ORDES
Volume III-C
Special Study Report
Subjective Quality of Life
in the Ohio River Basin
as Related to Future Energy Development
Sven B. Lundstedt, Henry L. Hunker, and Clark Leavitt
The Ohio State University
May 15, 1977
PHASE I
OHIO RIVER DASIK EMERGY STUDY
-------
OHIO RIVER BASIN ENERGY STUDY
Volume III-C
SPECIAL STUDY REPORT
HUMAN VALUES AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE OHIO RIVER BASIN
AS RELATED TO FUTURE ENERGY DEVELOPMENTS
ENERGY AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE
Sven Lundstedt
Clark Leavitt
Henry Hunker
The Ohio State University
May 15, 1977
Prepared for
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
Grant Number R804851-01-0
-------
CONTENTS
TABLES III-C-iv
FIGURES III-C-v
APPENDICES III-C-29
1. INTRODUCTION III-C-1
1.1. STRUCTURE OF THE PROBLEM III-C-1
1.1.1. PURPOSE III-C-1
1.1.2. METHOD OF APPROACH III-C-1
1.2. DEFINITION OF QOL III-C-1
2. RESULTS III-C-5
2.1. EXPLORATORY INTERVIEWING III-C-5
2.2. RESPONSE SUMMARY BY GROUP III-C-5
2.2.1. UP-SCALE WOMEN .III-C-5
2.2.2. BLUE-COLLAR APPALACHIANS III-C-6
2.2.3. SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE UNITARIANS III-C-6
2.2.4. YOUNG PROFESSIONALS III-C-7
2.2.5. SIERRA CLUB CONSERVATIONISTS III-C-7
2.2.6. STUDENT LEADERS III-C-8
2.2.7. SAVE-THE-VALLEY ACTIVISTS III-C-8
2.3. RESPONSE SUMMARY BY TOPIC III-C-8
2.3.1. PERCEPTION OF QOL III-C-8
2.3.2. REACTIONS TO POWER PLANTS III-C-10
2.3.3. CONCERN ABOUT ARCHAEOLOGICAL
HISTORICAL SITES III-C-17
2.3.4. ALTERNATIVE BEHAVIORS III-C-18
2.3.5. RESPONSE TO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SCENARIOS III-C-21
3. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS III-C-25
-------
FIGURE
III-C-1 Input/Output Matrix III-C-26
APPENDIX
A. QUALITY OF LIFE: FOCUSED GROUP INTERVIEW
SCHEDULE III-C-29
III-C-v
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
1.1. STRUCTURE OF THE PROBLEM
1.1.1. PURPOSE
Our program is to explore the impact of alternative energy
development programs on the quality of life (QOL) at two points in the
future specified as the years 1985 and 2000. At this point, the level
at which the question can be researched meaningfully is quite general,
namely, that which simply distinguishes between planning for abundant
supplies of electricity and for greatly restricted supplies. Abundant
supplies will be accompanied by higher costs, both personal and social,
while restricted supplies will entail a restructuring of our present
life style. The research reported here addresses the effect of each of
these levels on the life of citizens of the Ohio River Basin.
1.1.2. METHOD OF APPROACH
To accomplish the overall objective of assessing the impact
on QOL of the energy alternatives, two programmatic objectives had to
be met: (1) The conceptual frame for the entire project had to be
formulated clearly enough for adequate planning of future activities,
and (2) a preliminary appraisal had to be carried out to test the
feasibility of the overall plan from the point of view of citizen/con-
sumer response in the areas that the second and third phases would deal
with. The first of these programmatic objectives is reported on in the
following section (definition of QOL). A section on theory is reported
elsewhere. The remainder of the present report is concerned with the
second objective: the preliminary appraisal.
1.2. DEFINITION OF QOL
Anything that affects the psychological, social, physical, and
biological condition of people can be said to affect also their quality
of life. Consequently, the definition of the term quality of life is
necessarily broad. Moreover, there are usually interactions between
categories, for example, a person's physical health will have an affect
upon state of mind and social behavior. In turn, the social group to
which a person belongs will influence how that person thinks and behaves.
Consequently, QOL is a concept that is not only broad in scope, but also
subtle and complex in its ramifications. All of the ecological features
of the human community are encompassed by the idea of the quality of
life. This special study will examine only subjective QOL.
III-C-1
-------
A fair amount of objective physical data about the impact of
changes in the environment upon people already is available and serves
as a measure of presumed change in their quality of life. Data on
changes in air and water quality are abundant, as are the impacts of
thermal changes on biological communities. However, outside of labora-
tory experimentation very little is known about the psychophysical
impacts of large changes in air, water, and temperature upon people,
including the secondary effects on physical and psychological health.
But clearly, changes in the environment are a source of initial stimu-
lation that can have a large effect on sensory experience and personal
judgments about subjective QOL.
Using a classification described by Gibson we can distinguish
between afferent (input) and efferent (output) sensory behavior.
Imposed exteroceptive afferent .stimuli are those received when the
sense organs are passive. Obtained exteroceptive afferent stimuli are
those received when the sense organs are active. Output, or efferent,
behaviors consist of exploratory behavior of the perceptual system and
performance behavior of the executive system. We can hypothesize that
changes in environmental quality will indeed have a differential effect
upon both efferent and afferent input providing a scalar can be devel-
oped to measure them. Both obtained and imposed exteroceptive afferent
stimuli constitute the point of entry into the life of an individual
from the perspective of subjective QOL. And these stimuli impact upon
the sense modalities of vision, hearing, smell, taste, pressure, temper-
ature, pain, kinesthesia, and equilibrium. These sense modalities are,
in fact, the only entry points to the experience of the environment.
It is at this interface with the environment that our definition of
subjective QOL must begin. What we choose to call emotion and cognition
are only later stages in the complex chain of responses which comprises
the experiential life of people. It makes no sense to form conclusions
about subjective QOL impacts until this area has been charted empir-
ically, and this must be done on a case by case basis.
One way to begin, therefore, is to ask, have dimensions of psycholo-
gical experience with vision, such as hue> intensity, and saturation,
changed as a result of an environmental change? Electromagnetic energy
is the physical stimulus for vision: when a light wave increases in
intensity or amplitude, brightness is experienced. Such variation in
physical dimensions results in new psychological experience. To the
extent that haze in the form of particulate matter, or the construc-
tion of a power plant with a cooling tower and its inevitable plume,
appear, so also changes in electromagnetic waves occur, and, in turn,
changes in the quality of human visual experience. As a consequence,
an individual may choose to place an aesthetic value upon that change.
After wave length changes are sensed will they also lead to changes in
mood? We know from common experience how the presence or absence of
sunlights affects mood. Can long-term changes in electromagnetic waves
due to increases in particulate matter (smog) affect mood, even
creating mild depression, and thus an adverse state of mind leading to
a subjectively experienced decline in quality of life?
III-C-2
-------
Changes in sound waves can be analyzed into variations in fre-
quency arid amplitude. During the construction of power generating
facilities we might expect both frequency and amplitude to increase.
Even after construction, there will be some permanent change in fre-
quency and amplitude of sound. Eventually, such changes become notice-
ably imposed afferent, exteroceptive, as well as obtained exteroceptive
stimuli which may change mood, outlook,and thus subjective QOL. The
chemical senses of taste and smell also act to convey information which
may affect subjective QOL. Changes in air and water quality can change
the molecular structure of both,: creating a new dimension of psycholo-
gical experience and a change in QOL, and so also for temperature.
The basic perceptual systems of general orientation, listening,
touching, smelling, tasting, and looking, give us fundamental base line
data, therefore, about the adverse or positive impacts of the environ-
ment. Scales describing changes in these systems must form the elemen-
tary components of subjective quality of life indicators. At a higher
level of individual behavior, the information received through these
systems is processed and integrated with other levels of psychological
activities such as feelings, thoughts, memories, plans, and attitudes.
In a final sense, these integrating mechanisms come into play in the
service of the whole person and in survival and growth. An assessment
of subjective QOL can take place at any of these levels of analysis
depending upon the kinds of questions one is asking.
TABLE III-C-1
Levels of Analysis in Subjective QOL
1. Basic perceptual dimensions (awareness)
2. Motives, values, interests, opinions, expectancies
3. Higher integrating processes. Planning and problem solving beha-
vior leading to evaluation and judgment.
To illustrate the serial interplay of these levels, consider that
appreciation of any thing—an art form, nature, a sport, work relations
with other people—usually begins as basic sensory awareness followed
by an evaluation intellectually of that awareness accompanied by a
feeling about it, all taking place as an integrated whole experience in
space and time. Determining how people think and feel about their ele-
mentary sensory experience in terms of their wholistic responses is the
most important single way to ascertain the subjective QOL. Civilized
appreciation of the world around one is an exercise of organized forms
of thought, feeling, and action, and interference with that is one deter-
minant of reduction in QOL. All of this can come about through extero-
ceptive afferent stimuli from the environment in the form of polluted
III-C-3
-------
air and water, radiation, thermal changes, new construction, and
accompanying social changes.
We also need to know much more about the distribution of indivi-
dual differences in exteroceptive, as well as proprioceptive, afferent
responses to various new environmental stimuli thought to be harmful to
QOL. No two people think, feel, or act exactly alike. Consequently, it
is very important to collect data about the distribution of differences
in sensory experience exhibited by people. Sensory responsiveness
varies from person to person, as do motives, values, intellectual abil-
ity and education, personality, temperament, and, in general, any of
the attributes which distinguish one person from another psychologically.
We have every reason to expect from earlier work on individual differ-
ences that the means and standard deviations of the differences on
measured characteristics will also vary. More than likely, there will
not only be similarities about some QOL issues, but considerable varia-
tion as well. QOL will not mean the same thing to everyone. Even-
tually, we may also be able to discover the thresholds below which
reductions in QOL become psychologically intolerable for people,
although judging by the present variations in lifestyle and socioeconomic
status from community to community, that threshold may vary greatly
as a function of income, education, and attitudes. One of the weaknesses
of some QOL studies is reliance upon arbitrary sources of secondary data,
data which, while expressed in mathematically elegant ways, are ques-
tionable extrapolations. Exceptions to this practice is the work of
Campbell, Converse, and Rodgers and of Andrews and Whithey at the
University of Michigan, Survey Research Center. The approach taken
in the present special study is mainly inductive, starting from a data
base and working toward a profile and structure implied by those data.
Experience is a sensory continuum that extends from initial
psychophysical contact with the environment to a series of complex
information processing steps leading finally to some kind of executive
behavior. The subjective experience of that continuum is one defifri-
tion of the subjective quality of life. We will attempt to identify
key aspects of that sensory continuum first by empirically locating
responses to fundamental stimuli and then by determining how those
stimuli are evaluated, appraised, judged, and acted upon.
III-C-4
-------
2. RESULTS
2.1. EXPLORATORY INTERVIEWING
The bulk of this report is devoted to discussing the substantive
results of the first phase of our research. But first a few cautionary
remarks are in order, particularly since the technique of focused group
interviews used here, although common in marketing and consumer research,
has limited penetration outside that field.
Focused group interviews are not actually interviews but rather
they are discussions—highly structured discussions. The purpose is to
elicit spontaneous—and therefore maximally valid (so we assume) —
reports of perception and affective reactions to a topic. The validity
stems from two sources: First of all, any response from consumers at
this stage is more authentic than the alternative, i.e., the researcher's
guess as to what the consumer would be thinking, saying, and finding
meaningful. The researcher's biases slip into the final form of the
questionnaire or other instrument much more easily if the stage of
exploratory discussions is not used.
Secondly, the lack of any but the most general discussion topic
(see Appendix C for the guide used in this study) means that the partici-
pant has a minimal chance to sense what the researcher wants and responds
accordingly. Respondents stimulate each other by arguing, agreeing,
disagreeing, and responding to the interviewer's attempts to frame provo-
cative probes. All these things produce both visual imagery and affec-
tive response to a sufficient extent to meet the researcher's needs.
By the same token, the sample selection process is in no way meant
to yield statistically representative replies. Again, the emphasis is
on a wide range of response that defines the limits rather than indi-
cates the typical.
2.2. RESPONSE SUMMARY BY GROUP
Seven focused groups were coordinated in order to obtain prelimi-
nary data about subjective QOL discussions and other variables discussed
previously. Each will be examined as a group first. Later the results
will be analyzed by topic.
2.2.1. UP-SCALE WOMEN
The initial group interviewed consisted of ten women par-
ticipants from a middle to tapper middle class socioeconomic group.
Most are college graduates. Some are the wives of university faculty,
while others are business women. Their average age is forty-five years
and they are all Caucasian.
III-C-5
-------
They were more knowledgeable about energy problems and
alternatives than about power plants or energy production. They per-
ceive change in life styles as a major manifestation of the crisis situa-
tion opposing return to "good old days" as unwanted and unnecessary.
There was concern relative to choice as opposed to increased government
intervention in decision-making. They viewed energy as a cheap commo-
dity, but recognized the threat of increased costs; they were concerned
with consumerism and resented the "throw away culture" as an extension
of the Madison Avenue influence. They questioned whether the energy
issue represents "a political point of view" and/or whether it is
"something that is being manipulated."
2.2.2. BLUE-COLLAR APPALACHIANS
A second group consisted of blue-collar workers from a
somewhat lower socioeconomic level. Their average age is about forty
and they consisted of both men and women with strong Appalachian roots.
Average educational level is high school or less. A few of the members
of this group are unemployed and receiving support from welfare. They
were interviewed during a period of extreme cold and each had suffered
from a lack of heat.
Generally, uninformed about issues, their responses largely
reflect self-interest and personal experience. They were strongly
affected by limited energy (heat availability) and by related high
costs, and concerned with basics (i.e., available transport to work).
They see the energy crisis as a "scare tactic" with utilities making
excessive profits. They lack knowledge about alternative energy sources
and about power plants, as such.
2.2.3. SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE UNITARIANS
The third group were mixed Caucasian, men and women,
average age of thirty-five to forty, highly educated with several
holding masters and doctoral degrees. Some were members of the League
of Women Voters and had a strong interest in energy affairs.
Surprisingly, they were weak relative to facts, but had
lots of ideas and much experiential discussion. There was a lack of
depth of understanding (as opposed to superficial knowledge), especially
relative to solutions; there was concern with changing life styles, an
obvious social consciousness, but not focused on effective reaction.
They saw government policy responding to pressure groups, not to the
individual citizen--!.e., "Government isn't us, it's them!" They were
not sympathetic to less energy, but would argue for alternative uses
and alternative reactions to current patterns of usage (e.g., move out
of Ohio).
III-C-6
-------
2.2.4. YOUNG PROFESSIONALS
The fourth mixed Caucasian group of men and women con-
sisted partly of employees of a large utility company and partly
employees of the state of Ohio. Their average age was about thirty.
All were college educated young professionals or subprofessionals.
This group was well-versed about issues, concerned about
changes in life styles, government controls, "Madison Avenue sales
pitch and blitz"; they questioned conservation as a moral responsibility;
"feel no need to conserve"; recognized increased costs associated
with resource scarcity. Scarcity was seen as inconvenient and frus-
trating; they argued that scarcity will allow "rich to become richer"
and will provide less chance for middle and lower class to develop.
They anticipated "lots of government control" or "big government
like no one has seen before"; preferred less regulation, but thought
it is impossible to achieve; and "something is wrong and I have no
control."
2.2.5. SIERRA CLUB CONSERVATIONISTS
The fifth group consisted of members of the Columbus Chapter
of the Sierra Club. All showed a deep interest in environmental con-
cerns. Their average age was thirty-five and most were college educated
but mixed socioeconomically. Their concern about energy was largely
dominated by their special interest in environmental matters.
They evinced a strong expression of social responsibility
relative to social ills; a strong conservation/preservation bias and
orientation, and yet they were not always consistent nor rational: for
example, espousing wilderness, yet arguing that "wilderness areas no longer
would be wasted." Apparently well-off socially and economically, they
appreciate different "needs" of less comfortable groups and note that
"people won't change until they have to."
2.2.6. STUDENT LEADERS
The sixth group was made up of college undergraduate stu-
dents at a major university. Their average age was about twenty and
they were from mixed socioeconomic backgrounds. All were honor stu-
dents.
They were well-informed and had strong attitudes relative to
QOL. They viewed QOL in terms of money, success, security; they were
strongly success-motivated and argued for increased educational satis-
faction, job improvement, leisure, intellectually satisfying work, and
physical comfort. They showed a feeling of helplessness relative to
energy shortage, were concerned about the "power" of utilities to affect
lives, and questioned the crisis as a "politically contrived experience."
They viewed the energy crisis as short-run with a solution based upon
expanded technology, yet energy was viewed as a luxury. They suggested,
despite this, that the society needs "a big shock" to bring about
change.
III-C-7
-------
2.2.7. SAVE-THE-VALLEY ACTIVISTS
The final group consisted of the members of a citizens
group created to oppose the further construction of power plants along
the Ohio River. They are a mixed group of men and women and of an
average age of forty-five to fifty. For the most part, they are well-
to-do upper-middle-class members of their community. They have an inten-
sive interest in energy developments because of the impact of these
developments upon their lives and community. This group was by far the
most articulate and concerned of all.
They were well organized and thoughtful, especially with
respect to the issue of increased development of power plants. They
were less reactive to the effects of energy crisis upon life styles,
recognizing that additional power plants would affect life styles. How-
ever, "good life" was viewed in a parochial way--i.e., it is Madison
Indiana! Highly supportive of region, supportive data often are not
factual in content with "hearsay" offered rather than more solid evi-
dence. They show a truly dedicated effort to what has become an emo-
tional "cause." There was limited concern with the larger society--
i.e., energy needs of regions beyond their own. They resent power base
development in their region for "export" to other areas. These people
provide the best documentation of the effects of power plants upon indivi-
duals, communities, and regions.
2.3. RESPONSE SUMMARY BY TOPIC
2.3.1. PERCEPTION OF QOL
It is apparent that the QOL discussions appearing in the
seven focused groups are complex and varied. There is a brief delinea-
tion below with examples. The advantage of this approach is that it
avoids the misrepresentation that may be a consequence of extrapolation
from other QOL studies. The subject is sufficiently complex to warrant
caution about generalizing from one conceptual framework or population
to another. It is especially to be noted that the focal topic of this
research, the impact of proposed energy producing facilities in the Ohio
River Basin, lends a different emphasis to possible response to QOL
questions.
The value of the focused groups has been in the data they
have provided confirming empirically certain subjective QOL dimensions.
We shall review them below. They include
Mobility and freedom of movement
Housing changes
Social relations, friendship, and sense of
community
Cost of fuel
Clothing
Food versus bodily warmth
Autonomy and privacy
III-C-8
-------
Shortages
Aesthetic characteristics of surroundings
Temperature
Sensory change
Personal safety
Air and water quality
Home environment
Personal health
Overall personal satisfaction - happiness
Money
Cultural life
Intellectual life
Personal freedom
Opportunity for personal growth
Role of government
Jobs and employment
Recreation
Emotional security, absence of fear and
psychological stress
Facets of the natural environment
Personal convenience
While the list is not exhaustive, it provides a good indica-
tion of the kinds of subjective QOL issues which are associated with
energy and energy production in the minds of the people interviewed.
Mobility and personal freedom of movement are illustrated by
the following remark: "These are things I can think of that bother
me, things like not being able to get in the car and go. That would
probably register on my mind as a practical element of being not free.
But when I think about that phrase 'not freev' I have to think in terms
of peculiarities. With the gas crisis one would not be free to go to
work because there is not enough energy to keep the shop open."
Positive social relations and friendship are very impor-
tant dimensions, as are their opposites, which are related to conflict.
An example of the positive and negative form is: "One of the best things
about the QOL in this valley is that it is still small enough that
people are still pleasant and thoughtful. (In contrast) I was in
an automobile accident in Indianapolis, and I sat there with the blood
running out of my nose for a half hour before the police came and did
something about it. Conversely, I started up Hanging Rock Hill and
my fuel pump failed me. Before I could get out of my car, three cars
stopped and their drivers offered help. We had a terrible winter. I
was stalled many times. All I had to do was to start my motor and spin
my wheels and three or four people that I had never seen before would
push and then wave as I drove off. That is the quality of life here
that I don't want to see lost."
"And another thing, it is a nice place to raise children.
You can let them play and you know there will be other mothers watching
your children."
III-C-9
-------
There was a distinct feeling that power plants would destroy
this sense of community.
Another negative facet of social relations is the fear of
others. No longer can people leave their doors unlocked as in the past.
For example: "In 1967, we had a county police force of three people,
the sheriff and two deputies. In a ten year period, we have now gone to
a force of eight plus twenty-four reserves. And the population has only
increased two or three percent." And again: "the locked doors that we
now experience that we didn't before."
The promise of large scale technological changes in a small
community does indeed seem to carry with it a concomitant change in
level of fear and anxiety as a facet of QOL.
An example of psychological stress as a dimension of QOL
is illustrated in the following remarks:
"I think our mental health is the most important of all.
That is one thing you can't buy—peace of mind. The night before the
hearing I didn't sleep at all (hearing about power plants proposed)."
"It's not only the people in this group that's going through
mental anguish. Many of them are afraid."
Natural environment as a dimension is illustrated by references
to the effects of effluents on vegetation:
"Another thing that is happening is that the Hemlocks on
our hill are dying from S02- It's just a matter of time until we start
losing the rest of the young deciduous trees."
Infrequent references are made to health, normally a very
important QOL topic for people. One can only conclude that health and
energy producing facilities are not clearly tied together.
Sensory impact can be very marked as is indicated by the
following: "These people say that when they are playing on the golf
course, which is right at the foot of the stacks down here, they get
watering of their eyes so they have to quit playing. They get choking
and unpleasantness."
In addition to this sensory experience, complaints are also
made of smells and noise, both of which affect QOL levels.
2.3.2. REACTIONS TO POWER PLANTS
Reactions to the issues of expanded power plants (numbers
and outputs) varies as related to individual knowledge of energy produc-
tion. Considerable ignorance exists as to how energy is generated, as
to electrical energy and alternative forms, as to hydro and thermal
electrical generation, and as to thermal plants that are fossil fuel
based (essentially restricted to coal-fired plants in the interviews)
III-C-10
-------
and those that are or may be nuclear based. A relevant issue expressed
in several of the interviews had to do with solar energy as a realistic
alternative to either coal or nuclear plants.
When weighing the impacts of expanded power plant operations
upon a community or region, there was a greater tendency to consider
negative impacts (i.e., pollution, safety, health, etc.) than to
evaluate possible positive impacts (i.e., jobs, industrial expansion,
increased community benefits). In the following assessment by groups,
two kinds of information are listed: (1) direct quotes from the groups
as related to the issue of power plants, specifically; and (2) related
information that may capture the spirit of the discussion, but without
direct quotation.
(Blue Collars) A group aware of issues but lacking in specifics:
"they're holding back on solar energy and atomic energy...because the
oil companies are pressuring the government." Re electrical energy
production: "pick up the garbage and burn it." Re atomic plant in
Columbus: "If they have strict enough rules and safety standards...enforce
the rules and make sure that it's safe, then I'd go along with it
100%." "I feel coal could be used as a back up...at least 200 years of
coal supplies underneath Ohio." "Concerning atomic energy, it's a risk,
regardless of how you put it." Re alternatives: "Not to have atomic
energy, because it is a risk." "Coal plants would be alright. Of
course, there's still a lot of coal here in Ohio." "Coal would be
safer, I imagine." Re power plant near one's home: "Well, the way I
feel about it< if we run out of gas we're going to freeze to death
anyway, so ir there's any way to survive I think we should take that
way." "Have enough plants to supply the need and not go over it."
Re support of atomic energy: "Oh yes I would. If the government
decides...! mean the scientists would relate to the government they
would relay this information to the people." "Either way you are risking
your life, I mean, it's either freeze to death or vote for it." "Now
the atomic power, like I say, if it was regulated to the point where
all safety factors were put into effect, then...(it) would be cleaner,
less problem with pollution, and more people would still be working,
less health hazards like this man with coal (lung disease)." "We
really need the regulations for the safety factor." Re solar energy:
"The biggest problem right now is the cost is prohibitive." Re pollution:
"Actually, right now we have enough pollution that it's a hazard to our
health, with all these atomic explosions, and all this coal burning
and what not...pollution stays in the atmosphere...and right now I
wouldn't be surprised if we had a certain amount of radiation out of
that stuff." Re pollution and "that smelly stuff": "You really don't
hear too much about it anymore, not as much as you used to...they've
done a great deal about it." "By the time you get to town you can smell
it." "Take like your municipal power plant...you remember the black
smoke that rolled over the downtown...they're doing something about that."
III-C-11
-------
(Up-Scale Women) This educated group showed a lack of technical
information: "I can't understand why the government isn't doing more
research for solar energy." "It hasn't been spurred on by the electric
people and the gas people, and the oil companies have not been eager
about solar research." "The government can encourage research on other
forms of energy." Re ignorance of energy: "But why do they have to
have coal for electricity if they have all these hydro-electric plants?"
Re alternatives: "No one has mentioned air power. It wasn't as convenient
perhaps, but who knows the saving if we simply went back to wind?"
Re nuclear: "Yes, and having nuclear power plants where, well, they're
storing nuclear energy in such and such a place, and you get yourself
into the position if, well it's dangerous to be here. And you know,
they don't know about storing those things; and they heat up the water
towers to control the water." "If we go into nuclear energy, then there
will be controls of all sorts." "We're already into it, gang, the nuclear
energy is providing electricity. I feel it has a real use. I would like
to see us get into solar power." "I think it is full steam ahead with
nuclear." The group had no knowledge of the amount of nuclear power
being geiaerated in Ohio, if in fact any was being generated. "Nuclear
energy frightens me, because I know the potential for a thermo-nuclear
reactor to blow up." "We have to be so carefuT wtth it or it will
destroy everything...of course, we have this threat from all phases of
atomic power." We need "stringent controls for safety, hopefully with
as little politicking as possible. And I would like to see the development
of pure energy, things that do not pollute the earth...nuclear responds
by overheating the water and destroying the life and fish and everything
that is in it." Re choice between strip mining and air pollution: "It
will be resolved according to economics." Re pollution: "We have a
super crisis here...nobody will do anything about it." Re choice
between coal and nuclear: "waste is the end product of nuclear fission
as well as the heat changes in the water." "Nuclear power just abso-
lutely terrifies me; because I think, in the case of coal, the pollu-
tion that is caused (re coal burning).. .has made homes warm and we
at least know what kind of pollution is caused." "The direction we
should be moving in is every community creating its own power or using
its own power from solar or wind." "Why do they have to bury these
radioactive wastes...when they could have been developing solar energy."
"Why be so critical of nuclear. What we are doing right now has cost
so much destruction. We talk about the coal. Think of the cities
where people die by the thousands because of various pollution." Re
building a power plant on the Ohio River: "Yes, they could use the
water power." Re pictures of power plants: "That's a cooling tower?
Of what? Nuclear? They circulate water through it and reduce heat."
"Do we have a power plant in Columbus, really?"
Reaction to new plants is not dogmatic: "Why should we
build another power plant unless there's a reason?" "I think if we
need more energy we ought to build plants." "Plants are built every
day. We just don't know anything about it." "I would not want coal...
it is terrible. You wouldn't dare open a window." "My instinct is
to move to the nuclear one (re alternatives) with adequate controls,
because it is a smaller disruption of the ecosystem than taking out all
that coal...it is more economical power production." "My only ques-
tion is about the disposal of nuclear waste. That is what concerns me."
III-C-12
-------
There was recognition of Boom Town effects: "the thing that
happens is a tremendous increase in jobs while it (plant) is being
built." "Once you get (it)...up it doesn't take many people to run
it." "A terrible strain on the schools (re Pike County}." "They feared
the change in quality of their school life, their community life, their
church life, everything. It was quite an adjustment (Pike Co.)."
"Around Columbus there wouldn't be that much change. There wouldn't
be a lot of new housing or new stores...a large enough area with man-
power."
(Student Leaders) were aware of technology: "assuming that
technology saves us, technological advances are by no means going to
be cheap. If you start heating your home by solar energy, it's liable
to cost you twice as much." "Solar energy is so inefficient in terms
of utilizing the potential energy that it is very expensive." "Where's
electricity to come from? Coal. Water. That's the type of thing
you are going to have to use...things that are unlimited." "Coal has
a finite capacity to provide energy...for 150 years to heat America."
Re problems with coal: "Well, the priorities in terms of environmental
protection, the soot and so forth that come from the cheaper quality
of coal...high sulfur coal from Ohio...has a deleterious effect on
the environment." "Also the strip mines." "There is some of the
land that can't be reclaimed because of the chemical makeup...it's
like the moon."
They have mixed attitudes toward environment: "Don't you
think it's pretty funny that around five years ago we were all so con-
cerned about the environment, and now like the tables are completely
turned...Rhodes is saying, 'I'm going to start using our coal imme-
diately1 .. .and nobody gets all bent out of shape about the environment."
"It wouldn't be so terrible to sacrifice some environment to save our
lives and our jobs for a couple of months." "Like why do we need so
much energy?"
(Young professionals) showed optimism about plant devel-
opment. "There is coal in Ohio...the way that's going to impact on our
lives in the future will be to maybe increase pollution levels for the
3 to 5 years that it takes for Battelle to develop that low sulfur coal.1
Re source of electricity: "I suppose a lot of them are coal, and a
lot...probably water generated at the source." Re need for electri-
city: "If you don't have the electricity, you're not going to do your
job." "I'm no longer willing to say that we need the technology, there-
fore we will develop it...we have to worry about the costs." "If you
go out...and look at the strip mine areas...that doesn't really inflict
any costs on my life right now, but in a more crowded world...It is
going to interfere with somebody's life." QOL? "Going to be
decreased...when I have to start breathing gunkier air...what's it
going to do to my lungs? Possibly even shorten my life." "Any kind of
generator plant...we've got to have them." "We are going to have as
many of them as we need, because that's what 'we1 is." "There are
problems that...have to be ironed out in order to dispose of nuclear
waste, but as far as efficiency and cost, in terms of customer benefits,
nuclear power plants have a great deal to offer." "There are
political problems galore...home owners are real scared of an atomic
III-C-13
-------
explosion." "We could move people around, create large waste areas
and put all the power plants there, pick them so that they will have
the least environmental effect, and run it that way."
(Socially responsible Unitarians) were concerned with pollu-
tion. "To begin with, every ounce of energy that we get other than
human energy or animal energy means pollution...so that we will see
an automatic cleaning up of the environment." "You think pollution
might be less; I think it will be more. Because I think we are going
to see a real push now. People are going to want to convert to electri-
city to burn Ohio coal." "I wouldn't be too sure if we generated
electricity with soft coal, but before EPA would let us do that, we are
close enough to the technology to make the emissions clean." "But
Rhodes has come out and said for the next five years let's just forget
these rules...I think now the environmentalists are really being put
down." "I wonder if people would go back to burning coal...cause that's
the most efficient." "I know how a steam turbine works, but I don't
really know how the heat from the nuclear reactor is generated into
steam. I know a steam turbine is one of the more efficient ways of
generating electricity, coal, whatever it is." "Nuclear (living next
door?) I can sure worry about." "They (power plants) are not the
most attractive things in the world." "And they were talking about
burning coal...and all of the things bad that could go wrong...the
pollutants and the possibility of uncontrolled fire...made coal sound
at least as bad as anything I've ever heard about nuclear stuff right
now." "Except that coal may pollute the air to a degree, sulfur coal
at least." Strong negative reactions expressed relative to deep
shaft mining of coal.
A power plant cited in Columbus was seen as a positive thing:
"It's just another industry, really...wouldn't be any different than
the VW plant." "Power plants aren't notorious for the number of people
they employ." "Building it would be a people intensive activity."
"The power plant could enable local industry to develop better...and
create more jobs...it could be good for Columbus." Re coal: "Well,
we've been talking about coal. At one point, I thought coal is not
what we want to use in this country. And it seems to me that now
we are beginning to realize it is the resource we may have to use
I cannot get enthusiastic about that if we do not...realistic about
the hazardous conditions for those who have to live and work in them
(mines)."
The group was well aware of tradeoffs involving new power
plants: "if we go ahead and plan on building many power plants, I
suspect that energy is going to cost a lot. We're going to have all we
want, but we're going to either have very expensive energy or a lot of
pollution...pollution control becomes increasingly expensive. Partly as
we get to the poor quality coal, partly as we crowd the rivers and
thermal pollution gets worse, and air pollution begins to reach the
saturation point."
III-C-14
-------
(Sierra Club conservationists) This group was like others
in realistic appraisal of benefits and costs. "Columbus is not exces-
sively polluted...that's a big plus." Like others they were positively
disposed to solar energy: "bailing us out?" "Do you mean that we can
control solar energy so that we can do whatever we want?" This atti-
tude prevails about fission as well: "that there's actually no limit
on what human beings can do if they can control fission energy." Power
plants: "depends on what kind...a lot more coal burning power plants,
unless they do a lot more on emission controls, is going to be a great
air problem. There is Ohio coal. It's dirty." Re a power plant plume
at Ohio Power Co. plant at Beverly: "the plume is 200 miles long.
So it doesn't effect just the one area. It's a large area when you're
burning something that throws off these pollutants in the air. And
I'm against nuclear energy." "Building more power plants isn't
going to solve the problem the way power is merchandized right now.
You are given an incentive to use more. So if you build ten more
plants, the crisis will come with more usage, but there will still be
a shortage." "Nuclear energy, even the breeder reactor, are just the
opposite of a non-renewable resource. They are a resource you can't
get rid of...you've got a large amount of waste product that you can't
even store safely." "I personally would like to live close to a
hydroelectric plant that was already there...I wouldn't worry so much
about air pollution or nuclear."
"I'd rather live next door to a nuclear plant than to live
next door to where they store the waste, if I had a choice." "There
are four things that can happen to a nuclear power plant. One of
the problems is the storage, and one of the biggest problems is the
accidents and the unpredictability of it...it's just frightening
to me." "I don't have enough faith in the engineering systems and in
the construction of them." "Sooner or later one of them is going
to have an accident." "They've already broken down." "Destroyed
a whole area." "I wouldn't object to living next door to say a small
hydro plant...or perhaps a small gas fired...or some kind of generat-
ing pi ant...but most plants are tremendous, most coal plants are
tremendous, coal railroads and the whole bit. I just object to living
next to any huge industrial complex....There is no such thing as a small
nuclear plant." "Could have a health effect." "Probably attract business."
"It's going to be a big edifice. And nobody wants to live next door
to something like that...it's going to influence the development of
neighborhoods...whether or not industry comes in...going to change the
appearance of a town because of the cooling tower...change the tempera-
ture of the large body of water...long range secondary effects on the
community and its development."
They were much concerned with personal control: "Dick's
idea of a small neighborhood power plant that I thought I had some
personal influence on." Yet even they wanted stability: "I would
be willing to give up a lot of freedom for some guarantees."
III-C-15
-------
(Save-the-Valley activists) Three conditions appear to affect
this group's attitudes toward the development of power plants in
their region: (1) the group represents individuals whose farm lands
might be appropriated through eminent domain for plant sites; (2) the
group is strongly attached to their community, Madison, Indiana, and
its surrounding region for its historic values; and (3) the group per-
ceives that QOL is subject to assault and change by the expansion of
power plants in the region. There is concern with one major plant, the
Clifty Creek plant, that operates on the western edge of the community,
but there is much greater concern with proposed nine new plants for an area
within 35 miles of Madison.
"We've always been close to the land. We've seen the gradual
deterioration of this part of the country over the past few years.
And now it seems to be going to be greatly accelerated by the acquiring
of all the river bottom land by power companies...this is a great
threat, not only to us personally, but to our feeling for the environ-
ment and for the real life that we have been living." "The land's
been in our family for 100 years. And we don't think we can grow
peaches within a mile of these cooling towers due to the humidity.
Our biggest battle is brown rot. We fear all that will make it twice
as bad, not to speak of radiation." "I've grown to love this valley...
I fear for the health of the people in the valley." "After I was
here for a short time I realized about the pollution coming from the
IKE (Clifty Creek) plant 1 made no complaints until I heard about
the people who operate the plant...(they) wanted to build additional
plants...(it) puts out more $03 than all of Jefferson County, Kentucky."
"I'm interested in...clean air...I know what's been done to us and I'm
sure if there are more power plants of that type or coal burning I'm
sure we're going to feel it...my eyes burn, my nostrils burn, and
also my throat...it's not healthy." "I would like to point out that
we are not talking here of energy for ourselves, our own area. We're
talking about power plants to provide energy to far away places. We
don't need it here." "I object to the kind of justice that requires
me to eat fly ash in my soup while somebody in Cleveland or Chicago
has a perfectly fine atmosphere and plenty of energy because I am down
here sweltering in S02- I think this is unfair...it is unjust...it
is a travesty on my civil liberties."
The group fundamentally does not accept the need for more
energy: "question the fact that all of this power is really needed."
"If Madison and Jefferson County need so many kilowatts of electri-
city, I would be willing to sustain a plant that has that number of
kilowatts to produce." "There should be a moratorium declared for
at least two years or five years."
Pollution: "We were driving back from Cincinnati...a big
black plume coming across 1-71...I said, 'They are blowing the stacks.1
These are things that we aren't told by EPA or by the utilities. Under
the regulations...they are allowed to blow the stacks three minutes out
of every hour...an hour and 12 minutes (per day) for each plant They
blow it at night time...they do no monitoring They are not accoun-
table when they blow the stacks." "There are two things (about
III-C-16
-------
plant pollution) One is the plume The other is due to one of
various kinds of temperature inversions...which bring the mass of
pollution down into the city or down into the Valley People get
watering of their eyes...they get choking and unpleasantness. And
this is from the stacks which are supposed to be, which are 680' high."
"What got people active was that you discovered that the utilities were
buying the land." "We could not survive."
The Save-the-Valley group was aware of disease from pollu-
tion: "One thing that they did notice. We had a tornado here April 3,
1974. And that plant (IKE) was down for three months They noticed a
great deal of difference at the local hospital and at the local Madison
clinic....People weren't suffering with lung problems." A state ento-
mologist says: "that the hemlock on our hill are dying from S02-
And the reason, of course, the conifers die first...he feels that it
is just a matter of time until we will start losing the rest of the conifers
and the timber of young deciduous trees." "There are also a lot of
people who are not particularly under a doctor's care for either lung
disease or emphysema...(but) during the summer months with the humidity
and IKE plant, there's a definite heaviness of the air that these people
cannot stand." "There's a haze in the air...and the smell of sulfur."
"What we really need is to put all this money which is going into
nuclear energy into sun, into harnessing the sun." "Well, here is a
source of energy right in our own community...a tremendous source...for
23 years...there is enough 'spill over' to light up this entire town...
(and) the heat loss that has gone up those stacks for 23 years is
terrible That's where the waste has gone, in the air." "Instead of
putting up new plants that cause you more pollution, why don't they
spend money on storing electricity?" Nuclear: "Absolutely opposed."
"The coal plants, if we have to have them, are preferable to the
nuclear ones because the pollution from coal power is biodegradable.
It's hard on the environment, but it's biodegradable. The pollution
from a nuclear plant is cumulative. It's not biodegradable,"
"Another thing that bothers us is the absentee ownership
of all this stuff, that we are the ones who are paying the penalty so
that somebody else somewhere else, Washington, Long Island, New York,
wherever, is getting the benefit of it." "They will probably build a
plant, and most of us who have the finances will move out." "People
are planning to live somewhere else." "They say, well, if the plant
comes, we're leaving." "And there are a number who are carefully
buying up real estate in the expectation that the plant will come,"
"The taverns are booming."
2.3.3. CONCERN ABOUT ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL SITES
In general, very few remarks were directed to this issue.
In several group interviews, considerable discussion ensued about lei-
sure time activities and about the need for recreation opportunities in
the natural environment. References to archaeological and/or historical
sites (or phenomena) were rare, although several are noted. "To be
able to have enough free time to enjoy possibly the cultural aspects or
some special interests...to enjoy some special things other than eating,
working, and sleeping." "I'd like to see the natural part of our
III-C-17
-------
resources preserved for future generations." "The wilderness areas
(should) no longer be wasted."
One group that was specifically aware of historical values
was Save-the-Valley: "We're terribly interested in Madison, its
history, its beautiful architecture...country-like peaceful atmosphere."
"This is a place, this is an oasis for people in other parts of the
state and the world. Everyone remembers Madison that comes through.
They come here for vacation. They come here because of the river. They
go by on the Delta Queen, the river boat. They remember it. Some of
them retire and come back to live." "The Ohio Valley is an endan-
gered species." "We have something unique here. I think we have a
real piece of history, Federal homes You can still see areas downtown
where the slave traffic was. You can also know where the underground
railroad is on the other side There are physical evidences of this.
This is an oasis, a piece of our history on the river." "We have
a piece of what happened in the settlement of a bit of the west right
here. And it's still evident and tangible. All of this is in jeopardy."
2.3.4. ALTERNATIVE BEHAVIORS
Did our respondents see any real change in their own life
in response to energy programs? Were they willing to make fundamental
changes in their life style? Of course most turned down the thermostat
during the extreme cold. Some talk about more fundamental changes.
(Student leader): "When I think of the American Dream I think of a big
house in suburbia, a Cadillac and maybe a Chevy. Maybe our American
Dream will have to change into something like 6 years of education
instead of a big house...change the material possessions you want to
something different. Eventually if you want to have a new car even-
tually you're going to have to have a smaller car."
Note, however, that such basic changes are vague and tentative,
or abstract. "You think of energy now as being more of a luxury,
whereas before we would think of it as just being a regular part of
life. Now we think twice...turn your furnace back, drive your car,
you drive a little slower...I suppose we should lower the heat because
that's...I mean, leaving the lights on and letting the water run and
so on...there's a whole set of behaviors that I think a lot of people
have sort of...they aren't important till perhaps recently."
But there is awareness of an historical trend: "Well the
standards for getting things done are higher. When we added on to the
house, we put an aireator in our septic system. The septic system
didn't work. The aireator does, but it uses a lot more energy because
there is a little motor down there going all the time. And when we
increase the standards for something like the septic system with an
aireator system you use more energy. A decrease in unnecessary
appliances, going back to a 1950 level of appliances, which was
probably a very reasonable level. We lived very comforbatly and had
a vacuum and washer and dryer, and a refrigerator and stove. Except
for hair blowers...we've got to have those...I think all of us would
probably take another look at appliances now: Is this really something
III-C-18
-------
we need. That's one case where you can make a mild sacrificial effort
to conserve energy." "Electric can opener and electric toothbrush."
"Yes, I'm speaking particularly of those. I cannot see
any purpose in an electric can opener or an electric toothbrush or
electric knife. They don't use much current, but still, they do use a
good deal of energy in their manufacture and we need gas for all those
things highly plastic. So they give us an energy kick two ways. And
too I think that everything I have ever read, there is absolutely no
justification, energywise or moneywise, economywise for a home freezer.
The justification is all in convenience." One detects an enthusiasm
for eliminating appliances.
Some alternatives are modest: "You eat a lot more raw
food. Believe me the amount of raw fruits and vegetables we have been
eating has gone way up." And some are radical. "Scaling down the size
of the houses too. Every house built today, the average house is
$45,000 and it must have a family room. And it's just like the old
time parlor, as if the family, the family room isn't, but the living
room is. Just totally useless rooms. People are closing them off,
sure because they can't afford to heat them. But build a house
entirely different today and tomorrow that is comfortable, could be
much more comfortable. These women are strapped with cleaning these
humongous wasteful areas that all it is is for pretentiousness. And
you have to have it for resale value, even three bedrooms. You don't
need a three bedroom home, have little dormitory rooms with a central
reading-and-study area rather than 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 bedrooms. You
don't need 3% baths, but everybody thinks they have to have it.
"I think we. could get into the building codes*.. ;Now if
you are going to build in $ project, you have to have a two carsggrage,
2% baths. And I think that goes with the building codes. We ought to
maybe gear our building codes to more efficient living space and that
would give us more efficient energy use." "That's right, change them."
"Moved to a smaller place. I bought a double deliberately which was
smaller than the apartment I was living in."
Changes in the home are both cause and effect: "If you
lived in Alphaville you could have filters on your water and the air
in your home. Live inside all the time."
"When it gets down below 10 degrees, say, we turn off our
upstairs and sleep in the living room in our sleeping bags. We keep
our house at 62 degrees during the day and as low as the thermostat.
will go at night."
There was evidence of adapting to changes in time: "It
really was a depressing feeling until I adjusted to the idea of having
the house 5 degrees cooler than it had been. And then a couple of
weeks ago we had the little baby. And the doctor said, 'I don't care
what the fuel crisis is, you've got to warm the house up a little bit.'
And so I did. And I found that very depressing. I think it's the
change that's sort of depressing. And once you adjust to the idea of
III-C-19
-------
operating on a different scale it isn't too bad....Making that initial
adjustment for me was unthinkable."
"It seemed like the cooler temperature in the evening....
I slept better and was more refreshed when I got up. And I just
didn't feel as sluggish with the cooler temperature as having the heat
cranked up all the way all the time. It seemed I would get home from
work and come into a nice warm house. And I usually would lie down and
go to sleep. And the temperature was dropped just 5 degrees, and it
was a little big cooler, and it seemed to be more refreshing. I didn't
want to lie around and sleep all the time. So I had more energy, it
seemed like, when we were conserving that energy."
Moving is the ultimate adaptation. "I'll probably be
able to retire in the next few years, and have the choice to move from
northern cities — It's entirely possible to chuck everything here and
move to southern California, or somewhere, Texas or something like that
and forget all this conservable energy problem."
"I'm ready to quit, if another plant comes in I'm ready to
put for sale signs on a good growing business that we started from
scratch, a couple of houses, a farm. I'm going to get out. The only
problem is the government is putting these plants everywhere in the
United States. And to tell you the truth, I don't know where the hell
to go."
Some talked about alternative communities. "Central-
izing our power...instead it seems to me...every community creating its
own power or using its own power from solar or from wind."
Some changes are slow but may be very hard to reverse
once they are stated: "I'm changing myself very gradually. This is
the first winter that I have set the thermostat on 68 degrees during
the day and haven't heated the house when no one is home. It is
gradually changing my lifestyle. I have not made a thorough commitment
as to just how far I would go. I have just reduced everything as low
as I can possibly reduce it which is a 100% improvement over the way I
was using energy a year ago, and much more than 5 years ago. I was
just using energy as something that was endless and would go on forever.
Everyone's life is just changing gradually. My son is just beginning
to realize what is going on and taking it seriously because I'm taking
it seriously. He is listening to what I am saying,paying attention to
the thermostat. He is responding. He is eighteen years old, but he is
still able to be influenced by what I am doing. The question is diffi-
cult, each day it's changing."
Some are beginning to see the possibility of even greater
changes in their life patterns. "I could walk to work, if we could
arrange a place like that that would be a small, perhaps two bedroom
type condominium where our guests could sleep on a fold-out couch and
have something with perhaps a half down to 30 or 40% of our present
house size." "Most of us could do without our automobile much more
easily than heat for our home." "I can see running out of room, or
making provision for more people living in a space than have been."
EI-C-20
-------
"I can also see utilizing streets in ways that we haven't
before. In half-way decent weather we could—the number of automobiles
in the street would be cut down. Many roads that are four lane, at
least one of those lanes could be turned into a cycle place. Right now
it's not safe for bicycles in Columbus. We do it but it's not safe.
And so your present resource, which is right now roads, could be restruc-
tured with just a paint line to accommodate a little peddle power. That
would be good for the bicycle industry, utilize power to make the
bicycles but still over all I think the whole use would be much smaller
than what we need to drive our cars, anything within five miles."
"To sort of resemble a European community of present ones
and some 50 years back when there weren't cars, and people live very
close together in housing clusters, no private property to speak of, no
land other than land which they farmed." "Instead of cooking a meal,
each time, for instance cooking ahead, making soup or something like
that."
But others don't see it happening yet. "Well, outside of
turning our thermostat down to about 67, I don't think anybody's life
is really changed that much because of the energy crisis, or at least
mine hasn't. We still drive as much as we ever did. But we pay more
for gas."
Eventually the cost may catch up with the tolerance for
the status quo. "If gas doubled in price by next year, I probably
wouldn't do anything. I would simply take the lumps with the rest of
it and stay where I am. But if it went up 10 times in price I couldn't
afford to live where I am."
Natural gas: "Right now on a budget I pay $29 a month.
And if that doubled it would not force me personally to do anything, but
if something tragic happened and the price went up by a factor of 10, I
couldn't live there anymore. We would substantially change our lifestyle.1
"Heat electrically* Heat your home electrically then...in the ceiling.
Whatever you have to do."
2.3.5. RESPONSE TO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SCENARIOS
The last third of the interview was occupied with the topic
of energy programs. Our purpose was to test several formulations
at a common sense level of the two basic alternatives approximating the
"BOM high" and the "Ford Tech Fix." These were called Alphaville and
Betaville and were read exactly as follows:
In Alphaville, there are no limits on fuel or energy.
The costs are more than double the present level. Air and water are
very polluted. Some days air pollution reaches the danger level. The
economy is heal thy,and unemployment is low. People's houses are warm
in winter and cool in summer. The work places are comfortable. People
own lots of labor saving appliances and take trips whenever they want.
In Betaville there is a definite shortage of energy. Costs are high.
III-C-21
-------
If you use more than the norm they become extremely high either through
taxes or rate adjustment. Thus all sorts of energy use become
extremely expensive and the economy is tight. Unemployment is a little
higher than it should be and taxes are high. Pollution is strictly
controlled, and both air and water are clean. Gasoline has become so
expensive that trips, long trips by car, are rare. However, no one dies
of carbon monoxide poisoning in the streets. So we would like to talk
about what would life be like in Alphaville, first of all, and in Betaville.
First of all most.respondents saw both as realistic. "I
don't think they're unreal. I think Alphaville is probably a reasonable
projection in ten years if we don't institute a national energy policy.
It's what 10 years plus right now is gonna be, I think, wasteful use of
energy and quite a bit of pollution and so on. I don't know whether
that happens in 10 years, but it's reasonable. Betaville is also
reasonable to assume if you consider we will value the environmental
concerns much more highly than we value them now. And we will be
willing to trade off things such as employment and consumer economy
for clean air and water and all the rest of the environmental concerns."
"I would not be a bit surprised if, as in Betaville, you
are allotted a normal amount of energy use, and if you go too much
above that then you are charged an excessive rate."
Some saw them as no different from existing cities. "One
sounds like New York City, and the other one sounds like Tuscon, Ari-
zona."
They also saw them as opposite. "They're just opposite,
from one opposite extreme to another."
"I think life in Alphaville would be like we know it right
now, or in the past couple of years,you would have all of your
luxuries. Everbody would be working, but you wouldn't live too long
if you breathe all that, you would have more chronic illnesses and
respiratory diseases...polluted water. Whereas in Betaville they might
have their problems, but I think they would be healthier. And I think
the human resource could cope with them more so. I don't know per-
sonally, I'd just, I'd rather breathe clean air and drink clean water
and maybe not go as far and not have the conveniences and being afraid
to step outside the house. And like a friend of mine said in Cincinnati,
people weren't even taking a bath down there because the water is so
bad, from the last carbon tetrachloride spill."
And some of our respondents preferred one, some the
other, some a compromise. "I don't like the idea of Betaville, and I
think the reason goes back to the thing Mike was saying about the
pleasure points. You've got some government administrator who's
standing there saying, 'We know better what you need than you do,'
And I don't like Alphaville because I don't know why we can't force
people to bear the costs of energy usage. And I think we need a third
society there in between or an addition where you would allow full use
of energy to those people who could afford it, but you have costs for
III-C-22
-------
cleaning up pollution incorporated in the price of the fuels that are
being used. That third society is the one I would like to live tn,
because there I can sit with all of the things around me that I like;
and I can decide if I want to put this much money in energy, or do
I want to put it into something else. I don't have a government
administrator saying, 'Look you do that.'"
Some looked at long-term economic consequences. "If the
United States were to embark on a nationwide energy conservation pro-
gram and other developing countries make use of the energy they have
and their own natural resources...so our net flow of dollars is out
rather than in. How's that going to affect our attitude toward con-
servation of energy, if we see ourselves sinking while western Europe
and Asia are rising. And if we can blame...our conservation...turn it
right around again and go for broke."
Others thought about implications for long-term ecology.
"Well, the priorities in terms of environmental protection, the soot
and so forth that come from the cheaper quality of coal...high sulfur
coal from Ohio..is relatively cheap but has a deleterious effect on the
environment."
"Also, the strip mines. I've read figures that if they
continue strip mining at the rate they are, certain number of years...
Appalachias...going to be stripped."
"My girlfriend used to work for the department, the strip
mine reclamation There is some of the land that can't be reclaimed
because of the chemical make up. If you have ever been around there
where it has been stripped, my grandparents had a farm and the coal
company bought them out, stripped it. And I don't know, it's like the
moon. It's not a strip mine here and there. It's a whole, the whole
place is just dug up."
Alphaville is seen as like the status quo, as was intended.
"Alphaville is sort of a growth, uninhibited growth." "Business as
usual, high GNP." "I think a growth alternative would be moving from
Alphaville to Betaville because I think Alphaville is what we have
today or close to it. And Betaville is the growth alternative, but
it's only one."
Yet Betaville is not really easily accepted. There was
concern about regulation. "I think it implies some things that are not
quite considered, at the present time I don't believe are acceptable to
what most of the American people think. Again this notion that we
ought to be free to do certain things, and in the society in Betaville
there's going to be an incredible governmental apparatus. There are
going to be incredible amounts of regulations affecting everybody all
the time. And it's going to make us do away with some of these notions
of personal freedom. It's going to provide lots of lawyers."
III-C-23
-------
And a recognition of the economic impact: "Yes, for example,
who's going to deal with all that unemployment? Who's going to
give the unemployed people the money they need to buy whatever pro-
duces energy? Who's gonna to be there to say, 'Well at this point the
price will increase and will increase by how much?1 Now the way we
operate today we've got an administrator for each one of those steps
with batteries of lawyers and hearings and all kinds of procedure to
deal with the situation when somebody thinks somebody is makinq a mis-
take. You know, that's going to be big government like nobody's ever
seen it before and never thought of it before."
It brought out some basic conflicts. "I think it's also
a First Amendment question, freedom of expression for people who want
to sell things. But I would like to see a good health tax on excess
junk packaging." "Excess junk products." "That's another one. How do
you tell someone whether or not they can manufacture an electric tooth
brush? Do you set up somebody who can be in charge of that kind of
question? I hate to do that, but I would like to see it limited."
One might conclude by saying that there seems to be a reluc-
tant admission or realization that continuing with unlimited energy
use just will not work. As one of the Sierra Club activists put it,
"The major difference between Alphaville and Betaville, Betaville is
possible. I don't think Alphaville is possible. I don't think that we
have the resources and the capability of creating a world like that."
"If we burn a lot of coal we could do it." "I think Alphaville will
probably burn itself out in a few short years, whereas Betaville will
still be struggling on."
Perhaps the following quote best sums up the developing
sentiment: "Well Alphaville has definitely got a down curve, and it
can't go on. I think if you lived there you would see things getting
tighter and tighter. And if you lived in Betaville, although you might
be going through some tight times, you would probably be thinking,
things are going to get better, things are on the...get things under
some kind of control, and it's going to be rough for a while but
we'll probably come through it. I don't think you'd have that feeling;
I wouldn't have that feeling in Alphaville.
III-C-24
-------
3. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The first year's appraisal, relying primarily on group Interviews
and also utilizing an informal review of research done by others, has
resulted in the completion of a definite plan of research for the
following two years. Highlights include a specification of (1) QOL
dimensions deemed relevant to energy impacts, (2) policy objectives
that are salient for a large number of residents, and (3) some motiva-
tional variables that may distinguish people who are at different stages
in coping with changes in energy supplies.
The first of these results is contained in the body of the report
and is summarized in figure III-C-1 representing an input/output
matrix for final evaluation. The list is not final; rather it illus-
trates the range of domains that may be considered. Second, to be more
complete the table should be filled in by specifying the interviewing
processes and utilizing differential input from the several scenarios.
The second point can be summarized by simply listing the specific
policy objectives that have turned up most commonly in the research:
Overall reduction of energy consumption in the U.S. and overall lowering
of costs are background objectives to which all subscribe. The specific
policy goals to which people may give different weights are:
1. Conserving for future generations,
2. Sharing energy resources with other countries,
3. Selling energy to other parts of U.S.,
4. Minimizing pollution,
5. Maximizing safety,
6. Guaranteed supply levels,
7. Controlling excess profits,
8. Minimizing government control of our lives,
maximizing individual freedom,
9. Penalizing wasteful use by private citizens,
10. Rewarding individual conservation.
By their nature, policy objectives are specific and involve
tradeoffs—thus leading to differential weighting. A list of such policy
objectives has a dual function: It can act as a criterion set for
technical judgments about the effect of alternative energy configura-
tions and it can be studied as input to energy consumers to determine
their ultimate policy preferences. This two-stage procedure is one
way to solve the problem of assessing the ultimate impact of alternative
technologies.
As regards individual differences in motives and other aspects of
personality that may affect acceptance of various programs, one variable
emerges as a critical one: This is control. Recent research has shown
that learned helplessness is a key determinant of the stressful ness of
any imposed condition. All policy objectives relate to personal control
in one way or another: excess profits dramatize the lack of the
III-C-25
-------
Transportation Geography
Geology
Climate
Air Quality
Water Quality
Land Quality
Flow Characteristics of rivers
Geology
Climatology
Surface Hydrology
_ Soils
!H Aquatic Ecology
£~t Terrestrial Ecology
^•» Employment
cn Recreational Facilities
Housing
Medical Facilities
Social Services
Water Supplies and Services
Public Services
Food Supplies and Services
Demographic Composition
Land Use
Archaeological-Historical sites
Income
Political Atmosphere
Taxes
Governmental Organizations
Quasi-governmental Organizations
Nongovernmental Organizations
(Efficacy index
X
O)
•a
c
>>
1
X
CD
-a
c
a
c
o
!
<4-
<4-
O
4->
1
c
1
4->
C
§
•(-'
I.
to
a
'i
to
<+-
-C
-t->
3
0
. -o
I/)
cr
c
•F—
-C
1—
•>
l/l
o
c
£
4->
0
•o
o
4->
ai
E
•r™
i—
I
^
c
1 -r-
x:
•«-i
(D
f—
a
o
ai
o
a
c:
3
o
>-
•i-
-1-
t_
n:
. a
e
•r~
•»-j
i
OJ
rt
V
Recreation index
1
X
(U
-a
c
•
+->
>
0
a-
(O
c
o
•r—
+J
03
z
Consumer index
Local govt. index
Housework
X
d)
-o
c
•r—
to
•r—
1
,
1
^:
-t->
(O
0)
-C
u
c
>-
X
0)
-o
c
-M
(/)
o
0
to
ai
s_
(O
c:
in
r—
O
o
^1
u
I/)
•
T3
^:
i_
^3
-C
cr
c
£1
V)
0)
o
>
(U
(/>
Close adult relatives '
Natural environment
Comfortable people
Neighborhood index 1
^.
c
^:
-»->
o
*3-
i-
01
>
O
0)
Q.
O
(D
Q_
Organizations belonq to
— — :: — !
Weather i
Friends index
X
IX)
M-
l/»
3
O
•r-'
O>
^^*
OJ
ct
OJ
^"
n.
o
CD
n.
A"
+ >
FIGURE III-C-1. Input/Output Matrix
-------
3. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The first year's appraisal, relying primarily on group interviews
and also utilizing an informal review of research done by others, has
resulted in the completion of a definite plan of research for the
following two years. Highlights include a specification of (1) QOL
dimensions deemed relevant to energy impacts, (2) policy objectives
that are salient for a large number of residents, and (3) some motiva-
tional variables that may distinguish people who are at different stages
in coping with changes in energy supplies.
The first of these results is contained in the body of the report
and is summarized in figure III-C-1 representing an input/output
matrix for final evaluation. The list is not final; rather it illus-
trates the range of domains that may be considered. Second, to be more
complete the table should be filled in by specifying the interviewing
processes and utilizing differential input from the several scenarios.
The second point can be summarized by simply listing the specific
policy objectives that have turned up most commonly in the research:
Overall reduction of energy consumption in the U.S. and overall lowering
of costs are background objectives to which all subscribe. The specific
policy goals to which people may give different weights are:
1. Conserving for future generations,
2. Sharing energy resources with other countries,
3. Selling energy to other parts of U.S.,
4. Minimizing pollution,
5. Maximizing safety,
6. Guaranteed supply levels,
7. Controlling excess profits,
8. Minimizing government control of our lives,
maximizing individual freedom,
9. Penalizing wasteful use by private citizens,
10. Rewarding individual conservation.
By their nature, policy objectives are specific and involve
tradeoffs—thus leading to differential weighting. A list of such policy
objectives has a dual function: It can act as a criterion set for
technical judgments about the effect of alternative energy configura-
tions and it can be studied as input to energy consumers to determine
their ultimate policy preferences. This two-stage procedure is one
way to solve the problem of assessing the ultimate impact of alternative
technologies.
As regards individual differences in motives and other aspects of
personality that may affect acceptance of various programs, one variable
emerges as a critical one: This is control. Recent research has shown
that learned helplessness is a key determinant of the stressfulness of
any imposed condition. All policy objectives relate to personal control
in one way or another: excess profits dramatize the lack of the
III-C-25
-------
Transportation Geography
Geology
Climate
Air Quality
Water Quality
Land Quality
Flow Characteristics of rivers
Geology
Climatology
Surface Hydrology
_ Soils
;m Aquatic Ecology
X Terrestrial Ecoloev
,i-, Employment
-a
c
>,
'i
•2
X
O)
-a
c
>,
C
c
£
4J
C
a
4-'
s_
0}
a
i
ra
<4-
-C
4->
s
o
. ~o
. in
a
c
•r—
-C
1—
•>
1
4->
1
1
1—
^
C
J=
•l-i
-
if
a
4-
•i-
>
•r—
4-
(J
^.
^:
4-»
to
CD
^:
s_
c
>-
X
(U
•o
c
•r™
4->
(U
>
•r—
4->
(O
'QJ
4->
'a
-o
IO
o
«d-
t.
o
OJ
a
o
0)
a.
Organizations belong to
Weather
Friends index
X
0)
-o
c
-0
o
•-p
-
-C
4~>
•r"
-------
individual's control over utilities. Government control may or may not
reflect self-control depending on the extent to which the consumer sees
the democratic process as operating. It is difficult to predict whether
people who are accustomed to controlling their own decisions will want
a policy of strong government intervention. This is surely a key
variable to measure and to relate to the policy judgments.
In short, this Phase I special study has provided a tentative
but clear sketch of the energy consumer in the Ohio River Basin, the
salient issues and key motives, all in the framework of subjective QOL
as the ultimate indicator of policy success.
III-C-27
-------
REFERENCES
F. Andrews and S. Withey. Social Indicators of Well-Being: Americans
Perception of Life Quality.. N.Y.;. Plenum, 1976.
Campbell A,, Converse, P. E.,and Rodgers, W. The Quality of American
Life: Perceptions, Evaluations and Satisfactions. N.Y.: Russell
Sage Foundation, 1976.
III=C-28
-------
APPENDIX
QUALITY OF LIFE: FOCUSED GROUP INTERVIEW SCHEDULE
Our purpose is to learn, what people feel about energy. The even-
tual purpose of this research is to develop a questionnaire for a survey
on quality of life.
It's sponsored by Ohio State University.
You were selected merely because you volunteered.
We are taping; but not your names; you are anonymous.
Let's begin by just going around the table starting here on my left
and asking everyone-to tell us who you are: your first name, your home
town, what you are doing now, and anything else you feel like, (record
seating chart)
I, QUALITY OF LIFE
LET'S TALK ABOUT THE GOOD LIFE. WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO YOU? HOW IS
COLUMBUS AS A PLACE TO LIVE THE GOOD LIFE? WE ALL FEEL THAT SUCH THINGS
AS PHYSICAL COMFORT, A SECURE JOB, CONVENIENT TRANSPORTATION,AND OTHER
THINGS THAT AFFECT OUR PHYSICAL WELL-BEING ARE IMPORTANT. W£'D LIKE
TO ASK YOU TO DISCUSS HOW ENERGY SUPPLIES OF ALL KINDS HAVE AN IMPACT ON
THE QUALITY OF YOUR LIFE. WHEN YOU THINK OF ENERGY USE, WHAT SPECIFIC
THINGS COME TO MIND?
HOW HAS YOUR THINKING ABOUT ENERGY CHANGED DURING THE RECENT COLD
WEATHER?
HOW HAS YOUR ACTUAL BEHAVIOR CHANGED: WHAT ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN
MOST AFFECTED?
(TRY TO GET A READING ON HOW MUCH COPING BEHAVIOR EACH PARTICIPANT
HAS ENGAGED IN IN THEIR PERSONAL LIFE. HOW MUCH COMPLIANCE?)
HOW HAVE YOUR IDEAS ABOUT QUALITY OF LIFE CHANGED AS A RESULT OF
YOUR EXPERIENCES? (PROBE FOR MENTION OF ALTERNATIVE VALUES.) CAN YOU
THINK OF ANY PERMANENT CHANGES IN YOUR VALUES?
III-C-29
-------
II. ENERGY PROBLEM
LET'S TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE PROBLEMS OF ENERGY IN ALL FORMS.
WHAT DO YOU SEE AS SOME OF THE PROBLEMS.
1. WHAT MORE DO WE NEED TO KNOW TO MAKE THE PROBLEM CLEAR?
2. WHERE WILL WE FIND OUT?
3. YOU SOMETIMES HEAR IT SAID THAT AMERICANS ARE SPOILED AND WASTEFUL
BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD SO MUCH CHEAP ENERGY FOR SO LONG. WHAT ARE
YOUR THOUGHTS WHEN YOU HEAR A STATEMENT LIKE THAT?
5. LOOKING AT ALL OUR RESOURCES—NOT JUST ENERGY--WHICH ARE IN SHORT
SUPPLY? (probe for water and air if not mentioned).
6. WHEN DID YOU FIRST BECOME AWARE OF SHORTAGES?
7. WHAT HAVE YOU PERSONALLY DONE ABOUT IT? WHY?
8. HAS ANYONE HAD ANY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH POWER PLANTS?
9. WHAT WILL BE THE IMPACT OF BUILDING MORE OF THEM? THINK OF BOTH
GOOD AND BAD EFFECTS.
10. HOW WOULD YOU PERSONALLY FEEL ABOUT LIVISG CLOSE TO ONE?
11. SOME PEOPLE FEEL THAT WE SHOULD CUT BACK ON BUILDING POWER PLANTS.
THAT WOULD MEAN THAT PEOPLE WOULD NEED TO USE LESS ENERGY. WHAT
INCENTIVES WOULD BE EFFECTIVE TO BRING ABOUT LOWERED ENERGY
CONSUMPTION?
III-C-30
-------
III. ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENTS
WE'D LIKE YOU TO IMAGINE THE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES THAT MIGHT COME INTO
BEING ABOUT 10 YEARS IN THE FUTURE. THE PURPOSE IS NOT SO MUCH TO FIND
OUT WHICH YOU WANT TO LIVE IN AS TO EXPLORE SOME OF THE TRADEOFFS AMONG
THE GOOD AND BAD FEATURES THAT WOULD EXIST IN BOTH.
alphaville THERE ARE NO LIMITS ON FUEL OR ENERGY BUT COSTS ARE MORE
THAN DOUBLE THE PRESENT LEVEL. AND AIR AND WATER ARE VERY POLLUTED:
SOME DAYS AIR POLLUTION REACHES DANGER LEVELS. BUT THE ECONOMY IS
HEALTHY AND UNEMPLOYMENT IS LOW. PEOPLES HOUSES ARE WARM IN WINTER AND
COOL IN SUMMER AND WORK PLACES ARE COMFORTABLE. PEOPLE OWN LOTS OF
LABOR SAVING APPLIANCES; AND TAKE TRIPS WHENEVER THEY WANT.
betaville THERE IS A DEFINITE SHORTAGE OF ENERGY: COSTS ARE HIGH BUT
IF YOU USE MORE THAN THE NORM THEY BECOME EXTREMELY HIGH EITHER THROUGH
TAXES OR RATE ADJUSTMENT. THUS ALL SORTS OF ENERGY USE BECOMES
EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE, THE ECONOMY IS TIGHT. UNEMPLOYMENT IS A LITTLE
HIGHER THAN IT SHOULD BE AND TAXES ARE HIGH. POLLUTION IS STRICTLY
CONTROLLED AND BOTH AIR AND WATER ARE CLEAN. GASOLINE HAS BECOME SO
EXPENSIVE THAT TRIPS BY LAND OR AIR ARE RARE. HOWEVER, NO ONE DIES OF
CARBON MONOXIDE POISONING ON THE STREET.
1. WHAT WOULD LIFE BE LIKE IN ALPHAVILLE?
2. IN BETAVILLE?
3. WHAT WOULD BE TOO HIGH A PRICE TO PAY FOR PLENTIFUL ENERGY?
4. ASSUMING THAT THE ERA OF PLENTIFUL CHEAP ENERGY IS PAST AND THAT THE
COSTS ARE GOING TO BE HIGH IN SOME FORM—EITHER POLLUTION OF AIR AND
WATER AND LAND, OR MONETARY OR BOTH, SHOULD WE KEEP ON DEVELOPING
OUR ENERGY PRODUCTION FACILITIES AT THE SAME RATE AS IN THE PAST NO
MATTER IF THE COSTS GO WAY UP? OR SHOULD WE TRY TO WORK OUT AN
ALTERNATIVE WAY FOR AMERICANS TO LIVE? HOW WOULD YOU PERSONALLY
LIKE TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM OF USING AND PAYING FOR ENERGY
DURING THE NEXT TEN YEARS?
III-C-3-7
------- |