
•EXTREMELY CONCERNED.. . . ....
SOMEWHAT CONCERNED!. ................21
NOT TOO CONCERNED....... 3'
NOT CONCERNED AT ALL ....... 4 'i- ' ' ' " • '
2. How concerned" wou^d, you be about living within one mile of this site
after EPA had completed the proposed cleanup plan?
E3CTREMELY CONCERNED.. ..." ........ 1 -'.'..
SOMEWHAT CONGESTED. .".. 2 !
NOT TOO CONCERNED..... '.............'....3;
NOT CONCERNED AT ALL.....................4 ; . . . ,
3. How probable do you think it is that you would Buffer health problems
as a result of living near this site prior to the cleanup attempt?
EXTREMELY PROBABLE.* .1 j ,
SOMEWHAT PROBABLE.........2 ! ^
NOT TOO PROBABLE.... 3 '
. NOT PROBABLE At ALL...... .4 '
• " t: ' ' :'•''.
4. How probable do you think it is that you would suffer health problems
as a result of living near this site after EPA had completed the
proposed cleanup? ., s i
EXTREMELY PROBABLE........1 ' f.
SOMEWHAT PROBABLE... 2 " ;
NOT TOO PROBABLE.: ....3 T
NOT PROBABLE AT;,ALL.......4 ' j;
5. How probable do you think it is that your family members would suffer
health problems as a result of living near this site prior to the
cleanup attempt? j
EXTREMELY PROBABLE .1 :"''-. -
SOMEWHAT PROBABLE.... 2 I
NOT TOO PROBABLE ....3 ; :
NOT PROBABLE A* ALL .4 . !. '
.. 'p • ' ••''..". ' \ •., ' f'.. ' ' . ' ' •
6. How probable do you think it is that your family members would suffer
health problems as a result of living near this site after EPA had
completed the proposed cleanup? :
EXTREMELY PROBABLE..... 1 1
SO«WHAT PROBABLE......2 1
HOT TOO PROBABLE.......3 ' ['
NOT PROBABLE AT: ALL....4 . - •- ' J .
F
7. In cases like this, do you think that the company responsible.for
the contaminationiproblem knew that their waste handling policies
would eventually threaten public health? I
I THINK THEY KNEW FULL WELL WHAT WOULD HAPPEN............. 1
I THINK THEY HAD SOME IDEA THAT IT MIGHT CAUSE PROBLEMS... 2
•'•' I THINK THEY WERE NOT SURE WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN. "--..3,
I THINK THEY REALLY DID NOT KNOW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.. 4
-------
6.-Do you chink that you have suffered health problems due' to exposure
to hazardous -chemicals in the water, soil, or air? ,
YES, I DEFINITELY SUFFERED HEALTH PROBLEMS FROM CHEMICALS........... 1
I SUSPECT I HAVE SUFFERED HEALTH PROBLEMS BUT I'M .NOT '.CERTAIN, .... J.. 2
I DOUBT THAT I'VE SUFFERED HEALTH PROBLEMS FROM CHEMICALS 3
NO, I DEFINITELY HAVE NOT SUFFERED HEALTH PROBLEMS FROM- CHEMICALS,..4
(If you answered "1" or "2" to the above question please answer question
number 7. If you answered "3" or "4" go on to question number 8.)
7. If you think you have suffered health problems due to hazardous
chemicals what is/was the nature of those problems?
What were the chemicals and where did they come from?
8'. Have you ever heard of the chemical benzene? YES...1 NO...2
(If "yes" continue, if "no" go to question #9)
8a. Do you know where benzene comes from or what it is used for?
8b. Is benzene a health hazard? YES...1 NO...2 If "yes," what
kind?_ ' ' '. -
9. Have you ever heard of the chemical trichloroethylene OP TCE?
YES...1 NO... 2 ' ' • "; ^
(If "yes" continue, if "no" go to question flO)
9a. Do you know where Crichlorethylene comes from or what is is used
• for?
9b. Is trichloroethylene a health hazard? YES...1 NO...2 (If
"yes-," what kind of hazard?
10. Where .do you get your information on the issue of toxic chemicals?
(Circle as many numbers as are appropriate and respond to the
questions to the beat of your ability.)
. 1. I DON'T READ OR HEAR MUCH ABOUT THE SUBJECT
2. TELEVISION? Do you remember what program(s) your saw on this
subject? .
. . ' • ', . . ' . ,\ ..
3. MAGAZINES? Specific magazines? .-' • '. '' . ' -',-:'
4. NEWSPAPERS? Specifics? ';'.''.
5. RADIO? Specifics?_ ' ' , -. - - :'
6. OTHER SOURCES?
-------
t1 •-. •'
t:..'
3. Here are Chose .same health problems listed above.
Out of each !00
new c,ases- diagnosed each year, how many would you estimate are,
caused by toxic [.chemicals from', waste sites?, For example,, if you
think that about 5 out of every 100 new cancers diagnosed in 1987
were caused by coxic-chemicals from waste sites that would be your
best guess. I'fj.you think it was 60 out of one hundred th,en 60 would
be your best guess:. If you think that toxiii chemicals from waste
sites do not cause any cancers you would pick 0 as your answer. I
realize that you may not be an expert in this area, but give me your
best estimate. iREMEMBER: OUT OF EVERY 100 NEW GASES OF EACH HEALTH
PROBLEM WHICH -WERE DIAGNOSED LAST YEAR, HOW MANY DO YOU THINK WERE
CAUSED BY.TOXICiCHEMICALS FROM WASTE SITES?I
.ADULT CANCERS
CHILDHOOD CANCERS
(How many new cases out: of 100 were caused by
'toxic chemicals from waste sites?)
__ (How many, new cases out of 100 were caused
toxic chemicals from waste sites?)
by
LIVER, KIDNEYv & BLADDER PROBLEMS
(How many new cases out of
100 were caused by toxic
chemicals from waste sites?)
LUNG PROBLEMS (NOT CANCER)
(How many new cases'out of 100 were
caused by ;toxic chemicals from
wastes sites?) ,
BIRTH DEFECTS
MISCARRIAGES
LEUKEMIA
SKIN PROBLEMS
i; (How many new cases out oif 100 were caused by
; toxic chemicals from waste sites?)
1 (How many new cases out of 100 were caused by
v toxic chemicals from waste sites?
|(How many new cases out of 100 were caused by toxic
1 chemicals from waste sites?)
••|i •• , ; . • . '. • • • . , • -,•,.'"
'h ^_ (How many new cases out of 100 were caused by
i; , toxic chemicals from waste sites?)
OTHER SERIOUS CHILDHOOD DISEASES
(How many new cases out of
100 were caused by toxic
chemicals from waste sites?)
4. Ar« th«re any health problem we haven't mentioned that you think
might b« strongly related to toxic chemicals in the environment?
u •.
-r,
5. When it comes to!:the issue of toxic chemicals
youself; (Circle th^ apropriate number)
WELL INFORMED.L.......... 1
SOMEWHAT INFORhJED, .2 '
NOT VERY INFORl|JED..... ...3
NOT INFORMED AT ALL .4
do you consider
-------
' INTRODUCTION ' ; • -..•" .
We are researchers affiliated.with Penn State University. As you
probably know, there is an ongoing Federal program designed to- cleanup
some of the more serious hazardous chemical waste sites across the
United States. H'owever, attempts to clean up these sites sometimes run
into problems and take longer than they should. We want to explore,
with you, some issues related to communicating risks related to
hazardous waste sites. We will ask you to read .some material and answer
some questions related to1that material. We-will also ask you other
'questions concerning your opinions about dealing with toxic chemical
wastes. This will take about one/half hour. All we are'interested in
is your beliefs and feelings about this important problem. Can you give
us approximately a half hour of your time?
Thank you very much.
First, let me make it very clear that the issues we are going to ask you
to respond to are taken from toxic waste sites across the country and
are not .something that is a local threat. This research has nothing to
do with a real toxic waste site in your area. Do you have any questions
about that?
Now, before I ask you to read some material on our make-believe site let
me ask you some preliminary questions. ,
I FIRST QUESTIONNAIRE I '
How concerned would you say you are with this issue of toxic chemical
wastes sites? (Circle the appropriate number)
VERY CONCERNED ....!'
SOMEWHAT CONCERNED.... ......2
NOT TOO CONCERNED....... * ...3 '" • .
NOT CONCERNED AT ALL.. ...... .4
2. Here is a. list of health problems that may be connected with
exposure to chemicals. Would you indicate how concerned you are
that you, or someone close to you, may suffer this problem because of
exposure to chemicals in the'air, soil, or water?
Tell me if you are:
GREATLY CONCERNED (1)
SOMEWHAT CONCERNED... (2) .,
NOT TOO CONCERNED....(3)
NOT CONCERNED AT ALL.(4)
(Circle the appropriate number) ,. > . ' ,
.•'•.' .' . .- ' \ . --•
ADULT CANCERS
CHILDHOOD CANCERS
LIVER, KIDNEY, & BLADDER PROBLEMS
LUNG PROBLEMS (Not Cancer)
BIRTH DEFECTS
MISCARRIAGES
LEUKEMIA ,
SKIN PROBLEMS
OTHER SERIOUS CHILDHOOD DISEASES '
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 .
1
1
2
2
'2
2
2
. 2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4-
4
4
4
4
-------
' ' ' APPENDIX B ;
Pre-iand Post-Manipulation Questionnaires
-------
EPA Holds Public Hearing; Cleanup Commences
AC Che public "hearing-Che citizen'advisory commie tee-made it known chat
there had been some disagreement between them and the EPA over the issue
of incinerating some of the soil-. However, EPA experts argued that
incineration was quite safe and far less expensive than digging up the
contaminated soil and trucking it to an approved hazardous: waste site.
The-citizen advisory committee eventually agreed with the EPA experts.
Four months later, heavy equipment moved in as EPA began to carry out
its plan.
-------
j . -.-'.'.'
i_;,- . (Augmented Citizen Participation) '• - .
. - ' ' ,ji"'-;' '-1 , MANAGEMENT : SCENERIO j, • ",-,_',' _'
Eighteen months later you learned that the site had been added to the
National Prioritie,!* List of hazardous waste sices which are eligible for
cleanup funding under the federal Superfund program.. Six months after
that, the EPA announced that it was starting a remedial investigation
and feasibility sttidy to decide what to do about the barrels, liquids,
and contaminated soils .that remain behind the 'fences of the old plant.
Citizens Group Forms' ".'•;'•' ; . , ..
At the same time that the site was being added-to the National ,
Priorities List a group of homeowners in the two neighborhoods adjacent
to the site formedJA, group called "Citizens Against Hazardous Waste in
our County" (CAHWOG). They expressed their 'dismay that the waste had
not been removed in the, 18, months since the initial problem was noted
and that EPA refused to promise that the waste would be removed shortly.
The group also was 'upset to learn that EPA would explore options that
might leave some oil the contaminants at the site and might burn
contaminated substances on site. f
Citizens Group Geta Technical Aaaistant Grant \. -
Shortly after EPA,announced that it was beginning to study the problem,
EPA community relations people met with leaders of CAHWOC and other
citizens who live riear the site, to get some idea of what they felt
should be done to clean, up the site. CAHWOC applied for and received a '
grant of $20,000 from EPA 10 CAHWOC.couls hire its own, experts to help
the community understand what EPA was doing. !
.! i ' ' '• '. .9- ; • ". • • .
EPA Agrees To Work With Advisory' Committee i
At the same time that CAHWOC received the grant, EPA also agreed to work
with a citizen advisory committee made up of two members of CAHWOC, two
other local people,;1 one local official, a chemistry professor from a
nearby college, and an expert from the State Department of Environmental
Resources. This committee was given the right ;to review all EPA plans
involving the site.' In addition,' EPA agreed that, a majority of the
cjmuittee had to approve any proposed solution before it could be put
into effect. ;; ' , , " .;.'•.';. ''...,
'!.'."' - , ' ",*''' '''••.' '. ' '"
EPA Issues Cleanup iPlan After Reaching Agreement With Advisory Committee
Sine months later, EPA published a fact sheet and reported in the
newspaper what it planned to do to remedy the situation with the
contaminated site. ';EPAalso announced that it had placed copies of the
.full report in the local library. Tn the months before the plan was
officiAlly publi»he|d the citizen ao.vj.sory committee had reviewed EPA
propoMla and discussed them with local citizens. With the advice of
local people, the advisory committee insisted on several minor changes
in the EPA plan as |origirially prbposed. The final plan was a result of
the combined effort of the EPA experts and the advisory committee.
' ' ' !!•' •''•'' -'; , , • :\ ." • '• '- . •• : \ ''. ' .• '
EPA announced that jit intended to use. extraction wells to collect some
.of the contaminated! water, air stripping to remove contaminants through
evaporation, and incineration of some of the most contaminated soil on ,
the site. The most contaminated .soil was that directly under two
Lagoons and under the piles of barrels. Some of the water—was
contaminated with volatile organic compounds that EPA felt c'ould be
dealt with most saf|ely by leaving them at the site-in large'air-tight
containers.
-------
EPA. announced chat it intended Co use extraction wells to collect s'cne
of the contaminated >water, air stripping ta remove contaminants through
evaporation, and incineration of some of the most contaminated soil on
the site. The moat contaminated soil was that directly under two. •
lagoons and under the piles of barrels. Some of the water was
contaminated with volatile organic compounds that EPA felt could be
dealt with most safely by leaving them at the site in large air-tight
containers. > ',
EPA Holds Public Hearing; Cleanup Comneneea
At the public hearing the experts employed by .CAHWOC complained that
they had some trouble getting answers to technical' questions from EPA
and that they agreed with some of the local residents who questioned the
safety of incinerating some of the most contaminated soil. EPA experts
argued that incineration was quite safe and far less expensive than
digging up the contaminated soil and trucking it to an approved
hazardous waste site. Four months later, heavy equipment moved in as
EPA began to carry out its .plan.
-------
(Indemnification•
- - ,-• ' ---_,' -..; ' ' -' I 'MANAGEMENT SCSNERIO I- '••••.•"•••-/'•"' •
Eighteen months later you .learned'that the site Had been added to-the
National Priorities List of hazardous waste sices which are eligible for
cleanup funding under the federal, Superfund program. Six months after
that, the-. EPA announced'that 'it was starting>a;remedial investigation -
and .feasibility study to decide what to do about the barrels, liquids,
and contaminated,soils, that remain behind the fc'ences of the old plant.
Citizens Group Forna * 'V '
AC the same time that the. site was being added !to the National
Priorities List a group of homeowners in the two neighborhoods adjacent
to the site formed a group called "Citizens Ag«inst Hazardous Waste in
Our County" (CAHWOCp. They expressed their disimay that the waste had
not been removed in the 18 months since the initial problem was noted
and that EPA refused to promise that the waste would be removed shortly.
The group also was
-------
(•Standard)
I MANAGEMENT --SCENERIO !' , .'. '.,
Eighteen months later you learned, chat the sice had been added to the
National Priorities List of hazardous waste sites which are eligible for
cleanup funding under the federal Superfund program. Six months after
that, the EPA announced that it was starting a remedial investigation
and feasibility study to .decide what to do about the barrels, liquids,
and contaminated soils that remain behind the fences of the old plant.
Citizens Group Forms '•-.--. ;
AC the same time that the site was being added to the National
Priorities List a group of homeowners in the two neighborhoods adjacent
to the site formed a group called "Citizens Against Hazardous Waste in
our County" (CAHWOC). They expressed their dismay that the waste had
not been removed in the 18 months since the initial problem was noted
and that EPA refused to promise that the waste would be removed shortly.
The group also was upset to learn that EPA would explore .options that
might leave some of the contaminants at the site and might burn
contaminated substances on site.
Citizens Group Gets Technical Assistance Grant
Shortly after EPA announced that it waa beginning to study the problem,
EPA community relations people met with leaders of CAHWOC, and other
citizens who live near the site, to get some idea of what they felt
should be done to clean up the site. CAHWOC applied for and received a
grant ot $20,000 from. EPA so CAHWOC could hire ita own experts to help
the community understand what EPA was doing.
EPA Issues Cleanup Plan ,
Nine months later EPA published a fact sheet and reported in the
newspaper whatsit planned to do to remedy the situation with the
contaminated site. EPA also announced that it had placed copies of the
full report in the local library. During the next month comments on the
plan were invited and a public meeting was held. At the meeting EPA
recorded public comments that later resulted in minor changes in the
cleanup plan.
EPA announced^that it intended to use extraction wells to collect some
of the contaminated water, air stripping to remove contaminants through
evaporation, and incineration of some of the most contaminated soil on
the site. .The most contaminated soil was that directly under two
lagoon* and under the piles of barrels. Some of the water was
contaminated with volatile organic .compounds that EPA felt could be
dealt_with'most safely by leaving them at the site in large'air-tight
containers. .' ' ... ~ .'> • • , " ,,-'...'. ••'
SPA Holds Public Hearing; Cleanup Commences
At the public hearing the experts employed by CAHWOC complained that
they had some trouble getting answers to technical questions*,from EPA
and that they agreed with some of the local residents who questioned the
safety of incinerating some of the most contaminated soil. EPA experts
argued that incineration was quite safe and far less expensive than
digging up the contaminated soil and trucking it to an approved
hazardous waste.site. Four months later, heavy equipment moved in as
EPA began to carry out its plan. , • " v<
-------
WATER ADVISORY NOTICE [
Testing has determined that the local water supply contains unacceptably
high levels of triehloroethylene (TCE) and benisene. these are chemicals
commonly used in industry and as components of [ common household products
such as cleaning; agents, glues, paint. strippers, and as an anti-knock
additive in gasoline. | , .
• - • _ • , - , 1
AC high levels these chemicals may cause cancer, neurological
impairment, liver -and kidney damage, and possibly birth defects and
misca'rriages. The \ chart below illustrates theinumber of people who can
be expected to die per year as a result of being exposed to your water
for one year. Some other health hazards are included for comparison
purposes-. . • • ' _ • ' ' \
~~ ANNUAL CHANCE OF DEATH . ' [ '. '. ~~
- : (Assuming One Year of Exposure)
(Deaths per 100,000 People Exposed)
Level of
Danger
Smoking Two Packs of Cigarettes i Day (200)
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
Hang Gliding (125)
Scuba Diving (75)
Skiing (50)
Driving
I I Drinking and Bathing in Your
Car (25)
Water (2)
I Drinking One Diet
Drink Per, Day (1)
If you feel that your water presents a danger
health then we recommend that you consider
until remedial action can be taken.
:o you or your family's
purchasing bottled water
-------
• '. "icn jis.cj.ai:ner; : ' •
WATER ADVISORY NOTICE ' • " •
Teating has determined'.chat the local water supply contains unacceptablv
high levels of .trichloroethylene (TCE) and benzene,. The3e are chemicals
commonly used_in industry, and as components of common household products
such as cleaning agents, glues, paint strippers, and as an anti-knock
additive in gasoline.
Ac high levels these chemicals may cause cancer, neurological
impairment, liver and kidney damage, and possibly birth defects and
miscarriages. The chart below illustrates the number of people who can
be expected to .die per year as a result of being exposed to your water
for one year. Some other health hazards are included for comparison
purposes.
Level of
Danger
ANNUAL CHANCE OF DEATH
(Assuming One Year of Exposure)
(Deaths per 100,000 People Exposed)
Smoking Two Packs of Cigarettes a Day (200)
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
Hang Gliding (125)
Scuba Diving (75)
I- •_
Skiing (50)
I
Driving a Car (25)
Drinking and Bathing in Your
1 Water (2) '•• "
Drinking One Diet
Drinlc Per Day- ( 1)
If you fe.l that your water presents a danger to you or your family's
health then we recommend that you consider purchasing bottled water
until remedial action can. be taken.
NOTE: The numbers presented above are our best estimates. But it is
important to realize that they are only estimates. They are based
primarily on research with laboratory animals, usually rodents, who are
fxhihi^trm?X hi«*do>" of che Chemical being tested. If the animal
exhibits health problems, we then extrapolate from these high doses to
the very low doses usually, received by people who may be exposed to the
chemical. The risk assessor chooses the assumption, or best guess that
appears least likely to underestimate the risks. An attempt,is made to
overestimate rather than underestimate risk. But it is an educated
guess.
-------
The DER issued an advisory Co all residents of Che area serviced by
wacer drawn from wells chaC had been concaminaced by chemicals seeping
through the soil. Your home is approximately ;one mile from the source
of Che chemicals and is .serviced by wacer dravn from Che concaminaced
well.3. ' ' • ' ' ' ' • '
Wichin two days ,EPA" (Environmental Protection Agency) technicians
appeared on the siite'of the old manufacturing plant. After collecting
fresh soil samples,, along with DER people, the EPA decided to build a
new drainage ditch j;to divert water from the area of Che barrels and the
smelly lagoon into,a new lagoon. This new lagoon was constructed so
that it had a thick clay bottom alongf with a strong plastic liner. The
EPA said that the new lagoon would keep more chemicals: from seeping into'
the water supply and would control the situation until a more permanent
solution could be devised. The EPA also fenced in the area where Che
manufacturing plant: had stood and posted signs warning people not to
trespass because of dangerous, hazardous chemicals.
-v£3g3ffiS!F»r ^>
- ZgSSSB&feSasaS'^.^--'
The EPA also released the following water advisory to the press and sent
copies to the homes! of all homeowners serviced by the affecced wacer
supply: • •,'•••• . • • • j- • '"
-------
Approximately two years ago people began noticing char the drinking
water had an unusual smell to it. The local newspaper carried several
letters from concerned citizens, .some .of whom complained '• of health
problems which they thought might be linked to the possible
contamination of local water,supplies. .For example, several members of
one family have been suffering for about six months from ;an unexplained
rash; two cases of childhood leukemia have been diagnosed in the same
neighborhood during the past year, and a growing number of older people
have had to seek professional help for arthritis.
Local officials contacted the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources (DER) and requested testing of local water supplies. The
tests indicated that the chemicals TCS (trichloroethylene) and benzene
were present in the water at levels above those approved by the
Environmental Protection Agency. The source of this contamination was
traced to the site of a manufacturing plant which had gone out of
business and had been torn down years ago. The old plant site now
consists of trees, brush, timber, and a few marshy areas. There are
several lagoons in which chemicals had been disposed of by the old
manufacturing plant along with « number of decaying 50 gallon drums
scattered about which are spilling their contents onto the soil. The
photograph below was taken on part of the site.
-------
INTRODUCTION TO THE MATERIAL ON THE HYPOTHETICAL WASTE SITE
• ". . . .'• :< $ . '. •-'•.:'.-'•' '..'• ••.";:• .yf..-"':"' • •'•' '•'••.'•;'. / '
Now I would like to Have you read some material dealing with
an area which has the problem of hazardous chemical pollution.
I want you tojimagine that you live in th« community in which
this site is located. In fact, imagine that you live within
one mile of the source of the contamination. After you have
read the material you will be asked to answer some questions
concerning your reactions to the hazardous chemical site.
-------
APPENDIX A
Hypothetical Site Scenario
vRisk Communication
Management Options
-------
Sandman, P. M. 1986 ''Explaining Environmental (Risk-.M' U .S .EPA, Office o
Toxic Substances, ^Washington, D.C. V . . ' ;
Scott, W.J.' 1988 "Competing Paradigms in the Assessment of Latent .•
Disorders: the Case of Agent Orange." SOCIAL PROBLEMS, 35:145-161.
Sharlin, H. I. 1987. '^Macro-Risks, Micro-Risks, and the Media: the, EDB
'Case." In B. Johnson & V,T. Covello (eds.) op^ cit. 183-197. - .
Slovic, P. 1987 "Perception of Risk," SCIENCE 236: 280-285. ,
'']'. " '• ' '' ' • ' •• ' • '•[• •• . • •: '
Slovic,'P.", B. Fischhoff, & S. LichCenstein 1979'"Rating the Risks.,"
ENVIRONMENT, "21:14-20. ' " * , | '•''"'
). • •• • v ' : .' .• - . • t • ' "' . ' '
Slovic, Pi, B. Fischhoff, & S. Lichtenstein 1980; "Facts and Fears:,
Understanding Perceived Risk." In R.C. Schwing & W.A. Abers, Jr.
(eds..) SOCIAL RISK: ASSESSMENT: HOW SAFE IS' SAKE ENOUGH? New York:
Plenum Press. 181--214. ' .. . . ;!
- • ": • ' '.'••• L •'''•'"-•
I . ^ i
Tarr, J.A., and C. Jsicobson 1987 "Environmental Risk in Perspective."
In B. Johnson & V.t. Cbyello (eds.) op. cit., 1317-344.
....i1 ' .•••••.-. ^.'' ''-'- -•'• •'
Travis, C.C., S.A. Richter, E.A.C. Crouch, R. Wilson, E.D. Kleraa 1987
"Cancer Risk Management." ENVIRONMENT, SCIENCE,''AND TECHNOLOGY'21:-•
415-420. !' ' . ' I ' ' ' ' - ,'
. : .l"' '• '. . !••' ' , -.- ', . .. •-
!'. ; h1 :
Warr, M. 1985 "Fear|of Victimization: Why are Women and the Elderly
More Affraid.?" SOCIAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY, pp681-702.
-------
rowlkes, M.-R. & P,Y. Miller 1987 ."Chemicals and'Community at Love
Canal. ' In B. Johnson & V.T. Covello
-------
'. . •;" REFERENCE BIBLIOGRAPHY i . ' . '•
' ' 'k. .. ..--.' • ''..•••.-,'..'•• ;i • . ""•,•'.••,
Armo.ur, A. 1.987 "Repo!rt of .the Siting Process Tasjc Force on Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Disposal: Opting for Coopera.tion." Energy,
Mines and Resources Canada. • •- . . '
Aronson, E. , J. Turner, & J.M. Carlsmith 1963 "Communicator's '. '
^credibility and communication discrepancy." JOURNAL OF ABNORMAL AND
SOCIAL PSYCHOIOGYey: 31-36, . ' '. , ; • [' ', ' .-...-'
. .. . . .- ..
Booth, W. 1988 "Socia|l Engineers Confront AIDS. " SCIENCE, 242 : 1237-1238 .
Bord, R. J. 1985 "Opinions of Pennsylvanians on Policy Issues Relted to
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal." Institute, for Research on Land
and Water Resources. 83pp. , j
Bord, R.J. 1987 "Judgjments .of Policies Designed do. Elicit Local '
Cooperation on LLRW Disposal Siting: Comparing the Public and
Decision Makers'." NUCLEAR AND CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT. 7: " 99^105 .
I-' . " • - '•" [ i
Bronstein, J.M. 1987 if'The Political Symbolism of Occupational Health
Risks." In B. .Johnson & V.T. Covello (eds.) THE SOCIAL & CULTURAL'
CONSTRUCTION OF RISK. D. Reidel Publishing Co. |. pp 55-78.^
Covello, V.T. , P.M. S'andman, & P. Slovic 1988 "Risk Communication, Risk
Statistics & Risk Comparisons: A Manual for Plant Managers ." Chemical
Manufacturers Association, Washington, D.C. ! '
''"',.:•' • , V' "' • "' ••- -I' '.-"• '. •: v" ..
Covello,' V.T. , P. Sloyic, & D. von Winterfeldt 1987 "Risk Communication:
A Review of the Literature." Unpublished Manuscript.
i . . ' „ " . ' ^ . ... . ....
Douglas, M. & A. Wild;aysky 1982 RISK AND CULTURE:! AN ESSAY ON THE
SELECTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DANGERS. Berkeley:
University of Calif orni'a Press.- ,;,".',
! ..'--•'. • • '• . ".["',• ' • '.
Fisher, A. .1987 "Risk1 Communication: Getting Out (the Message About
Radon/" EPA .JOURNAL 13:727-28.. '.' • • '••.-. ! • - ....
" • .. = i""' v .
Fischhpff, B. 1981 "Hot Air: The Psychology of .C0;2-Induced Climatic
Change." In J.H. h,'arvey (ed.) COGNITION,, SOCIAL BEHAVIOR, AND THE
ENVIRONMENT, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates , Hillsdale, N.J.
- . • , -^ ••}'• "..- - •- ;. •-'- J" ••••-•;'• - .:•"•' - -.- .',
..Fischhoff, B., P. Slovic >S. Lichtenstein, S. Read, & B. Combs 1978
"How Safe is Safe EnoughV" POLICY SCIENCES, 9:; 127-452. " .
'..',' i; .' '.'.'•-.• _.•••• . , -[•- \ '••'., ' . '•
Fitchen, J.M. , J.S. Heath, and J. Fessenden-Raden 1987 "Risk \Perception
in a Community Context: A Case Study." In B. Johnson and V.T.
Covello, THE SOCIAL & CULTURAL CONSTRUCTION OF;; RISK, D. Reidel
Publishing Co. pp 31-54 i .
-------
The lack of trust, especially in industry and local government but also
in science and people's ability to manage complex problems,, 'indicates.
that communicator credibility and local representation are crucial
issues. The data of this study indicate .that concern with man-made
toxins and the,,perception of imminent threat are indeed .ubiquitous ,
(O'Riordan, 1983). Therefore, anything ah agency can 'do to appear •:
forthcoming is likely to have more positive than negative outcomes.1
Although the uncertainty manipulation did not have a strong impact, it
did appear to lessen post-manipulation fears somewhat. An admission", by
an agency, of limited knowledge, along with an explanation of what it
does know and how it knows it, may gain support among those who
understand the pjrocess of science to some degree. Also, because local
government often inspires so little confidence in situations like these,
it is crucial to communicate information directly to concerned- and
affected citizens. There is much anecdotal evidence indicating that
small, informal meetings run by trained EPA community -relations
specialists have reduced citizen fears at Superfund sites. These
meetings are a form of increased community involvement. Large,
officious public meetings that serve a cathartic function are of little
value. • _, . . .
Perhaps the strongest message imbedded in this research is that waiting
to communicate scientific-technological information until a hazardous
waste response action has occured is simply, too late. Education plays a
significant role in the risk evaluations noted above. Risk
communication has already taken place through the media, the schools,
within interest groups, and between relatives and friends. Although
much has been made recently•about the need to teach humanities and
classics in the schools a strong argument can and should be made that •
people also need to understand the technical environment -in which they
live. A public information program, sponsored by governmentiand
reaching down through the schools, would help citizens better understand
their world and its problems and, hopefully, help them to make more
informed decisions about that world., A broader public information
program is consistent with the purposes and legislative history of both
CERCLA and SARA.
-------
.90
. •'' scenario'that ha's'^a somewhat consistent, though small, impact on.
explained'variance is/the indemnification.manipulation. , , •>. •
Apparently' the1 inde'minification information! is one more signal
about how serious, this problems really is. [Respondents seem
to. be' reasoning : that . if i-t were not extremely serious then *
this option1 would not be provided. • .• ;.''-••. ' : •'- ' •'-
. ;. • ••. .. |;:, r[. V--'-' -. * : f'.'" . -: •-. •.:••'/'
Implications for Risk!Communications at Superfund|Sites ...
.\, ' ' • ' > 4"j ..'•."
First, the notion of the "signal potential" of certain stimuli is
strongly supported in'[ this^ research. The pictures of the'leaking 50 .
gallon drums and of tiie technicians dressed in protective clothing plus--.
the description of the' contaminated site totally overwhelmed any" other
information. The data, both structured and unstructured, consistently
indicated that those items of information communicated the "-real"
seriousness of the problems. Subsequent tables or, statements were
either ignored or viewed as lies. From the perspective of the layperson
facing such a situation this makes-, a great deal of sense. Why would1 the
government be' here, and why would their people feel compelled to be so
careful, if this situation were not a serious health threat. To' then -
present data indicating the d,egree of threat is minimal is to present a
contradiction. Government agencies must realize that their total
pattern of behavior constitutes the risk communication.^ Serious .
consideration must be!,given to. how to structure that pattern in ways
that sends the kind of message the agency is trying to send. In one
national meeting a noted risk communication expert was asked the most
effective way to present risk information. He smiled and said, "Hire a
good P.R. person." While that response may. be taken:as ,a'cynical remark
it may also reflect his understanding that risk communication is more
than official notices!or data structured in Various ways. Messages are
sent by behavioral styles, costumes, communicators attitude, certain
kinds. ofr trucks rumbling down city streets, fences and signs, leaking
barrels, odoriferous,and colored water^ supplies, and a host of other'
factors. Perhaps thei image, the gestalt, is more; crucial than the
pieces of formal information released by the agency. .
Second, the fact that! so .many people were bothered by the length of time
it took to execute th'ia cleanup must be taken into account. None of the
information provided about the site communicated why the remedial- (
process at Superfund sites cannot quickly be completed. From a risk
communication perspective, it is . important to ensure" that, expectations
do not outrace realities. The social movement literature consistently ..,
calls our attention to the power of unrealistic expectations ,to generate
outrage. The agency should consider providing additional information on
the remedial process and how long most cleanups take. This information
should be communicated early in the remedial 'process. Local Citizens
may not be happy with/ the projected length of the! project, but they will
not have to experience dashed hopes and the frustration associated with
that. ' • '- i "'..-,• . -; " "-:\ ,: ;. ••'•' • ' • ••. .-;:
-------
89
*The extent to which the risk- communication was either disbelieved
or simply ignored is nothing- short of remarkable. If the risk.
communication fail's to reflect the subjective risk-it is
.dismissed. Even those who evaluated the risk communication in a
generally positive way did not use the information it\contained
in>making their judgments. •
*People overestimate the the risks associated with a toxic waste
site in comparison with both Voluntary, e.g., smoking, and
involuntary, e.g., annual chest x-ray, risks. Fear of man-made
. toxins appeara to involve well-formed attitudes and beliefs.
•./,'-' '•• , • r •
*The four elite groups (environmentalists, civic leaders,
elected officials, and business, people) are more alike than
different on prior attitudes, level of concern, health risk and
comparative health risk estimates, and trust."1 Elected officials
are somewhat more trusting, but similarities .are still more
striking than differences. Perhaps everyone becomes an
"environmentalist" in this kind of situation.
*Behavioral intentions scale from behaviors involving very little
personal involvement and commitment to thosse that mean putting
one's self on the line publicly. Almost everyone would get more
information, about 66 percent would buy bottled water, about
50 percent would encourage others to buy bottled water, and" ,
approximately Half would take political.actions. Again,
environmentalists do not differ from other elites on this issue.
*The variation in levels of concern are disproportionately
explained by trust items.. In fact, the trust items consistently.
explain a significant portion of the variance regardless of the
dependent variable under analysis. In addition, when health
related items form the dependent variable, then demographics,'
specifically gender and level of education, become important,
contributors to explained variance. In general, women, are more
fearful and more likely to assume harm coming to'them or their
families as a result of the" contaminated .site. The more highly
educated are'more likely to reflect levels of estimated health
risks more consistent with scientific estimates. Their levels
of both general and specific concern, however, mirror those of
the less educated respondents. "
*The other cluster of variables that explain ,a significant amount
of variance in the dependent variables is the attitudes toward
hazardous waste that people brought with them to the research
setting. Prior attitudes and involvements in hazardous waste
issues explain most of the variation in the behavioral intention'
items. , ; .
*The uncertainty manipulation,and the variations in management
scenarios had extremely small effects., At the biyari-ate level
there .is some indication that the uncertainty manipulation',may
have increased credibility'to some extent, At the multivariate
level the effect virtually disappears. The one management ,
-------
. SECTION XIV: SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RISK COMMUNICATION''
. ' - . I - i ;
This.research was designed to illuminate some ,of. the major factors
affecting consistencyjbetween objective and 'subjebtive risks in
Superfund-like situations. Perhaps the most significant finding was the
virtual absence of impact of the risk communication itself and the
management scenerios.| The lack of impact of, an independent variable can
always be attributed to a weak manipulation. In this case the
uncertainty manipulation can clearly be a candidate" for that accusation.
Perhaps the information on uncertainty was insignificant given the
•plethora "of other types of information, some of which were much more
dramatic. However, th;e "relative lack of impact oi: the management /
scenerios is less open to the charge of insignificance to the respondent.
A large body of research argues strongly for the Importance of citizen
invovement in decision making in reducing fear and building trust. But,
an analysis of the pre' and' post manipulation data; and the open ended
material at the end of;the research, demonstrates [unequivocally that the
these types of information were unable to compete [with the beliefs and
attitudes that the respondents" brought, with them tio the situation. . The
following conclusions |weaye the net produced by this research.
' - ' - ; _ . ' • , } ' .,-._',,
*Most people enter a situation-involving toxic waste''problems with
•< a^dramatic lack |of consistency between objective and subjective
risk estimates. Almost everyone is highly concerned and a
sizeable minority disproportionately attribute the incidence of a
number of serious diseases to man-made toxic> chemicals. Risk
estimates are clearly related to levels of education. That means
that it is certainly possible, through training, to bring the
average citizen's risk estimates more in lin;e with scientific
risk estimates. 'However, education has no relationship to levels
of concern. The, implications .are that even jif subjective risk
estimates are brought closer to scientific risk estimates it may
have no bearing on public intransigence and Distrust of government
agencies involved in the cleanup. ; .
*There. is considerable skepticism about government, science, and
. the possibility of managing these kinds of problems safel'y.
Skepticism of this scope makes Communicator credibility highly
'. problematic. T ' : I ' V •
-••..-..: ;;,. -••• .. ; , •.: • ^ [.. ,; , , '. ,. . .
*Trusfin local government scales with trust in industry, not with
trust in state aiid federal governments. In-addition, trust in
local government is lower than trust in other levels of government.
This result^is identical with results found in surveys toward
radioactive wastes (Bord, 1987). The problem for the EPA is that
gaining the cooperation of local officials.will not necessarily
convince other citizens that their health and safety are being
protected. '" '
*Almost everyone
a sizeable
highly concerned with the|situation, and for
minority the cleanup fails to reduce; that .,concern.
-------
attributed the time delays to general bureaucratic ineptitude but others.
attributed it to a lack -of knowledge about how to clean up such,a •
situation. Apparently the seriousness of the problem is. indexed by the
'fact that it is officially defined as one and subsequent informatiqn is
often'viewed as part of a "cooling out" process or just plain .lying.<
Many respondents are reasoning 'that if the problem were not a serious .
health threat, then there' would not be government agencies involved and -
testing programs in progress. Any information that fails to affirm this
perceived seriousness is viewed as misinformation. ••
Two common assertions from the risk communication literature were
affirmed by the open-ended comments: comparisons of voluntary .with
involuntary risks are viewed by some respondents as_ silly or misleading;
and, people want to know the long-term, chronic health effects and not
just an annual chance of death:
-------
-A rull 40 percent of the ' espondents critically, mentioned ' ''
tne.length of time that- • : * cleanup process took. No othe- single
.topic, was mentioned more jften or with "such consistent negative
evaluation. 11^; some cases the respondent generalized to
all bureaucracies and their relative inefficiency
*0ver 20 percent!.of the respondents alluded to their distrust
igencies;; industry, and/or government.'Many responses
-uver ^u percent:, or the respondents alluded |to
of the agencies^ industry, and/or .government.' Mi
were of a general nature, such as the following;
".It gives a feeling of dishonesty on the; part of all the
agencies involved. I don't know that i|t is stated, but
it is implied." . .
^Approximately. 15 .percent_of the sample-criticized the annual
chance of death'format. They wanted the long-term probability
of getting any of a number of,, specific health problems.
*Almost 12 percent criticized the comparison!of voluntary with
involuntary risks. On the other, hand, a few of the respondents
liked the comparisons.
*Several people who.got the management scenario that included
enhanced citizen;, participation mentioned this in a positive vein
However, it did :not appear to have a significant impact on their
judgments. • •'' - ;• -
'\: ' : '••-.' " '-• '"' |. '"" ~ -
*The more highly Educated respondent-was likely to want more
information and more highly technical information while the
lesser educated :was more likely to assert that there already
was too much.information, "certainly more than anyone would
want to read." L . " .! ' .
\ '" '!'--'• . ' ~i.
*Respondents frequently mentioned' their fears| of contaminated
water. The point made was that .water is a necessity and cannot
be avoided. r j-
*Approximately one-third of the 'respondents Consistently stated-,
and implied, that even though the information provi'ded was
adequate they simply did not believe it. They wanted to know
where^the statistics came from and why anyone should believe that
drinking the contaminated water was similar |in level -of risk to
drinking diet soda. ;
*Finally, approximately 6 percent of the sample felt that the EPA
should_have acted more paternally right from: the start. They felt
that citizens should be ordered not to 'drink.! that' water* and'that
bottled water should have been provided. [
Summary • ' . ,!> • ' , f ' ' '
Twb themes dominate these open-ended remarks: government ag'en'cie* take
far too long to deal with ..problems and agencies, industry, and
government cannot be trusted- in cases like this. Some respondents
-------
'03
SECTION XIII: RESPONSES TO OPEN,-ENDED QUESTIONS ,
One problem with structured questionnaire formats is that they, tend to
define the situation for the respondent. Although the post-manipulaiion
structured questions appeared to tap those dimensions of respondents'
attitudes, beliefs and behavioral intentions that are central to
assessing consistency between; objective and subjective risk, a number of
open-ended questions were posed at the end so the respondent could .
define the" situation for himself or herself. In one sense,.these
open-ended questions are validity checks. They help us determine
whether there is correspondence between ou-r definition of. the situation •
and that "of the respondent and whether our interpretation of the results
is reflected in the respondent's thinking. Four composite open-ended-
questions were posed at the end of the questionnaire. They started in
very general , terms, encouraging the respondent to structure his or
her answer independently. In the face-to-face interviews these
questions were asked verbally. The following constitute the open-ended
questions: -.'•'<••..
*was there anything positive or negative which struck you in
the information you were asked to read about the waste,site;
*specifically, anything positive or negative about the "water
advisory notice, (you may want to 'go back and glance at it ,
again);
*specifically, anything positive or negative about the "management
scenerio," (you may want to go back and glance at it again); and,
*what kinds of information should agencies like the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) provide the public about such sites,
(was there more information, or "a different kind of information,
" that you would have preferred in reading about the hypothetical
waste site)?
Results of the Analysis of the Open-Ended Questions
Although not' every respondent answered every question almost 500
responses were provided. Many of the responses simply a.ffiirmed that the
information was adequate and offered little of a critical or
constructive nature. For example: ...
*"there was a lot to read but the information,was interesting
enough to keep me reading;" or,
*"the information presented a situation that was probably,a '
typical one - examples such as that shown should sensitize
the concerns of persons exposed. ,
However, the data did reflect recurrent themes and provided some
valuable insights. The following reflect the most robust patterns in,
the responses. - . .-+..-'
-------
34'
I • " • ' • • • ' ' , * ' ' ' - '
• *Believing that • problems like this' are difficult to control-'is
positively associated with.- a ,number of' activities as" is believing
that science does, not know enough about' problems - like" these.. ':
. . *The greater the-'religious involvement the less likely people are
to get involved'..in .political, activist activities, and the more -'
likely they are i.to get involved, in talking about the problem.,
-"" . | • . ' . ' •.'_"''•
Sunmary of.Section XII . ' ' ; : ,
.---"- ~ ~ . -» . , ... t , •„,•"'
'.'••• ' ! " " •" • . •'.'•'.•'; ;£'•'•' ••;•'-'•;..>'••••.
The .following outline?!' the most dramatic findingsInoted above. ;
*The formal risk^information manipulation had virtually no
impact. People'js judgments of relative risk are determined by
.. beliefs and attitudes they bring with them t:o the situation.
' ' •'. •' •. '. • :' • •''"'' '•" '•'•.•" '•'' - • i' • •:• i ; ••"••
*The indemnification managment scenerio. acted as a "signal" that
this problem is [substantial and had an impact on people who
received it. This result highlights the possible impact of all
sorts of "signals" such as technicians, in protective clothing, '
fences and signs to keep people out, and other visible-clues.
1 • • i- .. " ' • •' • ' \-- •••••...
- . .'-• • ; " - -' • • ' ' I- ' ' :, - • " i ' ' ' / ,
^Trust in government, especially local government, is by far the
the most.important and consistent set of variables in accounting
for risk estimates. Thi.s fact raises some interesting
. implications because agencies must work with local government yet
have little control over their quality or the degree of trust they
enjoy
•..fe-
*Female gender is. consistently related to overestimating risks.
. This may help explain why so many local protest groups are
organized and led by women. '••'.'..• . [ • - -
^Education is predictably related to accuracy! of risk comparisons
and the type of 'activity that people will jOjin. Those with '
higher levels of], education are more accurate! in their risk
.estimates and more likely to be involved in pyert, political
activity. The better educated, however, hav^ only slightly
lower levels of concern., [ t
" ;' .-. ' : ']:, ' • ••• • •'.•• • " " ': I.' '.:•-"". "..•'.••••'• •
*The belief that toxic waste sites ,are able tb be controlled by
existing managment techniques is consistently and predictably
related to concerns and behavioral intentions. This is another
belief brought to toxic waste problems that has an impact on
peoples' judgments. . !,. ,
-------
•83
Table XII-10: The Additional Explained Variance for Ea;ch of the
Major Independent Variable sets.' for Each Behavioral
, Intention. , • • .. . • .
Actions Talk Personal Others- Political ••'
PRIOR ATTITUDES 7%
TRUST , ' 5%
DEMOGRAPHICS ' 2%
RISK COMM. &.MANAG. 2%
SHARED VARIANCE 1%
EXPLAINED VARIANCE 17%
12% •
. 2%
2%
1%
3%
2%
6%
• • 5% '
1%
3%
.20%
17%
12%
5%
0%
It'
4%
22%
, 7% •
~ 2%.
1% ,
1%
1%
12% .
Several findings emerge from these tables ' •
*The overall amount of explained variation in behavioral intentions
is less than noted in previous tables. This' is probably a result
of overt behavior, varying in its demands for public boldness,
being strongly related to personality variates and the, possibility
of sanctions from any number of sources including employers,
friends, relatives, and acquaintances. These unmeasured variables
may be accounting for much of the unexplained variation.
*Prior Attitudes has the. strongest impact on overall variation with
one minor exception: demographics and.trust play a
substantial role for "personal" actions. Those with less
education and women are more likely to .take personal Actions.
*The indemnification management scenario appears as a significant
variable in all of these scales. As noted previously, this
option cued those respondents who received it that the problem
was of sufficient magnitude to encourage them to act.
1 ' • t . f
*Those of lower education are more likely to take personal action
and talk, but not more likely to get politically involved or_to
take part in public behaviors.. This is consistent with a corpus
of studies demonstrating that higher levels of education are
strongly associated with overt, public participation.
*Women are more likely to take personal actions and convince others
to do the same, but are not likely to get involved in political or
public activist behaviors. ' • .
-------
Table XI1-9: Order of Variables and•„Summary
:. , ' Five' Behavioral Intention Seals
Action • -. I
PRIOR. CONCERN * >•
TRUST LOCALS -r . '
.INDEMNIFICATION*
MARRIED* •- ' .':-:•"-
PRIOR INVOLVEMENT*
UNCERTAINTY DISCL.+
RELIGIOUS SERV.-:
TRUST GO.Vt!.- . |:
„' •
Mult.. R=. 40 :•
Others
.THE SCALES,
• . Talk
PRIOR CONCERN*
MARRIED *
INDEMNIFICATION*
POSSIBLE TO CONTROL-
"PRIOR INVOLVEMENT*
AGE*
TRUST LOCALS-
RELIGIOUS SERV.*
Mult. R= .44 •
R2= .20
Coefficients for the
s. . '.
Personal
TRUST'LOCALS-.
AGE*' •
FEMALE GENDER* '
PRIOR CONCERN*
POSSIBLE TO CONTROL^
PRIOR.SICKNESS*
INDEMNIFICATION*.'
SCIENCE KNOWS-
Mult.,R=*.40 . '
R2= .17
Political
PRIOR CONCERN*
TRUST LOCALS-
INDEMNIFICATION*
POSSIBLE TOj CONTROL-
PRIOR INVOLVEMENT*
SCIENCE KNOWS-
FEMALE GENDER*
Mult. R= .47
R2= ,22".- !
PRIOR CONCERN*
INDEMNIFICATION*
PRIOR INVOLVEMENTn
TRUST GOVERNMENT-
KNOW CHEMICALS*
RELIGIOUS: SERV.-
TRUST LOCALS-
SCIENCE KNOWS-
• • •..['•• • '
Mult. R= ;. 34
R2= .12
Table XII-10 is also a summary table presenting the additional explained
variance of each of the major independent variables for the .five
"action" dependent variables. .-..'•
-------
0 -
Table XII-8: Regression. Analysis for "Life-Risk" with the Four
Major Independent Variable. Sets. ;
(NOTE: Explained variance with all variables included = 20")
' . MULTIPLE ,R
ALL VARIABLES . • . • ' -'< - ..45
PRIOR, ATTITUDES AND INVOLVEMENT ' ; /-
TRUST • ' ' ' .,
DEMOGRAPHICS , ' ,''"..
*RISK COMMUNICATIONS AND MAN ACME NT OPTIONS
ALL, MINUS PRIOR ATTITUDES AND INVOLVEMENT
ALL, MINUS TRUST , ' •-..',.
ALLJ 'MINUS DEMOGRAPHICS \
ALL, MINUS RISK "COMMUNICATIONS & MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
.18'
.25
.37
._10
.43
.40
.31
.-44.
Additional Explained Variance Accounted for by Variable .Set
PRIOR ATTITUDES AND INVOLVEMENT
TRUST '
DEMOGRAPHICS
RISK COMMUNICATIONS AND MANAGMENT OPTIONS
SHARED VARIANCE
2%
'4%
10%
1%
3%
*"others" is a three variable scale including convincing others
to buy bottled water, convincing others to leave, and going
door to door to get others involved; and,
*"political" is a five variable'scale including speaking up
at public meetings, marching, writing members of Congress,
•organizing a protest meeting, and testifying at a public hearing.
Table XII-9 -presents:the order of variables, the direction of the
relationship, and the summary coefficents for the five scales. This
summary is .presented because of the significant overlap in each scale.
-------
so
and life-risks.. Once,; again, the', pa'ttern of results for the- two tvpe= • -
^risk are quite, consistent. .Demographics account ' for . the brunt-of.-
Table XII-7: Regression Analysis for'"Voluntary~Risks"'with the
Four-Major Independent Variable ; Sets. •
• (NOTE-: Explained variance with' all variables included = 32").
1 * ' . - • f " ' ' • • '
i' , " >-••'-,•
I' • . , j Multiple R
ALL VARIABLES!! ' , -'•"•- ""• ''T ' ' '• / ,7 " "• •
•: , • r- . • • • . • t .'•.., j / '.•
\ '.''•'' ' . ''':,',
PRIOR ATTITUDES AND INVOLVEMENT
TRUST / - ]; .''-."'' '.-,•'• . . ' :
DEMOGRAPHICS |; ' " /
RISK COMMUNICATIONS ' & MANAGEMENT .OPTIONS
ALL,
'ALL,
' ALL ,
MINUS
MINUS
MINUS
PRI'OR ATTITUDES AND INVOLVEMENT
.TRUST , •
DEMOGRAPHICS . '.
,-'• .•-•.•' -• " - /-' ••
,: . :• • ...• .3.6
-••••:• :". -.35 . :
'•'• '• • -.46 ' ••
•': .10 •
• . 54
••• ' . •' - V51 - , '
. .40
ALL, MINUS RISK COMMUNICATIONS & MANAGEMENT OPTIONS .56
•..--.' ; .ii .-.•-•".• ...'.-. • • f--:'. •-, :;.; : ••
Additional Explained Variance Accounted for by Variable Set '
PRIOR ATTITUDES AND INVOLVMENT
TRUST ' • j! . . .. •• '. . . . - .'.'•_• -j
•DEMOGRAPHICS 1; ; , . j
RISK COMMUNICATIONS AND MANAGEMENT OPTIONS'
SHARED VARIANCE ' . <•.*''[
6%
16%
1%
variance. In particular, the level of education produces the largest
effects^ The lesser educated are more likely to overestimate the danger
of the site, even aftez; variance for trust and prior attitudes and.
irivolvement is taken into consideration. However, | trust and prior
attitudes and involvement -still account .for significant variation. The
: consistency .of the impact of trust is impressive.
Accounting for the Behavioral Intentions
'
• - . . -. . .
As noted previously, behavioral intentions form one overall scale termed
"Action" and four subscales:
: ' '."* - ' • ' ";-"''•'" •
*"talk"^is a thre« variable scale including the respondent's
intention to get jmore information, to talk with others \about
the situation, arid to serve on :a commitee if [needed;
'!;'"•• •-' .''• • >' - ""•-• : . 1:.^; : •• •'-'•' -'.• '
*''personal" is a 4hree variable scale including the respondent's
intention to buy bottled water, to Install a (water". treat ement
system, and' to moy.e put of the area;, . -I •-•••••
-------
79
levels of concern before the experimental manipulation.;- Note that the
experimental manipulations have almost no impact on-these comparative
risk judgments". Getting the enhanced citizen participation'management
option slightly reduced overestimates of involuntary risks. These
overestimates, nevertheless, are high. This in spite of the fact that
some of these comparisons were graphically presented in^the information
provided respondents.. There could be no more dramatic information
confirming the relative absence of impact- of the risk communication
itself. . ' . , '
Table XII-5: Regression Analysis for "Voluntary Risks.'"
VOLUNTARY RISK-AS THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE
Ind. Vars. Multiple R R2Change Simple R
EDUCATION - 398
TRUST GOVERNMENT .479
PRIOR CONCERN .508
TRUST LOCALS ' .525
FEMALE GENDER .533
AGE ' .• .534
MARRIED .545
Multiple R = .55
R2 = .30
.159
.070
.029
.018
.008
.006
.007
-.557
-.233
.544
-.288.
.364
-.146
-.555
Be.ta
-.364
-.190
.137
-.109
.084
'-.086
-.127
Table XII-6: Regression Analysis for "Life Risks."
LIFE RISKS AS THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE
Ind.Vars. '. Multiple R R2Change Simple R
EDUCATION, • .300
TRUST LOCALS .351
MARRIED .390
INCOME ' .399
PRIOR SICKNESS .409
PRIOR CONCERN .402
POSSIBLE TO CONTROL .427
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION.433
MANAGEMENT OPTION
.090
.033
.029
.008
.008
.009
. .006
.005
-.300
-.201
-.115
-.060
-.053
.100
-. 150
-.050
Beta
-.290
-.149
,-.223
-.101
'-.104
.086
-.101
-.057
: \
Multiple R
R2 = .19
.43
,' • . *
Tables XII-7 and XII-8 present the regression of the four major
independent variables on both the health risk assessments of voluntary
-------
Table XII-4: Regression Analysis with.Health! Risk Assessment
Dependent Variable -Regressed onj the Four Maior
. Independent Variables. , . • '-'''•''.'' 7 '•
ass tne
(NOTE: .Explained variance with all.' the .vatiabl.es included
• • "' "Multiple
ALL VARIABLES.!!
PRIOR ATTITUDES AND INVOLVEMENT "''••
.TRUST ' • i; ;' '-•••, :r.
DEMOGRAPHICS ! . . -• ' -" • 'I.
RISK;COMMUNICATIONS AND MANAGMENT OPTIONSt
.3.6.
- .42
' -' .'42
.06
ALL, MINUS PRIOR ATTITUDES AND INVOLVMENT ''
ALL, MINUS TRUST . •' ' . . '• 1 '.-.".
AL'L, MINUS DEMOGRAPHICS "" -'[''.
ALL, MINUS RIS.K COMMUNICATIONS & MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
, - • - - , , - « . L ' ' . , : • 'r ' .
Additional Explained Variance Accounted for .bV Variablp
PRIOR ATTITUDE;!? AND INVOLVEMENT -
TRUST . !' . -•'.'. '''••. 1
DEMOGRAPHICS : - ' ' . - - j
RISK COMMUNICATION AND MANAGMENT OPTIONS !
SHARED VARIANCE (two or more variable sets1)
• ''•' -' • ..--' '• • '., '•' • • *^
I-
..'55
.49
.49
Set
' 9%
' .'9%'
1%
11%
nsk assessments than they were for "qoncern." Gender plays the most
important role among the demographics. Women overestimated sickness •
possibilities much more than did men. Prior attitudes -and involvement
also contribute Substantially to the explained/variance.
Accounting for Compara1:ive Risk Judgments
Recall that a previous[discussion indicated that tHe comparative risk
judgments, comparing the risk of drinking the water, with nine more
conventional risks.before and after cleanup, brokeidown into two scales-
one "Delved with_voluntary risks such as smoking, W riding, and bike'
riding, and, one involved with risks that are difficult to avoid such as
getting an X-Ray and eating fruit sprayed with toxics. Tables XII-5 and
•XI1-6 present the regression analysis for these two scales. v '
The results shown in these two tables are reasonably consistent. Level
or education -accounts for most .of the variance in the comparative risk
estimates.. This simply,;means that those with higher education are
making more accurate rijsk judgments.- , On the other Wd, unreasonably
high estimates of the risk of drinking the water are associated with ,
distrust in government !at all levels, being single,! and having High
-------
Table XII-3: Regresssion Analysis for "Health."
"HEALTH" AS THE- DEPENDENT VARIABLE•
Vars.
Multiple ,.R
R2Cha
nge .Simple R • Beta
J. LIU « v a. J. J •
FEMALE GENDER
TRUST LOCALS
.EDUCATION
KNOW CHEMICALS
PRIOR SICKNESS
TRUST GOVERNMENT
UNCERTAINTY DISCL.
AGE
, Multiple R1=
R2 = .33
.357
'.451 , .
.493
.516 - •
.531 . .
.545
.555
.564
,57 -
.127 ..
.076 .
.040
.023'
' .016
.014
.012'
.010 .
.357
-.323
-.258
-.279
.221 •
-.303
.010
.024
.215
' -.206 •'
--. 179V. ;
-. 154 :
:•"•-. 128
; -. 122-.
1 114-
.100
.. :
induced illnesses. The summary of the above table. is as follows:
*women make less -accurate health risk estimates than do men;-; ,
*not trusting local government raises estimates that illness
will result from living near the site;
*higher education is associated with lower health risk estimates;
• *knowing the chemicals is associated with lower health risk
estimates;
*prior judgments characterized by overestimating the health risks
of toxic chemicals are associated with overestimates from the
hypothetical site; '.'-.-'-,
*not trusting state and federal governments is associated with
higher health, risk estimates; . .
*being older is associated with higher health,risk judgments.
Again, the explained variance (R2=.33) is substantial. Table XII-4
presents the results of regressing the four major independent variable
sets, prior involvement and concern, trust, demographics, and the risk
communications and management options, on health risk assessaraenfs.
As before, trust-makes a significant contribution to the explained
variance. However, the demographics are much more important for health-
-------
• , .•-"> n. , __ .
*De»ographics is made up of the following .six variables:
Uvel of
feraa.V-
*Risk communication and managraent options .are the four dummy
variables Abased; on whether the respondent received the uncertainty
manipulation, the indemnification management scenario the • '
partlcipatiori °Pciotl. and [the standard management
Table XII-2. presents Jfche. results of regressing ttle above four variable
sets on. concern together and in combinations. In these -types of tables
the first coefficient; is the strength of the relationship of all the
TH^±T Varia^es,with Particular dependent variable under scrutiny.
The next four coefficient, are the strength of the relationship of each
set of independent variables, by itself, with the' dependent 'variable.'
The following four coefficients are the, strength bf the relationship of
all the independent variables when one set has be'en removed from the
analysis. This gives: another picture of the relative impact of the
variable. The last five coefficients are the percentage of additional
e °
The above analysis highlights the importance of trust in accounting for
its^r* M H exPla"s an additional 12 percent | of the variance by
itself No other variable set comes close to trust in importance.
One.s level of concern is more a function of whether one trusts various
governments and the management process i than of other factors,? If trusJ
is absent,then^the manipulation of information will have little impact
"objectiveC"edlble C0mmunicator there can be n° information defined as'
!. ' - . •'•• "I ''•"..•,
Accounting for Health iRislc Assessments i
rh' - • •. ^ • .
Another, more specific1, dimension of people's reactions to toxic waste
sites is their fears about health problems. This idependent variable is
a four item scale we simply lable "health": how likely is it that you
h!^axa* a?d y;°Ur ifamily. would g^ sick from laving near the site
both before and after cleanup. Table XII-3 presents the regression
analysis for this dependent variable. .[
In ^e above table female gender has the strongest' relationship with '
health. This is consistent with many other studies demonstrating
thar women have more concern about a,large variety: of risks (,Warr,1985)
variance .iT S m8fi-n.mfk« * significant contribution to explained
variance,as does the respondent's level of information about the key
chemicals. Two previously undetected variables emerge in this analysis-
prior^sickness and the ^uncertainty disclaimer. Prior sicknesJ is a two'
ranra^e-SCann encoinPa!?sin8 che respondent's judgement of -how many adult
cancers in 100 are caused by chemicals from toxic waste sites afld
whether the respondent ;;feels he or she has experienced chemically
' • '. • -. . " I. ' • ' . • . '•
-------
*income; . .-..-.• '
*belief that it is possible to control such a. problem;
*prior concern with hazardous waste, and . ' •-. -
*education. .
-•- •' i /
Another useful way of decomposing this data is to regress the, four major
sets of independent variables on the dependent'variable to assess their
relative impact on the explained variance. The four major sets..of
independent variables are: prior attitudes and involvement;' trust;
demographics; and the risk communication - managment option's.
*Prior attitudes and^involvement is measured by three^scales and a
single measure of levels of concern. The scales measure beliefs
that waste sites are-causing much illness, knowledge of specific
chemicals, and prior involvement in hazardous waste issues.
*Trust is measured by two scales and two single variables assessing
trust in local government and industry, trust in other government
bodies, and trust in science and the management of, risk (because
there is no overall scale, the statement that the relation between
trusfand level of concern is .43 means that the multiple r
between these trust'measures-and concern is .43.
Table XII-2: Concern as the Dependent Variable ,
(NOTE: Explained variance with all variables included
- 26%)
MULTIPLE ,R
ALL VARIABLES
PRIOR ATTITUDES AND INVOLVEMENT ,
TRUST . , '
DEMOGRAPHICS . ....
RISK COMMUNICATIONS AND MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
." -51
. 27
.43 ,
.: , .29
' '.08
ALL, MINUS PRIOR ATTITUDES AND INVOLVEMENT .48
ALL, MINUS TRUST •38
ALL, MINUS DEMOGRAPHICS . .... .47
ALL, MINUS RISK COMMUNICATION AND MANAGEMENT OPTIONS .51
Additional Explained Variance Accounted for By Variable Set
PRIOR ATTITUDES AND INVOLVEMENT
TRUST
DEMOGRAPHICS .
RISK COMMUNICATIONS AND MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
SHARED VARIANCE (two or more variable sets)
3%
12%
4%
0%
7%
-------
Table XII-1: The^Regression Analysis for "Concern"
"CONCERN" as the .Dependent Variable;
Ind. V.ars. ' Z .Multiple'R . ^Change 'Dimple R
TRUST LOCALS ]i ' , ..' .388
TRUST GOVERNMENT jr . .416
PRIOR INVOLVEMENT .436
KNOW CHEMICALS I '. .455
•MARRIED ; .468'
INCOME : :: .486
POSSIBLE TO CONTROL .496
PRIOR CONCERN j i .503
•EDUCATION .- • .509
Multiple R= .51
R2 = .'26 ' , <:
.151
.022
.017
* -017
. .012
.017
.010
.008
.005
-.388
-.303
. 100
-.150
-.076
-.130
-.21,0
.180
-.120
Beta
-.259
-.136
.134
-.117
-.206
-.138
-.090
.100
-. 071
1 • •• • • x T •
(Note: Beta is a Istandardized slope coefficient).
In the above table the;; order of the variables indicates their relative
importance in accounting for variance in the dependent variable. The
Multiple R is the cumulative correlation of the independent variable(s)
with the dependent variable while the Simple R is |the zero-order
correlation between the single independent and the1 dependent variable."
Note that Che Multiplej'R and the Simple R is identical for the first '
independent variable. -;;The R2Change is a coefficient indicating how much
additional explained variance is accounted for by the independent
•'-c-i-.ble.. Beta is, a standardized slope coefficient indicating the
relative change in Y, the dependent variable, for .each unit change in X
an independent variable. [ ' • . •
\ . ' 5 '.'.''" • •--•.,
In these tables. the. fiir-st few variables account for most of the
explained variance.' "Concern" is primarily the result of two trust
scales: trust locals and trust government. Trust locals is a scale with
two variables: tru8t in local officials and the belief that industry is
seriously interested in protecting public health. ;Trust government is a
scale with six variables: trust DER to tell the truth; trust EPA to tell
the truth; the U.S. is i.safer now than it was 30 yesirs ago; the Federal
Government is more hon«st now than 30 years ago; the DER is more honest
now than 30 years ago; iand, Federal and State agencies are seriously
interested in protecting public health. The following variables have
a lesser impact: : • ' 1 ,
*prior information!1 and involvement;
*levels of knowledge about the two chemicals cif interes-t;
*marital status; j .'•''•' . • [
' I...'- • ..' '•''.-' .!•' .- : .
-------
-------
72 :
SECTION XII: EXPLAINING THE RESULTS:' MULTIV^RIATE ' ANALYSIS . .'
The goal of this section is to.delineate the.majot correlates' of the
primary dependent variables. This will be accomplished by using
stepwise multiple regression techniques.-,' 'This- technique enters
variables in the order of their importance in accounting 'for variation
in the particular dependent variable. The discussion for each' dependent
variable will follow the same format: ^first, the Analysis will be
presented, including all the independent variable*, that '-individually
.account for at least -one additional percent of-explained variance in the
step-wise-regression; 'then, a regression analysis!will be' presented-
that isolates the four sets of dependent variables. Figure 1 summarizes'
FIGURE 1: A SUMMARY OF THE VARIABLES USED INiTHE-MULTI-
, VARIATE ANALYSIS . -. . ' -•>'',. • ;
DEPENDENT VARIABLES
' I Ii i, - '
LEVEL OF CONCERN • . '.'
(,a two-item scale)
: • ' '; i • ' •
• HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENTS
(a four-it em sca!J.e) ,•
COMPARATIVE -RISK: JUDGMENTS
, A. Voluntary F.isks
(a six-item; scale)
. B. Life Risks |; •
(a four item scale)
BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS'
A. Actions r
(A Scale composed of
the following four
scales) ;
• B. Talk _ > •' .' ' '
(a three-item scale)
C. Personal /
(a three-item'scale),
D. Others ••!;
(a three-item scale)
E. Political j:
(a five-item scale)
. .INDEPENDENT VARIABLES '
' ••' ' ' \ ' ' -• •' ,••-•• '•
PRIOR ATTITUDES & INVOLVEMENT
A. PriorjConcern (one item)
Bi Prior[Sickness (two item
i . . scale)
C. Know Chemicals (two item
-• - ' ' ! . 'scale)
D. Prior [involvement
(a tWjo-item scale)
TRUST
C.
D.
Trust [Locals
(a tWo-item scale)
Trust povernment
(a si^x-item sea 1 e)
Trust [Science (one item)
Possible to Control, '
(one [item)
DEMOGRAPHIES
A. Female,
B. Education .
.'C. Age " :[ '. " . '.
D. Income! • •
E. Attends Religious Service
.F. Married . •
1 •' " -; •
RISK COMMUNICATION ANC
.MANAGEMENT;OPTIONS
A. Uncertainty Disclaimer
B. Enhanced Citizen
- Participation
C. Indemnification"';
D. Standard Procedures*'
••I '••
-------
Summary ' • ' -. • '
This section has dealt with the following results: :
*levels of concern are primarily a function,of a person's
'assessment of the likelihood of health, problems developing
as a results of living near the'site;
*levels of .conc.ern also relate significantly to trust in \
government, industry, and technology;
*the variations in messages given the respondents had no impact
on levels of. concern nor on the health risk assessments; ,
*more accurate risk assessments and comparative, risk assessments
are strongly related to trust in institutions;
*levels of concern, health risk assessments, and comparative: health
risk assessments each is able to account fo.r substantial variance
in intentions to take actions to deal with the hazardous waste
threat; and ' . . ;
*the uncertainty disclaimer is slightly, but significantly, related
to the degree that living near, the site is viewed as less
threatening than other risky activities.
This section has described the relationships among the key variables in
this study. Trust in institutions is strongly related to estimates of
health effects and estimates of health effects are strongly related to
concern. However, this section has not included attitudes citizens-held
before they learned about the hypothetical.site, nor has it included the
demographic variables used in earlier sections. The next section
employs multivariate techniques that permit a sorting out of the
relative importance of each set of factors, including prior attitudes
and demographic variables,, in explaining consistency between objective
.and subjective risk assessments.
-------
Table XI-6: Correlations of Behavioral Intentions' with Selected
.Measures of Levels of Concern, Health 'Risks,
Comparative Health Risks, and Trust,
1
2.
3
4
Levjel of concern, -after the cleanup ' .
Probability of illness, after the cleanup
Threat from living near the site vs driving a car
Trust federal officials to tell! the ' truth :
•' !
GET MORE INFORMATION.
TALK WITH FAMILY 'AND FRIENDS
CONVINCE -OTHERS TO' USE ' •
BOTTLED WATER
SPEAK UP AT- A 'PUBLIC MEETING
.WITH EPA i 'OFFICIALS
MARCH IN A PROTEST, EVEN IF
IT MEANT BEING ARRESTED
CONVINCE OTHERS TO LEAVE
SERVE ON A COMMITTEE
GO DOOR TO DOOR TO CONVINCE
NEIGHBORS TO GET' INVOLVED
WRITE OR CALL MY CONGRESSMAN
TO GET EPA TO REMOVE WASTE
ORGANIZE A PROTEST MEETING
TESTIFY AT A LEGAL HEARING
BUY BOTTLED WATER' '
1: ' , . . .
INSTALL WATER TREATMENT
. . SYSTEM
MOVE OUT OF AREA J, . '
SUE . i;
n t- /-»«*• -i MM «•• «-u . i_j L • f • . ^ • .
^ __ _— _. ,.„_. ,^,l.«,sul=llu upuionsj tne inaemnitication option is
positively related to serving on a committee (0.16). One explanatibn
for this result comes from one respondent who said | "If they are willine
the nrnbT ^ ^^'S >*• v,'' "" What they Said itl the °^^l notice
the problem must be horrible." For some people, the willingness to
provide indemnification did not provide comfort, but communicated a
message that the danger of living near the site wa« indeed'-high.
-------
completion of the cleanup involve bel.ieving that the federal officials
are telling the truth and thinking that it is possible to manage'a
.situation like this one with little or no threat to public - health. ' This
is logical; people who think that government is lying to them and that
the problem cannot be managed without threatening public health have
little reason to conclude that the cleanup reduces their risk of health
problems from living near the site.
As with levels of- concern and health risk assessments, the managraent
'options fail to account for any variability in comparative health risk
assessments.' The uncertainty communications variable, however, does
correlate slightly with most of the comparative risk assessments. :
Having the uncertainty disclaimer seems to reduce the degree to which
living near the site is seen as more threatening than the other ' ,
activities. The strongest correlation coefficients are wi'th living near
the site compared with smoking cigarettes: -0.18 (before the cleanup)
and -0.17 (after the cleanup),- both significant>at the .01 level. The
three other significant coefficients are -0.12 with driving a car, after
cleanup; -0.14' with having a .x-ray, before the cleanup; and -0.13 with
eating sprayed fruit, before the cleanup. This suggests that providing
the disclaimer has a slight impact on improving consistency between
expert and popular opinion in comparative risk assessments. Section
XII, the multivariate analysis, provides a more detailed assessment of
the impact on this factor. ,
Behavioral Intentions- '
Different behavioral intentions correlate with many individual measures
of Levels of concern, health risks, comparative health,risks, and trust.
Table XI-6 shows the single measure of levels of concern, health risks,
and comparative health risks, respectively, that in general correlates
most highly with the behavioral intentions. In other words,: rather than
present the correlations of the behavioral intentions measures with all
ten trust measures, the table includes only one trust variable, how much
can federal officials be trusted to tell the truth. This variable wa-s
chosen because it is the trust variable that correlates most'highly in
most cases with the behavioral intentions.measures.
Simple bivariate measures of levels of concern, health risk assessments,'
and comparative health risk assessments account for substantial
variation in respondent intentions to take action ,to deal with the-
problem. The relationships are strongest for. behavioral intentions
involving private reactions to the problem (e.g.., using bottled water or
convincing others to use bottled water) and slightly less strong for
political responses (e.g., contacting Congress). Trusting federal
officials is related to behavioral intentions although the correlation
coefficients are much lower.
Receiving the uncertainty disclaimer seems to slightly decrease the
likelihood of certain political reactions as'evidenced by correlations
of -0.17 with protest marching; -0.1.6 with contacting Congr-e.s-s; and
-0.15 with litigating. Some behavioral intentions are also slightly
-------
•63
smoking is the lo.e.r
oio.c
Table XI-5:
Correlations of Change in Comparative' Risk ''<
Assessments with Trust, After Cleanup Completion
va smoking
vs near nuclear plant
vr, driving a car
va. riding a bicycle
1 - Threat of living near site
2 - Jreat.of .living near site
J -• Threat of living near site
4 - Threat of living near site
, — — .-. — ..__»» Oa>fc/i^J''— •*•" '
5 = Threat of living near site W annual chest x-ray"
6 - Threat of living near site vs| eating sprayed fruit
LOCAL OFFICIALS!'TELL TRUTH
STATE OFFICIALS': TELL TRUTH
FEDERAL OFFICIALS.TELL TRUTH '
POSSIBLE TO CONTROL PROBLEM
ENVRNMNT SAFER 'THAN 30 YRS AGO
FEDS MORE HONEST THAN 30 YRS AGO
STATE MORE HONEST THAN 30 YRS AGO
SCIENTISTS KNOW!HOW.TO PROTECT US
INDUSTRIES CONCERNED WITH HEALTH
STATE & FEDS CONCERNED W/ HEALTH
(1)
.23*
.24*
.24*|
.20*1
(2)
".15*
.16*
.21*
.17*
.14*
.13*
(3)
.20*
.18*
LOCAL OFFICIALS flELL TRUTH
STATE OFFICIALS JTELL TRUTH
FEDERAL OFFICIALS TELL TRUTH
POSSIBLE TO CONTROL THE PROBLEM
ENVRNMNT SAFER-THAN 30 YRS AGO
FEDS MORE HONEST THAN 30 YRS AGO
STATE MORE HONEST THAN 30 YRS AGO
SCIENTISTS KNOW HOW TO PROTECT US
INDUSTRIES CONCERNED WITH HEALTH
STATE & FEDS CONCERNED W/ HEALTH
The strongest relatioiships between trust and changing opinions" with the
69
(1) ,
-15*
141
(2)
119
.20**
.16*
.14*
145
10.9
(3)
.15*
.1.6*--
.22**
.16*
.15*.
135
-------
•D,
Table XI-4: Correlations of Comparative Risk Assessments with
Trust, After Cleanup ' • , ' -
1
2
3
4
5
6
Threat
Threat
Threat
Threat
of
•of
of
of
Threat of
Threat of
living near site vs
living near site vs
living near site vs
living near site vs
living near site vs
living near site vs
smoking • ,
near nuclear plant
driving a car
riding a bicycle:
annual chest' x-ray
eating sprayed fruit
LOCAL OFFICIALS TELL TRUTH
STATE OFFICIALS TELL TRUTH
FEDERAL OFFICIALS TELL TRUTH
POSSIBLE TO CONTROL THE PROBLEM
ENVRNMNT SAFER'THAN 30 YRS AGO
FEDS MORE HONEST THAN. 30 YRS AGO
STATE MORE HONEST THAN 30 YRS AGO
SCIENTISTS KNOW HOW TO PROTECT US
INDUSTRIES CONCERNED WITH HEALTH
STATE & FEDS CONCERNED W/ HEALTH
LOCAL OFFICIALS TELL TRUTH
STATE OFFICIALS TELL TRUTH
FEDERAL OFFICILS TELL TRUTH
POSSIBLE TO CONTROL THE PROBLEM ::
ENVRNMNT SAFER THAN 30 YRS AGO
FEDS MORE HONEST THAN 30 YRS AGO
STATE MORE HONEST THAN 30 YRS AGO
SCIENTISTS KNOW HOW TO PROTECT US
INDUSTRIES CONCERNED WITH HEALTH
STATE & FEDS CONCERNED W/ HEALTH
(1)
-.28****
-.26****
-.20**
-..'11*
•.20***
-.12* '
... 19**
(4) ,
..21***
.. 25****
..25****
-.14*
•. 14*
-.21***
•'.16**
(2) ,
•.2 5****
-.21***
-.19**
-.12*
11*
16**
(3)
.23***
. 28****
. 27****
. 14*
.14*
.11* -
.15*,"
.18**
.19**
24****
14*
18**
17**
11*
1.9**
11*
-.17**
-.17**
-.17**
-.12*'
-.15*
The strongest relationships are between the comparative risk assessment
from living hear the site and trusting government officials to tell the
truth. In comparing living near the site with the other activities,
people who trust the government" to tell them Che truth perceive the risk
from living near the sl^.2 to be less dangerous than do the people who do
not trust government. This holds across all six comparisons, whether
voluntary activities such as smoking or relatively involuntary ones such
as eating fruit sprayed with pesticides. , ^
How effective one views the cleanup in reducing the'risk of ."living near
the site in comparison with other risks is also a function of trust in
government. Table XI-5 on the. next page presents the correlation
coefficients between changes in risk assessments and the trust variables.
Change is categorized as either none or some improvement in the
-------
••66
adequately protect.u-s; every trust /item ,significantly correlates wich'
health risk assessments.. .People who trust institutions and think ^ is '
possible to manage the site without risking the community's ''health'have-
risk .assessments similar to those ,of the experts;. Individuals with low
trust _ considerably overestimate., the. risks from living near the site '•
Individuals with higher trust are also more, likely, to substantially
reduce their health risk assessments with the Completion of the cleanup-
individuals with 'lower trust'are less willing tojbelieve that the
cleanup reduced;their risk from living near the site.'
'• -: !•' .---.--.-.', :- ••„•';,'.. \, •'.":'.-,' • ••''"' •.
Table XI-3 includes only the results for the question of•the respondent '
suffering health problems, not his or her-familyj The results for the
family question are almost identical so they arefnot reported" ' '
Table XI-3: Correlations of Health Risk Assessments with .Trust-
Prjpbability of illness before cleanup
Probability of illness after .cleanup '
Decrease in probability of illness with the cleanup
(2)
(3)
LOCAL OFFICIALS TELL TRUTH
STATE OFFICIALS TELL TRUTH
FEDERAL OFFICIL.Sl'TELL TRUTH
POSSIBLE TO CONTROL, THE PROBLEM
ENVIRNMNT .SAFER .'THAN 30 YRS AGO
FED'S MORE HONEST;, THAN 30 YRS AGO
STATE MORE HONEST' THAN 30, YRS AGO
SCIENTISTS KNOW HOW TO PROTECT US
INDUSTRIES CONCERNED WITH HEALTH
STATE & FEDS CONCERNED WITH HEALTH
' , 1 ! ' '
i ' , •
r ...
-.20** . -.30****
-.27**** -.38****
-.19**
-.32****
-. 17* r -.29****
-.23*** -.25****
-.15* -.16*
-.19** 1 - -.20**
-.14*
-.20**
-.21**
.16**
.21***
.21***
.21***
. . 14*
• -
• 1.3*.
..21*'*".;
, ' . I • ' , " ' . ' * '-'•','
The uncertainty-risk communication and' the managment option variables
.have no direct impact ion health risk assessments.] Regardless of whether
the.respondent received the uncertainty disclaimer or which of the three
management options were presented, there is no impact on health risk
.assessments. ,
[' : ' • . , • _ 'E1 .-, • • , _ \ \ • '.
Comparative Risk Assessments !
~~~—~fT"~ ~ -• '• -•• f •/-"•••'.• - ..- - ,• ' • , •
Trust not only relates to assessments'that one will become sick from
liv.ing^near, the site, ;but also, with the comparative risk, assessments.
Table XI-4 presents the correlation coefficients cif the com'parative risk
assessments with trust after the cleanup was completed. Coefficients
tor before the cleanup are similar, but slightly lower due to the
reduced variance in thle comparative risk assessments,which was explained
earlier. • ,; '• . , : . i , .
-------
Table XI-2: Correlations of Levels'of 'Concern'with/Trust'
= Level of concern- before cleanup
= Level of concern after cleanup • ,
^Decrease in concern .with - the cleanup
(1)
(2)
(3)
LOCAL OFFICIALS 'TELL TRUTH
STATE OFFICIALS TELL TRUTH
FEDERAL OFFICIALS TELL TRUTH
POSSIBLE TO CONTROL THE PROBLEM — .
ENVIRNMENT SAFER THAN 30 YRS AGO "-.
FEDS MORE HONEST THAN 30 YRS AGO
STATE MORE HONEST THAN 30 YRS AGO
SCIENTISTS KNOW HOW TO PROTECT US
INDUSTRIES CONCERNED WITH HEALTH -.
STATE & FEDS CONCERNED WITH HEALTH
16*
17*,
16*
17*
23***
24***
-. 29****
.•- — . 34****
-.32****
-. 25****
— .36**** •
. -.14*
-.20**
- . 20**
-.19**
. 28****
. 3 3****
•-.31 ****'
.18** .
.31****
.17**
. 20**
.13* . ...
.23*** .
The dimensions of trust discussed in Section VI include the question of
whether scientists know enough about the impact, of chemicals on our
health to adequately, protect us. This variable stands out in Table XI-2
by its failure to correlate with level of concern. The general question
of what scientists know simply is unrelated 'to how concerned citizens
would be living within one mile of the site. On the other hand, level
of concern is related to judgments of whether it is possible to manage a
hazardous waste site safely. These "two findings, alou^ with the strong
relationships between trust in institutions and lev.el of concern,
suggest that the respondents' evaluations are driven r je by concern
with institutional capabilities than by concerns with the limitations of
science. . •
Finally, reg'arding bivariate .relations with level of concern, the impact
of the uncertainty communications, (uncertainty disclaimer or not) and
the management options (standard, enhanced participation, or
indemnification) is nonexistent, there is no relationship between which
uncertainty communication was given, nor which management option was
chosen, and level of concern (See Appendix A for the text of these
messages). Instead, consistency between objective and subjective risk,
the lower levels of concern, relates strongly to lower health risk
estimates, to lower comparative risk estimates, and to trust in
institutions and in the belief that it is possible to clean up the site
with low risk to the health and /safety of the community.
Health.Risk Assessments .....' -'.'•-.• ;
Table XI-3 demonstrates that how people assess the likelihood of'their.
becoming sick from living near the site is -strongly related-"to the trust
measures. With the exception of the item that measures the"belief that
scientists know enough about the impact of chemicals'on our health to
-------
Table XI-1: Correlations' of Levels/ of Concern with Risk
Assessments
"Risk Assessments Before Cleanup
PROBABILITY OF ['HAVING
PROBABILITY'OF!HAVING
THREAT -OF
THREAT OF'
THREAT OF
THREAT OF
THREAT OF
THREAT OF-
LIVING' NEAR.
LIVING'' NEAR
LIVING NEAR
LIVING NEAR
LIVING NEAR
LIVING NEAR
PERSONAL HEALTH PROBLEMS
FAMILY HEALTH PROBLEMS >'
t
SITE VS SMOKING ]
SITE VS NEAR NUCLEAR - PLANT •
SITE VS DRIVING A CAR, ;
SITE VS RIDING A BICYCLE
SITE VS ANNUAL CHEST jX-RAY
SITE VS EATING BRAYED FRUIT
Risk Assessments After Cleanup
PROBABILITY OF iHAVING PERSONAL HEALTH PROBLEMS
PROBABILITY OF [HAVING FAMILY HEALTH PROBLEMS
5 > ' ' '-I • • ' ' •
VS SMOKING ;
VS NEAR NUCLEAR I PLANT
VS DRIVING A CABl
VS RIDING A BICYCLE
VS ANNUAL CHEST |x-RAY
VS EATING SPRAYE.D FRUIT
significant at the .J05 level
significant at the .pi level
significant at the .001 level
significant at the .0001 level
(These significance levels will be used in Jthe remaining
tables in this.!, section., . The coefficients are tail's.)
THREAT'
THREAT
THREAT
THREAT
THREAT
THREAT
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
LIVING
LIVING
LIVING
LIVING
LIVING
LIVING
•{••;.
i"
NEAR
NEAR
NEAR_
NEAR
NEAR
NEAR
* ss
** 3
*** S
SITE
SITE
SITE
SITE
SITE
SITE
sigi
sigi
siei
! **** = Q 1 y.
. 4 6****
. 50****
. 29****
• 15*
. 31****
.2 7 ****
,27****
:19** .
.58****
.59****
.39****
.29****
.38****
.37****
.33****
.22***
Although the. correlation coefficients are not aslhigh, level of concern
is also a function of the level of trust, respondents have in government,
industry, and the possibility to control a problem like this one so that
it presents little or no health threat to the community. Table XI-2
shows these relationships, and reveals that the deduction in the level
of concern brought about by the cleanup is also ii function of trust.
Those ^.ndividuals whp trust the government, industry, and the - "
possibility of managing a hazardous waste site without threatening the
health of the community have a greater reduction!in their level of .
concern with living near the site at' the completion of the cleanup than
do less trusting individuals.
-------
SECTION XI: EXPLAINING THE RESULTS - BIVARIATEtRELATIONSHIPS ,
The firsc ten sections of the report have explained the research,
presented the measures, and reported the results in terras of
frequencies, variations among,the six subgroupings, and correlations
with demographic varaibles. This section is an examination of the
bivariate relationships that may account for variance in four sets of
variables: • ..'-•'
*levels of concern, correlations with health risk assessments,
comparative risk assessments, trust, andAthe uncertainty
communications and management options variables; ;
*health risk assessments, correlations with trust, and the
uncertainty communication and management option variables;
Comparative risk assessments, correlations with trust, and
uncertainty communication and management options variables; and,
*behavioral intentions, correlated with all the above listed •
factors'. ' " ' ; ' '
The next section is a multivariate analysis of these factors along with
prior attitudes and demographic attributes. In this section the intent
is to examine simple relationships among factors measured after
respondents read the hypothetical waste site scenario.
Levels of Concern . '
Table XI-1, on the next page, shows that levels of concern are strongly
related to risk assessments. Levels of concern are most strongly a
function of a person's assessment of the likelihood of health problems
developing as a result of living near the site. Levels of concern are
not just a function of an assessment.of the likelihood of sickness, but
also are a function of how dangerous the respondent views living near
the site in comparison with other possible threats to a person's health
and safety. ...
The strong -relationships between risk assessments and levels of concern
support the arguments of those who stress the importance of risk
communications to effective implementation of environmental statutes.
When there is a substantial gap between objective and subjective risk
.estimates, the result is a level of concern inappropriate to the given
risk.
In all instances, the correlation regarding judgments of the situation
after the cleanup is stronger than the correlation regarding judgments
before the cleanup. This results from an attenuation of correlation
from the lack of great variance in levels of concern before the.cleanup;
with most respondents reporting themselves extremely concerned,
correlations involving levels of concern cannot attain high levels.
With more variance in opinions after the cleanup, higher correlations
are possible. • ,
-------
5-2
•I ! ' ' . 'f '
This initial description of the beh-avioral intentions produces several
conclusions: ':• ' '• .- .- •. " :. •.
*most respondent!? say that they definitely, would engage in the
traditional', low-commitment activities of getting more
information, talking about the problem, and' serving on a
' committee; >p . I • . ••
*most respondents say that they would definitely'use bottled
wate-r, and many',; say they would take other s^teps .to protect
their families :such as installing a 'water t'reatrae'nt system
or even leaving1the area; • '
I! - ' . •• .; "• -'"' '.''.' ' '['.:','-.' ' .'•'• ' , '
*most people wou|ld try to convince others to get involved and
to use bottled water;
I!-'.."
*most would take!'political actions, with the1 most popular
"option being contacting their representative in Congress to
put pressure on;EPA;
^behavioral intentions fall into four dimensions that scale in
( • • - -/
likelihood from talking about the problem, to taking personal
steps to protect the family's health, to-convincing others .to
confront the problem, and finally to taking political actions '.
designed to pud pressure on the government;-
*members -of environmental groups are not morle likely than
anyone else to take action - when faced with a toxic.waste
problem near one's home, almost everyone becomes greatly
concerned; |: . • ' • ••!•., . ' '. . ' • • . .
*the less well educated and women are the most likely to drink
bottled water and take other steps to prdtejct their health.,
but they are.no.t more likely to engage in most other activities;
*the political behavioral intentions rarely 'correlate with any o.f
the demographic; variables, suggesting that other factors
influence personal decisions to participate1.
- - ' ' ' - !!.-••••...'•' '•- : . 'P ' ••'.•• .'. - .. -
The next section of this report looks at how these "other factors" -
including uncertainty!'communications'and management options - account
for variance in key citizen attitude's and intentions.
-------
Women and Che less well-educated are more likely to react by ad ope Lug •
these strategies designed to protect the family's'health. Encouraging,
Table X-3: Correlations of Behavioral Intentions with
Demographic Variables. . ;
Age Male Relg Marital Home Incm. Educ
GET MORE INFO ''
GET OTHERS TO USE -.12*
BOTTLED WATER
MARCH IN A PROTEST,
GET OTHERS TO MOVE -.23**
SERVE ON COMMITTEE
GO DOOR TO DOOR TO -.13*
INVOLVE NEIGHBORS
CONTACT CONGRESS TO
PRESSURE EPA
BUY BOTTLED WATER -.17*
INSTALL WATER
TREATMENT SYSTEM
.13*
-.11*
-. 14*
.16*
.16*
.13*
LEAVE THE AREA
-.13*
-.12*
-.11* -.13*
-.18**
-.17**
-.15*
* = significant at .05
** - significant at .01
others not to drink the water and to get involved is primarily
correlated with gfender; women are more likely to say that they would
encourage others to drink bottled water> to get involved, and even to
get others to move. .• ' '- ' '
The five political items all involve a public commitment to 'influence"
events at the site. The'findings regarding the political items are
different from those relating to the other activities in that propensity
to engage in the political activities is rarely related at all to any of
the demographic variables. The three activities related to Meetings -
speaking up, organizing, and testifying - do not correlate with any of
the demographic variables. Contacting Congress correlates .weakly and
negatively with income and education; the lower the income and
education, the more the intention to contact Congress. Marching in a
protest only correlates with one variable; negatively with religiosity.
Attendance at church services seems weakly to depress the intention to
march. - ,. • "''-•;•
-------
among the. groups. In other words-, the similarities among the grouos, far
outweigh the differences reported in Table X-2. | These results must _be
viewed with caution i.since the number of respondents in some of the
groups, i.s quite small. .'-" . - . '. •[ • .
Jr •' '•-.'". - ' t ••;'•. .•'''' ' , ' '' 4 •' " .',',' " ' ' •'-,.'.
The decision to take specific actions is -a function of one's level of
concern with the problem, assessment of the. likelihood that the action
will be effective, eind., the extent.one feels comfortable .with 'the
activity. Some" individuals,, for .example, said tihat they would never
walk in a- protest msirch, regardless of their level of concern.
The scenario of this' study -creates a situation which, -as reported in
Section VII, would greatly concern the vast majority'of•the respondents.
In this situation almo;st everyone- becomes an emrironmentalist concerned
with protecting the |health and safety of themselves and their families..
The great variations among activities appear to'be. a function of their
perceived appropriateness -and effectiveness, rat'her.; than previous
exposure to environmental literature or, general [level of. concern. :'
Although, as reports^.in previous sections, the lless well-educated
express the most concern about the situation and the greatest
inconsistency with expert risk assessments, they are not the most- likely
to engage in every activity. The activities that require working with
others in an organizj.ed manner (committee service; organizing meetings)
have a lower level of participation among the leiss well-educated than
among members of the;-four groups who are presumably more used to -
attending meetings (environmentalists, elected officials, civic leaders,
and business persons'). The respondents in the siample with graduate
degrees also are less willing to engage in these, activities. 'In light •
of the fact that the members of the. first/four groups chose to join
organizations, perhaps it is not surprising that: they look to an-
organizational approach in dealing with the wastie problem.
The less well-educatied are the most willing to tiake individual'actions
to protect themselves and to try to convince others to do so. They are
the most, willing tojbuy bottled water and to flee the areai
Section VI reports that elected officials are dispropbrtionately
trusting of EPA representatives. .This does not [discourage these elected
officials, however, tfrom contacting Congress to^pressure EPA to remove
all the waste immediately. Majorities of every[group, except the
business community and the well-educated, claim]that'they definitely
would contact their'local representative. The less well-educated may
have doubts about engaging in committee work, ..but. they have few-qualms
about contacting Cbiigress. '[ .
- • - i , ' • . - . ,t. • • • \ ...
Different dimensions! of activity have different •demographic correlates.
The scale that involves getting more information, and serving on a
committee correlates!, with home ownership. People who own their own
homes are more likely to state that they intendito engage in this type
of traditional citizen activity. Changing one1!! personal-behavior —
using bottled water,;' installing a water treatment 'system, ' and gven
leaving the area --^correlates negatively with .education and male gender.
-------
on Che POLITICAL scale, that' person very likely scored .'nighlv on all' the
other scales. Conversely, if an individual did hot score/, highly on the-
TALK scale, it is 'unlikely that he or she would have claimed intentions
to change water uses, to convince others to make changes, or to 'become
highly active politically. These scales- will be used in thev
multivariate analysis of section XII. . •
Table X-2: Behavioral Intentions-Among Groups.
%• who would definitely .engage in the activity
GET MORE INFORMATION
TALK WITH FRIENDS
CONVINCE OTHERS TO USE •
BOTTLED WATER
SPEAK UP AT A PUBLIC
MEETING WITH EPA
MARCH IN PROTEST EVEN
IF ARRESTED
CONVINCE OTHERS TO MOVE
SERVE ON A COMMITTEE ,
GO DOOR TO DOOR TO GET
NEIGHBORS INVOLVED
CONTACT CONGRESS TO
PRESSURE EPA
ORGANIZE A MEETING
TESTIFY AT A HEARING
BUY BOTTLED WATER
INSTALL WATER TREATMENT
SYSTEM
MOVE OUT OF AREA
SUE
' N =
Envmt
91% '
83
44
39
9
13
52
23
52
17
26 ,
61
13
18
5
23
Elect
100%
95
•' 42
53
1.1
,0
58
26
63
32
. 63.
• 74
37
5
5
19
Civic
97%
77
39
52
13
16
58
27
61
29
42 '•'
65
26
19 '
10
31
Busns
' '91%
86
36
41
9'
9
46
10
. 4.6
27
41. •
59
29
9
0
22
' Lo-Ed
!
. 89%
85
54
39
• 7
11 .
37.
17 -
61
'
11
37 •
80
39
. -2$ :
13 .
47
• \
Grads
90S--
83
'38
33
12 -
•' 7 ' -
' 39.;
19
39
; 19
32
: 53 .
19
11 '
4. • .
.59
Members of environmental groups might.be expected to engage more heavily
in activities to deal with the problem than others. After, all, by
joining a local environmental group people assert their concern with
environmental protection and their willingness to participate in group
activities. These expectation's are not borne out b.y the data bfTable
X-2. Variations are greater among the items (e.g., intend to sue) than
-------
concerned with, the situation. Almost everyon'e says Chat he or she would.
talk with- others and ;.try to get more inf o-rmationj A majority claim they
•would definitely 'change their personal habits byjd-rinking bottled water
or installing a water treatment system.. Forty-five percent probably or
definitely would leave the area. Not only do these citizens claim they
would take personal action, most say they would encourage others to take
action; majorities would .urge their friends to use bottled water and '
would go door to door themselves to convince their neighbors to get
involved with the problem-.' Forty percent say they probably or
•definitely would try;:to convince their friends to leave the,
area. However, these numbers probably overstate^ what, people actually
would do since the costs of indicating a behavior on a questionnaire,are
considerably less than the costs, of actually'engaging in that behavior.
Besides talking about; the problem, changing , their personal behavior , and
urging others to act , ma jorities claim they definitely or probably would
take political action t'p change the situation. 'Majorities checked that
they definitely or probably would contact 'Congrebs to put pressure on
EPA, speak, up at a public meeting, and testify ap a legal hearing.
Forty-three percent Claimed they would organize 'k meeting to protest the
handling of the situation and thirty-four percent said they would march-
in a protest picket line, even if it meant being! arrested.
'!• , ' • -• r ' •'- ••'••.
The only item listed! that failed to generate substantial support i.s ,
litigation. Several ^respondents noted that the problem with this option
is that the scenario!rdid not clarify who could be a successful target of
litigation. They said they were not opposed to 'supporting litigation tp
force faster action, !;but did not see how this would be possible.,
."'.-• . J. - • '•-.'.
All of the items froijn' Table X-l were submitted tja a Guttman scaling
program. What emerged was four scales that covered the different
dimensions of citizen actions: • ' [ , ' • . ,
1 • , ' • ' ; • ... % •....,'•
r •.''•' '''*'•' •> ' . •
*a three-variable scale (labelled TALK) , that includes getting
more information, talking about the problem, and serving on •
a committee;- these acts do not require a public commitment or
great, changes ;ir _••'-• '
| . • •'
ERS),
. ~ -- - - • . . . ..•.. • .
*anothef three-variable scale (labelled OTHERS), that, involves
convincing others t'o: use bottled water, get involved in the
problems, and leave the area; [
|. ' • " . • • - ' •- -t • -•' '.
*& third three-variable scale (labelled PERSONAL) , that includes
using bottled water, buying .a water treatment, system, and moving
out of the area; and I
' " •• ' £ -. • - ' • • • ' ' 1 - - ••• '. \ -. ' •
*a five-variable scale (labelled POLITICAL):, that involves ,
contacting Corigress, speaking up at a publjic meeting, marching,
organizing a protest meeting, and testifying. . ' • .
The scale scores .from these scales combine into |an overall-s-cale of
behavioral intention^. The order of the scales [is TALK, PERSONAL, ,
OTHERS, AND ..POLITICAL.- This means that if an individual scored highly
. r .•-•'.- 4. : - ••".
'4?--
-------
SECTION X: THE HYPOTHETICAL SITE - BEHAVIORAL INTENTION'S
When faced with a threat to one's neighborhood, an individual may ace
to remove the threat,- flee the area, or react with some combination o)
the two. Table X-l presents the frequencies of these behavioral '•
intentions.
Table X-l: Responses to the Question, "Here is a list of things
that., people can do in a -situation like this. For
each activity, .select that option, that reflects how
likely it is that you would, engage in that activity.*
1=1 DEFINITELY WOULD DO THIS
2=1 PROBABLY WOULD DO THIS
3=1 PROBABLY WOULD NOT DO THIS
4=1 DEFINITELY WOULD NOT DO THIS
GET MORE INFORMATION
TALK WITH FAMILY AND FRIENDS
CONVINCE OTHERS TO USE BOTTLED
WATER
SPEAK UP AT A PUBLIC MEETING
WITH EPA OFFICIALS
MARCH IN PROTEST, EVEN ' IF IT
MEANT BEING ARRESTED
COVINCE OTHERS TO LEAVE AREA
SERVE ON A COMMITTEE
GO DOOR TO DOOR TO CONVINCE
NEIGHBORS TO GET INVOLVED
WRITE OR CALL MY CONGRESSMAN
TO GET EPA TO REMOVE WASTE
ORGANIZE A MEETING TO PROTEST
THE HANDLING OF THE PROBLEM
TESTIFY AT A LEGAL HEARING
BUY BOTTLED WATER
INSTALL WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
MOVE OUT OF .THE AREA
SUE
*See the appendix for
(1)
. 87%
79
46
34
10
11
38 -
19
49
16
34
67
" 27
17 .
7
the exact
(2)-
11%
19
41
41
24
29
45
42
30
27
38
25
34
28
17
item
(3) •
2%
1
12
20
40
44
16
32
17
46
23
8
31
39 \
52
wording.
(4)
1%
r
i
3
27
14
2
8
5
11
5
1
9
13
25
N
173
173
172
,171 .
170
. 170*
,173
171
173
173
170
172
,170
168
165 '
— w — - — — — — *• «•.—** w >**>_. v/fc. A.Lii_^i4o^.i_jr O t COtlCSlTTlj
these numbers suggest that most respondents think they would »be quite
-------
-------
variance in the comparable risk assessments. Although women are
somewhat more likely to overestimate the threat from drinking the water
vis a vis the other risks that are voluntary and the young somewhat ,
underestimate the danger of.riding in automobiles, education level
accounts for significant variance in comparative risk assessments. As
education level rises, respondents are less worried about drinking the
water in comparison with the other threats. '. .
This initial analysis of comparative risk assessments produces stv=r-il
conclusions:
*there is a different underlying attitude .toward risks |that • •
are voluntary versus those that are involuntary;.
(this simply confirms much of the work done by Slovic and
Fischhoff) , -,-•-'•
Respondents overestimate the risks, of drinking the water from1. .
the site, especially before the completion of the cleanup;
*many respondents became less fearful of drinking the water
after completion of the cleanup, although substantial.minorities
still viewed drinking the water as more dangerous than other
activities; , -'
*environmental group members are somewhat less likely to
overestimate the comparative risk from drinking the water than are
the rest of the sample; and / '
Comparative risk estimates are strongly related to education as
the well educated are consistently more likely to make judgments
consistent with those of the experts. ~ :
-------
impossible to avoid, _ The f irsc ',caie,: ,nc LudesUomoarxsoas' of. <
che water with smoking,' riding in a car,-and riding a b-v- •=" - b
berore and after the cleanup, The- s,econd scalfe inclader = om^risons -
drinking the .water.with.having an annual che-st! x-rair and' -a-'ine -ui^
.sprayed, with pesticides - again, .both before .and after the" cleanup. Yte
variable that compared drinking the, water wittv living near a nil'"
• power plant failed .to fit,intp either scale, ] , ' . ™
Table IX-3:, Correlations of' Comparative Risk Measures with
• ' :. Demographic Variables. ... ]. .'.-'.. "•':
-Before the.Cleanup
Drinking the .water
compared with ?!''
' i *
'. SMOKING CIGARETTES '
I'. :,
LIVING NEAR NUC PLANT .
RIDINGXA CAR DAILY '
I - '
"},] -, ' - .-, , ,4 V ,
.RIDING A BICYCLE DAILY
ANNUAL X-RAY - !
EATING FRUIT ' j. ' ''<-
After the .Cleanup .-—
. ' - | . •• , : ' . :
SMOKING CIGARETTES
Male ...
-.22**
Age
"-.15* '-.,10*
"v, ' - "
-.15* ' "'-••
-.15*
( - i . • , - - I ,
jMarital' Incm • Educ
;t .». ,- i ;•;'.-; 16** -.'35****
, , • -.29****
'...'-. 34****
-.15** '
. • -.27****
LIVING NEAR NUC PLANT
RIDING A CAR DAILY
RIDING A . BICYCIE DAILY
ANNUAL XrRAY
EATING FRUIT
the coefficients are
Religiosity and home
correlated signifi
-.16*
-.. 14* -. 32'****.- "
-.12*
-. 14*
.•12*'
'-. 31****
-.34****
-.22***
-.29*,***
* * significant at .05
** = sifnificant. at .01 ,
= significant at .001.
****=• significant at .0001,
^tau.'s, the ordinal analog o|f Pearson',s r.
^ownership are not included [above because they never
cantly with any comparisons. !
Table IX-3 illustrates, the -ability'of ..education [level-.to', account' for
f •*'".'-. ^ '... • • * -','. („ ." '.---,.''• , . . ' . i , ,
-------
[able IX-2 (continued) Comparative Threat Perceptions ,
• Envmt • Elect Civic Busns ' Low Ed ., 'Grads
Drinking the Water vs Having One X-Ray Per .Year
22%
8
MUCH MORE
SOMEWHAT MORE
SAME 22
SOMEWHAT LESS 9
MUCH LESS ' 0
N = 23
MD =
32%
16'
26
16 '
11 '
19
- 52%
26-
10
10
3
V
31
14%
46
23
9'
•9
22
•53%
23
, 11
4 r
9,
47
31%
33
'22'
10
;" 3
58
1
Drinking the Water vs Eating Fruit Sprayed with Pesticides
MUCH MORE
SOMEWHAT MORE
SAME
SOMEWHAT LESS
MUCH LESS
N =
MD =
5%
23
50
14
9
22
1
21% .
,11
v42 -
16
11
19
16%
19 ,
45
.7 V
.13,
' 31
9%
'27 '•_•
46
9
.9
22
\.
21%
"43 ' -
30
4 "
2
47
7%' , -
.19
46 •
18 •
1 1
57 ' •
-' : 2'' '
The less-well educated consistently overestimate,the threat from
drinking the water at the site. They stand out in the degree to which
they find drinking the water more threatening than anything,, even •
smoking two packs of cigarettes each day. On the other hand, ;the risk
assessments of-those with graduate-degrees are close to the risk ./
assessments of experts who see little danger in drinking the water. ;
Among the environmentalists, elected officials, civic activists, and the
business community, one might have expected .the members_of environmental
organizations"to be .particularly- concerned with the environmental
problem and, therefore, overestimate the risks posed by the^'site. This
is not the case, however, as the'environmentalists do not differ greatly
from the others. When they do/differ, as with the comparison of
drinking the water with' riding a car, the environmental group members
are mora consistent with expert opinion than are other Centre Region
resident*. • ' . ..'',-..
Among the other three groups, the civic activists are most likely, to
overestimate the danger of drinking the water. This group would stand
out even more if civic activists who are also environmentalists were
removed from the analysis. , ,
When Guttman scaling techniques are used to examine these...comparative
risk variables no single comparative threat dimension is found*
Instead, two scales emerge: one composed of voluntary risks and a second
composed of potential environmental' risks that are difficult or
-------
Table IX-2: Comparative Thr-at P»r-on^-' ' •
; Che Cleanup. ^epcions Among Groans
Before
.Elect,, Civic Bu^L LOW -Ed -Grads',
Drinking the Water vs Smoking Two. Uk. a Day'
' MUCH; MORE . ].,.Q%
SOMEWHAT MORE i 13
.. ' SAME .. . j 9
SOMEWHAT 'LESS ': 35-
MUCH LESS " L44
i ' '
• - N = 23
MD = r
..«' • 16% . oj[--..- 28%
J 16 • 9 , ,o
' 5 " 3' ' ' 5 .21
« ' 11 - ^ •'"
Jp : 59 .' 13
.. 19
31
22
1
-•
47 ..-
-3S
- - . 7
••' • 12 .
•29 !
48
58
1
Drinking the <;Water vs Living Near a Nucl '
MUCH MORE 126%
SOMEWHAT MORE 'J35
SAME : <26
SOMEWHAT LESS • ti 9
MUCH LESS , 'i'4
' i -
N = 23
• MD = r
' |M
Drinking the Water
:' MUCH MORE in
SOMEWHAT MORE 2fc
SAME :4
SOMEWHAT • LESS 39
rMUCH LESS . |:3
'• 'N - 2,13
Drinking, the
MUCH MORE - 302
SOMEWHAT .MORE '2''
SAME ,"
SOMEWHAT LESS 26
MUCH LESS 17.
N = 23 '
MD a
42%
21
16
16
5
19
29%
29
26
16
0
31
41%
14
36
5
,
22
40%
32
• • 17
9-
,
' ' . , 2 v
- '; 4?'
• . , ^ . .
vs Dri<
21%
26
• 11
16
26
19
Water
22%,
17-
n'
28
17.
is
i
; (continued
i . • '
; , ''
^ing a Cai
39%
19
.
19
• .19
' 31
vs 'Riding
40%
20
3
13
23
30
. 1 ...
on next
-
r for Tw
.
23%
23
9 •
18 :
, 27
22
•
o Hours E
47%
23
- 13
.11
.-'•••' O
47
idli U
21%
38
21
V 2~
58
•_'-.!
- 17% .
24
5
31'
24
59.
a Bicycle Daily
32%
14
18
18
18.
22
page)
,
- •
(
57%^
30 '
4
• '' 7
' ' 2
46
|
' )' •
. * '
20%
17
12
31 .
20
59
- . - '
-------
What 'is startling in Table IX- 1 is the enormous overestimate or
threat from drinking the . water in comparison with the voluntary ^
activities of smoking, riding in an automobile, and bicycling. ,ne
information provided in the water advisory notice iSee Appendix A) .seems
not to be reflected in citizen responses to' the comparative threat
questions. Onlv one-third of the sample .checked chat -drinking the water
is much less dangerous than smoking two packs of cigarettes .each day.
Although the table showed that the threat of death from riding in a car
is ovef twelve times that from drinking, the water '.bef ore the cleanup • .,
overLlf the sample reported that driving a car is less dangerous than
drinking the water. : . •'••.'• ,
Before the cleanup, two-thirds viewed drinking the water as more
threatening than living near a nuclear power plant.. After the cleanup,
opinion Same equally divided with most repondents finding-one on y
"somewhat more of a threat" than the other and 26 percent -ewing t hem
as equally threatening. These moderate views suggests little dread of
either drinking' the water after the cleanup or, living near a nuclear
power plant. ,
drinking the water is viewed as quite threatening,
that many respondents perceive eating fruit treated with pesticides as
quite dangers. From'some comments made during the oral -terviews it
is apparent that not all citizens are aware that most fresh fruit
available in the stores has been treated both .with f
cost-harvest preservatives. Many people may not make a
oecween toxic chemicals from waste sites and pesticides.
The comparative threat perceptions of drinking the water .changed/for
^
smokin as more threatening than drinking the water even before the
cleanup, there was less room for improvement for post-cleanup .
perceptions than there was for the other less ^eat*m
Sost of the changes are slight improvements in the "^
perception of drinking the water, i.e., from "much more of^a threat
"somewhat more of a threat" or from more of a threat to the same.
-------
fro.-
°ne
, , ---:-'. w<= =11 so asKed
a health and:;safetv from'driving the ia
-------
-he
"'our health risk estimates (that you and your tamily wou.i surrer .....;
problems before and" after ..the cleanup) form a single uu.-.san
This constitues a single measure of Che consistency Between
xoert and oooular opinion; the higher the. scale score, . thj = greater ,,e
Is-i-nated likelihood of sickness, and the. greater the -gap Deepen
popular and expert opinion. This scale will be part, or che.-ulEw.riate
analysis of section XII. .
Health risk assessments do not correlate at all with any cbmmon
lf«
The second
th«
-
Before examiniag the impact of variations of ^j^/^j6^.^08
Secpion XI, we can make some conclusions regarding health risk
assessments: . ,
*over one-third of the entire sample, and 1
of the less educated, report an extreme probability that
health problems would result .from living near the site
before the cleanup; •
*with completion of the cleanup, half the, sample either reduced
their health risk assessments or were not too concerned even
before the cleanup; , .
*environmental group members make similar assessments to those
of the rest of the population;
*Che business community has the lowest .health problem estimates
so it is closest to matching expert .opinions; and
*women and the less educated are, substantially more likely to,
overestimate the probability of health problems.
-------
•Table, VIII-2:,Responses, to che Questions ,]' "How arpbable'do vou"
••think.it as that you would .[suffer health problems
,;:as a result or living near [this site, crior to the
' - . ' .! cleanup attempt (after. EPA [had completeTThe '
•-I/cleanup)? _ ^ •. . •
EXTREMELY
SOMEWHAT
NOT TOO
NOT'AT ALL
;Envmt'
;.' 22%
.65
•' 13
'• ' Prior.:to the ClJeanun :
Elect ' Ci-v,jc • .Busns Low Ed
. 37%
42
21
0
100%
N =
EXTREMELY
SOMEWHAT
NOT TOO
NOT AT ALL
v N
23
1 *-
1
" I •
;J
i1 : '•••
•in?
160"%
,23
39%
52
10
, 0 .
100%
31
. 18%
'.»|
27j
0[
100?
22 L .-' ,, 47
After the Cleanup
5%
58
37
0
100%
19
16%
.58
19
7
100%
•31
5%
•JSl
1001
22 '[•
26%"
64
10
0
100%
47
10%
46-'
39
5
100%
59
th« tJT« ?!1" *rS' Wh° "" >e "SUme^ C° b? bett" orne
F^tor %r "ge C1^zen'"are somewhat below the average on the -dread
factor, the "extremely probable" response, before the cleanup. .After
the cleanup, they -closely resemble the sample as a whole. Although they
overestimate^ risk pf health problems, they are 'not alarmist In Y'
comparison with the i general .population. I larmisuin
The group whose subjective assessments are most] consistent with expert
opinion is the business community.. One-quarter \ of thes.e private sector
managers, administrators, and owners thought thkt the chances of health
the clenup- Af ter
of !^"P "ntr"JKwi;^ ^e b^iness community iJ the less educated group,
?L«S S :" ~8h 36 ?erCent °f th.'M«pU!o£ less educated people
lowered _ their assessment of the probability .of Health problems with
completion of the. cleanup, these probability assessments of the '
c-°nsf^er_ the cleanup are higher than the probability : assessments
rh Juslness;; "^^^y and the highly educated for the situation
^'JT^'J '^ ^ cleanuP>; 90 Percent of the..less educated
that health-problems would be "extremeljy" or "somewhat"
probable. . ;|: : _ , •..:'.•' ,L .,...., -.- i • • •. .
-------
SECTION VIII: THE HYPOTHETICAL SITE -'HEALTH- RISK'ASSESSMENTS ; ,
After reading the information ab'ou.c the hypothetical Superfund' sire,
respondents immediately recorded their levels of concern and. their,"
assessments of the probabilities that they or/and their families would
suffer health problems as a result of living near the site both before
and after the cleanup. ... -
Table VIII-1
Responses to the Questions, "How probable do-you
think it is that you (your family members') .would,
suffer health-problems as a result of living hear.
this site prior to .the cleanup (after EPA had
completed the proposed cleanup)? >. -
EXTREMELY
SOMEWHAT
NOT TOO
NOT AT ALL
N =
You
Prior
40%
46
14
0
100
174
You
.. After,
14%
55 - •
28
, 4
100 ,
174
Family
Prior
44%'
46
•• 10
0
100
'174
; Family
After
' 16%
; 54 '
' - 26 "
5-
100 ••-•'.
174
Completion of the cleanup has a significant impact .on reducing
assessments that health problems would result from living near the site.
Forty-one percent of the sample reduced their assessments that they
would suffer health problems, and 44'percent reduced their assessments
that their families would suffer. Most of this improvement comes from
people moving from the "extremely probable", response instead of from the
"somewhat probable" response to a-lower probability. ..If the,"extremely
probable" response, is viewed as respresenting a dread factor', completing
the cleanup reduces that factor 'from almost half of the sample to, at
most, one of six persons. While an impressive improvement, these
changes do not connote-consistency between objective and subjective risk
assessments. Scientists would evaluate the probability of health
effects from living near the site after the cleanup, as "not probable at
all," and certainly not higher than "not too probable." Two-thirds of
the sample disagree, placing the probabilities higher. ,,!•''
Table VIII-2 presents results from the six sub-samples of Centre Region
citizens .regarding the individual's assessment of the probability that
he or she would suffer health problems. Because results from the
assessment for the family are similar, we report only the results for
the respondent's own health. ,.-.,'-
-------
•uch.aY3it,e warrants extreme concern!
• i " ' /
. —~ n -—^- :
Table VII-2: Responses of the Groups
i5
?na« ..»*« living aear
to trie Question "
abouc -"-
EXTREMELY
SOMEWHAT
NOT TOO
NOT AT ALL
measurng this concern '
Th6 only demographic [variable that correlates with 1^ i" e •
living near the siteibefore eieamin i. -^ P level of Concern with
level of concern ,and jageL sH : ^[ relationshiP Between
'The initUl analysis ^ .lwil, o,
'there is . broaji consensus 0£ great concerj before' the cleanup;
af Cer
•==.2:
aphic variables Suggests that
-------
SECTION VII: THE HYPOTHETICAL SITE - LEVELS OF CONCHA ••
Twe Hrsc question asked after respondents read about the-hypothetical
Suoerfund site was, "How concerned would you be, about living within one
"H of this site orl£I 'P'the cleknup attempt?"_ Over three-quarters o:
the'sample checked the "extremely concerned" option Not -.
person said that he or she would "not be concerned at all.
Question asked for Che level of concern after the .cleanup ^ been ,
completed. As..Table VII-1 shows, almost hair the sample reported ctiac
they still would be-extremely concerned about living near the site.
Table VII-1- Responses to the Question, "How concerned would you
be about living within one mile of this site prior
to the cleanup attempt (and, after the EPA had
completed the proposed cleanup)?
EXTREMELY CONCERNED
SOMEWHAT CONCERNED
NOT TOO CONCERNED
NOT CONCERNED AT ALL
Prior
78%
19
3
0
100%
174
After
44%
46
9
2
100%
174
More respondents retained the same level of concern than "ported less
concern resulting from the cleanup. However, almost 40 percent of the
respondents did indicate that the cleanup would reduce their level of
concern. The results fall into five categories:
*forty-four percent remained extremely concerned;
*thirteen percent-remained somewhat concerned;
*three percent were not too concerned from the start;
*thirty-four percent initially were extremely concerned but
became less concerned after the cleanup; and
*aix percent were only somewhat concerned before the cleanup
and were even less concerned after its completion.
As noted in the previous section with the analysis of
lf -
°f
-------
Tmost res
least some
ponder ts
interest
*most people have
protect us from
believe that it
control toxic was
little.or no health
*trust .does not
in local"
: the ability to
officials
*statistically
are frequent,
trust.
significant'demographic correlates with opinions
but do not account for most, bf the', variance in
Having outlined a
describing their
Superfund site.
skeptical
levels
believe that industry anf government ^
<"• in, protecting public isealth; '• ' '
some, doubts that, scientists know .enough to'
.the impact of chemicals, 4nd over one-third
vs definitely or .probably |noi: pos.sible'to
istes at a Superfund site trust
als, State and Federal'agencies, science, and ~
manage a Superfund site sa£ely;
community, we turn ill the next section to
of concern with living near a hypothetical
V
' ~
-------
what scientists know.
Table VI-7: Correlations of Trust Measures with Demographic
Variables. (The coefficients are tau's, ah' ordinal
•analog to Pearson's r). ' '
Male Age Rejig. Marital Home Incm Educ
SAFER NOW
TRUST LOCALS
TRUST STATE
TRUST FEDS
.16** ,
.14* .15** .18**
.17** .15**
.14*
.12* .11*
GOVT. CARES .19**
SCIENTISTS KNOW .13* .14*
STATE MORE
HONEST NOW
FEDS MORE
HONEST NOW
INDUSTRY CARES ..13*
POSSIBLE TO
MANAGE SAFELY
.11*
* = significant at .05
** = significant at .01'
..13*
. 18**
.15*
. .12*
.13*
-. 18*
.12*
-.21**
-.16**
.11*
While five of the trust questions exhibit only one statistically
significant correlation with any of'the'demographic variables, trust in
local officials correlates with all except,home ownership. ,
In conclusion, the citizenry appears skeptical with neither trusted
heroes nor clear villans:
*a .large majority believes that the country is less safe
environmentally than it was 30 years ago;
*most people respond that they can trust government officials.
at least somewhat, with cynicism greatest toward local
officials, and support weakest among environmentalists, and
strongest among elected officials themselves;
*few citizens judge State and Federal agencies to be less ./honest
today than they were 30 years ago;
-------
nces are erious 1-
'
prpceccirig , public health .
probl5» U:
-------
~3 chemicals and the possibility • of'cleaning-up. a1 Superfund sire wi'.:h.our
threatening the community's health. Fifty-seven percent of •
environmentalists either Seriously doubt that scientists know enough or-'-.
definitely know that scientists .lack adequate knowledge. Only •
forty-eight percent believe that the,cleanup either definitely, or
probably can be'done without a health threat. Although the
environmentalists are somewhat more 'skeptical and the differences
between them and everyone else are statistically significant at the,-.05
level, these differences should 'not be overemphasized. 'After all, the-
environmentalists are almost evenly divided among themselves on these
questions. .The difference is 'that they are almost evenly divided, while'
two-thirds of the other respondents have a positive reaction Co what is
known and what is possible. . '
The different dimensions ,of trust are clarified when Guttman scaling ',
procedures are applied to the trust variables. The Guttman' scaling
technique (Guttman, 1944) is used to determine whether a series of
attitude questions tap the same underlying dimension. If the items
reflect the same attitudinal dimension they will produce a,scale that is
both unidimensional (assessing the same dimension) and cumulative
(respondents who reply positively to a difficult item willrreply
positively to less difficult items). Actually a variant of factor ',
analysis, Guttman scaling allows an assessment of the number of
dimensions involved in respondent treatment of a concept. As used in
this report, every scale realizes the Guttman criteria of a Coefficient
of Reproducibility of at least 0.90 and a Coefficient of Scalability of
at least 0.60. . , , ,
When Guttman scaling is applied to the trust items discussed in this
section, four separate measures emerge: two scales and two single
variables. One two-variable scale combines trusting local officials to
tell the truth and believing that industry is seriously interested in
r-rrtecting public health, this means that the individuals: who are most
trusting of local officials are also most trusting of industry. They
are not necessarily the same people-are most trusting of State and
Federal agencies. ' ' • . " • • , '
A _second scale includes-six variables: .
*trusting DER to tell the truth; >
*trusting EPA to tell the truth; . • , .
*judging federal agencies to be more honest, now than,
they were 30 years ago;
*judging state agencies to be more, honest now than
they were 30 years ago; ;
* judging the country safer now than 30 years ago from-.-.
the standpoint of environmental pollution; and
-------
Table VI-6: Ress'ponses to two Questions.
.1
Question j;l: In your estimation, do scientists know
•i:.. enough about the impact of chemicals on
j. our health to adequately'-protect us?
YES, THEY (DEFINITELY KNOW ENOUGH '(•
• I HAVE SOME' QOQBT THAT'THEY, KNOW 'ENOUGH
I HAVE SERIOUS 'DOUBTS THAT THEY KNOW ENOUGH
NO, THEY DEFINITELY DO NOT KNOW ENOUGH - '
15%
47
23
15
100%
'•N
MD
'173
' 1
Questioner Do you think it is really [possible to control
a problem like this so that it presents little
or no health threat to the1 community?
•.•••;• • -: £'- • '• ' • <
'YES;, DEFINITELY
PROBABLY, AT. LEAST I THINK SO
PROBABLY NOT
NO,:; DEFINITELY. NOT r •
health This belief does, not flow from great trust in science; elected
officials actually fall below the mean on the question of scientists
knowing enough to protect public health. What may be happening is hat
n'sta fanl Sf'^S-'? ^ "? C°ntrolied <4 -fleet their trus
«rli«%£J ^ Pf?"lals t0 8lve them the truth. We reported
of laell nff' n°f •u5Pr"ln«1y- elected officials! are much' more trusting
officiS.fi! "e °ther Clti2ens- ^ fact,: the elected *
official.-are much more trusting of both State and Federal
administrators than is the general public. No elected official checked
t^st^h^'v^rmuc;11"111 f aU" 3nd °nly ^ 1Q ^ Ch6Cked "7« H
trust them very much. As one respondent stated,["I've had a lot of
, • , . , T ~"^j 7e never givien me any reason not t'n
believe them »hen the^ sav they can do something.!'
Differences among theipther five groupings arsnof great.~ 8of
botrthrKoiuS^c^tiitrLvr'rthrnLitrirftctrSorjjfsures8
• • •" - '•:,./ .-,-:. .' 4'.. :•.--•• - •'"
-------
Table VI-5: -Responses to the Questions, "Do you chink that -..'•
industries which use toxic chemicals (the;goyt.
agencies which are supposed to regulate the, chemical
- , industry) are seriously interested in protecting
public health? .
"YES,: IT IS ONE OF THEIR PRIMARY' CONCERNS . i ' '• .
THEY..HAVE SOME INTEREST IN IT .
'THEY HAVE LITTLE INTEREST IN IT- ••
THEY HAVE NO INTEREST IN IT
OVERALL
ENVIRONMTLT'S.
ELECTED OFFS.
INDSTY
YES •
SOME INT.
LITTLE INT.
NO INTEREST
N =
MD =
6%
57
31
6
100%
173
1
GOVT
.26%
64
9
1
100%
174
. 0 • .
INDSTY
"4%
44
. 44
9
100%
23
0
GOVT ,
13%
74
13
0
100%
23
0 .
. INDSTY
22%
72'
6
0
. 100%
. 19.
0
GOVT '
42%
58
0
0
100%.
19
0
Trust in environmental issues involves an assessment of the capabilities
of scientists and science itself as.well as views about the honesty and
integrity of institutions. A person may believe that officials are
honest and committed to doing the best they can, yet still' have little
confidence because of a belief that basic scientific and technical
knowledge is lacking. Table VI-6 indicates that there is considerable
doubt both that scientists know enough about the impact of chemicals to
adequately protect public health and that it is possible to manage a
Superfund site so that there is little or no health threat to the
community. Only"one in six.respondents checked that scientists
definitely know enough and that it is definitely possible to control the
problem at a Superfund site so that there is little or no health threat.
On the other hand, only one in six checked that scientists; definitely do
not know 'enough and an even smaller number are .equally certain that it
is impo«»ible to control the problem at the waste site. Most
respondents are unsure about what scientists know and about whether it
is possible to adequately address health problems emanating from a
Superfund site. This- ?-...>cs-s that many citizens will greet any
communications involving health and safety assurances, in the context of
toxic waste management, with a good ,bit of skepticism.
-------
1 ... V
"",'."''' I ' ' ' ' " ' • '.*•.,•" . . ,
simply believe that government has never demonstrated'high levels of
integrity. We ..did. ndt :tap '.that 'possibility. .[.'" / ' ' •
' . ' • . . .. .' . ..i- '-''..'....
There.- is some skepticism .toward officials', yet .f;ew respondents say they
cannot trust officials at all and few perceive that agencies have- become
less honest. ' !" " • '. ' . ' t''
Table VI-4.- Responses to the .Question, "Are! Federal govt..
.agericies, such as the EPA, ( State- govt. -'agencies ,
' . such as the Department of Environmental Resources.)
.more or less honest today than.similar government
agencies 30 years ago?' !•
EPA
DER
HUGH MORE
SOMEWHAT
ABOUT ! THE
; SOMEWHAT"
MUCH LESS
-
HONEST
MORE HONEST
SAME
LESS HONEST
HONEST . ..
. N«'
. MD=
5%
30
42
18 -
5 .
100% .
' . ;;
171
3-' "..-
. , 7%
28 ..--.-
' • • -47 , .
15
4
, Too*
;"- ' ' • '.'
t . ,
; .! 170
A
1 • . • ..-. . > •
Similarly, few respondents report that either th« industries that manage
toxic chemicals or government agencies that regulate those chemicals
have no interest at all in'protecting public, health,, On the other hand,
only .one-quarter of respondents report that protecting public health is
the "major concern" of the regulatory agencies. iThese results are
steady among civic activists, the business community', and both those
with graduate degrees; and those without a college? diploma. The
noticeable .differences are among the elected official's, who are quite
impressed with the public health concerns of froth; industry and the
regulatory agencies, i Also different .are the environmentalists "who," not
surprisingly, are generally less trusting. Table; VI-5 presents the
results for the entire'sample, the environmentalists, and the elected
officials. -Although members of local environmental groups are decidedly
less convinced that government regulatory agencies are strongly
committed to protecting public health, none of them in the sample 'argues
that the regulatory agencies have no interest at [all in protecting
public health. Only 13 percent credit the government with "little
interest." On this and .other measures the environmentalists are
somewhat different from other groups., but the differences are not stark..
.4-
•
-------
is composed of elected officials .themselves. The municipal i tie's of the'-
Centre Region have reform-style governments with professional managers.
iitcle patronage, and.no scandals within recent memory:. However, -this
relative Lack of trust in local officials is consistent with .research.. en
other environmental -risks such as low-level radioactive waste (3ord
1985). '-''.." ;
Table VI-3 breaks .down the trust-for-local-officials for different
segments of the community. Not surprisingly, local' officials are cruise
Crusting of themselves-. Still, the overall sample divides evenly '
between the "can trust" and "cannot trust" sides. Only "'among members of
local environment a 1^ groups and among the less-we^l-educated.respondents
do distrusters substantially outnumber respondents who trust local
officials somewhat or a lot. Of course, the relatively small size of
each group indicates caution in interpreting these results'. The
results, however, are consistent with research on p_ther environmental
hazards (Bord, 1987). .
Table VI-3: Responses to the Question, "In your estimation, how
much can you trust local officials to give you-the
truth in situations like this? ' ,
ENVNT ELECT CIVIC BUSNS LOW ED GRADS
NOT AT ALL
NOT VERY MUCH
SOMEWHAT
A LOT
N=
MD=
22%
39
39
0
100%
23
0
0%
5
' 47
47,
100%
19
0
19%
16
42
23
100%
31 "
0
14%
14
50
23
100%
22
0
15% ,
41
39
4
100%
46
-' ' l
10% :
31
48
12
100%
59
0
In, the interviews several .respondents explained their reasons for their
relative low rating of local officials. .They said that local officials'
would be reluctant 'to provide the full truth because of,, two concerns:
that citizens might respond with unreasonable demands and that- the
reputation of the community as a safe, good place to live might be
harmed. State or Federal officials might be less sensitive to
protecting the reputation of the community, and therefore, more
forthcoming with honest information. •-.
Another way to examine honesty is to put it in the context of whether
institutions are more honest 'today than they were in the past. Table
VI-4 illustrates that most respondents believe that State and Federal
agencies with responsibilities in the environmental arena are at least
as honest today as they were 30 years ago. The fact that in 1988 the
executive branches of government were headed by a Republican in
Washington and a Democrat in Harrisburg seems to indicate that ,£he
perceptions of honesty are not tied to affection for either political
party. On the other hand, perhaps Americans are generally cyncical and
-------
conditions safer tha'n" chose' of the lat-e' 195.0 ' s /
Table VI-T: Responses to the Question, "Fribm.the standpoint .or *
environmental pollution, is the-AJnited: States today
'more or less safe. .than
•„ (N ;= 173; MD = 1)* ".
'. .. '' ' [MUCH SAFER ''•
. '
*MD=Missing
ISOMEWHAT SAFER
"!ABOUT .THE SAME
^SOMEWHAT LESS SAFE
•MUCH .LESS SAFE
1 . . . .
Data •'.'•'
it .was !
1 ' ..
'6%
. 20
- -wi.*.d.i.ww. wu o..u co u Jvl a. v
30 years ago?
,
8 • '<• •' ; •' '' ' "
.' 32' r. ' ' • ;' ;. '
35
. 100% i •-. •
\ • ' •• -'
More directly related to questions of risk communications are/ questions '
that ask if officials "can be trusted ,to tell the! truth'in situations"
involving to*ic waste problems. Table VI-2 reports,that, although few
citizens are totallyi.trusting of government of fiicils,' mosf respondents '
find officials at. least somewhat trustworthy. '•'• ' ' ' '
Table VI-2: Responses to the Questions, "iJ your estimation, how
much can you .trust local, officials, State officials
(such as the Department of Envi|ronmental Resources)",
Fed«?ral officials (such as the Environmental
• Protection Agency) to give you the truth in situations
'•' like this? ' , i ' ' : ; '
YOU CANNOT TRUST THEM AT ALL
YOU CANNOT TRUST 1HEM VERY MUCH
YOU CAN TRUST; THEM .SOMEWHAT
YOU CAN TRUST THEM A ,LOT
Local State Federal
11%
33
-•48
8
lOOX
MD
k ;,, - /.
E "-. 8%'
28
. '56
' 7
; 100%
: N-I72 .
: ;'MD» 2
•11%
,28
51
11
. 1.0.0%
/ ' N-I72
MD= 2
.Although these figures'are not a resounding expression of confidence
that public officials; can be trusted to provide t!he truth in a Superfund
situation, neither do', they report a view of publiic officials as entirely
dissembling. For each level of government, more [respondents are on the
can trust side than; on the "cannot trust" side.j Although the people
may be skeptical, of official pronouncements, few. ifind public officials
totally untrustworthy!. , " [
Perhaps surprising in these data,is the lack of gireater! trust for local
officials, especially! in light of the fact that ill percent of the sample
' ' • ' ' ''" '
-------
- . SECTION 71: -TRUST ' . '. -
In Che attitude changg Literature, communicator credibility has been '
equated wich expertise' and trustworthiness (Aronson, 'e't.'ai., 1963.;
McGuire, 1969,;). Of these dimensions trustworthiness must certainlv ;
rank as the most crucial. All of the other-factors ;depend on
trustworthiness for their effectiveness.. Expertise cannot be credible
without a belief_ in the knowledge base of the expert and faith that ;the
expert is acting with integrity. Attractiveness can actually be a
detriment-to effective communication if the audience 'thinks.that the
communicator is .us.ing his or her attractiveness in a dishonest or
manipulative manner. If communicators are distrusted, nothing they can
say will bring ab'oiit greater consistency between objective and -
subjective risks. ^Besides involving assessments' of the honesty .and
integrity of insitutions, an individual's trust calculus may include
judgments of the ability of scientists and engineers to control problems
such as the one presented in", this study.. Before assessing levels of
concern arid 'the relative accuracy of'risk assessment it is essential to
describe the environment of trust in which the communications took place.
The focus is on a multidimensional view of trust, including hoy citize'ns
evaluate whether scientists know enough to protect us from harmful ,
chemicals. Within this broad context of trust several dimensions are
explored: _ , . •
*the perceived honesty of federal, state, and local government;
*the degree to which industries' that use toxic wastes, and the,
governments that regulate those industries, are seriously
interested "in protecting public health; and
*the ability of scientists and others involved in toxic waste
managment to adequately protect public "health. • " '
First, before the trust findings, we report the responses to a question
that 'asks if the United States is safer today than it was 30 years ago
regarding environmental 'pollution. These data are presented here in
part to provide a context for interpreting the trust question responses.
As noted in Table VI-1, two-thirds of the sample believe that the
country is less safe today than it was 30 years ago. Despite the rise
of the environmental movement, the formation of the U.S.;Environmental
Protection Agency, the passage of landmark Federal acts, and a
substantial increase in efforts to control environmental pollution by
state and local governments, few respondents judge the situation as
safer in terms of environmental 'pollution. This finding is consistent
with other research and speculation and suggests that risk
communications are likely to occur in a context of widespread
apprehension.
Majorities of the environmentalists, civic activists, business leaders,
and the general sample judge the United States to be environmentally
less safe now than 30 years ago. Elected officials are unique in,
holding a majority (58 perceiit) who find existing environmental
V
-------
In general,
emale., ' the more
childC8n
These items -are also
Summary of Section V '
The following is a
*the levels of
*while levels
'-.--!!;
*.
in subsequent
' •: I '.
4 .
summary of the more importsJt -..results :
I concern/ measured by any•standard, are high;
c.nctr.aod birth defects trigger the moit"iV..ri
'
20 percent report actual
ebout
toxic
fn this lssue;
-------
the results of a.general question about level of.'information. -While a
majority of these respondents view themselves as' somewhat' or well
informed it is clear that the vast majority view themselves as •
marginally informed on this issue. .
More specific assessments of knowledge tapped respondents' knowledge
about benzene and trichloroethylene, the two chemicals' included in the
hypothetical site description. Table V-7 presents the results of the
.analysis. Th'ese results are not surprising. -Benzene is a somewhat" •
common chemical and enjoys wide name recognition. Besides the above,
respondents were asked open-ended questions, about the .source or use of
these two chemicals and the specific health threat they posed.
Approximately 15 percent of the sample accurately identified the
source(s) of benzene while less than 10 percent so identified the
source(s) of trichldroethylene. Similarly, while 22 percent labeled
benzene as a carcinogen only 12 percent so labeled trichloroethylene.
The correlates of information accuracy are predictable: the more highly
educated, males, and somewhat older people know more about these
chemicals. These items are later used in a knowledge scale and related
to various dependent variables. '
When asked the source of their knowledge 16 percent say they have not
read or heard much about his subject. The remaining 84 percent get
their information from, respectively:, television, newspapers, magazines,
and radio. Television news programs and documentaries such as 60
Minutes or 20/20 are disproportionately picked as 'sources as are~
Newsweek and Time Magazines and local newspapers. Prestige and
educational sources of information, such as the New York Times, Harpers,
professional journals, and .educational television, are severely
underchosen.
To assess respondents' levels of involvement in the toxic waste issue
they were asked how aware they were of toxic waste problems,in their
immediate area, the state, the nation, and in media coverage. They were
also asked specifics about•awareness and their level of actual
involvement.. The following, summarizes the results of those questions:
*approximately 50 percent of the sample reports awareness of
local, state, and national toxic waste problems and can provide
specific .examples.;
*bnly 20 percent contend that they are personally involved in
this issue locally;
*involvement tends to mean attending meetings, writing letters
to .officials, being members or officials of concerned
organizations, or consultants; and,
• *Love Canal tends to be the example most often recalled. x
-------
••-. . •-• •• ,- • •. .. • ,-, . ,,, - .-•.-. •.,,
rrom waste sites may .us.eem .anomalous at first; glance. With further ' '
reflection,.there is !'no inconsistency here because one's level of '
concern may represent: a-summary judgment involving the . likelihood of
problems emanating from, chemicals in general. The second measure, cases
per 100 resulting from waste sites Specifically,]asks for a judgment of-
comparative causes. 'The better educated are not[more concerned than the
less well educated, but the former are much less|likely to. attribute -
health problems ..to wa;ste sites specifically.
Prior Knowledge and Lssue Involvement -:
Prior knowledge was measured in a number of 'ways - Table V-6 presents'
table V-6: Self ..Estimates of How Well Inf oraed--Resporidents are
on tHe Toxic Waste Issue (in percentages): N=174.
Question: When it comes to the issue of toxic chemicals
do you consider yourself: '•
WELL INFORMED.......' 03% ,-"''''
SOMEWHAT INFORMED-. .. . 30%
NOT VERY INFORMED. 43%
NOT INFORMED AT ALL .04%
I '.'-", 100%
• ' •!•' ' " ;" -.• ''
" ~~: ":• : ," -'. • : ~ ' •• ,
I1 " ' • • • •' . • ' . . • 1
••'):.'.'•''. ,- : • . t . " ' ~ ,
Table V-7: Levels of Specific Knowledge. [
.. , • • -JL .-".'.' . .. ;. •! :':•.:.-.• •'
Question: Have you heard of the chemical 'benzene?
YES [I'.' 75% • V' ' '"'•:
NO ji ..25%' / "•,' . ! "
Question: Is benzene a.health hazard?
i:' ' , '' • - .
YES.... !i". .....54%
• NO |i.......-,46%
Question: Have; you heard of-the chemical Crichloroethylene•or
. - : TOE?}; - ' ' • , -• ;.- -['.
. • YES....CV. ....53% '" . t '
NO..-...J... .47%;. ' '.-' '[••• •'..
Question: Is trichlproethylene a health haizard?.
' ' ii- .'•'.. ' •• ••'•-.
YES ii 39% '
'NO..'.....I",: 61% "-' ' "
-------
instructive. This pattern of results indicates' that, for a many' people.
man-made toxins are 'a major evil in mo.dern society. This supports the
notion of a culture of fear and the idea that fear of man-.made toxins
is, at least for a portion of this sample, a'well-formed attitude/ •
While we know of no study that attempts to estimate the 'number of
cancers, or other health problems, caused by toxic waste sites, there
are two reasons.to believe .that these respondents are -overestimating trie
implication of toxic chemicals from waste sites in.the.etiology of
cancers and other-health problems: it is highly unlikely that toxic
chemicals are causal factors in most or all cancers; and, man-made
toxins cause fewer cancers than natural toxins found in peanuts and
other common foods (Travis, et.al., .1987). '
In attempting to determine who,is more concerned, two demographic
characteristics demonstrate somewhat consistent patterns of correlation:
gender and education. In general, women'are somewhat more concerned
than men and overestimate more than men the number of diseases caused by
chemicals in the environment. However, the most instructive
correlations are those of education with the level of concern and with
estimates of various diseases caused by man-made chemicals in the
environment. Table V-5 presents these correlations. • • '
Table V-5: Pearson Correlations Between Levels of Education
and Concern and Incidents of Various Health Problems
Health Problems
ADULT CANCERS
CHILDHOOD CANCERS
LIVER, KIDNEY, BLADDER
T.UNG
BIRTH DEFECTS
MISCARRIAGES
LEUKEMIA
SKIN PROBLEMS
CHILDHOOD DISEASES
*P-.02
Level of Concern
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
New Cases Per 100
r
r
***P-.001
N.S.- NOT'SIGNIFICANT
.'is*.
. 19**
r =
r =
r =
r =
r =
r ='
r =
r =
r • =
-. 32***
-.32***
-.26***
-.20**
-. 26***
- . 24***
-.20**
-.31***
-.28***
The above table dramatically illustrates that accuracy of the
respondents' risk estimates is strongly affected by levels of education
while the concern.levels are less affected. For every health problem,
levels of education decrease the risk estimates for each of the problems
that we examined. .
The finding that the better educated are somewhat more likely,to express
a high level of concern with skin problems and childhood diseases and
much less likely to overestimate the proportion of .new cases arising
-------
sites." At least one]; in three, .respondents believye .that- 1,1 percent br' •
more of these diseases 'are caused by toxic chemicals from waste sites.
In addition to the above respondents were also asjke'd the following
1 open-ended .ques t ion: <•; •' . ' ' •• ' f ' •" •'••'''."•. •• „
Are there any health problem we haven't mentioned that 'you : '
think may be strbngly related-to', toxic chemicals in the, '. -. " '.
; "environment'?- • '»• .' . - • •• ''. ., ' -^ __ . ;••-, •_ , .^
. Nine pe.rcent of. the respondents indicated various neurological problems -
while 8 percent namedji"mental health problems." [In addition,. 2'percent
mentioned Parkinsons Disease. .There appears to b|e,a significant portion
of • the population who]:holds toxic chemicals, accountable for some of our. .
. mo~st dreaded neurological" problems. .. ' '' .. ! .--.""' ' ' • /•
' - . - . I , ' • • - 4 . • •• .;.' ' .'•: - • ,
' j \ ..... , . . • ,ifc. ,ri, . j , ' - .
The scope and'depth of people's beliefs, about the! implication of
man-made toxins in some of modern-^society' s most [dreaded health problems
bode ill for those attempting to construct objective risk communication.
> What data, and what sort of message construction !or delivery, could
"'• allay the fears of those who believe that 50 percjent :or more of adult:
cancers ar,e caused byj'toxic chemicals from waste [sites? Furthermore, it
is reasonable to assume, that those who^hold thesej. beliefs /are' the 'ones
who'would be most vociferous in protesting an agehcy's handling of a
toxic waste problems, j: This possibility will be explored in later
chapters. ' ', . .!' , " . '' '
Finally, a question was designed to determine to what degree people felt
that the,ir own health:!had been affected by. exposure £o toxic chemicals.
Table V-4 presents the percentage distribution'for that question..
Table V-4: Estimates of.Having Suffered'Health'Problems
(iii percentages): N=l74.
Question': Do you think that you have suffered health; problems .
.due!to exposure to hazardous chbmicals in the water,
soil,- or air?/ . , - ,[-.-:, • -
YES, DEFINITELY. i. .6% ' '
I SUSPECT i HAVE. .'. .. ...121 ' : .' ,
I DOUBT .THAT I HAVE.... ...161
NO, I DEFINITELY HAVE NOT.............[±2 '
.• ' - .1:.-':'. : • •••.•. ••••••=.••'' 1-:'1 'lOQ '
The results of this table parallel the results no^ed in Table V-3.
More than one in four^respondents feels that he or she has suffered
health problems as a result of toxic chemicals.
•• - -i, • • ..-.".••' -••-..! • --• ^ ::' * ,
The extent to which a|significant portion of- this|sample is willing to
attribute cause for.numerous health problems to man-made toxins is-
-------
experience health problems as a result of 'exposure to toxic che-icais.
What this measure does not tell us is' how probable they think that ; ;
health risk is. Table V-3 presents the results of a question de-slgned
to assess public beliefs about how many new cases of a specific- class of
health problems are a result of exposure 'to toxic chemicals. .Ln' other
words, this question attempts to determine the extent to which people
view toxic chemicals as a primary cause of certain classes:of health- .
problems. While there may not be good scientific answers to these : ••
questions, which makes it difficult to use-"these answers as benchmarks -.
of the accuracy of .public judgments, they can serve as a sort of
Rorschach test of public fears. In other words, when people interpret
somewhat ambiguous stimuli their predispositions and decision biases
become apparent. ' , . ;
Table V-3: Estimates of.How Many New Cases Per 100 of'Nine
Different Health Problems are Caused by^Toxic
Chemicals from Waste Sites (in -percentages): N=174-.*
ADULT CANCERS
CHILDHOOD
CANCERS
LIVER, KIDNEY,
BLADDER PROS.
LUNG PROBLEMS
(Not Cancer)
BIRTH DEFECTS
MISCARRIAGES:
LEUKEMIA
SKIN PROBLEMS
OTHER SERIOUS
CHILDHOOD
DISEASES
Zero
Cases
. 1%
1
3
One ..
Case
11%
' 12
10
2-5
Cases
29%
28
35
6-10
Cases
19%\
17
14
11-25
Cases
•" 16%
18
17 '-.
26-49
Cases
10%
8
8 :
-50+.
Cases
9%
• 11
1 •• 7 •
8
3
5
6 .'.
5.
14,
12
14
14
14
22
28
27
33
, -20
18
'.17 . •
18
.1.0
.ir ._.
15
• 18
14
12
19 '
6
10
9.
- 12
10
9
6
.7
6
31
-.17'
14
*The percentage remaining in .each case reflects the fact that
a few respondents chose not to answer these questions.
The results in Table V-3 dramatically illustrate the beliefs underlying
many people's fears of toxic chemicals. .Almost one in five respondents
believe that 26 percent or more .of adult cancers, childhood cancers,
leukemia, and skin problems are caused by "toxic chemicals from waste
-------
to each of those health oro'blems.. •
Table ,V-2: Level of Concern for Specific Problems (in • .'
percentages):-N=l74. ' • I '
N ' ' ' ! .--" '.'..'
Question: Here! is a list of health'probleras that may be connected
-.with; exposure to chemicals. Wodld you indicate how
concerned you ar,e that you, or someone close,, to you,
• ' : may suffer this problem because of exposure to
chemicals in the air, soil, or Water. :
• • . •••--_ |-
;, 1 = Grea.tly Concerned .
;; 2 = Somewhat Concerned
. ,, 3 = Not Too .Concerned
4 = Not Concerned At All
- 5 = No Response
• i ;'"'•'. t ' '
ADULT CANCERS ':: .
CHILDHOOD CANCERS
LIVER, KIDNEY; & BLADDER PROBLEMS
LUNG PROBLEMS (Not Cancer)
BIRTH DEFECTS' ; ' .
MISCARRIAGES .'. . . '.,•'.'
LEUKEMIA . /
SKIN PROBLEMS - ;. / ,. ;-
.... - ^ •,
OTHER SERIOUS , 'CHILDHOOD DISEASES
(!) .(
57% 2
57 2
40 3
44 3
61 2
50 2
49 3
39 3
48 2
2) .(3).
-•--
'/ , • •
8% 8% .
, '
4 . ' . 10
8 16
4 15
0 10
> ;
7;, 13
2 , 9
; v ,
'4 "(: 22
••-.'•
, '
8 ... 14
' •
, (4)
/ 7%
. 8
5.
.. i.
, 6
8
; 9
,'s
5
8
(5)
i
. P%
1
1
• ' ;1
1
I- ,
. 2",
0
2
Cancers *nd birth defects predictably generate the highest levels of
'concern. What is noteworthy about Table V-2, .however,- is the small
variation in concern expressed across all classes,!.of health problems.
Seventy-three percent of the sample expresses somie level of conern even
for skin problems, which presumably are not life threatening. These
results reinforce the .assumption that fear of man-made toxins may
exhibit characteristics of well-formed attitudes and beliefs. Only 7 to
10 percent of this sample consistently expresses jlit.tle or no concern
that chemicals may cause health problems for: the respondent or someone
close to them, :
Levels of concern i
most of these
illustrate one dimension of people's fears, that .is,
respondents believe .that they or someone close to them may
-------
SECTION V: PRIOR ATTITUDES, ISSUE INVOLVEMENT.. AND INFORMATION"
Douglas and Wildav'sky (1982) argue that- something" akin to a
fear has developed in Che Uni-ted States with respect to many man-made
technological and environmental.risks. If that argument is valid then a
large proportion of the population carries a predisposition' to react
strongly and negatively to the imposition of'certain man-made risks.
While it is true that not all communities react the same way to
analagous risks, it raa'y be that fear responses have taken1 on che
characteristics of -well-formed attitudes. Well-formed attitudes are
easily triggered, usually simply structured, and invoke considerable
levels of behavioral commitment. They are extremely difficult to change
with ordinary information-education campaigns (for a discussion of this
issue as it pertains.to AIDS education, see Booth, 1988). Well-formed
attitudes act as conceptual filters for incoming information and, to
some extent, determine how that information is processed. This chapter
examines the attitude-belief structure "concerning toxic chemicals that.
people bring with them to" a chemical waste situation. It -explores the
conceptual filter that exists prior to exposure to the hypothetical
waste site, the respondent's level of both general and specific
knowledge about toxic chemicals, and the source of their information
about this issue.
t , •
General and Specific Levels'of Concern ~
(See Appendix B for a Complete. Copy of the Questionniare)
Two questions attempted to tap respondents' depth of concern about the
toxic chemical issue. A"general question was asked first and then a
more specific question assessing level of concern by nine specific
classes of health problems: adult cancers,; childhood cancers; liver,
kidney, and bladder problems; lung problems (not cancer); birth defects;
miscarriages; leukemia; skin problems; and, "other serious childhood
diseases." Table V-l presents the results of the general question.
Table V-l: Level of Concern (in percentages): N=174.
' VERY CONCERNED V. 54% '
SOMEWHAT CONCERNED. ..'...43
NOT TOO CONCERNED 3
NOT CONCERNED AT ALL ..0
100%
A majority of these respondents report the highest level of concern and
97% express being somewhat or very concerned. The fact that virtually
the entire sample expresses some level of concern gives credence to
Douglas and Wildawsky's culture .of fear thesis. However, a general
expression of concern can mean many things. In an effort to ferret out
some specifics respondents were asked their levels of concern for nine
specific classes of health problems. Table V-2 presents their* responses
-------
general examination .cI-
hazardous waste cleanup
highly involved in any
risk assessment issues inlthe context of a
, among a sample of people; not unlike thos-e found
important community"'issuej
'"'-•'.'..'.• 1 . • ..' '
• - • '. ' • i' • ' ' ..':: •'.... " •
-------
As noted in the first paragraph of this section.,. the sample is not
designed to be representative of any particular population. There is,
for instance, a strong overrepresentation of citizens who are active in
community affairs; after all, elected officials comprise 11 percent of
Che sample but under one-tenth of one percent of the population of the
Centre Region. The purpose of the research was. not to explore the
attitudes of a representative population but to .examine the,-consistency
• between objective and subjective risk estimates among different types of
people. The sample provides the means to -achieve that objective.
Conducting the Interviews :' , - ..'
Each interview was conducted in one of four ways:
*orally and individually.;
*in writing in a group setting with a principal investigator • ••
present; ' . :
*in writing and individually; or, ,
*by mail. • •
When working individually with a respondent, we asked for the
individual's preference between doing the survey in interview form or in
writing. Most chose to write the responses, although a majority of the
elected officials preferred the interview format. In the group
sessions, we asked the respondents to fill out the questionnaires/in
writing before discussing reactions as a group. .'In some cases,
particularly with elected officials and members of environmental groups,
they mailed completed questionnaires to us. Of the individuals who
requested questionnaires at environmental group meetings, only two
failed to return them. A substantial majority of the questionnaires
were filled out in group settings with one of the pfinicpal
investigators present, approximately 15 percent were filled.out
individually and mailed to us,. approximately 10 percent were done in an
individual interview session, and several were sent through the mail and
returned to us.
Concern Chat the data collection format might influence the results
proved unfounded. Testing for significance by analyzing all the crucial
data by the type of data collection fo'rmat failed to show any
significant relationships. However, the small numbers in some of the
formats suggest caution in assuming no differences.
Summary . . . ' ' ,
The data are 174 completed interviews/questionnaires with residents of
the-Centre Region who were asked to react to a hypothetical, hazardous
waste site. Inferences made from the sample should be generalised to
other populations with great caution. The sample overrepresents
community elites. Instead, the data are intended to permit a more
-------
among ,ne four groupings . Although i'c wpu Id have been ' poss ibL/
compare group dir ter^nc-es. with multiple-member individuals* elud
tnere_is no tneoretically. sound. reason to do ,6.j. :in. al? communi-ies' •
certain. individuals perform multiple roles and nU cros.-cu^?^ ' '
identifications. Three of „ the groupings, public officials * •' • ''
environmentalists, and civic activists, ; have in common a willingness to
Participate in voluntary, public activities in the community. !he
fourth, group-, member a "of the business .community, I .have interests and "
resources that commonly lead to' public involvement.
. " ! ' '. • •'(.'•"" ' ••'•'.,"
Identifying the Interviewees .. .
1 H' • >, •' • ' '.','•*:
Interviewees were initially identified through slveralJmeans :
*elected officials .received, phone 'calls -from the senior
researcher on. the project, Bob O'Connor; -J
' *1"ders-of: local '.environmental groups were I contacted 'and '
asked if the. principal investigators could '{.address, a meeting to
ask for cooperation; >' ' &
• :. . . ii • : •..-.• •• • : .-...;, --|r , ••...••-,-.• ;.. '. ;.
*instTuctors of .Continuing Education courses' whose students .
are generally older, long-term residents, were asked to .:
devote one class period to the survey in re|turn for a
discussion of social science and hazardous [waste by the ;
, . . principal1, investigators; .-.".•'' [ - '
' ' '" ' ' ' ' '
. .
°J'univef-8i^ secretaries were asked to attend a lunch-hour
session to compl-ete the questionnaire and discuss the topic in
*leade;rs of church, groups were asked if the principal
investigators could attend, meetings either to seek volunteers
•or to conduct -the survey and a discussion session.
These methods produced: over 100 interviews^ AfteJ reviewing the
demographics of those -interviewed, a research assistant went - •
nei^borh1^361^'^ nei8hborhoods -to -conduct [additional interviews
neighborhoods chosen were those whose resident's were
am°"8,the interviews previously [completed. We were
of interview, with ,
Of the elected officials called, the' only one not "[interviewed was a
supervisor who asked to respond by mail and who neVer returned the
n0t ln the State! at.the time -of the
- ' '
nlnd«H , interVleWS " the Sprin8 and Sunffler °£,. 1-988, we
concluded th.t. adequate numbers of interviews in, all key groupies had
been collected to permit the comparative analysis called for in^he
research design. |. ' •• ,
-------
Table IV-2: SAMPLE DEMOGRAPHICS
EDUCATION :
HIGH 'SCHOOL
TECHNICAL- SCHOOL
SOME COLLEGE
"COLLEGE GRADUATE .
SOME GRADUATE WORK
GRADUATE DEGREE
FAMILY INCOME
UNDER $10,000
$10 - 20,000
20 - 30,00'0
30 - 40,000
40 - 50,000
50 - 60,000
60 f . •''..';
HOME OWNERSHIP
OWN HOME
RENT •• ' '
OCCUPATION
STUDENT •
PROFESSIONAL
BUSINESS
NOT IN LABOR .FORCE
SKILLED - TECHNICAL '
''LABORER .
"
ATTEND . RELIGIOUS SERVICES,
NOT AT .ALL
SEVERAL TIMES YEARLY
MONTHLY
WEEKLY
MORE FREQUENTLY
*MD - Missing Data
(In Percentages)* .' : '
6% '• ' ' '.
5 ' • • '
26 . ' -.• ' .' "
''17' '. - • . "
13 > • • "
34 • , '.-''.
100% ' N .= 174 • ' - . '-•
' ' •
',.-., ..- .
10Z-- •'...' • -
' •- 15-: . '.
•-15
.. 24 .."•••
' 11
•'. 9 ' •••.- . -,' , • . '.
16 . .
- 100% N = 160; MD - 14
55%
45 . . . • •' .••.-.'
100% .
. • ..' , ,. N = 174 . ;
'" •
. 19% (Undergrad and grad)
14 (e.g., professor , .lawyer)
14 (e.g., 'manager , sales)
18 (e.g., retired, homemaker)
17 (e.g., nurse, technician)
20 (e.g., clerical, factory)
.. 100% N = 154; MD = 20 '
j ' • ~ -
- . - ' --
26%- ,
22 '
20 •
25 , .-•-'.; • ..
7 •
100% N - 171; MD =» 3
"'.'-' "
These four categories are not mutually exclusive... In practice, no
individual falls into ,all four categories, although a .couple fit. into
three categories and several fit the criteria of two categories. For
example, one person runs a property management firm, is active^n
several civic organizations, and is a borough councilman. These
cross-cutting memberships reduce differences in attitudes and opinions
-------
parameters is obvious:
In. selecting our. sample, we- deliberately chose
residents
accounted, for observed variance .in consistency .between object vand
subjective risk assessments. The characteristics that di ferentiate our
sample from the general population rarely account for significant
differences. Table IV-2 demonstrates that the .ample achieves •
substantial variation. on all of the demographicjcharacteristics: '
In selecting the sample, particular attention w^ given to including
civic activists, elected officials, environmental! ft., and the business
community. The sample has 31 civic activists, 19 elect* officials 23
environmentalists, and. 22 members of the .busis, community
thLionc *T h*aVily inV°1Ved " volary organizations such
the Lions Club. The intention was to select -active organization
members, not simply nominal joiners., To be identified as a civic
a!CKV:LSt^a resP°ndent eich" is an officer in an organization or a
member of two organist ion with regular attendance at meetings.
are menibers of th« boroughj council °f State
<:5mmissione" ' the- aup.rvi.ot. in the townships in
C3X collect°« ^ those townships with
The CTt7 C0nmissi°"" -d the tax collector
cpunc1-1 Ambers and supervisors serve for a
the nrr
job. «.
The eavironmentali.ts;! are 'identified neither by (heir holding any
th .an actlve identif icatijon with environmental
the community . |
'
ch«i
chemists, small
as individuals
private sector in a managerial,'professional, or
In this .study they include, for example,
owners, purchasing agenejs, and the owner'of a
-------
significant social upheaval.. Even during ,our interviews "with
members of environmental groups no one mentioned the local
Superfund site or evidenced any major concern with the other local
problems.
Third, areas of the county outside the Centre Region range,, from
Amish settlements to mining towns. In the northwestern, section of
the county-, approximately one hour away, from the Centre Region,
concern -over toxic wastes allegedly dumped in abandoned strip
mines received wide publicity during the period of interviewing for
this study. Efforts to locate a solid waste facility in that area •
also generated heated'debate. Interpretation of our .data from
areas outside the Centre Region would have been overly complicated
by ongoing hazardous waste controversies in some communities. Bv
restricting our focus to the Centre Region, we were better able
to guarantee that, the hypothetical case was the central stimulus.
for.the respondent. While this-enhances the study design, it
limits the extent to which these results would be relevant in an
area characterized by high levels of concern and controversy about
hazardous waste.
Table IV-1: Sample and Population Demographics (in percentages)
N
174
AGE
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
GENDER
MALE
FEMALE
MARITAL STATUS
SINGLE
• MARRIED
46%
54
100%
41%
59
POPULATION*
56%
15
10 ' *
7
6
6 :
100%
52%
48
100%
66%
34
100%
100%
*Source: State College Area School District
1985 Census
The Sample '
Table IV-1 illustrates some .of the differences between sample and
population characteristics. The impact of students on the--population
-------
SECTION:
IV': SAMPLING AND SURVEY IMPLEMENT -T^O
desire to *ake the sapple »ore ,r ble
" i
n
"«Plin techniques were used
K
had 6
the sample
In this section we'describe the location, the sample, how the
interviewees were identified, and how the interviews were Conducted.
The Centre Region •'. : • ' .
The "Centre Region" of'Centre County/is the official name of an area in
the center of Pennsylvania. -In 1980, the Bureau [of the Census
designated Centre County as the State College Metropolitan Statistical
Area. The nucleus of,this new MSA is the Centre Region which is
composed of the Borough of. State College and the Townships "f Allege
f ?u0n;,Ja™«S' a"d Patton' Thes« municipalities in 1980'
of the 112,000 residents in the county!. We chose to limit
to the Centre Region for three reasons:
First, the Centre Region provides a substantial diversity of
people The area includes .the main 'campus 6JTthe Pennsylvania
State Unxversity, severaL advanced technology industries,
•traditional manufacturing industries in the glass and cuy sector
3 growing ssrvic(j ssctor oarti'cnTaT"ivT«v»^^ki« -.— j • • '*
f ' f*** w^wt^^a^ I.JT j.u llOtfiLS aHQ ITSCrfiStLOn 3TlH
some farmers. Ttrere is diversity in demographics, but also an'
essential homoegeneity of exposure to situations regarding
hazardous waste in the .community. Differences in attitudes are
ikely,to arise from factors>asured by'the questionnaire not
from experiences related to drastically different community, events.
Re?ion,does h^« ^ hazardus waste site on the
List (Centre County Kepotie), but that site
generated little publicity in recent yea rs. However, there
h«« been some recent, .mild, concern generated by rumors of
-lfu^f Wat6r in a nearby Village and a Sfish kill caused by a
rbfckdronTg SeWaSe.treatment ^cility. Whiile the8e events form
a backdrop for community concern, there has been no significant
is iiobS f«y.m any of these cases. In othe|r, words, Centre Region
hLpf K'31m ar/° "f^.0"1" areas in the United States which
have some historyof toxic pollutants, some citizen' concern," but no
-------
at these factors both individually (the bivariate measures in section
XI ^ and in raiiltivariate analysis (Section .XII). Before turning to-a
description of the results, a brief explanation of the 'sample an'd the
data collection methods is necessary. -. ' ;
-------
category, behavioral intentions, may serve as an indication of -he
intensity of concerns;; ..Overreacfeipns to the situation su-h-as" aa
Cne area or'.buying bottled water, may indica.te . a failure to" achieve
consistency between objective and subjective assessments of the
31tuation. . :, . . ... - . ' .' .. ' •
The Independent Variables '-
Variations in, consistency between'objective and subjective risk*
assessments, and other dependent variables/ may bk a function of
variation in four sets-of independent variables: I . '
*.risk .uncertainty communications and management options 'the
quasi-experimental design of this study described above;'
*attitudes citizens bring- to a hazardous waste situation prior
to any EPA invoylement; / '--.' : |' '_ _. , ;; '
: • *trust in government, science, and industry; [and ' ' .••
^demographic factors such as education, age, (gender, religiosity'
and marital status,, that predispose citizens! to form attitudes
..consistent or inconsistent with expert opinijon.'
The, first set of independent variables are the risk uncertainty
communications and management options available to1 the Agency. Other
farmr.- i™,,- „.. Account for significant variation in achieving
•1.'.. ''••'' , ',;' ."•', - /•' -..-- v|;•'-..'• '>;-:'v'~- * '•• '••. '.
Attitudes/citizens havg prior to learning about tht hypothetical
Superfund situation may influence whether they develop risk assessments
!hnS^^n^W:Lt:hueX?ert:;:0pinioa' Before respondent.b read the material
about the hypothetical lease they answered question^ that explored their
levels of concern with!toxic waste sites, beliefs Lhat they personally
may have health problems due to exposure to hazardbus chemicals
estimates o| health problems: emanating from.: toxic ^aste sites, and their
knowledge about toxic chemicals. • : '
Regardless of how EPA communicates at a site or manages a cleanup
hve^^HClt!:uen8 reachifonsistency with expert opinion may'be influenced
by whether they trust the government, science, and industry. We
therefor* examine the levels of trust in government (local; state and
national), industry, and science - both whether scientists know enough
to protect us and whether it is possible to control a problem like the
one presented in this study. j .
Finally, demographic factors may stand as surrogates for life
experiences that predispose people toward consistency or inconsistency
with expert opinion. We examine whether difference's, ur gender, age
income, education, marital status, and religiosity help in" Any way to-
explain variations in the dependent variables. . * . '.
In-accounting for variations in consistency with exlpert opinion, we -look
-------
*the granting of a technical' assistance grant to'the Local
citizens group; . . -'.'-.
•*Che issuance of the remedial investigation and feasibility.
study; . '
*a public hearing organized by EPA; ,and . — . ' • -
•"commencement of the cleanup. .
This option is characterized by a common cleanup scenerio in which EPA.
accepts comments as required by law, but makes cleanup decisions
without directly involving local citizens in evaluating cleanup options.
The citizen participation option, which is actually an expanded
"standard" option, includes the elements in the "standard" option, with
an important addition: EPA agrees to work with a citizen advisory
committee which is given the right to review all EPA plans and to
approve any proposed solution before it is put into effect. The final
plan is described as a joint effort of. the advisory committee and EPA
experts. , : - .,-;•-'. '. "
The indemnification option also includes the elements noted in the
"standard" scenario, but adds 'a section describing an indemnification
program by the State. The State would, under a special experimental
program, purchase the home of anyone within one mile of the site .
providing the owner had first tried to sell the property in the-private
marketplace and had been unable to get fair market" value-for it or could
not sell it at all pver a 12 month period.
The Dependent Variables ,- ,
The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of variations in
uncertainty communications and raanagment options on achieving
consistency between objective and subjective risk estimates. We measure1
this consistently through.four sets of dependent variables:
*the level of :concern with-living near the site, both; before
and after the cleanup;
*expectations of suffering health problems from living near the
site, both before and after the cleanup; ,
' •'
*risk assessments of the danger of living near the site compared
with other situations, both before and after the cleanup; and,
*behavioral intentions when faced with a Superfund site in the^
vicinity of one's home. , , '
For the first, three sets of variables, the achievement of consistency
between each option and citizen attitudes,is indexed, respectively, by
low levels of concern, low expectations of health problems;, and viewing
living near the site as safer than smoking or driving a car. The fourth
-------
received fay people who may^e exposed to ' Che" chemical . -he -isk
/i00383 ^ aSsumPc^> or best gdess, that aooears'
Likely toh underestimate the risks. .4n attempt is'made to
tim ' '
.
overestimate rather than underestimate- risk!/
educated guess. -|:; . • -f
But ir is
"
an
. .
The risk communication. is set in the context oft "Wafer Advisorv . '
Notice put out. by the EPA .(See Appendix A) , •- Tht advisory- describes the
chemicals causing the problem and the threats to|,he.lth they ose %n
•annual chance of death" comparison chart is. presented which * ~
graphicallly compares the contaminated water risk with common risks such
as> smoking, hang gliding, scuba diving, skiing, driving a car, and
drinking diet. soda. .Only voluntary risks were chosen because .research
indicates that forced comparisons between voluntary and involuntarv "
risks are resented _ (Oovello , et.al., 1987), Current conventidnaL wisdom
in risk communication- indicates, that:. ' , [ '
Comparisons ar^ useful in informing people Lab'out risks, and
• I: - - - . ' ' • . •.•.'.';[•••.•, .
*the comparisons should be those comparable to the focal risk
..in degree of voluntariness. • -
!' - •" : '"'' . f..'. ' .
In other words, the rvisk format- chosen here may generate some hostility
because of the nature of the comparisons made. We will be able to
assess that possibility in the -comments solicited! about the nature of
the communication. i '•(
ir-- •. •',--..-•...• ' -• • .." f '. '."-'" ' - .•'• .
•',. The Management Options I .
.' • , ' I:' ' '. , •- ' f' . ,'..•' '
The literature on environmental conflict resplutiion points' to two
classes of options that can be offered a concerned community
incentive-compensation options and power-sharing options (-Bord, 1987) '
-:;fn-l^:coinPen"*ioti options tend to be material rewards or payments
designed to restore equity or to push the reward-bost /ratio 'toward the
or«vfrf T^ °f the.conl:inuum- Power-sharing options are designed 'to
kev J«iiiC* c^-l"n*--^«ro«P» with 3°^ ^iliby to have L impact on
key decisions concerning site operation and monitbring. Each set of
options has been suggested to moderate local concerns: one set appeals
.to pecuniary motives while the other appeals to control motives. One
study suggests that the most vocal opposition to Locally unwanted land
uses, those who^hold unqualified "NIMBY" (Not In iky Backyard) attitudes
" ™°r" abl7 PredisP°sed tow«d power sharing options (Bord, ?
• • • ].,..'• . : ' i .-...-- - • • •
options
Three management
"standard" scenerio, a
indemnification
scenerxo
The "standard" scenerio includes the following:
*the formation of
added to the
are systematically variect in this research: a
participation in decision-making scenerio, anH an
• (See Appendix A).
a concerned citizens' group!' when the sife was
National Priorities List; i ;
-------
The scanerio was constructed so as Co include ' some .of Che routine
features of a Superrund situation. Attention Co a oossible. problem was
created by locals noticing that the drinking water.', had an'"unusual"
"smell and the local newspaper reporting letters from concerned
citizens who linked possible health problems with the smelly water/ The
list of health problems included one family experiencing an unexplained
rash, two new cases of childhood lukemia in the same.neighborhood, and a
growing number of old people reporting problems with arthritis-.- Note
r.hat the relative ambiguity inherent in these stimuli parallels the
ambiguity usually present is real situations. The water had an
"unusual," not "bad," smell and the reported health problems are well
within the range of routine health problems that could be found
anywhere. , .
Repondents are then told that local officials contacted the StaCe
Department of Environmental Resources (DER) which proceeded to conduct
tests revealing benzene and trichlorethylene levels in drinking water
above those recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The source of the contamination is identified as an abandoned
manufacturing plant which has several waste lagoons and decaying metal
drums on the property (a picture is -included). The EPA is called in,
technicians take samples, construct a temporary holding lagoon, and
fence off the area and post signs (a picture is included). This
sequence of -events is similar to those characterizing the beginning
stages of many Superfund sites.
Constructing the Exogenous Variables
The Risk Communication
Although the uncertainty characterizing risk assessment is frequently
alluded to there has been little systematic research on variations in
information about uncertainty and reactions, to risk communication. On
the one hand, cognitive psychologists tell us that people desire .
certainty and .that information indicating less-than-perfect knowledge is
upsetting to those who do not fully understand the nature of science.
On the other hand, the admission of limits to knowledge, by tho^se
experts representing government agencies., could have the effect "of
increasing their credibility. Perhaps the strategy of projecting the
image of the omniscient scientist raises totally unrealistic
expectations that must be'eventually dashed. Research on social "
movement* indicates that raising expectations can be an important step
in the erection of a rebellious public. An admission £f uncertainty
versus the absence of such an admission constitutes the risk
communication variate. One-half of the questionnaires includes the
following paragraph at the end of the advisory:
NOTE: The numbers presented above are our best estimates. But
it is important to realize that they are only estimates. They
are based primarily on research with laboratory animals, usually
rodents, who are given extremely high doses of the chemical being
tested. If the animal exhibits health problems, we then *
extrapolate from these high doses to the very low doses usually
-------
The 'Quasi-Experimental /Design"
The following diagram illustrates the, quasi-experimental design: .
A Hypothetical Superfund Situation With.Subj.ec.es, ' • '• .
Instructed to Imagine Living Within One Mi lie 'of the Site
Risk Communication.I
A Comparative Risk ' .
Communication Emphasizing .-
the 'Uncertainty Inherent
in Risk Estimates
The Management Scenerios
Management Scenario'I:
Standard
Management Scerierio II:
Enhanced Citizen Participation
Management Scenerio III:
Indemnification
Risk Communication II
A Comparative .Risk '
Communication Not..Emphasizing
the Uncertainty Inherent '"
-in Risk EJstimates . .
The Management Scenerios
Management-Scenario' I:
Standard ' •
• T''"'".' . '
Management Scerierio II:
Enhanced Citizen Participation
. '• \ •••"-.••:.• •
Management Scenerio III:;
Indemnification
As presented above, l:;he design is a, simple two-way analysis of variance
with two categories in one variable and three .categories in the other.
However, as noted in :the research proposal, this study is an attempt to
ferret out the more important factors making up peoples' decisions vis a
.vis risk communication at Superfund sites. As such, it has an
exploratory nature as well as the quasi-experimental nature diagrammed
above. A number of attitudinal factors are included as well as
demographic variates.: This implies that the analysis will incorporate
correlational techniques as well as analysis of variance techniques'.
While a multitude of .uncontrolled variables subtracts from the decree of
control, there is enough known about possible impacts to make reasonable
inferences, especially if the results are strong[and/or consistent. The
next section describes the design ..in .greater, detail.
' ' | }~ ' : 'I .'."'•''
The Hypothetical Situation ". '
Two elements comprised qhe attempt to create a realistic Superfund
situation: - ';.''' , ,„ •' ' . . ...-[" •".,••. •
i- -' ' -••*•.' V • •' ;•
*iB»tructions to' the respondent that, in effect, asked him or
her to role-play wiu p«.rt of someone living; within one mile'
of the source pf a toxic waste problem (Se€i Appendix A); and
*a realistic scenerio that included pictures of decaying 50
gallon drums and people "in protective dotting collecting
samples (See Appendix A).
-------
SECTION III
Research Design and Measures
Introduction
Risk communication at actual Superfund sites is a complex process.
There are multiple sources, multiple messages, and audiences. These may
change at any time given new information or.input from ad hoc groups
that are successful in getting-attention. Research in actual Superfund
settings is valuable but has problems of interpretation due to the lack
of researcher control over the stream of events. On the other hand,
carefully controlled research on risk perception and communication tends
to totally eliminate the very features that define an actual risk
communication situation. The study reported here is an attempt to
straddle those two research 'extremes. A quasi-experimental design was
selected so that somewhat complex stimuli could be presented in a
somewhat controlled fashion. A hypothetical situation was presented in
a questionnaire/interview format along with pretest and postest
questions.
Several considerations guided the design of this research. Fi'rst, the
goal was to put research subjects in as realistic a situation as
possible. .Second, given the research hypotheses, the exogenous
(•independent) variables had to include-differences in risk message
characteristics and differences- in compensation and involvement-in-
decision-making options offered to those facing the hypothetical risk.
Third, measures had to be constucted for beliefs and cultural
understandings that past research has suggested are important. Fourth,
there had to be a way to measure crucial individual characteristics
that could cause different responses to risk messages. Finally,
respondent reactions to the matrix of information provided had. to be
assessed to give guidance on the effectiveness of the manipulation and
insights into subtle, perhaps unmeasured factors influencing their
responses.
-------
•^individual variations in beliefs acid sociarinstitutiorial
_ attachments' wi
Superfund-like ^situations.
While, this research
implications, may. -be
chapter outlines.the
operational processes
is -at best .a. preliminary .first step', its
revolutionary for 'agencies, llike EPA. The next
translation of, the above abstraction's into
I.,have the greatest irapac'
on reactions to
-------
the threat^ of property devaluation, community stigmat iz-ation, possible
decreases in community economic, potential', . possible • out-migration.
chronic stress, and other social-definitional problems that do not -lend
themselves readily to quantification. These are the.kinds of factors
that the typical risk communication' does not attempt to,.'deal with. An
impressive body of research points to,four major sources' of'concern for -
residents facing situations such as Superfund Sites (Armour', 1.987):
*perceived risk as shaped by official and unofficial' information .on
the characteristics of of the toxic substances (it is •important' to
realize that the mere presence of the EPA specialists may be
sufficient "data" to trigger high concern);
*perceived inequities in the distribution of costs and benefits
(anger in being singled out for such nefarious treatment);
*feelings of loss of control over forces affecting the quality of
one's life and community;
*and, a general lack of trust in big business and bvg government.
Ideally, perceived risk should vary somewhat with the amount and quality
of risk information reaching local citizens. The problems of perceived
inequities couTd be approached with some sort of compensation package,
this option is presently not available at Superfund sites. Feelings of
loss of control and an absence of trust may be ameliorated by some sort
of intensive public participation program: much depends on the depth of
the lack of trust. The central problem addressed by this research can
now be stated: : . ;
*what is the relative impact of risk communication variates, equity
enhancing variates, and' local control and trust variat'es in .
shaping people's judgements about,reactions to a Superfund type
situation. '
The complexity of the.above problem is magnified by the possibility that
all these factors vary by some poorly understood personality and
demographic-personality characteristics.
The following hypotheses, based on the above analysis, our own research
on fear^of radioactive waste (Bord, 1985) and the experience of others
faced with the problems of siting risky facilities (Armour, 1987), guide
the research to be subsequently discussed:
*risk communication per se has relatively little to do with
structuring reactions to Superfund-like situations;
Compensation designed to redress perceived inequities.will have a
greater impact on reactions than risk information but that
impact is also small; • _.. ..
*control-granting options will have a greater impact than either.
risk communication factors or compensation;
-------
tenuous. Studies do'rie'in somewhat- sterile''Ubo.ra'dory''environments ' us in?
low or noninvolving ,s t imul i,. in noiisocial . si tuatiloris. cell use little.
.about the structuring, of public reactions in redl Life situations'"
Furthermore, the anharisins generated by such research are of -such-'
generality., even being contradictory, that applying them in'actual risk
communication situations is little more than the[ application of common
s.ense judgmen-t. | . ,-..-. , , ,| ...
. 'i. . ' '•• : " . •• • .1':' . • • /
Studies of how human, decision making departs 'frcjm statistical
.rationality also do little 'to inform' the risk'communicator. To know
that people do not -approach low probability,., potentially deadly .outcome
events the way an expert would says nothing abouit how to lead .them to'
think like a statistician. Since it is extremely, difficult, to get ' ,
.students to think statistically even after several statistics courses
it.seems unlikely that, the 'general public can be! so trained within the.
temporal parameters of a real risk event.
Social and cultural approaches to risk communicajtion sensitize us to the
possibility that publ'ic reactions may have- relatively little to do with
actual risk messages ;per but a great deal to do Vith issues of public
trust and social-definitional dynamics. In actuklity, risk
communicators in the; field are, pointing to basically the' same phenomena.
Implications for thisS Research - 1
•^••>V^B««BB««^^B««Bn^B_Ba ^^^••M.^^^^M^™M^MMI. , I ' 1 '
It is understandble that EPA seeks a better fit between "objective" risk
estimates and public j reaction. It is also logical that the area of risk
communication be targeted as central in pursuing}that end.- However, it
must be realized that some very fundamental issues in risk communication
have either been, under-researched or not researched at all. Most
importantly, little has been done 'on the actual, market ."for risk
communication information. .We know, for example; that even educated
people are generally poorly informed on most issues .and that many
factors compete for people's time and attention.I The current policy
trend that emphasizes education and information as a solution to many
social problems is based less on any evidence ofjthe efficacy of such
approaches than on the. political reality that modern American society,
which stres.ses individual autonomy and decision making, leaves' no other
functional possibility. Also, existing risk Communication research does
little to inform us about the relative impact of [risk communication, per
se, on public reactions.- The research reported here is designed to take
a first step in answering those questions. '
Public Response and Risk Communication
Public response is a function-of multiple factor's!, of which risk
messages may play a relatively minor part (Armour^, 1987; Bord, 1987;
Krimsky & Plough, 1988). Certainly risk information plays some role in
shaping perceived threats to health and safety. JHovrever, this
information can come from official and unofficial sources, be unevenly
distributed in a given community, and vary in terms of its'"'•"•'
technical/scientific accuracy. A number of other! factors may have an
equal or greater impact on,public reaction: the restriction of .land use,
-------
cotamunicacing technical information will result in more "appropriate"
public reaccions to risk, especially .the chronic, low probability kind
defined earlier in this chapter. The uncertainty inherent in estimating
risks of this kind provides the ideal context for social-defiriit'ional
processes to dominate (Scott,, 1988; Tarr, 1987;•Sharlin, 1987;(Mazur,
1931). The social construction of risk provides a symbolic '
representation of culture and interest based conflicts. This
perspective helps us understand 'why some Love Canal residents downplayed
the riskiness .of the uncontrolled chemicals and others saw it as an " •
unmitigated disaster. Their reactions had little to do with underlying
cognitive heuristics, the nature of the scientif ic/techni.cal . information
provided, communicator,credibility, or the strangeness and dread
engendered by knowledge of the substances. Their reactions: reflected
the major interests encompassed by their key roles and stage in
life-cycle. Those with young children and unpaid mortages despaired and
fled while those nearing retirement and hoping to sell their property
saw little need to panic (Fowlkes, 1987). Similarly, if an affected
public strongly desires the use of land officially defined as
"contaminated" they are unlikely to exhibit much fear in the face of
technical risk messages (Gale, 1987). The socio-cultural perspective
argues that the symbolic-political aspects of risk communication are
more central to the nature of public reactions than,the scientific
credibility of the messages or simple message construction variations.
The Experience of Practitioners
A related theme characterizes the recorded experience of many ,of those •
who have spent time on environmental risk "firing lines." In personal
interviews with several EPA community-relations people, including some
toxicologists, the following points were reiterated:
*there is very little public demand for general scientific-
technical information; and, ,
*information demands and public reactions vary significantly from
* case, to case. • .•-...
These practioners had a readily
to bear on the issue of risk communication'is structured in ways that
make generalizations to real risk communication settings extremely
-------
. . . '.• • . • ••... • • ...••
'lictie public;interest. On the other hand,' if doroorate malfeasant -a'u
.' be linked to- the was;te.. problem, or if there appears/to be an unusual
local incidence, of cancer, or if a "save the children" group
arises,these constitute "news." While Sandman C1986) and othe-s have
,made'suggestions. for;; improved.communication betwieen spbnsoring'agencies-
.and newspeople. there'is little reason tp s-uspect that scUntific-
technical debates over chronic risks, will soon dominate, newspaoer and
r*aiPVTQirm r r\\i <=» T- ^ r+ A I ?*.». ; £ -... _ i_ j_c .. . . . _ ' ^ - - .
television.coverage.] Even if such debates were.
included .in the major
,. . .- — -!- • — — .— «»» v» ••» "*-•"• *s. *. t*^i.LiUCVl 1. LI • L Cl 6
media it is highly doubtful that many people'woujld' pay them any
attention. More important', -given-the scientific* uncertainty surrounding
risk estimates and estimates of cleanup efficacy:, experts with
credentials can always be found to provide a' countering view. The role'
of the media in risk (.communication is not likely? to change significantly
in the. near future, i: • • -.=»&.
ir , • • '
The Soci-o-Cultural Tradition
The public's understanding and reaction to risk also has been approached
from a socio-cultural perspective. Douglas,and tfildavsky. (1982) contend
that Americans view the world as frightening and[increasingly risky in
spite of significant ireal increases in health arid longevity. They link
this pessimistic view: to an interaction between cultural notions of
purity and progress and the realities of conflicting interests generated
by^multiple lifestyles and organizational affiliations. Others would
point to the growing ;" evidence" that modern technology, generally
-promoted by big business, developed by corporate [science, and regulated
by big government, is beyond the scope of ordinarjy understanding and
ordinary control and management (Perrow,1987). BJronstein (1987:223)
presents this perspective succinctly:
"...the verified'existence of a risk is not
the danger to be:; publicly recognized... The
sufficient for the
public understanding
,-- - W --—.•*. fr**. v J. * W HIAUC^ 9 UCL11U, .L L
of danger bears only a tangential relationship to the objective
evaluation of the riskiness of the substance], but a close
relationship to the political impact of identifying the risk."
- ' • • - ir-. • ••:.'•• ..'•-.-' ^ .• , ' ' . •
In other words, risk identification and public reaction to risk may be
viewed as a challenger'to existing institutions rather than an imperfect
digestion of information on risk. This perspective helps us to
understand why public.reactions to risk situation^ tend to take on all
the elements of social movement development (GerLach, 1987). Risk
estimation and communication can be viewed as driven by the demands of a
modern protest movement. From this perspective there is little-
likelihood of ever being able to satisfy the most[vocal elements of the
contentious 'public. Every response from agencies to demands for more
and better information can be challenged as inadequate and result in a
new set of demands. Furthermore, the increasingly litigious nature of
modern America almost insures that a significant subset-of environmental
risk situations will wind up in protracted 'court deliberations
(Jasanoff, 1987). '
From a socio-cuttural
modifications in risk
perspective, there is little reason to expect that
estimation procedures and improvements in
; , '. , ..-,.• -. 4. ' _ ...-,.
-------
^people respond co problems as they see them noc as :hev ar-=
(Fischhoff, 1981); ' • • ' ',•'."
*new information will be assimilated to fit existing'attitudes.
(Slovic, ec.al., 1979); and, '
*risks distributed unequitably tend to generate more outrage
(Slovic, et.al,., 1980). ' : •
While the above noted body of literature has certainly increased our
knowledge of judgmental biases in certain kinds of risk'decisions the
implications for risk communication are unclear.1 These same authors go
on to note that the perception and acceptance of risk is rooted in
social and cultural factors (Slovic,. 1987). Because it is difficult to
manipulate these social and cultural factors or the imagiriab'ility.
memorability, likelihood of fatality, catastrophic potential, signal
potential, or voluntariness of a given risk in a risk communication
program, we have limited scientific information to guide the risk •
communicator. In fact, each of these factors is open to : • - "'
social-definitional processes: these qualities are not inherent.in a ;
stimulus or configuration of stimuli, they are created in the process of
communication itself. Risk communicators can, and should, provide
information, that helps the community-understand the scientific backround
for agency decisions and the cleanup process itself, but- many of the
critical variables that influence individual decision making are beyond
the control of the risk communicator. This is one reason that equity
issues demand attention. Addressing equity concerns has the potential
to temper opposition based' on unreasonable fears.
The. Impact of the Mass Media -.'•-.
Research dealing with the impact of the mass communication media on the
perception of risk produces consistent generalizations:
*balanced media coverage of man-made risk situations is unlikely
since the criteria for newsworthiness tends to be conflict, drama,
human interest, negativism,, photographability, exclusivity, and
newness (Peltu,1987).
In a recent analysis of network evening news, Greenberg, et.al.(1988)
basically reiterate the above noted quote:
"Risk as calculated by scientists .had little to do with the amount
of coverage provided by the three networks' evening news
broadcasts. Instead, the networks appear to be using the
traditional journalistic determinants of news (timeliness,
proximity, prominence, consequence, and human interest) plus
the broadcast criterion of visual impact to determine the degree ,
of coverage of risk issues."(p. 28)
Because "news," by definition, requires acute incidences to promote
public attention, the long-term nature of Superfund problems and the
nature of the information needed to understand the problem generate
-------
improved risk cotnmunication. .-• However. knowing i'hat 'people tend so fUu's.
on, Che outcome of a^given risk, and ad just insuf If icient ly provides some"
guidance -oh.message;construction if it is' known| which,"outcome people are
likely, to use as anianchdr. 'in, the "tangled .webs" of'risk communication
at 'actual Superfund'sites., the anchors, or benchmarks, that people use
in risk estimation may "float" to, some degree a^ mixed messages'are"
received from the•media, the experts, arid. Interpersonal communication
networks. Further research is needed "to bridge!the gap''between an ' '
understanding of how; people make decisions in .highly controlled,-
laboratory situations and how they utilize multiple channels and '•
messages in complex,'; shifting, situations. ',• •, .' • , ",-' ,'
While-the .literature on decision making biases and judgmental heuristics
is .stimulating and interesting, it provides- limited-.useful- information
about effective riskii communication. (Perrqw, 1984). '
The "Rating the Risks" Tradition . ' : '•''..
A number of psychologists from the decision heuristics school have
applied that-perspective specifically to .individual biases in risk
estimation. This isj; the "rating the risks"'tradition .of research which '
applies psychometric, methods, using paper and pencil' tests, to very
limited samples of- people. .Psychometric methods!'ask subjects to'compare
objects or^concepts using their own, individual,! anchors or benchmarks
for comparison. These researchers also have generated'a set of
-principles ^that have:become dogma in the risk perception literature.'
The following are the. most frequently repeated aiphorisms: "
*events that are highly imaginable and menlorable, which have a
high l-ikelihood -of being fatal , , and high catastrophic potential1
are .-more likely to be feared (Slovic, Fishhoff, LichtensCein, '
•• - • • ' - -' •-••'
. - _... ,... - . - . .
*things that are unobservable,'' unknown., new, arid have delayed
1 consequences ire more likely to be fe'aredj (Slovic, 1987);
*the" limited power of peoples' information! processing capabilities
tends to result in overconf idence, in errotieous decisions, and a
a desire for certainty (Fischhoff, 1981);[
*presenting relative risks in a comparatiyb format enhances'
understanding but may mobilize negative reactions if the
comparisons appear specious or manipulativ^ (Covello, et.al,
- • - • - - • "
.• •• - - •- •••• •
*events that have "high signal .potential" (somewhat insignificant
events that are interpreted as indicating tlU potential for future
catastrophe), .such as a small accident in an unfamiliar and feared
system, will increase fears dramatically (Slovic, 1987)- ,• ' -
.. .. .:!..'.;.. ,; ..-. : •-.- .---. ;..'-• ,.f:; ;,.v •.-,,.-,'. :'
*greater -risk i,,s tolerated, if that risk is I voluntary^ "immediate, '
known precisely, and controllable (Fischholf, -et.al., 1978);
-------
* and, the behavioral outcomes of the change are unknown. ' - .
The aphorisms generated by this research deal with aspects of the
communicator, the communication, and -the audience. This research
tradition is tied to Carl Hovland and the Yale Communication Program
which began in the.late 1940's (Hovland, et.al, 1949). Basically, they
tell us that the. communicator should be trusted, interesting, and'
attractive; me.ssages should be at the appropriate level of complexity,'
'clear, use audience.arousing devices but make sure. they are not aroused
inappropriately or at too high- a level; if the audience is somewhat
highly educated and heterogeneous then-messages should be presented In-
different ways and include multiple perspectives so that audience
members perceive an attempt at'objectivity. ,
The shortcomings of this body of literature, especially as it pertains
to the risk communication problem, should be obvious. In contrast to
the typical attitude change experiment, communication at Superfund sites-
tends to be in an emotionally charged, atmosphere, there are multiple
communicators and message channels, the focal issue has a history and
and this translates into preexisting attitudes that act as;filters • for
incoming information, the "official" communicator represents a'•
government agency that may have less,than total public confidence, the
topic is complex and characterized by enough uncertainty to generate
mixed evaluations even from experts, information transmission and
interpretation involves ongoing social networks, and the message '
recipients have the power to choose which information they want to
expose themselves to. In this, communication atmosphere the above noted
aphorisms are little better than basic common sense.
The Cognitive Heuristics Tradition " , ,
The work on decision-making and problem solving heuristics, at least
that part of it applied to risk information^ processing, has centered on
typical departures from statistical "rationality." The leaders in this
tradition are Kahheman,. et, al, (1982). Generally, people fail to take
sample^size, population characteristics, and.objective odds into account
in their decision making. Furthermore, in low probability, high risk
situations, people tend to anchor on the negative outcome and adjust
insufficiently downward for the low probability. McClelland, et, al.,
(1986) indicate that there may be two modal responses to low
probability, high risk, situations: some people focus on the low
probability and dismiss the risk as not worth worrying about and others
focus on the outcome and become overconcerned. The determinants of
these different decision making .styles are unknown.
This body of research shares some of the problems noted in the attitude
change research- It tends to be laboratory research characterized by
the following: a single, low-involvement, issue to be judged in an
atmosphere free of social interaction and pressure. The principle
generalization, that people do not make decisions the way an ideal
statistical thinker'would, should come as little surprise and, at least
to this point, has not translated into solid recommendations for
.
-------
a judgment made by she' sponsoring'' government agjencv and- is at "-as- *s
.political in. nature as it . is scientific • I• '" ' •
"•';••.-.„.':" ' .;]''. • ' . •.. .
Risk Communication: .'What' Do We Know '• [" - •"'-.'
The emerging subdisedpline o.f risk communicatio.il has' evolved" from the
following: ; • • ..,-.'.' ' '
-.* che attitude'change research from psychology,. 'social psvchologv
and marketing; • % . - . &. .
* the work on decision-making and heuristics from-cognitive
, psychology, and to,a lesser extent, micro-economics;
* research on. risk estimation being done'primarily by .. -.
psychologists; - , -|
*. research on the impacts of the mass coramimicatibn media;
* case stu'dy research and theorizing emphasizing the social-
cultural context of risk; and
V
* the recorded accumulation of the experience of those charged
with risk communication responsibilities [in actual field
situations. •', , 4 ,
' • ' •!• • '. • 'I '•;•••..•• i- ••'-
Most literature reviews have somewhat uncritically combined insights
gleaned from-these diverse sources. This is to ibe expected, and is a
valuable contribution, in the formative stages 6|f an .intellectual
endeavor, However, the combinatorial process teWds to neglect serious
questions of suitability and actual substantive 'contribution. While a
thorough- critique Is well beyond the scope of thjis chapter* there are '
some relatively, obvious points that need to be made.
• • • . • • i ' .
f- '.-.•... ...
The Attitude Change Tradition . . I - -
I - - ' "; , , " ,'p " ' • , ' '
The attitude change "literature in social psychology has gelled into a
number of concise principles that can be found inmost introductory'
textbooks. This research exhibits the followingj-characteristics:
* .it is done in,laboratories' using college students as subjects;
* it generally explores the impact of a single independent
variable on some measure of attitude change;
. i ' - •' • i •-.•'.•••'•..
* it involves topics that engender little emotional involvement
or the level of emotional involvemient goesi unmeasured;
* the research situation precludes social influence;
* the topic seldom involves risk of any kind- ' "-
• .-.•• • ;: "• •" i •• -.'.- .-. •" •••
* the results tend to reflect very small changes in attitudes;
-------
SECTION II:. RISK COMMUNICATION •..'..
"Because of the complexity of risk communications .and the subtlety of
human response to 'them, it is extremely difficult, a priori, to know
whether a particular .message will adequately- inform its recipients"
(Covello, et.al., 1987: 31). ' ,- '
...risk communications in.their social context resemble tangled
webs, in contrast to parallel series of sender/receiver interactions"
(Krimsky & Plough, 1988: 298-299).
Introduction '
There presently exist several excellent reviews^ of both a theoretical
and practical nature, of the risk communication literature (Covello,
et.al., 1987; Covello, et.al, 1988). These reviews guide the reader
through the..morass of materials that bear, in widely divergent ways and
with differing, degrees of applicability, on the risk communication issue.
It is not the intent of this chapter to simply reproduce those
discussions. Instead, the focus will be on generic problems plaguing the
very concept of risk communication, the difficulty in doing research to
answer the kinds of questions risk communicators ask,, and how the
research reported here is designed to address a subset of these
problems.
First, the major threads characterizing research on risk communication
will be discussed and their relative contributions highlighted. Then,
the basic assumptions of the risk communications enterprise will be
reviewed and their difficulties noted.- Finally, the implications for
research on risk communications will be discussed and cast into the
framework of the research to be reported here.
It is absolutely essential to keep in mind that this report is concerned
with a particular type, and context, of risk: •
THOSE SITUATIONS -IN WHICH A SOMEWHAT HISTORICALLY AND SOCIALLY
UNIQUE COMMUNITY FACES AN IMPOSED, MAN-MADE, DREADED SUBSTANCE
THAT IS GENERALLY CHARACTERIZED AS SOMEWHAT ENVIRONMENTALLY
UBIQUITOUS, OFTEN HAVING MULTIPLE EXPOSURE POSSIBILITIES, BEING,
DIFFICULT TO ELIMINATE EASILY OR COMPLETELY, AND HIGH SCIENTIFIC
UNCERTAINTY RELATIVE TO EXPOSURE AND LONG-TERM IMPACT.
This is the nature of most Superfund situations. We specifically bound
the problem in this way, to make it .clear that the communications
difficulties in this situation may be quite distinct from those
situations in which a communicator is attempting to mobilize people in
the face of an imminent and known risk (hurricane), a natural risk
characterized by some uncertainty in terms of long-term impact (radon),
or a self-selected risk characterized by somewhat complex risk-benefit
outcomes (a new drug). Communication effectiveness in the-latter cases
is usually defined in terms of number of 'people mobilized to tatce
recommended actions while in the Superfund case effectiveness is viewed
as the "appropriate" intensity of community response. "Appropriate" is
-------
Their responses 'are rins tractive and add.further[weight to' our '
interpretations of tihe structured questionnaire^ results.,
Section XIV, "S-unrnarv' and Implications for Risk [ Communications ," is a
discussion of the .niafjpr findings :and what they say: about communicating
risks iii Superfund-like situations. • j . .•'.' ',' . ',. -' .
-------
section VII, The Hypothetical Site: Levels or Concern," consti-uteV --e
t results of questions asking respondents how concerned they would be
^ving within one mile of the sice both before and after completion' of
the cleanup. This comparison provides one measure of the credibility o-'
the cleanup scenario. Various categories of respondents, are explored
ror variations in pre- and post-cleanup levels of concern..
Section VIII, "The Hypothetical Site: Health Risk Assessments," also
examines judgments both before and after the,cleanup. This section
however, focuses, on the issue of perceived health risks to self and'
family. Again, variations in health ris.k concerns are compared across-
categories of respondents. .'...;'
Section IX, "The Hypothetical Site: Comparative Risk Assessments,"
presents the data related to the relative accuracy' of,the 'individual's
risk assessments. Respondents make judgments on how'risky living near
the waste site is in comparison to a number of voluntary and involuntary
risks: smoking, living near a nuclear power plant, driving a car, riding
a bicycle, chest x-rays, and eating fruit sprayed with pesticides.
Both pre- and post-cleanup judgments are made. Besides providing a
measure of relative accuracy, this procedure provides another index of
Che respondent's faith in the cleanup scenario. These judgments are
related to the respondents' demographic characteristics.
Section X, "The Hypothetical Site: Behavioral Intentions," describes the
distributions of responses to various behavioral options one might take '
in a situation such as that described in the hypothetical situation.
These options range from those that demand very little personal
sacrifice or involvement to those that demand putting one1s^self on the
line in a public situation. Fifteen of the behavioral options
effectively scale into four subscales that can be logically interpreted'.'
These scales and their relationships, to respondent characteristics are
•-*, j :ii3sed. ,
Section XI, "Explaining the Results: Bivariate Relationships," examines
the factors that relate to four sets.of variables designated; as
dependent variables in this research: levels of concern, health risk
assessments, comparative risk assessments, and behavioral intentions.
This section sets the stage for understanding the complex pattern of
relationships that characterize the overall results.
Section HI, "Explaining the Results-: Multivariate Analysis," presents a
series of stepwise multiple regressions that provide estimates of the
relative contribution of a substantial number of independent variables
on the dependent variables noted above. The independent variables that
account for the most variance in the dependent variables change with the
dependent variable being, analyzed. The pattern of responses, although
not what was originally expected, is consistent enough to' generate a
reasonable interpretation.
Section XIII, "Responses to Open Ended Questions," is an overview of
what the respondents wrote in answer to a number of open-ended questions.
Respondents were asked about their reactions to the hypothetical
situation, the management sceneries, and the risk communication itself.
-------
" " "j:. .- -.SECTION I: INTRODUCTION--'• • - '•' " ' ". ; ' ' • ••'
' ijv . : • •' /. '.•..;• • ' . '*-- ' •. ^ .- ••-.. ' • - . •- •
The, goal of the research reported here is to: provide'.information usefu,;
ror 'designing a risk'communication strategy" that will', reduce •' '
disjunctions between perceived and objective-risk levels. 'In addition
the _ hope--.is that these, results will further the, EPA's goal, of .helping'
citizens make their;.own risk,management decisions (Fisher.,- 1987).' .-"
This report is comprised of a series of topics that lead.the reader
the study; describe ;;the .study .itself, present the results- of the
analysis,- and discuss the implications for risk].communication. '
into
Section II, "Risk Communication," is an .overview .and critique of the
risk perception-risk communication literature.. This section raises
questions about the/ability of past '.research to', answer the questions '•• '
that 'risk communicators !ask. It is generally assumed that formal risk
communication;is important, but, in fact, therejare weir-founded reasons
to question that assumption. Other factors may.]be more important in
structuring public reactions to Super-fund situations'. Hypotheses'
.suggesting these other factors are .presented atjthe end of'this . section.
Section III, "Research Design and Measures," presents a discussion of ,
the research design,! the key concepts, and'"'the construction of-measures •
to represent the concepts. The quasi-experiment-al design and its
rationale are discussed in detail. "Before" and "after" attitude, •
belief, and behavioral intention measures are outlined. ' , "
Section IV, "Sampling and Implementing the Survey," describes the
sampling procedure'and how the survey, was implemented. The actual
sample is considerably larger than .initially proposed and selected to ,•
reflect the,range of|; social groupings central tci community 'responses to
toxic waste threats.] The sample includes environmentalists, 'business
persons', civic activists,, elected officials, : and" working class people.
An approximately even mix of males and .females w'as sampled.
Section V, ,"Prior Attitudes-, Issue Involvement, and Information,"
delineates the results ..of the pre-manipulation measures .of general and
specific levels of concern and estimates of the [health, effects of
exposure to man-made;t6xins. These items are eslsential in assessing the
impact of the risk communication and-the degree of correspondence
.between objective,and subjective risk. In addition, levels of, and ,-
sources of, knowledge about toxic chemicals are .tapped by multiple
measure*. •'!-.-' - . / •' •• ' • *-.•'.-.'•' .••• •'.. . . .'.
Section VI, "Trust,"! presents the results of the analysis^of the various
items assessing trust. Trust is an essential component of- the
communicator credibility problem. If communicatbrs are not trusted,
then the quality or format of the risk information is meaningless.
Distrust means disbelief. Measures, of. trus.t in local, state, and
federal governments,;industry, and science,are included .in-this
research i " , ' •., • ' • •',.-''"''"
-------
Limitations. '•',"' ,
It Is possible_that the reason the' hypothetical site information had so
Little^impact is that the differences between'the manipulations were not
dramatic enough. Events at an actual site take place .over rime and are
often highly dramatized by the media. A'study of,.this type cannot
duplicate the reality of an ongoing site conflict. Respondents 'provided
feedback indica-ting that once they, had seen the pictures " with the ,"
rotting 50 gallon drums and the technicians in protective clothing their
attitudes were- formed. 'The management scenerios and the, risk messages
were processed through a' lens colored''darkly'by .the. initi,al 'information..
While the sample size is adequate for .some analyses it is too small for"
robust subgroup analysis. Therefore, subgroup analyses must be viewed
as suggestive .and judged in the context of. overall patterns and other
available research findings. .
-------
"•Che communication- network tends to focus too heavily on local
officials and inotables , who tend to engender little trust in •
... • situations like .these, and not -enough on local residents.
- . •]; . ,- '.• . . - '' . • •' • -fc.": •
V-' .Implications for Policy!'" •
A number of recommendations follow from our analysis
-' .- •:'' • • ..-•'-• -.' '. i •' • .: ... '. '. • •'
*The public neeids a better understanding of the risk cleanup
process and constraints on the agency so ihat their expectations
more closely match reality. Educating-about waste cleanup may
, • be as important as educating about the- characterisitcs of the'
risk. ' j ''I--'.1'-
focus only on local
*Educating about risk and the cleanup process should begin as soon
as the agency .begins its involvement in the community. The agency
can prepare some generic material, in laypers.ons' terms, about
what.is involved in a cleanup action and jirobable time frames.
Locals should also be informed about the•sampling and testing
process, the rationale for the protective clothing used by
technicians, and;why determining risk takes time.
*Agency personnel must be made aware that Virtually every act
and pronouncement is viewed as a statement!: about relative risk.
Programs designed to elicit good will may actually be perceived as
indicating high risk.
information and education programs cannot
officials and notables. These people do not enjoy high
credibility and tend not to be tied into Crucial information
networks. Information- education programs! are probably more
effective at the neighborhood level. [
*It appears that the average citizen is not! being adequately
prepared to make risk decisions in modern [technological society.
There appears to be a need for a broad publlic information program
about environmental" risks that can help citizens make their own
risk management judgments. Given the increasing need for citizens.
to pass judgment on difficult trade-off options, it seems
appropriate touring such science, technology, and society
training early •• to a person's educational experience. Such a
program of dispensing objective risk information is consistent
with the purposes and legislative history 'of CERCLA and SARA.
: Limitations to this Research
Any individual piece of research has significant! limitations.and
shortcomings. The research reported here is no exception* Two problems
require mention: problems with the stimulus materials and sample size
-------
Respondents seated that they would take actions including getting -.ore
information, using bottled-water, leaving the area, and contacting -
Congress to put pressure-on EPA. Intent to become involved'at the level
of actions requiring the least commitment (e.g., talking, serving on a
committee) correlates strongly with great concern'with toxic .waste
before learning of the particulars of the hypothetical case. Personal
actions, such as,using bottled water or leaving the area, -correlate:
most with distrust of local officials, low education, and feminine
gender. 'Convincing- others to become involved or to use bot'tied water
relates strongly to high levels of .concern with toxic Waste issues
recorded before the hypothetical case was presented. Finally, political
actions (e.g., contacting Congress, organizing a protest meeting) again
correlates most strongly with prior concerns and issue involvements.
For talking, involving others, and political actions, exposure to the
indemnification option has a slight, yet statistically significant,
impact on. encouraging those actions. .
•"•-'- i
Poor risk estimates seem to be generated more by distrust than by
anything else, although less education and feminine gender also have
independent impacts. The intention to take personal action to protect .
one's health (e.g., buy bottled water) also seems generated by these
same variables. However, the other actions (talking, involving others,
and political) come more out of a history of concern with hazardous
waste and involvement in hazardous waste Issues prior to this '
hypothetical case. . •
Problems in Communicating Risks to a Distrusting Public
The problem for EPA in devising a strategy to achieve greater
consistency between subjective and objective risk estimates is. that many
key predictor variables - trust in local officials, gender, education,
prior attitudes and involvements - are factors that are difficult or
impossible to control by means of a simpl'e risk communication program.
There are strategies, however, that appear worthy of more attention^
Trust is very important. The most cleverly crafted risk messages '
are unlikely to overcome distrust. Distrust is a:function of many
factors, some which the agency has a certain degree of control
over and others which it can do little about. Our respondents, in
open-ended questions and group discussions, 'indicate that three
site-related factors promote distrust:
*a general lack of understanding of the cleanup process as well
as 'problems in risk estimation;
*mixed messages - official communications tend to define the risk
as manageable and minimal while the behavior and costumes of the
agency personnel, and possibly the sights and smells
characterizing the site itself, indicate that it is.-very , .-
dangerous; and, f
-------
Concern is .High.and-Risks Overestimated
Levels of concern were uniformly high, even aftkr. the cleanup. In the
health risk estimates and the comparative risk [estimates, most '••• '
respondents severely overestimated-the risks frjom living near the s< te
Most said' chey. definitely would take some, action such as using 'bottled
water,, contacting Congress, or-even leaving the: area. "
• •• - i,- '• •
The four subsamples ' (members of environmental groups, civic leaders,
elected officials, and business people) are'quite similar' on all•of'
these measures. Elected officials are more trusting, of everyone, not
just themselves,-but the similarities are'more [striking than the' "
differences. When faced;with a response action, almost everyone seems
to become an "environmentalist."
. " ','. • . ' |- '••'••-•'•-'.•'
Essentially the risk communication and management options have only a "
slight . impact on consistency between subjective and objective .risk
estimates. Providing the uncertainty disclaimer has a .slight tendency
to increase message^credibility, and' therefore trust, for some
• respondents.- ,The availability of indemnification, however, does ,not
re'duce concerns and health risk estimates,., but actually increases them
somewhat. Providing; indemnification signals to [.some respondents that
the situation is so iserious that their'health is in .immediate danger.
Prior Attitudes,' Trust, and Respondent Characteristics Important
Other factors account for much of the variance £n how people view a
hazardous waste situation. Three sets of variables account for risk
•estimates: prior attitudes about, and involvement with, hazardous waste;
trust; and demographics such as gender and education.
Level of concern correlates strongly and negatively,with two scales:
t:vasting local officials and industries; and trusting state and national
agencies. State and, federal officials are trusted more, than local
officials. The key 'finding is that many peopleiviev local government
officials as working closely with, local hazardous waste generators, and
see other TeveIs of government on- a different dimension. People who do
.not trust local.officials to tell them the truth are overly concerned
with living near the site. Because a majority o'f respondents would not
trust local officials in this matter, there are-high levels of concern
with living near the site,. '
Health, risk assessments also vary with the trust! variables, but gender
and education are also important determinants. Women and the less well
educated are much more likely to overestimate their chances of suffering
illness from the site. • . - . • '
In comparing the risk of living near the site with voluntary risks such
as smoking, women, those with less education, and those who express less
trust judge the site as more risky. For the comparison withi involuntary
risks such as eating :fruit treated with chemicals, those with 1-fess
education and those who express less trust judge!the site as more risky.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this research is to learn what risk communi-ation '
stracegies can achieve greater consistency between the sub jecciv- ' r< s<
estimates or citizens and the objective risk estimates derived bv
•
The Research Process
' a countv that- had
"
n>h K. a countv that- had
neither a highly publicized Superfund site nor- other dramatiic" hazardous
waste controversies. The sample was stratified to include members"?
environmental groups, business persons, civic activists, and elected
officials as well as a segment from the general population. . '
Each interview began with questions about the respondent's concerns with
hazardous waste, risk estimates of health problems caused by hazardous
waste sites, pn.or involvements in waste issues, and information about
chemical waste matters. Then, respondents were asked to imagine
themselves living within one mile of a Superfund site. They read a •
typical Superfund scenario including a response action, an EPA water
advisory notice that small amounts of some contaminant had gotten
into the water supply, the formation of a concerned citizens eroun and
e
Ntional
k n , descriPcion of. <*e site included pictures of
leaking 50 gallon drums and technicians - in protective clothing taking
samples . , ° ° -
The scenario ^ provided to half of the respondents -included an uncertainty
disclaimer with the water advisory notice. The disclaimer is a ' '
paragraph explaining that the risk estimates in the water advisory
stud?LareThery =af f°US *«i«te. based on extrapolations from animal
?h ;h I " madS Chat scientiscs Attempt to overestimate
rather than underestimate the risk. The other half of the sample did
not receive this disclaimer. ' ^pj-e
One-third of the respondents read a management option that included
enhanced citizen participation through EPA agreeing to work closely with
a citizen advisory committee at all stages of the remedial action.
Another third of the respondents received an indemnification management
option th.t involved. the State agreeing to purchase the home of anyone
within one mile of the site at the, fair market value prior to
identification of the hazardous waste problem. The final third of the
sample received the standard EPA management procedures including giving
hearings aS313tan« S"nt to a citizens' group and holding* public
After reading the material, the respondents were asked to record their'
level of concern from living near the site, health risk estimates
comparisons of the risk from living near the site with other voluntary'
(e.g., smoking) and involuntary (e..g., eating fruit sprayed -with
insecticides) risks, and actions they would take if faced with fhis type
or situation. ' . ' .
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS'
• XECUTIVE .-SUMMARY; !<.,.... .'.. . .' . :-. . .'.
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION....... ,1 ....... ...'..'..
SECTION II: -RISK COMMUNICATION.'... . .'.
. SECTION 'III: RESEARCH DESIGN AND MEASURES'. .'.
SECTION: IV : SAMPLING AND SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION^.. . . . v .'....'....' 21
SECTION V:'PRIOR ATTITUDES, ISSUE INVOLVEMENT],AND INFORMATION..28
SECTION vi: TRUST.'...•....'............ ,'!.;....;. .35
14
SECTION. VII: THE HYPOTHETICAL SITE - LEVELS OF CONCERN -:46
SECTION VIII: THE ^HYPOTHETICAL SITE - HEALTH 'RISK ASSESSMENTS...48
SECTION IX: THE'HYPOTHETICAL -SITE -
COMPARATIVE RISK
SECTION X: THE HYPOTHETICAL SITE - BEHAVIORAL
ASSESSMENTS.......51
INTENTIONS........57
SECTION XI: EXPLAINING THE RESULTS - BIVARIATE .RELATIONSHIPS. . ... 63
. •-' • :. '" i;- '.,- : /••.. ':•' ' .•: '• ••: . =, ••'{*••'.' ' •"-•.••'•• ''* • ••• '•
SECTION XII: EXPLAINING THE RESULTS - MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS.'. .. .72-
SECTION XIII: RESPONSES TO OPEN-ENDED 'QUESTIONS.„....... ....85
SECTION XIVV: .SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RISK COMMUNICATION. .. .88^
• -• ... ;• . . -.; - ..,. • .,^..-.. .... .- . ;-.
REFERENCE BIBLIOGRAPHY.. ........ . . .\ .. .,,,./..,;,..;... .'..'....: 92
APPENDIX A:~ HYPOTHETICAL SITE'SCENARIO I
•RISK COMMUNICATION ' - I . ' '
. . MANAGEMENT OPTIONS. ......... [.-..,. ......'..,95
APPKHDIX B : PRE- AND POST-MANIPULATION QUESTIQNNIARES. .. .... .106
-------
ACHIEVING GREATER, CONSISTENCY
BETWEEN SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE RISKS
Richard J. Bord • •
Associate Professor of Sociology
. Donald J. Epp
Professor of Agricultural Economics
Robert -E. O'Connor
Associate Professor of Political Science
Prepared for the
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Cooperative Agreement No. CR-814592-01-1
Environmental Resources Research Institute
• The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania 16802 /
April 1989
------- |