ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERIES
Air Pol lution
Community Perception
of Air Quality
An Opinion Survey
in Clarkston, Washington
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Serv ice
-------
COMMUNITY PERCEPTION OF AIR QUALITY:
AN OPINION SURVEY
IN CLARKSTON, WASHINGTON
Nahum Z. Medalia, Ph.D.
Staff Sociologist, Division of Air Pollution
Washington, D. C.
Sampling Design and Interviewing
Under Direction of
A. L. Finkner, Ph. D.
Research Triangle Institute
Durham, North Carolina
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
Division of Air Pollution
Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center
Cincinnati, Ohio
June 1965
-------
The ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERIES of reports was estab-
lished to report the results of scientific and engineering studies of
man's environment: The community, whether urban, suburban, or
rural, where he lives, works, and plays; the air, water, and earth he
uses and re-uses; and the wastes he produces and must dispose of in a.
way that preserves these natural resources. This SERIES of reports
provides for professional users a central source of information on the
intramural research activities of Divisions and Centers within the
Public Health Service, and on their cooperative activities with state
and local agencies, research institutions, and industrial organizations.
The general subject area of each report is indicated by the two letters
that appear in the publication number; the indicators are
AP Air Pollution
AH Arctic Health
EE Environmental Engineering
FP Food Protection
OH Occupational Health
RH Radiological Health
WP Water Supply
and Pollution Control
Triplicate tear-out abstract cards are provided with reports in
the SERIES to facilitate information retrieval. Space is provided on
the cards for the user's accession number and key words.
Reports in the SERIES will be distributed to requesters, as sup-
plies permit. Requests should be directed to the Division identified on
the title page or to the Publications Office, Robert A. Taft Sanitary
Engineering Center, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226.
Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-10
-------
PARTICIPANTS
Washington State Department of Health, Seattle, Washington
Peter W. Hildebrandt
Ronald Klingman
Douglas Russell
Eugene Sabotta
Robert L. Stockman
Roger Smith
Research Triangle Institute, Durham, North Carolina
A. L. Finkner, Ph. D.
Daniel G. Horvitz, Ph. D.
Donald Searls, Ph. D.
U. S. Public Health Service
Nahum Z. Medalia, Ph. D., Staff Sociologist, Division of
Air Pollution, Washington, D. C., 1961-62
Austin N. Heller, Deputy Chief, Technical Assistance
Branch, Division of Air Pollution, Robert A. Taft
Sanitary Engineering Center, Cincinnati, Ohio
Stanley Sclove, *Mathematical Statistician, Statistical
Services, Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center,
Cincinnati, Ohio
Mrs. Anna R. Crocker, Analytical Statistician, Field
Studies Branch, Division of Air Pollution, Washington,
D. C.
Lincoln Steigerwalt, Statistician, Sociologists' Staff,
Division of Air Pollution, Washington, D. C.
Bruce Briggs, Statistician, Social Studies Branch,
Division of Dental Public Health and Resources,
Washington, D. C.
* Summer of 1962
111
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Time and effort of many persons contributed to the conduct and
analysis of the Clarkston Public Opinion Survey. The writer thanks
Mr. Stanley Sclove and Miss Margaret Sanders for their painstaking
I.B.M. procedures; Mr. Lincoln Steigerwalt for content analysis of
mass media communication pertaining to air pollution; Mr. Bruce
Briggs and Mrs. Anna R. Crocker for their statistical computations
of the survey data; and Miss Janet Wildasin for typing the manuscript,.
Access to I. B. M. equipment was provided through the kindness
of Mr. William F. Stewart and Miss Nancy Murphy, National Health
Survey.
The staff of the Research Triangle Institute, Dr. A. L. Finkner,
Dr. Daniel G. Horvitz, and Dr. Donald Searls, in particular, were
instrumental in the sample designing and data gathering phases of the
project. Mr. Robert L. Stockman, Air Sanitation and Radiation
Control Officer, Washington State Department of Health, and his
assistant, Mr. Peter Hildebrandt, provided much needed encourage-
ment and manpower support for the public opinion phase of the
Lewiston-Clarkston air pollution survey.
Eugene Sabotta, Douglas Russell, Roger Smith, and Ronald
Klingman, Washington State Department of Health, served as inter-
viewers. Their unstinting cooperation, and helpful comments on the
survey instrument are greatly appreciated. Finally, the writer thanks
Mr. Vernon G. MacKenzie, Chief, Division of Air Pollution, Dr.
Richard Prindle, Chief, Division of Public Health Methods, Office of
the Surgeon General, and Mr. Austin Heller, Deputy Chief, Division
of Air Pollution Technical Assistance Branch, Public Health Service,
for their faith in the potential of behavioral science to contribute to
environmental health research. He hopes this report will serve in
some small measure to justify that faith.
-------
FOREWORD
To comply with a request for assistance from officials of the
City of Clarkston, a cooperative interstate study of air pollution was
conducted in the communities of Lewiston, Idaho, and Clarkston,
Washington, during the winter of 1961-62. The request was motivated
by public complaints about reduced visibility, damage to house paint,
tarnishing of silver, undesirable odors, and suspected effects on
health resulting from air pollution. The kraft pulp mill located near
Lewiston was cited as a major source of pollution. The two com-
munities are in a deep, narrow valley at the confluence of the Snake
and Clearwater Rivers. The cities frequently experience poor atmos-
pheric ventilation owing to low wind speeds and low-level inversions.
The purpose of the joint study was to determine the nature and
extent of air pollution in the two communities, and to assemble data
and information needed as a basis for remedial action. Results of the
study are presented in a report entitled, "A Study of Air Pollution in
the Interstate Region of Lewiston, Idaho, and Clarkston, Washington, "
published by the U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Public Health Service, Division of Air Pollution, Cincinnati, Ohio
(1964).
The opinion survey in Clarkston, Washington, was an integral
part of this study. It represents the application of a behavioral science
in the objective assessment of the air pollution problem in Clarkston.
NAHUM Z. MEDALIA*
"Pressnl address: f.harliam College/ Pittsburgh Pennsylvania.
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract . . . ix
Introduction 1
Survey Procedures 3
Design 3
The Questionnaire . 3
Sample Selection and Composition 4
Structuring the Interview Situation 5
Validation 5
Interview Situation as Potential Source of Bias ... 9
Survey Findings 11
Awareness and Concern . . 11
Awareness of Air Pollution in Clarkston 12
Severity of Air Pollution as a Personal Problem. . . 15
Severity of Air Pollution as a Community Problem. . 20
Combined Index, Seriousness of Air Pollution as
Personal and as Community Problem
(Guttman Scale (a)) 24
Sources and Action 28
Sources of Air Pollution 28
Actions Taken or Recommended . 29
Response Characteristics of Persons in "High" or
"Low" Concern with Air Pollution Scale-types
(Guttman Scale (a)) 33
Phenomenal Awareness of Air Pollution 33
Concern with Air Pollution and Concern with Health . 35
Community Satisfactions and Concern
with Air Pollution 36
Attitudes Toward Air Pollution Related to Respondents'
Ecological, Socio-econonrc and Demographic
Characteristics 38
Social Status Variables in Relation to Concern
with Air Pollution 43
vn
-------
Principal Findings and Discussion
References.
Appendix A The Questionnaire . .
Description of Sampling Procedure .
Manual of Instructions for Interviewers .
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Page
. 52
57
. 59
. 67
. 69
Interviewers' Suggested Revisions of Questionnaire 79
Interviewers' Comments . . . 81
Clipping From Lewiston-Tribune, March 6, 1962 85
Content Analysis of Newspaper Clippings 86
Clarkston Air Pollution Survey -- Estimation
Procedure, Sampling Errors, and
95% Confidence Limits for Selected
Sample Proportions ..... . 99
Vlll
-------
ABSTRACT
In a community with a population of 7, 000 and located approxi-
mately 4 miles downwind from a pulp mill, a public opinion survey
was taken to analyze the environmental stress of air pollution on a
sample of household heads and spouses, along two principal atti-
tudinal dimensions: awareness and concern. Of those interviewed,
91 percent perceived air pollution in the community as a malodor
problem; 74 percent perceived it as a problem of visibility; and 62
percent as a problem of nose-throat irritation. A Guttman-type
scale showed high concern with air pollution among 48 percent of
the sample; low to moderate concern among 31 percent; and mini-
mal concern among 21 percent. Although exposure to odorous pol-
lutants in ambient air appeared roughly equal for all members of
the sample, their concern with air pollution was found to vary
directly with social status and attitude characteristics such as
civic pride, desire to ameliorate the situation, length of residence
in the community, and occupational prestige of the household head.
IX
-------
COMMUNITY PERCEPTION OF AIR QUALITY:
AN OPINION SURVEY
IN CLARKSTON, WASHINGTON
"If men define situations as real, they will be
real in their consequences. " W. I. Thomas
INTRODUCTION
In its report, "National Goals in Air Pollution Research" (August
1960, p. 20-21), the Surgeon General's Ad Hoc Task Group on Air
Pollution Research Goals states: "The aspects of air pollution which
are most apparent and of greatest personal concern to the individual
probably are irritation to the eyes, nose, and throat, malodors, and
the reduction of visibility. The pollutants responsible for these effects
are undesirable whether or not they cause long-range health effects or
economic losses, because they constitute an annoyance to people. The
nuisance aspects of these effects together with those related to soiling
give rise to the greatest number of complaints received by air pollution
control authorities. There is no doubt that a person's well-being is
eventually affected by exposure to these sensory annoyances and that
this may result in economic loss."
With this research mandate in view, the cooperative program for
aerometric study in the Lewiston-Clarkston region included a public
opinion survey of Clarkston to determine the extent of annoyance with
air pollution expressed by persons in that city. Administration of a
public opinion survey in Lewiston, Idaho, proved unfeasible. As part
of this objective, the survey sought to determine the nature of health
and property effects that might be attributed to air pollution by Clark-
ston residents; and the nature of actions taken, planned, or recom-
mended as desirable with reference to air pollution. Finally, the
survey aimed at determining associations between expressed concern
or annoyance with air pollution on the one hand, and socio-economic
characteristics of persons who expressed these concerns, on the
other. Interviewing for the public opinion study took place in May
1962.
While an attitudinal study of this sort is rare in environmental
health literature, it is not unique. Precedents for it were carried out
in the State of California in 1956;l in Buffalo, New York, in 19582 and
in March 1962;3 in Nashville, Tennessee, 1959;4 in the towns of
Monsteras and Paskallavik, Sweden, I960;5 and in the Wilmington-
Middletown area of Delaware, 1960. 6 A study similar to those cited
Introduction
-------
above but not directly concerned with air pollution was made in March
1961 by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC), University of
Chicago, on "Community Reactions to Air Force Noise. "7 The pro-
cedures used and results obtained from these studies guided the con-
duct and analysis of the present survey. *
The following section describes the steps taken to maximize the
objectivity of this survey of public opinion concerning air pollution in
Clarkston, Washington.
" A report of a study, which appeared subsequent to the piepaiation of thii ieport, contains some
additional references to recent soc lo-ps'/chalogical research on environmental health in Scandi-
nation countries: Jonsson, Erland. "Annoyance Reactions lo External Environmental Factors
in Different Sociological Groups," Acki Sociologica, Vol. 7, Ease 4, 1964.
OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
SURVEY PROCEDURES
Design
The three principal operating components of any opinion survey
are the questionnaire, the selection or sampling of respondents, and
the structuring of the interview situation through interviewer training
and supervision.
THE QUESTIONNAIRE
Uppermost in the minds of most persons who read a report of a
questionnaire-based study is the issue of questionnaire bias. Most
commonly this term suggests that the survey instrument was designed
to bring out pre-determined results either by omitting unfavorable
alternates in multiple choice items, or, through artful wording of
questions, suggesting responses presumably desired by the investi-
gator. Unfortunately, this writer knows of no set formula for building
in or for avoiding questionnaire biases to the complete satisfaction or
dissatisfaction of every reader. Failing such a formula, the writer
can only discuss the genera) principles that guided construction of the
survey instrument used in Clarkston; principles that would hopefully
yield a definition of the air pollution situation as supplied by each
respondent rather than by the questionnaire designer.
First, we used open-ended questions, giving the respondent
ample opportunity to structure responses in his own way. The two
most important applications of this are probably items 3A and 15 of the
survey questionnaire (Appendix A) which ask respondents to state in
their own words whether there are any things they do not like about liv-
ing in Clarkston, and what they consider to be the main sources of air
pollution in the Clarkston area.
Second, through individual item construction and sequence order-
ing, respondents were never put in the position of having to say that air
pollution is a problem or even exists in Clarkston. The clearest appli-
cation of this principle is in item 11, "Do you think there is air pol-
lution in Clarkston at any time during the year Yes-No"; and in the
sequence instructions for that question: "If NO, skip to question 19"
(items 12-18 assume that the respondent believes air pollution does
exist in Clarkston). Breaches of this principle may unfortunately be
observed in items 9 and especially 21, neither of which offer the
respondent an opportunity to state that air pollution is non-existent in
Clarkston. Whether this failure biased seriously the respondents'
answers to other items of the questionnaire, and if so in what direction,
must be left to the reader to decide. The writer can only note that
question 21 is the third to the last on the questionnaire, and that
respondents who believed air pollution non-existent in Clarkston did not
hesitate to express their objections to this item to interviewers. (See
Interviewers' Suggested Revision of Questionnaire, Appendix D).
Survey Procedures
-------
Third, insofar as possible, we used questions taken directly
from other studies to avoid the charge that items were designed with
some situation peculiar to Clarkston in mind. Thus Items 1 to 3 were
taken from the National Opinion Research Center study of aircraft
noise; 5 to 8, 10, and 17 to 20 from the March 1962 study in Buffalo;
and item 9 from the 1958 Buffalo study of public awareness of air pol-
lution.
Finally, an attempt was made, through sequence ordering of the
items, to focus the interview initially on general community health
problems, giving the respondent an opportunity to mention air pollution
spontaneously as such a problem if he desired, rather than suggesting
it to him by the wording of the questions. More is said on this point in
the section on structuring of the interview situation.
The foregoing precautions were all aimed at avoiding the bias of
building into the questionnaire an overestimate of the seriousness of
the Clarkston air pollution situation or a prejudgment of source, as
(or if) defined by respondents. To avoid the opposite bias, that of
under-estimating respondents' awareness of air pollution and its
severity, the only precaution taken was to employ protective questions
of the type, "How do you think most people feel about air pollution in
this area?" (questions 19 and 20). Question 22 is situational as well
as referential in character: "What do you think is the most important
thing people should do about air pollution where it exists?"
Whether or not we succeeded in producing a survey instrument
free from all bias as to the existence, the severity, or the source of
air pollution in Clarkston is of course a question the reader must
decide for himself. In any case, the writer believes the question-
naire is a minor source of respondent bias in an opinion study com-
pared to respondent selection or interview structuring.
SAMPLE SELECTION AND COMPOSITION
The primary objective of the public opinion survey was to deter-
mine the proportion of the population of Clarkston disturbed by air pol-
lution. In actuality, however, the sample was taken from only a part
of the total Clarkston population, namely, heads of households and their
spouses if any, resident in Clarkston as of January 1, 1962. The 1960
census definitions of household, head of household, and spouse of
household head were used. (See appendix B for detailed description of
sampling procedure).
Restriction of the survey population in this way was dictated by
considerations of efficiency and validity. As a general rule, the more
homogeneous a population, the more reliable will be the population
inferences drawn from a sample of a given size. To secure homoge-
neity of sampling population at least sacrifice of survey objectives, it
seemed reasonable to give up the opinions of dependents and of those
too young to be household heads, or their spouses, in order to obtain
OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
opinions about air pollution from only those persons who were primarily
responsible for making and maintaining their residence in Clarkston.
A total sample size of 100 was set as the minimum that would
yield estimates with the desired precision. To select households for
the sample, a randomized cluster approach based on areal stratifica-
tion was employed; to select respondents within each household, inter-
viewers were instructed to call alternately on the household head, and
on the spouse in each household visited. In households with no couple,
the head was interviewed in all cases, regardless of sex.
STRUCTURING THE INTERVIEW SITUATION
Respondents were interviewed in their homes. To keep the sur-
vey as free as possible from the biases discussed, every effort was
made to structure the interview so as to maximize each respondent's
freedom to define the air pollution situation in Clarkston in his own
way, within the general framework of the survey. Steps toward this
goal included: (a) Defining the interview situation, (b) selecting inter-
viewers, (c) training interviewers.
To avoid premature focus on air pollution, while still keeping the
interview relevant to the identity of its sponsors, the Research Triangle
Institute prepared a standard introduction and instructed interviewers
to repeat it verbatim at the start of each interview. "Good (morning,
afternoon, evening). My name is I am working with
the Research Triangle Institute as an employee of the Washington State
Department of Health. We are conducting a survey regarding certain
health conditions in Clarkston. To do this we need help from the resi-
dents of the city. May I speak to the (lady, man) of the house for a few
minutes?"
Four male employees (all statisticians) of the Washington State
Health Department conducted the interviews; none, however, were
employed by the Air Sanitation and Radiation Control Section of that
Department. Two had previous experience in house to house surveys
with the Psychological Corporation of New York. They had been resi-
dents of the State of Washington from 10 to 34 years, but none had ever
lived in Lewiston, Idaho, or Clarkston, Washington, or in any of the
counties contiguous to those cities. No interviewer was known person-
ally to any respondent he interviewed.
To train and supervise interviewers, the Research Triangle Insti-
tute prepared a detailed manual of instructions (Appendix C), a copy of
which was given each interviewer, and assigned an experienced staff
member to work in Clarkston both prior to and during the actual survey.
A critique of the results of the interviewing was held daily.
Survey Procedures
-------
Validation
Actual performance of these survey components was judged by
the following criteria: (1) Respondents' comments on the question-
naires, (2) interview response and refusal rates, (3) relation of
selected response variables to interviewer and contact variables,
(4) comparison of sample with population characteristics, and
(5) interviewers' comments on respondents' definitions of the inter-
view situation.
Respondents' comments on the survey (as described by the inter-
viewers in Appendix D) reveal much information helpful to the analysis
of response to individual items, and to revision of the questionnaire
for subsequent studies. These comments, however, do not indicate
that respondents found the questionnaire generally unacceptable or dif-
ficult to answer; in only 9 of the 104 interviews was the respondent's
understanding of the questionnaire "poor, " as judged by the interviewer.
Response and refusal rates, and length of interviews strengthen
this impression. Of 105 households actually contacted, only one
refused to cooperate in the survey, and no interview, once started,
failed of completion. Length of interviews ranged from approximately
15 to 45 minutes; 71, or nearly three-fourths, lasted from 19 to 24
minutes, while only 12 lasted over a half-hour. These figures again
serve to strengthen the impression that the interview situation and the
survey instrument were easily accepted and understood by respondents.
Lack of systematic bias in sample composition is indicated by a
no-contact rate of 13 percent together with the nature of the reasons
for no-contact, analyzed in Table 1.
Table 1. REASONS FOR NO-CONTACT OF HOUSEHOLDS IN SAMPLE
Reason
Number of no-contacts
Refusa Is
2
Out of town on vacation
Unable to contact, 2 or
more cal
backs
Total
4
9
16
It is difficult to compare the sample with population characteristics,
because 1960 census figures on household heads and their spouses are
not available for Clarkston. In the absence of such data, figures per-
taining to the general population of Clarkston were used. Table 2 com-
pares the proportions of men and women respondents in the survey to
the same age sex groupings found in the general Clarkston population.
These figures show that compared to the general population, the sample
OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
GPO 820365
-------
Table 2. AGE-SEX CHARACTERISTICS OF SAMPLE COMPARED TO CLARKSTON POPULA-
TION 20 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER0
Sex
Males
Females
Age,
y
20-34
35-49
50-64
65 and
over
Total
20-34
35-49
50-64
65 and
over
Total
Number in
sample
12
21
5
9
47
20
20
8
9
57
Proportion
of sample, %
25
45
11
19
100
35
35
14
16
100
Proportion
of Clorkston
population, %
23
29
22
26
100
23
25
22
30
100
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: General Population Characteristics: Washington 1960. 49-49.
over-represents both men and women in the 20- to 49-year bracket and
under-represents those of 50+ years. This discrepancy is entirely con-
sistent with the nature of the sampled population, however, because of
the tendency of older persons to be dependents rather than household
heads or their spouses.
Since, with reference to the general Clarkston population, the
sample under-represents older persons, by the same token it over-
represents high school graduates and under-represents persons with 11
years of education or less. Table 3 details this comparison.
A third comparison by occupation of household head (Table 4)
shows that the sample over-represents households whose heads are in
clerical or skilled labor occupations and under-represents those with
heads in the other occupational categories of labor and service posi-
tions; it includes a nearly identical proportion of household heads in
professional or managerial positions.
Again, this discrepancy can be referred to expected differences
between the sampling and the general Clarkston adult populations.
Because of the younger age and higher education of household heads
and spouses compared to the general adult population, one would expect
Survey Procedures
-------
Table 3. EDUCATION OF RESPONDENTS COMPARED WITH CLARKSTON POPULATION 25
YEARS OR OLDER
Education,
yr
1 ] or less
12
1 3 or more
Total
Respondents in
i a
sample
33
45
18
96
Sample
proportion, %
34
47
19
100
Population
proportion, %
55
26
19
100
Eight respondents were less than 25 years of age.
Table 4. OCCUPATIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF HEADS OF HOUSEHOLDS IN SAMPLE COM-
PARED TO CLARKSTON MALE POPULATION
Occupation
Professional, technical
Farm owners
Managers, officials,
proprietors, non-farm
sub-tota [
Clerical, sales
Craftsmen, foremen
sub-total
Machine operators
Service workers
Laborers, including
farm and mine
sub-total
Tota Is
Male
population, %
9
3
16
28
13
20
33
25
5
9
39
100
Heads of
household, %
7
2
18
27
18
24
42
13
8
9
30
99b
Proportions are to base, persons in labor market only.
One respondent listed multiple occupations.
OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
to find in a sample of household heads and their spouses a dispropor-
tionately large number in occupational categories above semi-skilled
and service. Also, a certain proportion of household heads are women:
Such household heads made up 13 percent of the sample. One would
expect their occupational distribution to differ from that of men in the
general population in that a larger proportion would be in clerical jobs.
In short, when compared to the general adult population of Clark-
ston, the sample is disproportionately younger and contains a propor-
tionate number of persons with 13 or more years of education, but a
disproportionately small number whose education stopped before high
school graduation; compared to the male working population of Clark-
ston, it contains a proportionate number in professional and mana-
gerial positions, but a disproportionately small number in labor and
service occupations, balanced by a disproportionately large number in
clerical, supervisory, and skilled labor categories. Both identities
and discrepancies are consistent with proportions to be expected in a
sample of household heads and their spouses; they do, however, indi-
cate precautions that should be observed in any interpolation of survey
findings to the general Clarkston population.
INTERVIEW SITUATION AS POTENTIAL SOURCE OF SURVEY BIAS
In addition to the factors of sample selection and composition,
the interview situation itself constitutes a major potential source of
systematic bias in response to a questionnaire. We have outlined some
of the steps that were taken through interviewer selection and training
to ensure that the interview would have a negligible influence on the
respondent's own definition of the existence, salience, and seriousness
of air pollution in Clarkston. One of these steps was to attempt to
structure the interview situation initially in terms of Clarkston health
problems in general, rather than air pollution in particular.
To what extent was this initial structuring accepted by persons
interviewed? A month and a half after completion of the survey, the
interviewers were asked for information concerning (a) the extent to
which subjects responded to the interviewer's initial structuring of the
situation with expressions of belief that the interview was really going
to concern itself with air pollution; (b) what, if anything, interviewers
did to restructure the interview situation in that event; (c) what effect,
if any, these restructuring efforts seemed to have upon subjects' defi-
nitions of the interview situation.
Interviewers' comments on these three points appear verbatim
in Appendix E. On the whole, the attempt to focus interviews initially
on general health problems of Clarkston proved successful.
Another potential source of response bias inherent in the inter-
view situation is day of interview. Interviewers made house-to-house
Survey Procedures
-------
visits over a 6-day period: May 20-25. They completed 1 interview
on the 20th, 8 on the 21st, 37 on the 22nd, 39 on the 23rd, 18 on the
24th, and 1 on the 25th. One might reasonably expect that in a city the
size of Clarkston (6,600) word of the survey and of its central topic
would circulate fairly rapidly, so that persons interviewed on the 23rd
and subsequent days might define the interview situation differently
from those interviewed on the 22nd or before. To test this supposition,
we compared Table 5 responses to questionnaire Item 3A ("Are there
some things you don't like about living in Clarkston"), made by respond-
ents interviewed on the 20th, 21st, and 22nd of May with those inter-
viewed on the 23rd, 24th, and 25th, to see if more of the latter than of
the former brought up air pollution spontaneously as a disadvantage.
Since almost identical proportions of subjects from the two survey
periods gave this response (30 percent and 34 percent), (Chi square
not significant at the 95 percent level), we concluded that no significant
systematic distortion of respondents' definition of the interview situa-
tion occurred over the 6-day period.
Table 5. RESPONDENTS' SPONTANEOUS MENTION OF AIR POLLUTION AS CLARKSTON
DISADVANTAGE (ITEM 3A)C (N)
Spontaneous mention of air
pollution as disadvantage
Yes
No
Total
Day of
20th,21st,22nd
14
32
46
interv lew
23rd,24th,25th
20
38
58
Interv iewer
1234
9 14 6 5
13 16 18 23
22 30 24 28
Statistical analysis chi square not significant.
Interviewer variability represents still another source of system-
atic response bias. Since assignment of respondents to interviewers
was random, statistically significant differences in response rates
between groups of subjects contacted by each interviewer could reason-
ably be attributed to this factor. Tables 5 and 6 show that variations
in subjects' response by interviewer to two key items, 3A ("Are there
some things you don't like about living in Clarkston") and 9c ("How
would you rate air pollution for Clarkston today in terms of serious,
somewhat serious, or not serious") are below the level set for statisti-
cal significance (i.e., have greater than a .05 probability of occurrence
through chance).
10
OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
Table 6. RESPONDENTS' RATING OF SERIOUSNESS OF AIR POLLUTION FOR CLARKSTON
(ITEM9c)° (N)
Air pollution rating
Serious
Somewhat serious
Not serious
Other, don't know
Total
Interv
1
5
12
5
0
22
2
8
14
7
1
30
ewer
3
8
11
3
2
24
r 4
4
12
9
3
28
Statistical analysis chi square not significant.
A final potential source of distortion of the interview situation is a
newspaper account of the proposed study that appeared in the Lewiston
Tribune on March 6 (see Appendix F). To see to what extent this
report influenced respondents' definition of the interview situation and
of the public opinion survey more generally, the closing item on the
questionnaire (Item 23) asked: "Have you read or seen anything in the
newspapers recently about air pollution?" In reply, 70 percent of the
sample said "No"; of those who answered "Yes, " only 5 stated that they
had seen a reference to the public opinion survey of air pollution in
Clarkston. The newspaper report, therefore, may be considered of
negligible influence upon respondents' definition of the public opinion
survey and of the interview situation.
In sum, the criteria we used for judging field performance of the
three major survey components (the questionnaire, the interview, and
the sample) indicate that these components succeeded reasonably well
in providing an instrumentally undistorted report, free from systematic
sampling bias, of respondents' opinions on the survey topic.
SURVEY FINDINGS
Awareness and Concern
Our findings are discussed on two levels: data on respondents'
definitions are presented by marginal frequency and scalogram pattern
to gain an overall picture of the sample and population response to the
survey; and the overall response is analyzed by selected demographic
and socio-economic characteristics of respondents to attempt to provide
explanatory hypotheses for that response. Since the primary objective
of the study was to determine the proportion of the sampled population
Survey Findings
11
-------
that was disturbed by air pollution in Clarkston, some specifications of
the concept "disturbance" must be provided. We analyzed it according
to two dimensions of variation: awareness, and severity. Conceived
on the dimension of awareness alone, disturbance involves no more
than whatever sensory adjustments may be required for an individual to
consciously take account of or cognitively recognize a phenomenon. By
itself, awareness does not imply any judgments or feelings about this
phenomenon, although the reverse of course does not hold.
Conceived on the dimension of severity, disturbance involves
feelings of annoyance with or concern about a phenomenon at varying
degrees of strength. In the survey, these feelings of annoyance or con-
cern are further analyzed into severity of air pollution as a personal
problem, and severity of air pollution as a community problem, in the
definition of respondents.
AWARENESS OF AIR POLLUTION IN CLARKSTON
Two measures serve as indices of awareness: first, a measure
of personal awareness of air pollution in Clarkston; second, a measure
of air pollution in Clarkston attributed by the respondents to "others"
in the community.
Replies to item 11, "Do you think there is air pollution in Clark-
ston at any time during the year, " constitute the first measure: 81
respondents replied "Yes"; 22 "No"; and one, "Not applicable because
respondent has not lived long enough in the area. " In other words, 79
percent (71-87)* of the respondents who had lived in Clarkston for at
least a year indicated they had some awareness of the existence of air
pollution in that city.
To check the extent of this awareness and to gain some idea of
its cognitive dimensions, interviewers asked the projective type ques-
tion: "What do you think the words 'air pollution' mean to most people
in this area?" (Item 20). This question is called "projective" on the
theory that it affords the respondent an opportunity to project his own
definitions of a situation to some relatively neutral, undefined object --
e.g., "most people, " thus circumventing restraints he may feel about
expressing his own opinions directly. Table 7 shows the fixed answers
of respondents to question 20.
One may infer from this table that respondents perceive air pol-
lution in Clarkston primarily as an odor problem (91 percent "Yes"
20a); secondarily as a problem of visibility (74 percent "Yes" 20c);
thirdly as a problem of nose or throat irritation (62 percent "Yes"
20e); while a minority perceives it as frequent irritation of eyes (40
* Figures in parentheses following a sample proportion (e.g. 79%), refer to estimated upper and
lower limits of that proportion in the sampling population (Clarkston household heads and their
spouses), at the 95 percent level of confidence. Appendix H, prepared by the Research Triangle
Institute, details the calculation procedures for these confidence limits.
12 OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
Table 7. RESPONSES TO ITEM 20, "WHAT DO YOU THINK THE WORDS 'AIR POLLUTION'
MEAN TO MOST PEOPLE IN THIS AREA?"
Choices
Frequent bad smells
in the air
Too much dust and
dirt in the a ir
Frequent haze or
fog in the air
Frequent irritation
of the eyes
Frequent nose or
throat irritation
Other
Number of responses
Yes
95
28
77
42
64
19
No
8
70
23
53
33
0
Don t
know
1
6
4
7
6
0
Other
0
0
0
2
1
0
No re-
sponse
0
0
0
0
0
85
% of
respondents
answering
"yes '
91
27
74
40
62
95%
con-
fidence
1 imits
"yes.1
85-97
17-36
62-86
31-50
55-68
percent "Yes" 20d); and as dustfall (27 percent "Yes" 20b).
A second inference is that more people may be aware of the exist-
ence of frequent bad smells in Clarkston air than of air pollution --91
percent as against 79 percent. At the very least, we can say that
although 21 percent of the sample reported air pollution non-existent in
Clarkston, only 9 percent said "most people in the Clarkston area"
would fail to associate "frequent bad smells" with the words "air pol-
lution. "
A third inference is that to respondents the five listed dimensions
of air pollution stand in a systematic rather than random relationship
to one another, and that the model for this relationship is given by a
Guttman scale. 8 To the degree this inference is correct, the responses
of respondents to these five items fall into one or another of the six
patterns (called perfect scale types) shown in Table 8.
Existence of such a systematic relationship between these five
dimensions of air pollution implies further that the significance (mean-
ing) of air pollution to Clarkston residents represents a response to
some factor or complex of factors in their environment that operates
in a systematic way upon them all, rather than a response to factors
idiosyncratic or randomly variable in their effect upon Clarkston resi-
dents. No attempt is made here to specify the nature of this factor or
complex of factors, but only to give examples of what it might be. Con-
Survey Findings
13
-------
Table 8. PATTERN OF AIR POLLUTION RESPONSE BY CLARKSTON RESIDENTS
Dust
in air
a
-b
Eye
irritation
+
+
Nose
irritation
+
+
+
Haze,
fog
+
+
+
+
Bad
s me 1 Is
+
+
+
+
+
Perfect
scale type
5
4
3
2
1
0
+ means "Yes.''
means ''No.
Table 9. PERCENT RESPONSE TO FIVE DIMENSIONS OF AIR POLLUTION
Perfect scale pattern
5
4
3
2
1
0
% respondents
11.5
17.3
14.4
15.3
12.5
0.9
Total 71.9
sensus of opinion among Clarkston residents as to the meaning of air
pollution would be one possibility; monotonically increasing sensitivity,
cultural or physiological in origin, to contaminants actually present in
Clarkston ambient air would be another.
To test the inference of scalability on the Guttman model among
these five dimensions of air pollution, the response patterns to them
were worked out from the survey data (Table 9). 9
Seventy-two percent of respondents fall into one or another of the
six perfect scale types; 45 of these 75 or 60 percent fall into types 3,
4, and 5 -- i. e., to most people in the Clarkston area air pollution
means at least frequent nose and throat irritation; frequent haze or fog
in the air; and frequent bad smells in the air. Only one person (0. 9 per-
cent of the entire sample) said that the words "air pollution" meant
none of the phenomena listed in item 20 to most people in the Clarkston
area.
14
OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
To further test the inference of scalability of the five listed
dimensions of air pollution, Table 10 presents the entire array of
response patterns to item 20 given by the respondents, with errors
(i. e., responses that do not conform to the hypothesized scale pattern)
circled. Examination of this array discloses that the largest number
of errors, 12, occurs in response to item (20b) "Too much dirt and
dust in the air;" the next largest, 9, to item 20c "Frequent haze or
fog in the air;" while the 3 remaining items contribute only 10 errors
in all. These facts indicate that to this sample of respondents eye
irritation, nose-throat irritation, and malodors stand in a more con-
sistent or systematic relationship with each other as dimensions of air
pollution than they do with the dimensions of low visibility and dustfall.
Furthermore, the low frequency of association of air pollution with
dustfall (27 percent "Yes" to 2Ob), coupled with the fact that 11 percent
of responses to the dustfall item are discrepant by Guttman scale cri-
teria, lead to the inference that the response to air pollution as dust-
fall is a relatively idiosyncratic one among Clarkston residents, or is
a response to some factor that operates selectively on some respond-
ents but not on others. The section of this report that analyzes
responses to the questionnaire by north-south residential location of
respondents discusses this possibility further.
Nevertheless, when the non-scale response patterns are con-
verted to scale patterns by the conventional least-error technique, and
error frequencies are related to total response possibilities, the five
items, even including 20b on dustfall, form an acceptable Guttman
Scale by the criterion of reproducibility, the coefficient for which is
0. 94 (i. e., given the scale type of a respondent, his actual responses
to each of the five items of the scale could be predicted, or reproduced
accurately, 94 times out of a hundred). The distribution of the entire
sample among the six possible scale types, both perfect and imperfect,
is shown in Table 11.
We may conclude from this analysis that although 20 percent of
the respondents claimed air pollution does not exist in Clarkston, the
term "air pollution" does represent a well-structured concept to most
Clarkston residents; and that the most salient features of this concept
are malodors, low visibility, and nose-throat irritation.
SEVERITY OF AIR POLLUTION AS A PERSONAL PROBLEM
A number of items in the questionnaire were designed specific-
ally to gauge the extent of respondents' personal annoyance with air
pollution. The first of these concerns the nature of the disadvantages
of Clarkston as a place to live (Item 3).
Since most persons are reluctant to criticize their home com-
munities to persons they have never seen before (such as opinionnaire
interviewers), respondents were first given an opportunity to express
their satisfactions with Clarkston as a place to live. In their replies
to Items 1 and 2, 85 percent said Clarkston was an "excellent" or
Survey Findings 15
-------
Table 10. GUTTMAN SCALE (b): COGNITIVE DIMENSIONS OF AIR POLLUTION BASED ON
RESPONSES TO ITEM 20: "WHAT DO YOU THINK THE WORDS 'AIR POLLUTION
MEAN TO MOST PEOPLE IN THIS AREA?" [RESPONSES DICHOTOMIZED:
DIGIT 1 (YES) VS. 2 (NO), 3(DON'T KNOW), 4 (OTHER)]0
Frequency of Response Patterns
Too much
dust and
dirt in
a ir
+
+
(+)
( + )
( + )
{ + )
[+}
Frequent
irrita-
tion of
eyes
+
h
+
+
+
( + )
(+)
Frequent
nose or
throat
i rrita-
ti on
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
(+)
Frequent
haze or
fog i n
a ir
+
( )
+
(')
+
+
(-)
+
+
(-)
+
+
+
+
Frequent
bad
smel Is
in air
+
+
+
+
(-)
+
+
(-)
+
+
+
+
+
(-)
-
+
Number
12
4
18
1
3
15
3
1
5
1
16
2
4
1
13
1
1
1
2
Total 104
Scale
Type
5 perfect
5 imperfect
4 perfect
4 imperfect
4 imperfect
3 perfect
3 imperfect
3 imperfect
3 imperfect
3 imperfect
2 perfect
2 imperfect
2 imperfect
2 imperfect
1 perfect
1 imperfect
0 perfect
0 imperfect
0 imperfect
Frequency of Error by Item'
12
1
(Coefficient of Reproducibi I ity: 0 94)
16
OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
Table 11. DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY SCALE TYPE
Scale type
perfect and imperfect
5
4
3
2
1
0
Number of
respondents
16
22
25
23
14
4
Total 104
% respondents
15.3
21 2
24 1
22 2
13 4
3 8
100.0
"good" place to live; 10 percent claimed it was "fair"; and only 4 per-
cent answered it was "poor" or "very poor" (one subject gave no
response.)* When asked, "What are some of the things you like about
living in Clarkston", only six were unable to specify some reason for
liking their community. Of the remaining 98 subjects, 38 mentioned
first some attribute of the community (e.g., good schools, small size,
churches, parks, good government, nice physical appearance). An
almost equal number, 35, mentioned first the climate or weather of
Clarkston, as an advantage. Of the remaining subjects, 18 listed first
some attribute of the people in the community (e.g., their friendliness
or neighborliness), 3 mentioned recreational opportunities, 4 gave
advantages not classified under any of the above categories. Taking
account of advantages in addition to those mentioned first by respond-
ents (i. e., second and third mentions), the picture of Clarkston as a
"good community" in the opinion of this sample becomes even clearer.
Of the 188 Clarkston advantages that respondents mentioned spontane-
ously, 71 or 38 percent concerned community attributes. Climate and
weather remains in second place as an advantage with 26 percent of
total mentions; 22 percent of the mentions concern attributes of the
people in Clarkston.
Against this background of community satisfaction, when inter-
viewers asked respondents, "Are there some things" or "What are
some of the things" (depending upon their answer to item 1) "you don't
like about living in Clarkston" (Item 3A), one-third of the respondents
listed spontaneously a disadvantage explicitly related to air pollution.
Of these, 23 referred to malodors (e.g., "smells, " "bad smells, "
"stinks"); 4 to low visibility (e. g., "haze," "smog," "smoke"); 5 to
some unspecified aspect of air pollution (e.g., "bad" or "poor" air);
and 2 listed multiple aspects of air pollution. Twenty-four respondents
spontaneously mentioned "the mill" as a source of malodors, while
nine did not specify any source of pollution.
Because of the significance customarily attached to spontaneous
mentions of air pollution as a disadvantage or source of annoyance (cf.
"A spontaneous, or voluntary response that air pollution bothered the
Respective confidence limits are given in Appendix H, Characteristic 1.
Survey Findings
17
-------
respondent was regarded as serious, " p. 10, reference 1), we analyzed
such mentions further by respondents' expressed degree of satisfaction
with Clarkston as a place to live, and by disadvantages of Clarkston
other than those explicitly related to air pollution. Results of this
analysis appear in Table 12.
Table 12. RESPONDENTS' RATING OF CLARKSTON AS A PLACE TO LIVE
Mention air pollution only as
di sadvantage
Mention only some disadvantage
other than air pollution
Mention air pollution and some
other disadvantage
Do not list any disadvantage
Totals
Excellent
8
6
1
12
27
Good
10
24
9
18
61
Fair, Poor, Very Poor
4
7
2
2
15
Table 12 shows that the proportion of respondents who list "no
disadvantages" varies directly with their rating of Clarkston; 44 per-
cent among those who rate Clarkston "excellent, " 30 percent among
those who rate it "good, " and 13 percent who rate Clarkston "fair, "
"poor, " or "very poor, " list no disadvantages to living there.
This table also shows that a somewhat higher percentage of those
who rate Clarkston fair, poor, or very poor, mention air pollution
spontaneously as a community disadvantage, than the percentage in the
other two rating groups: 40 percent compared to approximately a third
among those who rate Clarkston excellent or good.
Of greater significance, however, is that the ratio of persons who
spontaneously mention only air pollution as a Clarkston disadvantage to
respondents who spontaneously mention some other disadvantage either
alone or in combination with air pollution is much higher among those
who rate Clarkston excellent, than among those who rate it good or
fair, etc.: 114 percent compared to 33 and 44 percent, respectively.
This finding requires replication on much larger samples before any
firm conclusions can be drawn. It indicates, however, that persons
who are highly identified with their community in the sense that they
express high satisfaction with it as a place to live may think of air pol-
lution as a salient source of annoyance or disturbance, while persons
less strongly tied to their community may think of it as only one of a
18
OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
complex of disadvantages they sense with community living. On the
other hand, this analysis points up the need to distinguish the salience
of a phenomenon from its severity as a source of personal disturbance.
Air pollution may be more salient as a source of disturbance to people
who rate their community an excellent place to live than to people who
rate it as only good, fair, or poor, in the sense that air pollution is
the only disadvantage such persons may openly associate with that com-
munity. This does not necessarily mean, however, that air pollution
is a more severe source of disturbance to them than to persons who
are less identified with the community in the sense that they feel there
is a greater need to do something about it.
A second, more straightforward index of the severity of air pol-
lution as a personal problem to respondents derives from their answers
to Item 13 of the questionnaire (see Table 13).
Table 13. RESPONSES TO ITEM 13: "WHICH ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS APPLIES TO
YOU?"
Since living in Clarkston;
1 have not been bothered
by air pol lution
1 have been somewhat
bothered by air pollution
1 have been bothered
quite a lot by
air pol lution
Other
No response
Not applicable
(Answer to Item 1 1,
air pollution in
Clarkston was "no")
Total
Number
who chose
statement
14
52
14
1
0
23
104
Percent
who chose
statement
13
51
13
1
0
22
100
The percentage of Clarkston residents somewhat bothered or bothered
quite a lot by air pollution is almost exactly the same as the percent-
age of Los Angeles County residents who said they were bothered by
air pollution in 1956 (approximately two-thirds). To provide some
Survey Findings
19
-------
trend reference to respondents' annoyance with air pollution, they were
asked (Item ISA): "Has air pollution bothered you more, about the
same, or less each year?" Of the 66 who said they were bothered by
air pollution, 50 or 75 percent answered "same" and "more, " 11 or 16
percent replied "less, " while 6 persons said they were unable to
respond to the question because they had not lived long enough in Clark-
ston. (For confidence limits to these proportions, see Appendix H,
Characteristics 13 (1), and 13 (1)A.)
As a final index of severity of air pollution as a personal problem,
Items 17 and 18 asked, "Do you worry about the effects of air pollution
on your (health) (property)?" Table 14 shows that worries over the
effects of air pollution on property are somewhat more prevalent than
worries over its health effects (26, health; 33, property). The extent
of worry in both cases is underestimated if one takes account only of
respondents who answered "Yes" to these items. Four respondents
said they didn't worry about health effects of air pollution because "it
wouldn't do any good, " while six said they did not worry about property
effects of air pollution "since they had painted their houses."
Table 14. RESPONSES TO ITEMS 17 AND 18: "DO YOU WORRY ABOUT TH E EFFECTS OF
AIR POLLUTION ON YOUR (HEALTH) (PROPERTY)?"
Response
Yes
No
Other
No response
No air pol lution
in Clarkston
Totals
Health
Number
26
51
4
0
23
104
Percent
25
50
3
0
22
100
Property
Number
33
42
6
0
23
104
Percent
32
41
5
0
22
100
SEVERITY OF AIR POLLUTION AS A COMMUNITY PROBLEM
Although the feeling that a phenomenon constitutes a source of
personal annoyance may be closely related to the feeling that it disturbs
people in the community more generally (i. e., constitutes a community
problem), the two types of feelings are logically distinct. The present
survey was designed to probe the extent to which Clarkston residents
regarded air pollution as a community problem in three ways: By
20
OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
relating community problems to the context of health; by asking directly
about the status of air pollution as a community problem; and by asking
whether significant situation-definers in Clarkston regarded air pollu-
tion as a community problem.
Prior to explicit mention of air pollution in the interview,
respondents were asked (Item 6): "Do you believe Clarkston has any
health problems that need correction?" If they answered affirmatively,
the interviewer asked, "what problems?" Of the 104 respondents. 36
answered "Yes" to the first question; 61 said "No"; and 7 were unde-
cided. (For Confidence limits, see Appendix H, Characteristics 6 (1).)
Table 15 details the sources of the health problems first mentioned in
the 36 affirmative responses.
Table 15. DELINEATION OF SOURCES OF HEALTH PROBLEMS BY RESPONDENTS
Sources of health problem
Pulp mill
Water
Air (general reference to air pollution)
Garbage dump
Animals, houses, stockyard
Miscellaneous (alleys, slums, restaurants, other)
No of respondents
13
8
3
2
2
8
Tota 1 36
No detailed information is available as to the nature of the health
problems that respondents associated with these various sources. If
we assume that the pulp mill and garbage dump are sources of air pol-
lution, air pollution accounts for 50 percent of the conditions mentioned
spontaneously by respondents as health hazards in Clarkston.
Item 9 of the questionnaire is the first question asked respond-
ents that is concerned explicity with air pollution. The questions and
respondents' answers appear in Table 16. These data speak for them-
selves, so far as respondents' opinions of the relative seriousness of
air pollution as a Clarkston community problem is concerned. Compa-
rable figures are available from surveys made in Buffalo, N. Y., 1958
and 1962. 2> 3 These indicate even more clearly the significance of the
concern that Clarkston residents express over the quality of their air
supply. When a randomly selected sample of Buffalo residents was
asked in 1958 to rate the seriousness of air pollution as a community
problem in the context of a list of nine other problems, 35 percent
called it very serious or somewhat serious. In a telephone survey of
another randomly selected sample of Buffalo residents made in the
Survey Findings
21
-------
spring of 1962 approximately 45 percent rated air pollution a serious
community problem. By contrast, in the Clarkston survey seven out
of ten (72%) respondents called air pollution a serious or somewhat
serious problem for their community.
Table 16. RESPONSES TO ITEM 9: "HERE ARE A FEW PROBLEMS WHICH DlFFERENT
COMMUNITIES ARE FACING. HOW WOULD YOU RATE EACH OF THESE FOR
CLARKSTON TODAY IN TERMS OF SERIOUS, SOMEWHAT SERIOUS, OR NOT
SERIOUS?"
Problem
Outbreaks of
contagious
diseases,
such as
whooping
cough,
diptheria
Water
pollution
Air
pol lution
95% confidence
1 imi ts, air
pollution
Percent of respondents who rate problem:
Serious
2.5
4
24
14-34
Somewhat
serious
2
19
47
36-58
Not
serious
88
72
23
17-29
Don't
know
7.5
5
6
Total
100
100
100
As a check on this figure and to provide some indication of the
trend differentials that it might conceal interviewers asked, "Which
one of these statements do you think best describes the situation in this
area in recent years?" (Item 21). The distribution of respondents by
the four responses provided is shown in Table 17.
These figures show that the percentage of respondents who
selected a response other than (a) ("Air pollution has not been a serious
problem for this area") is virtually the same as the percentage that
called air pollution a serious or somewhat serious community problem
in response to item 9: 70 percent versus 72 percent. This result pro-
vides added support for the statement that 7 out of 10 members of the
sample of Clarkston household heads and spouses regard air pollution
with some degree of seriousness as a community problem. This result
also shows that of those who regard it as a problem, approximately
one-third think air pollution has grown less serious, and two-thirds
that it has become more serious or been continuously serious each year.
22
OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
OPO 82O3653
-------
Table 17. RESPONSE TO ITEM 21 BY CLARKSTON RESIDENTS INTERVIEWED
Response
% of total sample
who selected response
(a) Air pollution has not been a serious
problem for this area
(b) Air pollution has become a more serious
problem each year for this area
(c) Air pollution has become o less serious
problem each year for this area
(d) Air pollution has continuously been a
serious problem for this area
(e) Other, no response, has not lived long
enough in the area
24
25
19
26
Another index of the seriousness of air pollution as a community
problem to Clarkston residents comes from responses to item 19:
"How do you think (local doctors) (local papers) (major local industries)
feel about air pollution in this area?" This item was intended to pro-
vide information, first, on the degree to which Clarkston residents
regard, significant situation-definers as holding well-defined positions
respecting air pollution; and second, to gauge the extent to which resi-
dents regard these positions as over- or under-estimations of the
seriousness of air pollution in their community.
Table 18 discloses that nearly half the respondents said they
don't know how seriously local doctors regard air pollution as a com-
munity problem for Clarkston; nearly the same proportion was unclear
as to the newspaper's position on air pollution, despite the seeming
abundance of reports on the subject carried by the Lewiston Tribune
(see Appendix G). Only about 25 percent of the sample, however, said
they were unclear about the position on air pollution taken by major
local industries.
An examination of the positions themselves shows discrepancies
between the seriousness of air pollution that respondents express and
that which they impute to these significant situation definers: For
example, 7 out of 10 Clarkston residents say that major local industries
regard air pollution as non-existent or not serious, although only 3 out
of 10 express this belief themselves. Clearly, respondents generally
do not impute alarmist opinions on the subject of air pollution to their
doctors, their newspaper, and especially, to their major local industries.
Survey Findings
23
-------
Table 18. RESPONSES TO ITEM 19: "HOW DO YOU THINK (LOCAL DOCTORS) (LOCAL
PAPERS) (MAJOR LOCAL INDUSTRIES) FEEL ABOUT AIR POLLUTION IN
THIS AREA?"
Response
There i S-
no air
pollution
in area
There is
air pol-
lution,
but it is
not a
serious
problem
Air pol-
lution i s
a serious
problem
here
Don't
know
Other,
no
answers
Local doctors
Percent
sample
4
31
18
45
2
95%
confidence
limits
0-8
20-42
13-24
31-58
Local papers
Percent
sample
10
30
13
40
7
95%
confidence
limits
17-28
16-44
8-19
29-50
Major ocal
industries
Percent
sample
17
51
6
23
3
95%
confidence
limits
9-24
40-63
2-10
16-31
-
COMBINED INDEX, SERIOUSNESS OF AIR POLLUTION AS
PERSONAL AND AS COMMUNITY PROBLEM (GUTTMAN SCALE (a))
The previous sections have attempted to gauge the extent of dis-
turbance caused by air pollution along three separate continua: Aware-
ness of air pollution; feelings of annoyance or disturbance over effects
of air pollution experienced, or thought to be experienced, personally;
and feelings of concern over air pollution defined as a community prob-
lem. The present section attempts to combine measurements along
these three continua into a single index, to provide a summary estimate
of the proportion of the population that is disturbed by air pollution.
As in the section on "Awareness of Air Pollution in Clarkston, " the
approach to construction of such an index proceeds through Guttman
scale analysis.
24
OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
Four items serve as a basis for this analysis: Items 3A, 11, 13,
and 21 of the questionnaire. Each contributes a different component to
the combined index: 3A, spontaneous mention of air pollution as a dis-
advantage -- the component of salience of awareness, and perhaps
severity of personal disturbance; 11, belief or disbelief in existence of
air pollution in Clarkston -- the element of awareness, as such; 13,
extent to which bothered by air pollution -- the element of personal
disturbance; 21, is air pollution now, or has it become, a problem, --
the element of community concern.
To facilitate analysis, responses to these four items were dichot-
omized according to whether or not they indicated awareness or concern
with air pollution. This dichotomization and the resulting distribution
of responses appear in Table 19 by frequency of responses indicating
awareness or concern.
Table 19. DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES ACCORDING TO AWARENESS
Item
3A
21
13
11
Responses Indicating
Awareness or Concern
With Air Pollution
All spontaneous
mention of ai r
pol lution as a
' 'disadvantage' '
Air pollution has con-
tinuously been a ser-
ious problem for thi s
area; air pollution
has become a more ser-
ious problem each year
for this area
1 have been somewhat
bothered; I have been
bothered quite a lot,
by air pollution
Yes (i .e. air pollution
exists in Clarkston)
No. of
Respon-
dents
34
53
66
81
Responses Indicating
Absence of Awareness
or Concern With Air
Pollution
No spontaneous
mention, air
pol lution as a
"di sadvantage' '
Air pol lution has not
been a serious problem;
air poll ution has
become a less serious
problem each year,
for this area
1 have not been
bothered by air
pol lution
No (i .e. air pol lution
does not exi st in
Clarkston)
No. of
Respon-
dents
70
45
37
22
This ordering of items generates the response patterns on the
hypothesis of perfect scalability shown in Table 20.
Survey Findings
25
-------
Table 20. RESPONSE PATTERNS BASED ON PERFECT SCALABILITY
Item No.
3A
+a
_b
21
t
+
13
+
+
+
_
-
11
+
+
+
+
"Perfect"
Scale Type
4
3
2
1
0
-t- indicates awareness or concern.
- indicates lack of awareness or concern.
Responses from eight subjects had to be excluded from the
scale analysis because they answered "other" or "have not lived long
enough in the area" to one or more of the four items. Of the 96 remain-
ing subjects, 80 or 83 percent gave responses that fell into one of the
five perfect scale types. Table 21 presents the total array of actual
response patterns, both "perfect" and "imperfect, " together with the
distribution of respondents among them. The coefficient of reproduci-
bility calculated from this array is 0.96, well above 0.90, the conven-
tionally established lower limit for accepting the hypothesis of scala-
bility. Table 21 shows that the largest number of errors (i.e., responses
that do not conform to the hypothesized pattern), 9, occurred in response
to item 3A, spontaneous mention of air pollution as a disadvantage.
This fact provides additional justification for the view that such men-
tions may be overrated as estimates of the seriousness of air pollution:
for over a fourth (9) of the 34 who mentioned some aspect of air pollu-
tion spontaneously as a disadvantage to living in Clarkston in answer to
item 21 said that air pollution either was not a serious problem for
Clarkston or was becoming a less serious problem each year in that
area. Guttman Scale (a), however, provides possibly the best single
index of the proportion of Clarkston residents that is disturbed by air
pollution. According to the distribution, 20, or a fifth of the scalable
subjects, fall in Scale Type 0; they show no, or practically no, aware-
ness and concern with air pollution in Clarkston. By contrast, 76, or
four-fifths of the scalable subjects are disturbed to some degree by air
pollution in Clarkston. For the 12 subjects in Type 1, the level of such
disturbance may be regarded as low; for the 18 in Type 2, moderate;
while the 46 subjects in Types 3 and 4 can be called very concerned or
greatly disturbed by air pollution in Clarkston. Table 22 summarizes
these conclusions.
26
OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
Table 21. GUTTMAN SCALE (a): SERIOUSNESS OF AIR POLLUTION AS PERSONAL AND
COMMUNITY PROBLEM0
Frequency of response patterns to items 3a, 21, 13, and 1 1
Sponta-
neous
mention
of air
pol lu-
tion as
di sadvan-
tage
+
+
(+)
(+)
Air pol-
lution
has be-
come or
is con-
tinuously
a serious
problem
+
+
H
{+)
(+)
Bothered
"some-
what" or
"quite a
lot" by
air pol-
lution
+
(-)
-t-
+
+
-
-
Air pol-
lution
in
Clark-
ston?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
Number
21
1
24
10
8
8
4
17
2
1
Scale
type
4 perfect
4 imperfect
3 perfect
2 perfect
2 imperfect
1 perfect
1 imperfect
0 perfect
0 imperfect
0 imperfect
Total 96
Frequency of error by item:
9
6
1
0
{Coefficient of reproducibi li ty 0.96).
Table 22. PERCENTAGES OF SCALABLE SAMPLE AND OF SAMPLED POPULATION THAT
ARE DISTURBED BY AIR POLLUTION IN CLARKSTON: BASED ON GUTTMAN
SCALE (a)
Degree of
disturbance
None
Low to Moderate
High
Low-High
Percent of scalable
sample (number 96)
21
31
48
79
Limits of proportions
disturbed by air pol-
lution in sampling
population, at 95%
confidence level
Between 14 and 30%
Between 22 and 41%
Between 38 and 58%
Between 70 and 86%
Based on binomial distribution.
Survey Findings
27
-------
Sources and Action
SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION
Although respondents differ in the degree to which they are dis-
turbed by air pollution in Clarkston, they show virtual unanimity in
defining the Potlatch Forests mill as the prime source of such pollution.
Three lines of evidence support this conclusion:
First, all 34 respondents who spontaneously mentioned air pollu-
tion as a Clarkston disadvantage and who specified a source, mentioned
"the mill" and only the mill as the point of origin. A typical response
to the question, "Are there some things you don't like about living in
Clarkston?" was: "The smell of the pulp mill. "
Second, 26 of the 34 respondents who had lived in Clarkston in
1950 or before and who said air pollution existed there answered the
question, "When did you first notice air pollution in Clarkston?" by
saying, "When the mill started." Four gave a date between 1951 and
the present; only two gave a date of 1950 or before; one said he did not
remember.
Third, in answer to the question, "What do you think are the
major sources of air pollution in this area?" (Item 15) 75 of the 81
subjects (92%) who showed awareness of such pollution (i.e., answered
yes to item ll)mentioned the mill as the first source; two said auto-
motive vehicles;, one, the dump; and one, the stockyard. Table 23 pre-
sents the complete array of responses.
Table 23. RESPONSES TO ITEM 15: "WHAT DO YOU THINK ARE THE MAJOR SOURCES OF
AIR POLLUTION IN THIS AREA?" (OPEN-END ANSWERS)
Source
Automotive vehicles
Mill, pulp mill
Home trash burners,
chimneys
City dump
Stockyard
Packing plant
Other
Don't know
No response
Totals
Number
1 st mention
2
75
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
81
Number
2d mention
8
3
5
5
1
3
2
0
0
27
Number
3d mention
2
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
.6
Total
mentions
12
78
6
6
2
6
3
1
0
114
28
OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
ACTIONS TAKEN OR RECOMMENDED
From the foregoing sections, there emerges the outline of a
problem situation that is disturbing in some degree to four-fifths of the
respondents, and by inference, to between 70 and 86 percent of house-
hold heads and their spouses in Clarkston: namely, the problem of air
pollution conceived primarily as malodors and almost universally
attributed to the PFI Kraft paper mill. As with any problem situation,
actions with reference to it may be classified broadly into three groups:
withdrawal, situation-redefining, and situation-altering.
Withdrawal may be cognitive, emotional, or physical in nature;
i. e., may take the form of denial that the situation exists, denial or
repression of emotions or feelings it arouses, or physical removal
from the total problem-bearing environmental complex.
Efforts at situation-redefining may be distinguished from those of
withdrawal in that they implicitly recognize or refer to the existence of
the problem-bearing situation, but have as their aim some alteration of
the meaning of the situation to the actor; e.g., a re-scaling of its
salience relative to other problems, a reassignment of responsibility
for it or assimilation of the situation to a different action-context, such
as in the case of industrial pollution, that of the profit-production com-
plex, rather than enjoyment-consumption.
Situation-altering, the third action possibility may also be con-
sidered in a variety of conceptual dimensions; e.g., individualistic
collectivistic, public private, problem-source oriented problem-
effect oriented, etc.
Unfortunately, this analysis was written subsequent to completion
of the data-gathering phase of the Clarkston survey so that many action
possibilities with reference to air pollution in that community were left
unexplored. Concerning withdrawal, only physical moves contemplated
or actually made in response to air pollution were considered; and con-
cerning situation-altering, only citizen complaint behavior, some alter-
nate recommended courses of source-oriented behavior, and respond-
ents' opinions of source-oriented actions taken by other actors.
Residential Moves: The state-wide California Health Survey of
1956 disclosed that 17 percent of Los Angeles County residents had
seriously considered moving away (to destinations unspecified) because
of air pollution, and 4 percent of the sample said they had actually
moved in the past because of air pollution (p. 29).
In the Clarkston survey, questions concerning residential mobility
were asked on an open-end basis and in the initial stages of the inter-
view prior to explicit queries about air pollution. Responding to Item
5c, "Have you ever thought of moving to some city or town outside this
area?" approximately a third said "yes." When asked, "For what
reason?" four, or 11 percent gave of their own accord reasons related
Survey Findings 29
-------
to air pollution. Whether the distribution of responses would have been
different had respondents been asked, "Have you ever thought of moving
to some city or town within this area?" (e.g., to Lewiston Orchards),
and if so why, can only be a matter for conjecture. Similarly, one can
only speculate as to the response of Clarkston residents to a direct
question about air pollution as a factor in residential mobility, such as
the question in the California Survey: "Have you ever considered seri-
ously moving away from here because of air pollution?"
Complaints: In the 1958 study of public awareness of air
pollution in Buffalo3 approximately a fourth (24. 6%) of the total sample
(943) said yes to the question, "Have you ever wanted to complain to
some authority or agency about offensive odors, dust, smoke, soot
and the like in the air?" while 7 percent had actually made such a
complaint. This ratio of complaint potential to complaint performance
is very similar to that found in the NORC Study of community reactions
to aircraft noise, for neighborhoods surrounding East Coast Air Defense
Command Bases' (27 percent felt like complaining; 6 percent actually
complained).
In the Clarkston survey, 10 percent of respondents said they had
thought of requesting some authority or agency to take action concern-
ing air pollution, while only 2 percent said they had actually made such
a request. This is very close to the complaint potential - performance
ratio found by the NORC Study among SAC neighborhoods of 11 percent
to 2 percent.
These findings raise a number of questions for further inquiry.
Most pertinent to the present study is the question of why both com-
plaint potential and performance respecting air pollution were respec-
tively two and three times higher in Buffalo than in Clarkston, given
the facts previously documented that three-fourths of the Clarkston
respondents considered air pollution serious in some degree, compared
to only about a third of the Buffalo sample. Equally intriguing is the
question of the extent to which these figures may be misleading as to
actual complaint potential. For example, in their comments on the
questionnaire, the Clarkston interviewers stated with reference to
Item No. 10 ("Have you ever thought of requesting some authority to
take action with reference to air pollution?"): "Many respondents said
'No, because it wouldn't do any good.' This was coded No. " (See
Appendix D.)
Situation-Altering Action Potential: In an attempt to explore the
potential for situation-altering actions other than complaints with refer-
ence to air pollution in Clarkston, the first step was to discover to
what extent respondents felt the situation could be altered from a tech-
nical point of view. For this reason they were asked: (Item 14) "Do
you believe that air pollution in Clarkston (a) Cannot be reduced below
its present level? (b) Can be reduced below its present level? (c) Can
be almost completely eliminated?"
30 OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
Replies to this item show that only 4 percent of the subjects who
believed air pollution existed in Clarkston (81) took the position that it
could not be further reduced, while 14 percent said they didn't know.
By contrast, 58 percent felt air pollution could be reduced, and 21 per-
cent felt it could be almost completely eliminated in Clarkston.
In Item 16, interviewers asked respondents, "Which one of these
statements do you think best describes the effort (each of the pollution
sources respondent mentioned) is making to control air pollution in
this area?" Table 24 presents the distribution of the respondents by
the fixed responses provided for this item. Considering only figures
for the PFI mill, nearly three-fourths of those who listed it as a pol-
lution source said to varying degrees that it was not doing as much as
it should to control air pollution in Clarkston.
Table 24. RESPONSES TO ITEM 16: "WHICH ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS DO YOU THINK
BEST DESCRIBES THE EFFORT (SOURCE(S) MENTIONED BY RESPONDENT) IS
MAKING TO CONTROL AIR POLLUTION IN THIS AREA?"
Effort
No effort to
control air
pol lution
Very little
effort
Some effort,
but not as
much as it
should
A great dea 1
of effort
Don't know
Total
mentions
Sources (1st, 2d, and 3d mentions)
Autos
6
3
1
0
0
10
Mill
4
13
41
15
5
78
Houses
1
1
2
0
2
6
Dump
0
2
2
1
1
6
Stockyard
1
1
0
0
0
2
Packing
Plant
3
0
0
0
1
4
Other
1
1
1
0
0
3
These two sets of data lead to the inference that a relatively high
potential for situation-altering actions exists in Clarkston with refer-
ence to the air pollution problem. Eighty percent of respondents who
recognized the existence of such a problem said it can be ameliorated;
75 percent of those who considered the PFI mill as the principal source
of the problem said it was not doing as much as it should towards such
amelioration.
Survey Findings
31
-------
To explore the ways in which this action-potential might take
expression respondents were asked: "What do you think is the most
important thing people should do about air pollution where it exists?"
(Item 22). One emotional-withdrawal possibility was offered: "Put
their minds on their work instead of on imagined or minor annoyances";
and one situation-defining or redefining alternative: "Try to get more
information on the subject. " The other two alternatives were more
situation-altering in nature although differing on the dimension of
activity-passivity; i.e., "Support the efforts which industry is making
to eliminate air pollution" (passive); "Ask their elected officials for
effective controls on air pollution" (active).
The distribution of responses among these possibilities (Table
25) shows that while respondents favor situation-altering actions over
Table 25. RESPONSE TO ITEM 22: "WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING
PEOPLE SHOULD DO ABOUT AIR POLLUTION WHERE IT EXISTS?"
Response
Put their minds on their
work instead of on imagined
or minor annoyances
Support the efforts which
industry is making to
eliminate air pollution
Ask their elected officials
for effective controls on
air pollution
Try to get more information
on the subject
Don't know
Totals
Percent
sample
6
38
34
20
2
100
95%
confidence
level
0-12
31-44
22-45
14-26
-
-
the other types by a ratio of 3 to 1, they are fairly evenly divided as
between the active and passive choices for situation-altering. This
equivalence disappears, however, when the various types of actions
recommended are analyzed by Scale Type (a) according to serious-
32
OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
ness of air pollution as a personal and community problem (Table 26).
This analysis indicates that persons who show high concern over air
pollution in Clarkston are three times as likely to recommend the
alternative of asking for effective controls as are respondents in the
low concern category, while the latter are five times as likely to favor
situation-defining or withdrawal actions.
Table 26. RECOMMENDED ACTION RE AIR POLLUTION, BY CONCERN WITH AIR POLLU-
TION (SCALE TYPE (a))a
Action recommended
Put mind on work
Support industry
efforts
Ask for effective
controls
Get more information
Totals
Scale type (a):
Concern with air pollution
Low
(Types 0-2)
6
19
9
14
48
High
(Types 3-4)
0
16
25
4
45
Totals
6
35
34
18
93
Statistical analysis chi square significant at 0.05 level
Response Characteristics of Persons in "High" or "Low"
"Concern With Air Pollution" Scale-Types
(Guttman Scale (a))
Guttman Scale analysis provided a means of dividing respondents
into five levels of concern with air pollution as a personal and com-
munity problem. We examined the relationship of that concern to other
attitudes within the scope of the survey to gain as complete an under-
standing as possible of the implications and ramifications of concern
with air pollution for situation-defining more generally.
PHENOMENAL AWARENESS OF AIR POLLUTION
To what extent does concern with air pollution relate to the tend-
ency to impute to others in the community an extensive awareness of
such pollution? Tabulating the distribution of respondents on Scale
Type (a) (Concern with Air Pollution) against that on Scale Type (b)
(Dimension of Awareness of Air Pollution) provides an answer to this
Survey Findings
33
-------
question. Table 27 shows persons in the extreme categories of con-
cern, Types 0 and 3-4, Scale (a), tend markedly to project their degree
of concern to others in the form of a high or low phenomenal awareness
of air pollution.
Table 27. SCALE TYPE (a) COMPARED WITH SCALE TYPE (b): CONCERN WITH AIR POL-
LUTION BY AWARENESS OF IT IMPUTED TO OTHERS IN THE COMMUNITY0
Scale type (b):
Awareness of air pollution
by ''others"
Types 0-2:
Types 3-5:
Low
High
Totals
Scale type (a): Concern with air pollution
Type 0
None
15
5
20
Types 1-2
Low-Moderate
14
16
30
Types 3-4
High
9
37
46
Total
38
58
96
Statistical analysis chi square significant at 0.01 level.
This tendency to projectivity may also be observed in respond-
ents' answers to item 19: "How do you think local doctors and local
papers feel about air pollution in this area?" Table 28 shows that
persons with high concern are about three times as likely to impute
such concern to doctors and newspapers, as are persons with low con-
cern. On the other hand, the difference in response between persons
of high and low concern to the question, "How do you think major local
industries feel about air pollution in this area?" (also item 19) cannot
be attributed to the operation of projectivity, since it appears princi-
pally in the "don't know" (DK) category (see Table 28). Persons of
high concern tend to focus much more sharply on what they define as
the source of their disturbance than do persons of low concern. Per-
sons of high concern also tend to know, or to say they know, what the
newspaper's position on air pollution is to a much greater extent than
do persons of low concern (low concern 55 percent DK re newspaper;
high concern 28 percent DK re newspaper). This finding is confirmed
by responses to item 23, "Have you read or seen anything in the news-
papers recently about air pollution?" The ratio of "yes" to "no"
response among persons of high concern was 50-50, compared to a
ratio of 1 "yes" to 4 "no" among those of low concern with air pollution
(chi square significant at 0.05). These findings are completely consist-
ent with results established from research on the selective impact of
mass media communication; namely, that the amount of impact varies
directly with subjects' pre-existing interest in the communication
content.10- n
34
OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
Table 28. CONCERN WITH AIR POLLUTION IMPUTED TO DOCTORS, NEWSPAPER, AND
MAJOR INDUSTRIES, BY RESPONDENTS' OWN CONCERN WITH AIR POLLUTION
(ITEM 19) (GUTTMAN SCALE (a))
Concern imputed to
local doctors
No air pollution; air
pollution not serious
Air pollution serious
Don't know
Respondent's concern with air pollution
Low
(Types 0-2)
19
5
26
High
(Types 3-4)
14
14
18
Concern imputed to
local newspaper
No air pollution; air
pollution not serious
Air pollution serious
Don't know
17
4
26
20
11
12
Concern imputed to
major local industries0
No air pol lution; air
pollution not serious
Air pol lution serious
Don't know
27
2
19
38
3
5
Statistical analysis chi square significant at 0.05 level.
CONCERN WITH AIR POLLUTION AND CONCERN WITH HEALTH
Concern with air pollution, as measured by Guttman Scale (a),
bears as it should a close relation to expressions of concern over the
effects of air pollution on health although, as Table 29 shows, this
relationship is far from perfect. It appears to be possible, in other
words, to feel a high degree of concern with air pollution as a problem,
without at the same time worrying over its effects on health; and half
the respondents in the high-concern category express this possibility.
Persons highly concerned with air pollution as a problem also tend to
feel a greater concern over water pollution as a problem, as Table 30
brings out.
Survey Findings
35
-------
Table 29. RESPONSE TO ITEM 17: "DO YOU WORRY ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF AIR POL-
LUTION ON YOUR HEALTH?" BY CONCERN WITH AIR POLLUTION (GUTTMAN
SCALE (a))a
Worry about effects of
air pol lution on hea Ith
"Yes" and ' 'other' J
"No" and not applicable
Concern with air pollution
Low
(Types 0-2)
6
44
High
(Types 3-4)
24
22
Statistical analysis chi square significant at 0.05 level
Table 30. RESPONDENT'S RATING OF SERIOUSNESS OF WATER POLLUTION AS A PROB-
LEM FOR CLARKSTON TODAY, BY HIS CONCERN WITH AIR POLLUTION (GUTT-
MAN SCALE (a))a
Seriousness of water pollution
Ser
Not
ous, somewhat serious
serious and don't know
Concern with air pollution
Low
(Types 0-2)
7
43
High
(Types 3-4)
16
30
Statistical analysis chi square significant at 0 05 level
That these concerns with air pollution, water pollution, and
health as affected by air pollution are not simply hypochondriacal in
origin may be seen from the cross-tabulations of Scale Type (a) with
respondents' own health rating (Table 31) and with their concern over
contagious diseases (Table 32). Persons high and low in concern for
air pollution distribute themselves in nearly identical fashion in their
self-ratings of health-status, and their opinion of the seriousness of
contagious diseases as a Clarkston problem.
COMMUNITY SATISFACTIONS AND CONCERN WITH AIR POLLUTION
The report, "Air Pollution Effects Reported by California Resi-
dents, "1 states that those affected by air pollution were more prone to
report dissatisfaction with their community. In Los Angeles County,
21 percent said they were not satisfied with the local area in which they
lived; the proportion was 25 percent among those bothered by air pol-
lution, but only 13 percent among those not bothered by air pollution.
The difference was even greater in the San Francisco Bay Area: 37
and 14 percent; and in the rest of the State: 30 and 16 percent.
There is no conclusive evidence for the Clarkston population that
this difference in community satisfaction exists as between those
36
OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
Table 31. CONCERN WITH AIR POLLUTION BY RESPONDENT'S HEALTH STATUS (SELF-
RATED)0
Self-rating of health
Fair, poor, very poor
Good, excellent
Total
Concern with Air Pollution
Low
11
39
50
High
9
37
46
Total
20
76
96
Statistical analysis chi square not significant.
Table 32. CONCERN WITH AIR POLLUTION BY SERIOUSNESS OF CONTAGIOUS DISEASES
AS CLARKSTON PROBLEM0
Concern with air pollution
Low
High
Seriousness of Contagious Diseases
Serious - Somewhat
serious
7
3
Not
serious
43
40
Don't
know
5
3
Total
50
46
Statistical analysis chi square not significant.
bothered arid not bothered by air pollution; or if it does, the sample
was too small or the questionnaire unsuited to discover it. Table 33
shows that a third of respondents who are not bothered or are bothered
only moderately by air pollution rate Clarkston an excellent place to
live, compared to only a fifth of the respondents who are highly con-
cerned with air pollution. Furthermore, nearly a fifth of the high-
concern group rate Clarkston fair to poor, compared to only a tenth of
the low-concern group. Chi square analysis demonstrates, however,
that this result has about a 20 percent chance of occurring through
sampling variation alone, which is too great a possibility to support
the inference of a difference in community satisfaction in the Clarkston
population of those concerned versus those not concerned with air pol-
lution.
If, however, the data from Table 33 are restricted in their ap-
plicability to members of the Clarkston sample only, the fact remains
that although the proportion dissatisfied with their community is only
two-thirds in Clarkston what it is in Los Angeles (14 percent versus
21 percent), the ratio (community dissatisfaction among those concerned
to community dissatisfaction among those not concerned with air pollu-
tion) is approximately the same for Clarkston as it is for Los Angeles
-- i. e., two to one.
Survey Findings
37
-------
Table 33. RATING OF CLARKSTON AS PLACE TO LIVE, BY CONCERN WITH AIR POLLU-
TION (SCALE (o))a
Rating of Clarkston
Excellent
Good
Fair-Poor)
Very Poor)
Totals
Concern with air pollution
Low (types 0-2)
17
28
5
50
High (types 3-4)
9
28
9
46
Statistical analysis chi square not significant.
A final attempt to relate community satisfaction with disturbances
attributed to air pollution may be of interest because of its negative
results: the analysis of seriousness of concern with air pollution among
those who spontaneously mentioned the Clarkston climate as an advan-
tage to living there, compared to those who did not mention it. To
account for this relationship, two alternate hypotheses are equally
plausible: (1) Persons who like Clarkston because of its climate are
insensitive to or are not bothered by the air pollution that may exist in
the area; or (2) persons who like the Clarkston climate are more con-
cerned with air pollution than those who are indifferent or negative to
it because such pollution may detract from the climatic advantages they
prize.
Unfortunately, the data show that neither hypothesis is tenable
at the conventional 0.05 level of statistical significance. (See Table
34.) At most, we can say that the distribution by spontaneous mention
of climate as an advantage by persons at the extremes of air pollution
concern (Guttman Scale (a) Types 0 and 4) is suggestive of the second
hypothesis.
Attitudes Toward Air Pollution Related to Respondents'
Ecological, Socio-Economic, and Demographic
Characteristics
To this point, this report has been primarily clinical or descrip-
tive of the extensity of the air pollution phenomenon as defined by
Clarkston residents; of the intensity of their concern with it as a source
of disturbance, personal and communal; of actions residents have taken
or propose to take with respect to air pollution; and of their attribu-
tions of its source.
38
OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
GPO 8203654
-------
Table 34. CONCERN WITH AIR POLLUTION, BY SPONTANEOUS MENTION OF CLIMATE AS
CLARKSTON ADVANTAGE0
Guttman scale (a):
Concern with air pollution
Spontaneous mention,
climate as advantage
Yes
No
None
Type 0
7
13
Low to High
Types 1-3
25
29
Very High
Type 4
13
9
3 Statistica I analysis chi square not significant.
The present and succeeding sections attempt to relate these atti-
tudinal variables to various characteristics of the respondents who
express them, so as to obtain an etiological as well as a clinical under-
standing of the phenomenon, "concern" or "disturbance" with respect
to air pollution. This attempt is not presented in any sense as an
explanation of variations in the attitudes under scrutiny, but only as a
necessary first step in arriving at such explanations.
We will first examine respondents' ecological characteristics;
i.e., respondents' geographic location with reference to presumed
sources of pollution in Clarkston and to topographic features of signifi-
cance in the meteorological diffusion of pollutants.
Previous studies have documented an ecological component in
levels of exposure, by residence, to different types of ambient air
pollution. 4, 12 That component follows roughly the pattern one would
expect, reasoning from the concentric zone model of urban develop-
ment advanced by E. W. Burgess, ^-^ i.e., of decreasing levels of
exposure with increasing radial distances from the center of the city
and the increasing socio-economic levels of its inhabitants. Differ-
ential exposure to particulates appears to follow this pattern more
closely than does exposure to gaseous pollutants such as sulfur
dioxide. H
In view of these findings, it seemed reasonable to attempt to
relate awareness and concern with air pollution on the part of Clark-
ston residents with their differential residential location. The contour
map of the Lewiston-Clarkston area (Figure 1) shows that with three
minor exceptions, (A, H, and G), all of the 20 potential air pollution
sources of an industrial nature in the area are located north of a line
bisecting Clarkston from east to west at the approximate location of
Sycamore Street (Figure 2). In addition, a rise in altitude of approxi-
mately 150 feet occurs from the northern to the southern boundaries of
the city although this is of a very gradual nature.
Survey Findings
39
-------
Figure 1 CONTOUR MAP OF LEWISTON-CLARKSTON AREA SHOWING MAJOR POTENTIAL SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION.
-------
Figure 2. AREA OF OPINION SURVEY IN CLARKSTON, WASHINGTON.
Key to Figure 1.
A. Guy Bennett Box Factory & Lumber Company
B. J. B. Lumber Company
C. Meats Incorporated Meat Packing Plant
D. Meats Incorporated Stockyard
E. Clarkston City Dump
F. Bristol Packing Company Meat Packing Plant
G. Asphalt & Paving Company
H. Bullet Factory
I Nez Perce Roller Mills - Feed Mill
J. Seabrook Farms Company - Frozen Food Plant
K. Smith Frozen Foods of Idaho
L. Twin City Plating & Manufacturing Company
M. Feed Mill
N. Twin City Sales Yard North Lewiston Stockyard
0. Twin City Sales Yard East Lewiston Stockyard
P Potlatch Forests Incorporated (PFI)
Q. Prairie Flour Mill Company
R. Lewiston Green Growers Inc. Feed Mill
S. Clarkston Sewage Treatment Plant
T. Lewiston Sewage Treatment Plant
Survey Findings
41
-------
Based on these two facts, a north-south division seemed the most
likely to provide differences in residential exposure to pollutants, on
the one hand, and differences in awareness of and concern of respond-
ents with such exposure on the other. To obtain such a division,
Sycamore Street extended to 15th was used as a boundary between the
northern and southern halves of the city. Between 14th and 15th Streets,
household street numbers in the 800's were placed in the north area;
and numbers in the 900's were placed in the south. So classified, 51
households of the sample fall in the northern half and 53 in the southern.
Turning now to responses of sample members in these two geo-
graphical areas, the first and major finding is that they show no sig-
nificant differences in recognition of the existence of air pollution or in
concern with it as a personal or community problem, using Guttman
Scale (a) as indicator of such concern. Sample members in the north-
ern sector are divided on a 50-50 basis as between scale types indicat-
ing high concern (3, 4) and low (0, 1, 2). In the southern sector there
is a slight preponderance of low-concern respondents over the high-
concern scale types, in the ratio of 13 to 11. So far as sheer aware-
ness or recognition of air pollution is concerned, 10 respondents in the
northern and 13 in the southern sections of Clarkston say air pollution
does not exist in the Lewiston-Clarkston area.
A much greater difference appears, however, in the phenomenal
awareness of air pollution between respondents in the northern and the
southern halves of Clarkston. In the southern sector respondents fall
almost equally in Scale Type (b) 0-2 (low phenomenal awareness) and
types 3-5 (high phenomenal awareness) (24 versus 29), whereas in the
northern sector only half as many respondents are in the low as in the
high awareness classification (17 versus 34).
Since this difference is below the 0.05 level of significance, no
claim will be made that it exists in the Clarkston population of house-
hold heads; however, this finding indicates that persons in the northern
sector may be more likely than those in the southern to think of air
pollution in terms of dustfall and nose and eye irritation, as well as
malodor.
As to attributed sources of air pollution, the data again show no
significant difference between respondents in the northern and southern
parts of Clarkston. Thirty-six in the northern and 39 in the southern,
give the mill as their first response to the question, "What do you think
are the major sources of pollution in this area?" (item 15). Five per-
sons, however, in the northern sector referred to some source other
than the mill in their first response compared to only one in the south-
ern sector. Table 35, which combines first and second mentions of
source by residential location of respondents, shows a more diverse
attribution of pollution sources among respondents in the northern than
in the southern section of Clarkston.
Finally, a difference appears in the number of respondents in the
42 OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
Table 35. ATTRIBUTED MAJOR SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION IN THE LEWISTON-
CLARKSTON AREA, BY GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION OF RESPONDENT (ITEM 15)
(FIRST AND SECOND MENTIONS OF SOURCE COMBINED)
Attributed source of pollution
Automotive vehicles
Pulp mill
Home trash burners
City dump
Stockyard
Packing plant
Other
Don't know
Geographic area of Clarkston
North
(Number mentions)
3
38
3
6
2
2
2
1
South
(Number mentions)
7
40
2
0
0
1
1
0
two areas who say that Clarkston has health problems that need cor-
rection: 43 percent (22) in the northern, compared to 26 percent (14) in
the southern section. Again, however, this difference is below the
0.05 level of significance.
Table 36 shows that water not air pollution accounts for the dif-
ference in concern in the two areas over the sources of Clarkston
health problems mentioned sponaneously by respondents.
To summarize, recognition of and concern with air pollution, as
expressed by the respondents and, by inference, the Clarkston popula-
tion, are not related to the residential location of respondents. Such
location does, however, appear to affect the nature of the air pollution
phenomenon as experienced by respondents; their attribution of second-
ary sources of pollution; and their concern with Clarkston health prob-
lems other than air pollution.
This finding throws into relief the significance of factors other
than exposure to pollutants "objectively" present in ambient air that
may underlie variations in expressed concern with air pollution as a
personal and community problem. These are the factors of personality,
social status, and culture, approached through behavioral rather than
physical science. The relatively small size of the sample precluded
detailed examination of these factors in the present case; an attempt
was made, however, to analyze variations in concern or disturbance
connected with air pollution, in relation to three social status variables:
occupation of household head; sex of respondent; and length of residence
in Clarkston.
SOCIAL STATUS VARIABLES IN RELATION TO CONCERN WITH
AIR POLLUTION
Before proceeding to the findings on the relationship of these
social status variables to concern with air pollution, some explanation
Survey Findings
43
-------
Table 36. RESPONSES TO ITEM 6: "DO YOU BELIEVE CLARKSTON HAS ANY HEALTH
PROBLEMS THAT NEED CORRECTION?"
Sources of health problems,
fi rst mentioned
Restaurants
Garbage dump, city dump
Animals, stockyard
Packing plant
Pulp mill
Water
Alleys, old housing slums,
abandoned buildings,
vacant lots
Air (general reference to
ai r pollution)
Other
No mention
Totals
Geographic location
North
Number respondents
1
1
2
0
7
8
1
1
1
29
51
South
Number respondents
2
1
0
0
6
0
1
2
2
39
53
may be in order of the selection of the variables themselves.
Occupation of household head, rather than occupation of respond-
ent, was selected because of its strategic position as indicator and
determinant of the general cultural outlook of a household or family
commonly associated with its social class position. Length of residence
is regarded here primarily as a social status variable, in the sense that
it differentiates old-timers or old-settlers from the relative new-
comers to an area. To an undetermined extent, however, it is possible
that length of residence may also be an indicator of different types or
degrees of physiological adaptation to environmental conditions such as
air pollution. Sex also is regarded here primarily as a social status
rather than as a physiological variable, although here again it is possi-
ble that physiological differences associated with sex may enter into
differential sensitivity to environmental conditions such as air pollution
independently of the behavior and culture patterns associated with sex
as a status.
44
OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
The general findings on the relation of these three variables to
concern with air pollution may be stated very simply in four proposi-
tions: (1) The higher the occupational level of the household head, the
greater is the concern with air pollution that is expressed by the head
or his spouse; (2) the longer the respondent's period, of residence in
Clarkston, the greater is his concern with air pollution in that city;
(3) the differentiation in concern with air pollution by occupational
group becomes more pronounced with length of residence in Clarkston
-- i.e., occupational status and length of residence status interact
positively in relation to concern with air pollution; and (4) there is no
difference in the degree of concern with air pollution expressed by men
and by women in the sample. This equivalence, however, tends to dis-
appear when response by sex is controlled by length of residence and by
occupation of household head.
Occupation of household head as factor in concern with air pol-
lution. Three categories graded by social status or prestige constitute
the occupational variable:
1. Managers, proprietors, professionals
2. Clerical and skilled labor
3. Semi-skilled and unskilled workers
Twenty-four respondents were classified in the first category,
37 in the second, and 26 in the third. Seventeen respondents fall out-
side the range of the occupational variable since they were not in the
labor market; household heads so classified were for the most part
retired.
Very little difference appears between respondents in the three
occupational categories so far as sheer awareness or recognition of air
pollution in Clarkston is concerned. Among professionals and managers,
22 say air pollution exists in Clarkston, 2 say it does not. Correspond-
ing figures for the clerical and labor categories are 29 to 8, and 21 to
4, respectively. Only among those not in the labor market does the
ratio, recognition non-recognition, approach equality at 9 to 8.
Similar distributions in the three occupational categories are also
observed in response to item 13 as to how much respondent is bothered
by air pollution. As between the responses, "not bothered, " "some-
what bothered," "bothered quite a lot," professionals, etc., are distribu-
ted 2-16-4; clerical workers, etc., 7-16-6; semi-skilled and unskilled,
5-14-2.
With respect to all other indices of concern with air pollution,
however, respondents in the professional-managerial categories dis-
tribute themselves in a markedly different way from those in the other
two occupational classes. Professionals, managers, and proprietors
are found nearly four times as frequently in the high phenomenal aware-
ness types of Guttman Scale (b) as in the low (19 to 5). Among clerical
workers and laborers, this ratio is approximately equal (20-17, 13-13).
Survey Findings 45
-------
Twice as many professionals, managers, and proprietors are in the high-
concern types of Guttman Scale (a) as in the low -- 15 to 7. Among cleri-
cal and skilled labor respondents, this ratio is 17 to 19; for laborers it
is 9 to 13. Respondents in the professional-managerial group are much
more apt to say they worry about the effects of air pollution on health
and property than are respondents in the clerical, etc., and labor cate-
gories (Tables 37 and 38); they are much more likely to have remem-
bered reading news about air pollution in the local paper (see Table 39).
Finally, professional and managerial respondents are much more likely
to rate air pollution as a serious problem for Clarkston today, than are
respondents in the other two categories (see Table 40). While none of
these differences in concern with air pollution by occupation of house-
hold head is significant at the 0.05 level, taken together they add up to
a picture that is important in the writer's opinion; namely, that respond-
ents in the professional and managerial category regard air pollution as
a serious problem facing the Clarkston community to a much greater
extent than do respondents in the other occupational classes. That pro-
fessional-managerial persons do not at the same time express them-
selves as being bothered to a greater extent by air pollution simply
supports the findings of other studies that such persons are better able
to distinguish between personal and community problems than are mem-
bers of other occupational classes. ^
Length of residence in Clarkston and concern with air pollution.
Theories of adjustment to noxious environmental conditions may be
divided roughly into one of two types according to whether they posit
habituation or exacerbation as the primary adjustive mechanisms.
According to theories of the first type, as length of exposure to the
noxious condition increases, the condition itself tends to recede into
the background of conscious awareness until the individual takes no
more notice of the condition than a fish may of water. By contrast,
theories of the second type hold that exacerbation with the condition
increases with length of exposure to it to the point that the individual
requires change of the environment or withdrawal from it.
To test these hypotheses, we divided respondents into two cate-
gories by length of residence in Clarkston: Those who had lived in
Clarkston in 1950 or before (40); and those who had moved to Clarkston
in 1951 or after (64). The second category included 13 respondents who
had moved from Lewiston to Clarkston in 1951 or later.
On one dimension of the attitudes under consideration, i.e.,
salience of air pollution as a source of disturbance, very little differ-
ence appears between the old-time residents and the newcomers; 35
percent of the former (14) compared to 31 percent of the latter (20)
mentioned air pollution spontaneously as a disadvantage to living in
Clarkston. On all other dimensions of awareness and concern, however,
the old-time residents distribute themselves very differently from the
newcomers. On the dimension, concern with Clarkston health prob-
lems, the two distributions are significantly different at the 0. 05 level:
55 percent of the old-timers compared to 22 percent of the newcomers
46 OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
Table 37. RESPONSE TO ITEM 17: "DO YOU WORRY ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF AIR POL-
LUTION ON YOUR HEALTH?" BY OCCUPATION OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD °
Occupation of
household head
Professional, etc.
Clerical, etc.
Labor
Worry about air pollution re health
Yes
9
10
3
No
11
17
18
Not appl icable,
other
4
10
5
3 Statistical analysis - chi square not significant.
Answered "No" to item, "Does air pollution exist in Clarkston?"
Table 38. RESPONSE TO ITEM 18: "DO YOU WORRY ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF AIR POL-
LUTION ON YOUR PROPERTY?" BY OCCUPATION OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD"
Worry about air pollution re property
Occupation of
household head
Clerical, etc.
Labor
Yes
1 2
12
7
No
0
15
11
Not applicable,
other
Q
10
8
Statistical analysis chi square not significant.
^Answer "No" to item, "Does air pollution exist in Clarkston?"
Table 39. RECENT EXPOSURE TO NEWS ABOUT AIR POLLUTION (ITEM 23), BY OCCUPA-
TION OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD0
Occupation of
household head
Professional, etc.
Clerical, etc.
Labor
Recent exposure to air pollution news
Yes
11
7
9
No
13
30
17
Statistical analysis chi square not significant.
Survey Findings
47
-------
Table 40. CONCERN WITH AIR POLLUTION (GUTTMAN SCALE (a)) BY OCCUPATION OF
HOUSEHOLD HEAD0
Occupation of
household head
Professionals, etc.
Clerical, etc.
Labor
Scale (a) type:
Concern v/ith air pollution
Low (types 0-2)
7
19
13
High (types 3-4}
15
17
9
u Statistical analysis -- chi square not significant
say Clarkston has health problems that need correction; nearly two-
thirds of the old-time residents who said Clarkston has such problems
mentioned either the mill or bad air spontaneously as a health problem,
compared to only 14 percent (2) of the newcomers who said Clarkston
had health problems (see Table 41). Twenty-five percent (16) of the
newcomers compared to 15 percent (6) of the old-time residents say
air pollution does not exist at any time in Clarkston. * Thirty-five
percent of the old compared to 17 percent of the new residents say air
pollution is a serious problem for Clarkston today, although nearly
identical proportions of the old and new residents say it is either a
serious or a somewhat serious problem 72 versus 70 percent.
Fewer old than new residents think that air pollution is becoming a less
serious problem -- 33 percent (13) compared to 54 percent (32). * A
significantly larger number of the old-time residents say they are
somewhat bothered or bothered quite a lot by air pollution in Clarkston
than do the new: 74 versus 57 percent. Significantly more of the old-
time residents fall in the high concern types of Guttman Scale (a) than
do the newcomers: 63 percent (24) vs. 38 percent (22). Finally, when
asked what they thought is the most important thing people should do
about air pollution where it exists, 45 percent (17) of the old-time resi-
dents said "ask their elected officials for more effective controls"
compared to only 28 percent (18) of the newcomers (see Table 42).
These facts seem to provide fairly solid support for the theory
that increasing length of exposure to what is defined as a noxious
environmental condition produces increasing exacerbation rather than
habituation to it. The Swedish study of hygienic nuisances from a sul-
fate pulp rnill5 also provides support for this view. According to the
report,
"In answer to the question as to whether the annoyance
had changed during the last three months, 5% of those
'- Differs
; not significant ai 0.05 level.
OPINION SURVEY OF AIE QUALITY
-------
Table 41. CONCERN WITH CLARKSTON HEALTH PROBLEMS, BY LENGTH OF RESIDENCE,
CLARKSTON°
Length of
residence,
Clarkston
1950 or before
19S1 or after
Totals
Clarkston health problems
No
health
problem
18
50
68
The mill
or
bad air
14
2
16
All other
health
problems
8
12
20
Total
40
64
104
3 Statistical analysis - chi square significant at 0.05 level.
Table 42. WHAT TO DO ABOUT AIR POLLUTION (ITEM 22) BY LENGTH OF RESIDENCE,
CLARKSTON0
Recommended action
residence,
Clarkston
1950 or before
1951 or after
Put mind
on work
2
4
Support
industry
13
26
Ask for
controls
17
18
Get more
information
6
15
Statistical analysis chi square not significant.
who were annoyed by the odor said that the annoyance
had lessened and 22% that it had increased." (p. 7).
The facts of the Clarkston survey, however, cast some doubt on
the validity if not the veracity of a further finding of the Swedish study
that "among those annoyed, 57% said that they believed they would get
used to the malodor" (p. 8).
The facts we reported in this survey have nothing to do with dif-
ferences in residential location of the old-time residents versus the
newcomers; actually, a somewhat larger proportion of the former than
of the latter live in the southern half of Clarkston (old-time residents:
17 in north, 23 in south; new residents: 34 in north, 30 in south). The
differences in concern with air pollution reported between old and new
residents, however, may derive to some extent from differences in
their occupational distribution; Table 43 shows that disproportionately
more new than old residents are classified in the clerical-skilled
worker and labor categories, although this difference is not significant
at the 0.05 level.
Survey Findings
49
-------
Table 43. LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN CLARKSTON, BY OCCUPATION OF HOUSEHOLD
HEAD0
Length of
residence in
Clarkston
1950 or before
1951 or after
Occupation of household head
Not in labor
market
(retired, etc.)
8
9
Professional,
etc.
11
13
Clerical,
etc.
12
25
Labor,
etc.
9
17
Statistical analysis chi square not significant.
To gain some idea of the nature of the interaction between the two
variables, length of residence and occupation of household head, so far
as this expresses itself in concern with air pollution, Table 44 shows
the distribution of respondents by occupational categories on Guttman
Scale (a) controlled by length of residence. From this distribution it
appears that length of residence operates in the same way on all occu-
pational categories, i. e., in the direction of greater concern with air
pollution, although the operation of this factor appears most pronounced
in the case of professionals, properietors, and managers. This obser-
vation, however, also leads to the conclusion that the difference in con-
cern with air pollution between old and new residents of Clarkston is
not simply an artifact of their differential occupational distribution.
Table 44. OCCUPATION, HOUSEHOLD HEAD, BY CONCERN WITH AIR POLLUTION
(SCALE (a)), CONTROLLED BY LENGTH OF RESIDENCE, CLARKSTON
Residence, Clarkston
1950 or before
Occupation of household head
Concern
with air
pollution
Low
(Types
0-2)
High
(Types
3-4)
Profes-
sional,
etc.
1
9
Clerical,
etc.
5
7
Labor
4
5
1951 or after
Occupation of household head
Concern
with air
pollution
Low
High
Profes-
sional,
etc.
6
6
Clerica 1,
etc.
14
10
Labor
9
4
50
OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
Sex of respondent is the final social status variable considered in
relation to concern with air pollution. The Swedish study^ showed that
more women than men reported annoyance with sulfate odors and that
this difference appeared in both younger and older age groups (see
Table 45).
Table 45. ODOR ANNOYANCE FOR WOMEN AND MEN IN TWO AGE GROUPS FROM "STUDIES
OF HYGIENIC NUISANCES OF WASTE GASES FROM A SULFATE PULP MILL" (IN
SWEDEN)0
Older men
(born 1909 or earlier)
Younger men
(born after 1909)
Older women
(born 1910 or earlier)
Younger women
(born after 1910)
Percent
annoyed by
"sulfate odor"
26
35
30
53
Percent
not annoyed by
" sulfate odor"
74
65
70
47
Reference 5, page 8.
Although we did not analyze response by age, our finding with
respect to sex is markedly different from the Swedish results. Briefly,
sex of respondent alone does not bear any relationship to differences in
concern with air pollution. Among men, 22 fall in the low-concern
types of Guttman Scale (a) (Types 0-2); 21 in the high-concern types
(3-4). Among women, the corresponding figures are 28 and 25. If
anything, men appear to have a greater degree of phenomenal aware-
ness of air pollution in Clarkston than do women; 64 percent of the men
are in the high phenomenal awareness types of Scale (b) (3-5), com-
pared to 58 percent of the women (not significant).
When response according to sex is controlled by other social
status variables, however, differences do show up in concern with air
pollution on the part of men compared to women. Table 46 introduces
as control, length of residence in Clarkston. These data show that
while the length of residence factor operates in the same direction for
both men and women, i. e., to produce more concern with air pollution,
this effect is much greater for men than for women.
Survey Findings
51
-------
Table 46. RESPONDENT'S SEX BY CONCERN WITH AIR POLLUTION, CONTROLLED BY
LENGTH OF RESIDENCE, CLARKSTON
Residence, Clarkston
1950 or before
Concern
with air
pol lution
Low (0-2)
High (3-4)
Total
Respondent's sex
mal e
4 (27%)
11 (73%)
15 (100%)
female
10 (44%)
13 (56%)
23 (100%)
1951 or after
Concern
with air
pol lution
Low
High
Total
Respondent's sex
male
18 (64%)
10 (36%)
28 (100%)
female
18 (60%)
1 2 (40%)
30 (100%)
Table 47. RESPONDENT'S SEX BY CONCERN WITH AIR POLLUTION, CONTROLLED BY
OCCUPATION OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD
with air
pol lution
(Scale (a))
Low (0-2)
High (3-4)
Occupation of household head
Professional, etc.
men
2
8
women
5
7
Clerical, etc.
men
10
5
women
9
12
Labor
men
4
6
women
9
3
Table 47 introduces as control, occupation of household head.
Here the data are simply inconclusive; if they show anything, it is that
far more study may be required to understand the differential response,
if any, of men and women to environmental conditions such as air pol-
lution.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
In a recent article, G. A. Hansen, Technical Director, Weyer-
hauser Company Pulp and Paperboard Division, states: "Since the time
the first kraft mill was built back in 1891, the men who operated these
mills were well aware of the fact that they had an air pollution problem
. . . Today, even with all of the progress in recent years, most kraft
pulp mills are still living with this problem. "15
Results of our survey of public opinion concerning air quality in
Clarkston in May 1962 demonstrate fairly conclusively (i.e., at the £
52
OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
level of confidence) that between 70 and 86 percent of household heads
and spouses in that city are also still living with this problem; that of
these, between 53 and 75 percent are "somewhat bothered, " and be-
tween 9 and 25 percent are bothered "quite a lot" by the problem; and
that only 17 to 32 percent of household heads and spouses would rate
air pollution "not serious" as a problem for Clarkston today. Trend-
wise, the survey shows that between 9 and 30 percent of household
heads and spouses in Clarkston think the air pollution problem has
grown "less serious" each year; between 14 and 36 percent think it has
become "more serious" each year; while from 16 to 38 percent say it
has "continuously been a serious problem" for Clarkston in recent
years.
When we measured degree of disturbance with respect to air pol-
lution, combining the elements of personal annoyance and community
concern with the problem, 21 percent of respondents scored in the "not
disturbed" range; 31 percent showed a degree of disturbance that ranged
from "low" to "moderate"; while 48 percent scored in the range of the
scale that indicated a "high" degree of disturbance with respect to air
pollution. Between 85 and 97 percent of the population surveyed would
say that the words "air pollution" mean frequent bad smells in the air
to most people in the Lewiston-Clarkston area; between 62 and 86 per-
cent would say these words mean frequent haze or fog in the air; between
55 and 68 percent, that they mean frequent nose or throat irritation;
between 31 and 50 percent, frequent irritation of the eyes; while 17 to
36 percent would say that air pollution means too much dust and dirt
in the air to people in the Lewiston-Clarkston Valley. As to source,
between 88 and 97 percent of those in the Clarkston population who
believe air pollution exists in the area mention first "the mill" or the
"pulp mill. "
Concerning actions they would take with reference to air pollution,
between less than 1 percent to 12 percent of the Clarkston population
would ignore the problem; from 14 to 26 percent would try to get more
information about it; between 31 and 44 percent are disposed to rely
primarily on industry's efforts at control; and from 22 to 45 percent
would ask their elected officials for enactment of controls on pollution
of the air.
Respondents' concern with air pollution as a personal and as a
community problem bears no relation to residential loca.tion in the
northern or southern half of Clarkston, although such location does
relate to differential awareness of dustfall as an aspect of air pollution;
more respondents who live in the northern half of Clarkston show such
awareness. This finding appears compatible with the widespread dif-
fusion of odor-bearing substances from kraft pulp mills reported in
other studies, 16 together with the geographic facts relating to location
of other industries in Clarkston.
Degree of disturbance or concern with air pollution does bear a
strong relationship, however, to length of residence in Clarkston and
Discussion 53
-------
to occupation of the household head. Approximately two-thirds of per-
sons interviewed who had lived in Clarkston in 1950 or before were
highly disturbed by air pollution as a problem, compared to a little
over a third of those who had moved to the city in 1951 or later. Inde-
pendently of length of residence, respondents from households whose
heads are professionals, proprietors, or managers express the most
concern with air pollution; those from households whose heads are
semi-skilled or unskilled express the least concern; those from cleri-
cal and skilled-craft backgrounds stand in between.
On the basis of these findings, air pollution in Clarkston appears
to constitute a problem that is community-wide in scope, both geo-
graphically and socially. In addition, the more involved or identified
persons are with Clarkston as a community, the more concern they
tend to express with air pollution as a community problem. In other
words, concern with air pollution in Clarkston does not apparently
stem from, lead to, or express generalized negative feelings towards
or rejection of the community as a place to live; on the contrary, such
concern appears to grow out of widespread feelings of civic pride and
community identification and to lead to attempts to ameliorate the situ-
ation. So far as the problem of air pollution in Clarkston is concerned,
the typical Clarkston resident may be compared to a man whose wife
has "B. O. " Such a man may love his wife and think not at all of leaving
her; yet he cannot help wishing at night or when company comes that
she or her doctor could rid her of this condition.
From the methodological standpoint of research on environmental
health problems, this study may be of interest in that it took place under
circumstances that dramatize the independence of psycho-social vari-
ables (e.g., awareness of environmental pollution, and definition of such
pollution as an individual or social problem) from physically defined
levels of pollution. The physical level of air pollution in Clarkston
appears to be roughly a constant for people who live in different areas
of the city; yet phenomenal awareness and concern with it as a prob-
lem vary markedly between socially defined sub-groups of the Clark-
ston population. In turn, this independence of the psycho-social from
the physical variables of the environmental health complex in Clark-
ston demonstrates the need to deal with each set of variables in terms
that are conceptually appropriate or relevant, rather than to reduce the
one set of variables to dependence on the other.
In a society, therefore, awareness or definition of pollution as
a problem cannot be regarded as a simple direct function of the society's
capacity to produce pollution. Instead, some of the same factors that
lead to high capacity to pollute the air may lead to low awareness of
air pollution as a social problem. In the Victorian society of Britain
and America, the cultural factors of individualism and sensual repres-
sion may have contributed to a high capacity for material production,
both of goods and of air pollution, and to a low awareness of air pollu-
tion as a social problem. Victorians adapted themselves to air pollu-
tion as did British moths, i. e., by melanism, 17 or they coped with it
individualistically by moving to the country if they could.
54 OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
GPO B2O-365-5
-------
Today broad changes in the social structure and ideology of American
society have given rise to a generally increased awareness and a gener-
ally lowered tolerance of air pollution as an environmental condition.
Among such changes may be cited:
1. The constantly declining proportion of blue collar as compared
to white collar workers in the labor force, with a corresponding in-
crease in middle-class white-collar dirt and odor phobia and emphasis
on cleanliness as a status symbol.
2. The increasing ideological emphasis on values relating to con-
sumption by comparison to those relating to production. Because of
this change of emphasis, industrial pollution may no longer be regarded
as positive evidence of success in production so much as evidence of
lack of success in consumption or "good living. "
Given these and other changes in the socio-cultural system,
a situation is entirely conceivable in which an increasing concern with
air pollution as a social problem may occur in the very same place and
period when physical levels of pollution are decreasing. In fact this
may well be the situation in Clarkston. The writer knows of no grounds
for doubting the statements of PFI officials that they have substantially
reduced the quantity of odor-bearing effluent from their mill in the
period 1951 to May 1962; yet in May 1962, 52 percent of respondents in
the present survey said air pollution as malodor had either remained
unchanged over these years as a serious problem for Clarkston or had
increased in gravity.
Examples of this kind make evident the need for a broad research
attack on the relationship between the social system and physical system
dynamics, which together constitute the eco-sphere of man. If men
define situations as real they will be real in their consequences. The
reality of the Clarkston residents' perception of their air environment
is evidently no simple function of the reality of that environment as
defined aerometrically. From increased understanding of the inde-
pendence -- and interdependence -- of these two orders of reality may
come progress in achieving the goals of environmental health.
Discussion 55
-------
REFERENCES
1. Air pollution effects reported by California residents. A special
air pollution study carried out under the general direction of
Lester Breslow, Chief, Bureau of Chronic Diseases. From The
California Health Survey. State of California Dept. of Public
Health, n. d. 56 pp.
2. Public awareness of air pollution as a community problem in
Erie County, N.Y. Preliminary report. P. Valien. New York
State Air Pollution Control Board. 1957. See also unpublished
paper, same title, presented to Engineering and Sanitation
Section, APHA, 1959, by P. Valien.
3. Telephone survey of Buffalo residence to replicate 1958 study.
(See reference 2 above.) Sponsoring Agency: USPHS DAP.
Report forthcoming. (N. Medalia, DAP, Project Officer;
I. deGroot, University of Buffalo, Field Supervisor.)
4. The public reaction to air pollution in Nashville, Tenn. W. S.
Smith, D. Zeidberg, and J. J. Schueneman. JAPCA. 14:418-23.
Oct. 1964.
5. Studies of hygienic nuisances of waste gases from a sulfate pulp
mill (Part I): An interview investigation. L. Friberg, E.
Jousson, and R. Cederlof. Norsk Hygienisk Tidskrift (Scandi-
navian Hygiene Magazine). 41(Nos. 3-4):41-62. 1960.
6. Report to the Senate of the 120th General Assembly, State of
Delaware, by the Delaware Air Pollution Authority, March 14,
1960.
7. Community reactions to air force noise. Parts I and II. P. N.
Borsky. National Opinion Research Center, Univ. Chicago.
March 1961. 91 pp. and 171 pp. Sponsoring Agency: Air
Research and Development Command, USAF, Wright-Patterson
AFB, Ohio.
8. Sociological studies in scale analysis. M. W. Riley et al.
Rutgers Univ. New Brunswick, N.J. 1954. 433pp. See
especially Chapter XII, A rapid scoring procedure for scaling
attitude questions, by R. N. Ford. pp. 273-306.
9. A rapid machine procedure for determining scalability of any
number of questions. J. N. Ake. Public Opinion Quarterly.
26:121-125. Spring 1962.
10. Some principles of mass persuasion. D. Cartwright. Human
Relations. 2:253-267. 1949.
References 57
-------
11. Some reasons why information campaigns fail. H. H. Hyman
and P. B. Sheatsley. Public Opinion Quarterly. 11:412-23.
Fall 1947.
12. The Erie County air pollution pulmonary function study: Study
design and selected preliminary findings. W. Winkelstein, Jr.
and I. deGroot. Am. Rev. Resp. Dis. 86(6):902. 1962.
13. The growth of the city. In: The City. R. E. Park, ed. Univ.
Chicago Press, Chicago, 111. 1925. pp. 47-62.
14. Social class and modes of communication. L. Schatzman and
A. Straus. Am. J. Sociology. 60:329-38. Jan. 1955.
15. Odor and fallout control in a Kraft pulp mill. G. A. Hansen.
JAPCA. 12:409-13. Sept. 1962.
16. Evaluation of odor nuisance in the manufacture of Kraft paper.
J. M. Dallavalle and H. C. Dudley. Public Health Reports.
54:35-43. Jan. 1939.
17. Animal species and evolution. E. Mayr. Harvard Univ. Press,
Cambridge, Mass., 1963. p. 242 ff.
58 OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
APPENDIX A
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
CLARKSTON
Conducted by
Research Triangle Institute
P. O. Box 490
Durham, North Carolina
IDENTIFICATION
1) Address
2) Sampling Unit No.
3) Household No.
4) Sex of Respondent:
a. Male
b. Female
Budget Bureau No: 68-6214
Approval Expires: Sept. 30, 1962
PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY
Sponsored jointly by
Division of Air Pollution, Public Health
Service, Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare
Washington State Department of Health
and
City of Clarkston, Washington
RECORD OF VISITS
5) Interviewer:
Date
Interview time
Began
Ended
Time of day
(if no contact)
a. m.
p. m.
a. m.
p. m.
a. m.
p. m.
HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION
Household
Member
HEAD
No. in
HH
XX
Sex
Age
Education
Occupation
Employer
ALL INFORMATION WILL BE HELD IN STRICT CONFIDENCE.
Appendix A
59
-------
1. In general, how would you rate Clarkston as a place to live ?
Would you rate it:
EXCELLENT
GOOD
FAIR
POOR
VERY POOR
DON'T KNOW
(If "EXCELLENT, GOOD, or FAIR, " ask Questions 2 and 3 in order;
if "POOR, VERY POOR, or DON'T KNOW, " ask Question 3 and then
Question 2. Start first question asked with "What are some of the
things, " next question with "Are there some things. ")
2. A. (*re S°me °lthe tMngS) you like about living in Clarkston,
vAre there some things ' J
things that you think are advantages or that make this a good
place to live ?
B. Have we overlooked anything?
. ,What are some of the things* , ., ... , . ,. .
3. A. ( ... ., . b ) you don't like about living in
vAre there some things ' J &
Clarkston, things that you think are disadvantages ?
B. Have we overlooked anything?
60 OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
4. A. In what year did you move to Clarkston?
B. Where was your last place of residence before moving to
Clarkston ?
(City or County) (State)
5. A. Since living in Clarkston, have you ever moved from one
neighborhood to another?
YES NO
If YES, For what reason?
Any other?
B. Have you ever thought of moving from this neighborhood to
another in this area?
YES NO
If YES, For what reason?
Any other?
C. Have you ever thought of moving to some city or town outside
this area?
YES NO
If YES, For what reason?
Any other ?
6. Do you believe Clarkston has any health problems that need
correction?
YES NO DON'T KNOW
If YES, What problems ?
Appendix A 61
-------
7. How would you rate your health at the present time ?
Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent
8. Do you ever worry about your health ? YES NO
If YES, How frequently? Often Sometimes Hardly Ever
9. Here are a few problems which different communities are facing.
How would you rate each of these for Clarkston today in terms of
serious, somewhat serious, or not serious?
Somewhat Not Don't
Serious Serious Serious Know
(a) Outbreaks of contagious
diseases such as whoop-
ing cough, diphtheria,
etc.
(b) Water pollution
(c) Air pollution
10. Have you ever thought of requesting some authority or agency to
take action concerning any of these problems ?
YES NO
If YES, (a) What problems?
(b) Have you ever actually made such a request?
YES NO
If YES, To whom did you make the request?
11. Do you think there is air pollution in Clarkston at any time during
the year?
YES NO
(If NO, skip to Question 19.)
12. When did you first notice air pollution in Clarkston?
62 OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
13. Which one of these statements applies to you? (CARD A)
CHECK ONE
Since living in Clarkston
(a) I have not been bothered by air pollution.
(b) I have been somewhat bothered by air
pollution.
(c) I have been bothered quite a lot by
air pollution.
If (b) or (c), A. Has air pollution bothered you more, about the same,
or less each year?
More About the same Less
B. In what season are you bothered by air pollution?
(Check all that apply.)
Winter Spring Summer Fall
14. Do you believe that air pollution in Clarkston CHECK ONE
(a) Cannot be reduced below its present level ?
(b) Can be reduced below its present level ?
(c) Can be almost completely eliminated?
15. What do you think are the major sources of air pollution in this
area? (List in order of importance.)
Any other?
16. Which one of these statements do you think best describes the
effort is making to control air pollution
in this area? (CARD B)
Source 1 Source 2
(a) No effort to control air pollution.
(b) Very little effort to control air
pollution.
(c) Some effort to control air pollution,
but not as much as it should.
(d) A great deal of effort to control air
pollution.
(e) Don't know.
Appendix A 63
-------
17. Do you worry about the effects of air pollution on your health?
YES NO
If YES, How often? Sometimes Frequently
Almost never
18. Do you worry about the effects of air pollution on your property?
YES NO
If YES, How often? Sometimes Frequently
Almost never
19. How do you think (local doctors), (local papers), (major local
industries) feel about air pollution in this area? (CARD C)
Major Local
Local Doctors Local Papers Industries
(a) They feel there is
no air pollution in
this area.
(b) They feel there is
air pollution here,
but they think it is
not a serious
problem.
(c) They feel air pol-
lution is a serious
problem here.
(d) Don't know.
20. What do you think the words "air pollution" mean to most people
in this area? Do they mean:
Don't
Yes No Know
(a) Frequent bad smells in the air ?
(b) Too much dirt and dust in the air ?
(c) Frequent haze or fog in the air?
(d) Frequent irritation of the eyes?
(e) Frequent nose or throat irritation?
(f) Other
64 OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
21. Which one of these statements do you think best describes the
situation in this area in recent years? (CARD D)
CHECK ONE
(a) Air pollution has not been a serious problem for
this area.
(b) Air pollution has become a more serious problem
each year for this area.
(c) Air pollution has become a less serious problem
each year for this area.
(d) Air pollution has continuously been a serious
problem for this area.
22. What do you think is the most important thing people should do
about air pollution where it exists ? What is the next most
important thing ? (GARDE)
Most Next Most
Important Important
(a) Put their minds on their work instead
of on imagined or minor annoyances.
(b) Support the efforts which industry is
making to eliminate air pollution.
(c) Ask their elected officials for effective
controls on air pollution.
(d) Try to get more information on the
subject.
(e) Other
23. One final question: Have you read or seen anything in the news-
papers recently about air pollution?
YES NO
If YES, What was it?
Appendix A
-------
Interviewer's Comments
A. Respondent's understanding of questionnaire: If you feel that
respondent had POOR UNDERSTANDING of the questionnaire
(i. e., you had to explain a great many of the items), check
below:
B. Respondent's interest in subject of air pollution:
HIGH (respondent made spontaneous comments
about air pollution; seemed to want to
talk about it)
AVERAGE (respondent answered questions without
being pushed, but didn't volunteer
information)
LOW (respondent didn't want to talk about air
pollution -- you had to drag answers
from him)
66 OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
APPENDIX B
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLING PROCEDURE
An area probability sample of approximately 100 households* in
Clarkston, Washington, was designed for this study. The decision to
limit the sample size to 100 interviews was based on two factors, the
allowable sampling error and cost. The size of the budget necessarily
limited the total sample. It was known in advance, however, that
sample estimates of the proportion of households in Clarkston with a
particular characteristic or attribute would have absolute standard
errors less than 0. 06 for the most part with this sample size and
sample design. This magnitude of error was considered acceptable
for the purpose of the study.
The sample design is described technically as a stratified random
sample of equal sized geographic strata. Since a complete list of the
households in Clarkston was not available, an area sampling frame was
constructed. Briefly, this was accomplished by first dividing the total
eligible area into a large number of small areas or segments on a map.
Each segment had boundaries that could be readily identified in the field.
For the most part, the segments were city blocks bounded by streets.
Second, a preliminary measure of the number of houses in each segment
(or block) was obtained by counting on an aerial photo of the city. This
count indicated a total of 2, 462 houses at the time the photo was taken.
The resulting list of segments, together with the rough count of houses
in each, constituted a frame from which a number of different sample
designs could be constructed.
For this survey, the sampling unit was defined to be a cluster of
approximately 5 households located within an area segment. The city
of Clarkston was assigned a total of 500 sampling units. Using the photo
count data as a measure of size, we assigned one or more of these 500
sampling units to each of the segments. Thus, a segment with a photo
count of 17 houses was assigned 3 sampling units; a segment with a photo
count of 9 was assigned 2 sampling units, etc. The exact assignment
procedure employed the average photo count per sampling unit, namely
2462/500 or 4.924.
A total of 10 geographic strata containing 50 sampling units each
were then constructed by grouping contiguous segments. Two sampling
units were then selected with equal probability and without replacement
from each stratum for the sample by drawing two different random num-
bers between 1 and 50 for each stratum.
*A household includes all of the persons, without regard to relationship, living together with
common housekeeping arrangements in the same house, apartment or other groups of rooms, or
room, that constitute a dwelling. Institutions, large rooming houses, hotels, etc. were not
counted as households.
Appendix B 67
-------
The sample segments containing the selected sampling units
were then visited and detailed sketches prepared indicating the location
of each house along with its street number. It was then possible to
delineate the sampling units in each sample segment and determine the
cluster of households selected. For example, a sample segment with
3 sampling units and 20 actual houses was divided into 3 clusters of 7,
7, and 6 houses each and the selected sampling unit delineated on the
sketch. These sketches were used by the interviewers to locate the
sample households.
In summary, the sample is characterized by the following:
Number of universe (Clarkston) sampling units = 500
Average photo count per sampling unit = 2462/500 = 4. 924 houses
Number of strata = 10
Number of universe sampling units per stratum = 50
Number of sampling units in the sample = 2 x 10 = 20
Sampling rate in each stratum = 2/50 = 1/25
Overall sampling rate 20/500 = 1/25
A single interview was to be completed in each sample household
either with the head of the household (principal breadwinner) or the
spouse with approximately equal frequency. A total of 120 households
were designated for interview. Interviews were completed in 104 of
these households.
68 OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
APPENDIX C
MANUAL OF INSTRUCTIONS FOR INTERVIEWERS
A. Purpose of the Study
The problem of air pollution has become increasingly important in
recent years. Individuals living in areas where there is air pollution
know that it can be a nuisance as well as an expense, and they are
familiar with the discomfort it can cause. In order to know what meas-
ures need to be taken to solve the problem, authorities must know the
manner in which the community conceives of air pollution in terms of
seriousness of the problem, effects of air pollution on health and prop-
erty, and knowledge of the nature and sources of air pollution.
The purpose of the study, therefore, is to obtain general and spe-
cific data concerning the opinions of the residents of Clarkston on air
pollution.
Your job is a very important one because the success of the local
health programs and the success of the survey may well depend upon the
accuracy of the information you supply. Certainly the results of the
investigation will be of little value if you fail to do your job well.
Remember that interviewing is just as important a link as any other in
the chain of the survey process. Study this manual well so that your
interviews can be conducted courteously, accurately, and expeditiously.
B. Definition of Terms
The terms included here are those generally concerned with the
survey process and are used throughout the manual.
1. Call-back
By call-back will be meant the return visit to a sample household
where an interview could not be completed on the first call. Call-backs
will be made at least twice (three visits in all) before classifying the
household as not available for interviewing. The three calls should be
made at different times of the day.
2. Dwelling Unit (DU)
A dwelling unit is defined as the living quarters occupied by, or
intended for occupancy by, one household. It is to be distinguished from
the structure which may contain one or more dwelling units and hence,
one or more households. For example, an apartment house consists of
several dwelling units in one building. A dwelling unit may be a
detached house, an apartment in a large building, or rooms in a struc-
Appendix C 69
-------
ture primarily devoted to business or other non-residential purposes.
3. Household (HH)
A household includes all of the persons, without regard to relation-
ship, living together with common housekeeping arrangements in the
same house, apartment or other groups of rooms, or room, that consti-
tute a dwelling unit. Institutions, large rooming houses, etc., are not
counted as households.
4. Head of Household
The head of the household is defined as the principal breadwinner
of the household.
5. Interviewer
The interviewer is the agent of those persons conducting the sur-
vey, and is the person who obtains the information from the respondent
by a personal interview.
6. Questionnaire
The questionnaire is the form which contains the specific questions
to be asked during the interview. The pertinent information received
from the respondent is recorded on the questionnaire.
7. Random Number
Any number selected at random (purely by chance) from all num-
bers up to a designated one is a random number. Random numbers
have been used to select the sampling units for the sample.
8. Respondent
A respondent is the person who is questioned by the interviewer.
There will be one respondent for each family. In most cases the
respondent will be specified.
9. Sampling Unit
A sampling unit is that combination of dwelling units which has
been selected at random to comprise the sample. All households within
the dwelling units comprising the sampling unit are to be interviewed if
they are defined as in (3). In most cases a sampling unit will be desig-
nated on a sketch showing addresses. In some cases, no addresses are
given but a specific lot is located. In this case, interviews should be
conducted with occupants of all dwelling units on that lot.
70 OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
GPO 8ZO-36S-6
-------
C. Materials Provided
1. Maps showing the general area of the city to be visited.
2. Sketch maps showing the exact location of the dwelling units in the
sample.
3. Manual of Interviewer's Instructions.
4. Questionnaires.
5. A set of five flash cards, A through E, for use with questionnaire.
6. Identification.
7. Expansion envelopes.
8. Clip board.
9. Pencil and pencil sharpener.
D. Plan of the Study
The method of collecting the data for this study is known as a sam-
ple survey. Using scientific sampling techniques we have endeavored
to give every household within the defined geographic limits of the sur-
vey an equal chance to provide us with information about their opinion
on air pollution. Although only a small proportion of the households
have actually been chosen for the sample, the design used will enable us:
1. To estimate the proportions of the universe of Clarkston who
are disturbed by air pollution.
2. To determine the public's opinion concerning the source and
severity of the problem.
3. To determine the public's opinion concerning the effects of
pollution on health and property.
4. To determine to some extent the geographic distribution of
those disturbed by air pollution.
5. To establish relationships of concern about air pollution to
a few personal characteristics.
The sample design is such that we have not selected certain groups
or certain households in preference to others; we have not, for example,
selected low income families rather than high income. The sample,
having been selected at random from all households in the universe, will
have all groups represented in their proper proportion. The particular
households which you, as an individual, will interview may not appear
to be representative of the locality or the city. Please remember that
the sample as a whole will represent the city and your part is essential
to complete the picture.
Although we are using what is known as an area sampling procedure,
we have endeavored to construct the size of the area segment (sampling
unit) such that each sampling unit will contain, on the average, about
Appendix C 71
-------
five households.
As stated above, the inquiry will cover a cross section of house-
holds in the city of Clarkston. The sampling units have been distributed
proportionately over the city. A total of 20 sampling units have thus
been selected and designated.
The point should also be made that sampling is a "delicate" job.
When we interview approximately 100 households and use the sample
figures to estimate what we would find had we visited all the households
in the universe, it becomes clear that accurate interviewing of every
household in the sample is important. Small mistakes in a sample
become large mistakes in the expanded results.
You will be given a questionnaire which tells you what to ask and
gives space to record replies. Your skill in getting the information and
your accuracy in recording it will determine to a large extent the relia-
bility of the report that comes from this study.
E. Field Procedures
For your assignment you will be given a list of the sampling units
you are to visit, and sketch maps corresponding to the list. The sam-
pling units will be identified by a number, and each dwelling unit within
the sampling unit will be labelled with a number. This number is called
the household number and will be placed on the questionnaire along with
the sampling unit number to identify each questionnaire. All maps will
show the names of the street boundaries for every block in which a
sampling unit falls. The location of the sampling units within the block
will also be shown.
On most of the maps, house numbers will be given. First locate
the sample dwelling units by examining the maps, and then compare the
house number on the house with that given. If they agree, you can be
fairly sure that you have the right dwelling units. If they disagree,
re-examine your map to be sure no mistake was made. If you are
unable to determine the sampling unit, consult your supervisor.
In addition to the household number, each dwelling unit on the
sketch map will be labelled M (male) or F (female), indicating the
respondent for that household, if the household contains a married
couple. If it is a two or more couple household, take the head of the
household or his spouse, depending on the sex specified. In households
with no couple, the head will be interviewed in all cases, ignoring the
M or F label assigned to the dwelling unit. If the person specified for
interview is not available on the first call, try to determine when he or
she will be home and plan your call-backs accordingly.
Should you find that what is indicated on the sketch map as one
dwelling unit is actually more than one, interview one respondent in
72 OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
each dwelling unit, beginning with the sex indicated and alternating.
Any large multiple dwelling unit or unusual situation should be reported
to your supervisor.
A total of three calls will be made at each dwelling. If contact is
not made on the first call, plan your next call for a different time of
the day. If after two calls at different times of the day, contact still
has not been made, chances are that the occupants work and an evening
would be a better time to find someone at home. If after three calls at
various times contact has not been made, mark the questionnaire "No
Contact" and turn it in, with the sampling unit number and household
number specified.
F. Conducting an Interview
Preliminaries. -- Interviewing involves much more than reading
off a series of questions and recording answers. Before you can even
start in with the questions you must establish a friendly but business-
like relationship with the respondent. Begin by introducing yourself,
giving your name and the names of the sponsors of this study, as:
"Good (Morning, Afternoon, Evening). My name is
I am working with the Research Triangle Institute as an employee of the
Washington State Department of Health. We are conducting a survey
regarding certain health conditions in Clarkston. To do this we need
help from the residents of the city. May I speak to the (lady, man) of
the house for a few minutes?" Show your identification if the family
needs assurance that you are what you represent yourself to be and that
this is a bona fide survey.
Next explain why you are there, suiting the wording of your expla-
nation to the understanding of your respondent. Make clear that cooper-
ation is voluntary, but that it is very important to the success of the
project that every family in the sample cooperates. If they don't, we
will not have a cross section of the population and our data may not be
representative. Assure your respondent that the information will be
considered strictly confidential.
Many respondents are flattered to think that they have been chosen
to be included in a survey. Most show no curiosity as to how the selec-
tion has been made, but occasionally a respondent will ask how or why
his family was chosen. You can explain that a representative cross
section of the city is being interviewed; that to get this cross section
the city was divided into small areas in which all dwellings are being
visited. Stress the fact that the information obtained from the study
will not give a true picture of the city unless all families who are asked
for information cooperate.
The interview. -- The length of time you spend in explaining the
purpose of the study, in assuring your respondent of the confidential
nature of the study, and in outlining the types of information you will be
Appendix C 73
-------
talking about varies with the respondent-. You will soon learn to know
how far you need to go with explanations, and when the respondent is
ready for you to begin asking questions.
Be prepared to have the respondent stop the interview with ques-
tions about how the information he is giving you will be used, why he
instead of his neighbor was chosen, etc. Repeat -- using slightly dif-
ferent words -- what you may have already told him, or explain in
greater detail the points that seem to bother him. Reassure him that
the information he gives is confidential.
Begin the interview in whichever room suits the respondent, or
outside if the weather is suitable and there is a comfortable place to
sit. It is often possible to conduct the interview while the homemaker
continues with her ironing or sewing or cooking.
Generally speaking, you will want to conduct the interview when the
respondent is alone, but husband/wife and children or other close mem-
bers of the family group cannot be chased away. The presence of
neighbors, inlaws, etc., tends to affect the freedom with which people
respond to questions. It also seems to be a contradiction to your state-
ment that this is a confidential survey. Whenever you sense that the
third person is making your respondent uncomfortable, suggest that
you make an appointment at a later time.
It is up to you to set the pace of the interview. The respondent
expects this since you requested the interview and are the one who
knows the business to be done. A respondent may talk a great deal
because he feels uneasy or embarrassed or because you are too slow.
It is well to move on to the next question as soon as he has given an
answer, unless you have some doubts either of his understanding of the
question or of your understanding of his reply. If you hurry him too
much, however, the respondent may become confused and lose interest.
Don't get so buried in the schedule that you forget to look at your
respondent now and then. He is watching you, too, and will be alert to
any reactions you show to his answers. Strive hard to maintain a
friendly but business-like and non-committal attitude throughout the
interview. Ask about each item without emphasis or show of curiosity
and do not show any reaction to the replies you receive. DO NOT
DISCUSS YOUR OWN ATTITUDES on any of the matters covered in the
schedule.
In general, the questions should be asked in the form in which they
appear on the schedule. On occasion you will want to preface a question
with another question leading up to it. When you do use wording differ-
ent from that in the schedule, be sure not to ask "leading" questions.
By that we mean questions that invite a certain answer or make it easier
to reply in one way than in other possible ways.
You will probably get the answer "I don't know" quite frequently.
74 OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
You will soon recognize that sometimes the respondent really means he
doesn't know, but other times he simply means that your question re-
quires thinking about and he feels he has to say something to fill the
time while he thinks. In the latter case give him the time he needs to
pull his thoughts together.
In research work of this kind each schedule is of equal importance
in what it contributes to the whole picture. Give as careful attention to
the lower income family as to the prosperous family, to the poor house-
keeper as to the "neat-as-a-pin" type. To get equally good schedules
from all respondents, you must recognize your own prejudices, what-
ever they may be, and keep from revealing them. As soon as you let
it be known that you disapprove of something about your respondent, you
will jeopardize the truthfulness and completeness of the information he
gives.
Concluding the interview. -- After you have finished asking all the
questions on the schedule, look it over quickly to see if you have omit-
ted anything. You may have turned two pages at a time, or skipped
some items when you had an interruption. Complete any omitted items,
then thank the respondent for his time and cooperation. Leave him feel-
ing friendly toward you and the sponsors of this survey. Make him feel
that his time has been well spent and that he has made a useful contri-
bution .
Reviewing the schedule
As soon as possible after each schedule is taken, go over it to
make sure that every entry is complete, and that there is an entry for
every item. Do this while the interview is fresh in your mind. Turn
completed work in to your supervisor promptly.
Refusals
Actual refusals are rare. We have found that most families are
friendly and willing to cooperate. Perhaps only 5 people out of 100 will
refuse to give a schedule. It is quite likely, therefore, that you will
not experience a refusal. A few words on the subject are in order,
however, so that you will know how to handle the situation.
First, a refusal is not necessarily a reflection on you as an inter-
viewer. Even the best interviewers experience an occasional refusal.
On the other hand, one of the marks of a good interviewer is a low
refusal rate.
Secondly, don't let a refusal, should you meet with one, influence
your attitude. Nothing will bring on a refusal faster than an apologetic
approach. It is important that you meet your respondent with a friendly,
confident air.
Refusals may occur for many reasons. The person who refuses
Appendix C 75
-------
may have had a bad experience on another occasion when his confidence
was violated. He may be in a bad mood that day and be ready to say
"no" to any proposition. He may feel that giving the interview will
serve no useful purpose. In any case, listen to what he has to say.
People are frequently willing to change their tune once they have gotten
something that rankles off their chest. Don't argue. Be noncommittal
but sympathetic and you may win over a person who started out to be
uncooperative.
A respondent may say that he is too busy to take time for an inter-
view. Most of us will try to get out of work if we can. In such cases,
try to get the interview started. Once it is started, most people will go
through with it.
You may find some respondents who would like to refuse but are too
polite to do so. In this situation, your best course of action is to get
the interview started and keep it going. Try not to have to make an
appointment to do1 or complete an interview at a later time if you feel
that your respondent is antagonistic. Such a person will frequently
"refuse" by failing to keep an appointment.
G. Questionnaire
1. General Instructions
a. All sentences in parentheses are directions for the interviewer.
b. There are five questions which use cards for the respondent's
answer. These cards are lettered A E and are to be used as
instructed in the questionnaire. They are not to be read to the
respondent unless he cannot read. They should be handed to
the respondent for his own perusal. Ask only for the number or
letter next to the statement which best describes his answer. If
he gives the statement, ask what the number or letter for that
statement is.
c. Be sure to read the questions exactly as they are written. Try
to memorize them so that your manner will be natural, but do
not change the wording. These questions have been carefully
written to insure maximum accuracy and standardization.
Speak slowly and distinctly.
d. An attempt has been made to provide answer blanks for every
possible response. When there is not enough space to record
an answer, use the back of the previous page, making sure the
question number identifies the answer.
e. Where the questions are self-explanatory, no further instruction
is given.
76 OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
f. Never read the respondent a "Don't Know" answer. If he
gives you that answer, and after a pause and possible re-
wording of the question he insists he doesn't know, record
it as such. If there is not a place to check "Don't Know, "
write it on the questionnaire.
2. Specific Instructions
a. IDENTIFICATION (cover page)
2) Sampling Unit Number - Enter the number that appears on
the sketch map.
3) Household Number Enter the number assigned to the
dwelling unit on the sketch map.
b. RECORD OF VISITS (cover page)
Enter the date of each call in the space provided. If you have
to make more than one call to find someone at home, enter the
time of day of each visit. Record the time interview begins and
ends in the space provided.
c. HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION
To be filled for the head of the household and his spouse, if for
a household with a married couple. To be filled for the head
only if no couple resides in the dwelling unit. The education
space should show the last grade completed; college should be
indicated by 13, 14, 15, etc. Be sure to specify the type of
work under occupation; for instance, machine operator, sales
clerk, milk route driver, etc., not just operator, clerk, truck
driver. Give the name of employer and kind of place employed;
for example, grain store, insurance office, pottery factory, etc.
d. Questions:
1. Do not read answers to respondent unless you are unable to
categorize his reply.
2 and 3. Note instruction on questionnaire in regard to order
of questions 2 and 3. Use short phrase description of areas
mentioned by respondent; for example, taxes, cost of living,
climate, poor shopping facilities, etc.
4A and 4B. If respondent has lived in Clarkston all his life,
enter NA (not applicable) in answer blank.
Appendix C 77
-------
5A. This refers to Clarkston only.
5B. "in this area" refers to the Lewiston-Clarkston area, not
just Clarkston.
5C. This refers to any city outside the Lewiston-Clarkston
area.
9. One and only one check should be made for each item.
10. Refers to problems listed in 9.
11. If respondent has mentioned air pollution as a problem in
either 9 or 10, it is not necessary to ask question 11.
Check "Yes" and continue to question 12.
12. Year should be specified.
13. Hand respondent Card A and check the answer given. If
(b) or (c), is given as an answer, ask A. and B.
14. Read the three answers to the respondent and record the
answer.
15. "in this area" refers to the Lewiston-Clarkston area.
16. Hand respondent Card B and ask question 16 for each
source listed in question 15. For instance, if the city
dump is mentioned in 15, the question should read, "Which
one of these statements do you think best describes the
effort Clarkston is making to control air pollution in this
area?" Ask the question separately for each source and
record the answer. If more than two sources are listed,
extend the lines by each answer and check in the margin.
19. Hand respondent Card C and ask the question separately
for the three items in parentheses. Check one answer for
each item under the proper column.
20. Read items (a) through (e) and check "Yes" or "No" for
each item. If respondent volunteers any other answers,
write them in the space provided.
21. Hand respondent Card D and check answer. If respondent
has not lived in Clarkston long enough to answer the
question, make a note of this on the questionnaire.
22. Hand respondent Card E, record first answer given by
making one check in Most Important column, and record
second answer by making one check in Next Most Important
column. If respondent volunteers an answer not listed,
record it in space provided and check appropriate column.
78 OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
APPENDIX D
INTERVIEWERS SUGGESTED REVISIONS
OF SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
The following suggestions regarding the interview schedule are the
result of a critique held by the four interviewers the week following the
opinion survey in Clarkston, Washington:
A. Record of visits: Another column showing appointment time when
pre-selected interviewee would be available could be added.
B. Household information: This could be put last. We had several
interviewees that balked at giving age. It was skipped until rest
of interview was over, then respondent was willing to answer
questions.
C. Education: Should Business school and/or Nursing school be
counted year for year as years of education past High School?
D. Employer: Should be labeled "type of industry" as given in manual.
E. Questions 2B, 3B: "Is there anything else" was preferred to the
more awkward expression of "overlooked."
F. Questions 4A and B: If last move was from Lewiston we felt that
information should show last residence outside Lewiston-Clark-
ston area, since moving from Lewiston was much like moving
from another neighborhood which was covered in another question.
G. Question 6: Might be worded "problems that might affect health"
(a minority opinion).
H. Question 8: Many respondents said "They never worried since
that didn't do any good"; they did seem to be concerned. (Frequency
was difficult to determine.)
I. Questions 9(a) (b) (c): Items (a) (b) and (c) had to be asked as three
separate questions, since the respondent would forget response
categories as items (b) and (c) were asked. Item (b): A number of
respondents asked if we meant "drinking water" or "pollution of the
river."
J. Question 10: Many respondents said "No, because it wouldn't do
any good." Which implies that they might have considered making
such a request. This was coded No.
K. Question 11: Did "anytime" mean not seasonal or can be found at
Appendix D 79
-------
least once during the year?
L. Question 13B: Should read, "In which season or seasons. . . "
M. Question 14: Should be shortened (eliminate "below its present
level") or put question on a card.
N. Question 15: We felt that since most respondents had already
mentioned the "mill" that we had to say "now you have already
mentioned the mill as a source of pollution would you consider
it a major source?" -- what are others?
This question might read: What is major source
What is next greatest source
Any other
This ordering "!ould have lead directly to question Tl6.
O. It was difficult to determine who should be controlling sources
such as auto exhaust in Clarkston.
P Questions 17 and 18- See criticism of question #8.
Q. Question 20: Should read: "What conditions do you (or neighbors)
associate with air pollution?" Most respondents insisted on giving
personal feelings unless they were continually reminded that we
wanted opinions of other people in the area, and this was not
always effective.
R. Question 21: Many respondents did not like the word "serious" in
these responses. There is no category for "no problem" or "has
never been a problem. "
S. Question 22A: Is too strongly worded evoked laughter in many
cases. One respondent answered 22D was first, but could not
answer "next most important" until proper information was found.
T. Question 23: Many respondents asked what we meant by "recently. '
U. Evaluation item B: Many respondents appeared to fall between
High and Average, Could use one or two more categories.
While the above suggested changes weie not considered critical in
evaluation of the data collected during this survey, the interviewers did
feel that incorporation of at least some of them in the schedule would
make the interview process run more smoothly and furnish less ambigu-
ous responses.
OPU-JION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
APPENDIX E
INTERVIEWER'S COMMENTS
COMMENTS OF INTERVIEWER #1
(a) The pre-survey instructions were that emphasis was to be
placed on the subject of "health conditions in general." I followed these
instructions in all cases. Never did I act as if the interview pertained
to air pollution.
(b) In approximately four or five cases me subject responded to my
opening statement by asking whether the interview pertained to Potlatch
Forest Industries or to air pollution. This question was asked before I
was offered admittance in these cases. I re-emphasized that we were
interested in all health conditions not necessarily air pollution, but if
they thought that it did exist we were interested. Usually my opinion of
the subjects' opening query was that if the survey did pertain to air pol-
lution they were not interested. I therefore tried to act as disinterested
as possible in the matter at that particular point in the interview situa-
tion.
(c) In all cases, contrary to my first opinion of the subject, the sub-
ject would be the first to bring up the matter of air pollution. I there-
fore did not have to re-structure the interview in order to not arouse
suspicion. The only situation that approached a re-structure was my
opening assurance that the survey was a general health survey.
(d) I think the above statement would negate any answer to this
question. The subjects were the first to bring up the matter of air pol-
lution and usually discussed the matter at will.
COMMENTS OF INTERVIEWER #2
Introduction of the interview was dictated by interview instructions
and I attempted to use the exact wording given in the manual. Some
stress was placed on the fact that I was from the Washington State
Department of Health, but this was for the purpose of gaining admittance.
If air pollution was mentioned, I attempted to act as if I was unaware of
that particular problem in their community.
Wherever possible, nothing was added to the introduction since I
felt that this might raise unnecessary questions. The only detailed
explanations given concerned cases where the respondent did not wish
to be "bothered." For these persons I attempted a general explanation
of the sampling procedure designed by R.T.I, ("in North Carolina") and
the need for an interview at a particular house.
Appendix E 81
-------
In no case was the topic of air pollution introduced prior to its
appropriate place in the questionnaire.
Most respondents accepted the above structuring without covert
question (approximately 95 percent). Some of these who had not men-
tioned air pollution previously expressed "sudden discovery" of why we
were there when I did finally mention air pollution as a possible health
problem. Approximately 5 percent continued to insist that the inter-
view was for the purpose of finding out how they felt about air pollution
as a health problem.
For the above five percent, I just repeated that we wanted opinions
on anything the respondent might feel was a health problem in the com-
munity. If the respondent continued to insist that the primary focus
was air pollution, I again repeated the above declaration that this was
a survey concerning all health conditions, and that the questionnaire
had been "made up" by R.T.I, in North Carolina, and the completed
questionnaires would be sent to Cincinnati for processing by I. B.M.
equipment no one in Clarkston would see them, and the results would
be reported as "so many percent think this is a problem and so many
percent think that is a problem, etc. "
I had a definite feeling that at this point most of the five percent
skeptics were convinced that we really wanted their opinion on all
health problems in the community. Some of these reverted back when
we got into specific questions about air pollution, but I had no refusals
to answer questions by that time.
COMMENTS OF INTERVIEWER #3
We were instructed to present the interview as one concerned with
health conditions in general rather than air pollution in particular. I
used the sentence given in the instructions, "We are conducting a sur-
vey regarding certain health conditions in Clarkston, " almost verbatim
at the beginning of each interview.
I recall only one lady that expressed an opinion at this point in the
interview that the interview was going to be concerned primarily with
air pollution.
As I remember, I said we were interested in her opinions of health
conditions in Clarkston and that if she considered air pollution a health
problem, we would certainly discuss it. I then asked and received her
permission to begin the interview.
I cannot recall any effect the above preliminary conversation may
have exerted upon the interview. The woman considered air pollution
a health problem and quite readily expressed her opinions.
82 OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
COMMENTS OF INTERVIEWER #4
(a) In introducing myself and explaining the interview, I always
mentioned that I was from the Washington State Health Department and
that we were conducting a "public opinion poll on the subject of health
problems in the City of Clarkston. " I also always mentioned that it
was being done at the request of the City of Clarkston. Only two out of
25 people responded at this point with a mention of air pollution and
both seemed to be really concerned with air pollution and its affect on
health.
(b) Out of the approximately 25 people I interviewed, 3 seemed to
know from the beginning that I would ask very specifically about air pol-
lution. They had been apparently told by someone who had been inter-
viewed previously.
(c) I told each of the 3 that we were not concerned only with air pol-
lution but with any and all health problems; but, that if air pollution is
considered a problem we would ask questions about it.
(d) All three seemed to accept this explanation, and their answers
and their attitudes did not seem to be different than most. When the
subject of air pollution was brought up about half of the subjects were
immediately reminded of previous activities by the "Health Department"
and by Potlatch Forest Industries and either inquired if this study was
related or mentioned the previous work but stated they didn't know
much about the subject and thus couldn't help me. I answered this by
saying that this was a "public opinion poll" and that "we wanted to know
how people felt about the health problems in Clarkston. "
In every case this explanation seemed to work and the subject tried
to answer the questions.
Appendix E 83
-------
APPENDIX F
CLIPPING FROM LEWISTON TRIBUNE, MARCH 6, 1962
14 lewlston (Ida.) Morning Trlbun*
Tues., March 6, 1962
Pollution Study Will Ask
About Eyes, Stocking Holes
Two hundred persons at Lew-
iston and Clarksjon will soon be
asked such questions as "Are you
bothered with something In the
air?" And If so, (toes It cause
"eye irritation" or "holes in ny-
lon stockings," E. C. Hcltig said
yesterday.
Rettig, vice president and gen-
eral manager of Pollatch For-
ests, Inc., said this type of ques-
tion will be in a public opinion
survey to be conducted by the
U.S. Public Health Service here.
The survey is to be part of an
air pollution study now being
conducted' by the governmental
agency.
The year-long study was begun
in October. Although no new in-
formation has been recived in
recent weeks on when the ques-
tioning will begin, Rettig said it
Is anticipated soon.
Rettig told Lewiston Chamber
of Commerce members, who
lunched at PFI's White Pine cafe-
teria, that with the firm's growth
have come certain problems.
"Perhaps the one most familiar
is that of so-called air pollution,"
he said. "You have all been
asked, we are certain, 'What is
Potlatch doing in this regard?' "
He said PF1 has spent nearly
$1 million on air pollution control.
With the exception of electrostatic
precipltators that recover some
chemicals, pollution equipment
hns been inslMled "entirely for'
the purpose of being good citi-
zens in tho community in which
WR live," he said.
"We are not attempting to for-
mulate or unduly influence your
opinion or your answers to the
questionnaire," said Rettig. "We
feel that knowledge of the pro-
posed public opinion survey, how-
ever, is of interest to you, your
family, friends and neighbors, so
thai you may cjve the issue your
considered opinion in advance of
being que.stionrd," he said.
"Changes thai might affect peo-
ple arc a legitimate subject for
(|iii'slion ruin1 or investigation."
hi: <''iptini«->t. ' We cki not nniwtw
tlu'lu. \\ e ,,ro jnlercntoti to se*
that investigations arc completely
factual in nature unencumber-
ed by sweeping statements either
pro or con.1'
Kettig s;iid answers given in a
public opinion survey "are not
necessarily objective, scientific or
factual."
"Illustrative of this statement
is the type of questions that may
be asked:
"1. What is the most important
problem affecting your health.
your comfort or enjoyment of
your property?
"2. Are you bothered with
something in the air?
"3. Is the something' in the air
a serious problem to you?
"
"4. Do you plan to move- your
place of residence?
"5. Are you bothered by ey«
irritation, sneezing, running DOM,
couching, luiy fever, «tc,7
"6. Do you feel that something
in the air may be attributed to
damage to laundry hanging out
to dry, screens and gutter*
wearing out too fast, pitting cf
windows, holes in nylon stock-
ings?
"7. Do you plan to toko ac-
tion?".
Rettig said the June, 1*37, and
Dcceml>er, 1961, issues of the bul-
letin of Washington State Insti-
tute of Technology stated that
" 'pulping odors are generally re-
garded as not having public
health significance since human
health is not affected at the con-
centration levels found in the at-
mosphere near pulp mills.' "
A Lewiston physician "one*
said that one puff on bla cigaret
would do him more harm than
the pulp mill could ever do,"
Rettig continued.
"There is no known proof of
health damage as evidenced by
the fact that employes have
worked around kraft mill digest-
ers, where there ia the greatest
concentration of air effluent, with-
out ill effects to their health.
This is born out tn our own ex-
perience as well as U.S. and fot
eign installations."
Pollution Control Rot>d
Rettig said PFI's pulp and
paper mill at Lewiston IB re-
garded as one of the best in the
field of pollution control in the
United States if not the world.
Technicians from as far as Swe-
den and Australia have visited
this mill to learn about controi
equipment and have often dupli
cated this in their own mills," h«
said.'
Included in the control equip-
ment, said Rettigk are: Electro-
static precipitators installed when
the plant was built in IMS; the
...'irst gas absorption tower- in
North America, designed by PFI
engineers and installed hi 1952;
the first oxidation tower fa the
U.S., installed in 1955; a recovery
spray carry-over trap, conceived
and designed by PFI engineers
and installed in 1958; and de-
misters to further reduce air ef-
fluent, installed In 1959.
Appendix F
85
OPO 82O3657
-------
APPENDIX G
CONTENT ANALYSIS OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS
Introduction
This content analysis on air pollution is confined to newspaper
items that appeared in the Lewiston-Clarkston newspapers from Sep-
tember of 1960 through May of 1962. News items were furnished to the
office of the Chief of the Division of Air Pollution at Washington, D. C.
by THE ROMEIKE PRESS CLIPPING SERVICE, which contracted to
provide all news items containing air pollution content. Another set of
news items covering the identical time and area was provided this office
by the Technical Assistance Branch of the Division of Air Pollution of
the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) at Cincinnati, Ohio.
The news items appearing prior to June, 1961, were identical for
both the Cincinnati office and the Washington office, since the Cincin-
nati files were photostatic copies of the Washington files for this period.
Eleven air pollution news items occurred in the period during which the
files were identical. For the period June 1961 to May 1962, 26 different
news items were recovered -- 17 from the Office of the Chief of the
Division of Air Pollution and 9 from the Technical Assistance Branch.
This procedure produced a 53 percent increase in the number of news
items recovered during the period June 1961 to May 1962.
Although a total of 36 different news items was available from both
sources, only 33 items were used in the actual analysis. Two categori-
cal restrictions eliminated the other three items: First, in order to be
considered for analysis, the item was required to have an air pollution
headline; i. e., the news item had to identify itself as being primarily
concerned with air pollution -- e.g., "One-Year Air Test Slated By
Health Agency, " and "Smog Course to Draw 150." If the item contained
air pollution content, but did not identify itself as being primarily con-
cerned with air pollution in the headline, the item was not used -- e.g.,
"Electronic Brain Puts PFI In Lead. "
Secondly, the content of the news item containing an air pollution
headline had to pertain to the Lewiston-Clarkston Valley. For instance,
an editorial from THE NEW YORK TIMES entitled, "To Help Fight
Smoke, " was recovered from the LEWISTON TRIBUNE. Although there
was air pollution content, the problems were indigenous to New York,
not Lewiston-Clarkston; consequently the news item was not analyzed.
Since there is no available information as to the relative salience
of air pollution news as compared with other types of local issues, no
conclusions can be drawn regarding the degree of public concern with
air pollution from analysis of local news items. Hence, this content
analysis merely describes the way in which the air pollution issue was
Appendix G 87
-------
presented to the public without attempting to indicate its comparative
position in competition with other local topics.
Synopsis of News Items
On October 6 and 7, 1960, a course in air pollution was conducted
by the Taft Sanitary Engineering Center of the USPHS in cooperation
with the University of Idaho Adult Education Center. Clarkston Mayor,
Bill J. Courtney, and Chairman of the Clarkston Air Pollution Com-
mittee, Joe Tuschhoff, were delegated by the City Council to attend the
meeting. In November, 1960, Mayor Courtney sent a letter to the
Division of Air Pollution of the United States Public Health Service
requesting that a study be made of the atmospheric conditions in the
Lewiston-Clarkston Valley.
On June 5, 1961, Jean Schueneman, Chief of the Technical Assist-
ance Branch of the Division of Air Pollution, arrived in Clarkston with
a companion engineer "to get some preliminary ideas" about the extent
of air pollution in the Lewiston-Clarkston Valley.
Dr. Richard Prindie, Deputy Chief of the Division of Air Pollution,
arrived in Lewiston in mid-October 1961 to further investigate the need
for an air pollution study in the area. At this time, Potlatch Forests,
Incorporated (PFI), announced a grant of $25, 000 to Washington State
University scientists to perform a study on atmospheric conditions in
the valley.
"One-year Health Service Air Study To Start November 6" appeared
in half-inch headlines in the LEWISTON TRIBUNE on the morning of
October 28, 1961. Periodic reports on the progress of the USPHS air
pollution study appeared in the TRIBUNE throughout the remainder of
the analytic period.
Concerning the Potlatch Industries study, an editorial commending
PFI on its decision to sponsor air pollution research by Washington
State University scientists appeared in the TRIBUNE on October 13,
1961, along with a 6-inch column news story. On the previous day, a
15-inch column story appeared describing the specific types of tests to
be performed by the Washington research scientists.
As a rule, the PFI and the USPHS studies were treated independent-
ly as news items. Occasionally, however, material on both studies was
included in a single news item. Lengthy column stories were devoted
to the combined study efforts on two occasions.
Methodology
News items were analyzed in terms of two processes -- the air
pollution process and the communication process.
88 OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
Air Pollution Process
In the air pollution process, three major categories were estab-
lished -- the source of the pollution, the pollutant itself, and the thing
or activity affected. The task was to establish specific, mutually exclu-
sive subcategories within each major category and then to analyze each
news item in terms of these major and minor categories.
The final subcategories of the major category, source, were Pot-
latch Forest, Inc., vehicles, homes, dumps, incinerators, and non-
specific. A non-specific entry occurred, for example, when the news
item referred to a general area from which air pollution stemmed or
where air pollution existed, but where the news item did not specify the
source. Frequently, in a series of news items, the source was men-
tioned in the early news releases but was assumed to be understood in
the later ones. In the latter cases, the source was entered as non-
specific.
The final subcategories under the major category, pollutant, were
soot, smoke, smog, odors, dust, dirt, sulfur, fumes, and general
pollutants (a source or thing affected is mentioned but no specific pol-
lutant) .
The final subcategories of the major category, thing, or activity
affected, were property, health, animal wildlife, uncultivated plant
life, personal comfort, and non-specific (a pollutant is mentioned but
no specific effect is indicated).
If a news item contained information that pertained to more than
one subcategory within a major category, that subcategory received
more than one entry, although other subcategories within a major cate-
gory might receive only one entry. For example, in one news item
under the major category, source, "industry, " "vehicles, " and "homes"
were mentioned. Under the major category, pollutant, "smoke, "
"smog, " and "fumes" were mentioned. Under the subcategory, thing or
activity affected, only "health" was mentioned. Consequently, in the
final tabulation for major categories, the totals for numbers of entries
were dissimilar for each category summation.
Communication Process
The communication process was analyzed according to a modified
Laswellian formula: "Who said what, about what agent, with what
social response."
Four major categories were used to code the communication con-
tent: 1 who made the statement; 2 what was said; 3 to whom or
about whom was the statement made; and 4a what social response
was reported, 4b - what social response was indicated as needing
action, and 4c what cognitive definition of the situation was indicated.
Appendix G 89
-------
The final subcategories of the major category, who made the state-
ment, were: air pollution scientists (including state university scientists
and research agency scientists, but not including scientists who act as
officials of a municipality or state as, for example, a state health offi-
cer, who was classified as a city or state official, or USPHS scientists,
who were coded as USPHS officials); citizens group leaders: PFI man-
agers; USPHS personnel; state authorities (state health officers, state
public health engineers, state air pollution committee members); and
municipal officials (mayor, sanitarian, health engineer, health officer,
air pollution committee members).
The final subcategories of the major category, to whom or about
whom was the statement made, were municipal officials, PFI managers,
air pollution scientists, public health officials, state officials, and citi-
zens groups.
The final subcategories of the major category, what social response
or action was taken, were 1) what needs were expressed, 2) what
actions were attributed to an agent, and 3) what is the cognitive defini-
tion of the situation as expressed by various spokesmen. Subcategory
1 was further subcategorized as follows:
Present needs
1. Need more air pollution research.
2. Need to make more effort to control air pollution.
3. Need more restrictive air pollution legislation.
Subcategory 2 was further subcategorized as follows:
1. Contributed financially to air pollution control.
2. Was active participant in air pollution communication.
3. Was passive participant in air pollution communication.
4. Was recipient of air pollution honor.
5. Cooperated to reduce air pollution.
6. Is performing air pollution research.
In these subcategories, an active participant is defined as one who
sponsored an air pollution conference, one who gave an address at an
air pollution course, conference or some similar activity. A passive
participant is defined as one who attends and listens, but who is not
otherwise actively engaged in the operation of the conference or com-
munication activity.
There was no attempt to further subcategorize Subcategory 3, the
cognitive definition of the air pollution situation.
The subcategories of subcategories 4a and 4b are referred to here
as themes. These themes are analyzed in terms of the headline cap-
tions and in terms of the non-headline content appearing in the body of
the news item. News body content that refers to the headline caption
90 OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
is treated as part of the headline analysis. For example, in the news
item with the headline, "Valley Air Pollution Recognized As Serious,
Mayor Declares, " each remark made by the Mayor about the serious-
ness of air pollution, even though it is contained in the small type of the
body of the news item, was treated as a headline theme. The body of
the news item refers to all written symbols occurring in the news item,
which are not part of the headline caption.
Non-headline theme analysis was restricted to the two strongest
news treatments within the body of the news item. In this secondary
and tertiary theme analysis, the space allotted the theme, rather than
its position in the news item, determined the rank the theme received.
Twenty news items contained but one theme, twelve news items
contained two themes and only two news items contained three or more
themes.
In the major category, what is said, all statements fell into the
gives-an-opinion or gives-information subcategory. A theme was placed
in the information category when no attempt was made to evaluate the
reported event. Contrarily, a theme was placed in the opinion category
when an attempt had been made to evaluate the event or when a spokes-
man charged that there was a need for an agent to perform an action or
to cease performing an action. For example, "Idaho Smog Course
Draws 150" is classified as giving information. "Industry Has Responsi-
bility to End Air Pollution, " however, is classified as an opinion.
Analysis
The number of news items occuring each month, the number of col-
umn inches including headlines for each month, the type of news articles,
and the percentage of each type of item are shown in Table G-l.
Three specific incidents accounted for 79 percent of the air pollu-
tion content from the period September 1960 to May 1962. The subject
accorded the most extensive treatment was the air pollution study per-
formed by the USPHS. Coverage was completely restricted to the period
June 1961 to May 1962 with June alone accounting for 20 percent of the
total news linage analyzed. Altogether, the USPHS study accounted for
55 percent of the total air pollution linage during the period covered by
this analysis.
The Potlatch Forests study was accorded the second highest news
priority. This study accounted for 15 percent of the total air pollution
linage. The news about the PFI study appeared primarily during the
3-month period from October 1961 to December 1961.
An air pollution conference was accorded the third highest priority.
This material was concentrated into a 1-month period from mid-
September 1960 to mid-October 1960. The conference accounted for 15
percent of the total air pollution linage.
Appendix G 91
-------
Table G-l. DISTRIBUTION OF NEWS ITEMS ON AIR POLLUTION
YEAR
1960
1961
1962
MONTH
SEP
OCT
MAR
JUN
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
MAR
APR
MAY
TOTALS
, COLUMN
INCHES
24-1/2
37
7-1/2
76-5/8
90-1/8
13
29-3/8
22-1/2
37-1/2-
12
20-3/4
372"
£
eg
U- <
0 Z
6? -1
7
10
2
20
24
4
8
6
10
3
6
100%
EDITORIAL
1
1
LU
1-
l/>
S
UJ
z
3
1
2
1
1
1
9
COLUMN
STORY
1
4
1
4
5
1
2
1
1
2
22
LETTER
TO EDITOR
1
1
z
-«r
% OFCOLU*
STORY
25
80
100
80
73
50
100
50
100
-
100
The remaining 21 percent of the news was sporadically distributed
over the 21-month period, concentrating, however, in the fall of the
year. Several of these news items were concerned with measures that
were voted upon during the fall session of the legislature.
An analysis of the initiators of air pollution headlines revealed that
air pollution scientists stated the most themes, with industrial manag-
ers, municipal officials, public health officials, state officials, and
civic group leaders also contributing headline themes. Secondary
themes were contributed by air pollution scientists, PIT managers,
public health officials, and state officials. Table G-2 summarizes this
information.
Analysis of headline themes by various spokesmen revealed that
air pollution scientists were concerned with the need for more air pol-
lution research. They also reported that PFI had made a grant for air
pollution research. While reporting about the need to make more effort
92
OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
Table G-2. SUMMARY OF "WHO" CATEGORY EXPRESSING AIR POLLUTION THEMES
"WHO" CATEGORY
Air Pollution Scientists
Industrial Managers
Municipal Officials
Public Health Officials
State Officials
Citizens Groups
Not Specified
TOTALS
NO. OF
HEADLINE
THEMES
6
6
6
5
3
1
12
33
NO. OF
SECONDARY
THEMES
3
2
0
2
1
0
0
8
to control air pollution, PFI managers also reported that they were
cooperating to reduce air pollution. Public Health officials, on the
other hand, reported almost exclusively on the local USPHS air pollu-
tion study, while municipal officials were wholly concerned about the
need to increase efforts to control air pollution. Municipal officials
also reported on attendance at the University of Idaho air pollution con-
ference. These data are summarized in Table G-3.
Analysis of the secondary themes revealed three clusters of two
responses each: One, industrial leaders revealed they were cooperat-
ing to reduce air pollution; two, air pollution scientists from Washing-
ton University revealed they were about to embark on the PFI sponsored
air pollution study; and three, state officials disclosed the state would
assist in the USPHS study. These data are also summarized in Table G-3
Concerning the manner in which the themes were made, 46 percent
of the themes were of the opinion type while 54 percent fell into the
information type.
The themes most frequently occurring in the headlines of the news
items are rank-ordered as follows (the number of themes appears in
parentheses):
1. Someone is performing air pollution research. Most frequently
the Public Health Service, the state university, or a research
agency is mentioned (11);
2. There is a need for more effort to control air pollution. This is
Appendix G
93
-------
Table G-3. A SUMMARY OF THE THEME AS EXPRESSED BY VARIOUS SPOKESMEN
HEADLINE THEMES
Need for more
air pollution research
Need to make more effort to
control air pol lution
Need for more restrictive
air pollution legislation
Contributed financially to
air pollution control
Was active participant in
air pollution communication
Was passive participant in
air pollution communication
Was rec ipient of
air pollution honor
Cooperated to reduce
air pol lution
Is performing
air pollution research
TOTALS
NON-HEADLINE THEMES
Need for more
air pollution research
Need to make more effort to
control air pol lution
Need for more restrictive
air pollution legislation
Contributed financially to
air pol lution control
Was active participant in
air pollution communication
Was passive participant in
air pollution communication
Was recipient of
air pol lution honor
Cooperated to reduce
air pol lution
Is performing
air pollution research
TOTALS
SPOKESMAN
"5 it °
1 i ! 1 1 1 . 1
"*£"£ u s ° F S.
s £ .2 35 ~ °- -§ £
iSsOa.o_z
1 1 1
1 1 2 1
1
1 2
1 1
1 1
1
2
1 411 4
241565 11
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
2 2 3
2 233 8
TOTALS
4
6
1
4
2
3
1
2
11
34
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
7
18
94
OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
a need that must be met jointly by PFI, the municipal government,
air pollution scientists, and the general public (6);
3. There is a need for more air pollution research, primarily by
air pollution scientists, PFI, and federal agencies responsible for
this activity (4);
3. Someone contributed financially to air pollution control. PFI
was most frequently mentioned. The Federal Government was the
only other agent mentioned more than once (4);
5. Someone was a passive participant in air pollution communica-
tion. In this category the state university, air pollution scientists,
or state or federal leaders directly involved in air pollution control
were mentioned (2);
6. Potlatch Forest Industries cooperated to reduce air pollution(2);
8. Someone received an air pollution honor. An individual who in
public life voluntarily contributed his talents to reduce air pollution
was mentioned (1);
8. There is a need for more restrictive air pollution legislation (1),
Other themes, appearing in the body of the news items, are rank-
ordered as follows:
1. Someone is performing, or is going to perform, or has complet-
ed air pollution research (7);
6. There is a need for more air pollution research (1);
2. Someone contributed financially to air pollution control (2);
2. Someone was a passive participant in air pollution communica-
tion (2);
2. Someone was a recipient of an air pollution honor (2);
6. Someone needs to make more effort to control air pollution (1);
2. Someone cooperated to reduce air pollution (2).
Analysis of the agents who performed an action or who are charged
with the need to perform an action revealed the following: Action was
expressed 75 percent of the time and need for action 25 percent of the
time. Headlines expressed action 70 percent of the time and need for
action 30 percent of the time. The body of the news contained action
89 percent of the time and need for action 11 percent of the time.
The agents credited with performing the actions are rank-ordered
Appendix G 95
-------
in Table G-4. Industry is credited with twice as many actions as is the
Federal Government, the second agent in the rank-order.
Table G-4. SUMMARY OF ACTIONS PERFORMED AND NEEDS EXPRESSED BY VARIOUS
AGENTS
RANK
ORDER BY
HEADLINE
1
3
3
2
5
6
1
AGENT
No Spokesman
Municipal Government
Industrial Managers
Air Pollution Scientists
Public Health Officials
State Official
Citizens Groups
TOTALS
HEADLINE
NEED
2
3
2
2
1
1
1
12
ACTION
9
2
3
4
3
1
0
22
BODY OF ITEM
NEED
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
ACTION
8
0
2
3
1
2
0
16
Air Pollution Process
Since only two headlines identified a specific pollutant, the air pol-
lution process was not analyzed in terms of headline and secondary con-
tent. Both headlines, incidentally, identified smog as the pollutant.
Frequently news items containing air pollution news were not con-
cerned with the air pollution process; for example, where the news
item reported a pending air pollution conference. In situations like
this, the news item was not analyzed for the air pollution process.
This situation occurred six times, thereby reducing the news items
available for the air pollution process from 33 to 27.
A difficulty encountered in this analysis was the vague way in which
the news item related the pollutants, sources of pollutants, and the
things affected by the pollutant. Consequently, rather than trying to
match the pollutant with a source that affected a particular thing, each
pollutant mentioned in the news item was associated with each source
mentioned in the news item. Although this procedure produced a few
unusual relationships, such as homes being a source of dust in the air
in one case, it was felt that the procedure was necessary if objectivity
96
OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
was to be maintained, for most news items would have required a sub-
jective matching on the part of the analyst.
Concerning the findings from the air pollution analysis, Table G-5
reveals that PFI was mentioned most frequently as the major source of
air pollution. Vehicles, homes, incinerators, and lastly dumps were
also listed in descending order. Sulphur and odors proved to be the
major pollutants mentioned, with smoke, smog, fumes, and dust follow-
ing in descending order.
Table G-5. SUMMARY SHOWING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SOURCE OF POLLUTANTS AND
THE POLLUTANTS
RANK ORDER POLLUTANT
General Unspecified
Odors
Sulphur
Smoke
Smog
Fumes
Dust
TOTALS
RANK ORDER OF SOURCE
u_
D-
-
7
3
3
4
4
2
1
24
U
U
I
C
o
~Z.
CN
12
3
1
1
0
0
0
17
Vehicles
CO
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
11
Homes
-=f
1
1
3
2
1
0
1
9
Incinerator
LO
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
7
V)
a
E
D
a
-------
Table G-6 reveals that "personal comfort" was reported in the
news items most often as being affected by air pollution, with health
and property also significantly affected.
Table G-7 indicates that "PFI" and "vehicles" account for half of
the ill effects reportedly suffered from air pollution.
Summary
This analysis has tried to show how air pollution news was pre-
sented to the public in the Lewiston-Clarkston Valley. Generally,
there were a few categories of spokesmen who concentrated upon a
limited number of themes. The relative importance of the issue of air
Table G-6. SUMMARY SHOWING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POLLUTANTS AND THINGS OR
ACTIVITIES AFFECTED
RANK ORDER OF POLLUTANT
General Unspecified
Odors
Sulphur
Smoke
Smog
Fumes
Dust
TOTAL
RANK ORDER OF THINGS AFFECTED
|
o
U
c
o
0
D_
-
5
4
4
3
2
0
1
19
u
u
a.
in
c
o
CN
9
2
0
1
1
0
0
13
±
o
0
X
en
4
1
1
2
2
2
0
12
>,
aJ
o
^
4
2
2
0
0
0
0
8
0)
^J
~a
^
"5
E
c
^
i
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
-o
I)
o
D
u
c
VI
O
HI
^
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
o
H
24
9
7
6
5
3
1
55
98
OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
Table G-7. SUMMARY SHOWING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOURCE OF POLLUTANTS AND
THINGS OR ACTIVITIES AFFECTED
RANK ORDER SOURCES
P F 1
Non-Specific
Vehicles
Homes
Incinerators
Dumps
TOTALS
RANK ORD2R OF THINGS AFFECTED
*p.
E
o
U
"6
c:
o
o
CL
^
7
4
4
1
4
1
21
0)
o
2-
CN
5
2
3
3
1
1
15
f
o
V
I
CN
5
1
4
4
1
0
15
U
^
U
0.
V)
c
o
**
4
8
0
0
1
0
13
ID
1
^
D
E
'c
10
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
i
D-
-2
D
~5
u
c
10
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
i
0
H
22
15
11
9
7
2
66
pollution in the Lewiston-Clarkston Valley compared with other issues
could not be determined from the available information.
Appendix G
99
-------
APPENDIX H
CLARKSTON AIR POLLUTION SURVEY
ESTIMATION PROCEDURE, SAMPLING ERRORS,
AND 95% CONFIDENCE LIMITS FOR SELECTED
SAMPLE PROPORTIONS
(prepared by Research Triangle Institute)
The sample design for this survey permitted simple self-weighting
estimates of population totals. Thus if x^ is the measure of a particu-
lar characteristic in the kth sample household in the jth sampling unit
in the ith stratum, the estimated total is
10 2 nij
= 25 y y y x..
x L L L ij
..,
ijk
i=l j=i k=l
where n^ is the number of sample households in the jth sampling unit
in the ith stratum.
Per household averages in the population are estimated by
A
T
x
A
T
N
10
I
i=l
10
I
2
I
j=l
2
I
n. .
i]
I Xiik
k=l
t
x
r
n
where tx and tn are respective sample totals.
When the Xjj^ can take on only the values of one or zero depending
on whether or not the household possesses a certain attribute, ft
becomes an estimate of the proportion of households in the population
possessing this attribute.
Certain attributes were estimated for subclasses of the population.
In these cases the above formula was modified slightly to refer only to
totals in the subclass.
In order to calculate sampling errors for the proportions estimated
from the survey results, the variance of ft is required. R is a ratio
estimator. Its approximate variance is given by
Appendix H 101
-------
CT + Ra 2Rcov(t
X n
where
t = expected sample size
2 2
a. , a. = variances of respective sample totals
x n
R = true proportion
and cov(t t ) = the covariance of the respective sample totals
x, n A
For the particular sample design used the estimate of V(R)
reduces to
A A
V(R) = -
n
10
10
(nu n./
A
2(R)
10
.^ n.2)(x.L
where x..
k=l
ilk,
etc.
The standard error of an estimate is
A
SR
A A
V(R)
Approximate (1 - a) percent confidence limits for R can be construc-
ted by adding and subtracting taSR to the sample estimate, where ta
designates the appropriate t value from tables of Student's t distribution.
Since there are ten degrees of freedom available for the estimate of
V(R) the appropriate t value for 95% confidence limits is 2. 228. The
95% confidence limits for R are therefore given by:
102
OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
Lower limit: R
Upper limit:
2.228s£ = RT
K J
R + 2.228 s£ = R,
rt I
The following table presents estimated proportions, estimated
absolute errors, and 95% confidence limits.
Characteristic
1. Proportion of all respondents
rating Clarkston as a place to
live: Excellent
Good
Fair, Poor, Very Poor
3. Proportion of all respondents
not listing air pollution dis-
advantage
3. Proportion of air pollution dis-
advantages listed:
Bad air, poor air
Haze, smog, smoke, low
visibility
Odors
3. Proportion of disadvantage by
source:
Mill, pulp mill, paper
mill
6(1). Proportion of all respondents --
health problems that need cor-
rection:
Yes
No
(2). Proportion of yes's:
Dump
Pulp mill
9. Proportion of all respondents
rating air pollution:
Serious
Somewhat serious
Not serious
A t +
» 4V
,259 .039 .172 .346
,587 .042 .493 .681
144 .047 .039 .249
,673 .020 .628 .718
,147 .046 .044 .250
,117 .053 --- .235
.676 .083 .491 .861
.735 .102 .508 .962
.346 .058 .217 .475
.587 .068 .435 .739
.055 .039 --- .142
.361 .093 .154 .568
. 240 . 044 .142 . 338
.471 .051 357 .585
.230 .025 .172 .288
Percentage in sample.
"f Standard error of R.
t 95% confidence limits.
Appendix H
103
-------
Characteristic
10(2a). Proportion of respondents con-
sidering requesting action on
health problems by problem:
Air pollution
11. Proportion of all respondents --
is there air pollution in Clarkston:
Yes
No
13(1). Proportion of yes's (Items 11,
13 to 18):
Not bothered
Somewhat bothered
Bothered quite a lot
13(1)A. Of those bothered:
More
Some
Less
14. Air pollution:
Cannot be reduced
Can be reduced
Can be eliminated
15. Major sources:
Mill, pulp mill (1st source)
Dump (2nd source)
Packing plant (2nd source)
16. Effort of source to control air
pollution:
Little or no effort
Some effort
A great deal of effort
17. Worry about effects of air
pollution on health:
Yes
No
18. Worry about effects of air
pollution on property:
Yes
No
19. Proportion of all respondents
who think local doctors:
Feel there is no air pollution
Feel air pollution not serious
Feel air pollution serious
Don't know
A
R*
R
R
*u
.700 .187 .238 1.000
.786 .036 .706 .866
.203 .037 .121 .285
172 .049 .063 .281
641 .050 .530 .752
172 .038 087 .257
075 .024 .021 .129
681 .086 .489 .873
166 .060 .032 .300
037 .027 --- .097
580 .068 .428 .732
209 .043 .113 .305
925 .022 .876 .974
061 .019 .019 .103
037 .026 --- .095
246 .048 139 .353
493 .058 .364 622
185 .048 .078 .292
320 .026 .262 .378
629 .025 .573 .685
407 .058 .278 .546
518 .063 378 .658
038 .017 --- .076
310 .049 .201 .419
184 .026 .126 .242
446 .060 .312 .580
104
OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
-------
Characteristic
19. Proportion of all respondents
who think local papers:
Feel there is no air pollution
Feel air pollution not serious
Feel air pollution serious
Don't know
19. Proportion of all respondents
who think major local industries:
Feel there is no air pollution
Feel air pollution not serious
Feel air pollution serious
Don't know
20. Proportion of all respondents
who think air pollution means:
Bad smells -- Yes
No
Dirt and dust in air -- Yes
No
Frequent haze or smog -- Yes
No
Frequent irritation of
the eyes -- Yes
No
Frequent nose or throat
irritation -- Yes
No
21. Proportion of eligible respond-
ents -- for most recent years:
Air pollution not been
serious problem
Air pollution has become
more serious each year
Air pollution has become
less serious each year
Air pollution has continu-
ously been a serious
problem
22. Proportion of all respondents --
what people should do about air
pollution:
Ignore
Support industry efforts
Ask elected officials for
controls
Try to get more information
A
R*
.097
.300
.135
.398
. 165
. 514
.058
.233
.913
.077
.269
.673
.740
.221
.403
.509
.615
. 317
.250
.250
.200
.270
.058
.375
.336
.201
At
SR
.031
.064
.025
.048
.034
.051
.018
.034
.026
.024
.042
.051
.055
.054
.043
.033
.030
.029
.034
.048
.047
.050
.028
.029
.053
.027
t
RL
.028
.157
.079
.291
.089
.400
.018
.157
.855
.024
.175
.559
.617
.101
.307
.435
.548
.252
.174
.143
.095
.159
. 310
.218
.141
t
KU
.166
.443
.191
.505
.241
.628
.098
.309
.971
.130
.363
.787
.863
.341
.499
.583
.683
. 317
.326
.357
.305
.381
.120
.440
.454
.261
Anpendix H
105
-------
Characteristic
23(1). Proportion of all respondents:
Seen anything in papers
about air pollution --
Yes
No
(2). Proportion of yes's:
Reference to public opinion
survey
A
R*
R
R
.317 .046 .214 420
.682 .049 .573 .791
.121 .067 --- .270
106
OPINION SURVEY OF AIR QUALITY
GPO 82O-3659
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC: Medalia, N. Z., and A. L. Finkner.
Community perception of air quality: an opinion survey
in Clarkston, Washington. PHS Publ. No. 999-AP-10.
1965. 106 pp.
ABSTRACT: In a community with a population of 7, 000 and
located approximately 4 miles downwind from a pulp mill,
a public opinion survey was taken to analyze the environ-
mental stress of air pollution on a sample of household
heads and spouses, along two principal attitudinal dimen-
sions: awareness and concern. Of those interviewed, 91
percent perceived air pollution in the community as a
malodor problem; 74 percent perceived it as a problem
of visibility; and 62 percent as a problem of nose-throat
irritation. A Guttman-type scale showed high concern
with air pollution among 48 percent of the sample; low to
moderate concern among 31 percent; and minimal con-
cern among 21 percent. Although exposure to odorous
pollutants in ambient air appeared roughly equal for all
members of the sample, their concern with air pollution
was found to vary directly with social status and attitude
characteristics such as civic pride, desire to ameliorate
the situation, length of residence in the community, and
occupational prestige of the household head.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC: Medalia, N. Z., and A. L. Finkner.
Community perception of air quality: an opinion survey
in Clarkston, Washington. PHS Publ. No. 999-AP-10.
1965. 106 pp.
ABSTRACT: In a community with a population of 7, 000 and
located approximately 4 miles downwind from a pulp mill,
a public opinion survey was taken to analyze the environ-
mental stress of air pollution on a sample of household
heads and spouses, along two principal attitudinal dimen-
sions: awareness and concern. Of those interviewed, 91
percent perceived air pollution in the community as a
malodor problem; 74 percent perceived it as a problem
of visibility; and 62 percent as a problem of nose-throat
irritation. A Guttman-type scale showed high concern
with air pollution among 48 percent of the sample; low to
moderate concern among 31 percent; and minimal con-
cern among 21 percent. Although exposure to odorous
pollutants in ambient air appeared roughly equal for all
members of the sample, their concern with air pollution
was found to vary directly with social status and attitude
characteristics such as civic pride, desire to ameliorate
the situation, length of residence in the community, and
occupational prestige of the household head.
-
BIBLIOGRAPHIC: Medalia, N. Z., and A.L. Finkner.
Community perception of air quality: an opinion survey
in Clarkston, Washington. PHS Publ. No. 999-AP-10.
1965. 106 pp.
ABSTRACT: In a community with a population of 7, 000 and
located approximately 4 miles downwind from a pulp mill,
a public opinion survey was taken to analyze the environ-
mental stress of air pollution on a sample of household
heads and spouses, along two principal attitudinal dimen-
sions: awareness and concern. Of those interviewed, 91
percent perceived air pollution in the community as a
malodor problem; 74 percent perceived it as a problem
of visibility; and 62 percent as a problem of nose-throat
irritation. A Guttman-type scale showed high concern
with air pollution among 48 percent of the sample; low to
moderate concern among 31 percent; and minimal con-
cern among 21 percent. Although exposure to odorous
pollutants in ambient air appeared roughly equal for all
members of the sample, their concern with air pollution
was found to vary directly with social status and attitude
characteristics such as'civic pride, desire to ameliorate
e community, and
head.
ACCESSION NO.
KEY WORDS:
ACCESSION NO.
KEY WORDS:
ACCESSION NO.
KEY WORDS:
------- |