-------
-------
Executive Summary
^
N
BMP ACT 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 11 EMPACT MSAs located in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Region 9: Bakersfield, CA; Fresno, CA; Honolulu, HI;
Las Vegas, NV; Los Angeles/Riverside/Orange County, CA; Phoenix, AZ; Sacramento/Yolo, CA;
San Diego, CA; San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose, CA; Stockton/Lodi, CA; and Tucson, AZ. In all,
92.0% of the residents of metropolitan statistical areas in Region 9 live in one of the 11 Region 9
EMPACT MSAs. Therefore, these results are a good indicator of opinions among residents of
metropolitan areas in Region 9.
Summary of Findings
The following are key findings from the analysis of the survey data from the Region 9 EMPACT
MSAs:
Importance of Environmental Issues in Region 9
• Region 9 respondents consider environmental issues slightly more important than non-
environmental issues. The quality of drinking water (mean=8.8), the protection of ground water
and wells (8.6), and the long-term supply of drinking water (8.6) were the three most important
environmental issues. The most important non-environmental issues was public education (8.6).
The next most important local environmental issues were the pollution of streams, lakes, rivers,
and oceans (8.4) and the adequacy of sewage treatment facilities (8.2). The next most important
non-environmental issues were local crime rate (8.1) and natural disasters (7.9).
-------
Executive Summary:
• Water issues are the most important local environmental issues to Region 9 respondents.
The six most important local environmental issues relate to water, with two of the three most
important relating to drinking water in particular: quality of drinking water (mean=8.8); the
protection of ground water and wells (8.6); long-term supply of drinking water (8.6); pollution
of streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans (8.4); adequacy of sewage treatment facilities (8.2); and the
depletion of the water table (8.2).
* There are significant differences in the importance of local environmental concerns for
Region 9 respondents compared to the other nine EPA Region respondents combined.
• Region 9 respondents are significantly more likely to report that the following issues are
important: air pollution from cars; airpollution from burning leaves; ozone alerts; quality
of drinking water; protection of ground water and wells; depletion of water table; and
long-term supply of drinking water.
Improvement or Decline of Environmental Issues in Region 9
• Regarding improvement in local environmental conditions during the last five years, Region
9 respondents are most likely to report improvement in the air pollution from burning
leaves (38%);local hazardous waste dumping (35%); and the use of potentially harmful
pesticides (33%).
• Regarding decline in local environmental conditions during the last five years, Region 9
respondents are most likely to report decline in air pollution from cars (45%); the pollution
of streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans (40%); and the depletion of the water table (34%).
• There are significant differences in the perceived improvement or decline of local
environmental issues for Region 9 respondents compared to the other nine EPA Region
respondents combined.
• When compared to other regions combined, Region 9 respondents are more likely to
report that the following issues have worsened over the last five years: air pollution from
cars; air pollution from businesses and industries; local hazardous waste dumping;
quality of drinking water; protection of ground water and wells; depletion of water table;
pollution of streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans; and long-term supply of drinking water.
Key Findings Among Region 9 MSAs
• There are significant differences in local environmental concerns among Region 9
EMPACT MSAs. Among the notable differences:
• Las Vegas and Los Angeles respondents are significantly more likely to report that many
local environmental issues are important;
-------
Executive Summary
Honolulu and Tucson respondents are significantly less likely to report that many 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?
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
in
-------
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
-------
-------
Chapter I. Introduction
I. Purpose of the EM PACT 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
MS As and a listing of EMPACT MS As 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 Las
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
metropolitan 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
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 9
1-1
-------
Chapter I. Introduction
different local environmental issues in their communities. Lastly, even if a national or state level
survey were to ask 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 9
This report will present the survey finding for the 11 EMPACT MSAs located in EPA Region 9:
Bakersfield, CA; Fresno, CA; Honolulu, HI; Las Vegas, NV; Los Angeles/Riverside/Orange County,
CA; Phoenix, AZ; Sacramento/Yolo, CA; San Diego, CA; San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose, CA;
Stockton/Lodi, CA; and Tucson, AZ. Where applicable, results are delineated by MSA (within
Region 9) to provide further segmentation of survey findings. In some cases, comparisons have been
made between Region 9 results and the results from the other EPA Regions combined. Comparing
Region 9 results with the combined results from the other nine Regions provides a general look at
how Region 9 findings compare to those for the rest of the country.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 9
1-2
-------
I
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. 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-envirqnmental 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 9 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 EMPACT metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), for a total of 8777 interviews
nationally. In all, 1124 respondents living in the 11 Region 9 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 11 EMPACT MSAs in Region 9, the sampling error for Region 9 is ±2.92%.
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 11 Region 9 MSAs respond "Yes" to
a question, the true value in the population is between 57.08% and 62.92% 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
Bakersfield MSA respondents and 100 Los Angeles/Riverside/Orange County MSA respondents at
a national level or regional level, since the Los Angeles/Riverside/Orange County 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.
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 the EMPACT. Experienced supervisors provided continuous
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 9 N-2
-------
Chapter II. Methods
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 ahle 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
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 9
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 9 only, which includes the following 11 EMPACT MSAs:
Bakersfield, CA
Fresno, CA
• Honolulu, HI
• Las Vegas, NV
• Los Angeles/Riverside/Orange County, CA
• Phoenix, AZ
• Sacramento/Yolo, CA
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose
Stockton/Lodi, CA
Tucson, AZ
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 9 summary profile of regional urban-level survey results is attached as Appendix D.
MSA-level summary profiles of survey results for each of the 11 EMPACT MSAs in Region 9 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 9. 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 9,
the proportion of MSA residents living in one of the 11 EMPACT MSAs is 92.0%. 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
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 9
11-4
-------
Chapter II. Methods
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.
Table 2. EMPACT Proportion of Total MSA population by EPA Region
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
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 9
-------
-------
Chapter III
Local Urban Environmental Issues
-------
-------
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 9 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.
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. Resppnse categories form an
ordered series. Ordinal scales permit discussion of "moreness" or "iessness," 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".
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 9
111-1
-------
Chapter 111. Local Urban Environmentai Issues
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
BMP ACT 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 9 reflect the responses from
citizens sampled from the 11 EMPACT MSAs (Bakersfield, CA; Fresno, CA; Honolulu, HI; Las
Vegas, NV; Los Angeles/Riverside/Orange County, CA; Phoenix, AZ; Sacrainento/Yolo, CA; San
Diego, CA; San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose, CA; Stockton/Lodi, CA; and Tucson, AZ) located in
EPA's Region 9. 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
differences among regions and EMPACT MSAs requires that comparisons be made using
unweighted results.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 9
111-2
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
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 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
Illegal drug use
Quality of public education
Adequacy of local highway system
Availability of housing for low
income citizens
Ability of the community to respond
to natural disasters
Availability of public transportation
Favorable business climate
Rate of unemployment
Level of local taxes
Poverty in local community
Adequacy of municipal services
(e.g., trash and snow removal, police
and fire protection)
Rate of urban growth
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 9
In Region 9, the six most important local environmental issues to respondents relate to water.
Respondents provide the highest importance ratings for the quality of drink
ing water.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 9
111-3
-------
Chapter Hi. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 1. Local Environmental Issues Mean Importance Ratings: Region 9
Quality of drinking w ater
Protection of ground w ater/w ells
Long-term supply of drinking w ater
Pollution of streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans
Adequacy of sew age treatment facilities
Depletion of water table
Local hazardous waste dumping
Air pollution-cars
Harmful pesticides
Location of landfills
Air pollution-businesses/lndustry -
Adequacy of landfills
Ozone alerts
Animal w aste disposal
Air pollution-burning leaves
8.78
8.63
Compared to the other nine EPA Regions combined, Region 9 respondents are significantly more
likely to report that the following issues are important: air pollution from cars; air pollution from
burning leaves; ozone alerts; quality of drinking water; protection of ground water and wells;
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 9 MSAs is the difference between Las Vegas and Los Angeles versus Honolulu and
Tucson (See Figure 3). Las Vegas and Los Angeles respondents are significantly more likely to
report that many local environmental issues are important. Las Vegas respondents rated 8 of the
15 environmental issues significantly higher and Los Angeles respondents rated 9 of the 15
environmental issues significantly higher than the other 10 Region 9 EMPACT MSAs combined.
Conversely, Honolulu and Tucson respondents were significantly less likely to report that many
local environmental issues were important. Honolulu respondents rated 7 of the 15 environmental
issues significantly lower and Tucson respondents rated 8 of the 15 environmental issues
significantly lower than the other 10 MSAs combined.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 9
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
in
o
I'-
ll
z
•*—
C.
o
o>
s
T
A
to
II
Z_
CM
§
O>
£
A
A
A
A
A
A
n
CM
en
n
Z
«
§
tn
£
T
A
A
f
!>-
II
z_
^
C
O
&
£t
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
£j
II
2
in
§
S"
.1
01
£
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
o
o
•V
II
o
3
Ol
Q>
(£.
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Mean region importance rating is significantly higher than other regions combined
T Mean region importance rating is significantly lower than other regions combined
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 9
IU-5
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 3. MSA Importance Ratings Compared to Other Region 9 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
Bakersfie
Fresno
T
Honolulu
T
T
V
T
T
T
T
tn
CD
1
8
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
t
3
8
c?
CO
•55
&
a>
-------
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, 3 8% of Region 9 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, 45% of respondents indicated that the air pollution from cars
has become worse during the last five years. (See Figure 4).
For 8 environmental issues, the percentage of Region 9 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 9
Quality of drinking w ater
Protection of ground w ater/w ells
Long-term supply of drinking w ater
Pollution of streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans
Adequacy of sew age treatment facilities
Depletion of w ater table
Local hazardous waste dumping
Air pollution-cars
Harmful pesticides
Location of landfills
Air pollution-businesses/lndustry
Adequacy of landfills
Ozone alerts
Animal w aste disposal
Air pollution-burning leaves
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
H Better DSame
EWorse
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 9
III-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
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
g
ii
z
*-
S
O>
£
B
W
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
CO
8
II
z
CM
c
o
o>
o
K
B
B
W
B
w1
£
ii
z
n
g
8.
w
w
w
B
&
r-
n
Z
•t
g
en
£
w
w
B
B
W
W
«"
ii
2
if)
.3
0)
B
B
B
B
B
B
?
n
z
£
W
B
B
W
B
o
II
Z
!>.
§
or
W
,
h-
§
El
z
as
§
o
£
W
^
II
z
a>
§
or
W
W
W
w
w
w
w
w
o*
o
II
o
g
o>
w
B
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 9
llf-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
15
2
CD
CD
B
W
B
B
B
B
B
2
it
B
"3
o
c
o
W
B5
CD
:>
2
W
w
w
w
w
w
1
8,
c
2
O
5
«
(|
en
"oi
O)
§
3
B
X
CL
W
B
W
0
o
^
tr
05
£5
u
CO
W
B
a
d
|
CO
B
c
1-
W
W
W
w
w
B Percentage of respondents reporting that trie 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.
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 9
III-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 9 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 issue for respondents who rated each issue as a
six or higher.
A. Quality of Prinking Water from Public Water Systems
Compared to the other nine EPA Regions combined, Region 9 respondents are significantly
more likely to report that the quality of drinking water has worsened over the last five years.
When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 9 MSAs combined, Las Vegas
respondents are significantly more likely to report that the quality of drinking water has
worsened over the last five years.
Figure 7. Quality of Drinking Water by Region 9 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 9
Bakersfield
Fresno
Honolulu
Las Vegas
Los Angeles
Phoenix
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
Stockton
Tucson
123%
26%
I 18%
90%
17%
5V.
0% 10% 20% 30%
B. Long-Term Supply of Drinking Water
40%
50%
60%
70%
Compared to the other nine EPA Regions combined, Region 9 respondents are significantly
more likely to report that the long-term supply of drinking water has worsened over the last
five years. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 9 MSAs combined,
Bakersfield and Sacramento respondents are significantly more likely to report that the long-
term supply of drinking water has improved, while Las Vegas and Tucson respondents are
significantly more likely to report that the long-term supply of drinking water has worsened
over the last five years.'
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 9
111-10
-------
Chapter Hi. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 8. Long-Term Supply of Drinking Water by Region 9 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 9
Fresno
Honolulu
Las Vegas
Los Angeles
San Diego
Stockton
Tucson
I '»'* "
1 17%
118*
_ „ JiifiilS.,,.
1 17%
D Better
B Worse
53H 51 %
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
C. Pollution of Streams, Lakes, Rivers, and Oceans in the Urban Area
Compared to the other nine EPA Regions combined, Region 9 respondents are significantly
more likely to report that the pollution of streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans has worsened over
the last five years. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 9 MSAs combined,
Bakersfield respondents are significantly more likely to report that the pollution of streams,
lakes, rivers, and oceans has improved, while Las Vegas and San Diego respondents are
significantly more likely to report that the pollution of streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans has
worsened over the last five years.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 9
11-11
-------
Chapter 111. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 9. Urban Water Pollution by Region 9 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 9
.
Bakersfield
Fresno
Honolulu
Las Vegas
Los Angeles
Phoenix
Sacramento
San Diego
.
San Francisco
Stockton
Tucson
•'in ii< i timi* 20%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
D. Protection of Ground Water and Wells
Compared to the other nine EPA Regions combined, Region 9 respondents are significantly
more likely to report that the protection of ground water and wells has worsened over the last
five years. When comparing the individual MS As to other Region 9 MS As combined,
Bakersfield and Fresno respondents are significantly more likely to report that the protection
of ground water and wells has improved, while San Francisco and Tucson respondents are
significantly more likely to report mat the protection of ground water and wells has worsened
over the last five years.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 9
111-12
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 10. Protection of Ground Water and Wells by Region 9 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 9
Bakersfield
Fresno
Honolulu
Las Vegas
Los Angeles
Phoenix
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
Stockton
Tucson
0%
,36%
128%
34%
> 28%
(24%
131%
I 29%
128%
43%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
E. Adequacy of Sewage Treatment Facilities
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 9 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 9 MSAs combined,
Bakersfield respondents are significantly more likely to report that the adequacy of sewage
treatment facilities has improved, while San Diego respondents are significantly more likely
to report that the adequacy of sewage treatment facilities has worsened over the last five years.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 9
11-13
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 11. Adequacy of Sewage Treatment Facilities by Region 9 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
nuniunni uiudii
Region 9
Bakersfield
Fresno
Honolulu
Las Vegas
Los Angeles
Phoenix
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
Stockton
Tucson
maQrnmmMbmKubnmxi'i* 3%
-,., ne«
.,, raw
|42S
'jmfSLjius^^sSSsSsSsf i It % '
.IZ^Z" I2B%
""'•'"— •"JB13%
sses&m s%
-1r^r,.nnJIV-J^14%
* ' 1 ''"'"
sssumnv.
WWiil SVt
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
:. Depletion of the Water Table
jtter
orse
70%
Compared to the other nine EPA Regions combined, Region 9 respondents are significantly
more likely to report that the depletion of the water table has worsened over the last five years.
When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 9 MSAs combined, Bakersfield and
San Francisco respondents are significantly more likely to report that the depletion of water
table has improved, while Phoenix and Tucson respondents are significantly more likely to
report that the depletion of water table has worsened over the last five years.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 9
111-14
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
National Urban
Region 9
Bakersfield
Fresno
Honolulu
Las Vegas
Los Angeles
Phoenix
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
Stockton
Tucson
Figure 12. Depletion of the Water Table by Region 9 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
29%
51%
119%
25%
—12%
60%
I 13%
I 41%
| 14%
127%
34%
33%
114%
970%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
G. Air Pollution from Cars
Compared to the other nine EPA Regions combined, Region 9 respondents are significantly
more likely to report that the air pollution form cars has worsened over the last five years.
When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 9 MSAs combined, Los Angeles
respondents are significantly more likely to report that the air pollution from cars has
improved, while Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Tucson respondents are significantly more likely
to report that the air pollution from cars has worsened over the last five years.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 9
111-15
-------
Chapter 111. Local Urban Environmental Issues
National Urban
Region 9
Bakersfield
Fresno
Honolulu
Las Vegas
Los Angeles
Phoenix
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
Stockton
Tucson
Figure 13. Air Pollution from Cars by Region 9 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
- - . ,3tt D Better
„„„ H Worse
)7%
mimmiiimmmiimrtifmim™
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
H. Air Pollution from Businesses and Industries
Compared to the other nine EPA Regions combined, Region 9 respondents are significantly
more likely to report that the air pollution from businesses and industries has worsened over
the last five years. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 9 MSAs combined,
Las Vegas respondents are significantly more likely to report that the air pollution from
businesses and industries has worsened over the last five years.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 9
111-16
-------
Chapter ill. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 14. Air Pollution from Businesses and Industries by Region 9 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 9
RakAref iaIH
Fresno
Honolulu
Las Vegas
Los Angeles
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
Stockton
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
. Ozone Alerts in the Community
D Better
B Worse
70%
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 9 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MS As to other Region 9 MS As combined, Phoenix
respondents are significantly more likely to report that ozone alerts in the community have
improved over the last five years.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 9
111-17
-------
Chapter HI. Local Urban Environmental Issues
National Urban
Region 9
Bakersfield
Fresno
Honolulu
Las Vegas
Los Angeles
Phoenix
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
Stockton
Tucson
Figure 15. Ozone Alerts in the Community by Region 9 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
0%
128%
122%
|2«%
126%
129%
114%
Hg|33%
I 30%
22%
|36%
I 36%
133%
I 43%
22%
-]29%
a 29%
124%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
J. Air Pollution from Burning Leaves
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 9 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 9 MSAs combined,
Sacramento respondents are significantly more likely to report that air pollution from burning
leaves has worsened over the last five years.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 9
111-18
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
National Urban
s
i Region 9
Bakersfield
Fresno
Honolulu
Las Vegas
Los Angeles
Phoenix
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
Stockton
Tucson
Figure 16. Air Pollution from Burning Leaves by Region 9 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
0%
0%
I 36%
140%
137%
1 33%
146%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
K. Local Hazardous Waste Dumping
Compared to the other nine EPA Regions combined, Region 9 respondents are significantly
more likely to report that local hazardous waste dumping has worsened over the last five years.
When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 9 MSAs combined, San Francisco
respondents are significantly more likely to report that local hazardous waste dumping has
improved, while Bakersfield and Las Vegas respondents are significantly more likely to report
that local hazardous waste dumping has worsened over the last five years.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 9
111-19
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmentai Issues
Region 9
•
Bakersfield
Fresno
.
Honolulu
Las Vegas
Los Angeles
Phoenix
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
Stockton
Tucson
Figure 17. Local Hazardous Waste Dumping by Region 9 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
1 34%
""""'-""-' , DBi
1 1 3 5 %
[* |J/% mw
mmmimmmMaMmMKmsmiammwmmsst^&j.
r " "1]36%
!S™lSaS™™11%
"*" "«** ' l"«
#'1'" ll"1'"' •'•nmriiT 17%
\27%
Jtter
orse
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
L. Use of Potentially Harmful Pesticides
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 9 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 9 MSAs combined, San
Diego respondents are significantly more likely to report that the use of potentially harmful
pesticides has worsened in the last five years.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmentai Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 9
III-20
-------
Chapter Ml. Local Urban Environmental Issues
F
National Urban
Region 9
Bakersfield
Fresno
Honolulu
Las Vegas
Los Angeles
Phoenix
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
Stockton
Tucson
igure 18. Use of Potentially Harmful Pesticides by Region 9 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
\affbtiKanmasm •>'*
r"™*™"™**™14'*
'"'","„ "'"„,. |44%
KmBmHHtariB^ 1 7 %
jHBBUHOBB 10%
mmmammnmivis*
" ' ' 148%
"™™ m 20*
ILMIBMIiClltBMiiMIBCilBililEI 1 3%
|J/%
vam&smammmmsm 1 9%
M.UilUJlMUM'UMlHm.lUJMl 15%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
M. Location of Landfills
D Better
m Worse
60% 70%
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 9 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 9 MSAs combined, San
Diego respondents are significantly more likely to report that the location of landfills has
worsened over the last five years.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 9
111-21
-------
Chapter HI. Local Urban Environmental issues
Figure 19. Location of Landfills by Region 9 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
118%
121%
26%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
N. Adequacy of Landfills
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 9 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 9 MSAs combined,
Bakersfield and San Francisco respondents are significantly more likely to report that the
adequacy of landfills has improved, while Honolulu and San Diego respondents are
significantly more likely to report that the adequacy of landfills has worsened over the last five
years.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 9
III-22
-------
Chapter 111. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 20. Adequacy of Landfills by Region 9 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 9
Bakersfield
Fresno
Honolulu
Las Vegas
Los Angeles
Phoenix
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
Stockton
Tucson
1B., 31% DBetter
.,,„ BWorse
MU.W iiiiiiillllW yiLHH0
iifi »*
I'**
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
D. Disposal of Animal Waste
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 9 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 9 MSAs combined,
Stockton respondents are significantly more likely to report that the disposal of animal waste
has improved, while Tucson respondents are significantly more likely to report that the
disposal of animal waste has worsened over the last five years.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 9
111-23
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
0%
Figure 21. Animal Waste Disposal by Region 9 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
-1
National Urban
Region 9
Bakersfield
-
Fresno
.
Honolulu
Las Vegas
Los Angeles
Phoenix
Sacramento
.
San Diego
Stockton
.
Tucson
•HHffiB«B^ '**"
HBMBffljSTT*— '""
|7%
tm.m>nmmJ7v.
Immmmmm T^ ""
MHMJIHIfflilififi8%
0%
' } ' '*
D Better
@ Worse
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 9
HI-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 9 respondents reported 252 open-ended responses. Of the unprompted responses
provided by Region 9 respondents, 54.8% mentioned an environmental issue; whereas, 45.2%
mentioned a non-environmental issue. The most frequently mentioned type of local environmental
issues were pollution issues (15.9% of all issues for air, water, land pollution combined). The
second most frequently mentioned issue related to land use (9.9% 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
138
22
7
11
6
25
2
4
7
4
4
46
114
252
Percentage
54.76%
8.73%
2.78%
4.37%
2.38%
9.92%
0.79%
1.59%
2.78%
1.59%
1.59%
18.25%
45.24%
100.00%
Note: Numbers may not add to 100.0% due to rounding
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 9
III-25
-------
-------
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 EMPACT
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 9 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.
More than two-thirds of Region 9 respondents (70%) report that they obtain their information from
newspapers. Only 4% report receiving local environmental information from the Internet. 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 9
New spapers
Television
Radio
Magazine
Word of mouth
Internet
7%
15%
4%
70%
56%
19%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 9
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 9 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 9
Television
Newspapers
Radio
Federal government
State government
Local government
Environmental groups
Schools and colleges
20%
40%
60%
80%
m Excellent
O Good
ID Fair/Poor
100%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 9
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 EMPACT MSAs, Region 9 respondents are about as
active as the national urban population as a whole. Less than half of the Region 9 respondents
(47%) 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 (31%) 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 9
Read book/brochure or
library research
Searched the Internet
Attended public meeting
Subscribe to
environmental publication
Requested info in-person/
w riling/ phone
Joined environmental
group
0%
47%
31%
24%
23%
21%
14%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
TT ^B CO
-^ w t*
-------
Chapter IV. Sources of Local Environmental Information
A. Internet Access
When asked if they had access to the Internet, 64% of Region 9 respondents report that they
do. This is slightly higher than the 59% access reported by respondents in all 86 EMPACT
MS As. Of the Region 9 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 9
100%
80%-
60%-
40%-
20%-
79%
9%
8%
3%
0%
0%
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 9
\V-4
-------
Chapter V
Discussion
-------
-------
Chapter V. Discussion
The EMP ACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of86 Metropolitan A reas findings indicate
that local environmental issues are very important to citizens living in 86 of the nation's largest
metropolitan areas. The Region 9 findings are consistent with the overall survey findings—local
environmental issues are very important to people living in the 11 EMP ACT MSAs in Region 9.
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 9 respondents. Much like the overall survey findings, the Region 9 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 9 findings include:
• The quality of drinking water, the protection of ground water and wells, and the long-term
supply of drinking water received the greatest mean importance ratings (8.78,8.63 and 8.62,
respectively).
• Region 9 respondents are significantly more likely than the other 9 Regions combined to
report that these three issues are important.
• Region 9 respondents are significantly more likely than the other 9 Regions combined to
report that these three issues have worsened 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 9 <
V-1
-------
-------
Appendix A
EMPACT Metropolitan Areas
-------
-------
EMPACT Metropolitan Area
Albany- Schenectady- Troy, NY
Albuquerque, MM
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-EBPACf StudyUo«, U*an Er,,,ronmen,a, .ssues Stud, of 86 MetropolKan Areas
A-1
-------
EMPACT Metropolitan Area
Little Rock- North Little Rock, AR
Los Angeles- Riverside- Orange County, CA
LouisviUe, 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
KnoxviUe, 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
-------
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 Unite
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.
2.
3.
Yes
No
Do not know
[THANK AND TERMINATE]
[GO TO SECTION II]
[THANK AND TERMINATE]
Part 2
Q.B Are they available now?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Do not know
Part3
Hello, lam.
[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]
[SCHEDULE CALLBACK. IF REFUSE CALLBACK -
TERMINATE]
[THANK AND TERMINATE] .
. 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.]
U S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
-------
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 HERB 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 . /Mr pollution from cars
2. Air pollution from businesses or
industrial sites
3. Air pollution from burning leaves
4. Ozone alerts in the community
Rating
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
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
r
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
g
10
10
10
10
10
10
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
-------
EMPACT Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B-(4J
NON-ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Issue:
16. Local crime rate
17. Illegal drug use
1 8. Quality of public education
1 9. 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. 1 a 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".
1 23 456789 10 DK
| After survey Is completed, need to specify whether the issue is environmental or not. '
Q.1 b 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 CAT) 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 HERE1 area?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Better
Worse
Same
DK/Refused
Q3b. For flNSERT 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
2. No
3. Do not know/Refused
[CONTINUE TO Q.5]
[SKIP TO NEXT SECTION]
[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 fPLACE 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 fPLACE
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
Billboards
Bus-side ads
Posters
Personal experience
Internet
Kids
Leaflets
Library
Personal observation
Word-of mouth
Media
Television
Radio
Newspapers
Magazines
School
Hotlines/800 numbers
Organizations
Local Schools
Universities/Community Colleges
Local government
State government
Federal government
Environmental groups
Other [RECORD]
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Q6/6a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
-------
EM PACT 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 HERE1 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 . 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
No
Do not know
[ASK Q.6]
[SKIP TO NEXT SECTION]
[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
Work
A local library
A local school
Some other place
RECORD OTHER
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
Q11. When was the last time you used the World Wide Web or Internet? [READ LIST UNTIL FIRST
?YES? RESPONSE]
[READ] YES
In the last few days 1
In the last week 1
In the last month 1
In the last year 1
Longer than a year 1
NO
2
2
2
2
2
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
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 fPLACE NAME OF MSA HERE1 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.
2.
3.
4,
5.
6.
7.
8,
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
18-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75 or older
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?
Q2Q. Do you consider yourself to be Hispanic?
1.
2
3.
Yes
No
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7,
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
English
Spanish
French
German
Vietnamese
Cambodian
Mandarin
Cantonese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Polish
Russian
Other
DK/Refused
[RECORD]
[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 $10,000-519,999
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 $80,000-389,999
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 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Better,Sane,orWorseDurrnglast51fears
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal ^T^^^^^^^^^^^^r_
l/ayylBti
Ground water and wells [r
Harmful pesticides
i/»yyy/^x23% x/y/x%?!3
37>%;a^mgiSi^ioc«*aiisiSa1
Landfill adequacy li!~j
Landfilltoeation HS
eT»
•"Local waste dumping p
Long-term water supply |5
Ozone alerts i*u^&®£«jiT?3*z31ffl£&*K*&jffiv^i'^
Pollution- burning leaves R
KWS/^%25%'
m Better
DSame
0 Worse
Pollution-cars iaa'.!i3s»a:»aii»B=a»iju'ife8an>a«:i'»a8oai?i»iyi
Pollution-industry t "~
ZB% . ii'^^/xyxx>S'S'vy>?42%y^x/w^wx/y/j'?i
"Pollution of streams/lakes {
"•Quality of drinking water
Water table depletion
'^^^^^^^S^^^IHMM^^^^LH
3Z%
^ 34%^wy/y/
-------
-------
Appendix D
Region 9 Urban Profile
-------
-------
REGION 9
RATINGS OP LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
BETTER, SAME. OR WORSE DURING LAST 5 YEARS
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal i«a=.-a«iin
Ground water and wells i
47%I
Harmful pesticides (53
Landfill adequacy iajeatiB««l«a>a»?!Miipiig|
Landfill location I ^atg^aHS^-ja^ar-iaifi
""Local waste dumping i^j|w^s^«a6^^5^^^feyg^^^^^^^i;*y^L
Long-term water supply i»aiMMii»ajftit^«iiii»»««!ihs»i 50% t^x/y/v/yxioo^xxx^xxxxj^l 13 Better
Ozone alerts ^^fffej^^^^sajaaraiiigBiaal 51% V/////S/S/'J3SWS//SS//^fll U S3IT16
Pollution-burning leaves l«ag«^ia«^33i^ia^«^?»3aiii!Msai8iaii«si!!a^srt 5B"A ixiM!a»aeaa%««aai»°ia»«i| 43% l//fr5WJWX//Xa%'W>VX<'XWy/'>l
"'Pottution 0( Streams/lakes •^-'a=Hfcg>x:tai^:24ift^^iaij^i{atf4ffii| 36% DV/^^<>C^>y>X>>^g&9VyXv>y>>>>VX/>l
Quality of drinking water |.-"^ig^^T/^h'^^aai«i 5b% L^yy^^yvyzyirVyx^V/yy^/l
Water table depletion litreawiiaia'UMiwmatini 4B% VSSS/fSSSS///iWtS/SSS//SS////SA
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
"• Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
iK~.ii.; A-tjmf'^rj^»•»*<*•• ~;: $..i^i**r^MtfiB^M*i^.'^j^^«^;«j^^
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
\ /
Quality of drinking
water
Ground water and
Long-term water i
supply I
Adequacy of sewagt
treatment
0123456789 10
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL NON-ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
e rate 8.1
| 8.6
Natural disasters
lJl 7.9
Local eeonomy 7.8
Illegil drug use 7.8
012345
7 S 9 10
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHOSE FAMILIES HAVE BEEN NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES...
36%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
-------
Appendix E
Profiles for Region 9 MS As
-------
BAKERSFIELD
RATINGS OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
BETTER. SAME, OR WORSE DURING LAST 5 YEARS
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal i*_<^.iHnx*K&&'y&9b*ii$&ux//S//7?X
ijiykWJSSM
Landfill adequacy nnma
Landfill location
«j_
46%
ju%sa
Local waste dumping |^.s;re.-ag.B_^i££raT^^s^*g«.*l
Long-term water supply f ;«•_-*!?
Ozone alerts ESTS
•"Pollution- burning leaves ££
35%^^^x/yxy>_g
W/& WkTTTTTA
yfMWSA
7?A2%77A
'"Pollution- rare i .a ..•^asa-.^i-.-iE^g^M^il.^'^*.-*.-.«T
746%?
"'Pollution- industry |ta...'.yaaM«3ggyfr*SSi_.ft.ei^.;l
..SajL
•"Potiuiaon of streams/lakes ^&.^i«-ii«^^si_sm^i-ao!j»;^^__r^.ii.^.^!i85»«ii
"•Quality of drinking water |
Water table depletion j
325%2222_.2
7?24%'/j>Sj>£'/A
'Wk'SS/SSSS/SA
J35% 'S/SSiTSSSf/SA
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
' Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
H Better
DSame
0 Worse
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
IMPORTANCE RATINGS
Ground water and
mils
8.8
8.6
Long-lerm water j
supply
Water table dt.plet.on 8.3
0123456789 10
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL NON-ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
Local crime rate
Public Mutation 8.4
Illegal dru9 use lmi-SSi!aSft^X^miS^S»KSKi-Mt^^:S*»'iKtf\ 8.4
Local economy 7.9
Natural disasters I
01234567
9 10
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHOSE FAMILIES HAVE BEEN NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 36%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
BAKERSFIELD
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 (lumping
Long-term water supply
Ozone alerts
Pollution- burning leaves
Pollution- cars
Pollution- industry
Pollution of streams/lakes
Quality of drinking water
Water table depletion
00
17.8
8.3
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
9.0 6.0
7,0
B.O 90
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
FRESNO
RATINGS OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
BETTER, SAME, OR WORSE DURING LAST 5 YEARS
Adequacy of sewage treatment (3
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells d«|^*2Sii!il^^SS^£
w/s.iykTTTTi
Harmful pesticides laiaK
'. 1ME-
.
i
-!
j
Koiiution- Dumtnq leaves ^*!i«>i^i^g^&reBaa%r*«wisi*i»9ai«>E.";^
j
:
J-'oflution- industry [ -a-s^-^i^ai^i-.y-5gcsb aa5><.Hrit-^^:^^5i i
:
F
'^% K^IZ^rJi^
fl Btj^/b 1
bs% i>v>yyW'22%X^i'>^J'I^i
Water table depletion [gaggjg^sra^jE&i^g^j
ty&ff/^f/FrfJW*kr/SjVff/77f?/l
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
*** Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
IS Better
i D Same
0 Worse
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL Issues
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL NON-ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
N X
Ground water and
wells
i]8.6
Water table oepletion 8.4
Quality of dnnking
Long-tern water
.3
supply 8.2
Pollution ot
streams/lakes
0 1 2.3 4- • 5 6 "7* fl 9 10
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
education \ iscsaaas
Local crime rate
ie5a!aaaa£iagsi 8.6
illegal drug use |
| 7.3
Local economy |«i
Adequacy of municipal
services
01 23456789 10
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHOSE FAMILIES HAVE BEEN NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 39%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
FRESNO
IMPORTANCE RATINGS OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
Landfill location
Local waste dumping
Long-term water supply
Ozone alerts
Pollution- burning leaves
Pollution- ears
Pollution-industry
Pollution of streams/lakes
Quality of drinking water
t Water table depletion
7.3
J7.8
6.7
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
HONOLULU
RATINGS OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL Issues
BETTER. SAME. OR WORSE DURING LAST 5 YEARS
"Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste oisoosai i-a
Ground water and wells 1^-
Harmful pesticides |55
Landfill adequacy
v//in;*«»i ^^ ix^yyy/y/vr/y>yxx/yxi758%y
Pollution^ industry
"'Pollution of streams/lakes
H
Quality of drinking water |:»g»a~..a»sza'X>'«»j»«<«pnt i
Water able depletion
°T%
^X^
-------
HONOLULU
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 alens
Pollution- Dgming leaves
Potiutioiv ears
Pollution- industry
Pollution of streamsflakes
Quality of drinking water
Water taBle depletion
1.0
90
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
LAS VEGAS .
RATINGS OP LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
BETTER, SAME, OR WORSE DURING LAST 5 YEARS
Adequacy of sewage treatment |^;r
Animal waste disposal 1^796 '!•-•.!
—Ground water and wells
•"Harmful pesticides
"'Landfill adequacy
r 20%
44%
•-Landfill location j>
•"Local waste dumping [i
_5B%_
•"Long-term water supply l«antsitl33taMiiBa>l"
Ozone alerts f
Pollution-burning leaves P
VfS////S/SS//fS//, 43% 'S/SS//fJSSSS///SA
i El Better
DSame
0 Worse
•"Pollution-cars J
•"Pollution-industry j
15%
"Pollution of streams/lakes I iigK«nK»2U»»!itia»i>»l
•••Quality of drinking water
—Water table depletion
60%
70%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% v>,~
' Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
80%
90%
100%
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL Issues
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
Long-tern) water £?
supply
Quality of drinking p^
water
8.8
streams/takes 8'8
Water UOle depletion
Ground water and
wells
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL NON-ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
Public education
Local crime rate
ga I 8.6
Illegal drug use l
Adequacy of local I
Uijhways 7-9
Local economy |;a58=;Hgg'aagaB^ifl.gi^g50gi:giSSStgfeii"3!B| 7.8
0)23455789 10
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHOSE FAMILIES HAVE BEEN NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES , 49%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
LAS VEGAS
IMPORTANCE RATINGS OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
Harmful pesticides
Landfill adequacy
LandfiH location
Local waste dumping
Long-term water supply
Ozone alerts
Pollution- burning leaves
Pollution* ears
Pollution- industry
Pollution of streams/lakes
Quality of dnnking water
Water taale depletion
6.3
III 8.8
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
Los ANGELES/RIVERSIDE/ORANGE COUNTY
RATINGS or 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
Landfill location
Local waste dumping
Long-term water supply
Ozone alerts
Quality of drinking water
Water lade depletion
|.!*a£:!itttN&l tjf/0
-
1 ^.0l& j&^^M«Z4W&$?9$3ii^''l t>r>
! '* * ' **ff"
p»$£^.4ift;;£;iiji«s(| b / "A
.-:
|W;^i!^^«t^;£KSf5^§HS%a^s^^^
-.
Iag:«;^^*^§ZB1W^^^*<»wSfcJ ftS^F
;
J^^&;&3Ks3.Z-1=Sb#s"ss«3:!;:isis?l 55%
-f
| W^:3ws-W.-;a^w^Mii'^^5iB^«;ri*3tts^sjsS!i^!i«yB^i5«i |
Iv8l£t$?^£^3^&if^4!)^i^^ 4ifJb
H
|^!Si^%4%i%i^^%£Wj<»mw^M| 4U%
-
[*H*aft*E!sg| V1^ *^3!asi»?| B,i %
••
pj^J'14'iS>*/J
WWi 1 I'M)
••
YS/SMMA%WSs
D3% r>»ii%
&S//J/j'2.V&'S/J'J
E^J/X^/ir2J%^pJiW
3»% T!
t/y/;yV/y/i'26% vx^v/
VsSSf$tf/jtyffSj'&f'°t*ttf//jrjfjr//'/^
W/sS/S/ ZI'A fas/i
EJ Better
DSame
0 Worse
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
** Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
MQST IMPORTANT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL NON-ENVIRONMENTAL. ISSUES
Quality of dnnktng
mils
Pollution of
streams/lakes
]8.7
8.7
123156709 10
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
Public education
8.8
Local criitu rate
LOUI economy jsi
Local taxes $.' »| 8.1
8.1
Natural disasters
0123456789 10
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
-------
Los ANGELES/RIVERSIDE/ORANGE COUNTY
IMPORTANCE RATINGS OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL Issues
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wetls
Local waste dumping
Long-term water supply
Pollution' burning leaves
Pollution- industry
Pollution of streams/lakes
Quality of drinking water
Water table depletion
0,0 1.0 2.0
10.0
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
PHOENIX
RATINGS or LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
BETTER, SAME, OR WORSE DURING LAST 5 YEARS
Adequacy of sewage treatment i#miiem&zms*^tt^i*x*:*^*w^'i<®s**wrm
Animal waste disposal dg&-*-T!l»3i»-*'=»i "^
Ground water and wells ifi«>«ii&iiinaaa>g| s/% v/s/J'SS/SjlZ°kljfssss/ss/i
Harmful pesticides iw^^^^aat^^yia^i-^s^^^^tffei^wJB^H^^^i^^i^'i^^tf^i 3ij%
Landfill adequacy ]l 45% [/7>>w>soiMw38%y/xxyx/7S'y.*y>'-<
0 Worse
•"OZOne alerts l«««SSSSSS///S/SSSS/stt%W///SSSSS////W//S///S777}t
Pollution- industry iiM^c5--^-J^aBfr^'a>^«««^i a/Vo i>>xx>>v>x>^/vyx42%/!^^iS^vv>x^v?7J
<• "
Pollution of streams/lakes i««a«i«iiwi»ii»i 30% wssss
j
""Quality of drinking water f«M?:*s*««aB;»iftiAfrK»5i«! i 45*& y
Water table depletion IX-A a»"/j> ix^^x^yy/Vyy/V/Vxy/i/
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
Ground water and t
welts
Long-term water
supply
Water table depletion 8.6
Pollution of j—
streams/lakes
01234. 56789 10
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL. NON-ENVIRONMENTAL, ISSUES
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
Local crime rale 8.5
J
Public education 8.4
1
Illegal drug use 8.3
'W"Uas7r*eeTn'elP'i' 7'9
Local economy |^^^IJ^E^^C^^^_^^^^-^^^^t^t^^:a^.'yi^iiy 7*9
01 23456789 10
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHOSE FAMILIES HAVE BEEN NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 51%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
PHOENIX
IMPORTANCE RATINGS or LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
Harmful pesticides
Landfill adequacy
Landfill location
Local waste dumping |j
Long-term water Supply
Ozone alerts
Pollution- burning leaves
Pollution- cars
Pollution-industry r
Pollution of streams/lakes
Quality pf drinking water
Water table depletion
4,0 50
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
SACRAM ENTO/YOLO
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
•"Landfill location
'"Local waste dumping
Long-term water supply
Ozone alerts
Pollution- burning leaves
•"Pollution- cars
'"Pollution- industry
"•Pollution of streams/lakes
V/St
-ESEI
39%
(3 Better
D Same
0 Worse
43%
760%/
a
yyh Y//S//SSSS//SA
•i
"•Quality of drinking water
j
•"Water table depletion pawn:
JSf*
fiii
_E
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90H 100%
*" Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
i^
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL NON-ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Quality Dunking ^sf,,i:t
,l 8,g
Ground water a
wells
Long-term water |-—
supply IS
8.5
str«ams/iakes
Adequacy of sewage
treatment
8.5
0123456789 10
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
Public education \'^-
Local crane rale
Urban growth rate
7.7
illegal drug use 7.7
0 1 Z 3 4 i
7 8 9 10
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHOSE FAMILIES HAVE BEEN NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
46%
-------
SAC RAM ENTO/YOLO
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
L0ng~tenn water supply
Ozone alerts
Pollution- burning leaves
Pollution- cars
Pollution- industry
Pollution of streams/lakes
Quality of drinking water
Water table depletion
8.1
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 $.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
10.0
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
SAN DIEGO
RATINGS or LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
BETTER, SAME. OR WORSE DURING LAST 5 YEARS
"•Adequacy of sewage treatmeni
44%
Animal waste disposal I jusimfcapr
UM13%Z&I
Ground water ana wells ica^-ai^g4^ig»i«^-»ii»ii
***Harmful pesticides ni^ft^^^a^aro^S^^^ffiiafea^l
.«5*
WSSSSS/S 29% iSSSS'JlSS7?}l(
Landfill adequacy faaMSHsgT
55%.
"'Landfill location f>t«»ggi3^et%;^aiij;^i
Local waste dumping
7.45% 77s/////s//S//f/A
fS77S, 36% 'S/SSS//////j/\
Long-term water supply i*ai>*^^-a»aj!»iaiM*t»;***tfi
Ozon€ alerts t^fc&WM7ffi*&i&®vw
Pollution- burning leaves
Pollution- cars
Z 38% r/ssss/ss/s/'fA
J43% 'S^ss////?//////!
Pollution- industry j-^ig^^^z^^^^^sivt.!"
Pollution of streams/lakes ^W^aitt^^^'^
"•Quality of drinking water
—Water table depletion
732% '//v/sssfs/A
_S6'Vi>
70%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
"* Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
80%
90% 100%
i ED Better
O Same
0 Worse
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
Long-term water
supply
Quality of drafting
water
Ground water and
Local waste dumping ||
Pollution of
streamsJIakes
7.8
0 1 2 3 4 5
7 a 9 10
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL NON-ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
Public education
illegal drug tuc [i
Local crime rate
Adequacy of municipal
services
.6
7.4
Natural disasters 7.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHOSE FAMILIES HAVE BEEN NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
27%
-------
SAN DIEGO
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
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 taole depletion
IMPORTANCE RATINGS OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
10.0
ERA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND/SAN JOSE
RATINGS OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
BETTER, SAME, OR WORSE DURING LAST 5 YEARS
3equacy 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
l-'i&^^ti^ftrfUj&feSbe;; • JJ jf.% £3jtt$$& 'f C^f^kK^fMf
-
^ -*SS**i ;S**41 %3«7G«&*l:m|
/" ' " "
^Ei«M^^.J«9^;*v;^;t^
1
:
..;
| rf-sisKss&Wif**; ','&>tviK8x SM&M3SS 4&%i^^**i^^«^^^i&W>A!;« f
.'
J'-a^wml/^-.ttsft,***!**! • bl 'y*
| i.^W£ftJ^&«^^^
-,
I .^*t^*iysyi*^".yy;i3%'i/x/i
J /% I»X^ 1 /% *^^1
wyssf/:££*fo'//s/ss/i
50% C4%E
DSame
0 Worse
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% SO'A 6X3% 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
Quality of drinking r
wail
d"nl"n9 8.7
Una-term water
supply
Ground water and
wells
Pollution or f
streams/lakes
_ Water table depletion 8.1
5 6 7
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
Public education 8.7
i
Natural disasters 8.2
Adequacy of municipal f
services
jagaassasfl 7.7
5^gjSSB?gSg>;K?MS^Sfjisll 7.6
Local taxes i«sg^iaag-3ias>g;3S8^a«'-'i»i.-.ag;t:aag| 7.6
0123456T
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHOSE FAMILIES HAVE BEEN NEGATIVELY AFFECTED ev LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 37%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
SAN FRANctSCO/OAKLAND/SAN JOSE
IMPORTANCE RATINGS or LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL. ISSUES
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
Pollution- burning leaves
4.3
Pollution- cars
Pollution- industry
Pollution flf streams/lakes
Quality of drinking water
Water table depletion
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 80 9.0
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
STOCKTON/LODI
RATINGS OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL Issues
BETTER, SAME. OR WORSE DURING LAST 5 YEARS
.
Adequacy of sewage treatment
" 'Animal waste disposal p~^fti:amiia*^^ayftffi«*'iaa^ai*Mi4aaH
'"Ground water and wells tr^^feis^g^!ts^?sa^%«jeiBsspjK&^Ksft»a(i
Harmful pesticides j
Landfill adequacy j
Landfill location I
40%
Local waste dumping li^gKM^i^Mbi^aii^iaai^gtf^a^afci^a^asgjssgji^a^LM
Long-term water supply '
Ozone alerts i ^^aa^^^MK^^wm^^sira^
Pollution- burning leaves |
Pollution- cars i^^^^^^^KV^^^^^^^T"
2BTSI
Pollution-industry ^^^^^^^^SS^^^^SSHC
41*$b
UWvVX'21%'
r/yssjVSjW.2&% '
?19%5555%l
WSSSSf.
"tWhTTTPsssss/i
S48%7
J28%2S2223
"'Pollution of streams/lakes i ^•^Kit^iaB^jgiiKiia^gfe^ifci^i^^f'sst^iigaK-i"
^y»j
'"Quality of dnnkincj water 1.1.^^7-^1^5 ^5^C^ig^^i»T"
'"Water table depletion - —
^yyyyov>y>^w>^41 %^y»y/yxyV^/vx>d
tv>^^or/^<^^36%/^>yyvvyyy>i^
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
** Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
J33%J!^v>yx>9^y3
i 90% 100%
DO Better
DSame
0 Worse
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
Long-ierm water p;
supply
Ground water and
wells
8.4
8-4
Local waste dumping
Pollution of
streams/lakes
]8.4
0123456789 10
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL N ON- ENVIRON MENTAL ISSUES
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
Public education
Local cnme rale
jla:| 8.3
Illegal drug use |J
^r-8JgiiS;| 8.1
Local ewnomy 8.0
•
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHOSE FAMILIES HAVE BEEN NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
40%
-------
STOCKTON/LODI
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- Duming leaves
Pollution- industry
Pollution of streams/lakes
Quality of drinking water
Water table depiction
8.1
0.0
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
9.0
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
TUCSON
RATINGS OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
BETTER. SAME. OR WORSE DURING LAST 5 YEARS
"Adequacy of sewage treatment [
"•Animal waste disposal J
'"Ground water and wells
Harmful pesticides
Landfill adequacy l
""Landfill location paaMnroTaafcaisuiiiaar
Local waste dumping
—Long-term water supply
Ozone alerts
Pollution- burning leaves
""Pollution-cars
Pollution-industry '
Pollution of streams/lakes uJsi.Tawiaa.au
"'Quality of drinking water I tia j-»lb%.si«i-.
""Water table depletion fS
t>f"/e
?33%'SS/S/S/SSSA
£43% '/SS/SSSS/SSSSSA
iH Better
DSame
0 Worse
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% .60% 70% 60% 90% 100%
"' Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
j»^^
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
\ X
Long-term water
Ground water and
wells
Quality of orinking |^
water
8.3
7.2
0123456769 10
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL NON-ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
Public education
uroan growth rat*
.0
aggaiaj 7.6
Local economy 7.6
Illegal drug uie 7.5
Local cnme rate 7.3
01234567
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHOSE FAMILIES HAVE BEEN NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
37%
-------
TUCSON
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
Local waste dumping
Long-teem water supply
Ozone alerts
Pollution- burning leaves
Pollution- cars
Pollution- industry
Pollution of streams/laKes
Quality of drinking water
Water table depletion
IMPORTANCE RATINGS or LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
6.7
7,0
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
-------
-------
------- |