United States Office of EPA-220-R-01-006
Environmental Protection Environmental Information January 2001
Agency (2831R) www.epa.gov/empact
v>EPA EMPACT Local Urban
Environmental Issues Study of
Metropolitan Areas in
EPA Region 6
MPACT
Environmental Monitoring for Public Access
& Community Tracking
-------
-------
Table of Contents
1
Page Number
Executive Summary i
Summary of Findings i
Chapter I. Introduction 1-1
I. Purpose of the EMPA CT Local Environmental Issues
Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas 1-1
II. Previous Research 1-1
"x III. Unique Features of the Survey 1-2
J IV. This Report: Findings for EMPACT MSAs in EPA Region 6 1-2
^ Chapter II. Methods II-l
^ I. Survey Development and Peer Review II-l
II. Survey Instrument II-l
^ III. Survey Methods II-2
to IV. Data Collection Methods II-2
^IK V. Quality Control Procedures II-3
^ VI. Analysis II-4
Jo
/"* Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues III-l
I. Environmental Issues III-l
II. Environmental Issues vs. Non-Environmental Issues III-3
III. Overview: Importance of Local Environmental Issues in Region 6 III-3
IV. Local Environmental Issues: Better, Worse, or the Same
During the Last Five Years III-7
A. Quality of Drinking Water from Public Water Systems Ill-10
B. Long-Term Supply of Drinking Water III-l 1
C. Pollution of Streams, Lakes, Rivers, and Oceans in the Urban Area III-l 1
D. Protection of Ground Water and Wells 111-12
E. Adequacy of Sewage Treatment Facilities 111-13
F. Depletion of the Water Table 111-14
G. Air Pollution from Cars 111-15
H. Air Pollution from Businesses and Industries Ill-16
I. Ozone Alerts in the Community III-l7
J. Air Pollution from Burning Leaves III-l8
K. Local Hazardous Waste Dumping III-l9
L. Use of Potentially Harmful Pesticides 111-20
M. Location of Landfills 111-21
N. Adequacy of Landfills 111-22
-------
Table of Contents
O. Disposal of Animal Waste 111-23
V. Summary of Open-Ended Comments on Environmental Issues 111-25
Chapter IV. Sources of Local Environmental Information IV-1
I. Introduction IV-1
II. Sources of Local Environmental Information IV-1
III. Quality of Information Sources IV-2
IV. Other Sources of Local Environmental Information IV-3
A. Internet Access IV-4
Chapter V. Discussion V-l
Appendices
Appendix A BMP ACT Metropolitan Areas
Appendix B Survey Instrument
Appendix C National Urban Profile
Appendix D Region 6 Urban Profile
Appendix E Profiles for Region 6 MSAs
-------
Executive Summary
EMPACT is an interagency Presidential Initiative charged with providing 86 of the nation's largest
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) with the capacity to monitor local environmental parameters
of greatest interest to their citizens, and helping these communities make this information readily
available and understandable. Pursuant to this charge, EMPACT developed a survey to identify local
environmental issues of greatest concern to citizens in each of the 86 EMPACT metropolitan areas.
The survey was developed with input from key EPA staff and Federal stakeholders and then reviewed
by professionals in EPA, other Federal agencies, academia, and the private sector. The survey was
conducted in March and April of 1999 using Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI).
At least 100 respondents were sampled from each MSA, for a total of 8,777 interviews. All citizens
with telephone service in the 86 EMPACT MSAs had an equal probability of being interviewed.
Only the 86 EMPACT MSAs were surveyed. Other MSAs, smaller communities and rural areas were
excluded. Therefore, the results do not reflect national opinion, but are a good indicator of opinion
among residents of metropolitan areas. Overall, 81.1% of the residents living in a metropolitan
statistical area live in one of the EMPACT MSAs. The findings from all 10 regions combined have
been published previously under separate cover.
This report presents findings from respondents living in the 10 EMPACT MSAs located in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Region 6: Albuquerque, NM; Austin/San Marcos, TX;
Dallas/Fort Worth, TX; El Paso, TX; Houston/Galveston/Brazoria, TX; Little Rock/North Little
Rock, AR; New Orleans, LA; Oklahoma City, OK; San Antonio, TX; and Tulsa, OK. In all, 69.5%
of the residents of metropolitan statistical areas in Region 6 live in one of the 10 Region 6 EMPACT
MSAs. Therefore, these results are a good indicator of opinions among residents of metropolitan
areas in Region 6.
Summary of Findings
The following are key findings from the analysis of the survey data from the Region 5 EMPACT
MSAs:
Importance of Environmental Issues in Region 6
Region 6 respondents consider environmental issues slightly more important than non-
environmental issues. Public education (mean=8.6), a non-environmental issue, received the
highest overall mean importance rating, however, the next two most important issues were
environmental. The long-term supply of drinking water (8.5) and the quality of drinking water
(8.3) were considered the two most important environmental issues. The next most important
local environmental issues were the pollution of streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans (8.2);
protection of ground water and wells (8.1); and the adequacy of sewage treatment facilities (8.0).
The next most important non-environmental issues were local crime rate (8.2) and illegal drug
use (8.2).
-------
Executive Summary
Water issues are the most important local environmental issues to Region 6 respondents.
The five most important local environmental issues relate to water, with the two most important
relating to drinking water in particulanlong-term supply of drinking water (mean=8.5); quality
of drinking water (8.3); pollution of streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans (8.2); protection of ground
water and wells (8.1); and the adequacy of sewage treatment facilities (8.0).
There are significant differences in the importance of local environmental concerns for
Region 6 respondents compared to the other nine EPA Region respondents combined.
« Region 6 respondents are significantly more likely to report that ozone alerts, the
depletion of the water table, and the long-term supply of drinking water are important
issues.
Improvement or Decline of Environmental Issues in Region 6
Regarding improvement in local environmental conditions during the last five years,
Region 6 respondents are most likely to report improvement in the air pollution from
burning leaves (42%); use of potentially harmful pesticides (41%); and the adequacy
of sewage treatment facilities (34%).
Regarding decline in local environmental conditions during the last five years, Region
6 respondents are most likely to report decline in air pollution from cars (43%); the
adequacy of landfills (35%); and the pollution of streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans
(33%).
There are significant differences in the perceived improvement or decline of local
environmental issues for Region 6 respondents compared to the other nine EPA Region
respondents combined.
* When compared to other regions combined, Region 6 respondents are more likely to
report that the following issues have improved over the last five years: adequacy of
landfills; protection of ground water and wells, and the long-term supply of drinking
water.
* When compared to other regions combined, Region 6 respondents are more liely to
report that the following issues have worsened over the last five years: Air pollution
from business and industries and the depletion of the water table.
Key Findings Among Region 6 MSAs
There are significant differences in local environmental concerns among Region 6
EMPACT MSAs. Among the notable differences:
* Oklahoma City respondents are significantly more likely to report that many
local environmental issues are important;
-------
Executive Summary
* Albuquerque are significantly less likely to report that some local
environmental issues are important.
Respondents were asked to indicate how important each of 29 issues was in their community using
a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being "extremely important" and 1 being "not important at all."
"Importance" ratings referenced in the Executive Summary are means.
For each environmental issue that a respondent rated 6 or greater in importance, the respondent was
asked: "For (INSERT ISSUE), would you say it has gotten better, worse, or stayed the same in the
last five years in the (INSERT NAME OF MSA) area?
ill
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Chapter I
Introduction
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Chapter I. Introduction
I. Purpose of the EMPACT Local Environmental Issues Study of 86
Metropolitan Areas
EMPACT is an interagency Presidential Initiative charged with providing 86 of the nation's largest
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) with the capacity to monitor local environmental parameters
of greatest interest to their citizens, and helping these communities make this information readily
available and understandable. (Appendix A contains an alphabetical listing of the 86 EMPACT MSAs
and a listing of EMPACT MSAs by EPA Region). To meet this charge, EMPACT is a "customer-
driven" program that attempts to meet the needs and preferences of its customers, the 86 designated
EMPACT MSAs, and their residents. In order to ensure that EMPACT funded research and grants
focus on the local environmental parameters of greatest interest to citizens, information about the
local environmental issues of greatest concern to the citizens in each of the 86 EMPACT MSAs was
critical. Therefore, EMPACT developed a survey to identify local environmental issues of greatest
concern to citizens in each of the 86 EMPACT MSAs. This information will be used by EMPACT
to direct resource allocations and evaluate research proposals and the program's portfolio of
initiatives. The information from the survey will also be provided to EMPACT projects and federal
partners to support their work in providing citizens with easily accessible, understandable, time-
relevant information about environmental conditions in their communities.
II. Previous Research
EMPACT and its contractor conducted searches of all relevant electronic data bases (e.g., Roper
Polls and the University of North Carolina State Polls), reviewed related literature, consulted with
experts in the areas of environmental and survey research, and maintained continuing communications
with other EPA organizations and federal agencies with related missions. These efforts identified no
previous, current, or planned efforts to conduct a national survey of urban residents' concerns with
local environmental issues.
The most relevant surveys identified were conducted by state polls and academic polling
organizations. However, these polls queried environmental issues on the national, regional, and state
levels. The identified state-level studies queried respondents about environmental issues in their state
of residence. Thus, the environmental issues queried focused on a broader geographic area than the
respondent's area of residence and the sample included non-urban residents. Many of the polls
conducted on the regional and state levels were over 20 years old. Only one metropolitan poll in La
Vegas, Nevada included questions about local urban environmental issues at the community level.
Survey questions that query a broad sample of citizens (i.e., urban, small town, and rural residents)
about the importance of environmental issues at a national, regional, or state level may be of little use
in identifying local environmental issues of greatest importance to residents of a specific metropolita
area. First, when queried about environmental issues in general or at the national and regional levels,
respondents frequently focus on broad issues, such as ozone depletion. Second, residents of
metropolitan areas, small towns, and rural areas are likely to be concerned about very different local
environmental issues in their communities. Lastly, even if a national or state level survey were to ask
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6 1-1
-------
Chapter I. Introduction
respondents from urban areas about environmental concerns in their city of residence, the aggregate
results would be of little use because of likely variation in local issues across cities.
It is the EMPACT Program's anecdotal experience that many MSAs have unique environmental
issues or place a unique emphasis on particular local environmental issues. However, there are no
comprehensive, scientifically valid information sources on which to validate these observations across
the 86 EMPACT MSAs.
III. Unique Features of the Survey
The EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas was undertaken
to support the EMPACT program. Therefore, the inquiry and sample were restricted. The primary
focus was upon the importance of local issues in the respondent's community. Additional areas of
inquiry were also restricted to questions about the urban area in which the respondent resided.
Therefore, survey results do not reflect national opinion, in that residents of smaller MSAs and rural
areas were not included in the survey.
The Metropolitan Statistical Areas surveyed include only the designated 86 EMPACT MSAs.
EMPACT MSAs were identified programmatically to insure inclusion of the 75 largest U.S. MSAs
and inclusion of additional MSAs to insure participation by all fifty states. These MSAs are not a
statistical sample of all U.S. MSAs.
IV. This Report: Findings for EMPACT MSAs in EPA Region 6
This report will present the survey finding for the 10 EMPACT MSAs located in EPA Region 6:
Albuquerque, NM; Austin/San Marcos, TX; Dallas/Fort Worth, TX; El Paso, TX;
Houston/Galveston/Brazoria, TX; Little Rock/North Little Rock, AR; New Orleans, LA; Oklahoma
City, OK; San Antonio, TX; and Tulsa, OK. Where applicable, results are delineated by MSA (within
Region 6) to provide further segmentation of survey findings. In some cases, comparisons have been
made between Region 6 results and the results from the other EPA Regions combined. Comparing
Region 6 results with the combined results from the other nine Regions provides a general look at
how Region 6 findings compare to those for the rest of the country.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6 1-2
-------
Chapter II
Methods
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Chapter II. Methods
I. Survey Development and Peer Review
The survey design and questionnaire were peer reviewed by four outside peer reviewers and one EPA
statistician. EMPACT and its contractor, Macro International (Macro), consulted with a broad range
of experts and professionals including staff within EPA and other Federal agencies, outside
academics, survey practitioners, and key stakeholders. Throughout the survey development process,
their feedback was used to refine the survey structure and content, revise the questionnaire, develop
the survey methodology and sampling plan, and create the analysis plan.
II. Survey Instrument
The survey instrument contained 66 questions divided into four sections:
Local environmental concerns
Non-environmental concerns
Communications issues
Respondent demographics.
The survey instrument will help the EMPACT Program and EMPACT Projects more clearly
understand citizens':
Local environmental concerns: The instrument captures respondent perceptions of
predominant local environmental issues in their communities. It is important to note that the
EMPACT survey asked citizens to identify and describe the importance of local environmental
issues. These opinions may differ from scientific and technical assessments of environmental
conditions in these metropolitan areas.
Context for prioritizing local environmental concerns: This allows EMPACT to compare
perceptions of local environmental concerns versus other non-environmental concerns (e.g.,
local crime rate, quality of public education, availability of public transportation). These
responses provide insight into the importance citizens place on a broad range of issues facing
their communities. Many of the non-environmental concerns are tangentially related to broad
environmental issues such as urban sprawl.
Sources of local environmental information: EMPACT will be able to identify how citizens
typically obtain information (active and passive information acquisition) about local
environmental issues and how they rate the quality of the local information provided by various
sources. This provides EMPACT Projects with additional information about their customers'
opinions and preferences regarding providers of information about local environmental
conditions and issues.
A copy of the survey instrument is attached as Appendix B.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6 11-1
-------
Chapter II. Methods
I. Survey Methods
The survey was conducted in March and April of 1999. At least 100 interviews were completed for
each of the 86 BMP ACT metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), for a total of 8777 interviews
nationally. In all, 1036 respondents living in thelO Region 6 EMPACT MSAs were interviewed.
This sampling methodology balanced two competing demandsensuring valid sample sizes for each
city while also maintaining cost efficiency. As a result, the study was able to achieve sound statistical
precision:
For all 86 MSAs combined, the sampling error is ± 1.05% at a 95% confidence level.
Combining the EMPACT MSAs located in each EPA region, the sampling error for each of the
10 EPA regions varies from ±2.34% to ±4.90% depending on the number of survey
respondents in each region (based on the number of MSAs in the region).
Combining the 10 EMPACT MSAs in Region 6, the sampling error for Region 6 is ±3.04%.
For each individual MSA, the sampling error is approximately ±9.80% at a 95% confidence
level.
This signifies that, with 95% certainty, the mean percentage response to any question using the
statistical sample is within the designated sampling error of the true percentage in the sampled
population. For example, if 60.00% of the respondents in all 10 Region 6 MSAs respond "Yes" to
a question, the true value in the population is between 56.96% and 63.04% with 95% certainty.
For analysis purposes, data at the national and regional levels have been weighted to recent
population estimates (U.S. Census Bureau, July 1997 estimates) to accurately reflect the nation or
region as a whole. For example, without weighting, it would be inaccurate to equally represent 100
El Paso MSA respondents and 100 Dallas/Fort Worth MSA respondents at a national level or
regional level, since the Dallas/Fort Worth MSA respondents represent a much larger population.
IV. Data Collection Methods
Macro collected the survey data using a Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) system.
The CATI system allows for efficient collection of data while maintaining rigorous quality control
(e.g., built-in skip patterns, instant identification of out-of-range responses). However, inherent in
any telephone survey of the general population, minimal bias exists due to a small percentage of
households (less than 3%) that do not have telephone service, and are therefore ineligible to be
chosen for this study.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6 11-2
-------
Chapter II. Methods
Before fielding the survey, Macro programmed the survey into the CATI system and performed
rigorous testing to ensure that the survey functioned as designed. Macro comprehensively trained
the in-house interviewers to familiarize them with the survey methodology and to provide them with
background information about BMP ACT. Experienced supervisors provided continuous oversight
throughout the survey fielding process. Interviewers were randomly remotely monitored to ensure
interviewer competence and data accuracy. EMPACT staff and the BMP ACT Steering Committee
were also able to remotely monitor interviewers throughout the data collection.
After the data collection was completed, Macro programmers performed a series of validity checks
to ensure the integrity of the database. Once it had been determined that the data was clean and
reliable, Macro began the process of analyzing the data.
V. Quality Control Procedures
The following table details the quality control procedures used in the data collection process.
Table 1. Quality Control Procedures
Survey Step
Quality Control Procedures
CATI Programming
Interviewer Training
The programmed survey was compared to the paper version by three
project staff not involved in the programming to identify any
programming errors
The CATI system guarantees that out-of-range responses can not be
recorded (error message immediately appears) and that skip patterns
are followed correctly
Macro used only experienced trained interviewers who have been
certified to interview on the EMPACT study by completing project
training
Interviewers were required to practice on two supervisor-monitored
interviews before being certified for the project
Interviewing
Supervisors randomly monitored 20% of interviews. If the interviewer
were to vary from the written protocol or introduces improper queries,
the interviewer is taken off-line for additional training
Supervisors reviewed daily production reports that detail disposition of
all survey records
EMPACT staff and Steering Committee remotely accessed interviews
Database
Development
Programmers and analysts continually downloaded data to verify
inconsistencies do not occur
Programming supervisor randomly verified 5% of survey records
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6 II-3
-------
Chapter II. Methods
VI. Analysis
The previous BMP ACT report, EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86
Metropolitan Areas, focuses on the responses to the EMPACT survey at the national urban-level
for all 86 EMPACT MSAs. This report, however, primarily provides survey results for respondents
in Region 6 only, which includes the following 10 EMPACT MSAs:
Albuquerque, NM
Austin/San Marcos, TX
Dallas/Fort Worth, TX
El Paso, TX
Houston/Galveston/Brazoria, TX
Little Rock/North Little Rock, AR
New Orleans, LA
Oklahoma City, OK
San Antonio, TX
Tuisa, OK
It should be noted that, although some EMPACT MSAs may overlap multiple regions, each
EMPACT MSA has been classified into the one most appropriate region in these reports. A list of
EMPACT MSAs by region is attached as Appendix A.
A national summary profile of national urban-level survey results is attached as Appendix C.
A Region 6 summary profile of regional urban-level survey results is attached as Appendix D.
MSA-level summary profiles of survey results for each of the 10 EMPACT MSAs in Region 6 are
attached as Appendix E.
Results at the national urban and regional urban-levels have been weighted to reflect the known
population in each MSA (based on July 1998 population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau).
Therefore, highly populated MSAs will be more highly represented in the regional and national
results, allowing for a more accurate data analysis and presentation of results.
It is important to note that the EPA Region 6, as well as the national-level results are not intended
to reflect the entire population of the region or of the United States as a whole. Rather, the results
reflect the population of respondents in the EMPACT MSAs included in this study. Therefore,
generalizations can only be made to residents of U.S. MSAs. Overall, 81.1% of the U.S. population
living in a metropolitan statistical area lives in one of the EMPACT MSAs. Within EPA Region 6,
the proportion of MSA residents living in one of the 10 EMPACT MSAs is 69.5%. Table 2
EMPACT Proportion of Total MSA Population by EPA Region shows the number and percentage
of all MSA residents living in EMPACT MSAs by EPA Region and the nation. While generalizations
can be made about the residents of MSAs, the results should not be interpreted as representative of
other populations, such as residents of small communities and rural areas.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6 11-4
-------
Chapter II. Methods
Table 2. EMPACT Proportion of Total MSA Population by EPA Region
Region
1
2
3
4
Population
in EMPACT
MSAs
7,643,707
25,932,689
20,104,526
22,438,645
Total
Population in
MSAs
11,217,000
27,069,000
22,027,000
35,229,000
EMPACT
Proportion of MSA
Population
68.1%
95.8% i
91.3% ;
63.7%
29,818,343:
37,860,000!
78.8%
i 6 j
! 7 ;
| 8 :
9 !
j 10 i
16,358,359!
5,433,244 ;
4,022,173:
33,993,469 1
6,022,278 i
23,541,000!
7,180,0001
5,624,000 ;
36,933,000 i
7,526,000 i
69.5%
75.7% !
71.5%
92.0%
80.0%
Total
171.767.432
211.785.000
81.1%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6 II-5
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Chapter III
Local Urban Environmental Issues
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
I. Environmental Issues
Respondents were asked to rate 29 local issues, 15 environmental issues and 14 non-environmental
issues (See Tables 3 and 4). This section of the report summarizes Region 6 respondent data on 15
local urban environmental issues which are listed in Table 3 Local Urban Environmental Issues
Queried.
Table 3. Local Urban Environmental Issues Queried
Water
Air
Waste
Quality of drinking water from i Air pollution from cars
public water systems
! Adequacy of landfills
Protection of ground water and '. Air pollution from businesses or Location of landfills
wells industrial sites
it '
; Depletion of the water table Air pollution from burning leaves Hazardous waste dumping in
'! ' the local area
I Pollution of streams, rivers, Ozone alerts in the community
:! lakes, and oceans in the urban
! area
Use of potentially harmful
pesticides
II Adequacy of long-term supply of
!j drinking water
Disposal of animal waste
i: Adequacy of sewage treatment
;j facilities
For each of the 29 local issues, respondents were asked to rate how important the issue is in their
specific metropolitan statistical area (MSA) on a scale of 1 to 10, with one being not important at all
and 10 being extremely important. To minimize potential bias due to the ordering of survey
questions, the local environmental issues were randomized together with non-environmental issues
for each respondent.
For each environmental issue a respondent rated six or higher, the respondent was then asked whether
s/he believed the issue has gotten better, worse, or has stayed the same during the last five years. The
findings in this report focus primarily on this data about environmental trends because it best
highlights respondent perceptions of environmental concerns and trends in their community. For each
environmental issue a respondent rated six or greater, the respondent was also asked if s/he had been
actively involved in this issue (e.g. written letters, attended public meetings, joined an advocacy
group). Lastly, respondents were asked if they or anyone in their family had been negatively affected
by any of these environmental issues. Both questions are indicators of levels of potential interest and
involvement. Percentage responses to these questions are presented on the profiles in Appendices C,
D, and E.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6 111-1
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
All findings in this report are based on ordinal data, meaning respondents were asked to report their
answers on a scale whose values are defined by the respondent. Response categories form an ordered
series. Ordinal scales permit discussion of "moreness" or "lessness," but make no assumptions as to
how much more or less. Therefore, results of this study should not be interpreted as interval data,
in which an answer of "four" can be characterized as "twice as good" as a rating of "two".
To simplify the following discussions of survey findings, references will be made to national urban
and regional urban findings. National urban findings relate to overall survey findings for all 86
EMPACT MSAs across the country. No generalizations can be made to non-MSA or rural
populations. Similarly, regional urban findings refer to combined survey findings for all EMPACT
MSAs within an EPA Region. For example, the findings for Region 6 reflect the responses from
citizens sampled from the 10 EMPACT MSAs (Albuquerque, NM; Austin/San Marcos, TX;
Dallas/Fort Worth, TX; El Paso, TX; Houston/Galveston/Brazoria, TX; Little Rock/North Little
Rock, AR; New Orleans, LA; Oklahoma City, OK; San Antonio, TX; and Tulsa, OK) located in
EPA's Region 6. Therefore, generalizations cannot be made to the entire regional population.
Appendix A contains a listing of the 86 EMPACT MSAs by the EPA Region in which they are
located.
In reviewing this regional report, it is important to consider several issues when interpreting the
findings.
When comparing this regional report to the national report, the findings may not seem entirely
parallel. This is not due to error, but rather due to the scope and nature of the two reports. The
national report is intended to provide an overview of the findings, with emphasis placed on
conveying a basic descriptive analysis of the data rather than on significance testing. Conversely,
the regional report provides this deeper statistical analysis of the data using t-tests to determine
significant differences among regions and EMPACT MSAs within regions. Therefore, some
national findings may be further emphasized by the regional findings, while others may be
supported to a lesser extent due to statistical constraints (e.g., the number of respondents in each
region).
The number of EMPACT MSAs in each region vary from 4 MSAs in Regions 7 and 10 up to 17
MSAs in Region 4. Therefore, the statistical error associated with each region also varies, since
results obtained from regions with fewer responses contain a higher level of statistical uncertainty.
For example, 400 responses were obtained for the 4 EMPACT MSAs in Region 10, resulting in
a sample error of 4.90% at a 95% confidence level. In Region 4,1,748 responses were obtained
from the 17 EMPACT MSAs, resulting in a much smaller sample error of 2.34% at the same level
of confidence. As a result, although both Region 10 and Region 4 results for one issue may vary
equally from the mean of other regions (e.g., Region 10 = 69.0%, Regions 1-9 = 65.0%; Region
4 = 69.0%, Regions 1-3, 5-10 = 65.0%), one could only conclude a significant increase for
Region 4 on this issue due to the higher level of statistical uncertainty in the Region 10 results.
In fact, using this example, even if Region 10 measures 69.5% and Region 4 measures 67.5%,
it would still be determined that only Region 4 experienced a significant increase.
Whereas weighted means and percentages are used to produce all of the means and percentages
in both this report and the national report, significance testing (i.e., t-tests) to determine
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6 111-2
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
differences among regions and EMPACT MSAs requires that comparisons be made using
unweighted results.
II. Environmental Issues vs. Non-Environmental Issues
In addition to rating local environmental issues, respondents were also asked to rate the importance
of 14 non-environmental issues in Table 4 Local Urban Non-Environmental Issues Queried. As noted
above, the ordering of the 29 combined environmental and non-environmental issues were
randomized.
Table 4. Local Urban Non-Environmental Issues Queried
Local crime rate Favorable business climate
Illegal drug use Rate of unemployment
Quality of public education Level of local taxes
Adequacy of local highway system Poverty in local community
Availability of housing for low Adequacy of municipal services (e.g.,
income citizens trash and snow removal, police and
Ability of the community to respond fire protection)
to natural disasters Rate of urban growth
Availability of public transportation Health of the local economy
As a whole, respondents rate local environmental issues as slightly more important than non-
environmental issues. Nationally, six local environmental issues receive mean importance ratings of
at least 8.00, while only three non-environmental issues are rated as highly. The non-environmental
issues that are most important to respondents are the quality of public education, the local crime
rate, and illegal drug use.
III. Overview: Importance of Local Environmental Issues in Region 6
In Region 6, the five most important local environmental issues to respondents relate to water.
Respondents provide the highest importance ratings for the long-term supply of drinking water.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6 111-3
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 1. Local Environmental Issues Mean Importance Ratings: Region 6
Long-term supply of drinking w ater I 8.46
Quality of drinking w ater MHMMHHHBHBBBBMI 8.35
Pollution of streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans ^^^H 8.23
Protection of ground w ater/w ells ^i 8.12
Local hazardous w aste dumping ^^IM 7.94
Depletion of water table ^^i 7.93
Location of landfills
Air pollution-cars
Harmful pesticides
Air pollution-businesses/industry
Adequacy of landfills
Ozone alerts
Animal waste disposal
Air pollution-burning leaves | 4.10
10
Compared to the other nine to the other nine EPA Regions combined, Region 6 respondents are
significantly more likely report that the following issues are important: ozone alerts, depletion of
water table, and the long-term supply of drinking water. These findings are shown in Figure 2.
Region Importance Ratings Compared to other Regions Combined.
The most noteworthy differences in the importance ratings for local environmental issues among the
Region 6 MSAs is the difference between Albuquerque and Oklahoma City (See Figure 3).
Oklahoma City respondents are significantly more likely to report that many local environmental
issues are important. Oklahoma City respondents rated 6 of the 1 5 environmental issues significantly
higher than the other nine Region 6 BMP ACT MSAs combined. Conversely, Albuquerque
respondents were significantly less likely to report that many local environmental issues were
important. Albuquerque respondents rated 7 of the 1 5 environmental issues significantly lower than
the other 9 MSAs combined.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6 111-4
-------
Chapter ill. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 2. Region Importance Ratings Compared to Other Regions Combined
i
i
!
1
i
1 Issue
1 Air pollution- cars
i
| Air pollution- business,
i industrial sites
: Air pollution- burning leaves
Ozone alerts
' Adequacy of landfills
i Location of landfills
; Local hazardous waste
! dumping
Harmful pesticides
Animal waste disposal
Quality of drinking water
Protection of ground water
and wells
Depletion of water table
Pollution of streams/lakes
Long-term supply of drinking
|
if i
r~ : CD
II : II
z , z,
*~ CNJ
§ §
8" '9
K. CC.
i
j A
i
' A
: ±
' A
T
A
;
A A
Region 3(N = 923)
Region 4 (N = 1748)
.
T A
| -
;
; A
i
: A
i
A ' A
A i A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
i
j ;
i
j i
I i 1 sis
5: *- : TT : co
ii u ii u
2 ; Z Z ; Z
"o 1 co i >*- eo
Ji c i c c
' .2 ! ° .Q
O) ' O < O ' O)
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 3. MSA Importance Ratings Compared to Other Region 6 MSAs Combined
;
j
1 in
\ 8
ro
co 5
i 1: 1
| | ; 1
Issue ; < <
Air pollution- cars
Air pollution- business, industrial sites T T
Air pollution- burning leaves
Ozone alerts T
Adequacy of landfills
Location of landfills i V
Local hazardous waste dumping : T
^
&
>
U-
"35
CO
8
T
CO
n
Qj
A
A
CO
0
N
CO
CD
"S
5
g)
"co
O
<
In
o
A
^
^
cc
«
o
z
0
a:
CO
*!
l_l
w
T
T
P
CO
O
Z
A
T
£r
0
P
CO
o
.
A
0
o
c
CO
CO
CO
in
u
A
!
T
Harmful pesticides
Animal waste disposal
Quality of drinking water
Protection of ground water and wells
Depletion of water table
Pollution of streams/lakes
Long-term supply of drinking water
Adequacy of sewage treatment facilities
A Mean MSA importance rating is significantly higher than other MSAs in the region combined
T Mean MSA importance rating is significantly lower than other MSAs in the region combined
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6 111-6
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
IV. Local Environmental Issues: Better, Worse, or the Same During
the Last Five Years
When asked whether each issue has become better, has stayed the same, or has become worse during
the last five years, 42% of Region 6 respondents reported that the air pollution from burning
leaveswhich received the lowest importance rating of any environmental issuehad become better
during this time. Conversely, 43% of respondents indicated that the air pollution from cars has
become worse during the last five years. (See Figure 4).
For the following three local environmental issues, the percentage of Region 6 respondents reporting
that the issue had improved during the last five years was significantly higher than in the other nine
regions combined (Figure 5): ozone alerts; protection of ground water and wells; and the long-term
supply of drinking water. For two local environmental issues - air pollution from business/industry
and water table depletion - the percentage of Region 6 respondents reporting that the issue had
worsened during the last five years was significantly higher than in the other nine regions combined.
Figure 4. Local Environmental Issues Improvement or Decline
During the Last Five Years: Region 6
Long-term supply of drinking w ater HJiffllilHI 56% jg19%~
Quality of drinking w ater
Pollution of streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans
Protection of ground w ater/w ells
Adequacy of sew age treatment facilities
Local hazardous w aste dumping
Depletion of water table
Location of landfills
Air pollution-cars
Harmful pesticides
Air pollution-businesses/lndustry
Adequacy of landfills
Ozone alerts
Animal w aste disposal
Air pollution-burning leaves
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Better ~Same n Worse
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6 IH-7
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 5. Local Environmental Issues - Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years:
Regions Compared to Other Regions Combined
1
I
i
1
i
j
i Issue
: Air pollution- cars
i
! Air pollution- business,
: industrial sites
1 Air pollution- burning leaves
Ozone alerts
, Adequacy of landfills
\ Location of landfills
Local hazardous waste
dumping
: Harmful pesticides
Animal waste disposal
Quality of drinking water
Protection of ground water
and wells
Depletion of water table
Pollution of streams/lakes
Long-term supply of drinking
water
Adequacy of sewage
; treatment facilities
o
r-
II
2
T-
0
co
a:
B
W
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
CO
CO
II
2
CM
0
c?
B
B
W
B
53
O)
ii
z
CO
0
I
w
w
w
B
: ! i
| i
1
CO Jy?* 1 tO ' ^ s
S S i S 8
ii n I n n
2 22 2
Tf If) j CD r*-
§c : c ; c
_ - 1 .2 : &
j I ! 1 i I
B i !
B ! W
W : B i
W B i B
B W
: . :
B B
B
W
W B
W B
S
CO
II
2
CO
c
o
ct
w
^-
CM
^
II
2
CD
§
t
W
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
o^
o
II
^^
o
I
I
w
i
1
1
B
j
i
w
w
B Percentage of respondents reporting that the issue has improved is significantly higher in this region than in
other regions combined
W Percentage of respondents reporting that the issue has declined is significantly higher in this region than in
other regions combined
NOTE: Only respondents who rated each issue six or higher were asked whether the issue had improved or
declined.
NOTE: The number of EMPACT MSAs vary by region. For regions with fewer MSAs (e.g., Region 10), and
therefore fewer survey responses, it is difficult to measure statistically significant differences from the combined
mean of other regions due to sample error.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6
111-8
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental issues
Figure 6. Local Environmental Issues Improvement or Decline Over Last Five Years:
MSAs Compared to Other MSAs Combined
Issue
Air pollution- cars
Air pollution- business, industrial sites
Air pollution- burning leaves
Ozone alerts
Adequacy of landfills
Location of landfills
Local hazardous waste dumping
Harmful pesticides
Animal waste disposal
Quality of drinking water
Protection of ground water and wells
Depletion of water table
Pollution of streams/lakes
§! r~
i t
| 5
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
The following section will focus on the responses about whether specific local environmental
conditions have gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse during the last five years.
Statistically significant findings for this "improvement-decline" data were summarized in Figures 5
and 6. The percentage responses are broken out and reported below. Each section discusses some
overall generalizations that can be made about each Region 5 EMPACT MSA. The issues are
grouped by type of issue (i.e., water, air, and waste). The data included within each section reflects
perceptions of the local environmental issues for respondents who rated each issues as a six or
higher.
A. Quality of Drinking Water from Public Water Systems
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 6 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 6 MSAs combined, Tulsa
respondents are significantly more likely to report that the quality of drinking water has
worsened in the past five years.
Figure 7. Quality of Drinking Water by Region 6 MSA
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 6
Albuquerque
Austin
Dallas
B Paso
Houston
Little Rock
New Orleans
Oklahoma City
San Antonio
Tulsa
' 23%
I 24%
~! 25%
[j Better
Worse
21%
33%
115%
' 16%
43%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6
11-10
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
B. Long-Term Supply of Drinking Water
Compared to the other regions combined, Region 6 respondents are significantly more likely
to report that the long-term supply of drinking water has improved during the last five years.
When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 6 MSAs combined, Austin and
Oklahoma City are significantly more likely to report that the long-term supply of drinking
water has improved, while Albuquerque and El Paso are significantly more likely to report that
the long-term supply of drinking water has worsened over the past five years.
Figure 8. Long-Term Supply of Drinking Water by Region 6 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
Houston Li|> :
New Orleans mmmmmami -f ^%
OklohomQ Citv 38%
;_j Better
Worse
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
C. Pollution of Streams, Lakes, Rivers, and Oceans in the Urban Area
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 6 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. Compared to other Region 6 MSAs, El Paso reported a significantly higher number
of respondents who felt that the pollution of lakes, rivers, and oceans in their urban area has
worsened over the last five years.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Regions 111-11
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 9. Urban Water Pollution by Region 6 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 6
Albuquerque
Austin
Dallas
B Paso
Houston
Little Rock
New Orleans
Oklahoma City
San Antonio
Tulsa
0%
- 34%
134%
31%
33%
: Better
I Worse
31%
32%
' 23%
30%
37%
1 28%
i 30%
- 21%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
D. Protection of Ground Water and Wells
Compared to the other regions combined, Region 6 respondents are significantly more likely
to report that the protection of ground water and wells has improved during the last five years.
When compared to other Region 6 MSAs, San Antonio respondents are significantly more
likely to report that the protection of ground water and wells has improved over the last five
years, while Albuquerque is more likely to report that the protection of ground water and wells
has worsened over the past five years.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6
1-12
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 10. Protection of Ground Water and Wells by Region 6 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
-
Dalla- ^^_^^_ --24%
^\l*l«hl* **»«. /"*:*« 3* ^
_ « ^^ li%
LJ Better i
Worse
%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
E. Adequacy of Sewage Treatment Faculties
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 6 to other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 6 MSAs combined, no
significant differences exist.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6 111-13
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 11. Adequacy of Sewage Treatment Facilities by Region 6 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 6
Albuquerque
Austin
Dallas
B Paso
Houston
Little Rock
New Orleans
Oklahoma City
San Antonio
Tulsa
0%
; 38%
] Better
I Worse
32%
26%
33%
-35%
: 22%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
F. Depletion of the Water Table
Compared to other regions combined, Region 6 respondents are significantly more likely to
report that the depletion of the water table has worsened during the last five years. Compared
to other Region 6 MS As, Albuquerque reported a significantly higher number of respondents
who feel that the depletion of the water table has worsened in the last five years.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6
111-14
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 12. Depletion of the Water Table by Region 6 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
-
\ G Better ;
Worse
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
G. Air Pollution from Cars
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 6 to other nine EPA Regions
combined. Compared to other Region 6 MSAs, Albuquerque, El Paso, and Houston report a
significantly higher number of respondents who feel that the air pollution from cars has
improved, while Austin and San Antonio report a significantly higher number of respondents
who feel that the air pollution from cars has worsened over the past five years.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6 111-15
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 13. Air Pollution from Cars by Region 6 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 6
Albuquerque
Austin
Dallas
B Paso
Houston
Little Rock
New Orleans
Oklahoma City
San Antonio
Tulsa
3HV.
0%
;29%
-^42%
D Better
Worse
|60%
J40%
: 41 %
-20%
44%
23%
" 38%
137%
33%
K 34%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
H. Air Pollution from Businesses and Industries
Compared to the other regions combined, Region 6 respondents are significantly more likely
to report that the air pollution from businesses and industries has worsened during the last five
years. When compared to other Region 6 MSAs, El Paso respondents are significantly more
likely to report that air pollution from businesses and industries has improved in the last five
years, while San Antonio respondents are significantly more likely to report that air pollution
from businesses and industries has worsened in the last five years.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6
111-16
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 14. Air Pollution from Businesses and Industries by Region 6 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 6
Albuquerque
Austin
Dallas
B Paso
Houston
Little Rock
New Orleans
Oklahoma City
San Antonio
Tulsa
0%
; 27%
30%
I 35%
bs%
~! Better
Worse
: 18%
j 26%
1 28%
29%
I 29%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
I. Ozone Alerts in the Community
Compared to the other regions combined, Region 6 respondents are significantly more likely
to report that the ozone alerts in their community have improved during the last five years.
When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 6 MSAs, Oklahoma City respondents
are significantly more likely to report that the ozone alerts in the community have improved
over the last five years, while Dallas respondents are significantly more likely to report that the
ozone alerts in the community have worsened over the last five years.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6 111-17
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 15. Ozone Alerts in the Community by Region 6 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 6
Albuquerque
Austin
Dallas
El Paso
Houston
Little Rock
New Orleans
Oklahoma City
San Antonio
Tulsa
0%
; 21%
28%
-: 37%
- Better
Worse
111%
39%
I 35%
-27%
142%
130%
-:24%
24%
~i 28%
' 38%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
J. Air Pollution from Burning Leaves
When comparing Region 6 respondents to other regions combined, no significant differences
exist. Compared to other Region 6 MSAs, no significant differences exist.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6
111-18
-------
Chapter HI. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 16. Air Pollution from Burning Leaves by Region 6 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
Rcciion 6 : 42%
Au~tin 'S7V°
Dalla~ 50%
El POCO ;44%
. . " 44%
Houston
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 17. Local Hazardous Waste Dumping by Region 6 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
Austin ^ t ,3fl%
Littlo Rock 4s%
Oklahoma City MMMHBMTTZK
u Better
Worse
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
L. Use of Potentially Harmful Pesticides
When comparing Region 6 respondents to other regions combined, no significant differences
exist. When compared to other Region 6 MSAs, no significant different exist.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6 III-20
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 18. Use of Potentially Harmful Pesticides by Region 6 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 6
Albuquerque
Austin
Dallas
El Paso
Houston
Little Rock
New Orleans
Oklahoma City
San Antonio
Tulsa
37 %
0%
10%
20%
33%
36%
^Better
Worse
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
M. Location of Landfills
When comparing Region 6 respondents to other regions combined, no significant differences
exist. Compared to other Region 6 MSAs, no significant differences exist.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6 111-21
-------
Chapter 111. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 19. Location of Landfills by Region 6 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
Albuquerque HM^^_ W "
Austin ^ ^ ^^^ jSQfc
Dallas MBHMMHibBi 20%
Tulsa MMBHI^HMH''^*
^Better
Worse
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
N. Adequacy of Landfills
When comparing Region 6 respondents to other regions combined, no significant differences
exist. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 6 MSAs, Dallas reports a
significantly higher number of respondents who feel that the adequacy of landfills in their area
has worsened over the last five years.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6
III-22
-------
Chapter HI. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 20. Adequacy of Landfills by Region 6 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
J Better :
Worse
B Paso MMI
0%
| 2 u %
! 19%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
O. Disposal of Animal Waste
When comparing Region 6 to other regions combined, no significant differences exist.
Compared to other Region 6 MSAs, Tulsa respondents are significantly more likely to
report that the disposal of animal waste in their urban are has worsened over the last
five years.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6
I-23
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 21. Animal Waste Disposal by Region 6 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
B Paso ^BH
0%
1 1% .
worse
18%
| 20%
FTs*
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6
III-24
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
V. Summary of Open-Ended Comments on Environmental Issues
After providing importance ratings for each of the 29 local environmental and non-environmental
issues covered by the survey, respondents were asked if they could "think of any other issues in
(Their MSA of Residence)". Respondents who named an issue were also asked the question a
second time. Responses were unprompted and volunteered by respondents. These responses were
recorded verbatim and coded into the general categories listed in Figure 22. Categories were
developed based on 2,063 responses obtained in the overall survey of the 86 MSAs.
In all, Region 6 respondents reported 218 open-ended responses. Of the unprompted responses
provided by Region 6 respondents, 50.9% mentioned an environmental issue; whereas, 49.1%
mentioned a non-environmental issue. The most frequently mentioned type of local environmental
issues mentioned related to pollution (12.0% of all issues for air, water, land pollution combined).
The second most frequently mentioned issue related to land use (9.2% of all issues). The land use
category encompasses a wide range of issues, including urban sprawl, over-development, loss of
trees as a result of development, and traffic congestion.
Figure 22. Summary of Open-Ended Comments on Environmental Issues
issue
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Number of
Respondents
111
Percentage
50.92%
Air Pollution ; 6 2.75%
' Water Pollution
i Land Pollution
Water
I
Land Use
Nuclear Waste
Recycling
Noise Pollution
; Overpopulation
i EPA Regulations
Other
: TOTAL NON-ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
TOTAL ALL ISSUES
Note: Numbers may not add to 100.0% due to rounding
3
17
\ 7
20
i 1
6
!
2
0
7
42
107
218
1.38%
7.80% '
! 3.21%
9.17% f
0.46%
2.75%
: 0.92%
0.00% ;;
3.21% |
19.27% |
49.08%
100.0% ;
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6 III-25
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Chapter IV
Sources of Local Environmental Information
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Chapter IV. Sources of Local Environmental Information
I. Introduction
In addition to obtaining data about the importance of local environmental issues, the EMPA CT Local
Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Metropolitan Areas also gathered data about how people
generally obtain information about local environmental issues in their communities. This chapter
summarizes Region 6 data about commonly reported information sources, the quality of local urban
environmental information provided by selected sources, and Internet usage.
II. Sources of Local Environmental Information
The survey asked respondents to identify the sources from which they usually hear or learn about
urban environmental issues and conditions in their local area. Respondents were allowed to mention
more than one source.
About two-thirds of Region 6 respondents (67%) report that they obtain their information from
television, more than any other information source. Sixty-five percent (65%) of respondents report
receiving local environmental information from newspapers. Only 4% report receiving local
environmental information from the Internet and magazines. Several other sources, such as
billboards, bus-side ads, posters, hotlines, universities, state governments, and the Federal
Government were also mentioned, but by fewer than 4% of the respondents.
Figure 23. Most Common Sources of Local Environmental Information in Region 6
Television
i 67%
New spapers
! 65%
Radio
I 21%
Word of mouth
Magazine 4%
Internet 4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6 IV-1
-------
Chapter IV. Sources of Local Environmental Information
III. Quality of Information Sources
Respondents were also asked to rate the quality of the local environmental information that they
received from selected information sources on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being excellent and 1 being
very poor. The responses were categorized as follows:
Excellent (9 or 10)
Good (6, 7, or 8)
Fair (4 or 5)
Poor (1,2, or 3).
Region 6 respondents report that newspapers and television, the most often used sources, provide
the highest quality local information. Federal, state, and local government sources receive the lowest
ratings.
Figure 24. Quality of Local Environmental Information from Selected Sources: Region 6
Television
Federal government
State government
Local government
Environmental groups
Schools and colleges
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Excellent
;Good
n Fair/Poor
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6
IV-2
-------
Chapter IV. Sources of Local Environmental Information
IV. Other Sources of Local Environmental Information
The survey asked whether the respondent or any other adult in the respondent's household has
obtained environmental information by:
Requesting information in-person, in writing, or by telephone
Subscribing to an environmental publication such as a magazine
Reading a book or brochure or having done a library search
Joining an environmental group
Searching the Internet
Attending a public meeting for information.
This question did not specifically focus on local urban environmental issues, but on environmental
issues in general.
Compared to national-level results for all 86 BMP ACT MSAs, Region 6 respondents are as active
as the national urban population as a whole. Less than half of the Region 6 respondents (44%)
report that a member of their household has read a book or brochure or has done a library search
for environmental information. Interestingly, although the percentage of respondents who
mentioned the Internet when asked to list their sources of local environmental information was
relatively low (4%), almost one-third (32%) report that a member of their household has done an
Internet search for environmental information. This may be because the latter question pertained
to ajl environmental information (not just local) and asked the respondent to answer regarding all
members of the household.
Figure 25. Other Sources of Information on Environmental Issues: Region 6
Read book/brochure or yg«T:rfgTr"v»gCT'-' "» '.'<"»'! -- ,,/
?/:!X9f i*ztj|SStV .,-^fff'*;. -"-'' '' '"' 44%
library research
Searched the Internet 32%
Requested info in-person/
writing/phone ******&& 18%
Attended public meeting m i- 18%
Subscribe to
environmental publication
Joined environmental
group
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6 IV-3
-------
Chapter IV. Sources of Local Environmental Information
A. Internet Access
When asked if they had access to the Internet, 62% of Region 6 respondents report that they
do. This is similar to the 59% access reported by respondents in all 86 BMP ACT MSAs. Of
the Region 6 respondents who have access to the Internet, 79% report using the Internet during
the last few days and 88% report using it during the last week. It should be noted that Internet
saturation is generally higher in urban populations than in the overall United States population.
Figure 26. Internet Usage: Region 6
Read book/brochure or BmffliMumlilHMfflillllf 44°/
library research
Searched the Internet BgjjPliiiilisiiMiiilF 32%
Requested info in-person/ EBI|jiBp~
-------
Chapter V
Discussion
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Chapter V. Discussion
The EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of86 Metropolitan Areas findings indicate
that local environmental issues are very important to citizens living in 86 of the nation's largest
metropolitan areas. The Region 6 findings are consistent with the overall survey findingslocal
environmental issues are very important to people living in the 10 EMPACT MSAs in Region 6.
These findings reflect the opinions of citizens living in metropolitan areas and cannot be generalized
to residents of small communities and rural areas. Citizens' opinions are broadly based and include
of host experiences and factors deemed important to the quality of life they want for themselves,
their children, and their communities.
Similar to the overall survey findings, water issues are the most important local environmental issues
to Region 6 respondents. Much like the overall survey findings, the Region 6 findings indicate that
the local environmental issues are most important to citizens and vary across MSAs. These
differences point to the different local environmental issues and environmental trends facing different
urban areas.
Noteworthy Region 6 findings include:
The quality of drinking water and pollution of streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans received the
greatest mean importance ratings (8.46 and 8.35, respectively).
Compared to other regions combined, Region 6 respondents are more likely to report that
the long-term supply of drinking water the most important Region 6 environmental issue, has
improved over the last five years.
The results raise interesting questions about citizen opinions and perceptions versus scientific
assessment. How accurate are citizens' perceptions of local environmental improvement or decline
as compared to scientifically measured environmental parameters? A close look at the findings may
reveal instances where citizens' concerns, or even optimism, with a local environmental issue may
be inconsistent with the scientific evidence (e.g., monitoring data). Any such inconsistency would
not discount the importance of citizens' opinions. As noted above, citizens' opinions are more
broadly based, often including decades of personal observation and experience in an area, as well
as years of publicity around a subject. Consequently, differences between public opinion and
scientific evidence should be explored and may identify opportunities for public discourse about
local environmental issues, educational needs, resource allocations, community and individual
decision-making, and overall quality-of-life standards and goals.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 6 V-1
-------
Appendix A
EMPACT Metropolitan Areas
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
EMPACT Metropolitan Area
Albany- Schenectady- Troy, NY
Albuquerque, NM
Allentown- Bethlehem- Easton, PA
Anchorage, AK
Atlanta, GA
Austin- San Marcos, TX
Bakersfield, CA
Billings, MT
Birmingham, AL
Boise, ID
Boston, MA- NH
Bridgeport, CT
Buffalo- Niagara Falls, NY
Burlington, VT
Charleston- North Charleston, SC
Charleston, WV
Charlotte- Gastonia- Rock Hill, NC- SC
Cheyenne, WY
Chicago- Gary- Kenosha, IL-IN- WI
Cincinnati- Hamilton, OH- KT- IN
Cleveland- Akron, OH
Columbus, OH
Dallas- Fort Worth, TX
Dayton- Springfield, OH
Denver- Boulder- Greeley, CO
Detroit- Ann Arbor- Flint, MI
EL Paso, TX
Fargo- Moorhead, ND- MN
Fresno, CA
Grand Rapids- Muskegon-Holland, MI
Greensboro- Winston Salem- High Point, NC
Greenville- Spartanburg- Anderson, SC
Harrisburg- Lebanon- Carlisle, PA
Hartford, CT
Honolulu, HI
Houston- Galveston- B razoria, TX
Indianapolis, IN
Jackson, MS
Jacksonville, FL
Kansas City, MO- KS
Knoxville, TN
Las Vegas, NV
EPAEMPACT Study Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
A-1
-------
EMPACT Metropolitan Area
Little Rock- North Little Rock, AR
Los Angeles- Riverside- Orange County, CA
Louisville, KY- IN
Memphis, TN- AR- MS
Miami- Fort Lauderdale, FL
Milwaukee- Racine, WI
Minneapolis- St. Paul, MN
Nashville, TN
New Orleans, LA
New York- Northern New Jersey- Long Island, NY- NJ- CT- PA
Norfolk- Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA- NC
Oklahoma City, OK
Omaha, NE- IA
Orlando, FL
Philadelphia- Wilmington- Atlantic City, PA- NJ- DE- MD
Phoenix- Mesa, AZ
Pittsburgh, PA
Portland, ME
Portland- Salem, OR- WA
Providence- Fall River-Warwick, RI- MA
Raleigh- Durham- Chapel Hill, NC
Richmond- Petersburg, VA
Rochester, NY
Sacramento- Yolo, CA
Salt Lake City- Ogden, UT
San Antonio, TX
San Diego, CA
San Francisco- Oakland- San Jose, CA
San Juan, PR
Scranton- Wilkes- Barre- Hazleton, PA
Seattle- Tacoma- Bremerton, WA
Sioux Falls, SD
Springfield, MA
St. Louis- E. St. Louis, MO- IL
Stockton- Lodi, CA
Syracuse, NY
Tampa- St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL
Toledo, OH
Tucson, AZ
Tulsa, OK
Washington- Baltimore, DC- MD - VA - WV
West Palm Beach- Boca Raton, FL
Wichita, KS
Youngstown-Warren, OH
EPAEMPACT Study Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
A-2
-------
EMPACT Metropolitan Area
Region I
Boston, MA- NH
Bridgeport, CT
Burlington, VT
Hartford, CT
Portland, ME
Providence- Fall River-Warwick, RI- MA
Springfield, MA
Region II
Albany- Schenectady- Troy, NY
Buffalo- Niagara Falls, NY
New York- Northern New Jersey- Long Island, NY- NJ- CT- PA
Rochester, NY
San Juan, PR
Syracuse, NY
Region III
Allentown- Bethlehem- Easton, PA
Charleston, WV
Harrisburg- Lebanon- Carlisle, PA
Norfolk- Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA- NC
Philadelphia- Wilmington- Atlantic City, PA- NJ- DE- MD
Pittsburgh, PA
Richmond- Petersburg, VA
Scranton- Wilkes- Barre- Hazleton, PA
Washington- Baltimore, DC- MD - VA - WV
Region IV
Atlanta, GA
Birmingham, AL
Charleston- North Charleston, SC
Charlotte- Gastonia- Rock Hill, NC- SC
Greensboro- Winston Salem- High Point, NC
Greenville- Spartanburg- Anderson, SC
Jackson, MS
Jacksonville, FL
Knoxville, TN
Louisville, KY- IN
Memphis, TN- AR- MS
EPAEMPACT Study Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
A-3
-------
EMPACT Metropolitan Area
Miami- Fort Lauderdale, FL
Nashville, TN
Orlando, FL
Raleigh- Durham- Chapel Hill, NC
Tampa- St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL
West Palm Beach- Boca Raton, FL
Region V
Chicago- Gary- Kenosha, IL-IN- WI
Cincinnati- Hamilton, OH- KT- IN
Cleveland- Akron, OH
Columbus, OH
Dayton- Springfield, OH
Detroit- Ann Arbor- Flint, MI
Grand Rapids- Muskegon-Holland, MI
Indianapolis, IN
Milwaukee- Racine, WI
Minneapolis- St. Paul, MN
Toledo, OH
Youngstown-Warren, OH
Region VI
Albuquerque, NM
Austin- San Marcos, TX
Dallas- Fort Worth, TX
EL Paso, TX
Houston- Galveston- Brazoria, TX
Little Rock- North Little Rock, AR
New Orleans, LA
Oklahoma City-OK
San Antonio, TX
Tulsa, OK
Region VII
Kansas City, MO- KS
Omaha, NE- IA
St. Louis- E. St. Louis, MO- IL
Wichita, KS
EPAEMPACT Study Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
A-4
-------
EMPACT Metropolitan Area
Region VIII
Billings, MT
Cheyenne, WY
Denver- Boulder- Greeley, CO
Fargo- Moorhead, ND- MN
Salt Lake City- Ogden, UT
Sioux Falls, SD
Region IX
Bakersfield, CA
Fresno, CA
Honolulu, HI
Las Vegas, NV
Los Angeles- Riverside- Orange County, CA
Phoenix- Mesa, AZ
Sacramento- Yolo, CA
San Diego, CA
San Francisco- Oakland- San Jose, CA
Stockton- Lodi, CA
Tucson, AZ
Region X
Anchorage, AK
Boise, ID
Portland- Salem, OR- WA
Seattle- Tacoma- Bremerton, WA
EPAEMPACT Study Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
A-5
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix B
Survey Instrument
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
EMPACT Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B-(1)
I. Introduction
[As the CATI system queues up and dials the phone number, the interviewer's screen will indicate
the needed gender of the respondent. The CATI system is programmed to track respondent gender
for completed interviews and to specify the needed gender for each subsequent interview. Gender
designation is essential to ensuring representative proportions of males and females. Research has
demonstrated females tend to answer phone calls disproportionately.]
[Upon contacting the potential respondent, the interviewer will say the following.]
Hello, I am calling from Macro International. We are conducting a brief survey for the United
States Environmental Protection Agency, also known as the EPA. Is someone available in your household
to complete this survey 18 of age or older and also [indicate needed gender]? [IF NECESSARY: The
survey will take only 12 minutes.]
[If they say they are eligible and will take the survey, then go to Part 1. If they say they are eligible
but do not want to take the survey, thank and terminate. If they say someone else is eligible then
go to introduction Part 2]
Parti
Thank you for participating in this survey. This information will help EPA and other federal agencies that are
working with communities to give citizens the kinds of information they want. Your answers and comments
are confidential and used only in summary form together with other people's opinions.
Q.A Have you participated in an EPA survey in the last six months?
1. Yes [THANK AND TERMINATE]
2. No [GO TO SECTION II]
3. Do not know [THANK AND TERMINATE]
Part 2
Q.B Are they available now?
1. Yes [If they do not volunteer to check, ask them to do so. If
they return and say the eligible respondent is not
available then go to Q2. If the eligible respondent
returns, then go to Part 3]
2. No [SCHEDULE CALLBACK. IF REFUSE CALLBACK -
TERMINATE]
3. Do not know FJHANK AND TERMINATE]
Part3
Hello, I am calling from Macro International. We are conducting a brief survey for the United
States Environmental Protection Agency, also known as the EPA. EPA is interested in your opinions and
concerns about the environment and other issues in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE] area. This
information will help EPA and other federal agencies that work with communities to give their citizens the
kinds of information they want. Your answers and comments are confidential and used only in summary form
together with other people's opinions. [IF NECESSARY: The survey will take only 12 minutes.]
-------
EMPACT Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B-(2)
Q.C First, I would just like to confirm - Are you at least 18 years old?
1. ' Yes
2. No [TERMINATE]
3. Do Not Know/refused [TERMINATE]
Q.D Have you participated in an EPA survey in the last six months?
1. Yes [THANK AND TERMINATE]
2. No [GO TO SECTION II]
3. Do not know [THANK AND TERMINATE]
-------
EMPACT Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B-(3)
II. Local Urban Environmental and Non-environmental Issues
Q. 1 First, I am going to read you a list of different issues that may or may not occur in the [PLACE NAME
OF MSA HERE! area.
Please tell me how important is each of these issues in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE] area. Please
use a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being "extremely important" and 1 being "not important at all".
[All of the issues, environmental and non-environmental, will be presented together in a random
order. The CAT! system will re-randomize the list for each respondent.]
AIR
Issue:
1 . Air pollution from cars
Rating
123 456
7 8 9 10 DK
2. Air pollution from businesses or
industrial sites
8 9 10 DK
3. Air pollution from burning leaves
8
10 DK
4. Ozone alerts in the community
8 9 10 DK
WASTE
Issue:
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The adequacy of landfills
Location of landfills
Rating |
1
1
Hazardous waste dumping in the local 1
area
Use of potentially harmful pesticides 1
Disposal of animal waste 1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
DK j
DK j
DK |
DK !
DK
WATER
( -issue:
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
The quality of drinking water from
public water systems
Protection of ground water and wells
Depletion of the water table
Pollution of streams, rivers, lakes, and
oceans in the urban area
Adequate long-term supply of drinking
water
Adequacy of sewage treatment facilities
Rating
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
DK ',
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK i
-------
EMPACT Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B-(4)
NON-ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
1 Issue:
Rating
i 16. Local crime rate ! 1
17. Illegajdrug use 1
18. Quality of public education
19. Adequacy of local highway system
20. Availability of housing for low income
citizens
21 . Ability of the community to respond to
natural disasters
22. Availability of public transportation
23. Favorable business climate
1
1
1
1
1
1
! 24. Rate of unemployment | 1
25. Level of local taxes ' 1
26. Poverty in local community 1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
DK
DK
DK
DK j
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK |
27. Adequacy of municipal services (e.g.
trash and snow removal, police and
fire protection)
10 DK
28. Rate of urban growth
10 DK
29. Health of the local economy
10 DK
-------
EMPACT Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B-(5)
Other Issues
[These issues will be asked after the environmental and non-environmental questions. They will not
be randomized.]
Q. 1a Can you think of any other issues in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE] area?
RECORD
Please tell me how important is this issue in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE] area. Please use a scale
of 1 to 10, with 10 being "extremely important" and 1 being "not important at all".
123 456789 10 DK
[ After survey is completed, need to specify whether the issue is environmental or not
Q.1b Can you think of any other issue in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE] area?
RECORD
Please tell me how important is this issue in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE] area Please use a scale
of 1 to 10, with 10 being "extremely important" and 1 being "not important at all".
123 456789 10 DK
After survey is completed, need to specify whether the issue is environmental or not.
Q.2. Now I would like to ask about the ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES you rated "Important". Please tell me
whether you think that these environmental issues have gotten better, worse or stayed about the same
in the last five years in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE] area.
[The CATI system will recall all environmental issues rated 6 or higher and use in the following
routine]
Q2a. For [INSERT FIRST ISSUE], would you say it has gotten better, worse or stayed the same in the last
five years in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE] area?
1. Better
2. Worse
3. Same
4. DK/Refused
Q2b. For [INSERT FIRST ISSUE], is this an issue in which you have been actively involved, for example,
written letters, attended public meetings, joined an advocacy group?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Do not know/Refused
-------
EMPACT Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B-(6)
Q3a. What about [INSERT NEXT ISSUE], would you say it has gotten better, worse or stayed the same
in the last five years in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE] area?
1. Better
2. Worse
3. Same
4. DK/Refused
Q3b. For NNSERT NEXT ISSUE], is this an issue in which you have been actively involved, for example,
written letters, attended public meetings, joined an advocacy group?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Do not know/Refused
[The CAT! system will continue until all issues are rated.]
Q4a. Have you or anyone else in your family been negatively affected by these environmental issues.
By negatively affected, I mean negative influence on health, things like allergies or breathing
problems.
1. Yes [CONTINUE TO Q.5]
2. No [SKIP TO NEXT SECTION]
3. Do not know/Refused [SKIP TO NEXT SECTION]
Q4b. Who in your family has been negatively affected?
[SELECT ALL THAT APPLY]
1. Self
2. Children
3. Spouse or significant other
4. Elderly family members
5. Pets
6. Other
7. Do not know/Refused
-------
EMPACT Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B-(7)
III. Communications Issues
Q5. From what sources do you usually hear or learn about urban environmental issues and conditions in
the rPLACE NAME OF MSA HERE! area?
[DO NOT READ LIST. ENTER ALL RESPONSES.]
Q5a IF ONLY "TV" MENTIONED IN Q.1, ASK: From sources other than TV, do you usually hear or learn
about urban environmental issues and conditions in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE! area?
Q.6 If you needed particular information on urban environmental issues and conditions in the [PLACE
NAME OF MSA HERE] area, where would you be likely to look for it?
Q.6a IF ONLY "TV" MENTIONED IN Q.2, ASK: Where else, besides TV, would you be likely to look for
information on urban environmental issues and conditions in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE]
area?
[DO NOT READ LIST. ENTER ALL RESPONSES.]
Q5/5a Q6/6a
Billboards 1 1
Bus-side ads 2 2
Posters 3 3
Personal experience 4 4
Internet 5 5
Kids 6 6
Leaflets 7 7
Library 8 8
Personal observation 9 9
Word-of mouth 10 10
Media
Television 11 11
Radio 12 12
Newspapers 13 13
Magazines 14 14
School 15 15
Hotlines/800 numbers 16 16
Organizations
Local Schools 17 17
Universities/Community Colleges 18 18
Local government 19 19
State government 20 20
Federal government 21 21
Environmental groups 22 22
Other [RECORD] 23 23
-------
EMPACT Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B-(8)
Q.7 Now I would like you to rate the following sources on how well they provide you with information about
environmental conditions in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE] area. Please rate these sources using
a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being EXCELLENT and 1 being VERY POOR.
Let's start with [READ EACH. CIRCLE APPROPRIATE RATING]
[The CATI system will randomize the list for each respondent.]
issue:
1.
f)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Television
Radio
Newspaper
Federal government
Rating
1
1
1
1
State government 1
Local government 1
Environmental groups 1
Schools, colleges or
universities.
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
I
Q.8 The next few questions are about your household and the environment. When we use the word
"environment" we mean the air you breathe, the water you drink, or other aspects of the natural
environment in the area where you live and work, including the climate or wild animals. When you
think about the environment this way, have you or anyone else in your household age 18 and
older:
I' - - Y«
1 . Requested environmental information in 1
person, in writing, or by phone?
2. Subscribed to an environmental publication 1
such as a magazine?
3. Read a book or brochure or done a library ; 1
search about an environmental issue?
4. Joined an environmental group to get 1
information?
! Searched the World Wide Web or Internet for \ 1
i environmental information? i
Attended a public meeting to get information ; 1
i about an environmental issue?
js No | Don't Know
i
2 | 7
2 7
2 7
2 7
: i
i 2 | 7
i 2 | 7
Refuse
8
8
8
8
8
8
-------
EMPACT Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B-(9)
Q9. Do you currently have access to the World Wide Web or Internet?
Yes [ASK Q.6]
No [SKIP TO NEXT SECTION]
Do not know [SKIP TO NEXT SECTION]
Q10. Do you have World Wide Web or Internet access at...? [READ LIST. ENTER RESPONSES]
[READ ALL] YES NO DK
Home 1 2 DK
Work 1 2 DK
A local library 1 2 DK
A local school 1 2 DK
Some other place 1 2 DK
RECORD OTHER
Q11. When was the last time you used the World Wide Web or Internet? [READ LIST UNTIL FIRST
?YES? RESPONSE]
[READ] YES NO DK
In the last few days 1 2 DK
In the last week 1 2 DK
In the last month 1 2 DK
In the last year 1 2 DK
Longer than a year 1 2 DK
-------
EMPACT Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B-(10)
IV. DEMOGRAPHICS
These last few questions are just to help us classify respondents for analytical purposes.
Q12. What best describes the type of neighborhood you live in? [READ LIST]
1. Urban or city
2. Suburbs
3 Rural
4 Other
5. DK/Refused
[RECORD]
[DO NOT READ]
Q13. Is your home a ... [READ LIST]?
1. Single-Family Detached
2. Duplex, triplex or townhouse/ rowhouse
3. Apartment or condominium
4. Trailer or mobile home
5. Other [RECORD]
6. DK/Refused [DO NOT READ]
Q14. Do you own or rent your residence?
1.
2.
3.
4
Own
Rent
Other
DNK/Refused
[RECORD]
[DO NOT READ]
Q15. How long have you lived in your residence?
YRS
Q16. How long have you lived in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE] area?
YRS
-------
EMPACT Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B-(11)
Q17. What is your age? (RECORD ANSWER) [IF NECESSARY, ASK: Is it between ... (READ LIST)]
1. 18-24
2. 25-29
3. 30-34
4. 35-39
5. 40-44
6. 45-49
7. 50-54
8. 55-59
9. 60-64
10. 65-69
11. 70-74
12. 75 or older
13. Refused [DO NOT READ]
Q18. Which of the following best describes your household?
[READ LIST UNTIL FIRST YES RESPONSE.]
1. Individual living alone
2. Single head of household with children living at home
3. Couple with children living at home
4. Couple with children not living at home
5. Couple without children
6. Single or couple living with other adults
7. Other [RECORD]
8. Refused [DO NOT READ]
Q19. What is your zip code?
Q20. Do you consider yourself to be Hispanic?
1. Yes
2. No
3. DK or refused [DO NOT READ]
Q21. For classification purposes, to which of the following categories do you belong? (READ LIST)
1. American Indian or Alaskan Native
2. Asian
3 Black or African American
4 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
5. White
6. Other
7. DK or refused [DO NOT READ]
-------
EM PACT Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B-(12)
Q22. What language is most often spoken in your home? (RECORD ONE ANSWER)
1. English
2. Spanish
3. French
4. German
5. Vietnamese
6. Cambodian
7. Mandarin
8. Cantonese
9. Japanese
10. Korean
11. Arabic
12. Polish
13. Russian
14. Other [RECORD]
15. DK/Refused [DO NOT READ]
Q23. Please tell me which best describes your highest level of education.
[READ LIST UNTIL FIRST YES RESPONSE.]
1. Below high school
2. High school but no diploma
3. High school diploma
4. Some college but not a bachelor's nor associate's degree
5. Associate's degree
6. Bachelor's degree
7. Some graduate or professional school but no degree
8. Graduate or professional degree
9. Graduate or professional degree plus additional studies
10. Other
11. DK/Refused
Q24. Lastly, I am going to read several income categories. Please stop me when I read the category that
best describes your 1997 total household income before taxes.
1 Under $10,000
2 $10,000-$19,999
3 $20,000-$29,999
4 $30,000-$39,999
5 $40,000-$49,999
6 $50,000-$59,999
7 $60,000-$69,999
8 $70,000-$79,999
9 $80,000-$89,999
10 $90,000-$99,999
11. $100,000 and over
12. Refused [DO NOT READ]
That was the last question I have for you. Thank you very much for taking the time to participate in
this study.
-------
Appendix C
National Urban Profile
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
National Urban
Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Better, Same, or Worse During Last 5 Years
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
Harmful pesticides
37»bi i
Landfill adequacy £
Landfill location ;: " 'i&w " ' I
"Local waste dumping
45%
Long-term water supply ii,
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix D
Region 6 Urban Profile
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Region 6
Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Better, Same, or Worse During Last 5 Years
Adequacy OT sewaoe treatment l*«»lp
Animal waste disposal £
Ground water and wells fj
"Harmful pesticides [j
.3M>-"
»Jh4MK-""'
Landfill adequacy j^ ^j ^ agjfc
Landfill location
"'Local waste dumping
-Long-term water supply LtllBlBH jalM^ '' P
"'Ozone alerts
TB^I
Pollution- burning leaves li ami!* ,« «z^ i;^"
"'Pollution- cars i Wfe' j ^ 1
"Pollution- industry i : Z7%
"Pollution of streams/lakes ; i ;* i j ; ai%' ? ^ M
"Quality of dnnking water [^
Water table depletion ~
49%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
" Denotes issues in wnich at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
y/^/y/yy.2A%7
"f.V(°h777?///sss/:
D Better
DSarne
2 Worse
'//S/S/////; 30% V/SS//S///".
70% 80% 90% 100%
Most Important Local Environmental Issues
Mean Importance Ratings
Long-term water
supply
Quality of drinking
water
Ground water and
wells
Adequacy of sewage
treatment
,18.0
01234567
Most Important Local Non-Environmental Issues
Mean Importance Ratings
Public education
Local crime rate
Illegal drug use
Natural disasters
Adequacy of municipal
services
J V
Percentage of respondents whose families have been negatively affected by local environmental issues 37%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix E
Profiles for Region 6 MSAs
-------
Albuquerque
Ratings of Local Emrironnental Issues
Better, Same, or Worse During Last 5 Years
Adequacy of sewage treatment = ' WM *'- *m ' ?3B%j:
56%
Animal waste disposal !~j
"Ground water and wells I.-"-** '.''"' ijtamfc* '*» >-<»''
Harmful pesticides fT^
ni-ii.maig|>,.ii»MfmniTTT|
40%
5.34% 'SSSSSSJ/JVSA
VSSSj 16% C^VM
Landfill adequacy I-M.M i
t|
Landfill location C
Local waste dumping I ?.»« :
"Long-term water supply PTT
7/Wk'77//s//////////SA
Ozone alerts I-MI.:I >rrn -i..-n3aafc-ii i m ''
Pollution- burning leaves i-mn.p
"Pollution-cars I run ;t»-.. .--,»<;i.,.:-i4iBlb'
Pollution-industry ijigiBi ni-.3tyib : B l"
Pollution of streams/lakes
Quality of drinking water !
536% 'S///S//s7?77s.
7> 35% 'SS/S////7777*
y//s/ssssfs,Z2''h7/s///////7^
61%
Water table depletion [
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
** Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
mBetter
DSame
0 Worse
i
Most Important Local Environmental Issues Most Important Local Non-Environmental Issues
Mean Importance Ratings
Long-term water
supply
Water table
depletion
Ground water and
wel
Quality of drinking
water
Mean Importance Ratings
Public education
0123456789 10
a
Percentage of respondents whose families have been negatively affected by local environmental issues 31%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
Albuquerque
Inportance Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
Harmful pesticides
Landfill adequacy
Landfill location
Local waste dumping
Long-term water supply
Ozone alerts
Pollution- burning leaves
Pollution- cars
Pollution- industry
Pollution of streams/lakes
Quality of drinking water
Water table depletion
1.0 2.0
3.0
8.5
5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
Austin/San Marcos
Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Better, Same, or Worse During Last 5 Years
Adequacy of sewage treatment Mm
» I-UKEM-XI* 'M cuts? a
Animal waste disposal C
"'Ground water and wells I n ini
Harmfulpesticides I at.<,m111-m.itrmntatt
Landfill location
"Local waste dumping
Long-term water supply
51%
41%
U5%3
524%
Ozone alerts
Pollution- burning leaves
"Pollution- cars
"Pollution- industry
Pollution of streams/lakes
"'Quality of drinking water
Water table depletion
]::.<*. :."!:'.'> ^niOi**:. '.. - 1 30%
| .* !<; .- <».ZU%' -> - - -1 64%
1 1> i.-=!.aa*.-^- 1!i 40% s
K^VS-16%5^^5
ffS/ffjr//jfff/stt*faf/'Sf/f/f/?fjr//A
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
"** Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
90% 100%
Q Better
DSarne
0 Worse
J
Most Important Local Environmental Issues Most Important Local Non-Environmental Issues
Mean Importance Ratings
Quality of drinking
water
Ground water and
wells
Water table depletion
7.7
01234567
9 10
Mean Importance Ratings
Public education
7.5
Local economy [
Adequacy of municipal
services
jtfaJH 7.4
Percentage of respondents whose families have been negatively affected by local environmental issues 34%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
Austin/San Marcos
Importance Ratings of Local Environnentai Issues
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
Harmful pesticides
Landfill adequacy
Landfill location
Local waste dumping
Long-term water supply
Ozone alerts
Pollution- burning leaves
Pollution- cars
Pollution- industry
Pollution of streams/lakes
Quality of drinking water
Water table depletion
17.7
1.0 2.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
Da 11 as/Fort Worth
Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Better, Same, or Worse During Last 5 Years
Adequacy of sewage treatment imai:
"Animal waste disposal i-u i 1 i i tr&sjb^ t -. i inn
Vfssss 19% -fsssss.
Ground water and wells i m r
"Harmful pesticides IMS
li-1 ma*' iTTiu,,,
LL
IE3516%E2S
Landfill adequacy I.<< .-anzmb.i ma; i| 40% ~S//////jr/////7A//////i
Landfill location I i8iiTajfc.mil en%
"Local waste dumping in- Knai-n»ZB»bt»i fee, f,f,, I 43% y/.
"Long-term water supply 1 s'; ':.;:* it:i.'2&ab:-.*Mi . . I 57%
Ozone alerts i sen* i 3U% ^oyyy>vxxyxyyv>^42%'yx/y>yx«vx//x/Xi
Pollution-burning leaves i otnt i za% V/SS/7s2'C'h'7?////A
Pollution-cars zo^ .. za"/o y/xw>y>yyxxywyjyyxyyyyyxi^;
"Pollution-industry . . z-rat ' ,. -. 37%
"Pollution of streams/lakes I - > . jiKiab . WSt za%
"Quality of dnnking water I . . zo&b - 1 &4%
Water table depletion I ^4.% v I 47% yss/SSSS/S/S/s.39%SSSS/iWj'/'i'/'M
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
*** Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
yya'-v^ '.""?aTT^r
m Better
GSarne
a Worse
Most Important Local Environmental Issues
Mean Importance Ratings
~\
Most Important Local Non-Environmental Issues
Mean Importance Ratings
Long-term water -
supply
Quality of drinking r
water i-
I 8.3
Public education
8.6
1
Illegal drug use
] 8.3
Local crime rate | .
Ground water and
wells
Adequacy of sewage
treatment
89 10
! 8.2
Natural disasters I i
"^7.8
Adequacy of local
highways
D7.8
8 9 10
Percentage of respondents whose families have been negatively affected by local environmental issues 34%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
Da 11 as/Fort Worth
Inportance Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
Harmful pesticides
Landfill adequacy
Landfill location
Local waste dumping
Long-term water supply
Ozone alerts
Pollution- burning leaves
Pollution- cars
Pollution- industry
Pollution of streams/lakes
Quality of drinking water
Water table depletion
2.0 3.0
5.0 6.0
7.0 8.0
*
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
El Paso
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
Harmful pesticides
"Landfill adequacy
Landfill location
Local waste dumping
Long-term water supply
"Ozone alerts
"Pollution- burning leaves
"Pollution- cars
"Pollution- industry
Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Better, Same, or Worse During Last 5 Years
<_£_
Pollution of streams/lakes I -, ,43.%M-
"Quality of drinking water i i /sss/s///%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
' Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
Most Important Local Environmental Issues
Mean Importance Ratings
Long-term water
supply
Water table depletion
Ground water and
wells
Quality of drinking
water
Adequacy of sewage
treatment
18.9
18.8
!8.7
j 8.6
18.4
8 9 10
Most Important Local Non-Environmental Issues
Mean Importance Ratings
Public education |
«_l_j8-9
Illegal drug use |_
JE.
8.6
Local economy [
Percentage of respondents whose families have been negatively affected by local environmental issues 52%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
El Paso
Importance Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
Harmful pesticides
Landfill adequacy
Landfill location
Local waste dumping
long-term water supply
Ozone alerts
Pollution- burning leaves
Pollution- ears
Pollution- industry
Pollution of streams/lakes
Quality of dnnkino water
Water table depletion
0.0
1.0 2.0
3.0
4.0
10.0
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
Houston/Ga 1 veston/Brazoria
Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Better, Same, or Worse During Last 5 Years
Adequacy ot sewaae treatment i^'S':"^X^..,,,..,f,.±'amia!:..... .. ..;;;, i 54% &5%1
Animal waste aisoosai 1 :"-,Jft|it% ~""i B3% 53%
Ground water and wens ! 5. *W*"£»')i>>:'vSi3'i,,,,., u 59% yss WAV//
"Marmtui pestiaoes I f^^^'^^^^j'jb^. : .'...'. ! . i 54% i»[iu%>p '". 53%
pollution ot streams/lanes 1 .1 -i 1 1 I -,!s » >> \ 41%
Quality of dnnKino water I > ( i a 'Wh . '*> ' i 't-l 58%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
frS^12%5-£i)
wyi* 1 3^ (^vl/t
80% 90% 100%
0 Better
a Worse
' Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
Most Important Local Environmental Issues
Mean Importance Ratings
Quality of drinking r
water
j8.5
Pollution of
streams/lakes
Water table depletion j»"
Ground water and
wells
18.5
ZID8.3
rmj8-3
7 8 9 10
Most Important Local Non-Environmental Issues
Mean Importance Ratings
Public education
Local crime rate
Illegal drug use
Adequacy of municipal i
services
Natural disasters
Percentage of respondents whose families have been negatively affected by local environmental issues 43%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
Houston/Gal veston/B razor la
Importance Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Long-term water supply
Pollution of streams/lakes
Pollution- burning leaves
Pollution- industry
Pollution- cars
0.0
7.6
7.3
2.0
4.0 5.0
j
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
Little Rock/North Little Rock
Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Better, Same, or Worse During Last 5 Years
Adequacy of sewage treatment Fl
"»""W»F"
Animal waste disposal C
"Ground water and wells fj
"Harmful pesticides r
Landfill adequacy C
Landfill location fT
Local waste dumping ~
"Long-term water supply £
49%
Ozone alerts fT
i»*-
Pollution- burning leaves £
Pollution- cars [~
"Pollution- industry £
"Pollution of streams/lakes upjBHj.'Maifc
S Better
nSame
0 Worse
Quality of drinking water i - : Z7.%
"'Water table depletion I 12% T
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 7&.
*** Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
33 37% ss/s/////////;,
80% 90% 100%
; i! i-f i it i : i ' :- i 1 ; ': ^ ' ' - - - 1 ' K '.-"' f^T ^ j*L; -Ms
Most Important Local Environmental Issues
' >
Mean Importance Ratings
! rf ' 'S*2. '- 'Ac ₯, £:. ' ifii! !m^.ai''l i.! 8.7
Pollution of 1 HI i»i III B'"'' 1 8 1
treatment
Local waste dumping 7.9
0123456789 10
V -J
Percentaae of respondents whose families have been ne<
Most Important Local Non-Environmental Issues
Mean Importance Ratings
Public education | .Jpi^ft B Ilill K-fi lliill 8.7
Local crime rate | _ ^\ 8.3
Illegal drug use | B t ^«^» , h , 1| M «, v^%l 8.3
3CrviC03 ' ffiWflF *"'* ^S-.-. - -ll^1- . - - '^vwi&siKiRi'rfvS^ V*V
Natural disasters | -M'' ^' '''t ' 1 '*-.:* ^ta^:..»| 8.0
0123456789 10
V ^
native Iv affected bv local environmental issues 22%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
Little Rock/North Little Rock
Importance Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
Harmful pesticides
Landfill adequacy
Landfill location
Local waste dumping
Long-term water supply
Ozone alerts
Pollution- burning leaves
Pollution- cars
Pollution- industry
Pollution of streams/lakes
Quality of drinking water
Water table depletion
8.5
7.6
1.0 2.0
3.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
10.0
~?r EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
New Orleans
Adequacy of sewage treatment (
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
Harmful pesticides
Landfill adequacy
Landfill location
Local waste dumping fj
Ozone alerts Q2
Pollution-cars E
Pollution-industry FTi?
'"Pollution of streams/lakes EZ
Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Better, Same, or Worse During Last 5 Years
48%
~n%
3T%~
515% 22]
'aa%;""l
Long-term water supply I -'"»"Z2i%-.i»!.'.'M'3~
64%
"Pollution- burning leaves tiwMMiTT
2 6% 2
H Better
ZlSame
Z Worse
^zaafc"
538% 'xyyy^yxxyyxya
i .> >r.zast>v- i
43%
.ftaaab-
38%
Quality of drinking water i-»ii-' iiamfc-vwijii'
Water table depletion I 5% I
65%
50%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
' Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
70%
90%
100%
Most Important Local Environmental Issues
Mean Importance Ratings
Most Important Local Non-Environmental Issues
Mean Importance Ratings
Quality of drinking
water
Adequacy of sewage
treatment
Local waste dumping
238.3
| 8.3
8 9 10
\
Local crime rate
Public education
Percentage of respondents whose families have been negatively affected by local environmental issues 37%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
New Orleans
Importance Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
Harmful pesticides
Landfill adequacy
Landfill location
Local waste dumping
Long-term water supply
Ozone alerts
Pollution- burning leaves
Pollution- cars
Pollution- industry
Pollution of streams/lakes
Quality of drinking water
Water table depletion
0.0
5.0 6.0
7.2
7.0 8.0
10.0
J
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
Oklahoma City
Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Better, Same, or Worse During Last 5 years
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
Harmful pesticides
Landfill adequacy
'.'.''.'ZIHb"-""
VfSSSS, 20%
Z23EC
^9%
1555515% S3?
:: 45%'
~3'9"%~
>ZV* ''
~54'%~
Landfill location ',11111
"'Local waste dumping n.tt
"sstfr
Long-term water supply ; M,. .1
"Ozone alerts f~
Pollution- burning leaves
23 Better
Same
a Worse
Pollution-cars 11 mn .izaafcm
Pollution- industry
""Pollution of streams/lakes
TEBEMBHC
3H
Z 37% WSJ////////*
YS/J^ "hV/S/S/S/S/J
~4"3'%~
?//////////. 30%
Quality of drinking water C
".aa-ifc i
Water table depletion 0
1M%'.-''.!
60%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
*** Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
100%
Most Important Local Environmental Issues
Mean Importance Ratings
Most Important Local Non-Environmental Issues
Mean Importance Ratings
Ground water and
8.9
Public education
Adequacy of sewage r?
treatment
Percentage of respondents whose families have been negatively affected by local environmental issues 37%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
Oklahoma City
Importance Ratings of Local Environnental Issues
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
Harmful pesticides
Landfill adequacy
Landfill location
Local waste dumping
Long-term water supply
Pollution- burning leaves
Pollution- cars
Pollution- industry
Pollution of streams/lakes
Quality of drinking water
Water table depletion
0.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0 8.0
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
San Antonio
Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Better, Same, or Worse During Last 5 Years
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
"* Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
100%
Iflqnary or SBwaflB troalmpnt | HpUf^UJjjb^ 66% XXXIZ'/o'WXl
""Animal waste disposal L^^^^^^^Stt^Xt §i^M&j£,-&^ 61 % W^-1 1 %/f?i3
""Ground water and wells ' y^ ^,,'i ^^^^^l?St^lfO% i^- --J* i&^.r-"^-, Xff ^ -1
WtftaK
Pollution- burning leaves f:i*--H'»12%^Xi
""Pollution- cars I , f > " 1 li ifflttw t s s 5 1 27% \ff////f/SSSf//Sf//fS/5t!fi
-------
San Antonio
Inportance Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
Harmful pesticides
Landfill adequacy
Landfill location
Local waste dumping
Long-term water supply
Ozone alerts
Pollution- burning leaves
Pollution- care
Pollution- industry
Pollution of streams/lakes
Quality of drinking water
Water table depletion
7.6
oo
2.0 3.0
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
Tulsa
Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Better, Same, or Worse During Last 5 Years
Adequacy of sewage treatment I *
. i
"Animal waste disposal |iWJ!».»t8aibfr-n iITT"
"Ground water and wells i-> .-t*t*it
?M%777?//s//////77ft
"'Harmfulpesticides 1 -[
W/////77/ 30% '///////Sjtt
J£
"Ozone alerts 0
Pollution- burning leaves E-
"Pollution-cars £
Pollution-industry E
i 3OSb .'
V/SSjfSSS/// 32% 'SSSSSSS/SSA
WSS/S/SS/'S/. 34% YS/S//S//S/A
"Pollution of streams/lakes L~
"Quality of drinking water £
t-J.-'JZBt7
243% '///jr/S/jr/jWSSs,
Water table depletion f"
61%
Z26%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
*** Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
S Better
2 Same
0 Worse
Most Important Local Environmental Issues Most Important Local Non-Environmental Issues
A
Mean Importance Ratings
L=n8 torn, water , ^ « H , « « R . . g,^ j M
^JJHJP i " " ' 9 tH 8K i 8.1
treatment ! li ! 1*1 f WR Spa ''
Croun^omnd ^^^^^m^m.]i^^m,^ ,.,
0123456789 10
Mean Importance Ratings
Public education | |S , Ife » ! 8.2
Illegal drug use i HUE "'*1 ,T^J; | ; ((§ p p~~! 8.2
Local crime rat. . » * 1 8.0
Local economy j IE I * " " 1 7.5
Local taxes f « | '' *v* ^ 1 7.5
0123456789 10
V ^
Percentage of respondents whose families have been negatively affected by local environmental issues 32%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
Tulsa
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
Harmful pesticides
Landfill adequacy
Landfill location
Local waste dumping
Long-term water supply
Ozone alerts
Pollution- burning leaves
Pollution- cars
Pollution- industry
Pollution of streams/lakes
Quality of drinking water
Water table depletion
Importance Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
7.0
1.0 2.0 3.0
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
------- |