Empact Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of Metropolitan Areas in EPA Region 7


      United States           Office of            EPA-220-R-01-007
      Environmental Protection       Environmental Information     January 2001
      Agency              (2831R)            www.epa.gov/impact
      EMPACT Local Urban    ^~
      Environmental Issues Study
      of Metropolitan Areas in
      EPA  Region 7
                                   [198180
                             cy
            EMPACT
     Environmental Monitoring for Public Access
             & Communitv Tracking;
           Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 50% Postconsumer)

-------

-------
Executive Summary
               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

-------

-------
 Chapter I



Introduction

-------

-------
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
E PA-EM PACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 7 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 BMP ACT Program's anecdotal experience that many MS As 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 7

This report will present the survey finding for the 10 EMPACT MSAs located in EPA Region 7:
Kansas City, MO; Omaha, NE; St Louis/East St. Louis, MO; and Wichita, KS. Where applicable,
results are delineated by MSA (within Region 7) to provide further segmentation of survey findings.
In some cases, comparisons have been made between Region 7 results and the results from the other
EPA Regions combined. Comparing Region 7 results with the combined results from the other nine
Regions provides a general look at how Region 7 findings compare to those for the rest of the
country.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 7 1-2

-------
Chapter II



Methods

-------

-------
Chapter II. Methods
I. Survey Development and Peer Review
The survey design and questionnaire were peer reviewed by four outside peer reviewers and one EPA
statistician. BMP ACT and its contractor, Macro International (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 BMP ACT 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 7 11-1

-------
Chapter II. Methods
III. 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, 403 respondents living in the 4 Region 7 EMPACT MSAs were interviewed.

This sampling methodology balanced two competing demands—ensuring 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 7, the sampling error for Region 7 is ±4.88%.

• 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 4 Region 7 MSAs respond "Yes" to a
question, the true value in the population is between 55.12% and 64.88% 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
Wichita MSA respondents and 100 St. Louis/East St. Louis MSA respondents at a national level or
regional level, since the St. Louis/East St. Louis 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 7 "-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. BMP ACT 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
  CATI Programming
The programmed survey was compared to the paper version by three
project staff not involved in the programming to identify any
programming errors
The CATI system guarantees that out-of-range responses can not be
recorded (error message immediately appears) and that skip patterns
are followed correctly
  Interviewer Training
Macro used only experienced, trained interviewers who have been
certified to interview on the 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 7
                                                             II-3

-------
Chapter II. Methods
VI. Analysis
The previous BMP ACT report, BMP ACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86
Metropolitan Areas, focuses on the responses to the BMP ACT survey at the national urban-level
for all 86 BMP ACT MSAs. This report, however, primarily provides survey results for respondents
in Region 7 only, which includes the following 4 BMP ACT MSAs:

Kansas City, MO
• Omaha, NE
St. Louis/East St. Louis, MO
Wichita, KS.

It should be noted that, although some EMPACT MSAs may overlap multiple regions, each
BMP ACT 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 7 summary profile of regional urban-level survey results is attached as Appendix D.

MSA-level summary profiles of survey results for each of the 4 EMPACT MSAs in Region 7 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 7, 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 7,
the proportion of MSA residents living in one of the 4 EMPACT MSAs is 75.7%. 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 7 H-4

-------
Chapter II.     Methods
              Table 2. EMPACT Proportion of Total MSA Population by EPA Region
Region

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Total
Population
in EMPACT
MSAs

7,643,707
25,932,689
20,104,526
22,438,645
29,818,343
16,358,359
5,433,244
4,022,173
33,993,469
6,022,278

171.767.432
Total
Population In
MSAs

11,217,000
27,069,000
22,027,000
35,229,000
37,860,000
23,541,000
7,180,000
5,624,000
36,933,000
7,526,000

211.785.000
EMPACT
Proportion of MSA
Population

68.1%
95.8%
91.3%
63.7%
78.8%
69.5%
75.7%
71.5%
92.0%
80.0%

81.1%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 7                                                                       II-5

-------

-------
          Chapter III



Local Urban Environmental Issues

-------

-------
Chapter 111. 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 7 respondent data on 15
local urban environmental issues which are listed in Table 3 Local Urban Environmental Issues
Queried.

Table 3. Local Urban Environmental Issues Queried
Water
Quality of drinking water from
public water systems
Protection of ground water and
wells
Depletion of the water table
Pollution of streams, rivers,
lakes, and oceans in the urban
area
Adequacy of long-term supply of
drinking water
Adequacy of sewage treatment
facilities
Air
Air pollution from cars
Air pollution from businesses or
industrial sites
Air pollution from burning leaves
Ozone alerts in the community

Waste
Adequacy of landfills
Location of landfills
Hazardous waste dumping in
the local area
Use of potentially harmful
pesticides
Disposal of animal waste

For each of the 29 local issues, respondents were asked to rate 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 7 111-1

-------
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 7 reflect the responses from
citizens sampled from the 4 EMPACT MSAs (Kansas City, MO; Omaha, NE; St Louis/East St.
Louis, MO; and Wichita, KS) located in EPA's Region 7. 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 uncertainly in the Region 10 results.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 7 IH-2

-------
Chapter 111.     Local Urban Environmental Issues
   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
   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 7

 In Region 7, 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 7                                                                        111-3

-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 1. Local Environmental Issues Mean Importance Ratings: Region 7
Quality of drinking w ater
Long-term supply of drinking w ater
Pollution of streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans
Adequacy of sewage treatment facilities
Protection of ground w ater/w ells
Local hazardous w aste dumping
Depletion of water table
Location of landfills
Harmful pesticides
Air pollution-businesses/lndustry
Adequacy of landfills
Air pollution-cars
Ozone alerts
Animal w aste disposal
Air pollution-burning leaves
Compared to the other nine EPA Regions combined, Region 7 respondents are significantly more
likely report that the adequacy of sewage treatment facilities is an important issue, and significantly
less likely to report that the air pollution from cars is an important issue. 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 7 MSAs is the difference between Omaha and St. Louis (See Figure 3). St. Louis
respondents are significantly more likely to report that many local environmental issues are
important. St. Louis respondents rated 6 of the 15 environmental issues significantly higher than the
other 3 Region 7 BMP ACT MSAs combined. Conversely, Omaha respondents were significantly
less likely to report that many local environmental issues were important. Omaha respondents rated
4 of the 15 environmental issues significantly lower than the other 3 MSAs combined.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 7
111-4

-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 2. Region Importance Ratings Compared to Other Regions 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
Long-term supply of drinking
water
Adequacy of sewage
treatment facilities

m
o
t^
ii
-z.

T-
§
D>
0)
(£.

00
o
CD
II-
•z.

CM
C
O
CD
ID
a:

A
A
A

CO
CM
CD
II
Z

co
c
o
a>

&
A
A

A
A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A

A
A
A

II
Z

in
§
Ol
£
T
A

T
T

CD
CO
O

II
Z

co
§
en
&

8
•
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues

Figure 3. MSA Importance Ratings Compared to Other Region 7 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
Long-term supply of drinking water
Adequacy of sewage treatment facilities

.£•
b
tn
CO
en
c
2

CO
.C
CD
£
o

T
T
T

en
3
3
55
In
CO
LU
•35
a
o

55
A

A
A

.•i
ic*
0
§
T

A Mean MSA importance rating is significantly higher than other MSAs in the region combined
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 7
111-6
-------
Chapter HI. 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, 47% of Region 7 respondents reported that the air pollution from burning
leaves—which received the lowest importance rating of any environmental issue—had become better
during this time. Conversely, 39% of respondents indicated that the pollution of streams, lakes,
rivers, and oceans has become worse during the last five years. (See Figure 4).
For the location of landfills, the percentage of Region 7 respondents reporting that the issue had
worsened during the last five years was significantly higher than in the other nine regions combined
(Figure 5).
Figure 4. Local Environmental Issues Improvement or Decline
During the Last Five Years: Region 7
Quality of drinking w ater
Long-term supply of drinking w ater
Pollution of streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans
Adequacy of sew age treatment facilities
Protection of ground w ater/w ells
Local hazardous w aste dumping
Depletion of w ater table
Location of landfills
Harmful pesticides
Air pollution-businesses/industry
Adequacy of landfills
Air pollution-cars
Ozone alerts
Animal w aste disposal
Air pollution-burning leaves
20%
40%
60%
80% 100%
I Better DSame
D Worse
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 7 III-7
-------
Chapter HI. Local Urban Environmental Issues

Figure 5. Local Environmental Issues - Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years:
Regions Compared to Other Regions Combined

T—
C
o
O)
&

w
B
B

B
B

8
ii
2

CM
C
O
o>
CO
a:

01
n
2

CO
§
'Si
S.

w
w
w

a?
t
II
Z

^
§
CT
£

W
w

W
W

CO
CM
II
z

in
§
OJ
CD
a:
B
B

B
B

o
T—
II
2

CO
§
Cf)
CO
a:

o
II
2

r^
§
O)
CD
OL

o
CO
II
2

CO
c
o
O)
CO
o:

II
Z

O5
§
<3)
CO
a:
W
W

w
w

w
w
w

§
Tj-

^-
o

• §
0)

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 combine
mean of other regions due to sample error.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 7
III-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
Long-term supply of drinking water
Adequacy of sewage treatment facilities

.^
*^
O
CO
CO
c
5
w
w

CD
.C
ro
0

W
CO
o
55
OJ
LU
•35
3
3
55
B

ro
1

B Percentage of respondents reporting that the issue has improved is significantly higher in this MSA than in
other MSAs combined
W Percentage of respondents reporting that the issue has declined is significantly higher in this MSA than in
other MSAs combined
NOTE: Only respondents who rated each issue six or higher were asked whether the issue had improved or
declined.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 7
111-9
-------
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 issue as a six or
higher.

A. Quality of Drinking Water from Public Water Systems
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 7 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 7 MSAs combined, no
significant differences exist.

Figure 7. Quality of Drinking Water by Region 7 MSA
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban

Region 7

Kansas City

Omaha

St. Louis

Wichita
123%
• 24%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 7
11-10
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
B. Long-Term Supply of Drinking Water
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 7 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 7 MSAs combined, no
significant difference exist

Figure 8. Long-Term Supply of Drinking Water by Region 7 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
] 26%
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 7 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 7 MSAs combined, no
significant different exist.

Figure 9. Urban Water Pollution by Region 7 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
34%
34%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 7 111-11
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
D. Protection of Ground Water and Wells
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 7 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 7 MSAs combined, no
significant differences exist.

Figure 10. Protection of Ground Water and Wells by Region 7 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
-]
National Urban
-
Region 7
-
Kansas City
-
Omaha
-
St. Louis
Wichita

| 26%

- - 1 24%

| 29%

" | 27%

'" " ' 1 21%
•••••FRFK
I 22%
HHBHHBHBPTC^

u Better

iH Worse

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
E. Adequacy of Sewage Treatment Facilities
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 7 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 7 MSAs combined, Omaha
respondents are significantly more likely to report that the adequacy of sewage treatment
facilities has worsened, while St. Louis respondents are significantly more likely to report that
the adequacy of sewage treatment facilities has improved during the past five years.

Figure 11. Adequacy of Sewage Treatment Facilities by Region 7 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
-,
National Urban
Region 7
-
Kansas City
-
Omaha
St. Louis

Wichita

I 24%

I 29%

^m^m^mf^^ m ' "*
\ 21%

1 22%

D Better

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 7 111-12
-------
Chapter ML Local Urban Environmental Issues

F. Depletion of the Water Table

No significant differences exist when comparing Region 7 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 7 MSAs combined, Wichita
reported a significantly higher number of respondents who feel that the depletion of the water
table has worsened in the last five years.
Figure 12. Depletion of the Water Table by Region 7 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years

National Urban

Region 7

Kansas City

Omaha

St. Louis
Wichita

D Better
13% L_Il-rc-lH7l
m Worse
.. , ... , , 1 5 %

11%

. 1 s ^

IIU%
BHBBBHI 14%
1 6%

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
G. Air Pollution from Cars
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 7 to other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MSAs to the other Region 7 MSAs combined,
Kansas City respondents are significantly more likely to report that the air pollution from cars
has worsened, while St. Louis respondents are significantly more likely to report that the air
pollution from cars has improved over the past five years.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region? 111-13
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 13. Air Pollution from Cars by Region 7 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban

Region 7

Kansas City

Omaha

St. Louis

Wichita
0%
130%
42%
131%
38%
112%
63%
114%
145%
2)47%
118%
29%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
H. Air Pollution from Businesses and Industries
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 7 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 7 MSAs combined, Kansas
City respondents are significantly more likely to report that air pollution from businesses and
industries has worsened in the last five years.

Figure 14. Air Pollution from Businesses and Industries by Region 7 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban

Region 7

Kansas City

Omaha

St. Louis

Wichita
0%
30%
3 30%
I 24%
I 34%
39%
31%

I 32%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 7
1-14
-------
Chapter 111. Local Urban Environmental Issues

I. Ozone Alerts in the Community

No significant differences exist when comparing Region 7 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 7 MSAs combined, while
Kansas City respondents are significantly more likely to report that the ozone alerts in the
community have worsened over the last five years.

Figure 15. Ozone Alerts in the Community by Region 7 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
,
National Urban
.
Region 7
.
Kansas City

Omaha
St. Louis

Wichita

._ .... .. | 2jo/e

I 34%

"I n"°
| 39%

I 24%
D Better

m Wnrco

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
J. Air Pollution from Burning Leaves
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 7 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 7 MSAs combined, St. Louis
respondents are significantly more likely to report that air pollution from burning leaves has
improved over the last five years.

Figure 16. Air Pollution from Burning Leaves by Region 7 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban

Region?

Kansas City

Omaha

St. Louis

Wichjfc
0%
344%
) 47%
I 41%
3 35%
I 54%
121%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 7
1-15
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues

K. Local Hazardous Waste Dumping

No significant differences exist when comparing Region 7 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 7 MSAs combined, Kansas
City respondents are significantly more likely to report that local hazardous waste dumping has
worsened, while St. Louis respondents are significantly more likely to report that local
hazardous waste dumping has improved over the last five years.

Figure 17. Local Hazardous Waste Dumping by Region 7 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
L. Use of Potentially Harmful Pesticides
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 7 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 7 MSAs combined, no
significant differences exist.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 7
111-16
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 18. Use of Potentially Harmful Pesticides by Region 7 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
] 37%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
M. Location of Landfills
When compared to the other nine EPA Regions combined, Region 7 respondents are
significantly more likely to report that the location of landfills in there are has worsened over
the last five years. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 7 MSAs combined,
no significant differences exist.

Figure 19. Location of Landfills by Region 7 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
18%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 7
111-17
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues

N. Adequacy of Landfills

No significant differences exist when comparing Region 7 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 7 MSAs combined, no
significant differences exist.

Figure 20. Adequacy of Landfills by Region 7 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years

National Urban

Region 7

Kansas City

Omaha

St. Louis

Wichita

"™ 121% D Better
,.,. i . 9 Worse

'" " | 2 0 %

'" 22%

|19S

16S
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
O. Disposal of Animal Waste
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 7 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 7 MSAs combined, no
significant differences exist.

Figure 21. Animal Waste Disposal by Region 7 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 7
Kansas City
Omaha
St. Louis
Wichita

| 23% LJ HI
•••qpUHMIEIli] 1B%
P^ W
I 17% " Y¥

I ""/.

1 237.
BBBBHB 1 3%

| 21%
mmmmmmUiMM u,.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
stter
orse

70%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 7
1-18
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues

V. Summary of Qpen-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 7 respondents reported 77 open-ended responses. Of the unprompted responses
provided by Region 7 respondents, 42.9% mentioned an environmental issue; whereas, 57.1%
mentioned a non-environmental issue. The most frequently mentioned type of local environmental
issues were related to pollution (9.1% of all issues for air, water, land pollution combined). The
second most frequently mentioned issue related to land use (5.2% 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
Air Pollution
Water Pollution
Land Pollution
Water
Land Use
Nuclear Waste
Recycling
Noise Pollution
Overpopulation
EPA Regulations
Other
TOTAL NON-ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
TOTAL ALL ISSUES
Number of
Respondents ,
33
3
0
4
3
4
0
3
3
2
0
11
44
77
Percentage
42.86%
3.90%
0.00%
5.19%
3.90%
5.19%
0.00%
3.90%
3.90%
2.60%
0.00%
14.29%
57.14%
100.0%
Note: Numbers may not add to 100.0% due to rounding
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 7
1-19
-------
-------
Chapter IV

Sources of Local Environmental Information
-------
-------
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 7 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.

Almost three-fourths of Region 7 respondents (73%) report that they obtain their information from
newspapers, more than any other information source. Sixty-six percent (66%) of respondents report
receiving local environmental information from television. Only 4% report receiving local
environmental information from the Internet and word of mouth. 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 7
New spapers
Television
Radio
Magazine
Word of mouth
Internet
6%
4%
4%
73%
66%
20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 7 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 7 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 7
Television
Federal government
State government
Local government
Environmental groups
Schools and colleges
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
H Excellent
DGood
D Fair/Poor
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 7
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 7 respondents are slightly less
active than the national urban population as a whole. Less than half of the Region 7 respondents
(40%) 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-fourth (22%) report that a member of their household has done an
Internet search for environmental information. This may be because the latter question pertained
to all environmental information (not just local) and asked the respondent to answer regarding all
members of the household.

Figure 25. Other Sources of Information on Environmental Issues: Region 7
Read book/brochure or , . 77 , .„„,
40%
library research
Searched the Internet
Subscribeto ••- ' 18%
environmental publication
Attended public meeting
Requested info in-person/ . ——,
w riting/phone -.*-•-•!
Joined environmental
group
22%
17%
: | 7%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 7 IV-3
-------
Chapter IV. Sources of Local Environmental Information

A. Internet Access

When asked if they had access to the Internet, 58% of Region 7 respondents report that they
do. This is similar to the 59% access reported by respondents in all 86 EMPACT MSAs. Of
the Region 7 respondents who have access to the Internet, 77% report using the Internet during
the last few days and 85% 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 7
Last few days In the last In the last
week month
In the last Longer than a
year year
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 7
IV-4
-------
Chapter V

Discussion
-------
-------
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 7 findings are consistent with the overall survey findings—local
environmental issues are very important to people living in the 4 EMP ACT MS As in Region 7.
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
a 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 7 respondents. Much like the overall survey findings, the Region 7 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 7 findings include:

• The quality of drinking water and the long-term supply of drinking water received the
greatest mean importance ratings (8.71 and 8.58, respectively).

• These two issues report a relatively low percentage of respondents who feel that these issues
have worsened in the past five years (13%).

St. Louis respondents are significantly more likely to report that many local environmental
issues are important, and are also significantly more likely to report that many local
environmental issues have improved over the past 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 7 V-1
-------
-------
Appendix A

EMPACT Metropolitan Areas
-------
-------
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- Brazoria, TX
Indianapolis, IN
Jackson, MS
Jacksonville, FL
Kansas City, MO- KS
Knoxville, TN
Las Vegas, NV
EPA—ENIPACT 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

EPA—EMPACT Study Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
A-2
-------
EMPACT Metropolitan Area
Region I

Boston, MA- NH
Bridgeport, CT
Burlington, VT
Hartford, CT
Portland, ME
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
EPA—EMPACT 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
EPA—EMPACT 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
EPA—EMPACT Study Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
A-5
-------
-------
Appendix B

Survey Instrument
-------
-------
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 (THANK AND TERMINATE]

PartS

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 CATI system will re-randomize the list for each respondent.]

AIR
Issue:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Air pollution from cars
Air pollution from businesses or
industrial sites
Air pollution from burning leaves
Ozone alerts in the community
Rating
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
DK
DK
DK
DK
WASTE
Issue:
5. The adequacy of landfills
6. Location of landfills
7. Hazardous waste dumping in the local
area
8. Use of potentially harmful pesticides
9. Disposal of animal waste
Rating
1
1
1
1
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
DK
DK
DK
DK
WATER
Issue:
1 0. The quality of drinking water from
public water systems
1 1 . Protection of ground water and wells
1 2. Depletion of the water table
1 3. Pollution of streams, rivers, lakes, and
oceans in the urban area
14. Adequate long-term supply of drinking
water
1 5. Adequacy of sewage treatment facilities
Rating
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
1
1
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
-------
EMPACT Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B-(4)
NON-ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Issue:
16. Local crime rate
17. Illegal drug use
18. Quality of public education
19. Adequacy of local highway system
20. Availability of housing for low income
citizens
21 . Ability of the community to respond to
natural disasters
22. Availability of public transportation
23. Favorable business climate
24. Rate of unemployment
25. Level of local taxes
26. Poverty in local community
27. Adequacy of municipal services (e.g.,
trash and snow removal, police and
fire protection)
28. Rate of urban growth
29. Health of the local economy
Rating
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
-------
EMPACT 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 [INSERT 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 CATI system will continue until all issues are rated.]

Q4a. Have you or anyone else in your family been negatively affected by these environmental issues.
By negatively affected, I mean negative influence on health, things like allergies or breathing
problems.

1. Yes [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 [PLACE 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 CAT! system will randomize the list for each respondent]
Issue:
1. Television
2. Radio
3. Newspaper
4. Federal government
5. State government
6. Local government
7. Environmental groups
8. Schools, colleges or
universities.
Rating
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
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
Q.8 The next few questions are about your household and the environment. When we use the word
"environment" we mean the air you breathe, the water you drink, or other aspects of the natural
environment in the area where you live and work, including the climate or wild animals. When you
think about the environment this way, have you or anyone else in your household age 18 and
older:

1 . Requested environmental information in
person, in writing, or by phone?
2. Subscribed to an environmental publication
such as a magazine?
3. Read a book or brochure or done a library
search about an environmental issue?
4. Joined an environmental group to get
information?
Searched the World Wide Web or Internet for
environmental information?
Attended a public meeting to get information
about an environmental issue?
Yes
1
1
1
1
1
1
No
2
2
2
2
2
2
Don't Know
7
7
7
7
7
7
Refuse
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]
-------
EMPACT 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
-------
-------
National Urban
Ratings of Local Environnental Issues
Better,Saae,orWorseDuringLast5Years
Adeouacv of sewaoe treatment | , am.'.-r. I

Anrmai waste disposal t , ...x&yb '>wv /' I

56% v/yj 13%'s/yx

62% k%Vr- 1 B% '////A

Ground water and wells f—"~""~"J»JBMfc- "• '"' 7> 1 52% K'>WyX23%;'>WXXX]

Harmful pesticides t ' ' . m|y r &f9b 1

47% K^»C1B%x»>XI

Landfill adeauacv | ^\aJ£lS6 - 1 49% K^^/^^^%-31%i^^^!/%<^//^l

Landfill location ^ ^ 1B% T" \$>&»i
61% IxC^C'C^^C'Zl%'CvC/y>'X/>l

•"Local waste dumrana t - . ;.. *y% .! ». i >/'i

9 ''
ozone alerts f _ 28% 1

Pollution- bumina leaves f ' > 4 '
water taoie depletion | r^TiS5 «t 1

47% T/SjfffsS^s'K^fafS/fSi/f/A

\ 46% t/»9%^l

2B% ttff//SSSS/SfifjrsjfyWafa'/SjfSj^^

J>2% WfSSffffS/j^Sit 33% V^VyX/X/X/V/^

O Better

DSame

0 Worse
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

*" Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
70%
100%

Most Important
Mean

0 1
V
Percentaae of resooi

i ^^ ' - ^
Local Environmental Issues
"\
Importance Ratings
*''"•';'•;<>' 'y"*'- s, * - -.„•„ |8.5

-•/ >-. :„ :x , 18.5

.18.4

18.3

j 8.1

23456789 10
idents whose families have been ne

, ..." •• :: ' . i
Most Important Local Non-Environmental Issues
Mean Importance Ratings
Public education |- ' :• -, • , , i ' ... | 8.6

Local crime rate \' *' '' - . '•' | 8.1

Illegal drug use j | 8.1

Natural disasters | | 7.8

Unemployment rate I 1 7.7

0123456789 10
V ^
datively affected bv local environmental issues 32%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
-------
Appendix D

Region 7 Urban Profile
-------
-------
Region 7
Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Better,Saae,orWorseDuringLast5Years
Adeouacv ot sewaae treatment f" ' ~~ "" ao% I ou%

Animal waste aisoosai i-: v •* 1*90. »_.::_ 71 /u%

Ground water ana wells t -*•', Z '•,•'.- ', 18.6

1 8.5

'!,&'< , ',-,.'*, \ 8.4

( 8.4
23456789 10

Most Important Local Non-Environmental Issues
Mean Importance Ratings
Public education | | 8.8

Local crime rate [ j 8.4

Illegal drug use j | 8.4

Natural disasters 1 . :;' ' - | 8.0

0123456789 10
V ^
Percentage of respondents whose families have been negatively affected by local environmental issues 26%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
-------
Appendix E

Profiles for Region 7 MSAs
-------
-------
Kansas City
Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Better, Same,orWorseDuringLast5Years
uacv of sewaoe treatment ( . " "'i^]"J$%. " "."1

Ground water and wells |1""" "T^HKHfc-JT " 1
,, ,
" ' "
f •,„,,„„
Lanorm location J "VVKSHH
I Mi_,Jk
„ WWS»
Lona-term water suoolv |. , .'. |8.7

- ,-• •;•-.,-: ]8.4

18.4

i 8.2
23456789 10
Mean Importance Ratings
Public education I - , 1 8.9

Illegal drug use | | 8.5

Local cnme rate 1 | 8.4

Natural disasters f | 8.0
0123456769 10
V ^
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
-------
Kansas City
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
Pollution- burning leaves
Pollution- industry
Pollution of streams/lakes
Quality of dnnking water
Water table depletion
4.0 5.0
8.1
7.0 8.0 9.0
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
Omaha
Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Better,Saae,orWorseDuringLast5Years
••Aaeauacv otsewaae treatment |_J""^t "* I 63%

Animal waste disoosal | ~~ Ji3% - v I Bo%

""ground water ana wells f" * -*£f®*"- "° \ 32%

Harmtui oesticioes i -* jasafc * ~" * I oy%
K">x>">!&wg"'

— Lanotiii location i 12% •* i tS4%

•"Local waste aumotnq t * ~sflyfo.*tby^ **i bu%

Lona-temn water SUDDIV f *> j^z* "v . i 64%

uzone alerts P" , -' ^f|?> 1 /»%

Pollulion- bumma leaves t? '" " ' >tv JiH»m^ M'» t 1 ou%
,^^
1, , ,,
"•pollution- moustrv |-- - si- <» »>aa% **".«» j 41%

•"uuantv ot annkina water | ' '^i"is«!!b** » ^i 58%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

l^/^ 13% ffj\

VSSSS/ji. 22% l-M-X^

I*»^13%^J^j

tS/S/S/Ss 24% 'jVS/jWA

V/S^Vh'/SA

V^V/\yh'//j^/i

V/Wh'/A

t*y^-V15%^^J

L*VWX, 1 B Vo fffffA

70% 80% 90% 100%
*" Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
El Better

DSarne

0 Worse
Most Important Local Environmental Issues
Most Important Local Non-Environmental Issues
Mean Importance Ratings

Adequacy of sewage . ,„ '• .,.,,. 1 g Q

wells 1 ". ;». ''' ,»• I I8'0

LJIIU LUIIIJJJU.I ^ ' i 8 0
0123456789 10
V ^

/^ X
Mean Importance Ratings
Illegal drug use f ,-
-------
Omaha
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
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
St. Louis/East St. Louis
Ratings of Local Emriroranental Issues
Better,Saae,orWorseDuringLast5Years
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Long-term water supply I' v <. ,.«amaa i,:.:^:. >n
"Pollution of streams/lakes j;
Water table depletion [
Ground water and wells
S.fiK-JfMt
/6%
Quality of drinking water K^mmimmHwummmKmmmr
Animal waste disposal
°4/0
78"/o
Harmful pesticides i*M«K>t*^4»aB»«^.y-«».> «r-^r • ^-^s«4?^b~- ^ °^ sv^-i^n^ . -*s.^i ^y%
KX&wofi^aa

HVi /%]/»wi

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
70% 80% 90% 100
'" Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
Most Important Local Environmental Issues
Most Important Local Non-Environmental Issues
Mean Importance Ratings

water I ^^—^,,,!£:, 1, -.-, ^2L_J 8'9

123456789 10
V ^

f X
Mean Importance Ratings
Public education |,,, , • . , J 8.9

Local crime rate I | 8.6

Illegal drug use j , , J 8.4

Natural disasters \ .;,.,' „ , 1 8.2

0123456789 10
V ^
Percentage of respondents whose families have been negatively affected by local environmental issues 26%

EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
St. Louis/East St. Louis
Importance Ratings of Local Environnental Issues
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
Local waste dumping
Long-term water supply
Pollution- burning leaves
Pollution- industry
Pollution of streams/lakes
Quality of drinking water
Water table depletion
7.5
7.0 8.0
8.9
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
Wichita
Ratings of Local Environmental Issues
Better,Saae,orWorseDuringLast5Years
Adeauacv ot sewaae treatment [ „ s ze% si 55%

Animal waste disposal [ £•&»>. «« 1 K>%

Harmtul pesticides t "," •'J«x«i,..if,iJil^ s- ..,.,-• _| 43%
___.

Lanonii location f **jPH!!5fegv *i 55%

' >'^^m5m^
Lona-term water SUDDIV t^v :i^t?%^-B_ /^^ 63%

uzone aiens f J». &«» *^s«*sb^teiiww«% i b4%

-i
Pollution- industry I ^•^^i^gfe&^^ig.^b ^^ ^^^^se-1?^ 52%

Uualitv ot dnnkmo. water ^ ^atgy^f^Sfc ** 1 e>i%
,

K^>«szi % JMVM

\/fS/^/y/y/.ttvfot/f/¥jfyi/y/yr/\

\/jfjrJ/jf/,2&'Jfa^f(ffiff^

Lf/j* 12v/ojSjfy

v/sssiW/S/A

Vfff/m// ^^

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
"* Denotes issues in which at least 1 0% of respondents are actively involved
B Better
DSame
0 Worse

| ^5?* *""&, #*•.**" - **,/£' , -.
Most Important Local Environmental Issues
f N
Mean Importance Ratings

1 / * % &'• ^ •• ~ , ' "1 O.J

water 1 • - 1 8'1

0123456789 10
V ^
Percentaae of respondents whose families have been ne

nat

Most Important Local Non-Environmental Issues
f X
Mean Importance Ratings
Public education (•*,, /-" )":^:v, ,, :.„,.">:'"'.. ,:< • :, \ 8.2

Illegal drug use j • ) 8.0

Local taxes f - "™| 7.8

Local crime rate | | 7.7

Local economy [ j 7.4
"
0123456789 10
V ^
velv affected bv local environmental issues 23%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
Wichita
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
7.8
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
-------
-------