-------
-------
Table of Contents
Page Number
Executive Summary i
Summary of Findings i
Chapter I. Introduction 1-1
I. Purpose of the EMPACT Local Environmental Issues
Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas 1-1
II. Previous Research 1-1
III. Unique Features of the Survey 1-2
IV. This Report: Findings for EMPACT MSAs in EPA Region 9 1-2
Chapter II. Methods 1 IM
I. Survey Development and Peer Review II-l
II. Survey Instrument II-l
III. Survey Methods II-2
IV. Data Collection Methods II-2
V. Quality Control Procedures II-3
VI. Analysis II-3
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues III-l
I. Environmental Issues III-l
n. Environmental Issues vs. Non-Environmental Issues III-3
IE. Overview: Importance of Local Environmental Issues in Region 9 III-3
IV. Local Environmental Issues: Better, Worse, or the Same
During the Last Five Years : III-7
A. Quality of Drinking Water from Public Water Systems Ill-10
B. Long-Term Supply of Drinking Water 111-10
C. Pollution of Streams, Lakes, Rivers, and Oceans in the Urban Area III-l 1
D. Protection of Ground Water and Wells HI-11
E. Adequacy of Sewage Treatment Facilities 111-12
F. Depletion of the Water Table 111-12
G. Air Pollution from Cars HI-13
H. Air Pollution from Businesses and Industries III-l3
I. Ozone Alerts in the Community 111-14
J. Air Pollution from Burning Leaves 111-14
K. Local Hazardous Waste Dumping 111-15
US EPA Headquarters Library
' ' Man code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenu
Washington DC 204
-------
Table of Contents
L. Use of Potentially Harmful Pesticides 111-15
M. Location of Landfills IH-16
'" N. Adequacy of Landfills^ 111-16
O. Disposal of Animal Waste 111-17
V. Summary of Open-Ended Comments on Environmental Issues Ill-18
Chapter IV. Sources of Local Environmental Information IV-1
I. Introduction IV-1
II. Sources of Local Environmental Information IV-1
III. Quality of Information Sources IV-2
IV. Other Sources of Local Environmental Information IV-3
A. Internet Access IV-4
Chapter V. Discussion V-I
Appendices
Appendix A EMPACT Metropolitan Areas
Appendix B Survey Instrument
Appendix C National Urban Profile
Appendix D Region 10 Urban Profile
Appendix E Profiles for Region 10 MSAs
-------
Executive Summary
EMPACT is an interagency Presidential Initiative charged with providing 86 of the. nation's largest
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) with the capacity to monitor local environmental parameters
of greatest interest to their citizens, and helping these communities make this information readily
available and understandable. Pursuant to this charge, EMPACT developed a survey to identify local
environmental issues of greatest concern to citizens in each of the 86 EMPACT metropolitan areas.
The survey was developed with input from key EPA staff and Federal stakeholders and then
reviewed by professionals in EPA, other Federal agencies, academia, and the private sector. The
survey was conducted in March and April of 1999 using Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing
(CATI). At least 100 respondents were sampled from each MSA, for a total of 8,777 interviews.
All citizens with telephone service in the 86 EMPACT MSAs had an equal probability of being
interviewed.
Only the 86 EMPACT MSAs were surveyed. Other MSAs, smaller communities and rural areas
were excluded. Therefore, the results do not reflect national opinion, but are a good indicator of
opinion among residents of metropolitan areas. Overall, 81.1% of the residents living in a
metropolitan statistical area live in one of the EMPACT MSAs. The findings from all 10 regions
combined have been published previously under separate cover.
This report presents findings from respondents living in the 4 EMPACT MSAs located in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Region 10: Anchorage, AK; Boise, ID; Portland/Salem,
OR; and Seattle/Tacoma/Bremerton, WA. In all, 80.0% of the residents of metropolitan statistical
areas in Region 10 live in one of the 4 Region 10 EMPACT MSAs. Therefore, these results are a
good indicator of opinions among residents of metropolitan areas in Region 10.
Summary of Findings
The following are key findings from the analysis of the survey data from the Region 10 EMPACT
MSAs:
Importance of Environmental Issues in Region 10
• Region 10 respondents consider environmental issues more important than non-
environmental issues. Pollution of streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans (mean=8.6), an
environmental issue, received the highest overall mean importance rating, however, the next
most important issue was non-environmental. Public education (8.5) was the highest rated non-
environmental issue. The quality of drinking water (8.4); the protection of ground water and
wells (8.4); the long-term supply of drinking water (8.4); and the adequacy of sewage treatment
facilities (8.0) were considered the next most important environmental issues. The next most
important non-environmental issues were local economy (7.6) and local crime rate (7.6).
-------
Executive Summary
• Water issues are the most important local environmental issues to Region 10 respondents.
The five most important local environmental issues relate to water: pollution of streams, lakes,
rivers, and oceans (mean=8.6); quality of drinking water (8.4); protection of ground water and
wells (8.4); long-term supply of drinking water (8.4); and the adequacy of sewage treatment
facilities (8.0).
• There are significant differences in the importance of local environmental concerns for
Region 10 respondents compared to the other nine EPA Region respondents combined.
• Region 10 respondents are significantly less likely to report that most environmental
issues are important.
Improvement or Decline of Environmental Issues in Region 10
* Regarding improvement in local environmental conditions during the last five years, Region
10 respondents are most likely to report improvement in local hazardous waste dumping
(41%); the use of potentially harmful pesticides (40%); and air pollution from burning
leaves (38%).
• Regarding decline in local environmental conditions during the last five years, Region 10
respondents are most likely to report decline in air pollution from cars (65%); the pollution
of streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans (49%); and the adequacy of landfills (38%).
* There are significant differences in the perceived improvement or decline of local
environmental issues for Region 10 respondents compared to the other nine EPA Region
respondents combined.
• When compared to other regions combined, Region 10 respondents are more likely to
report that local hazardous waste dumping has improved over the last five years,
• When compared to other regions combined, Region 10 respondents are more likely to
report that the following issues have worsened over the last five years: air pollution from
cars; protection of ground water and wells; and pollution of streams, lakes, rivers, and
oceans.
Key Findings Among Region 10 MSAs
• There are significant differences in local environmental concerns among Region 10
EMPACT MSAs. Among the notable differences:
• Seattle respondents are significantly more likely to report that many local environmental
issues are important;
• Anchorage respondents are significantly less likely to report that many local environmental
-------
Executive Summary
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?
-------
-------
Chapter I
Introduction
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
-------
-------
Chapter I. Introduction
I. Purpose of the EMPACT Local Environmental Issues Study of 86
Metropolitan Areas
EMPACT is an interagency Presidential Initiative charged with providing 86 of the nation's largest
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) with the capacity to monitor local environmental parameters
of greatest interest to their citizens, and helping these communities make this information readily
available and understandable. (Appendix A contains an alphabetical listing of the 86 EMPACT
MSAs and a listing of EMPACT MSAs by EPA Region). To meet this charge, EMPACT is a
"customer-driven" program that attempts to meet the needs and preferences of its customers, the 86
designated EMPACT MSAs, and their residents. In order to ensure that EMPACT funded research
and grants focus on the local environmental parameters of greatest interest to citizens, information
about the local environmental issues of greatest concern to the citizens in each of the 86 EMPACT
MSAs was critical. Therefore, EMPACT developed a survey to identify local environmental issues
of greatest concern to citizens in each of the 86 EMPACT MSAs. This information will be used by
EMPACT to direct resource allocations and evaluate research proposals and the program's portfolio
of initiatives. The information from the survey will also be provided to EMPACT projects and
federal partners to support their work in providing citizens with easily accessible, understandable,
time-relevant information about environmental conditions in their communities.
II. Previous Research
EMPACT and its contractor conducted searches of all relevant electronic data bases (e.g., Roper
Polls and the University of North Carolina State Polls), reviewed related literature, consulted with
experts in the areas of environmental and survey research, and maintained continuing
communications with other EPA organizations and federal agencies with related missions. These
efforts identified no previous, current, or planned efforts to conduct a national survey of urban
residents' concerns with local environmental issues.
The most relevant surveys identified were conducted by state polls.and academic polling
organizations. However, these polls queried environmental issues on the national, regional, and state
levels. The identified state-level studies queried respondents about environmental issues in their
state of residence. Thus, the environmental issues queried focused on a broader geographic area than
the respondent's area of residence and the sample included non-urban residents. Many of the polls
conducted on the regional and state levels were over 20 years old. Only one metropolitan poll in 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 10
1-1
10
-------
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 10
This report will present the survey finding for the 4 EMPACT MSAs located in EPA Region 10:
Anchorage, AK; Boise, ID; Portland/Salem, OR; and Seattle/Tacoma/Bremerton, WA. Where
applicable, results are delineated by MSA (within Region 10) to provide further segmentation of
survey findings. In some cases, comparisons have been made between Region 10 results and the
results from the other EPA Regions combined. Comparing Region 10 results with the combined
results from the other nine Regions provides a general look at how Region 10 findings compare to
those for the rest of the country.
EPA-EMPACT Locat Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 10
i-2
11
-------
Chapter II
Methods
12
-------
13
-------
Chapter II. Methods
I. Survey Development and Peer Review
The survey design and questionnaire were peer reviewed by four outside peer reviewers and one EPA
statistician. EMPACT and its contractor, Macro International (Macro), consulted with a broad range
of experts and professionals including staff within EPA and other Federal agencies, outside
academics, survey practitioners, and key stakeholders. Throughout the survey development process,
their feedback was used to refine the survey structure and content, revise the questionnaire, develop
the survey methodology and sampling plan, and create the analysis plan.
II. Survey Instrument
The survey instrument contained 66 questions divided into four sections:
Local environmental concerns
• Non-environmental concerns
Communications issues
• Respondent demographics
The survey instrument will help the EMPACT Program and EMPACT Projects more clearly
understand citizens':
* Local environmental concerns: The instrument captures respondent perceptions of
predominant local environmental issues in their communities. It is important to note that the
EMPACT survey asked citizens to identify and describe the importance of local environmental
issues. These opinions may differ from scientific and technical assessments of environmental
conditions in these metropolitan areas.
• Context for prioritizing local environmental concerns: This allows EMPACT to compare
perceptions of local environmental concerns versus other non-environmental concerns (e.g.,
local crime rate, quality of public education, availability of public transportation). These
responses provide insight into the importance citizens place on a broad range of issues facing
their communities. Many of the non-environmental concerns are tangentially related to broad
environmental issues such as urban sprawl.
• Sources of local environmental information: EMPACT will be able to identify how citizens
typically obtain information (active and passive information acquisition) about local
environmental issues and how they rate the quality of the local information provided by
various sources. This provides EMPACT Projects with additional information about their
customers' opinions and preferences regarding providers of information about local
environmental conditions and issues.
A copy of the survey instrument is attached as Appendix B.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 10
11-1
14
-------
Chapter II. Methods
I. Survey Methods
The survey was conducted in March and April of 1999. At least 100 interviews were completed for
each of the 86 EMPACT metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), for a total of 8777 interviews
nationally. In all, 403 respondents living in the 4 Region 10 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 4 EMPACT MSAs in Region 10, the sampling error for Region 10 is ±4.90%.
• For each individual MSA, the sampling error is approximately ±9.80% at a 95% confidence
level.
This signifies that, with 95% certainty, the mean percentage response to any question using the
statistical sample is within the designated sampling error of the true percentage in the sampled
population. For example, if 60.00% of the respondents in all 4 Region 10 MSAs respond "Yes" to
a question, the true value in the population is between 55.10% and 64.90% 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
Anchorage MSA respondents and 100 Seattle/Tacoma/Bremerton MSA respondents at a national
level or regional level, since the Seattle/Tacoma/Bremerton 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 EMPACT. Experienced supervisors provided continuous oversight
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 10 H-2
15
-------
Chapter II. Methods
throughout the survey fielding process. Interviewers were randomly remotely monitored to ensure
interviewer competence and data accuracy. EMPACT staff and the EMPACT Steering Committee
were also able to remotely monitor interviewers throughout the data collection.
After the data collection was completed, Macro programmers performed a series of validity checks
to ensure the integrity of the database. Once it had been determined that the data was clean and
reliable, Macro began the process of analyzing the data.
V. Quality Control Procedures
The following table details the quality control procedures used in the data collection process
Table 1. Quality Control Procedures
Survey Step
Quality Control Procedures
CATI Programming
The programmed survey was compared to the paper version by three
project staff not involved in the programming to identify any
programming errors
The CAT! 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
VI. Analysis
The previous EMPACT report, EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86
Metropolitan Areas, focuses on the responses to the EMPACT survey at the national urban-level
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 10
II-3
16
-------
Chapter II. Methods
for all 86 BMP ACT MS As. This report, however, primarily provides survey results for respondents
in Region 10 only, which includes the following 4 BMP ACT MSAs:
Anchorage, AK
Boise, ID
Portland/Salem, OR
• Seattle/Tacoma/Bremerton, WA
It should be noted that, although some EMPACT MSAs may overlap multiple regions, each
BMP ACT MSA has been classified into the one most appropriate region in these reports. A list of
EMPACT MSAs by region is attached as Appendix A.
A national summary profile of national urban-level survey results is attached as Appendix C.
A Region 10 summary profile of regional urban-level survey results is attached as Appendix D,
MSA-level summary profiles of survey results for each of the 4 EMPACT MSAs in Region 10 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.
1
It is important to note that the EPA Region 10. 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 10,
the proportion of MSA residents living in one of the 4 EMPACT MSAs is 80.0%. 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 generalizations can be
made about the residents of MSAs, the results should not be interpreted as representative of other
populations, such as residents of small communities and rural areas.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 10
II-4
17
-------
Chapter II. Methods
Table 2. EMPACT Proportion of Total MSA population by EPA Region
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Population
in EMPACT
MSAs
7,643,707
25,932,689
20,104,526
22,438,645
29,818,343
16,358,359
5,433,244
4,022,173
33,993,469
6,022,278
171.767.432
Total
Population in
MSAs
11,217,000
27,069,000
22,027,000
35,229,000
37,860,000
23,541,000
7,180,000
5,624,000
36,933,000
7,526,000
211.785.000
EMPACT
Proportion of MSA
Population
68.1%
95.8%
91.3%
63.7%
78.8%
69.5%
, 75.7%
71.5%
92.0%
80.0%
81.1%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 10
li-5
18
-------
19
-------
Chapter III
Local Urban Environmental Issues
20
-------
21
-------
Chapter IN. Local Urban Environmental Issues
1. 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 10 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 in 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. Response categories form an
ordered series. Ordinal scales permit discussion of "moreness" or "lessness," but make no
assumptions as to how much more or less. Therefore, results of this study should not be interpreted
as interval data, in which an answer of "four" can be characterized as "twice as good" as a rating of
"two".
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 10
111-1
22
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental. 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
EMPACT MSAs across the country. No generalizations can be made to non-MSA or rural
populations. Similarly, regional urban findings refer to combined survey findings for all EMPACT
MSAs within an EPA Region. For example, the findings for Region 10 reflect the responses from
citizens sampled from the 4 EMPACT MSAs (Anchorage, AK; Boise, ID; Portland/Salem, OR; and
Seattle/Tacoma/Bremerton, WA) located in EPA's Region 10. 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 10
III-2
23
-------
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 Urban Non-Environmental Issues Queried. As
noted above, the ordering of the 29 combined environmental and non-environmental issues were
randomized.
Table 4. Local Urban Non-Environmental Issues Queried
Local crime rate
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 10
In Region , the five most important local environmental issues to respondents relate to water.
Respondents provide the highest importance ratings for the pollution of streams, lakes, rivers, and
oceans.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 10
III-3
24
-------
Chapter HI. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 1. Local Environmental Issues Mean Importance Ratings: Region 10
Pollution of streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans
Quality of drinking water
Protection of ground water/wells
Long-term supply of drinking w ater
Adequacy of sew age treatment facilities
Local hazardous w aste dumping
Harmful pesticides
Air pollution-cars
Depletion of water table
Location of landfills
Air pollution-businesses/lndustry
Adequacy of landfills
Ozone alerts
Animal w aste disposal
Air pollution-burning leaves
38.63
8.42
8.39
jB.37
38.03
7.93
37.58
]7.42
3 7.38
]7.07
J7.03
5.71
[^^gj 5.64
HJ4.37
10
Compared to the other nine EPA Regions combined, Region 10 respondents are significantly more
likely report that most environmental issues are important. 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 10 MSAs is the difference between Seattle and Anchorage (See Figure 3). Seattle
respondents are significantly more likely to report that many local environmental issues are
important. Seattle respondents rated 12 of the 15 environmental issues significantly higher than the
other 3 Region 10 EMPACT MSAs combined. Conversely, Anchorage respondents were
significantly less likely to report that many local environmental issues were important. Anchorage
respondents rated 8 of the 15 environmental issues significantly lower than the other 3 MSAs
combined.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 10
III-4
25
-------
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
10
o
h-
II
•z^
i
en
Q>
o:
T
A
Region 2 (N = 608)
A
A
A
A
A
A
Region 3 (N = 923)
¥
A
A
CO
•o-
r-
n
2_
t
c
o
'at
o>
£
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
ro
CM
CM
II
Z_
m
§
O)
&
T
A
T
T
T
V
T
Region 6 (N = 1036)
A
A
A
Region 7 (N = 403)
T
A
Region 8
c
o
'o>
£
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
0
o
«•
II
Z_
o
c
o
•a
s.
T
T
T
T
V
T
V
T
T
T
T
L 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 10
III-5
26
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 3. MSA Importance Ratings Compared to Other Region 10 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
0)
CD
£5
j?
o
<
T
T
T
T
T
V
T
T
3
o
m
V
T
T
T
T
T
nd/Salem
-------
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, 41% of Region 10 respondents reported that local hazardous waste
dumping had become better during this time. Conversely, 65% of respondents indicated that the
air pollution from cars has become worse during the last five years. (See Figure 4).
For local hazardous waste dumping, the percentage of Region 10 respondents reporting that the
issue had improved was significantly higher than in the other nine regions combined, while three
other issues—air pollution from cars; protection of ground water and wells; and the pollution of
streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans— report a significantly higher percentage of Region 10
respondents who feel the issue has worsened over the last five years (Figure 5).
Figure 4. Local Environmental Issues Improvement or Decline
During the Last Five Years: Region 10
Pollution of streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans
Quality of drinking w ater
Protection of ground w ater/w ells
Long-term supply of drinking w ater
Adequacy of sewage treatment facilities
Local hazardous waste dumping
Harmful pesticides
Air pollution-cars
Depletion of water table
Location of landfills
Air pollution-businesses/industry
Adequacy of landfills
Ozone Alerts
Animal w aste disposal
Air pollution-burning leaves
o%
54%
47%
59%
56%
39%
37%
17%
bO/o
47%
46%
65%
50%
20%
40%
60%
[aE.17.%%1
iE yij
£> $
w *y
.O m '
3 3 !
£L
Uj
.
CO
80%
100%
II Better DSame GO Worse
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmentat Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 10
III-7
28
-------
Chapter 111. 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
to
o
r-
II
Z,
t—
5
ra
&
B
W
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
co
11
Z_
CM
§
CD
£
B
B
W
B
n
CN
a>
ii
Z,
CO
g
CO
Si
W
w
w
B
CO
^°
f^
II
Z
M-
C
O
CO
£
w
w
B
B
W
W
^-
II
Z,
tn
c
o
D)
&
B
B
B
B
B
B
CO
0
o
II
5.
CO
c
o
en
2
W
B
B
W
B
CO
o
Ti-
ll
2
r-
c
o
O)
&
w
.
r-
o
CO
II
X
CO
c
o
O)
£
w
^
CN
«r-
11
Z,
o
c
o
o>
a>
£
W
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
o
o
^~
2
o
c
o
D)
&
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 10
IH-8
29
-------
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)
2?
.c
u
B
B
«
o
m
W
B
B
-
E
1
to
«5
S
CO
W
W
B
W
W
W
B Percentage of respondents reporting that the issue has improved is significantly higher in this MSA than in
other MSAs combined
W Percentage of respondents reporting that the issue has declined is significantly higher in this MSA than in
other MSAs combined
NOTE: Only respondents who rated each issue six or higher were asked whether the issue had improved or
declined.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 10
III-9
30
-------
Chapter HI. 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 10 EMPACT MSA. The issues are
grouped by type of issue (i.e., water, air, and waste). The data included within each section reflects
perceptions of the local environmental issues for respondents who rated each issue as a six or
higher.
A. Quality of Drinking Water from Public Water Systems
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 10 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MS As to other Region 10 MSAs combined, Boise
respondents are significantly more likely to report that the quality of drinking water as
improved, while Seattle respondents are significantly more likely to report that the quality of
drinking water has worsened in the last five years.
Figure 7. Quality of Drinking Water by Region 10 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 10
Anchorage
Boise
Portland
Seattle
0%
10%
20% 30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
B. Long-Term Supply of Drinking Water
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 10 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 10 MSAs combined, Seattle
respondents are significantly more likely to report that the long-term supply of drinking water
has worsened in the last five years.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 10
111-10
31
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 8. Long-Term Supply of Drinking Water by Region 10 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 10
Anchorage
Boise
Portland
Seattle
0%
10%
23V.
23%
25V.
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 10 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 10 MSAs combined,
ho significant differences exist.
Figure 9. Urban Water Pollution by Region 10 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
D. Protection of Ground Water and Wells
Compared to the other nine EPA Regions combined, Region 10 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 MSAs to other Region 10 MSAs combined, Boise
respondents are significantly more likely to report that the protection of ground water and
wells has improved over the last five years.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 10
11-11
32
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 10. Protection of Ground Water and Wells by Region 10 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 10
Anchorage
Boise
Portland
Seattle
0%
25%
32%
129%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
E. Adequacy of Sewage Treatment Facilities
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 10 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MS As to other Region 10 MSAs combined, Seattle
respondents are significantly more likely to report that the adequacy of sewage treatment
facilities has worsened during the past five years.
Figure 11. Adequacy of Sewage Treatment Facilities by Region 10 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 10
Anchorage
Boise
Portland
Seattle
129%
I 38%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
F. Depletion of the Water Table
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 10 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 10 MSAs combined, no
significant differences exist.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 10
111-12
33
-------
Chapter IN. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 12. Depletion of the Water Table by Region 10 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
33%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
G. Air Pollution from Cars
Compared to the other nine EPA Regions combined, Region 10 respondents are significantly
more likely to report that the air pollution from cars has worsened over the last five years.
When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 10 MS As combined, Seattle
respondents are significantly more likely to report that the air pollution from cars has worsened
over the past five years.
Figure 13. Air Pollution from Cars by Region 10 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 10
Anchorage
Boise
Portland
Seattle
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
H. Air Pollution from Businesses and Industries
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 10 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 10 MSAs combined, no
significant differences exist.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 10
111-13
34
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 14. Air Pollution from Businesses and Industries by Region 10 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Ozone Alerts in the Community
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 10 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MS As to other Region 10 MS As combined, no
significant differences exist.
Figure 15. Ozone Alerts in the Community by Region 10 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 10
Anchorage
Boise
Portland
Seattle
0%
129%
122%
133%
26%
26%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
J. Air Pollution from Burning Leaves
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 10 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 10 MSAs combined, Boise
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 10
11-14
35
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 16. Air Pollution from Burning Leaves by Region 10 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 10
Anchorage
Boise
Portland
Seattle
0%
1 44%
2] 38%
139%
138%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
K. Local Hazardous Waste Dumping
Compared to the other nine EPA Regions combined, Region 1 0 respondents are significantly
more likely to report that local hazardous waste dumping has improved over the last five years.
When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 10 MSAs combined, no significant
differences exist.
Figure 17. Local Hazardous Waste Dumping by Region 10 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 10
Anchorage
Boise
Portland
Seattle
0) O
§8
X«3 |
CO
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
L. Use of Potentially Harmful Pesticides
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 10 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 10 MSAs combined, Seattle
respondents are significantly more likely to report that the use of potentially harmful pesticides
has improved over the last five years.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 10
111-15
36
-------
Chapter
Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 18. Use of Potentially Harmful Pesticides by Region 10 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 10
Anchorage
Boise
Portland
Seattle
0%
135%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
M. Location of Landfills
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 10 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MS As to other Region 10 MSAs combined,
Anchorage respondents are significantly more likely to report that the location of landfills has
improved over the last five years.
Figure 19. Location of Landfills by Region 10 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
21%
26%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
N. Adequacy of Landfills
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 10 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 10 MSAs combined,
Anchorage respondents are significantly more likely to report that the adequacy of landfills has
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 10
111-16
37
-------
Chapter IK. Local Urban Environmental Issues
improved, while Seattle respondents are significantly more likely to report that the adequacy
of landfills has worsened over the last five years.
Figure 20. Adequacy of Landfills by Region 10 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
31%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
O. Disposal of Animal Waste
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 10 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 10 MS As combined, no
significant differences exist.
Figure 21. Animal Waste Disposal by Region 10 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 10
Anchorage
Boise
Portland
Seattle
0%
23%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 10 111-17
38
-------
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 10 respondents reported 94 open-ended responses. Of the unprompted responses
provided by Region 10 respondents, 56.4% mentioned an environmental issue; whereas,'43.6%
mentioned a non-environmental issue. The most frequently mentioned type of local environmental
issues mentioned related to land use (29.8% 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. The second most frequently mentioned issue related to
pollution (9.6% of all issues for air, water, land pollution combined).
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
53
5
2
2
2
28
0
2
1
3
1
7
41
94
Percentage
56.38%
5.32%
2.13%
2.13%
2.13%
29.79%
0.00%
2.13%
1.06%
3.19%
1.06%
7.45%
43.62%
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 10
39
111-18
-------
Chapter IV
Sources of Local Environmental Information
40
-------
41
-------
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 10 data about commonly reported information sources, the quality of local urban
environmental information provided by selected sources, and Internet usage.
If. Sources of Local Environmental Information
The survey asked respondents to identify the sources from which they usually hear or learn about
urban environmental issues and conditions in their local area. Respondents were allowed to mention
more than one source.
Almost three-fourths of Region 10 respondents (73%) report that they obtain their information from
newspapers, more than any other information source. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of respondents
report receiving local environmental information from television. Only 5% report receiving local
environmental information from the Internet and word of mouth. Several other sources, such as
billboards, bus-side ads, posters, hotlines, universities, state governments, and the Federal
Government were also mentioned, but by fewer than 4% of the respondents.
Figure 23. Most Common Sources of Local Environmental Information in Region 10
Newspapers
Television
Radio
Word of mouth
Magazine
Internet
73%
57%
25%
8%
16%
I 5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 10
IV-1
42
-------
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 10 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 10
Environmental groups
Schools and colleges
48%
40%
37%
44%
34%
20%
40%
60%
' 80%
B Excellent
DGood
El Fair/Poor
100%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 10
IV-2
43
-------
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 10 respondents are more
active than the national urban population as a whole. More than half of the Region 10 respondents
(52%) 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 (5%), almost half (42%) 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 10
Read book/brochure or
library research
Searched the Internet
Requested info in-person/
w riling/ phone
Attended public meeting
Subscribe to
environmental publication
Joined environmental
group
52%
42%
H 27%
25%
22%
17%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 10
IV-3
44
-------
Chapter IV. Sources of Local Environmental Information
A. Internet Access
When asked if they had access to the Internet, 67% of Region 10 respondents report that they
do. This is higher than the 59% access reported by respondents in all 86 BMP ACT MSAs. Of
the Region 10 respondents who have access to the Internet, 85% report using the Internet
during the last few days and 90% 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 10
85%
Last few days In the last In the last In the last Longer than a
week month year year
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 10 IV-4
-------
Chapter V
Discussion
46
-------
47
-------
Chapter V. Discussion
The EMPACT'Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas findings indicate
that local environmental issues are very important to citizens living in 86 of the nation's largest
metropolitan areas. The Region 10 findings are consistent with the overall survey findings—local
environmental issues are very important to people living in the 4 EMPACT MSAs in Region 10.
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 10 respondents. Much like the overall survey findings, the Region 10 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 10 findings include:
• The pollution of streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans received the greatest mean importance
rating (8.63).
• A relatively high percentage of Region 10 respondents (49%) report that this issue has
worsened in the last five years.
• When compared to the other 9 regions combined, Region 10 respondents are significantly
more likely to report that the pollution of streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans has worsened.
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 10
V-1
48
-------
49
-------
Appendix A
EMPACT Metropolitan Areas
50
-------
51
-------
EMPACT Metropolitan Area
Albany- Schenectady- Troy, NY
Albuquerque, NM
Allentown- Bethlehem- Easton, PA
Anchorage, AK
Atlanta, GA
Austin- San Marcos, TX
Bakersfield, CA
Billings, MT
Birmingham, AL
Boise, ID
Boston, MA- NH
Bridgeport, CT
Buffalo- Niagara Falls, NY
Burlington, VT
Charleston- North Charleston, SC
Charleston, WV
Charlotte- Gastonia- Rock Hill, NC- SC
Cheyenne, WY
Chicago- Gary- Kenosha, IL-IN- WI
Cincinnati- Hamilton, OH- KT- IN
Cleveland- Akron, OH
Columbus, OH
Dallas- Fort Worth, TX
Dayton- Springfield, OH
Denver- Boulder- Greeley, CO
Detroit- Ann Arbor- Flint, MI
EL Paso, TX
Fargo- Moorhead, ND- MN
Fresno, CA
Grand Rapids- Muskegon-Holland, MI
Greensboro- Winston Salem- High Point, NC
Greenville- Spartanburg- Anderson, SC
Harrisburg- Lebanon- Carlisle, PA
Hartford, CT
Honolulu, HI
Houston- Galveston- Brazoria, TX
Indianapolis, IN
Jackson, MS
Jacksonville, FL
Kansas City, MO- KS
Knoxville, TN
Las Vegas, NV
EPA—-EMPACT Study Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
A-1
52
-------
EMPACT Metropolitan Area
Little Rock- North Little Rock, AR
Los Angeles- Riverside- Orange County, CA
Louisville, KY- IN
Memphis, TN- AR- MS
Miami- Fort Lauderdale, FL
Milwaukee- Racine, WI
Minneapolis- St. Paul, MN
Nashville, TN
New Orleans, LA
New York- Northern New Jersey- Long Island, NY- NJ- CT- PA
Norfolk- Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA- NC
Oklahoma City, OK
Omaha, ME- LA
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
53
-------
EMPACT Metropolitan Area
Region I
Boston, MA- NH
Bridgeport, CT
Burlington, VT
Hartford, CT
Portland, ME
Providence- Fall River-Warwick, RI- MA
Springfield, MA
Region II
Albany- Schenectady- Troy, NY
Buffalo- Niagara Falls, NY
New York- Northern New Jersey- Long Island, NY- NJ- CT- PA
Rochester, NY
San Juan, PR
Syracuse, NY
Region III
Allentown- Bethlehem- Easton, PA
Charleston, WV
Harrisburg- Lebanon- Carlisle, PA
Norfolk- Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA- NC
Philadelphia- Wilmington- Atlantic City, PA- NJ- DE- MD
Pittsburgh, PA
Richmond- Petersburg, VA
Scranton- Wilkes- Barre- Hazleton, PA
Washington- Baltimore, DC- MD - VA - WV
Region IV
Atlanta, GA
Birmingham, AL
Charleston- North Charleston, SC
Charlotte- Gastonia- Rock Hill, NC- SC
Greensboro- Winston Salem- High Point, NC
Greenville- Spartanburg- Anderson, SC
Jackson, MS
Jacksonville, FL
Knoxville, TN
Louisville, KY- IN
Memphis, TN- AR- MS
EPA—EMPACT Study Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
A-3
54
-------
EMPACT Metropolitan Area
Miami- Fort Lauderdale, FL
Nashville, TN
Orlando, FL
Raleigh- Durham- Chapel Hill, NC
Tampa- St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL
West Palm Beach- Boca Raton, FL
Region V
Chicago- Gary- Kenosha, IL-IN- WI
Cincinnati- Hamilton, OH- KT- IN
Cleveland- Akron, OH
Columbus, OH
Dayton- Springfield, OH
Detroit- Ann Arbor- Flint, MI
Grand Rapids- Muskegon-Holland, MI
Indianapolis, IN
Milwaukee- Racine, WI
Minneapolis- St. Paul, MN
Toledo, OH
Youngstown-Warren, OH
Region VI
Albuquerque, NM
Austin- San Marcos, TX
Dallas- Fort Worth, TX
EL Paso, TX
Houston- Galveston- Brazoria, TX
Little Rock- North Little Rock, AR
New Orleans, LA
Oklahoma City-OK
San Antonio, TX
Tulsa, OK
Region VII
Kansas City, MO- KS
Omaha, NE- IA
St. Louis- E. St. Louis, MO- IL
Wichita, KS
EPA—EMPACT Study Local Urban Environmental issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
A-4
55
-------
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
56
-------
57
-------
Appendix B
Survey Instrument
58
-------
59
-------
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 catling from Macro International. We are conducting a brief survey for the United
States Environmental Protection Agency, also known as the EPA. Is someone available in your household
to complete this survey 18 of age or older and also [indicate needed gender]? [IF NECESSARY: The
survey will take only 12 minutes.]
[If they say they are eligible and will take the survey, then go to Part 1. If they say they are eligible
but do not want to take the survey, thank and terminate. If they say someone else is eligible then
go to introduction Part 2]
Parti
Thank you for participating in this survey. This information will help EPA and other federal agencies that are
working with communities to give citizens the kinds of information they want. Your answers and comments
are confidential and used only in summary form together with other people's opinions.
Q.A Have you participated in an EPA survey in the last six months?
1.
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.
3.
[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]
No [SCHEDULE CALLBACK. IF REFUSE CALLBACK -
TERMINATE]
Do not know [THANK AND TERMINATE]
Hello, I am calling from Macro International. We are conducting a brief survey for the United
States Environmental Protection Agency, also known as the EPA. EPA is interested in your opinions and
concerns about the environment and other issues in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA j
-------
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
3. Do Not Know/refused
[TERMINATE]
[TERMINATE]
Q.D 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]
61
-------
EMPACT Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B-(3)
II. Local Urban Environmentai 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 fPLACE NAME
OF MSA HERE! area.
Please tell me how important is each of these issues in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE1 area Please
use a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being "extremely important" and 1 being "not important at all".
[Atl of the issues, environmental and non-environmental, will be presented together in a random
order. The CAT! system will re-randomize the list for each respondent]
AIR
issue:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Air pollution from cars
Air pollution from businesses or
industrial sites
Air pollution from burning leaves
Ozone alerts in the community
Rating
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
3
3
3
3
4
'4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
g
g
g
10
10
10
10
DK
DK
DK
DK
WASTE
Issue: .
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The adequacy of landfills
Location of landfills
Hazardous waste dumping in the local
area
Use of potentially harmful pesticides
Disposal of animal waste
Rating
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 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
g
g
10
10
10
10
10
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
WATER
issue:
1 0. The quality of drinking water from
public water systems
1 1 , Protection of ground water and wells
1 2. Depletion of the water table
1 3. Pollution of streams, rivers, lakes, and
oceans in the urban area
14. Adequate long-term supply of drinking
water
1 5. Adequacy of sewage treatment facilities
Rating
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
g
9
9
g
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
62
-------
EMPACT Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities . Appendix B-(4)
NON-ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Issue:
16. Local crime rate
17. Illegal drug use
1 8. Quality of public education
19 Adequacy of local highway system
20. Availability of housing for low income
citizens
21 . Ability of the community to respond to
natural disasters
22. Availability of public transportation
23. Favorable business climate
24. Rate of unemployment
25. Level of local taxes
26. Poverty in local community
27. Adequacy of municipal services (e.g.,
trash and snow removal, police and
fire protection)
28. Rate of urban growth
29. Health of the local economy
Rating
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
. 9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
63
-------
EMPACT Urban Environmental issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B-(5)
Other Issues
[These issues will be asked after the environmental and non-environmental questions. They will not
be randomized.]
Q. 1a Can you think of any other issues in the fPLACE 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".
123456789 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 fPLACE 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 ftNSERT 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.
2.
3.
4.
Better
Worse
Same
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
64
-------
EMPACT Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B-(6)
Q3a. What about [INSERT NEXT ISSUE!, would you say it has gotten better, worse or stayed the same
•in the last five years in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE! area?
1,
2.
3.
4.
Better
Worse
Same
DK/Refused
Q3b. For [INSERT NEXT ISSUE!, is this an issue in which you have been actively involved, for example,
written letters, attended public meetings, joined an advocacy group?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Do not know/Refused
[The CATI system will continue until all issues are rated.]
Q4a. Have you or anyone else in your family been negatively affected by these environmental issues.
By negatively affected, I mean negative influence on health, things like allergies or breathing
problems.
1. Yes
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
65
-------
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 [PLACE
NAME OF MSA HERE1 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
9
10
Billboards
Bus-side ads
Posters
Personal experience
Internet
Kids
Leaflets
Library
Personal observation
Word-of mouth
Q6/6a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
Media
Television 11
Radio 12
Newspapers 13
Magazines 14
School 15
Hotlines/800 numbers 16
Organizations
Local Schools 17
Universities/Community Colleges 18
Local government 19
State government 20
Federal government 21
Environmental groups 22
Other [RECORD] 23
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
66
-------
EMPACT Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B-(8)
Q.7 Now I would like you to rate the following sources on how well they provide you with information about
environmental conditions in the fPLACE NAME OF MSA HERE] area. Please rate these sources using
a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being EXCELLENT and 1 being VERY POOR.
Let's start with [READ EACH. CIRCLE APPROPRIATE RATING]
[The CATI system will randomize the list for each respondent]
Issue:
1. 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
67
-------
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
68
-------
EMPACT Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities . Appendix B-(10)
IV. DEMOGRAPHICS
These last few questions are just to help us classify respondents for analytical purposes.
Q12. What best describes the type of neighborhood you live in? [READ LIST]
1. Urban or city
2. Suburbs
3 Rural
4 Other
5. DK/Refused
[RECORD]
[DO NOT READ]
Q13. Is your home a ... [READ LIST]?
1. Single-Family Detached
2. Duplex, triplex or townhouse/ rowhouse
3. Apartment or condominium
4. Trailer or mobile home
5. Other [RECORD]
6. DK/Refused [DO NOT READ]
Q14. Do you own or rent your residence?
1.
2.
3.
4
Own
Rent
Other
DNK/Refused
[RECORD]
[DO NOT READ]
Q15. How long have you lived in your residence?
YRS
Q16. How long have you lived in the PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE1 area?
YRS
69
-------
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?
Q20. 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]
70
-------
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-$19,999
3 $20,000-$29,999
4 $30.000-$39,999
5 $40,000-$49,999
6 $50,000-$59,999
7 $60,000-$69,999
8 $70,000-$79,999
9 $80,000-$89,999
10 $90,000-$99,999
11. $100,000 and over
12. Refused [DO NOT READ]
That was the last question I have for you. Thank you very much for taking the time to participate in
this study.
71
-------
Appendix C
National Urban Profile
72
-------
73
-------
NATIONAL URBAN
RATINGS OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Better,Saiae,orWorseDuringLast5Years
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
Harmful pesticides
«l_
' V//////J'33,%V/jfj>///7\
_472
'V/jVj>. 16% /X-OM
LandfiN adequacy f^fc^frcra^air'MiiS'ftariiaBfli&i
Landfill location I
'///sWh'//S/J'///777}k
"*LOC33 waste dumDinq |^
1
Long-term water supply f*B^s^*K5^23%-Ja^aiffi*«iis8*|^
H
Ozone alerts ^.^j^s^iiSjaaSRKsK^tgaaag^ajSn^
Pollution-burning leaves {553
47%_
~13>k'7777////A
E3 Better
DSarne
0 Worse
Pollution-cans i^^^?^--^»jritt»iB:y}%^?^r^isaxiaiJ^wiiu;iii^"
Pollution-industry \
2 42% 'S///JrSjr/S///////A
43%
""Pollution of sireams^lakes ^^^a&^^j&K^aaBii^^yj^-fe^-i^n^ifa^-ssH^&s^^-i
'"Quality of drinking water |
^34% ^XXyX/W/X^
water table depletion i-j»i-»j.rio'}fc»»in,etBi
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% £0% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
•" Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
^.i-tiJqr
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
\ /
Quality of dnnkjng
water
.5
8.5
smrnsfetes 8>4
Ground water and
wells
"*9e 8-1
0123456789 10
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL NON-ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
^.Tjp^?!M 8.6
Loeal crime rale
acSii3l 8.1
Illegal arouse 8.1
Natural disasters 7.8
Unemployment rate 7.7
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
74
-------
75
-------
Appendix D
Region 10 Urban Profile
76
-------
77
-------
REGION I O
RATINGS OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
BETTER, SAME, OR WORSE DURING LAST 5 YEARS
Adequacy of sewage treatment ISS;
'"Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
•••Harmful pesticides
Landfill adequacy
Landfill location
•"Local waste dumping
Long-term water supply \S
Ozone alerts
Pollution- burning leaves
"•Pollution-cars KJS
Pollution-industry PS
"•Pollution of streams/lakes
Quality of drinking water
Water table depletion
J
^^
W/SS/S/S/S////' 38% YS/'//St'//'/S//'//l
WssA 17%
<77?
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
"• Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
60%
723%
m Better
O Same
HWorfee
30% 's/s/sssss/si
<36%?/y/>'/vyx<'/y/yj
80% 90% 100%
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
Quality of dnnking r
water I
8.6
8.4
Ground water and
Long-term water i
Tu^ly™"' 8'4
*
01 23456789
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL NON-ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
MEAN IMPORTANCE FSATINGS
Public education
Local economy [^^gfg^a'f^^JS*«i.^-Air"iiwU-e| 7.6
Local ciime rate
Adequacy of municipal |
services
Natural disasters 7.4
01 23456789 10
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHOSE FAMILIES HAVE BEEN NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.
29%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
78
-------
79
-------
Appendix E
Profiles for Region 10 MSAs
80
-------
ANCHORAGE
RATINGS or LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
BETTER, SAME. OR WORSE DURING LAST 5 YEARS
Adequacy of sewage treatment
"'Animal waste disposal
"^SZZZZZL^y*
•"Ground water and wells JT
'"Harmful pestodes [^
Landfill adequacy |S
Landfill location HS
54^
Sfr.iraaao'ft «**• ***g«sfetiSS-M**iiirer. I
•"I-ocal waste (Jumping [
57%
Long-term water supply i^£»*^™^-^aqb*aa*>sei?a=ifeti
Ozone alerts fn^^a^^^^Ss^
•"Pollution- burning leaves
V/SM19% WSSA
0 Better
DSame
0 Worse
'^.i^jsjea^jyiiigtei^iy^atrtj!^!
Pollution- cars |K^nsi?i3aiBss^flK;go?ai!M3!!Biaa*g**to"ai¥l ^^0?^*
•"Poltution- industry |^a!3%-^isT"
7 52% ^^vy^yxy/yxxrWjV^}
vyxa^^SZ'Ayx/y/yxvx^
Pollution of streams/lakes i^^.'?«!gg^Kme;tiisiiirii»^4u%i«pi^i«'«^B«a««»iag^g;y&i 23%
Quality of drinking water |
?37%'>^>yyy/^y/^^l
water lade aeoienon (S8%i«il
0% 10% 20% 30% «0% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
' Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL NON-ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
8'°
Ground watar and
wells
Adequacysewage
e dumprng 7.3
01234567
9 10
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
Public edueaiion
Natural disasters
--:»'»| 7.8
Local crtme rate |:!g?i;«ia;5aS9SSSigi'aE3gg;:!:iaa5C!M'ya '#'1 7.4
Local economy l^^-^ji'^^^^.'CH^v^'^^-t'.y^i^^1-^^"! 7.4
Adequacy of municipal
services
| 7.4
0123456789 10
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHOSE FAMILIES HAVE BEEN NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 26%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
81
-------
ANCHORAGE
IMPORTANCE RATINGS OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
Harmful pesticides
7.4
Landfill adequacy
Landfill location I
local waste dumping >.
Long-term water supply
Pollution- burning leaves
Pollution, ears
Pollution- industry
6.4
I 7.3
17.3
5.2
Quality of (tanking water I
Water table depletion
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
82
-------
BOISE
RATINGS OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL Issues
BETTER, SAME. OR WORSE DURING LAST 5 YEARS
Adequacy of sewage treatment
:E6%3
Animal waste disposal j2sEiE3SS;S^SEZ
322E1j4%333
•:3ZXftW?&¥:9l
W//// \ 9% VSMSA
Harmful pesticides
Landfill adequacy
vsss.'\S''&'/S/A
Landfill location laaA'ibai
'"Local waste dumping iasc««-?
""Long-term water supply d^***?*-*
Ozone alerts PI
£6%2
3_
O Better
D Same
0 Worse
'"Pollution- Doming leaves i ^w^ai«^r»>Mi!it!4itias*aj.att%s9ci^^«tfw<.:«M«8iii^i '
"•Pollulion-cars
t>^vvx/v^^'.32%^/y/y/v>v>v^
Pollution- industry te3ii»?a*^.ZQ*ifr.
?M'h777?/J'JA
""Pollution of streams/lakes n^^^^^yaSw^^rgB^ff^SgSginS'^^^ig^"
"'Quality of drinking water |^
•"Water (able depletion J=
30%
K>^WX??> 30% *y/x/>yy/yxi
55SJ
_ESS17%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
"* Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
90% 100%
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL NON-ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
Ground water and
wells
Loos-tern, water |aa!^aagaiiB
supply ' ^T^^^
Quality OF drafting 7_g
Pollution of r
strearr&iakes l5^^"^iBs^^^^l8g^*5ifegiSaariigl "
Water table depletion 7.2
0123456789 10
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
PuMc education |
S!6| 8.2
illegal dnjj use | •&S&38& rlaa -gsi^jy-gv is^agfcSSHffgh J88J 7.6
urban growth rate |:«::3£aCiH;aJ;r-ii5-B-gas»i-»sgyfeK;S"':. ~ r ' '• $ 7.5
assaSis^tSiisaaaaBS^ <;;»?>; ^a- Hisaaj 7.3
Local economy [gHaigiii-l
01234567
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHOSE FAMILIES HAVE BEEN NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 29%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
83
-------
BOISE
IMPORTANCE RATINGS OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL Issues
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
Landfill location |
Local waste dump ing
Long-tern water supply j
Ozone alerts
Pollution- burning leaves
Pollution- industry
Pollution of streams/lakes
Quality or drinking water
Water table depletion
14.3
6.2
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
84
-------
PORTLAND/SALEM
RATINGS OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
BETTER, SAME, OR WORSE DURING LAST 5 YEARS
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells IK ^jiajEZganma/S
533%tty'//ss'j>'jV75t
Harmful pesticides (*
*0"*-
KVXfjf^2S'
Landfill adequacy n^^^^^-'^zs^^'^a^nK?!
Landfill location |
'"Local waste dumping j
?39%'^»wyxyx?/S'M
WSM4-23%Z
V/S7?77'j2'y/t
Long-term water supply i.«^aa^a% ^as^-^i^T
Ozone alerts
Pollution- burning leaves
;24%222^2
(i Better
DSame
0 Worse
Pollution' cars y^j*5a55*n^*c^£T-tSKi*«*»'-iEe*i 10"A E*y
Pollution- industry
^59%^?x^y/v>^»>yx/yy>^yx/i
a_
47%
•"Pollution of streams/lakes i»^^^^^imiyyv^i
Quality of drinking water ^xf^m^a's^'^^^i"
ZE
water table depletion i ;.-.yiB,i o^«j»«g:i
^py°
S 37% '/////SSj'j'SSfi'l
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
"* Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
j». ;«g^
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL, ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL NON-ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
PoJfutron of r^!
streams/lake: >
.7
8.6
Long-term water ;
supply
Ground water ane
_]8.5
Adequacy of sewaQe
treatment
. 1 8 0
0123456789 10
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
Public education |
iaiiBSiiftSsigg'?^! 8.4
Local economy gSi
'ai; : »Sil 7.5
Urban jrovnih rate j i^BKiSi^iJ
:::pg| 7.4
Local crime rate {sg>
-------
PORTLAN D/SALEM
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
Landffl location
Local waste dumping
Long-term water suppry
Ozone alerts
Pollution- burning leaves
Pollution- cars
Pollution- industry
Pollution of streams/lakes
Quality of drinking water
Water table depletion
IMPORTANCE RATINGS OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
6.9
7.0
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 SO 6.0 7.0 6.0
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
86
-------
SEATTLE/TACOMVBREMERTON
RATINGS OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
BETTER, SAME, OR WORSE DURING LAST 5 YEARS
.
—Animal waste aisoosai RSS^'hshiiaaMeasa
,
•"HarmTuI oesticides \axs^jaiiimma*imi*iisiit*4lfa*i
-
-:
....
;«6-(|5l5'-*"8«*K Jiiift-!iK^(ii«»*fS I 3 3 % t^^iij^ Z3% 'tyfy&i'ffl
Lono-term water SUPDIV [MMSBw^wxtMiiim I OH% i//r//'/sss,25"A///ssss/A
Z^fc.
-! '
•
-
V/Sf
m 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
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL EnvtRONMENTAL ISSUES
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
\ /
Pollution of
8.7
Quality of drinking j^
water
8.5
Ground water and
wells
Lon9~s'*™walef 8.5
Local waste dumping 8.3
D12345678910
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL NON-ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
Putlie education 8.7
Natural diMittrs 7.8
Local cnme rate
Local economy lega'.afersaaMiSJf ?^.*^--"';. i.:'7"!: ''Y-\. ^"\ 7.7
ipi" M^gga:a-»i^Si;elg3;»^;.;::Jggai?Bl 7.6
012315678910
PERCEKTACe OF RESPONDENTS WHOSE FAMILIES HAVE BEEN NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 32%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
87
-------
S EATTLE/TACOM VB REM ERTON
IMPORTANCE RATINGS OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste dispi
Ground water and wells
Local waste dumping
Long-term water supply
Ozone alerts
6.0
Pollution- burning leaves
Pollution- cars |
Pollution- industry
Pollution of streams/lakes
Quality of drinking water
Water table depletion
0.0 1.0
8.5
7,7
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
88
-------
89
-------
-------
------- |