United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Policy,
Planning, And Evaluation
(PM-221)
EPA 230-01-90-074
January 1990
U.S. Department
Of Health And
Human Services
Public Health Service
Agency For Toxic
Substances And
Disease Registry
4>EPA
Public Knowledge And
Perceptions Of Chemical
Risks In Six Communities:
Analysis Of A Baseline Survey
Risk Communication Series
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary i
SARA Title III 1
Purpose of Community Baseline Study 3
Methodology 7
Description of Sample 9
Findings
Perceptions About the Community
Community Quality of Life 15
Seriousness of Chemical Risks 16
Facilities Posing a Threat 17
Specific Facilities 18
Nature of Concern 22
Evaluation of Local Facilities 26
Personal Experience With Life-Threatening
Environmental Risks 27
Environmental Information Sources and Channels. 37
Source of Recent Information 38
Content of Recent Information 39
Perceptions of Information Sources .... 41
Notification Procedures 44
Perceived Knowledge
Self-Assessed Knowledge 53
Opinion of Community Activities 56
-------
Attitudes About Environmental Issues
Views About Government Action. ...... 65
Views About Local Businesses . 66
Secrecy of Chemical Releases 67
The Risk of Chemicals
Overall Safety. . . . 67
Chemical Releases ... 69
Chemical Exposure 71
Level of Risk 73
Toxic Wastes 74
Personal Involvement 74
Respondents' Evaluation of Safety
Performance 75
Self-Reported Protective Behaviors 81
Reaction to Health Problems
Bothersome Physical Reactions 87
Symptom Experience . 87
Consulting the Doctor 89
Environmental Attribution . 91
Serious Health Problems 92
Conclusions and Recommendations 99
Future Data Collection and Analyses. . 105
References Ill
Appendices
Appendix A: Detailed Description of Methodology
Appendix B: Baseline Survey Questionnaire
Appendix C: Table of Survey Responses
-------
-------
The information in this document has been funded in part by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under
Cooperative Agreement CR-815278. It has been subjected to the
Agency's peer and administrative review, and approved for
publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Overview and Recommendations
Under a cooperative agreement with the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Risk Communication Program of the
Institute for Health Policy Analysis at Georgetown University
Medical Center and the Center for Risk Communication at Columbia
University conducted a survey of public perceptions regarding
chemical risks in six U.S. communities. The overall purpose of
the study was to establish a baseline for evaluating change over
time in knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors in response to new
information about toxic chemicals (Baseline Survey). During July
and August 1988, over 500 citizens in each community (3,129
total) were randomly selected for a 25-minute telephone survey of
their perceptions of the risks of chemicals in their community.
The six communities surveyed were: Albuquerque, New Mexico;
Cincinnati, Ohio; Durham, North Carolina; Middlesex County, New
Jersey; Racine, Wisconsin; and Richmond, Virginia. Subsequent
surveys are planned starting in the summer of 1990 to evaluate
trends in knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors, which may be
influenced by Superfund, Title III, and other risk communication
activities. Major news stories and other communication
activities are being tracked as part of the cooperative
agreement.
This report provides a broad overview of how citizens in these
six distinct communities view environmental risks. The data
reveal an interesting mix of similarities and differences among
the studied communities. On the one hand, clear differences
among communities exist in how they view environmental safety
issues, the specific causes of environmental concern, and
readiness to respond to emergencies within their individual
community. Community profiles are currently being developed to
assist in better understanding these differences. On the other
hand, the data exhibit a good deal of similarity across
communities in how citizens learn about risks and their basic
knowledge and attitudes about environmental risk. Of particular
interest is an examination of community differences with respect
to respondents' perceptions of volatile environmental issues,
such as Superfund sites. For instance, one of the surveyed
communities, Albuquerque, has a Superfund site located nearby.
Understanding how Albuquerque respondents receive, process, and
react to Title III disclosures can provide important information
about the most effective communication strategies for other
Superfund communities.
-------
The data analyses that have been completed support the
following recommendations for program managers and communicators:
RECOMMENDATIONS
Use the baseline data and other studies to guide
communication strategies at the federal and local level.
Recognize target audiences
Pretest messages
Understand the importance of mass media in carrying
environmental messages
Encourage and support health professionals to become
involved in disseminating environmental information so
that the personal implications of health factors can be
addressed.
Develop messages based on the public's concept of
environmental issues. The public is interested in the
overall burden of risk and does not distinguish among
sources of environmental risk. They want the focus to be
on safety. Hence, an overall communications strategy
that keys activities of related programs to pollution
prevention should be considered.
Work with the mass media to improve communication with
various publics.
Develop non-media channels of environmental information.
Of particular concern is the public's lack of use of
government sources.
Capitalize on the LEPC's perceived credibility. Support is
needed to enhance performance so that credibility and
public access can be maintained.
Improve public access to information on emergency plans.
Develop model community programs on toxic waste and
Superfund issues to respond to high fear levels within
communities.
Fully analyze Baseline data to guide current and future
activities, particularly exploring the characteristics
that differentiate target audiences of environmental
messages.
-------
Support research to evaluate specific interventions and
messages in an open community setting.
Develop long-term strategies to enhance public
understanding of risk concepts.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The Baseline Survey findings are summarized below. General
findings across all communities are listed first in each section,
then specific community or demographic findings are highlighted.
Perceptions About Chemicals in the Community; General Findings ,
(see pages 15 to 35 for more detailed information)
Nearly two-thirds of all the respondents believe that,
compared to other communities, their community had
clean air and water and few environmental health risks.
Across all communities, respondents view the risks of
chemicals as a minor or slightly serious problem
compared to other health and safety risks.
About half of all respondents reported that there are
facilities in their community that pose a threat to the
environment. The most frequently mentioned facilities
included: chemical manufacturing plants, waste disposal
sites, and nuclear facilities and power plants.
Over two-thirds of the respondents reported being
somewhat concerned about the long-term threats posed by
these local facilities.
When questioned about specific facilities, respondents seem
the most concerned about more publicized facilities which
are not located near where they live, e.g., only 10
percent say they live near a hazardous waste facility,
yet 82 percent view these facilities as a serious threat.
Twenty-seven percent of the respondents reported having
faced a threatening situation involving chemicals in the
environment, the majority of whom reported being exposed
to chemicals in the workplace. Other specific threats
mentioned included: chemical spills, water pollution,
and exposure to toxic clouds or gas fumes and leaks.
111
-------
Community and Demographic Differences
Middlesex County respondents are more sensitive to
and cynical about environmental risks in their community
than are the other respondents. For example, almost half
of the Middlesex respondents view environmental risks as
a serious problem, whereas less than one-third of all
other respondents report a serious problem.
Respondents in Albuquerque and Racine appear to be less
concerned about environmental threats than do respondents
in the other communities.
Older respondents (over 50) are more tolerant of long-term
and immediate threats posed by chemical facilities than
are younger respondents.
Respondents with higher educational levels seem to be more
knowledgeable about locations in their community that
pose a threat to the environment than are less educated
respondents.
Sources and Channels for Environmental Information; General
Findings
(see pages 37 to 51 for more detailed information)
Twenty-one percent of the respondents had heard or read
something in the previous week about chemical risks in
their community. Mass media sources, particularly local
newspapers and local television news, were cited most
often as the source of this information. The issues most
often mentioned by respondents as being the topic of
this information were chemical fires, transportation of
waste, intentional/illegal dumping of hazardous
materials, and ocean pollution, which correspond to the
stories in the news in each of the surveyed communities.
All respondents reported receiving the most information
about chemical risks in their community from news
reporters. Reporters were given an intermediate rating
on trust and knowledge.
Chemical industry officials have the highest knowledge
rating of all sources, but the lowest trust rating.
Health professionals have the highest trust rating, but are
used by the fewest respondents as an information
source and are seen as about as knowledgeable as news
reporters on chemical risks in the community.
iv
-------
Eighty-two percent of the respondents believe that they
will receive their first notification of a chemical
emergency in their area from the news media.
Community and Demographic Differences
Middlesex County respondents rely more on national
television news, newspapers, and radio for environmental
information than do respondents in other communities.
Those respondents with higher education levels identify
the media as the source for emergency notification more
(85 percent) than those with a high school education or
less (78 percent); younger respondents were more likely
to identify the media as the source of notification in an
emergency than were older respondents.
Perceived Knowledge; General Findings
(see pages 53 to 64 for more detailed information)
Less than 15 percent of the respondents felt that they knew
a lot about seven of the eight specific environmental
topics presented. Twenty-four percent of the respondents
felt that they knew a lot about the eighth topic, the
quality of their drinking water.
Awareness of emergency preparedness plans ranked the lowest
of the eight areas probed. Almost three in ten
respondents (29 percent) stated that they knew nothing
about this topic.
Eighty-one percent of the respondents believe that police
and fire departments have trained emergency personnel.
Only 41 percent of all respondents agreed that the
federal government is doing a good job cleaning up the
environment.
Most respondents believe that there are active
environmental groups (60 percent) and active local
government groups (59 percent) dedicated to environmental
issues.
Less than half of the respondents believe that local
businesses are reducing their use of toxic chemicals and
only 27 percent believe that these local businesses have
notified the community about their use of these
chemicals.
-------
Community and Demographic Differences
Respondents with higher education levels rate their
knowledge of the risks of chemicals in their community
higher than do respondents with less education; younger
respondents (under 30) report the lowest levels of
perceived knowledge.
Middlesex County and Durham respondents report higher
levels of perceived knowledge across all topic areas than
respondents in the other communities.
Attitudes About Environmental Issues; General Findings
(see pages 65 to 80 for more detailed information)
Fifty-nine percent agreed with the statement that local
officials are interested in what the public has to say
about chemicals in their area.
Eighty-three percent agreed with the statement that the
only time the public hears about the release of toxic
chemicals is when the problem is so big it can't be kept
secret anymore, suggesting a lack of perceived openness.
Fifty-one percent of the respondents strongly disagreed
that a chemical is safe until tests prove it dangerous.
Half of the respondents agreed with the statement that
chemicals have provided as much benefit as harm to our
health.
Most of the respondents do not discriminate between
accidental releases and planned releases; both are judged
to be unsafe and unacceptable.
Sixty-three percent agree with the statement that it is not
how much of a chemical one is exposed to that matters to
one's health, it is whether or not one is exposed at all,
suggesting that dose response is not understood by the
public.
Fifty-six percent disagreed with the statement that there
are some chemical risks that are too small to worry
about, suggesting that a substantial minority do believe
that some chemical risks are not significant.
Eighty-five percent of the respondents disagree with the
statement that burying toxic wastes in landfills is not a
serious problem, highlighting the public's sensitivity to
toxic waste issues.
vi
-------
Local environmental groups were cited by 50 percent of the
respondents as doing a good or excellent job of keeping
their area safe from the threat of toxic chemicals.
Local businesses received the lowest rating of
performance; only 25 percent agreed that they were doing
a good or excellent job. No group received strongly
positive job ratings.
Community and Demographic Differences
Respondents in Middlesex County seem to have the most
cynical attitudes about environmental issues, with the
highest level of respondents disagreeing that the federal
government is doing a good job (43 percent), 65 percent
disagreeing that local businesses are very careful with
dangerous chemicals, and 90 percent agreeing that the
only time the public hears about the release of toxic
chemicals is when the problem is so big it cannot be kept
secret anymore.
Respondents from Richmond, Racine, and Cincinnati were more
likely than other respondents to agree that the federal
government is doing a good job cleaning up the
environment.
Respondents over age 50 have a more tolerant attitude
toward environmental risks than do younger respondents.
Self-Reported Protective Behaviors: General Findings
(see pages 81 to 85 for more detailed information)
Thirty-seven percent of the respondents have contributed
time or money to an environmental cause in the past.
Thirty-six percent have used bottled drinking water.
Twenty percent or less of our respondents have engaged in
environmental information-seeking behavior (i.e., talked
to doctor, called government official, gone to library).
Community and Demographic Differences
Respondents in Middlesex County have engaged in more
information-seeking behaviors than respondents in the
other communities.
Across all communities,.respondents with a higher level of
education and those who are between 30 and 50 are most
likely to engage in information-seeking behaviors.
vii
-------
Respondents in Albuquerque are less likely than other
respondents to have donated time or money to an
environmental cause.
Fifty-nine percent of Middlesex County respondents drink
bottled water, but only 19 percent of respondents in
Racine drink bottled water.
Across all communities, those who drink bottled water are
better educated and younger than are respondents who
engage in other behaviors.
Reaction to Health Problems: General Findings
(see pages 87 to 97 for more detailed information)
Sixty percent of the respondents had experienced at least
one of the following health problems in the past month:
headaches, nausea, shortness of breath, skin rashes, or
irritation of the eyes, nose, throat.
Thirty-seven percent of these respondents had consulted
their doctor about the health problem.
Forty percent of those respondents who experienced these
symptoms attributed the cause of the problem to the
environment.
Twenty-six percent of the respondents had experienced a
personal health tragedy (cancer or child with birth
defects) and 25 percent of these respondents attributed
the tragedy to the environment.
Community and Demographic Differences
More respondents in Middlesex County (66 percent) reported
having symptoms than did respondents in any other
community.
Over 40 percent of the respondents in Richmond, Durham, and
Albuquerque reported experiencing none of the symptoms.
Forty-two percent of female respondents reported consulting
a physician for their symptoms compared with only 31
percent of the males.
Environmental causes are more often seen as the source of
physical symptoms in Middlesex County (51 percent) and in
Racine (49 percent) than in any other community.
viii
-------
The attached report describes each of the highlighted findings
in greater detail with a comprehensive analysis of the results by
demographic categories (gender, education, age, and community).
At the current time, project personnel are visiting each of the
six surveyed communities to interview local environmental opinion
leaders. This research will aid in interpreting the survey
results by placing the findings in the appropriate community
context. In addition, the project staff has been monitoring the
print news outlets in each of the six communities since July 1988
in order to track environmental news coverage which may influence
the community-by-community responses to the planned follow-up
survey.
ix
-------
SARA TITLE III
One aspect of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 (SARA) is the Emergency Planning and Community Right-
to-Know Act of 1986, commonly known as Title III. This law
establishes requirements for federal, state, and local
governments, as well as certain industries, for emergency
planning and public reporting of the use, storage, manufacture,
and release of hazardous and toxic chemicals. The purpose of
Title III is to increase the public's knowledge about and access
to information on the presence of hazardous chemicals in their
communities and releases of these chemicals into the environment.
The law also mandates local emergency planning committees (LEPCs)
made up of representatives from business, industry, local
/
government, the media, health professionals, fire and police
departments, and citizen groups to develop emergency plans,
produce a method for accumulating release and storage data, and
disseminate emergency and nonemergency information related to
toxic chemicals in the community.
The new law set several deadlines for industry, government,
and local planning groups to respond to the regulations. One
deadline of importance to risk communication activities was July
1, 1988, when certain firms that manufacture, process, or use any
of over 300 listed toxic chemicals in excess of specified
threshold quantities were required to complete a toxic chemical
release form for each of these specified chemicals. This is a
yearly reporting requirement; 1988 was the first reporting year.
-------
The purpose of this reporting requirement, according to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is to inform government
officials and the public about releases of toxic chemicals in the
environment and to assist in research and the development of
regulations, guidelines, and standards. After submission of the
release forms to the state and EPA, both EPA and the state were
required by law to make this information available to the public.
EPA has established and will maintain a computerized national
toxic chemical database known as the Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI), which is now available to the public. Another deadline of
importance to this report was October 17, 1988, when the LEPCs
were required to have completed the emergency response plans for
their communities.
-------
PURPOSE OF COMMUNITY BASELINE STUDY
The widespread availability of public information about
storage and use of hazardous (and toxic) chemicals in the
community can allow for broad-scale communication of specific
community-based environmental risks from various sources. This
risk communication can present a vivid stimulus, forcing
individuals and communities to deal with the immediate and long-
term threat that such chemicals pose to their health and the
environment, which were previously unknown or ignored. It is
unclear, however, how successfully the chemical risk information
will be communicated to individuals; how it will be integrated
with relevant risk information from other communication programs
designed to influence community action to reduce risk,
particularly through the LEPCs; how it will influence citizens'
perceptions and attitudes about their community, the environment,
and their personal health and safety; or how well the community's
right to know actually will be served. For example, concern may
be insufficient in some hazardous situations and fear and anxiety
may be too great in less threatening situations. Because
Superfund sites are such a volatile issue in many communities,
understanding how these communities receive, process, and react
to Title III disclosures can provide important information about
/
the most effective communication strategies for Superfund
communities and how other risk communication activities about
toxic substances interact. Thus, implementation of Title III
provides a natural experiment for evaluating the impact of
-------
environmental risk communication activities in diverse
communities.
In mid-1988, the Program on Risk Communication of the
Institute for Health Policy Analysis (IHPA) at the Georgetown
University School of Medicine, in collaboration with Columbia
University's Center for Risk Communication, conducted a
comprehensive baseline survey of public knowledge, attitudes, and
behaviors related to chemicals and chemical risks. six
communities in the United States were surveyed in July and August
1988, prior to widespread dissemination of the toxic chemical
release data, one part of the information now available under
Title III. The collection and analysis of the survey data
provide a basis for planning and evaluating risk communication
efforts related to SARA Title III, RCRA, CERCLA, and other issues
such as pesticides, toxic chemicals in drinking water, air toxic
emissions, emergency response programs, hazardous waste sites,
corrective action sites, Superfund sites, and future siting of
waste management facilities. Additionally, these data provide
guidance to those who plan communications activities about toxic
and hazardous chemicals in both the public and private sectors,
at the national, state, and local levels.
The three overall objectives of this research were to:
1. Provide an empirical basis for designing risk
messages and selecting sources and channels
to deliver information to various
constituencies;
2. Provide a baseline against which data from
follow-up studies can be compared to assess
-------
the effects of risk communication strategies in various
communities;
3. Track over time how community events
influence the awareness, knowledge,
attitudes, and behavior of the public and
different population segments regarding
chemical risks.
The baseline survey is one of several projects undertaken by
Georgetown University and Columbia University in the past year to
examine risk perceptions and communications about hazardous
substances in the wake of Title III. During the summer of 1988,
a series of qualitative research projects were conducted,
including 15 focus groups with citizens, members of LEPCs,
business and industry, local officials, and local risk
communicators (Georgetown University/EPA Cooperative Agreement
No. CX815190-01-0; report submitted to EPA). Interviews were
also conducted with about thirty local emergency officials in
Pennsylvania and New Jersey and with government officials,
private environmental groups, industry, and academics.
Anticipated and actual response to Title III reporting
requirements, as well as problems and needs related to public
understanding of the new reporting requirements and information
about hazardous and toxic substances, were discussed with these
individuals. Forty-two national surveys conducted by various
polling firms between 1984 and 1987 were examined to determine
trends in public attitudes toward the environment and regulatory
agencies governing environmental issues. This analysis showed
that attitudes remained relatively stable over this three-year
period. In addition to providing input for the design and
5
-------
analysis of the baseline survey, all of these recent research
projects will enable planners to better understand the public's
reaction to risk communication activities and develop more
effective communication tools and strategies. For example, a
manual for LEPCs and other community groups to use in planning
communications with the public has been developed.
The three objectives of the baseline study will be met over
the next few years. By itself, the baseline survey can meet only
the first objective (communications planning) and provide input
for the second objective. The second objective will be fully
realized in the early 1990s when follow-up surveys similar to the
baseline survey will be conducted. Activities are currently
underway to satisfy the third objective. The major newspapers in
each of the six communities as well as several national print
media outlets are being examined daily to track significant
environmental events as they occur in each location. This report
covers the results of the baseline survey and, therefore, only
addresses the first objective — communications planning.
-------
METHODOLOGY
With assistance from outside experts and EPA staff, a
questionnaire was developed for a telephone interview. The
questionnaire was pretested in a focus group and over the phone
with a small sample of potential respondents. Six communities
were chosen for the survey: Albuquerque, New Mexico; Cincinnati,
Ohio; Durham, North Carolina; Middlesex County, New Jersey;
Racine, Wisconsin; and Richmond, Virginia. These six communities
do not represent the U.S. as a whole. The results provide
comparisons of knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors from citizens
in communities facing a variety of environmental risks, as well
r
as assessing toxic chemical issues related to communication as a
community public health problem. Many similarities across
communities and comparisons with national surveys illustrate that
some variables are not community dependent. Therefore, between-
community comparisons, as well as some overall analyses, are
described in this report.
A three-stage sampling design was used to randomly select
the appropriate respondents in each community. Overall, the
response rate for the survey was 59.1 percent, ranging from a
high in Racine of 62.9 percent to a low in Middlesex County of
52.7 percent. As response rates have been declining in recent
years, these rates are consistent with or better than other
surveys (see Appendix, p. A-5). As a demonstrated lack of
\
response bias is more important than a high response rate
(Babbie, 1986), the demographics of the survey population were
-------
compared to the community demographics.
Overall, the respondents in this survey represent a
population that is somewhat younger, better educated, and more
affluent than projected statistics from 1980 census data for
these communities. The gender quota assured an equal
representation of males and females in the survey. Because of
their ages and education levels, we would expect that these
respondents should be more aware of and concerned about
environmental risks than would be a more typical sample of these
communities. Therefore, this sample should be better
representative of the groups of people in the community who would
be more responsive to risk communication activities.
Appendix A contains a detailed description of questionnaire
development, community selection, and sample selection. Appendix
B contains a copy of the final questionnaire, and Appendix C
contains a table of all responses to the questionnaire as
discussed in this report.
8
-------
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE
A total of 3,129 completed interviews were conducted in the
six communities. These respondents represent a wide range of
demographic categories. Their ages range from 18 to over 90
years old; 57 percent are currently married; and the majority (66
percent) have been living in the same community for more than
fifteen years.
Overall, 23 percent of our respondents are under 30 years of
age, 48 percent are between 30 and 50, and 29 percent are over 50
years old. Fifty-nine percent of the respondents have at least
some college education, while 40 percent have a high school
diploma or less. Fifty-three percent of the respondents report
an annual household income of between $20,000 and $50,000, with
22 percent reporting less than $20,000 and 19 percent reporting
more than $50,000. Sixty-six percent of the respondents
currently own their own home and 40 percent have one or more
children. Figures 1 and 2 (pages 11 and 12) show the exact age
and education breakdown for our respondents.
Of those who are currently employed, over 50 percent work in
professional jobs including health care, academia,
administration, managerial, and sales. Another 10 percent work
as craftsmen and mechanics; about 8 percent as transport
operatives — driving buses, trucks, or cabs; and another 8
percent are service workers. The remaining employed respondents
fell into various categories such as farmers, garbage collectors,
and construction.
-------
Some demographic differences exist among the respondents in
the six communities that may aid in explaining community
differences in knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. The
respondents in Racine, .for instance, have lower education levels
and are older than respondents in most other communities. They
also are more likely to have children, and own their own home.
Respondents in Middlesex County are the youngest of all
respondents in the survey, have the highest income, and are less
likely to be married or have children. The Cincinnati residents,
on the other hand, are the oldest respondents in our survey, have
the lowest incomes, and are more likely to have lived in the
community over 15 years. Table 1 (page 13) illustrates the
community-by-community breakdown for various demographic
characteristics of our respondents.
10
-------
Figure 1
Age Distribution of Respondents
30-40
29%
41-50
19%
61-70
11%
51-60
12%
N-3113
-------
Figure 2
Educational Distribution of Respondents
Some coll/technical
26%
Less than HS
9%
Graduate Degree
11%
Some grad work
3%
College Degree
19%
N • 3117
-------
Table 1
Comparison of Community Demographics
(Percent)
Middlesex
Total Richmond Durham Albuquerque Cincinnati County Racine
Education
> HS
Age
< 30
30-50
> 50
Income
< $20,000
> $50,000
59
23
48
29
22
19
62
21
49
30
24
20
67
24
50
25
22
21
65
23
48
28
25
16
55
24
45
32
29
16
62
27
45
28
12
26
48
20
50
30
21
15
Married
57 51
54
58
54
56
66
Children
under 18 40 32 40
45
40
37
46
Own Home
66 63
61
66
67
66
72
Live in
Community
over 15 yrs 66 66 57
54
80
63
76
13
-------
FINDINGS
PERCEPTIONS ABOUT THE COMMUNITY
Community Quality of Life
To provide a perspective of how environmental quality and
safety issues were perceived relative to other concerns about the
community, respondents were asked how well their community fared
on six elements in overall community quality of life. Questions
were posed about the provision of good health care and schools,
the unemployment and crime rates, clean air and water, and
environmental health risks.
As shown in Table 2 (page 30), satisfaction with
environmental quality of life (clean air and water and few
environmental health risks) ranked mid-way between judgments
about community-provided services (health care and schools) and
concerns about human conditions due to crime and unemployment.
Nearly two-thirds of the respondents believed that, compared to
other communities, their community had clean air and water and
few environmental health risks. Within each community, more than
half of the respondents believed that their community had clean
air and water and provided few environmentally induced risks—
with one striking exception. In Middlesex County, only about
one-third of the respondents (37 percent) felt there was clean
air and water and less than half (42 percent) felt there were few
environmental risks.*
* Unless otherwise noted, .all differences discussed in the
text and tables are significant at p. <.05. Percentages
reported in the text are based on the entire sample (N=3129)
except where noted.
15
-------
It is interesting to note that while Middlesex County had
negative views about environmental issues, perspectives about the
crime rate were generally positive. Whereas, Richmond and
Albuquerque, which had positive views about environmental quality
of life, had strongly negative views about the crime rate. The
remaining communities had generally positive views about both
environmental and crime rate issues. This suggests that
respondents were indeed discriminating in their responses about
different issues. Linking general responses to risk communication
activities will be an important element for media-tracking and
follow-up studies.
Few differences exist in perceptions about environmental
quality on the basis of primary demographics (age, gender, and
education), with the exception that women were slightly less
likely than men (60 percent compared to 66 percent) to view the
environment as free from risks.
Seriousness of Chemical Risks
Respondents were asked to compare the risk of chemicals
produced, stored, or processed in their community to other health
and safety risks, such as car accidents, food-borne illness,
heart disease, and home fires. A five-point scale (ranging from
the view that the risk of chemicals was "not; a problem" [1] to
the view that chemical risks were a "very serious problem" [5])
was used to measure risk perceptions. On average, respondents
tended to view the risk of chemicals as a minor or slightly
serious problem (a mean of 2.64 on the five point scale).
16
-------
Respondents in Middlesex County were much more likely than
respondents in any of the other survey communities to view
environmental risks as a serious problem (see Table 3, page 31).
Almost half (47 percent) of those interviewed in Middlesex County
viewed the production, storage, or processing of chemicals as a
serious or very serious problem. This stark difference between
Middlesex and the other communities suggests that residence in
Middlesex may be a major factor influencing the overall risk
perceptions of its citizens.
Facilities Posing a Threat
To ascertain their awareness of threatening stimuli in the
environment, respondents were asked if there were any facilities
or locations in their community that posed a threat to the safety
of the environment. Respondents signifying that there were such
facilities or locations were then asked to briefly describe them
(all facilities or locations mentioned were recorded). About half
(48 percent) of the participants said that there were such
facilities in their community. As might be expected, there was
some variance across communities. It ranged from a low of
approximately one-third of the respondents in Racine and
Albuquerque (both 36 percent) to a high of approximately two-
thirds of the respondents in Middlesex County (64 percent) (see
Table 4, part A, page 32). There were several differences among
demographic subgroups in the propensity to state that there were
locations or facilities that posed a threat to environmental
safety. Over half of those with some college education (54
17
-------
percent) reported living near a threatening facility compared to
38 percent of those with a high school diploma or less. This
supports our expectation that people with a higher educational
level are more knowledgeable about locations within their
community associated with the storage, manufacture, or use of
hazardous or toxic chemicals (see Appendix C, Q.7).
Interestingly, more men (51 percent) than women (45 percent)
stated that there were such facilities, despite the earlier
mentioned finding that women were more likely than men to
perceive the overall threat of chemicals in the environment to be
greater. Males may have greater familiarity with chemical
production, storage, or processing facilities. Thus, results for
this question may be due to knowledge about chemicals within the
community and less likely due to attitudes and perceptions of
chemical facilities.
Specific Facilities
The specific facilities mentioned by more than ten percent
of the respondents citing a threat in the community are listed in
Table 4, part B, page 32. Chemical manufacturing plants led the
list of threatening facilities, mentioned by 43 percent of those
reporting a threat to environmental safety (or 20 percent of all
respondents). Waste disposal areas such as landfills/dumps
(mentioned by 21 percent of those perceiving a threat) and
hazardous waste disposal facilities (mentioned by 11 percent)
were cited to a lesser degree. Nuclear facilities/power plants
were reported by 19 percent of those mentioning a threat.
18
-------
There were clear differences among communities in the types
of facilities mentioned. Chemical manufacturing plants were the
predominant threat mentioned in Richmond (68 percent of those
perceiving a threat). Similarly, in Durham, chemical
manufacturing plants were cited by more than half of those
perceiving a threat (57 percent). Nuclear facilities/power
plants were also cited but to a somewhat lesser degree (by 38
percent of the threatened respondents in Durham). A similar
pattern emerged in Cincinnati, where chemical manufacturing
plants (39 percent) and nuclear facilities/power plants (35
percent) dominated the mentioned facilities. Both chemical
plants and nuclear facilities serve as highly visible stimuli for
subjects to identify as environmental threats.
Respondents in Middlesex County, which led in the number of
respondents mentioning threatening facilities, viewed chemical
manufacturing plants (48 percent) and landfill/dumps (44 percent)
as the most often perceived threatening facilities. Racine
respondents most often mentioned chemical manufacturing plants
(25 percent) and landfill/dumps (33 percent) as the threatening
facility or location.
The most distinctive pattern of responses came from
Albuquerque, where respondents mentioned a diversity of
facilities or locations. Of the major facilities/locations
analyzed (Table 4, part B, page 32), hazardous waste facilities
were mentioned by about one-fifth (22 percent) of the Albuquerque
respondents reporting a threatening facility. Nuclear
19
-------
facilities/power plants (16 percent) and landfill/dumps (11
percent) were mentioned to a lesser degree. However, several
other facilities or locations were mentioned by Albuquerque
respondents. Part C of Table 4, page 32, lists all the
facilities/locations mentioned by at least ten percent of the
respondents in any one community. In Albuquerque, military
facilities (19 percent), research laboratories (18 percent), and
gasoline stations (12 percent) were mentioned by those perceiving
threats to environmental safety. The only other community where
any uniquely perceived threats were mentioned was Middlesex,
where 20 percent of those distinguishing a threat mentioned a
refinery.
When identifying threats, respondents are likely to retrieve
from memory the most vivid examples of stimuli that qualify as
"threats to the safety of the environment." It appears that
chemical manufacturing plants provide the most salient of such
stimuli, as these were recalled at more than twice the rate of
any other facility or location. Landfills/dumps, nuclear
facilities/power plants, and refineries provide other salient
stimuli. In most communities, responses were clustered on these
major locations. However, in Albuquerque, only a few major
facilities or locations appear to exist that can be identified as
vivid environmental threats. Threatening stimuli are cited to a
lesser degree than in the other communities (w'ith the exception
of Racine) and the identified facilities/locations are more
diverse.
20
-------
In follow-up studies it will be important to track how
individuals in Albuquerque react to risk communications, compared
to other communities, given the lack of singular identifiable
threatening facilities or locations. For example, if a problem
occurs in Albuquerque, will reactions to risk communications be
enhanced because people did hot identify the threat beforehand or
will reactions be muted because the lack of identifiable threats
decreases sensitivity? Alternatively, if a problem arises in a
facility that is not perceived to be threatening, will reactions
in Albuquerque be enhanced or muted because of the lack of other
identifiable threats? Thus, do identifiable threats serve as a
"heat sink" for risk reaction (e.g., if a gasoline station has a
leak, do people perceiving the threat of a nuclear reactor heave
a sigh of relief?) or do people poised to react to threats tend
to be more sensitive to risk communications? In this case, if a
gasoline station has a leak, would people perceiving the threat
of a nuclear reactor tend to notice the aberration and more
vigorously call for corrective actions?
In addition to examining individual facilities or locations,
data were compiled to provide an overview of the general types of
perceived environmental threats (see Table 4, part D, page 32).
Four areas were identified: industry/manufacturing in general,
chemical industry, garbage/waste/storage facilities, and general
threats such as pollution, gas stations, military facilities,
etc. Individual responses can be counted in more than one
category (e.g., a chemical manufacturing facility was counted as
21
-------
both industry/manufacturing and chemical industry).
Industrial/manufacturing was identified by almost half (48
percent) of those perceiving a threat, followed by the chemical
industry (mentioned by 43 percent). One-third (33 percent) of the
respondents mentioned garbage/waste/storage facilities. Only 7
percent mentioned general threats, supporting the view that the
vividness of the environmental threat is an important element of
risk perception.
Nature of Concern
To ascertain the amount and type of concern about the
identified facilities, respondents were asked how concerned they
were about the first facility that they mentioned (see Appendix
C, Q.9). Almost half (46 percent) of the respondents identifying
a threatening facility said they were somewhat concerned about
the facility and an additional 23 percent said they were
concerned a great deal. About one-quarter (26 percent) indicated
that they were not at all concerned about the facility that they
mentioned as threatening.
Less concern about environmental safety threats was
expressed in Albuquerque and Racine, where 29 percent and 32
percent, respectively, said they were not at all concerned by the
facility that they mentioned as threatening. The lack of
identifiable, vivid, threatening facilities may contribute to the
lack of concern in these communities. Interestingly, age appeared
to increase the comfort level with environmental safety threats.
Over one-third (36 percent) of all respondents over fifty years
22
-------
of age stated that they were not at all concerned with the
threatening facility or location they first mentioned, compared
to less than one-quarter of those fifty years of age or younger.
Long-term threats to health and the environment were clearly
the factors that concerned respondents about the identified
facilities. As shown in Table 5 (page 33), almost two-thirds of
the respondents said they were bothered a great deal about the
long-term threat to health (63 percent) or to the environment (67
percent) and only 4 percent said they were not at all concerned
about these factors. Major health threats were of concern to
about half of the respondents as 51 percent indicated they were
concerned a great deal about the possibility of a major accident.
There was somewhat less concern expressed about the more
immediate and irritating aspects of the identified facilities or
locations. About one-third of the respondents indicated that they
were concerned a great deal about irritation to the eyes, nose,
throat, or skin (38 percent); dust, dirt, or smoke in the air (37
percent); or the unpleasant smell (33 percent). However, over
one-quarter of the sample said they were not at all concerned by
these same factors and, in the case of unpleasant smells, more
people said they were not at all concerned (40 percent) than said
they were concerned. Additionally, more respondents said they
were not at all concerned about the decrease in property values
(40 percent) than said they were concerned a great deal (26
percent) by this element of risk.
23
-------
As might be predicted from the risk perception literature,
major, uncontrollable, dreaded, and unknown risks are more likely
to contribute to the level of concern individuals express than
are more immediate, controllable, bothersome (but not life
threatening) risks. It also appears that threats to personal
health as opposed to personal property values predominate the
concerns individuals express about local facilities.
Examination of the concerns expressed across all communities
indicates that long term, serious health and environmental
threats and the possibility of a major accident are of deep
concern to the majority, or near majority, of respondents (see
Table 6, part A, page 34). The only exception was Racine, where
only one-quarter of the respondents (27 percent) expressed a
great deal of concern about a possible accident.
In Middlesex County, more than half of the respondents
expressed major concerns about the long term and acute health
threats mentioned above and, in addition, almost half of
respondents expressed a great deal of concern about the
unpleasant smell (52 percent); dust, dirt, and smoke (49
percent); and irritation to the eyes, nose, throat, and skin (47
percent). Thus, in Middlesex, not only were long-term serious
hazards of great concern to respondents but the immediate
bothersome aspects of the facilities were often expressed as a
major concern. Clearly, the physical aspects of the facility or
location are quite different among the communities. As discussed
above, there were several different types of facilities or
24
-------
locations mentioned in Middlesex that respondents believed posed
a threat to their safety. However, the data also imply that
respondents in Middlesex are sensitized to the risks and tend to
react strongly to all elements of the threat posed by the
facility.
Educational and age differences appear related to the degree
to which respondents are bothered a great deal by the different
risk elements. Individuals with a high school diploma or less,
compared to individuals with at least some college education,
tend to express a greater degree of dissatisfaction with the
unpleasant smell (43 percent compared to 29 percent); dust, dirt,
and smoke (44 percent compared to 33 percent); and irritation (48
percent compared to 34 percent) (see Table 6, part B, page 34) .
This difference may simply be a reflection of location of their
home or work near the facilities in question. Educational level
had no significant influence on levels of concern about long-term
health or environmental risks.
Examination of the individual areas of concern indicates
that age influenced several of the areas measured. Significantly,
more younger respondents (less than 30 years) than middle-aged
respondents (30 to 50 years) expressed a great deal of concern
about long-term risks to health and the environment, and more
middle-aged individuals expressed a great deal of concern than
older respondents (more than 50 years) (see Table 6, part C, page
34). Evidently, with age comes increased tolerance of the long-
term threats posed by local facilities.
25
-------
Evaluation of Local Facilities
In addition to asking respondents about the locations and
facilities in the community that cause concern in an open-ended
(unaided) manner, respondents were also asked to evaluate whether
each of eight types of facilities was located nearby, and if so,
whether it posed a threat to the safety of the environment in
their community. This aided questioning explored the degree to
which respondents view certain facilities as threatening when
directly questioned about these facilities. It will be important
to assess how those perceptions change following implementation
of Title Hi.
As shown in Table 7 (page 35), while most respondents stated
that gasoline stations (79 percent) and dry cleaners (68 percent)
were located nearby, few of those who said they lived near one
(16 percent and 11 percent, respectively) believed that these
facilities posed a threat to the safety of the environment.
Between one-quarter and one-third of the sample indicated a
chemical manufacturing plant (30 percent), farm supplier (26
percent), landfill (31 percent), or sewage treatment plant (29
percent) located nearby. A large variance exists in the
percentage of subjects who viewed these facilities as
threatening. Few (14 percent) who live near a farm supplier
believe that it is threatening to environmental safety; 34
percent who said they live near a sewage treatment plant view it
as threatening; a greater percentage (60 percent) who live near a
landfill view it as a threat; and chemical manufacturing plants
26
-------
were perceived as a threat by two-thirds (66 percent) of those
who said one is located nearby. A small percentage of subjects (9
percent) said they live near an incinerator, but more than haif
of them (58 percent) said that it poses a threat. Although a
similarly small percentage (10 percent) said they live near a
hazardous waste facility, by far the largest percentage (82
percent) view it as a threat.
Examination of the between-community results indicate that
the sensitivity of Middlesex County respondents (discussed above)
was also evident in the evaluation of the threat posed by the
facilities (see Table 7, page 35). For every facility type, a
greater percentage of respondents in Middlesex viewed them as
threatening than in any of the other communities. For example,
almost one-fourth (24 percent) of the Middlesex respondents who
live near gas stations viewed them as a threat to environmental
safety and 16 percent viewed dry cleaners as a threat. The
opposite pattern was evident in Racine. Except for those who said
they live near a landfill, Racine respondents were less likely to
view each facility as threatening. For example, although a higher
percentage of Racine subjects said they live near a sewage
treatment plant than in any other community (40 percent), a small
percentage (18 percent) viewed the plant as a threat to
environmental safety.
Personal Experience With Life-Threatening Environmental Risks
Respondents' perception of their community may be influenced
by many variables, one of which is their personal experience with
i
27
-------
threatening risks from chemicals in the environment. This
variable is important in helping to explain respondents' answers
concerning their perceived knowledge and attitudes about chemical
risks as well as the protective behaviors in which they engage.
We asked respondents if they had ever faced a situation
involving chemicals in the environment that they considered
threatening to themselves or their immediate family. The
majority of respondents from all communities (73 percent) said
that they had not experienced a threatening situation, (see
Appendix C, Q.26). Thirty-nine percent of Middlesex County
respondents had faced a threatening situation, whereas only
twenty-one percent of those living in Durham had faced a
threatening situation. More males (30 percent) than females (23
percent) noted threatening situations. Similarly, highly
educated (30 percent with more than a high school diploma
compared to 21 percent with a high school diploma or less) and
middle aged (32 percent between the ages of 30-50; 26 percent
under 30; 19 percent over 50) respondents were more likely to
report threatening situations (see Appendix C, Q.26).
To examine respondents' perceptions of threatening
situations, we asked them to briefly describe the threatening
situation. One-quarter of the respondents indicated that they
work with chemicals. Another 21 percent said they or their
families have been exposed to a toxic cloud, gas fumes, odors, or
gas leaks. Thirty-one percent of these respondents had been
threatened by a chemical accident — either a leak or spill, a
28
-------
plant or warehouse blowing up or catching fire, or a truck or
train carrying chemicals overturning. Another 22 percent of
these respondents felt personally threatened by water pollution,
either of their drinking water, the rivers or oceans, or by
eating contaminated fish. Eight percent of the respondents who
indicated that they had faced a threatening situation had been
evacuated due to one or more of the hazards described above; the
majority of these respondents live in Durham.
Personal experience with a threatening situation will serve
as an independent variable in several further analyses of the
survey data (see Future Data Collection and Analysis section).
As stated earlier, this variable may help explain much of the
variation in perceived knowledge, attitudes, and current behavior
regarding chemical risks.
29
-------
TABLE 2
Percent of Subjects with Positive
Views About Community Issues
TOTAL
Rich Pur Alb Gin Mid
Good Health Care
89
90 95 84
92
88 87
Good Schools
79
78 79 64
84
81 88
Clean Air & Water 64
72 85 65
56
37 68
Few Environmental
Risks 63
62 73 69
59
42 72
Low Unemployment
Rate 57
64 69 46
57
58 49
Low Crime Rate
44
7 54 18
72
61 51
Unless otherwise noted, all differences discussed in the text and
tables are significant at p_ <.05. Percentages reported in the
text are based on the entire sample (N=3129) except where noted.
30
-------
TABLE 3
Percent Viewing Chemical
Risks as a Serious Problem
Middlesex County 47
Cincinnati 28
Albuquerque 19
Durham 19
Richmond 17
Racine 9
Overall Percent 23
* Combines respondents' viewing risk as a "serious" or
"very serious" problem
Unless otherwise noted, all differences discussed in the text and
tables are significant at |> <.05. Percentages reported in the
text are based on the entire sample (N=3129) except where noted.
31
-------
TABLE 4
Percent Of Subjects Mentioning
Facilities Posing Threat to Environmental Safety
TOT Rich Pur Alb Cin Mid Rac
Total percent signifying
threatening facility
or location
Chemical Manufacturing
Plant
Landfill/Dump
Nuclear Facility/
Power Plant
Hazardous Waste Disposal
Facility
•
Refinery
Research Laboratory
Gasoline Station
Military Facility '
Industry/Manufacturing
Chemical Industry
Garbage/Waste/Storage
Facilities
General Threats
48
43
21
19
11
7
4
3
3
48
43
33
7
44
68
8
10
9
4
1
3
1
72
61
24
10
Part
53
Part
57
6
38
7
Part
**
7
1
0
Part
59
60
13
4
A
36
B*
8
11
16
22
C*
4
18
12
19
D*
13
14
34
9
57
39
16
35
13
4
1
2
0
46
41
30
8
64
48
44
2
12
20
2
3
1
49
46
54
7
36
25
33
11
5
1
1
1
0
42
26
38
9
* Represents percent of those stating there was a threatening
facility in the community (i.e., "yes" to Q.7)
** < 1 percent
Unless otherwise noted, all differences discussed in the text and
tables are significant at £ <.05. Percentages reported in the text are
based on the entire sample (N=3129) except where noted.
32
-------
TABLE 5
Percent of Respondents
Bothered by Perceived Threats*
A Great Bothered Not At
Deal Somewhat All
Unpleasant Smell 33 26 40
Long Term Health Danger 63 33 4
Dust, Dirt, Smoke 37 36 27
Possible Major Accident 51 33 16
Irritation to Eyes,
Nose, Throat or Skin 38 34 28
Long-Term Environmental
Damage 67 29 4
Decreased Property Value 26 33 40
* Comparisons of trends only; no significance tests conducted.
33
-------
TABLE 6
Percent of Respondents Bothered A Great Deal By Facility Influence
A. Commun i ty
Long-Te r m
Unpleasant Health
Smel 1 Dange r
TOTAL
Rich
Dur
Alb
Cin
Mid
Rac
HS or less
Some college
o r more
Less than
30 years
30-50 years
More than
50 years
33
30
20
21
31
52
30
43
29
41
31
29
63
56
62
60
65
73
52
61*
63*
68
64
51
Dust, Di
Smoke
37
35
25
32
39
49
32
B.
44
33
42*
34*
36*
Poss ib le
rt Major
Accident
51
45
64
61
54
52
27
Edu ca t i on
57
49
C. Age
55
52
43
Irritation Long-Term
to Eyes, Environmental
Nose Damage
38
33
34
40
39
47
26
48
34
42*
37*
36*
67
62
62
71
69
73
59
65*
67*
70
68
57
Deer eased
Proper ty
Val ues
26
23
22
28
23
34
23
>'
x 30
25
30*
25*
23*
* Comparisons not significant at £ < .05.
Unless otherwise noted, all differences discussed in the text and tables are significant at p_ .05.
Percentages reported in the text are based on the entire sample (N=3129) except where noted.
-------
TABLE 7
Percent of Respondents with Facility Located
Nearby and Percent Threatened by Facility
TOT Rich Pur Alb Cin Mid Rac
Chem. Manuf. Plant
located nearby 30 29 35 9 36 54 19
Threatened 66 61 76 67 66 75 32
Dry Cleaner located
nearby
Threatened
Farm Supplier located
nearby
Threatened
Gasoline Station
located nearby
Threatened
Incinerator located
nearby
Threatened
Landfill located
nearby
Threatened
Sewage Treatment Plant
located nearby
Threatened
Hazardous Waste Facility
located nearby
Threatened
68
11
26
14
79
16
9
58
31
60
29
34
10
82
75
11
23
6
81
14
7
50
26
42
26
48
6
82
67
12
30
14
79
17
9
47
24
43
35
22
9
81
66
9
21
15
80
17
4
53
20
43
16
43
11
73
73
11
17
19
80
13
12
66
24
62
23
40
15
88
79
16
31
19
86
24
13
81
49
86
29
53
18
88
52
7
33
11
70
10
8
33
38
56
40
18
6
71
Unless otherwise noted, all differences discussed in the text and
tables are significant at p_ <.05. Percentages reported in the
text are based on the entire sample (N=3129) except where noted.
35
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION SOURCES AND CHANNELS
Much information dissemination research centers around the
belief that the most effective method of dissemination is to use
the mass media to create awareness about an issue or problem and
interpersonal sources to facilitate changes in attitude or
behavior. This survey asked respondents about their actual use
of mass media and interpersonal sources of information. In
addition, respondents were queried about their perceptions of and
access to a variety of information channels, which will provide
important information to support communications planning at the
national, state, and local levels. Mass media sources were
predominant among our respondents, but a variety of other sources
also seem to have potential for communicating risk information.
We asked respondents if they had heard or read anything
about the risks of chemicals or hazardous wastes in their
community within the past three months. If the respondent
indicated yes, we then asked about the past week. A little over
half of the respondents (1620; 52. percent) had heard or read
something in the past three months and 669 (41 percent of 1620)
of those respondents had heard or read something in the past
week. Only slight demographic differences exist between those
respondents who had read or heard something in the past three
months and those who had not recently read or heard something
about chemical risks. The respondents who had received risk
information recently were more educated (58 percent had at least
some college education) , and more likely to be middle-aged or
37
-------
older (56 percent were 30-50 years old v. 44 percent who had not
recently received information).
Source of Recent Information
For those 21 percent (of all 3129 respondents) who had
indicated that they had read or heard something in the past week,
we then asked about the source of this information (Table 8, page
47). Overwhelmingly, mass media sources, particularly newspapers
and local television news, were cited as the source of recent
information about environmental risks. Seventy-six percent of
all respondents who had read or heard something about
environmental risks within the past week indicated the newspaper
as the source of this information, 62 percent indicated local
television news, and 11 percent indicated national television
news. Another 19 percent said they received their recent
environmental information from the radio. Interpersonal sources
of information, such as family members, friends, neighbors,
governmental officials, and health professionals accounted for
only 12 percent of the sources mentioned by respondents. These
findings are supported by a recent Roper Reports poll which found
that television (50 percent) and newspapers (40 percent) clearly
dominate the field of sources considered to be most persuasive in
reaching people about environmental problems (The Roper
Organization, Inc., 1988). Radio, magazines, and interpersonal
sources were cited by fewer than 1 in 7 respondents. These
results suggest that environmental risks have not yet reached the
salient level in day-to-day conversation.
38
-------
Table 8 (page 47) illustrates the community-by-community
breakdown of the various sources of respondents' most recent
environmental information. One can see that a mixture of
broadcast and print media is used by most of our respondents.
The effects of various media on consumers have different
implications. Atkin (1981) found that "television is generally
the most influential medium in this country, followed by
newspapers, radio, and magazines" (p. 277). However, in a recent
review of persuasion studies, McGuire (1985) notes that
television is regarded as more believable, but information and
attitudes are influenced more by the print medium.
Content of Recent Information
In addition to asking respondents where they had recently
heard or read about environmental risks, we also asked them about
the content of this recent information. Responses ranged from
major environmental issues such as transportation/storage/
disposal of hazardous substances to debates about locations of
chemical treatment plants, waste disposal plants, and
incinerators, as well as local issues such as spraying chemicals
for controlling mosquitos and new procedures for dealing with
chemicals at respondents' places of business.
Since the vast majority of these issues reached the
respondents via the mass media, we simultaneously tracked news
stories in the national print media as well as the local print
}
outlets in each of the six communities during the interviewing
period. In this way, we were able to match newspaper coverage of
39
-------
environmental issues with the issues mentioned by respondents in
the survey. Table 9 (page 48) shows the issues most often
mentioned by respondents as being the topic of recent
environmental information: chemical fires, transportation/
isolation of waste, intentional/illegal dumping of hazardous
materials, and ocean pollution. The table also illustrates the
percentage of responses for each of these issues by community.
During the interviewing period, a fire in a major chemical
company in East Durham, North Carolina, forcing an evacuation of
over 70 people in a five-block area surrounding the plant, made
front page news in the Durham Morning Herald. As can be seen, 60
percent of the Durham respondents who indicated having read or
heard about environmental risks within the previous week
specifically mentioned a chemical fire. Similarly, the
Department of Energy had been attempting to open a Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in Albuquerque, New Mexico, to the
dismay of many citizen groups. The issue was covered in several
news stories and editorial pieces in the Albuquerque Journal
during the first week of August. Table 9 (page 48) shows that 70
percent of the Albuquerque respondents who indicated having read
or heard something about the environment within the week previous
to the interview specifically mentioned the WIPP controversy.
Finally, during the late summer months, potentially infectious
medical wastes were routinely washing up on East Coast shores.
The problem was covered in the national newspapers as well as
news magazines, such as Time and Newsweek. Table 9 (page 48)
40
-------
shows that over 40 percent of the Middlesex County respondents
who indicated having read or heard something about the
environment in the previous week specifically mentioned
intentional/illegal dumping of hazardous materials or ocean
pollution in general. This analysis illustrates the penetration
of news stories within the public and the retention of details by
the respondents.
Interestingly, the Durham chemical fire was reported in
three front page news stories including pictures on August 1—
directly in the middle of the interviewing period for Durham
(July 18 - August 14) . The play that this story received
apparently spurred the recall of our respondents. However,
during this same four-week period, the majority of the
environmental stories covered by the Durham press concerned
hospital waste washing up on the beaches of North Carolina. In
fact, at least three front-page stories on August 10 and 11
covered ocean dumping of hospital waste. Interestingly, only 7
percent of our respondents mentioned polluted beaches when asked
what they had read or heard about in the previous week.
Evidently, the chemical fire was the most memorable environmental
event during the interviewing period for the Durham respondents,
possibly because of its more local and dramatic character.
Perceptions of Information Sources
In addition to this open-ended question about sources of
environmental information, respondents were also asked to
indicate their utilization of several information sources and to
41
-------
evaluate their trustworthiness and perceived expertise. Table 10
(page 49) shows the results of these evaluations.
As can be seen, most respondents received information about
the risks of chemicals in their community from news reporters.
This finding is supported in national polls conducted by Roper
Reports in the summer of 1988, in which journalists were cited by
51 percent of the respondents as the source they depend on to
keep them informed about environmental issues (The Roper
Organization, Inc., 1988). However, in our survey news reporters
were perceived as being less knowledgeable than nearly all other
sources about environmental issues. One possible explanation of
this finding may be that respondents realize that reporters
receive their information from the environmental scientific
community, thereby gaining their knowledge from outside experts.
In this case, news reporters serve as a channel or conduit of
environmental information from the expert community to the
public. Rogers (1983) notes 1 that "it is often difficult for
individuals to distinguish between the source of a message and
the channel that carries the message11 (p. 197) . In this survey,
however, it appears that respondents may be able to distinguish
between the source and the channel when it relates to news
reporters. Respondents may receive their information from news
reporters but realize that the reporters themselves are not
environmental experts.
Environmental groups received high rankings in two of the
three categories. They are seen as very knowledgeable and are
42
-------
trusted by the respondents. However, fewer respondents (21
percent) are receiving "a lot" of information from environmental
groups.
The survey results concerning chemical industry officials
and health professionals as sources of environmental information
are interesting. Chemical industry officials are perceived by
respondents as having the most knowledge concerning the risks of
chemicals in the community but are not seen as very trustworthy.
This finding is supported by the qualitative research being
conducted in conjunction with the baseline survey. Focus groups
with the general public in several communities show that chemical
companies (along with elected officials and government agencies)
are consistently viewed as the least credible sources of
information (Institute for Health Policy Analysis, 1988).
Conversely, health professionals have the highest trust
level but are used by the fewest respondents for environmental
information and are not seen as very knowledgeable about the
risks of chemicals in the community. Previous research on source
credibility supports these findings. McGuire (1985) cites a 1981
opinion poll that found that "science, medical, and academic
groups elicit a high degree of [trustedness], the military,
police and judiciary somewhat less, followed by business and
media leaders, with political officeholders and labor union
officials trusted still less" (p. 263). Focus groups with the
general public confirm a desire to have health professionals
involved in environmental information. When asked where they
43
-------
would like to find information about the environment, physicians'
offices were mentioned by many participants along with schools,
PTAs, drugstores, and libraries (Institute for Health Policy
Analysis, 1988).
Respondents' perceptions of information sources also
illustrate the view that the government (federal, state, and
local) is perceived as very knowledgeable about chemical risks,
but the respondents are not receiving very much government
information and are not quite sure whether to trust the
government. Interestingly, local emergency planning committees
(LEPCs) seem to hold a favored position among information
sources. They appear to be very trustworthy and knowledgeable to
the respondents, who may view the LEPC as a community group, not
a quasi-governmental organization. Considering that most of the
LEPCs have yet to communicate to the public about Title III data
or their emergency plans, these results imply that LEPCs will not
have difficulty disseminating their information when the time
comes. On the other hand, LEPCs may have a lot to lose if they
fail to communicate this risk information well.
Notification Procedures
It was interesting to find that the overwhelming majority of
respondents think that they would receive their first
notification of a large spill or release of hazardous chemicals
in their community from the media (82 percent). Television news
would be the specific media source for the largest group (45
44
-------
percent) of these respondents, with radio news (30 percent) the
next likely media source.
Table 11 (page 50) shows the source of emergency
notification by each of the six communities. As one can see,
Middlesex County respondents tend to rely on local officials for
their emergency warning notification more so than respondents in
the other communities. Still, almost three-quarters (72 percent)
of the Middlesex County respondents look toward the media to
notify them of a chemical emergency. It is interesting to note
that only 26 percent of the Middlesex County respondents depend
on television news, while 60 percent of the Cincinnati
respondents cited television news. Racine and Middlesex County
residents appear to rely on local officials and newspapers more
than respondents in the other communities. These differences in
Middlesex County may be due to the fact that most television news
coverage received in Middlesex County is actually New York City
coverage rather than local coverage.
Table 12 (page 51) illustrates the breakdown by age and
education level of those sources mentioned by respondents as
providing primary notification of a chemical emergency in their
community. It appears that those with higher education levels
rely on media sources more than those with a high school
education or less (85 percent v. 78 percent) . However, if we
examine the specific media sources, we see that this difference
is the greatest concerning radio news. Thirty-five percent of
those with more than a high school education think that they will
45
-------
receive first notification of a chemical emergency on the radio
news, compared to only 24 percent of those with a high school
diploma or less. It also appears that older respondents (over
50) rely more on local officials for emergency notification (14
percent) and less on the media (75 percent) than do the younger
respondents.
46
-------
TABLE 8
Source of Recent Chemical Risk Information
(Percent)
Total Rich Pur Alb Gin Middle Rac
Newspapers 76 66 80 76 60 88 75
Local TV News 62 73 74 73 68 35 34
National TV News 11 9 3 7 6 30
Radio 19 19 16 17 22 27 11
Interpersonal* 12 7 11 6 20 15 19
* Combination of friends or neighbors, local, state, and
federal government officials, family members, town meetings,
and doctors or health professionals.
Unless otherwise noted, all differences discussed in the text and
tables are significant at p_ <.05. Percentages reported .in the
text are based on the entire sample (N=3129) except where noted.
47
-------
TABLE 9
Content of Recent Chemical Risk Information
(Percent)
Total Rich Pur Alb Cin Middle
Heard/Read in
Past Week 21
14
36
30
17
27
8
What Did You
Read/Hear? *
Chemical Fire 17
60
Transportation/
Isolation of
Waste (WIPP) 18
1 70
Intentional/
Illegal
Dumping
15
13
3 11
42
15
Ocean
Pollution
19
26
3 24
48
13
Percent of total respondents in each community who had
heard/read about risks in the past week. Comparisons of
trends only; no significance test conducted.
48
-------
TABLE 10
Perception of Information Sources*
Amount Rec'd Trust Knowledgeable
% A Lot % A Lot % Very
News Reporters 27 27 17
Environmental
Groups 21 40 53
Friend/Relatives 7 34 9
LEPC 6 28 33
State Government 6 12 29
People You Know
Who Work for a
Chemical Industry 5 19 30
Local Government 5 11 22
Federal Government 4 12 36
Chemical Industry
Officials 3 8 58
Doctors 3 46 27
* Comparisons of trends only; no significance tests conducted.
49
-------
TABLE 11
Notification Procedures by Community
(Percent)
TOT Rich Pur Alb Cin Mid Rac
All Media
TV News
Radio News
Newspapers
Emergency
Broadcast
System 2 1 4 2 <1 <1 1
Local Officials* 10 6 11 5 5 18 14
Siren/Warning
Signals
Personal Contact**
82
45
30
6
88
49
34
3
84
53
24
3
89
50
34
3
88
60
22
4
72
26
35
9
75
32
32
10
* Local officials include police, firefighters, and other local
emergency officials.
** Personal contact includes friends, relatives, and neighbors.
Unless otherwise noted, all differences discussed in the text and
tables are significant at p_ <.05. Percentages reported in the
text are based on the entire sample (N=3129) except where noted.
50
-------
PLEASE RETURN TO?
riCIC/OTS CHEMICAL LIBRARY.
401 M ST., S.,W.S 18*793
WASHINGTON, -D.C. 20460
TABLE 12
Notification Procedures by Education and Age
(Percent)
All Media
TV News
Radio News
Newspapers
Emergency
Broadcast
System
Education
HS< >HS
<30
30-50 >50
78
48
24
5
85
42
35
6
87
50
28
6
85
43
34
7
75
42
27
4
<1
Local Officials*
13
14
Siren/Warning
Signals
Personal Contact**
1
3
<1
* Local officials include police, firefighters, and other local
emergency officials.
** Personal contact includes friends, relatives, and neighbors.
Unless otherwise noted, all differences discussed in the text and
tables are significant at E <.05. Percentages reported in the
text are based on the entire sample (N=3129) except where noted.
51
-------
PERCEIVED KNOWLEDGE
Self-Assessed Knowledge
Respondents were asked how much they felt they knew about
several environmental issues in their area. Eight topics were
probed, covering both the risks of chemicals and activities to
protect or correct hazards. For each topic, respondents were
asked to signify if they felt they knew a lot, a little, very
little, or nothing.
As shown in Table 13 (page 60), for seven of the eight topic
areas probed, more respondents felt they knew very little or
nothing than felt they knew a lot or a little. The one exception
was quality of the drinking water, where 65 percent indicated
that they felt they knew a little (41 percent) or a lot (24
percent) about the subject. For the other topic areas, less than
15 percent of the people surveyed said they knew a lot about the
topic. This low level of perceived knowledge was evident for
topics related to the risk of chemicals (location where chemicals
are stored or used, releases of chemicals into the atmosphere,
hazardous waste facilities, and the risk of chemicals in general)
and even somewhat lower for topics related to chemical hazard
clean-up and protection (community right-to-know laws, emergency
preparedness plans, and activities to clean up accidental spills
of hazardous materials) . Awareness about emergency preparedness
plans ranked the lowest of the eight areas probed in perceived
knowledge levels. Almost three in ten (29 percent) of the
respondents stated that they knew nothing about this topic.
53
-------
There were several highly consistent relationships indicated
in the demographic analyses. On all of the topic areas probed,
males stated a small but consistently higher mean level of
perceived knowledge than females (see Table 14, page 61). It is
unclear if males actually know more about these topics or they
are more confident in their knowledge levels. In an era of
decreased time for joint family activities, information search
about different topics may be becoming highly specialized within
the family and assigned to one partner. This factor may have
important communication planning ramifications if gender-related
role specialization is a factor in receptivity to information
about environmental risks.
As shown in Table 14 (page 61), individuals with at least
some college education had higher mean scores than individuals
with a lower level of education in all the topic areas probed.
Again, it is unclear if this is reflective of actual knowledge
levels or of confidence in one's perceived knowledge. Age was
also related to mean perceived knowledge levels, but in a less
consistent fashion. In all the topic areas, individuals under 30
years of age had the lowest level of perceived knowledge.
Middle-aged respondents (30 to 50 years old) scored highest on
items related to the risks of chemicals (location of facilities
that store or use chemicals, chemical releases, hazardous waste
facilities, chemical risks in general) as well as on the topic of
community right-to-know laws. Older respondents (over 50 years
of age) had the highest perceived knowledge levels of protective
54
-------
activities (emergency preparedness plans, activities to clean up
accidental spills) and of the quality of the drinking water.
Among communities, the results indicate that in both Durham
and Middlesex County, higher degrees of reported knowledge on
several of the items related to chemical risks were found than in
the other communities (see Table 15, page 62) . Durham
respondents scored first or second highest among the six
communities on items measuring locations of facilities using or
storing chemicals, hazardous waste facilities, and chemical risks
in general. Middlesex County respondents scored first or second
highest on items measuring the location of facilities using or
storing chemicals, chemical releases in the atmosphere, and
chemical risks in general.
In addition, Durham respondents scored highest of all the
respondents on items about self-assessed knowledge about
emergency preparedness plans and activities to clean up
accidental spills. They scored second highest on perceived
knowledge about community right-to-know laws. Middlesex
respondents scored highest on community right-to-know laws but
lowest on perceived knowledge about emergency preparedness plans
and next to lowest on perceived knowledge about activities to
clean up accidental spills. Thus, while both Durham and
Middlesex County respondents had high scores on perceived
knowledge about environmental risks, Durham respondents appear to
have balancing levels of perceived knowledge about corrective or
protective activities. Middlesex respondents appear to be more
55
-------
confident in their knowledge about right-to-know laws and
chemical risks, but not about activities the chemical industry or
government has undertaken to correct the problem of toxic
chemicals. These results may partially explain differing
perceptions about the risks of chemicals within the respective
communities discussed earlier.
Opinion of Community Activities
Self-assessed knowledge provides an indication of what
respondents believe they know. To obtain a measure of how
knowledge is projected in order to derive conclusions about
communities, respondents were asked to signify whether or not
community based activities were taking place to notify the public
about and protect it from environmental risks. Six areas of
action were probed: existence of an emergency preparedness plan,
training of police and fire department personnel to respond to
chemical emergencies, local businesses notifying the community
about use and storage of toxic chemicals, active environmental
groups discussing risks, local governments working on the problem
of chemicals in the environment, and local businesses reducing
the amount of toxic chemicals they store or use.
As shown in Table 16, page 63, the majority of respondents
(81 percent) believed that the police and fire departments had
trained personnel to handle environmental emergencies. Many
respondents also believed that there was an active set of
environmental groups (60 percent) and an active government (59
percent) dedicated to environmental issues. Over half (54
56
-------
percent) believed there was an emergency preparedness plan in
existence.
Local businesses received the worst evaluation. Less than
half of the respondents (47 percent) believed that local
businesses had reduced the amount of toxic chemicals they use and
only about one-quarter (27 percent) believed that local
businesses had notified the community about the toxic chemicals
they use, store/ or release. The latter result is particularly
germane to Title III legislation. By law, at the time of this
survey, local businesses were required to notify the community
about the level of toxic chemical usage, storage, and release.
This measure can be better evaluated in follow-up surveys to
determine public access and response to information mandated by
the legislation.
Differences between communities are consistent with
previously discussed results (see Table 16, page 63). On every
aspect of community activity probed, a lower percentage of
Middlesex respondents reported the existence of protective
activity than in any of the other communities. In Durham, on the
other hand, a consistently higher percentage of respondents
reported the existence of protective activities. Durham scored
the highest among all the communities in terms of the percentage
of respondents reporting existence of environmental group
activity (76 percent), local government activity (66 percent),
the existence of an emergency preparedness plan (66 percent), and
57
-------
the activity of local businesses in notifying the community about
toxic chemical use, storage, or release (33 percent).
There were also individual results that may reflect
particular attitudes within each community. For example,
Richmond and Durham each reported a high percentage of
individuals who believed the police and fire departments had
trained personnel (89 and 86 percent, respectively) but a smaller
percentage who believed the local government had been active (53
and 66 percent, respectively). In Racine, the business community
was viewed more positively than in other localities as a high
percentage of respondents believed that local businesses had
reduced their storage and use of toxic chemicals (60 percent) and
had notified the community about the use of toxic chemicals (32
percent).
Several demographic differences also exist that may reflect
differing views of the various institutions involved (see Table
17, page 64). Individuals with higher educational attainment
were less likely to view government or business initiatives as
underway but were more likely to view environmental groups as
being active. More highly educated individuals are apparently
more skeptical of government and business institutions. On the
other hand, with age people may become more accepting of these
institutions. A significant positive relationship exists between
age and the percentage of subjects perceiving government or
business-initiated activities as taking place. The only
exception to this trend was on the item measuring whether or not
58
-------
an emergency preparedness plan was in place. As this item is,
perhaps, the most objectively verifiable, it may reflect factual
knowledge to a greater extent than the other items, which may be
more susceptible to influences caused by respondent attitudes
about the institutions involved.
59
-------
TABLE 13
Perceived Knowledge About Chemical Risks:
Percent Distribution for Item Responses
Location Where
Chemicals Are
Stored or Used
12
Perceived Knowledge Level
A lot A little Very little Nothing
33
33
22
Release of
Chemicals
8
36
37
20
Quality of
Drinking Water
24
41
26
Right-to-Know
Laws
11
34
35
20
Emergency
Preparedness
Plans
28
33
29
Hazardous Waste
Facilities
10
33
34
23
Activities to
Clean up Spills
11
36
32
21
Risk of Chemicals
13
41
32
14
Unless otherwise noted, all differences discussed in the text and
tables are significant at p_ <.05. Percentages reported in the text are
based on the entire sample (N=3129) except where noted.
60
-------
TABLE 14
Mean Perceived Knowledge Levels By Key Demographics*
Location Where
Chemicals Are
Stored or Used
Release of
Chemicals
Quality of
Drinking
Water
Right-to-Know
Laws
Emergency
Preparedness
Plans
Hazardous Waste
Facilities
Activities
To Clean-up
Spills
Risk of
Chemicals
Gender
Male Female
2.49 2.21
2.41 2.21
2.89 2.71
2.45 2.26
2.20 2.12
2.36 2.23
2.42 2.29
2.62 2.45
Education
Some
HS or coll.
less or >
2.15 2.49
2.14 2.43
2.64 2.91
2.23 2.44
<30 30-50 >50
2.37 2.43 2.21
2.28 2.36 2.26
2.70 2.81 2.87
2.27 2.40 2.35
2.14 2.17** 2.07 2.17 2.23
2.16 2.39
2.23 2.44
2.34 2.67
2.21 2.33 2.32
2.19 2.38 2.44
2.45 2.60 2.49
* Scale Range = 1 to 4
1 = Know nothing
2 = Know very little
3 = Know a little
4 = Know a lot
** Comparisons not significant at p_ <.05.
Unless otherwise noted, all differences discussed in the text and
tables are significant at E <.05. Percentages reported in the text are
based on the entire sample (N=3129) except where noted.
61
-------
TABLE 15
Mean Perceived Knowledge Levels By Community*
Community
Total Rich Pur Alb Cin Middle Rac
Location Where
Chemicals Are
Stored or Used
Release of
Chemicals**
Quality of
Drinking
Water
Right-to-Know
Laws
Emergency
Preparedness
Plans
Hazardous Waste
Facilities
Activities
To Clean-up
Spills
Risk of
Chemicals
2.35 2.25 2.50 2.31 2.36 2.44 2.27
2.31 2.26 2.30 2.31 2.35 2.40 2.26
2.80 2.65 2.80 2.91 2.81 2.76 2.87
2.36 2.21 2.41 2.33 2.40 2.44 2.34
2.16 2.09 2.36 2.18 2.16 1.04 2.24
2.30 2.14 2.38 2.40 2.32 2.31 2.24
2.35 2.32 2.45 2.43 2.35 2.30 2.29
2.54 2.45 2.61 2.55 2.55 2.62 2.44
* Scale Range = 1 to 4
1 = Know nothing
2 = Know very little
3 = Know a little
4 = Know a lot
** Comparisons not significant at E <.05.
Unless otherwise noted, all differences discussed in the text and
tables are significant at p_ <.05. Percentages reported in the text are
based on the entire sample (N=3129) except where noted.
62
-------
TABLE 16
Percent of Respondents Indicating Protective
Activity Has Taken Place in Community
Total Rich Pur Alb Cin Middle Rac
Police & Fire
Trained
Personnel 81 89 86 84 80 67 82
Active
Environmental
Groups 60 51 76 68 64 52 53
Local
Government
Working on
Problem 59 53 66 64 63 50 57
Emergency
Preparedness
Plan Exists 54 61 66 59 49 38 51
Local Business
Reduced Chemicals 47 47 47 40 48 37 60
Local Business
Notified
Community 27 28 33 25 26 16 32
Unless otherwise noted, all differences discussed in the text and
tables are significant at p_ <.05. Percentages reported in the text are
based on the entire sample (N=3129) except where noted.
63
-------
TABLE 17
Percent of Respondents Indicating Protective
Activity Has Taken Place by Major Demographics
Police & Fire
Trained
Personnel
Gender
Male Female
84
79
Education
Some
HS or Coll.
less or >
83
81*
Age
<30 30-50 >50
77
81
86
Active
Environmental
Groups
61
60*
57
63
55
60
65
Local
Government
Working on
Problem
60
58*
61
57
52
56
68
Emergency
Preparedness
Plan Exists
58
51
53
54*
50
56
55
Local Business
Reduced
Chemicals
47
47*
50
45
39
44
58
Local Business
Notified
Community
29
25
29
25
26
25
31
* Comparisons not significant at p. <.05.
Unless otherwise noted, all differences discussed in the text and
tables are significant at p_ <.05. Percentages reported in the text are
based on the entire sample (N=3129) except where noted.
64
-------
ATTITUDES ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
To examine respondents7 beliefs about the risk of chemicals
in the environment as well as related beliefs about the role of
business, government, and their own involvement with
environmental health issues, a thirteen-item attitude scale was
constructed. Subjects were asked whether they strongly agreed,
somewhat agreed, somewhat disagreed, or strongly disagreed with
each of the statements posed.
Views about Government Action
Two items measured views about governmental activity.
Respondents were asked to evaluate the overall activity of the
federal government in cleaning up the environment. As shown in
Table 18 (page 78), 58 percent disagreed that the federal
government was doing a good job. One-third (33 percent) of the
sample disagreed strongly. Appendix C, Q.21, shows further
community and demographic differences. For instance, individuals
in Middlesex County (43 percent) were more likely to disagree
strongly that the federal government was doing a good job than
respondents in the other communities. The highest level of
agreement with the statement (48 percent) came from respondents
over fifty years of age. Individuals with a high school diploma
or less (44 percent), and those from Richmond (42 percent),
Racine (45 percent), and Cincinnati (43 percent) were also more
likely than the other subjects to agree with the statement. As
speculated earlier, older individuals and those with lower levels
of education may be more accepting of governmental institutions.
65
-------
The higher levels of government acceptance in Richmond, Racine,
and Cincinnati must be viewed on a relative basis with the strong
negative opinions emanating from Middlesex County. Even in these
three communities, more respondents disagreed with the statement
than agreed.
Attitudes about the local government's interest in what the
public has to say about chemicals in the area were somewhat more
positive than attitudes about the federal government's clean up
of the environment. Overall, 59 percent of the respondents
agreed that local officials were interested in the public's view.
Approximately two-thirds of the individuals in Racine (67
percent) and Durham (60 percent) agreed that local officials were
interested, whereas only half of the respondents in Middlesex (52
percent) agreed (see Appendix C, Q.21). As with attitudes about
the federal government, people 50 years of age or older were more
likely to view the local government in a positive light (66
percent agreed). However, in contrast with the results for the
federal government, those with a higher level of education were
more likely to agree (61 percent) than those with a high school
diploma or less (56 percent).
Views about Local Businesses
Respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed with the
statement that local businesses were very careful with dangerous
chemicals. Fifty-three percent of the respondents disagreed with
the statement. The geographic and demographic correlates of
views about local businesses were highly similar to views about
66
-------
the federal government's activity (see Appendix C, Q.21).
Individuals in Middlesex (65 percent) were more likely to
disagree that local businesses are careful with chemicals, while
those in Racine (56 percent) and Durham (48 percent) were more
likely to agree with this statement. Individuals over 50 years
of age (53 percent) and those with a high school diploma or less
(50 percent) were more apt to signify agreement that local
businesses were careful using dangerous chemicals.
Secrecy of Chemical Releases
Respondents were asked to respond to the statement, "The
only time the public hears about the release of toxic chemicals
is when the problem is so big it can't be kept secret anymore." A
strong majority (86 percent) agreed with this statement. It
appears that the public views chemical releases as quite serious
(see below) and also views business and government with some
distrust. Individuals in Middlesex County (90 percent) were
somewhat more likely to agree about secrecy than were individuals
in Durham and Albuquerque (both approximately 82 percent) (see
Appendix C, Q. 21).
The Risk of Chemicals
Overall Safety; Several elements of the public's views about the
risks of environmental chemicals were queried in a series of
attitude items. Two items were posed to assess general views
about the safety of chemicals. Respondents were asked to agree
or disagree with the statement, "we should assume a chemical is
safe unless tests prove it is dangerous." A large majority of
67
-------
respondents (70 percent) disagreed and about half the sample (51
percent) disagreed strongly. It is clear that the public views
"chemicals" as potentially dangerous and not to be considered
lightly. Older respondents viewed chemicals as inherently safer
as 43 percent of the individuals over age 50 agreed somewhat (21
percent) or agreed strongly (22 percent) with the statement.
To provide a more complete frame of reference for the
evaluation of chemical risks, respondents were asked whether they
agreed or disagreed with the statement, "chemicals have improved
our health more than they have harmed our health." Clearly,
evaluation of this statement is highly dependent on how subjects
define the term "chemical." No stipulations or clues were
provided in the context of the statement as respondents were
permitted to provide their own definition. Given the context of
the previous items in the questionnaire, it is likely that
respondents would be already thinking about hazardous chemicals.
It is unknown, however, how many respondents also considered in
their responses other types of chemicals, such as those produced
for direct health effects (e.g., Pharmaceuticals).
Half (50 percent) of the sample agreed with the statement
that chemicals have provided more benefit than harm to our
health. Males (58 percent) and college educated respondents (56
/
percent) were most likely to agree with the statement, perhaps
reflecting a broader definition of the term "chemicals" among
these subgroups (see Appendix C, Q.21). Respondents from
Middlesex County (43 percent) indicated the lowest level of
68
-------
agreement, again reflecting a strong negative halo effect towards
environmental chemicals.
Chemical Releases; To obtain a more specific set of opinions
about the release of chemicals into the air, water, or soil, two
questions were posed covering the topics of chemical releases in
general and planned releases. In terms of general releases,
subjects were asked to respond to the statement, "Any release of
chemicals into the air, water, or soil is not acceptable."
As shown in Table 18 (page 79), about two-thirds of the
sample (63 percent) agreed with this statement, 42 percent
agreeing strongly. The trends evident in attitude measures
discussed above were also evident in responses to this question.
There was a strong preponderance of agreement in Middlesex County
(71 percent agreed), for instance (see Appendix C, Q.21).
Females (67 percent) had a higher agreement rate than males (59
percent), perhaps reflecting greater risk aversion for females,
and those with a high school diploma or less (68 percent) had a
higher agreement rate than those with at least some college
education (60 percent), perhaps reflecting greater cognitive
ability among the more educated in recognizing that some chemical
releases may be acceptable and others unacceptable. Respondents
over 50 years old, who had indicated greater tolerance to
chemical risks in earlier questions, also had a higher rate of
I
agreement (66 percent) than the other age categories. Perhaps
older subjects view the issue as evaluating the performance of
groups charged with controlling chemical releases rather than a
69
-------
risk tolerance question. Alternatively, older respondents may be
more subject to "yea saying" biases and tend to agree with
questionnaire items regardless of question content. The lowest
rate of agreement with this statement was evident from
respondents in Richmond, where only 57 percent agreed. This may
reflect a greater acceptance of chemical industry practices or
understanding of chemical release practices.
To determine how respondents view planned releases, subjects
were asked to respond to the statement, "Planned releases of
chemicals into the air, water, or soil are generally safe." As
shown in Table 18 (page 79), there was strong disagreement with
this statement as 71 percent of the respondents disagreed, with
43 percent disagreeing strongly. The somewhat higher level of
disagreement to this question, compared to the agreement levels
indicated for the previous question, suggests that "safety" and
"acceptance" are viewed differently. Therefore, thresholds for
agreement or disagreement for these questions may be slightly
different.
The trends evident in the previous question were also
evident in the community and demographic analyses of this
question (see Appendix C, Q.21). There was a preponderance of
disagreement from subjects in Middlesex County (78 percent),
females (74 percent) , and those with a high school diploma or
less (74 percent). The one group that was less strongly negative
toward planned chemical releases than toward chemical releases
per se were those over age 50, as 68 percent of this cohort
70
-------
disagreed, compared to 74 percent of those 30 to 50 years old.
It appears from the results of these two questions that the
public does not discriminate between accidental releases and
planned releases; both are judged to be unsafe and are mostly
viewed as unacceptable. The somewhat greater tolerance for
planned releases in Richmond (although still viewed as unsafe and
unacceptable to the majority of Richmond subjects) may be due to
greater acceptance and trust of the chemical industry (see
Appendix C, Q.21). In the absence of a clear understanding of a
message, the public may be more dependent on the credibility of
the source of both the message and the potential hazardous
activity.
Chemical Exposure; Two questions were posed to subjects to
obtain their views about exposure to chemicals. In an effort to
measure understanding of dose-response relationships,
interviewees were asked to respond to the statement, "it's not
how much of a chemical you are exposed to that matters to your
health, it's whether or not you are exposed at all."
Almost two-thirds (63 percent) of the respondents agreed
with this statement. It is clear that, for certain chemicals,
exposure to even small doses can be quite hazardous, and
theoretically, a carcinogen is still a carcinogen even at very
low exposure levels. However, for the majority of chemical
risks, the amount of chemical exposure is an important variable.
Only about one-third of the respondents appeared to hold an
opinion that was consistent with this dose-response relationship.
71
-------
The greatest levels of disagreement with this item were in
Durham (40 percent) and Cincinnati (38 percent), while Richmond
respondents had the lowest level of disagreement (32 percent)
(see Appendix C, Q.21). As respondents in all three cities have
generally positive attitudes about their community, it is
doubtful that responses to this question reflect global attitudes
about immediate chemical hazards. It may be more reflective of
long-term fears and individual interpretations of chemical risk
hazards. College-educated respondents (37 percent) were more
likely to disagree, perhaps reflecting greater understanding of
chemical hazards. Males (38 percent) and respondents under 30
years of age (41 percent) were also more likely to disagree,
perhaps reflecting more acceptance of the concept that dose is
important.
A second statement about chemical exposure was asked to
provide an indication of how the public views the relationship
between chemical exposure and cancer. Respondents were asked to
respond to the statement, "If a person is exposed to a chemical
that can cause cancer, then that person is likely to get cancer
later in life." While the former question dealt with the dose-
response relationship, this question assessed the degree to which
the public understands absolute risk levels. Epidemiological
studies indicate that most chemicals that are known to be
carcinogens tend to increase cancer risks relative to a control
group. However, absolute risk levels are usually quite small (in
the range of one in several thousand).
72
-------
Results for this question indicate that appreciation of low
absolute levels of risk is rare. Only one-fourth (25 percent) of
the respondents disagreed with this statement. It should be
noted that people may agree with the statement for several
reasons (we did not directly ask if exposure causes cancer).
Individuals may be aware of relatively high rates of cancer and
they may have viewed an initial exposure as a contributory cause
rather than an absolute cause.
The greatest level of appreciation for absolute risk levels
(disagreement with this question) came from college-educated
individuals (30 percent), males (28 percent), and people who live
in Albuquerque (29 percent). Specific and general knowledge
about chemical risks, less risk aversion, and lower levels of
chemical risks faced in the community may explain these trends.
It is important to note, however, that even within these
subgroups far more individuals agree than disagree with this
question (see Appendix C, Q.21).
Level of Risk: As absolute risk levels are usually quite small,
subjects were asked to respond to a statement that measured how
this low level of risk influenced their level of concern. The
statement was, "There are some chemical risks that are too small
to worry about."
As shown in Table 18 (page 79), many respondents (56
percent) disagreed with this statement. The pattern in
demographic analyses was similar to that of items measuring
general attitudes about chemical risks. Higher levels of
73
-------
disagreement were found among respondents in Middlesex County (62
percent) , among those with a high school diploma or less (62
percent), and among females (62 percent) (see Appendix C, Q.21).
The highest level of agreement with the item was expressed by
those over 50 years of age, as only 53 percent disagreed with the
item.
Toxic Wastes; Specific attitudes about toxic wastes were probed
by asking subjects to respond to the statement, "Burying toxic
wastes in landfills is not a serious problem." The overwhelming
majority of the respondents disagreed (85 percent). The
demographic analyses (see Appendix C, Q.21) indicated that
attitudes about toxic wastes are reflective of patterns seen with
other questions about chemical risks. Respondents from Middlesex
County (90 percent) were most negative in their disagreement.
The lowest level of disagreement was evident in those over age
50, where 79 percent disagreed. Clearly, respondents view
burying toxic wastes as a very serious problem.
Personal Involvement
One question in the attitude scale was used to measure how
personally involved subjects believed themselves to be in
environmental risk decisions. They were asked to respond to the
statement, "I feel I am involved in environmental decisions that
may affect my health." As shown in Table 18 (page 78), there was
a fairly even distribution of response to this item as 43 percent
agreed and 56 percent disagreed. Respondents in Racine had the
74
-------
highest level of agreement with this statement (49 percent) among
the communities surveyed (see Appendix C, Q.21). This finding is
consistent - with results related to views about local government
interest in what people have to say about environmental
chemicals, where Racine also had the most positive views. Older
respondents (49 percent) and those with a high school diploma or
less (51 percent) also expressed relatively high levels of
personal involvement. This finding may reflect lower
expectations about involvement levels or a lack of alienation
that may be present in other age or education cohorts.
Respondents' Evaluation of Safety Performance
Although attitudes about local business and government were
assessed in previously discussed questions, the dimensions on
which these agencies were evaluated differed. To obtain a
comparative evaluation, six groups with responsibility for
environmental safety were presented to respondents. Ratings of
competence at keeping the community safe' from the risks of
hazardous chemicals (excellent, good, fair, or poor) were
requested for each of the organizations.
As shown in Table 19 (page 80), local environmental groups
received the best ratings, as half the sample (50 percent) rated
them good or excellent. The federal Environmental Protection
Agency (42 percent) and the Local Emergency Planning Committee
(39 percent) followed in the percentage of respondents giving
good or excellent job ratings. Local and state governments
received identical good or excellent job ratings (33 percent).
75
-------
Local businesses received the worst rating among those evaluated,
with only one-quarter (25 percent) of the sample giving them good
or excellent job ratings. None of these groups is overwhelmingly
viewed as doing an excellent job. Clearly, respondents have a
continuum of approval ratings, with environmental groups the
highest and local businesses the lowest. It is important to
note, however, that evaluations may differ due to differences in
the vividness of the stimuli under evaluation. Participants have
more favorable impressions if there is a clear stimulus brought
to mind (the federal EPA or an environmental group that has been
active) and less favorable if the stimulus is vague or unclear
(which agency of local government, which local business). Thus
specific institutions may be rated more highly than general
institutions.
Although only 8 percent of the participants said they were
unfamiliar with the LEPC or did not known how to evaluate it, it
is uncertain if the remaining participants were familiar with it.
It is likely that some participants may have been evaluating the
group based upon its name. In retrospect, adding a nonexistent
group to the list would have given us a better sense of false
positives. However, the LEPC, regardless of subject familiarity,
was generally seen as doing a good job (at least better than
local government). Choice of the name (with emphasis on the
local nature of the group) may be a fortuitous choice of
terminology.
Examination of the demographic analyses indicated a
76
-------
remarkable consistency of evaluations across, different agencies
(see Appendix C, Q.25). Middlesex County residents gave a lower
mean job rating to each of the six agencies evaluated compared to
all of the other communities. Females gave higher job ratings
than males to all of the agencies. Those with at least some
college education gave lower job ratings to each of the agencies
than those with a high school diploma or less. And those over 50
years of age gave higher job ratings than the other age cohorts
to all but one of the agencies. The only exception to the age-
related job ratings was the federal EPA, where younger
respondents (under age 30) gave slightly higher job ratings.
77
-------
TABLE 18
Percent of Subjects Agreeing/Disagreeing
With Attitude Items*
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
Government:
The federal govt. is
doing a good job
cleaning up the
environment. 8 33 25 33
Local officials are
interested in what
the public has to
say about chemicals
in the area. 18 41 23 18
Business:
Local businesses are
usually very careful
with dangerous
chemicals. 13 32 28 25
Involvement:
I feel I am involved
in environmental
decisions that may
affect my health. 21 22 24 32
Secrecy:
The only time the
public hears about
the release of toxic
chemicals is when the
problem is so big it
can't be kept secret
anymore. 65 20 8 6
Chemicals:
We should assume a
chemical is safe
unless tests prove
it to be dangerous. 14 16 18 51
78
-------
TABLE 18 (continued)
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
Chemicals (continued)
Chemicals have
improved our health
more than they have
harmed our health. 16 34 23 24
Any release of
chemicals into the
air, water or soil
is not acceptable. 42 22 23 13
Planned releases of
chemicals into the
air, water or soil
are generally safe. 5 22 28 43
It's not how much of
a chemical you are
exposed to that matters
to your health; it's
whether or not you are
exposed at all. 39 24 17 19
If a person is exposed
to a chemical that can
cause cancer, then that
person is likely to get
cancer later in life. 38 36 18 7
There are some chemical
risks that are too
small to worry about. 17 26 21 35
Burying toxic wastes
in landfills is not a
serious problem. 6 8 16 69
* Does not necessarily sum to 100 percent as don't know/refused
responses are accounted for in overall percentages
Unless otherwise noted, all differences discussed in the text and
tables are significant at p_ <.05. Percentages reported in the
text are based on the entire sample (N=3129) except where noted.
79
-------
TABLE 19
Percent Evaluating Environmental Agency Job Performance
Job Ratings*
Local Government
Local Business
Federal EPA
State Government
LEPC**
Excellent
4
3
5
4
5
Good
29
22
37
29
34
Fair
49
48
42
51
41
Poo
17
25
14
15
12
Local Environmental
Groups
8
42
39
8
* May sum to less than 100% as this response includes don't
know/refused responses
** Eight percent stated they did not know/never heard of this
group
Unless otherwise noted, all differences discussed in the text and
tables are significant at £> <.05. Percentages reported in the
text are based on the entire sample (N=3129) except where noted.
80
-------
SELF-REPORTED PROTECTIVE BEHAVIORS
After asking participants to respond to questions concerning
their knowledge about and attitudes toward environmental risks,
we also inquired as to the behaviors they have engaged in or are
currently engaging in that they feel will protect them from these
risks or aid in a community effort to lower the risk. We asked
about a variety of behaviors, from passive activities such as
contributing money to an environmental cause, to active
protective behaviors like drinking bottled water or moving from a
certain neighborhood because of the risks to the local
environment.
Thirty-seven percent of all of our respondents have
contributed time or money to an environmental cause in the past
(see Table 20, page 84) . Twenty-nine percent of Albuquerque
respondents have donated time or money to an environmental cause,
whereas 42 percent of Middlesex County respondents have made
donations. A wide difference exists in education levels of our
respondents who have donated time or money. Forty-five percent
of those respondents who have at least some college education
have contributed time or money to an environmental cause, while
only 25 percent of those with a high school diploma or less have
donated. Those respondents in the middle age ranges (30-50
years) were more likely than the younger or older respondents to
have donated time or money (see Table 21, page 85).
Several behaviors were included in our survey which can be
considered information-seeking behaviors. Middlesex County
81
-------
respondents appear to have engaged in the most information-
seeking behavior. Twenty-five percent of the Middlesex County
respondents attended a town or community meeting about
environmental risks, 22 percent called or wrote to a government
official about environmental risks, and 19 percent had gone to
the library to find out more about the problem of environmental
risks. These percentages are the highest for all six communities
on these information-seeking behaviors. Respondents in Racine
have engaged in the least amount of information-seeking about
environmental risks of all six communities. Only 13 percent of
Racine respondents have called or written to a government
official and only 13 percent have visited the library to find out
more about the problem. Table 20 (page 84) shows the percentages
for all six communities.
Overall, it appears that those respondents with a higher
level of education and those who are between 30 and 50 years old
are most likely to engage in information-seeking behaviors
regarding environmental risks. Additionally, for almost every
information-seeking behavior, slightly more men than women
indicated having engaged in them (see Appendix C, Q.28). Twenty-
one percent of the male respondents had attended a community
meeting compared to only 18 percent of females. Similarly, 17
percent of the male respondents had called or written a
government official compared to 14 percent of females, and 17
percent of the males had visited the library compared to 14
percent of females.
82
-------
Across the six communities, there was a wide range of
respondents who have drunk bottled water because of risks in the
environment. Consistent with other protective behaviors, 59
percent of the Middlesex County respondents drink bottled water.
Large percentages of respondents in Cincinnati (48 percent) and
Richmond (44 percent) also drink bottled water. However, the
percent drops off significantly for the remaining three
communities: Albuquerque (29 percent), Durham (23 percent), and
Racine (19 percent). Consistent with other protective behaviors,
those respondents who drink bottled water because of
environmental risks are more educated (39 percent) and younger
(under age 30 — 38 percent; between 30-50 — 40 percent) than
the other respondents.
83
-------
TABLE 20
Respondents Engaging in Protective
Behavior by Community
(Percent)
Total Rich Pur Alb Cin Middle Rac
Contributed Time
or Money to an
Environmental
Cause
37
40
36
29
36
42
38
Used Bottled
Drinking Water
36 44 23 29 48
59
19
Attended a Town
or Community
Meeting
20 14 24 21 16
25
17
Talked to Doctor*
20 20 18 18 21
21
19
Called or
Written a
Government
Official
16
16
14
15
14
22
13
Gone to the
Library to
Find Out More
About the
Problem*
15
14
17
15
15
19
13
Moved or Chosen
Not to Live in
a Certain House
13
13
13
14
14
17
* Comparisons not significant at j> <.05.
Unless otherwise noted, all differences discussed in the text and
tables are significant at E <.05. Percentages reported in the
text are based on the entire sample (N=3129) except where noted.
84
-------
TABLE 21
Age and Education Levels of Respondents
Engaging in Protective Behavior
(Percent)
AGE Education
< 30 30-50 >50 HS < * > HS **
Contributed Time or
Money to an
Environmental Cause
28
44
32
25
45
Used Bottled Drinking
Water
38
40
29
33
39
Attended a Town or
Community Meeting
Talked to Doctor
15
19
23
23
18
15
13
17
24
22
Called or Written a
Government Official
12
19
14
21
Gone to the Library to
Find Out More About the
Problem
15
19
10
20
Moved or Chosen Not to
Live in a Certain House
15
16
10
15
* High school diploma or less
** More than a high school diploma
Unless otherwise noted, all differences discussed in the text and
tables are significant at j> <.05. Percentages reported in the
text are based on the entire sample (N=3129) except where noted.
85
-------
REACTION TO HEALTH PROBLEMS
Risk perception is usually conceived as a cognitive, and
occasionally emotional, activity. However, physical reactions
which may be related to environmental events, and the
interpretation of those reactions, may have important
consequences for the way new threats to the environment are
perceived. To measure the influence of physiological reactions,
two series of questions were posed; one assessing minor,
bothersome, physical reactions that the respondent personally
experienced; the other assessing major, serious reactions that
respondents or a member of their family experienced.
Bothersome Physical Reactions
Respondents were asked if they had experienced any of five
health problems during the past month: headaches, nausea,
shortness of breath, skin rashes, and irritation of the eyes,
nose, or throat (see Appendix C, Q.48). People who responded
affirmatively were then asked if they consulted the doctor for
this problem and, secondly, if they thought the problem was
caused by chemicals in the air, water, or soil. In this manner,
we were able to measure the frequency of attribution of common
physical reactions to chemicals in the environment, and the
perceived severity of and/or concern about the reaction (as
indicated by consulting a doctor for the problem).
Symptom Experience
As displayed in Table 22 (page 95), more than half of the
respondents (60 percent) experienced at least one of the symptoms
87
-------
in the past month. About one-third of the respondents
experienced headaches (36 percent) and irritation of the eyes,
nose, or throat (37 percent). The other symptoms were
experienced at less than half this rate: shortness of breath (18
percent), nausea (13 percent), and skin rashes (12 percent).
Dividing the total percentage of individual symptoms experienced
by the percent of respondents experiencing any one symptom
indicates that on average, respondents experiencing any symptom
reported experiencing 1.9 symptoms.
Consistent with general health statistics, women were more
likely than men to report experiencing all of the probed symptoms
(see Appendix C, Q.48). Overall, 69 percent of women, compared
to 51 percent of men, reported at least one symptom.
Surprisingly, respondents over age 50 reported fewer symptoms
than those 50 or less in four of the five categories. The only
area where older respondents reported more symptom experience was
shortness of breath. Shortness of breath may be correlated with
age as diminished lung capacity may be an expected physiological
effect concomitant with advancing age. Overall, nearly half of
those over age 50 (48 percent), compared to over one-third of
those under age 30 (35 percent) or between 30 and 50 years (37
percent), reported that none of the probed symptoms were
experienced.
City of residence seems to be related to symptom occurrence.
In Durham (46 percent), Richmond (40 percent), and Albuquerque
(42 percent) a greater proportion of respondents reported no
88
-------
symptoms compared to the other three cities. Middlesex County
had a high proportion of respondents reporting symptoms (66
percent) leading all other communities in the report of nausea,
headaches, and irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat.
Cincinnati also had a high proportion of respondents reporting
symptoms (63 percent), as it led in the report of skin rashes and
was second to Middlesex County in nausea, headaches, and
irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat. Racine was third
overall in the percentage of respondents reporting symptoms (60
percent) but led all communities in the percentage reporting
shortness of-breath (26 percent). Although Racine and Cincinnati
had a higher mean age in their respondent sample (44 years), this
difference was only one or two years compared to the other
cities. Therefore, it is possible that physical symptoms may be
related to the type of pollution in the environment of each city.
However, this implication needs greater exploration before a
finding can be firmly advanced.
Consulting the Doctor
Most respondents who reported a minor health problem said
that they did not consult a doctor about the problem. As shown
in Table 22 (page 95), 42 percent of those experiencing skin
rashes said that they consulted their doctor. Shortness of
breath (39 percent) and nausea (35 percent) also led respondents
to contact their physicians to a moderate extent. A smaller
percentage reported consulting the doctor for irritation of the
eyes, nose, and throat (27 percent) or headaches (23 percent).
89
-------
When summed together, over one-third (37 percent) of the
respondents who experienced any of the health problems said that
they consulted the doctor for the problem.
Not only did females tend to experience symptoms to a
greater degree than males, they also tended to consult a doctor
more frequently. Approximately, 41 percent of the females said
they consulted a doctor for at least one of the symptoms compared
to 31 percent of the males (see Appendix C, Q.49).
Middlesex County was the highest in percentage of
respondents reporting a health problem (see Appendix C, Q.49).
About 37 percent of those Middlesex respondents who had
experienced a health problem consulted a doctor. Only
respondents in Albuquerque (34 percent) and Racine (30 percent)
had lower consultation rates. Other communities reported
somewhat higher consultation rates: Cincinnati (42 percent),
Richmond (40 percent), and Durham (40 percent). It is possible
that Middlesex County residents may be more sensitized to
environmental threats, noticing more physical problems, which
they attribute to environmental causes, but not experiencing the
problems as sufficiently severe to warrant professional help.
However, other factors, such as the availability of medical care,
would need to be ruled out before this explanation could be
accepted.
Although older respondents reported a lower overall rate of
symptoms, they reported a much higher rate of physician
consultation for the experienced problems. About half (51
90
-------
percent) of those over age 50 said they consulted a doctor for a
problem, compared to 33 percent of those under age 30, and 32
percent of those age 30 to 50. Shortness of breath and skin
rashes appear to be likely candidates for physician consultation
by older respondents. This finding may suggest that older
respondents have a higher tolerance for minor symptoms than do
younger respondents so the symptoms they acknowledge are more
likely to be severe. Alternatively, older respondents may be
more likely to visit their doctor for some other reason and bring
up the symptom at the time of the visit. Thus, proximity of the
doctor rather than the severity of the problem may explain the
frequency of doctor consultation.
Environmental Attribution
The third column of Table 22 (page 95) indicates that,
similar to physician consultation, a moderate percentage of
respondents experiencing each health problem attributed that
problem to chemicals in the air, water, or soil. The one
exception was eye, nose, or throat irritation. For this problem,
almost twice the rate of people who visited the doctor (27
percent) attributed the cause of the problem to chemical
pollution (50 percent).
Thus, it appears that respondents were able to discriminate
to some degree among symptoms and attribute only some to
environmental causes. Some differences also exist among
communities in the degree to which environmental causes are seen
as the source of physical effects (see Table 23, page 96). In
91
-------
Middlesex County (51 percent) and Racine (49 percent) about half
of the symptoms experienced were attributed to the environment,
whereas in Albuquerque (25 percent) only one-quarter of the
experienced symptoms were attributed to the environment.
Attribution theory suggests that people search for the most
logical cause of observed reactions. " If the environment offers
clear evidence, or if there are no other clear suspects, then
chemical pollution may be viewed as the cause of the problem. In
addition, certain reactions (such as irritation to the eyes,
nose, or throat) may be more "diagnostic" in that a perceived
logical connection exists between the effect and the attributed
cause. Other reactions, such as headaches, may be less
diagnostic as these reactions may stem from many different
causes. In the case of less diagnostic reactions, chemical
pollution will be perceived as a cause to the extent to which
this cause is "salient." Saliency would be determined by the top-
of-the-mind awareness and ease of recall of this effect. If
people are preoccupied with environmental pollution, view it as
the cause of other problems, or are constantly reminded of
chemical effects, then environmental attribution may be more
readily provided.
Serious Health Problems
To obtain a measure of the extent to which respondents view
the environment as the cause of a personal health tragedy, they
were first asked if they, or someone in their family, had cancer
or a child with birth defects. Approximately one-quarter (26
92
-------
percent) of the sample responded in the affirmative. Those
respondents were then asked if they thought that the problem was
caused by chemicals in the air, water, or soil. One-quarter (25
percent) of those reporting the problem (7 percent of all
subjects queried) attributed the cause to chemicals in the
environment (see Appendix C, Q.51 and Q.52). Women (31 percent)
and people over age 50 (32 percent) were more likely to report
the existence of major health problems. This finding may be due
to more risk of cancer or more knowledge about family outcomes
among these subgroups.
In addition to observing more serious health problems,
individuals in Middlesex County were also more likely to
attribute those problems to environmental causes (see Table 24,
page 97) . Approximately one-third (34 percent) of the
respondents in Middlesex attributed a major health problem to
environmental causes compared to less than one-fifth (18 percent)
of those in Richmond. Increased sensitivity to environmental
problems for Middlesex County likely contributes to this
increased attribution rate.
Although older respondents were more likely to report the
occurrence of serious health problems, they were less likely than
the general population to attribute them to chemical contaminants
(see Appendix C, Q.52). With increasing age, alternative
explanations may be available that compete with the environment.
It is also possible that older people may be more willing to
93
-------
accept chance events, without direct causal connections, as an
explanation for observed problems.
94
-------
TABLE 22
Percent of Respondents Experiencing
Symptom, Visiting Doctors, and Attributing
to Environmental Causes**
Consulted Environmental
Experiencing M.D.* Cause*
Irritation of
Eyes, Nose &
Throat
Headaches
37
36
27
23
50
20
Shortness of
Breath
Nausea
Skin Rashes
Any Symptom
18
13
12
60
39
35
42
37
41
28
28
40
* Percent of all those experiencing symptom
** Comparisons of trends only; no significance tests conducted.
95
-------
TABLE 23
Percent of Subjects Experiencing (E)
& Attributing (A) Environmental Cause to
Experienced Symptom by Community
COMMUNITY
Symptom
Pur
Alb
Cin
Mid
Rac
Irritation
of Eyes,
Nose .or
Throat
Headaches
Shortness
of Breath
Nausea
Skin Rashes
Any
E
A*
E
A*
E
A*
E
A*
E
A*
E
A*
36
49
36
17
16
31
12
10
12
30
60
37
29
41
34
10
13
25
12
25
12
13
54
29
36
31
32
17
12
24
11
19
10
22
58
25
40
50
40
25
21
42
15
35
14
30
63
43
45
60
44
26
22
48
18
38
11
39
66
51
35
61
31
28
26
54
11
33
11
31
60
49
* Percent of symptoms experienced
Unless otherwise noted, all differences discussed in the text and
tables are significant at p. <.05. Percentages reported in the
text are based on the entire sample (N=3129) except where noted.
96
-------
TABLE 24
Percent of Respondents Reporting
and Attributing Family Cancer/Birth
Defects to Environmental Cause
Rich
Pur
Alb
Cin Mid Rac
Cancer/Birth
Defect in
Family
26
22
26
25
28
31
27
Environmental
Cause* 25
18
22
20
27
34 24
* Percent of those reporting cancer/birth defects in
family
Unless otherwise noted, all differences discussed in the text and
tables are significant at p_ <.05. Percentages reported .in the
text are based on the entire sample (N=3129) except where noted.
97
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The baseline survey provides a broad overview of how the
citizens in six distinct communities view environmental risks.
The data provide an interesting mix of similarities and
differences among the studied communities. On the one hand,
clear differences among communities exist in how they view the
problem of environmental safety, the specific causes of concern,
and readiness to respond within their individual community. On
the other hand, we see a good deal of similarity across
communities in how they learn about risks and their basic
knowledge and attitudes about environmental risk. The lack of
appreciation of basic risk concepts (e.g., dose-response
relationships) is a cause of concern. It will be difficult to
communicate complicated risk information if the public does not
understand some basic principles. General educational programs
may have long-term benefits of making specific risk
communications more understandable even if these programs do not
have immediate payoffs: In the meantime, most of the public is
willing to delegate risk assessments to others rather than
evaluate data on their own.
Since the primary purpose of the current report is
communication planning, we shall focus this conclusion section on
the channels, sources, and messages that may influence basic
knowledge and attitudes about environmental risks and safety.
Audience effects will be discussed throughout as EPA should be
99
-------
cognizant of important constituencies who differ in response to
environmental risk and safety.
Channels; Mass media (both newspapers and television) are
overwhelmingly the means through which people first obtain
information about the environment. The small amount of
interpersonal communication suggests that environmental safety is
not a central issue frequently discussed among friends and
neighbors. Building collateral channels between information
organizations, such as educating news reporters about
environmental risks, would appear to be a significant investment
in assuring that important messages are conveyed to the public
with appropriate perspectives.
Sources; Although news reports are the most common form of
environmental communication, the public apparently views news
reporters as a channel and not as a source of information,
recognizing their limited knowledge. However, only one other
source, environmental groups, is viewed as providing risk
information with frequency. Environmental groups are viewed as
both knowledgeable and trustworthy. Although viewed as
knowledgeable, the public is highly skeptical of all governmental
or industry sources. Interestingly, LEPCs are viewed as
relatively trustworthy and knowledgeable. Therefore, LEPC
members (as representing the LEPC perspective rather than their
own organization or constituency) may be good sources for
providing acceptable and balanced viewpoints about environmental
risks to the public.
100
-------
It is interesting to note the low degree of environmental
risk information received from physicians. Although many of the
sample said that they had health problems exacerbated by
environmental causes, and many consulted physicians about these
problems, there was a low amount of environmental risk
information obtained from physicians. Physicians were perceived
as highly trusted but not particularly knowledgeable about
environmental risks. In light of the high degree of trust, it
may be worthwhile educating doctors about environmental risks so
that they can provide acceptable information to their patients
about the nature and extent of environmental risks.
Message Factors: It is clear that any news about local
environmental events is evaluated relative to background
information about environmental safety in the community. The
between-community differences suggest a wide variance in
readiness to respond. In Middlesex County, residents appear
ready to interpret environmental news as a signal of new threats.
Within other communities, such as Durham and Racine, residents
appear more willing to fully evaluate the news before forming an
opinion. Understanding community dynamics is essential before
framing risk messages.
Certain individuals within communities, especially those who
have had a significant event in the past, are also likely to
react negatively to environmental news. To the extent that these
people act as opinion leaders, we would expect a guickly diffused
negative reaction to stimuli that may or may not signal
101
-------
environmental risks. In our initial analysis, we did not find an
identifiable subgroup of individuals within the communities that
could act on an interpersonal basis to provide a broader
perspective about environmental risks to help other people
interpret risks. Future analyses to identify such individuals
and to examine the role of opinion leadership within communities
are planned.
On the other hand, within all of the studied communities a
clear lack of understanding of risk concepts was found.
Environmental risks are not tolerated and beneficial trade-offs
are not incorporated in judgments about chemical safety. It is
unclear if residents would be willing to make risk/benefit
determinations when it comes to personal safety. However,
providing residents with a more thorough understanding of how
experts make safety determinations may lead to a broader
appreciation of the tradeoffs in environmental safety.
One message that has not diffused at all within communities
is emergency notification and preparedness planning. Even
individuals who should have some greater knowledge of this
material (i.e., people who work for the chemical industry),
showed a lack of awareness. It would be important for LEPCs to
communicate as thoroughly as possible to the public that such a
plan exists. Since many people believe that they would first
hear about environmental emergencies by television or radio
broadcast, establishing good relationships with local television
and radio stations and a firm emergency notification plan worked
102
-------
out with the stations is reinforced by this survey. Providing
people with some degree of mastery and control over potential
emergencies may permit a more rational analysis of environmental
risks. It is important to track awareness and knowledge about
emergency notification planning among communities to learn if,
and how, people within communities become aware of these plans,
and how this information influences overall views of
environmental risks.
103
-------
FUTURE DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSES
As stated in an earlier section, three general objectives
guide the EPA/Georgetown/Columbia Cooperative Agreement. In
addition to the analyses reported here, Georgetown and Columbia
have presented to EPA a plan for secondary and tertiary analyses
of the baseline data to further fulfill the three objectives.
This plan is included here. As can be seen, some of the
suggested analyses have already been conducted as part of this
report or other cooperative agreement reports. Additional
analyses will require additional funding from EPA and are
depicted in italics.
OBJECTIVE 1: Provide an empirical basis for designing messages
and selecting sources and channels to deliver
needed information to various publics.
OBJECTIVE 2: Provide a baseline against which data from follow-
up studies will be compared to assess the effects
of variations among communities in their method of
risk communication.
DISCUSSION:
In order to fulfill the first two objectives of this study,
it is important to analyze generally the respondents' answers
both within the individual communities and across communities.
Both the within-community data and the across-community data will
be further specifically analyzed by examining responses by basic
demographics. This secondary analysis will examine what, if any,
differences exist in knowledge, attitude, and behavior responses
based on three basic demographics: age, gender, and education.
This analysis will provide EPA with information as to which
105
-------
message strategies, sources, and channels are appropriate for
various segmented audiences: young adults, the middle aged,
elderly, males, females, those with less than high school
educations, and those with college degrees. Other secondary
analyses of additional demographics (marital status, children,
employment, income, etc.) will provide important data for EPA but
will require additional funds to implement.
The following specific analyses will be conducted to examine
the issues discussed above.
ANALYSES:
I. Describe the sample communities individually
(a) marginal descriptions
(b) crosstabs by basic demographics
(c) crosstabs by additional demographics
(d) crosstabs by psychographics
II. Comparison across communities
(a) crosstab all variables by community
(b) three way crosstabs of variables BY community BY basic
demographics
III. Comparison of community data with national data
(a) compare chosen questions to Roper questions
(b) compare baseline data with trends identified from other
polling data
IV. Analysis of information sources
In addition to analyses of responses by demographic groups,
analysis by psychographic profiles provides very important
information to risk communicators for appropriate audience
106
-------
segmentation and targeting of messages. Psychographic profiles
utilize lifestyle measures to categorize respondents according to
their activities, interests, and opinions rather than or in
addition to traditional demographic measures. In this analysis,
homogeneous groups of respondents can be characterized on the
basis of an "environmental risk profile." In other words, a
respondents' prior experience with chemicals (e.g., whether they
had personally faced a threatening situation, were considered an
opinion leader on environmental topics, their perceived
probability of exposure/harm from chemicals, whether they work
with industrial chemicals, etc.) would be used as indicators of
an "environmental risk profile." This profile would then be used
to help explain respondents' answers to other key questions in
the survey. This type of analysis is crucial to effective
audience segmentation but would require additional funding to
implement. The following specific analyses would be conducted to
address the issue discussed above.
ANALYSES:
V. Psychographic Analysis of Environmental Risk Profiles
(Market segmentation)
(a) identification of psychographic groupings
(factor, cluster analysis)
(b) description of groups' attitudes, beliefs, behavior
(crosstabs)
(c) use of groupings to predict/explain attitudes and
behavior (structural equation modeling or path
analysis)
107
-------
The baseline survey provides a unique opportunity to learn
about risk communication and health professionals from two
perspectives. First, as an audience for risk communications,
this analysis will examine the responses of 209 self-identified
health professionals who were respondents to the baseline survey.
Special analyses comparing these respondents to non-health
professional respondents will be conducted to understand how this
group differs in knowledge, perception, information-seeking, and
other behavioral elements. These initial analyses will provide
pilot data for an indepth, national study of over 600 health
professionals in three or four specialties (with an oversample in
two of the study communities) to probe a wider range of topics
not covered in the baseline analysis. Second, health
professionals are seen as providers of risk information to the
public. This health professional analysis will examine how
physicians view their role as disseminators of information about
chemical hazards to their patients. Again, this secondary
analysis requires additional funding to implement. The specific
analyses which would be conducted\ in this effort are listed
below.
ANALYSES:
VI. Health Professional Analysis
(a) health professional as a source of information,
trustworthiness, perceived expertise
(b) health professional as an audience for environmental
information (compare responses on questionnaire
for health professionals v. non-health professionals
v. manufacturing)
108
-------
(c) comparison of follow-up physician survey with
appropriate questions from baseline study
OBJECTIVE 3: Track over time how community events influence the
awareness, knowledge, attitudes and behavior of
individual population segments.
DISCUSSION:
A follow-up survey is planned for the summer of 1990 to
track changes in respondent knowledge, attitudes, and behavior
over time in response to risk communication interventions
surrounding Title III. During the interim timeframe, Georgetown
and Columbia University are clipping environmental news stories
from national as well as local newspapers in each of the
communities. These news stories will then be quantitatively and
qualitatively analyzed in order to examine the salient
environmental happenings in each community and in the nation as a
whole. This analysis will enable us to explain the expected
change in respondent knowledge, attitudes, and behavior as
determined by the out year surveys. This analysis will also
provide important information concerning what and how information
is disseminated through the general public, as well as the level
and accuracy of the remembered information. This analysis will
not require any additional funding, however, further analyses
involving profiles of each community and tracking of risk
communication interventions will require additional monies.
ANALYSES:
VII. Salient Events Tracking System (SETS)
(a) Clip, record, and content analyze newspaper coverage
of environmental events
\ • •
109
-------
(b) Profile communities and track community environmental
activities and events
(c) Track communication interventions surrounding Title
III with Federal EPA, State DSP, environmental groups,
industry
IDEAS FOR ADDITIONAL ANALYSES:
VIII. Tertiary analyses, such as the development of indexes and
scales to use as global measures
(a) Attitude toward government and business role scale
(b) Slovic chemical risk attitude scale
(c) Knowledge of environmental risk scale
110
-------
REFERENCES
Atkin, C.K. (1981). Mass media information campaign
effectiveness. In R.E. Rice & W.J. Paisley (Eds.), Public
communication campaigns (pp. 265-279). Beverly Hills: Sage
Publications.
Babbie, E. (1986). The practice of social research. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Chilton Research Services. (1988). Random digit dialing system
for use in general population and household surveys. Radnor,
PA: Chilton Research Services.
Danbury, T. (1988). A glossary of terms commonly used in
sampling. Fairchild, CT: Survey Sampling Inc.
Institute for Health Policy Analysis. (1988). EPA Title III
needs assessment project—focus groups. York, Pennsylvania.
McGuire, W.J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G.
Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology;
Vol II (3rd ed., pp. 233-346). New York: Random House.
No questions, please. (1987, September). American demographics.
pp. 24-25.
Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The
Free Press.
The Roper Organization, Inc. (1988). Environmental Protection
Agency survey number 88-6.
Ill
-------
QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT
Because of the nature of the survey topic, the potential
length of the questionnaire, and the locations of the
communities, a decision was made to conduct a telephone
interview. Telephone surveys have several advantages over
personal interviews. Babbie (1986) cites two important savings:
money and time. He also notes that sometimes respondents will be
more honest in giving socially unapproved answers if they do not
have to look the interviewer in the eye. Based on these
considerations, IHPA and Columbia University designed a survey
for use over the telephone.
Initial plans for the questionnaire were developed by IHPA
and Columbia staff, with assistance from outside experts and EPA
staff. Conceptual areas to be examined in the survey were
identified and overall plans for community selection were
developed. Previous environmental questionnaires were reviewed
and results were discussed at these meetings to assure that the
current questionnaire was based upon the best available knowledge
about factors influencing community perception of environmental
risk and to identify effective questions and questioning
strategies.
A draft of the questionnaire was sent to over 20
organizations for review including EPA, state departments of
environmental protection, academic environmental research
institutions, chemical industry officials, environmentalist
groups, the National Science Foundation, National Academy of
Sciences, and others. After their individual review, many of
these reviewers met in Washington, D.C., in April 1988, at IHPA
to discuss the rationale of the survey and the development of the
instrument.
The instrument was pretested with potential respondents in a
focus group with 10 residents of Greenbelt, Maryland, to examine
the appropriateness and clarity of the survey questions. A final
telephone pretest of the questionnaire was conducted by Chilton
Research Services in Radnor, Pennsylvania, a suburb of
Philadelphia.
During the telephone pretest, considerable attention was
paid to response rates. Most refusals were occurring during the
initial solicitation for participation in the survey, so
alternative wordings of the introductory paragraph were
attempted. "Toxic wastes" elicited the highest response rates.
But the introduction actually used in the survey represented a
compromise that emphasized the importance of the research while
not biasing the respondent toward any particular orientation.
A-l
-------
The final questionnaire was administered using computer
assisted telephone interviewing (CATI). This technique was
developed at the University of California's Survey Research
Center in Berkeley and has been adapted for use by the U.S.
Census Bureau (Babbie, 1986). There are several advantages of
CATI. For instance, the order of questions making up the
questionnaire can be rotated automatically to avoid any biases
due to question order. This strategy was a particular benefit,
because this questionnaire included several questions with long
lists of possible answers. Also, since respondents' answers are
entered into the computer by the interviewer as the questions are
being answered, the growing body of data can be analyzed
continuously. Direct data entry enhances monitoring and reduces
interviewer errors and data editing problems.
Project staff were able to monitor ongoing interviews in any
of the six communities from Washington, D.C., at any time of the
day or night. In addition, IHPA and Columbia received daily
progress reports from the survey firm.
COMMUNITY SELECTION
Six communities were chosen for the study: Albuquerque,
New Mexico; Cincinnati, Ohio; Durham, North Carolina; Middlesex
County, New Jersey; Racine, Wisconsin; and Richmond, Virginia.
These communities were chosen by EPA, IHPA, and Columbia
University based upon several criteria: the presence of
significant industry using, storing, processing or releasing
chemicals so that the effects of SARA Title III could be
assessed; location of a Superfund or other hazardous waste site;
the existence of an active local emergency planning committee or
environmental group; and experience with prior emission problems
or prior enforcement activities in the community. Table 1 lists
each community and its status on each criterion.
The six communities do not represent the population of all
communities in the U.S. Therefore, extrapolation of the
community data to the U.S. is not possible. It may be more
appropriate to view the results of the survey as providing
community comparisons of knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors
concerning environmental risks from localities facing different
sets of environmental risks. Because of the diverse
characteristics of these communities, comparisons within
communities among various population groups and results across
communities can provide guidance in a variety of settings where
the delivery of environmental information is desirable. However,
care must be exercised in applying these results to other
individual communities as risk communication effects may vary
depending on community conditions. Therefore, between-community
comparisons have been described in some detail in this report.
A-2
-------
During 1989, IHPA personnel are visiting each of the six
surveyed communities to interview local environmental opinion
leaders. These interviews will provide EPA, IHPA, and Columbia
with a context for interpreting the findings reported in this
paper. A report will be prepared for EPA after each community
visit.
SAMPLE SELECTION
Respondents within each community were randomly selected
using random digit dialing (ROD) which gives all working
household numbers an equal chance of selection whether or not
they are listed in the telephone directory. A sampling plan
based on telephone directories is not as complete or current as
randomly generated numbers since it is limited to listed
telephone numbers. RDD is not restricted in this manner and can
reach every telephone household in the U.S. even if the number is
unlisted or is a new listing (approximately 20 percent of
telephones nationwide). The survey also screened the selected
numbers for business listings. Through the use of equal
probability of selection and repeated samples, this design
provides sampling efficiency and eases the calculation of
sampling errors (Chilton Research Services, 1988).
The first step in drawing an RDD sample is to select the
telephone exchanges to be used from a stratified listing of all
available exchanges in the survey area. In this study, the
sample was stratified geographically, resulting in a separate
sample for each of the six communities. The telephone number
consists of ten digits — the first three identify the area code;
the second three identify the telephone exchange; the last -four
digits identify the telephone subscriber household. The first
stage of sampling is to sample the telephone exchange.
After the separate community samples of exchanges have been
taken, the second stage of sampling involves selecting the actual
households to be surveyed. Telephone exchanges are actually
clusters of telephone households. The sizes of these clusters
vary. In order to provide a self-weighing sample of households,
sample households are selected in proportion to the number of
households served by each telephone exchange.
The third stage in the sampling process was to randomly
select one respondent within the household, specifically the
adult over 18 years of age with the most recent birthday. Given
uneven probabilities of males and females being home or as the
sole household member, a gender quota was also established to
assure an equal representation of males and females in the
survey. The interview required about 25 minutes of the
respondent's time. A prior decision was made to complete at
least 500 interviews in each of the six communities.
A-3
-------
To minimize selection bias and enhance response rate, the
protocol required an original call plus five call-backs if
necessary. A "non-response conversion" effort was implemented in
an attempt to convert those selected households that originally
had refused to participate in the study. Many of the initial
refusers had been temporarily too busy to answer the
questionnaire, so call-backs were used to reach respondents at a
more convenient time. About twenty percent of initial non-
responders were converted through this process. After careful
comparison, it was determined that the demographics of the
converted respondents did not differ from the initial
respondents. Therefore, the data from both initial respondents
and converted respondents were combined for analysis.
The response rate for each community was calculated using
the following formula:
Response Complete Interviews
Rate = Callbacks* + Breakoffs** + Refusals*** + Completes
* Refers to those respondents who indicated on the
original call that they would prefer to be called at a
later time. On all subsequent call attempts, these
individuals were unavailable.
** Refers to those respondents who began the interview but
terminated at some point in the process. These partial
interviews were not completed on subsequent attempts.
*** Refers to those households who refused on all attempts
to participate in the survey.
A-4
-------
The following chart illustrates the response rate per
community:
Callbacks*
Response Completed Breakoffs+
Rate Interviews Refusals
Albuquerque 60.5% 506 330
Cincinnati 59.8% 505 340
Durham 61.4% 505 317
Middlesex County 52.7% 503 452
Racine 62.9% 604* 356
Richmond 58.5% 506 359
* About 100 extra interviews were conducted in Racine due
to a mistake in release of sample clusters.
Overall, the response rate for the survey was 59.1%.
Response rates at this level are common in this era of
telemarketing. In fact, a recent article in Survey Sampling.
Inc. (Danbury, 1988) stated that "providing the interview is
short, is nonsensitive in nature, that sufficient callbacks are
scheduled and that it will be in the field for an adequate period
of time, then we usually estimate a 45 percent completion rate"
(p.2). The vast majority of the refusals in our survey occurred
before the first question was even asked (86 percent). This
finding is consistent with other survey data. A 1987 article in
American Demographics noted that 84 percent of all refusals occur
before the questions start.
A-5
-------
TABLE 1
BASELINE COMMONITIBS
Albuquerque
Cincinnati
Richmond
Durham
Racine
Summit
Carteret
Prior
Emission
Problems
Yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Releases; Lq. 1 Citizens
Accidental Active Citizen/ Planned Employed by
or Routine LEPC Env. Group Intervention T3 Industries
A-yes yes yes no no
R-yes
A-yes yes yes no yes
R-yes
A- no yes yes no no
R-yes
A-yes yes yes yes no
R-yes
yes
A-no yes yes yes yes
R-yes
A -yes no yes yes yes
R-yes (county (at county
active) level)
Prior S fund
Enforcement water or
Activities System RCRA
yes around S
no river R
S
no river S
river R
around
and
surface
yes S
-------
M052Q
ChiIcon Research Services
Radnor, Pennsylvania
Time Dialed
Time Began
Time Ended
AM
AM
AM
- SRP Columned *
CHEMICAL RISKS
Interview
PM
0
PM
M
PM
Revised 8/31/88
Study 97682
August, 1988
(101-05)
Phone Number:
(409-18)
Julian Date - 419-23
1. (SRP: RECORD COMMUNITY FROM ON-LINE SAMPLE:)
106-
Richmond
Raleigh/Durham
Albuquerque
Cincinnati
Middlesex
Racine County
1
2
3
4"
5
6
SRP NOTE: USE Q. 1 IDENT TO DETERMINE WHICH COMMUNITY TO REPRESENT
THROUGHOUT QUESTIONNAIRE. .
IP 1, REPRESENT 'RICHMOND'
'RALEIGH/DURHAM'
'AL3UQUERQUE'
'CINCINNATI'
'MIDDLESEX COUNTY'
'RACINE COUNTY'
IP 2, REPRESENT
IF 3, REPRESENT
IF 4, REPRESENT
IF 5, REPRESENT
IF 6, REPRESENT
INTRODUCTION
This is a study on toxic substances in the (COMMUNITY NAME) area.
(INTERVIEWER NOTE: (IF ASKED) You may reassure the respondent that this research is not
related to any planned new facility in the community or planned changes in the operations
of any existing facilities.]
* IP REASSURANCE IS NEEDED, PLEASE RECORD. * (425)
Please verify that I have reached you by dialing
B-l
-------
SRP NOTE: REPRESENT Q. 2 AND Q. 3 IN PROPORTION
TO SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS
RESPONDENT SELECTION (ASK Q. 2 OR Q. 3 AS INDICATED)
2. Our research experts have randomly selected the person In your household I should
speak to, so that all types of people will be represented In our survey. Thinking of
all the male adults 18 years of age or older, living in this household, .... May I
speak to the one who last had a birthday?
(INTERVIEWER: IF NO MALE 18 OR OLDER IN HOUSEHOLD, ASK FOR A FEMALE 18 OR OLDER WHO
LAST HAD A BIRTHDAY)
(IF NEW PERSON SELECTED, REPEAT INTRODUCTION)
(IF SELECTED PERSON IS NOT AVAILABLE, SET UP CALLBACK FOR BEST TIME TO REACH THAT
PERSON)
3. Our research experts have randomly selected the person in your household I should
speak to, so that all types of people will be represented in our survey. Thinking of
all the female adults 18 years of age or older, living in this household, .... May
I speak to the one who last had a birthday?
(INTERVIEWER: IF NO FEMALE 18 OR OLDER IN HOUSEHOLD, ASK FOR A MALE 18 OR OLDER WHO
LAST HAD A BIRTHDAY)
(IF NEW PERSON SELECTED, REPEAT INTRODUCTION)
(IF SELECTED PERSON IS NOT AVAILABLE, SET UP CALLBACK FOR BEST TIME TO REACH THAT
PERSON)
4. INTERVIEWER: CODE SEX OF RESPONDENT
477-
Male
Female
1
2
(If refused, respondent selection also - 476)
B-2
-------
5. The first question involves your views about the quality of life in the (NAME
COMMUNITY) area.
Compared to most other areas, do you think that the (NAME COMMUNITY) area has: (READ
EACH ITEM, RECORD ONE ANSWER FOR EACH. REPEAT QUESTION FOR.FIRST THREE ITEMS AND AS
NEEDED THEREAFTER.)
A low rate of unemployment
Clean air and water
Good schools
Good health care
A low crime rate
Few environmental health risks
Yes
108",
109,
110,
1U1
1121
113,
No
2
2
2
2
2
2
DK
8
8
8
8
8
8
6. Compared with other health and safety risks, such as car accidents, food-borne
illness, heart disease, and home fires, do you think the risk of chemicals produced,
stored, or processed in the (YOUR COMMUNITY) area is: (READ ALTERNATIVES, CHECK ONLY
ONE)
114-
Not a problem
A minor problem
A slightly serious problem
A serious problem (or)
A very serious problem
1
2
3
4
5
7. Do you think there are any facilities or locations in your area that pose a threat to
the safety of the environment, such as a threat to the air, water or soil?
115-
CONTINUE
SKIP TO Q. 11
Yes
No
Don't Know
Refused
1
2
8
9
B-3
-------
8. Would you briefly describe the type of place or facility? (PROBE: What do they do
there?) (RECORD ALL MENTIONS) (DO NOT READ) (PROBE ONCE: "What other facilities?")
(116-35)
SKIP TO
Q.ll
Chemical manufacturing plant
Dry cleaners
Farm supplier
Gasoline station
Incinerator
Landfill/garbage collection
facility/dump
Nuclear facility/power plant
Pharmaceutical manufacturer
Public swimming pool
Refinery
Research laboratory
Sewage treatment plant
1st
Mention
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
Hazardous waste disposal facility 13
Other (SPECIFY)
Don't Know
Refused
97
98
99
2nd
Mention
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
97
3rd
Mention
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
97
All Other
Mentions
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
97
SRP NOTE: FOR Q. 9 AND Q. 10, REPRESENT 1ST MENTION FROM Q. 8.
IF 97 (OTHER), REPRESENT LL ENTRY.
To what extent, if at all, are you bothered by the (NAME OF FIRST MENTIONED FACILITY
FROM Q. 8)? (SRP: IF 2 OR MORE FACILITIES MENTIONED IN Q. 8, ADD: ", that you
mentioned first?") Are you bothered a great deal, somewhat, or not at all?
136-
CONTINUE
SKIP TO Q. 11
A great deal
Somewhat
Not at all
1
2
3
B-4
-------
10. Please tell me what in particular bothers you about this (NAME OF FIRST MENTIONED
FACILITY FROM Q. 8)? Are you bothered a great deal, somewhat, or not at all by:
(READ FIRST ITEM)
And, thinking about, the (FACILITY), are you bothered a great deal, somewhat, or not
at all by (ITEM)? (RECORD ONE ANSWER FOR EACH, ROTATE ORDER. REPEAT QUESTION FOR
FIRST THREE"TTlMS AND AS NEEDED THEREAFTER.)
RANDOM^
.START
An unpleasant smell
The danger it poses to health in
the long run
i
Dust, dirt, or smoke in the air
The possibility that a major
accident could harm or kill people
The Irritation it causes to eyes,
nose, throat, or skin
Long term damage to the environment
A decrease in property values
A Great
D«al
137 X
138 i
139
140 1
141 1
142 1
143 1
Some-
what
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Not At
All
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Don't
Know
8
8
8
*
8
8
8
Refused
y
9
9
9
9
9
9
SRP NOTE: FOR EACH ITEM IN Q. 11 - IF RESPONSE IS fYES', IMMEDIATELY
ASK Q. 12 BEFORE CONTINUING TO THE NEXT ITEM IN Q. 11.
11. I'm going to read a list of facilities that may be located in the (COMMUNITY) area.
While you may have already mentioned one or more of these facilities, I'd like you to
tell me if there is such a facility located near where you currently live. First ...
Is there a (ITEM) located near the place you live? (READ EACH ITEM) (REPEAT
QUESTION FOR FIRST THREE ITEMS, REPEAT QUESTION IF FOLLOWING Q. 12, AND AS NEEDED
THEREAFTER.)
12. Do you think it poses a threat to the safety of the environment in the (YOUR
COMMUNITY) area?
RANDOM
START
Chemical manufacturing plant
Dry cleaners
Farm supplier
Gasoline station
Incinerator
Landfill
Sewage treatment plant
Hazardous waste facilities
Q. 11
Yes
1441
145,
146,
147,
14*1
149,
ISO,
m,
No
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Don't
Know
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Q. 12
Yes
1521
153,
154,
155,
156,
157,
lib,
^l
No
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Don't
Know
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
B-5
-------
13. In the past three months, have you read or heard anything about the risks of
chemicals or hazardous wastes in the (COMMUNITY) area?
160-
CONTINUE
SKIP TO Q. 17
Tes
No
Don't Know
Refused
1
2,
8
9
14.
In the past week, have you read or heard anything about the risks of chemicals or
hazardous wastes in the (COMMUNITY) area?
161-
CONTINUE
SKIP TO Q. 17
Yes
No
Don't Know
Refused
1
2
8 .
9
15. What was the information that you heard or read? (PROBE AND CLARIFY FULLY) (RECORD
ON VBA SHEET)
162(1)
A07( 606-615)
A08( 616-625)
A09(626-635)
B-6
-------
16. Where did you read or hear this information? (DO NOT READ) (RECORD ALL MENTIONS)
(PROBE FULLY)
. (163-76)
(460-69)
Doctors or other health professionals
Family members
Friends or neighbors
Government officials (LOCAL)
Government officials (STATE)
Government officials (NATIONAL)
Government publications
Hotlines
Library
Local businesses
Local Emergency Planning Committee
Magazines (SPECIFY NAME(S) AS AN "LL" OTHER)
Newspapers (unspecified)
Notices in mail
Radio
Television news (LOCAL)
Television news (NATIONAL)
Town meetings
Newspapers (LOCAL)
Newspapers (NATIONAL)
Other (SPECIFY)
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
97
B-7
-------
SRP NOTE: Q. 17, 18 & 19 ARE ALL RANDOM START. ALL THREE SHOULD
START ON THE SAME RANDOM START ITEM.
17. There are several different sources of information about the risks that chemicals
pose to the community. I'd like to ask you some questions about those sources.
First . . .
Would you say that you get a lot, some, or no information about the risks of
chemicals in the (COMMUNITY) area from: (READ EACH ITEM. REPEAT QUESTION FOR FIRST
FIVE ITEMS AND AS NEEDED THEREAFTER.)
RANDOM
START
Friends and relatives
Local emergency planning committees
Your doctor
State government officials
Officials who work for the chemical
industry
Federal government officials
Environmental groups
People you know who work for the
chemical industry
Local government officials
News reporters
Info
A Lot
206
2U'l
208,
2091
2101
ini
212,
2131
21*1
21il
Some
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
No
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Not
Applicable
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Don't
Know
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
B-8
-------
18. Second, please tell me how much you trust each source.
Would you say you trust (ITEM) a lot, some, or not at all when it comes to finding
out about the risks of chemicals in the (COMMUNITY) area? (RECORD ONE ANSWER FOR
EACH) (REPEAT QUESTION FOR FIRST FIVE ITEMS AND AS NEEDED THEREAFTER.)
RANDOM
START
Friends and relatives
Local emergency planning committees
Your doctor
State government officials
Officials who work for the chemical
industry
Federal government officials
Environmental groups
People you know who work for the
chemical industry
Local government officials
News reporters
Trust
A Lot
216^
217i
21S1
2191
220-L
221
222X
2231
mi
Uil
Some-
what
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Not
At All
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Not
Applicable
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Don't
Know
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
B-9
-------
19. Third, please tell me how knowledgeable you think each source Is about the risks of
chemicals to the environment.
Would you say (ITEM) (Is/are) very, somewhat, or not at all knowledgeable about the
risks of chemicals in the (COMMUNITY) area? (RECORD ONE ANSWER FOR EACH) (REPEAT
QUESTION FOR FIRST FIVE ITEMS AND AS NEEDED THEREAFTER.)
RANDOM
START
Friends and relatives
Local emergency planning committees
Your doctor
State government officials
Officials who work for the chemical
industry
Federal government officials
Environmental groups
People you know who work for the
chemical industry
Local government officials
News reporters
Knowledgeable
Very
226-L
^1
226^
229-j^
230-L
2^1
mi
233-L
mi
235X
Some-
what
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Not
At All
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Not
Applicable
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Don't
Know
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
B-10
-------
20. The next question deals with how much information you feel you know about some
environmental topics in your area.
Would you say you know a lot, a little, very little, or nothing about: (READ EACH
ITEM) (RECORD ONE ANSWER FOR EACH) (REPEAT QUESTION FOR FIRST THREE ITEMS AND AS
NEEDED THEREAFTER.)
RMJEOfi
START
The location of facilities in your
area where chemicals are stored
or used
Releases of chemicals into the atmosphere
The quality of your area's
drinking water
Community right-to-know laws
Emergency preparedness plans in your
area
Hazardous waste facilities
in your area
Activities to clean up accidental
spills of hazardous materials
The risks of chemicals in your
area
Know
A Lot
236
*J01
2371
238.
mt
240-L
241,
242
2431
Know A
Little
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Know
Very
Little
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Know
Nothing
4
4
A
4
4
4
4
4
Don't
Know
8
8
g
8
8
8
8
8
B-ll
-------
21.
Your personal opinions on the next few questions are very Important to us. We want
to learn how to better communicate with the (COMMUNITY NAME) community about
environmental Issues:
Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree
that . . .? (READ EACH ITEM, RECORD ONE ANSWER FOR EACH.) (REPEAT QUESTION FOR
FIRST THREE ITEMS AND AS NEEDED THEREAFTER.)
RANDOM
START
The federal government Is doing a good
job cleaning^ up the environment.
We should assume a chemical Is safe
unless tests prove It to be dangerous.
Chemicals have improved our health
more than they have harmed our health.
Any release of chemicals into the air,
water or soil is not acceptable.
Planned releases of chemicals into the
air, water or soil are generally safe.
The only time the public hears about
the release of toxic chemicals is when
the problem is so big it can't be kept
secret anymore.
It's not how much of a chemical you are
exposed to that matters to your health,
it's whether or not you are exposed
at all.
If a person is exposed to a chemical that
can cause cancer, then that person is
likely to get cancer later in life.
There are some chemical risks that are
too small to worry about.
I feel I am involved .in environmental
decisions that may affect my health.
Local businesses are usually very
careful with dangerous chemicals.
Burying toxic wastes in landfills
is not a serious problem.
Local officials are interested in
what the public has to say about
chemicals in the area.
Strongly
Agree
244,
245,
246,
247,
248,
249,
250,
251,
252,
253,
254,
255,
256,
Some-
what
Agree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Some-
what
Dis-
agree
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Strongly
Disagree
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Don't
Know
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
B-12
-------
22. In regards to environmental issues, here are some things that may or may not be
happening in the (COMMUNITY) area*
Would you say it is true that in the (COMMUNITY) area (ITEM)? (READ EACH ITEM.
RECORD ONE ANSWER FOR EACH.) (REPEAT QUESTION FOR FIRST THREE ITEMS AND AS NEEDED
THEREAFTER.)
RANDOM
START
There is an emergency preparedness plan for hazardous
materials .
The police or fire department have trained personnel
to respond to chemical emergencies.
Local businesses have notified the community about toxic
chemicals they use, store or release.
Environmental groups have been active in your area in
discussing the risks of toxic chemicals.
The local government has been actively working on the
problem of chemicals in the environment.
Local businesses have reduced the amount of toxic chemicals
they store, use, or release.
Yes
251
25§
25J
26
-------
25. What kind of job do you think each of the following groups are doing at keeping^ the
(COMMUNITY) area safe from the risks of hazardous chemicals? ^
^•^^^•^^•M^^H^ - X
Would you say that (ITEM) is doing an excellent, job, a good job, a fair job, or a
poor job at keeping the (COMMUNITY) area safe from the risks of hazardous chemicals?
(READ EACH ITEM) (RECORD ONE ANSWER FOR EACH) (REPEAT QUESTION FOR FIRST THREE
ITEMS AND AS NEEDED THEREAFTER.)
RANDOM
START
The local government
Local businesses
The federal Environmental Protection
Agency
The state government
Excellent
.269
27U1
2711
2721
273
The local emergency planning committee 1
Local environmental groups
2/4l
Good
2
2
2
2
2
2
Fair
3
3
3
3
3
3
Poor
4
4
4
4
4
4
Never
Heard of/
Not Familiar
5
5
5
5
5
5
Don't
Know
8
8
8
8
8
8
26. Have you ever faced a situation involving chemicals in the environment that you
considered threatening to you or your immediate family?
275-
CONTINUE
SKIP TO Q. 28
Yes
No
Don't Know
1
2
8
27. Would you briefly describe the "threatening situation": (PROBE AND CLARIFY FULLY)
(RECORD ON VBA SHEET)
276(1)
A10(636-645)
All(646-655)
A12(656-665)
Al3(666-669)
B-14
-------
28. Next, I'm going to read a list of things that people sometimes do to protect
themselves from chemical risks in the environment.
Have you ever (READ ITEM) because of risks in the environment? (REPEAT QUESTION FOR
EVERY ITEM) (RECORD ONE ANSWER FOR EACH)
RANDOM
START
Used bottled drinking water
Moved or chosen not to live in a certain house
Gone to the library to find out more about the problem
Attended a town or community meeting
Contributed time or money to an environmental cause
Called or written to a government official
Talked to your doctor
Yes
306 ^
3U'l
308
3091
Ji°l
3111
Ji'l
No
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Don't
Know
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
29., If there was a large spill or release of hazardous chemicals in the (COMMUNITY) area,
how do you think you would first be notified? (DO NOT READ LIST.) (CLARIFY "NEWS":
WOULD THAT BE ON TV, RADIO OR SOME OTHER SOURCE?)
(313-14)
Friends/relatives
Neighbors
Siren/warning signal
Emergency broadcast system
Police
Television (news)
Radio (news)
Firefighters
Newspapers
Other (SPECIFY)
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
97
B-15
-------
Finally, a few questions about yourself. These questions are asked for statistical
purposes only to help us better understand the results of this study:
30. In what year were you born? (RECORD)
(315-18)
(year)
32. What is the highest level of education you have completed? (DO NOT READ LIST)
(RECORD ONLY ONE ANSWER)
(320-21)
8th grade or less
Less than high school
High school degree
Some college
College degree
Some graduate work
Graduate degree
Vocational/technical school
Other (SPECIFY)
Don't Know
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
97
98
33. What is your marital status?
(322-23)
Single
Married
Divorced
Separated
Widow/widower
Other (SPECIFY)
Don't Know
01
02
03
04
05
97
98
B-16
-------
34. Including yourself, how many people live in your household? (SRP: VERIFY IF OVER 10)
______________ people
(324-25)
35. How many children, 17 or under, live in your household?
(SRP: CHECK THAT Q. 35
-------
39. Are you currently employed outside the home? (IF YES:) Full-time or Part-time?
331-
SKIP TO Q. 41
CONTINUE
SKIP TO Q. 43
Full-time
Part-time
No
No Answer
1
2
3
9
40. Are you .
(READ LIST)?
332-
SKIP TO Q.
43
CONTINUE TO Q. 41
SKIP TO Q.
43
CONTINUE TO Q. 41
SKIP TO
Q. 43
DO NOT READ
A homemaker?
A student?
Retired?
Disabled?
Temporarily laid off? or
Not employed — looking
for work?
Other (SPECIFY)
No Answer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
SRP NOTE: FOR Q. 41 & 42, CHECK Q. 39. IF "1" OR "2", REPRESENT FIRST WORDING
IN PARENTHESES. IF "3", REPRESENT 2ND WORDING.
41. In which kind of business, industry, or profession (do/did) you work? That is, what
is done or made where you (work/worked)? (CLARIFY FULLY, RECORD ON VBA)
333(1)
A14-16
(670-672)
42. What (is/was) your exact job, profession, or line of work? That is, what kind of
work (do/did) you do at your job or profession? (CLARIFY FULLY, RECORD ON VBA)
. . . . 334(1)
A19-21
(673-675)
B-18
-------
43. Does anyone in your household have a job that requires working with industrial
chemicals?
335-
Yes
No
1
2
44. Other than yourself, does anyone in your immediate family work as a health
professional? (RECORD ALL THAT APPLY)
336-
CONTINUE
SKIP TO Q. 47
Yes
No
Don't Know
1
2
8
45. Who would that be? (PROBE: Who else in your immediate family works as a health
professional?)
SRP NOTE: FOR Q. 46, REPRESENT RESPONSE FROM Q. 45 IN PLACE OF PARENTHESES.
46. (FOR EACH PERSON MENTIONED IN Q. 45) What type of health professional is your (Q. 45
person)?
(430-39) (450-59)
Q.45 Who In Immediate Family
Husband
Wife
Son
Daughter
Brother
Sister
Father
Mother
Other (SPECIFY)
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
97
Q.46 Specify Type of Health Professional
B-19
-------
47. How often would you say you are asked for advice on chemical risks in the
environment? Would you say you are asked oftea, sometimes or never?
341-
Often
Sometimes
Never,
1
2
3
SRP NOTE: FOR EACH ITEM IN Q. 48 - IF RESPONSE IS "YES", IMMEDIATELY
ASK Q. 49 & Q. 50 BEFORE CONTINUING TO THE NEXT ITEM IN Q. 48.
48. During the past month, have you experienced any of the following health problems?
Have you experienced . . . ? (READ EACH ITEM)
In the past month, have you experienced (ITEM)?
49. (IF YES) Did you consult your doctor about this problem?
50. Do you think this was caused by chemicals in the air, water, or soil?
RANDOM
START
Headaches
Nausea
Irritation of the eyes,
throat or nose
Shortness of breath
Skin rashes
Q. 48
Problems
Yes
34£
343,
344,
345,
346,
No
2
2
2
2
2
Don't
Know
8
8
8
8
8
Q. 49
Consult Doctor
Yes
3t7
3$8
3i9
3J6
3F
No
2
2
2
2
2
Don't
Know
8
8
8
8
8
Q. 50
Environmental Cause
Yes
351
353,
354,
355,
356,
No
2
2
2
2
2
Don't
Know
8
8
8
8
8
51. Have you or any member of your immediate family had cancer or children with birth
defects?
357-
CONTINUE
SKIP TO Q. 53
Yes
No
Don't Know
1
2
8
B-20
-------
52. Do you think this was caused by chemicals in the air, water, or soil?
358-
Yes
No
Don't Know
1
2
8
53. Which of the following categories best describes your total annual household Income,
before taxes? Is It: (READ LIST)
359-
DO NOT READ
Less than $20,000
$20,000 up to $35,000
$35,000 up to $50,000
$50,000 or over
Don't Know
54. What Is your zip code?
(360-64)
(ZIP)
. Is this the only telephone number for this residence? (IF MORE THAN ONE, MAKE SURE
THIS IS NOT AM EXTENSION)
365-
SKIP TO Q. 57
CONTINUE
Yes, only one number
No, two or more numbers
1
2
56. How many telephone numbers do you have for this residence? (SRP: VERIFY I IS 2 OR
MORE; CHECK IF i IS 5 OR MORE)
(t telephone numbers)
(366-67)
57. Again, let me say that all the information you have given us is completely
confidential. We will be continuing our research on toxic chemicals at Georgetown
and Columbia universities and we may need to get in touch with you again. Would you
please tell me your first name so that we will know who to ask for if we call again.
(440-49)
_(SPECIFY)
107-
Interviewer: RECORD SEX OF RESPONDENT (DO NOT ASK)
CONCLUSION: Thank you for your time and help answering these questions.
Good evening/Good day.
Male
Female
1
2
478 - Refusal Conversion
-------
Communi ty
Question*
5. Compared to most other areas, do you think that your community/area has:
Good health care
Good schools
Clean air and water
Few environmental health risks
A low rate of unemployment
A low crime rate
No to all questions
6. Compared with other health and safety risks, such as car accidents, food-borne
illness, heart disease, and home fires, do you think the risk of chemicals
produced, stored, or processed in your community/ area is:
Not a problem
A minor problem
A slightly serious problem
A serious problem
A very sen ous prool efn
Don't know
7. Do you think there are any facilities or locations in your area that pose
a threat to the safety of the environment, such as a threat to the air.
water, or soi I?
Yes »
No
Don't know
Total
89.3
79.3
63.8
62.9
57.1
43.9
.9
13.4
37.9
24.4
16.3
6T
. J
1.5
47.8
50.6
1.6
Rich
mond
89.5
77.7
71.5
61.9
64.2
7.3
6
11.5
40.1
28.5
13.0
L. T
H ,J
2.6
44.1
54.3
1.6
Dur-
ham
95.4
79.0
84.8
73.3
69.3
53.7
.4
10.5
41.4
27.3
13.7
5n
• U
2.0
52.5
46.1
1.4
Albu
quer
-oue
84.4
64.4
64.8
68.8
46.4
17.6
1.8
20.6
38.9
21.1
14.2
.6
36.2
61.7
2.0
Cin-
cin-
nati
91.9
83.8
55.8
58.6
56.6
72.1
.6
8.7
35.8
26.5
22.0
.6
56.6
41.8
1.6
Mid-
dle-
sex
coun
•ty
87.5
81.1
37.2
41.6
58.4
60.6
1.8
6.2
21.7
23.9
29.2
1.8
.64.0
34.0
2.0
Ra-
cine
coun
-ty
87.4
87.9
67.7
71.5
49.3
51.2
.5
21.5
47.7
20.2
7.5
1.5
35.8
62.9
1.3
Gender
Fe-
Male male
90.3 88.2
80.5 78.0
65.1 62.5
66.2 59.5
59.0 55.3
46.3 41.6
.9 1.0
15.2 11.6
39.1 36.7
23.7 25.2
14.2 18.4
.8 2.3
50.5 45.0
48.3 52.9
1.2 2.1
Education
Some
HS Col I
or or
less more
88.9
82.5
64.9
62.3
53.3
41.7
.9
14.7
38.3
20.7.
17.6
1.7
38.2
60.1
1.7
89.6
77.1
63.0
63.2
59.6
45.6
1.0
12.6
37.8
26.8
15.4
1.4
54.1
44.2
1-A.
Age
Less More
than 30- than
30 50 50
vrs. vrs. vrs.
88.9 90.4 87.8
77.0 78.2 83.0
63.6 62.3 66.2
63.0 63.2 62.2
54.7 58.6 56.4
42.9 45.9 41.7
1.1 .9 .8
13.9 12.0 15.4
39.6 36.6 39.2
25.3 26.0 21.1
H.2 17.6 15.8
.8 1.0 2.9
47.2 55.4 35.3
51.7 43.3 62.1
1.0 1.3 2.7
Questions omitted from this table were asked for screening purposes (1-4), misnumbered (31), or were identifiers for subsequent questions (23,24,41).
-------
Question
Total
Community"
Albu Cin-
Rich Our- quer cin-
mond ham -due nati
Mid-
dle- Re-
sex cine
coun coin
•ty -ty
Education
Age
Some Less More
Gender MS Coll than 30- than
Fe- or or 30 50 SO
Male male less more vrs. vrs. vrs.
O
I
8. (Yes to 0. 7) Would you briefly describe the type
of place or facility? (First mention)
Chemical manufacturing plant
Tobacco companies
Textile mills
Steel mills
Pharmaceutical manufacturer
Soap/detergent manufacturing plant
Paint factories
Industry/manufacturing (unspecified)
Chemical industry (net)
Chemical mnnufacuring plant
Chemical storage
Chemical distribution/suppliers
Garbage/waste disposal and storage facilities (net)
Landfill/garbage collection facility/dump
Hazardous waste disposal facility
Sewage treatment plant
Incinerator
Nuclear facility/power plant
Refinery
General threats to the environment (net)
River/water pollution
Automobiles/auto exhaust
Research laboratory
Gasoline station
Mi Ii tary faciIity
Uranium plant
Construction/development
Fnrm suppl'?r
High-torh/romputer companies
42.6
2.8
1.6
1.0
1.3
.5
.3
7.4
42.9
42.6
3.9
.9
32.9
20.9
10.8
4.0
1.1
19.0
6.5
7.4
5.2
3.3
4.3
3.0
2.7
1.6
.9
.7
1.3
68.2
14.3
4.9
.4
2.2
0
0
5.8
61.0
68.2
1.8
.4
23.8
7.6
8.5
11 ?
.4
10.3
4.0
9.9
5.8
4.5
.9
2.7
.9
0
.4
0
0
57.4
3.4
3.4
0
1.9
0
0
1.5
60.0
57.4
6.4
2.3
13.2
6.0
6.8
1.1
0
38.1
.4
3.4
1.5
2.6
7.2
.8
0
0
2.6
.4
3.4
8.2
0
.5
.5
.5
0
.5
3.3
14.2
8.2
3.3
2.7
33.9
10.9
21.9
3.8
1.1
16.4
3.8
8.7
3.8
6.0
18.0
12.0
19.1
.5
1.6
.5
4.9
38.8
0
.3
0
.3
2.4
.3
9.8
40.9
38. B
7.0
.7
29.7
16.1
12.9
2.8
2.1
35.3
4.2
7.7
6.3
1.7
1.4
1.7
0
8.0
0
1.4
0
47.8
.3
.3
1.2
2.2
0
.6
5.6
46.0
47.8
2.5
0
54.0
44.4
11.5
4.0
1.9
1.6
20.2
7.1
5.3
2.5
1.9
2.8
.9
0
.6
0
.3
24.5
0
.5
4.2
.5
0
0
19.0
25.9
24. 5
1.4
0
38.4
32.9
5.1
1.9
.9
11.1
1.4
8.8
8.3
3.7
.5
.5
0
0
0
1.9
0
43.6
2.1
1.4
1.5
.5
.3
.3
7.0
45.0
43.6
4.5
1.4
33.0
20.9
10.6
4.7
1.0
19.0
6.9
7.2
5.2
3.3
5.4
3.8
2.9
2.3
.9
.5
1.6
41.4
3.6
1.9
.4
2-3
.7
.3
7.7
40.6
41.4
3.1
.4
32.9
21.0
11.1
3.3
1.3
19.0
6.0
7.7
5.1
3.3
3.1
2.1
2.4
.9
.9
.9
.9
38.1 44.9
1.4 3.5
.6 2.1
1.2 .9
.6 1.7
.4 .5
.2 .3
5.8 8.2
39.3 44.8
38.1 44.9
3.9 3.9
1.0 .9
31.7 33.6
19.7 21.5
8.9 11.9
4.8 3.7
.8 1.2
12.4 22.2
7.5 6.1
7.9 7.3
7.0 4.3
2.7 3.6
4.8 4.2
3.5 2.8
2.1 2.9
.6 2.1
.6 1.0
.8 .6
.6 1.6
42.5
6.2
.9
.6
1.2
.3
.3
5.9
38.9
42.5
1.5
.3
28.9
18.9
8.8
3.2
1.8
12.8
7.1
5.6
4.4
1.5
3.8
2.4
1.2
2.1
0
.6
.9
43.0 42.9
2.4 .3
2.2 .9
1.2 .9
1.6 .9
.6 .3
.1 .6
8.2 7.0
45.1 42.1
43.0 42.0
4.9 3.8
1.0 1.6
33.3 36.4
20.1 25.3
11.7 10.4
4.8 2.8
.7 1.3
20.0 15.5
6.3 6.6
6.7 11.4
4.1 8.9
3.4 5.1
4.9 3.5
2.3 5.7
3.5 1.9
1.7 .9
1.1 1.3
.8 .3
1.8 .3
-------
Communi ty
Question
Hospitals/medical schools
Electrical plant
Ra i I road
Dry cleaners
Other
Don ' t know
9. To what extent are you bothered by the facility that you mentioned first?
A great deal
Somewhat
_ Not at all
o
1 Don't know
00 Don't know/ refused type of place or facility (0.8)
10. (Respondent bothered a great deal, 0. 9) Thinking about the facility.
are you bothered a great deal, somewhat, or not at all by
an unpleasant smell
a great deal
somewhat
not at all
don't know
the danger it poses to health in the long run
a great deal
somewhat
not at al I
don't know
dust, dirt, or smoke in the air
a great deal
somewhat
• Total
1.5
.3
.5
.2
15.3
4.3
23.4
45.7
26.3
.2
4.4
33.1
25.8
40.4
.6
62.8
33.2
3.7
.3
36.5
36.1
Rich
mond
0
.4
0
0
8.5
5.4
16.1
46.2
32.3
0
5.4
30.2
38.8
30.2
.7
56.1
40.3
3.6
0
35.3
38.1
Dur-
ham
2 6
.4
.8
.8
10.2
2.3
23.4
45.7
27.9
.4
2.6
20.2
18.6
61.2
0
62.3
32.2
3.8
1.6
24.6
32.8
Albu
quer
-oue
1.6
0
0
0
15.3
6.0
24.6
40.4
29.0
0
6.0
21.0
16.8
61.3
.8
59.7
35.3
5.0
0
31.9
35.3
Cin-
cin-
nati
.3
0
1.4
0
15.0
3.1
23.4
45.5
27.6
.3
3.1
31.0
22.3
44.7
1.5
64.5
30.5
5.1
0
38.6
32.5
Mid-
dle-
sex
coun
•ty
3.1
0
.3
.3
10.6
5.0
32.6
48.1
14.3
0
5.0
52.3
28.8
18.5
.4
72.7
25.0
2.3
0
48.5
37.3
Ra-
cine
coun
-ty
.9
1.4
.5
0
35.6
4.6
16.2
46.3
31.9
.5
5.1
30.4
29.6
40.0
0
51.9
45.2
3.0
0
31.9
42.2
Gender
Fe-
Male male
1.5 1.6
.5 .1
.4 .7
.3 .1
17.4 12.9
2.4 6.4
22.8 24.1
46.3 45.0
28.2 24.1
.1 .3
2.6 6.4
30.8 35.7
26.0 25.6
42.4 38.0
.5 .6
60.1 65.9
35.2 31.0
4.4 2.9
.4 .2
31.5 42.1
37.2 34.9
Education
Some
HS Coll
or or
less more
.8 1.9
.4 .3
.6 .5
.2 .2
13.7 16.1
5.8 3.4
22.2 24.1
42.7 47.3
29.2 24.8
.2 .2
5.8 3.6
43.1 28.6
25.2 26.1
31.6 44.3
0 .8
61.0 63.4
33.2 33.4
5.4 2.9
.3 .3
44.4 33.1
34.8 36.5
Less
than
30
yrs.
1.8
0
.3
.6
16.5
5.3
21.5
51.0
22.1
0
5.3
41.1
27.2
30.9
.8
68.3
27.6
4.1
0
41.5
35.0
Age
More
30- than
50 50
yrs. yrs.
1.4 1.6
.5 .3
.5 .9
.1 0
15.8 12.7
3.5 4.7
24.7 22.2
47.1 36.4
24.2 36.4
\!"-
.2 .3
3.7 4.7
'^'
V
30.7 29.2
25.0 27.0
43.8 42.7
.3 1.1
63.9 50.8
33.1 42.2
2.7 6.5
.3 .5
34.4 36.2
35.4 39.5
-------
Connunity
Question
not at all
don't know
the possibility that a major accident could harm or kill people
a great deal
somewhat
not at al I
don't know
the irritation it causes to eyes, nose, throat, or skin
a great deal
somewhat
j not at all
don't know
long-term damage to the environment
a great deal
somewhat
not at al I
don't know
a decrease in property values
a great deal
somewhat
not at all
don't know
11. Is there a located near the place you live?
gasol ine station
dry cleaners
landfill
chemical manufacturing plant
sewage treatment plant
farm suppl ier
hazardous waste facilities
Total
27.1
.2
51.2
32.6
16.1
.1
37.9
33.7
28.0
.4
66.7
28.6
4.4
.2
26.2
33.4
39.8
.5
79.0
68.3
30.5
29.8
28.5
26.2
10.4
Rich
inond
26.6
0
44.6
37.4
18.0
0
33.1
39.6
27.3
0
61.9
33.8
4.3
0
23.0
35.3
41.0
.7
81.2
75.1
26.1
29.1
25.5
23.3
5.5
Dur-
ham
42.6
0
63.9
26.2
9.8
0
33.9
26.2
39.9
0
61.7
31.1
7.1
0
21.9
31.7
45.9
.5
79.2
67.3
24.2
34.9
35.4
30.3
8.5
Albu
quer
-oue
32.8
0
61.3
22.7
16.0
0
40.3
21.8
37.8
0
71.4
23.5
5.0
0
27.7
25.2
47.1
0
79.8
66.2
20.2
8.9
16.0
20.6
10.9
Cin-
cin-
nati
27.9
.5
54.3
37.1
8.6
0
39.1
29.4
28.9
.2
69.0
26.4
3.6
.5
23.4
36.0
39.6
.5
79.6
72.7
24.0
35.8
23.4
17.0
15.0
Mid-
dle-
sex
coun
•tv
14.2
0
51.5
31.5
16.5
.4
47.3
38.1
14.6
0
73.1
24.6
1.9
.4
34.2
32.7
32.7
.4
86.3
79.1
49.3
54.1
28.8
31.0
17.9
Ra-
cine
coun
-tv
25.2
.7
26.7
40.7
32.6
0
25.9
45.9
28.1
0
58.5
34.8
5.9
0
23.0
38.5
37.8
.7
69.9
52.3
38.1
18.7
39.6
33.4
5.6
Gender
Fe-
Male male
31.1 22.5
0 .4
46.3 56.8
36.4 28.3
17.1 14.9
.2 0
32.1 44.4
35.9 31.2
31.3 24.2
.5 .2
66.3 67.1
28.2 28.9
4.9 3.7
.2 .2
26.0 26.4
29.9 37.4
43.4 35.7
.5 .4
78.8 79.3
67.6 69.0
34.3 26.7
33.0 26.7
32.6 24.3
28.2 24.1
10.9 10.0
Education
Some
HS Col I
or or
less more
20.8
0
56.5
30.4
12.8
.3
47.6
32.3
20.1
0
65.2
29.1
5.8
0
29.7
33.9
35.8
.6
77.8
61.9
30.3
26.4
28.2
24.5
9.8
30.0
.3
48.9
33.8
17.3
0
33.7
34.4
31.3
.6
67.3
28.4
3.8
.3
24.7
33.2
41.5
.4
79.9
72.6
30.8
32.2
28.5
27.3
10.8
Age
Less More
than 30- than
30 50 50
vrs. vrs. vrs.
23.2 29.9 24.3
.4 .2 0
54.9 52.2 42.7
32.1 32.9 33.5
13.0 14.8 23.8
0 .2 0
41.5 37.1 35.7
34.6 33.1 35.1
23.2 29.5 28.6
.8 .2 .5
69.9 68.1 57.3
26.0 28,0 34.1
4.1 3.5 7.6
0 .2 .5
30.1 25.3 23.2
30.1 33.9 36.8
39.0 40.3 39.5
.8 .3 .5
89.1 80.1 69.1
81.9 70.1 53.8
33.8 34.4 21.4
35.1 33.2 20.0
31.9 30.9 21.8
26.5 27.6 23.8
12.8 11.7 6.1
-------
Communi ty
Question
11/12.
Do you
incinerator
no to al I
Is there a near the place you live?
think the poses a threat to the safety of
Total
8.5
9.0
Rich
morel
6.7
8 7
Dur-
ham
9.3
10.1
Albu
<*ier
-due
3.8
10.9
Cin-
cin-
nati
11.5
7.7
Mid-
dle-
sex
coun
-ty
12.7
3.6
Ra-
cine
coun
-ty
7.5
12.4
Gender
Fe-
Hale male
8.7 8.4
9.3 8.8
Education
Some
MS Col I
or or
less more
8.6 8.5
10.3 8.2
Age
Less More
than 30- than
30 50 50
yrs. yrs. yrs.
12.7 8.6 5.2
3.1 8.1 15.4
the environment in your community?
n
I
Ul
Chemical plant
Yes - located in area (0. 11)
Yes • poses threat (Q. 12)
No • does not pose threat (0. 12)
Don't know (0. 12)
No • not located in area (0. 11)
Don't know (0. 11)
Dry cleaners
Yes - located in area (0. 11)
Yes - poses threat (0. 12)
No - does not pose a threat (0. 12)
Don't know (Q. 12)
No - not located in area (0. 11) '
Don't know (0. 11)
Farm supplier
Yes • located in area (0. 11)
Yes • poses threat (0. 12)
No - does not pose threat (Q. 12)
Don't know (0. 12)
No • not located in area (0. 11)
Don't know (Q. 11)
Gasoline station
Yes • located in area (0. 11)
Yes - poses threat (Q. 12)
No - does not pose a threat (Q. 12)
Don't know (0. 12)
29.8
65.7
33.0
1.3
68.5
1.7
68.3
11.0
85.9
3.1
31.5
.2
26.2
13.9
85.7
.4
71.9
1.9
79.0
15.7
83.5
.8
29.1
61.2
36.1
2.7
70.4
.6
75.1
10.8
86.6
2.6
24.9
0
23.3
5.9
94.1
0
74.3
2.4
81.2
14.4
84.2
1.5
34.9
76.1
22.7
1.1
63.4
1.8
67.3
11.5
87.1
1.5
32.7
0
30.3
14.4
85.0
.7
68.3
1.4
79.2
16.5
83.3
.3
8.9
66.7
33.3
0
89.1
2.0
66.2
9.0
87.2
3.9
33.4
.4
20.6
15.4
83.7
1.0
78.3
1.2
79.8
17.1
81.4
1.5
35.8
66.3
32.6
1.1
62.2
1.8
72.7
10.9
86.4
2.7
27.1
0
17.0
18.6
80.2
1.2
80.8
2.2
79.6
12.9
85.8
1.2
54.1
75.0
23.5
1.5
42.9
3.0
79.1
15.8
78.1
6.0
20.5
.4
31.0
19.2
80.8
0
67.0
2.0
86.3
23.5
76.3
.2
18.7
31.9
68.1
0
80.3
1.0
52.3
6.6
91.8
1.6
47.4
.3
33.4
11.4
88.6
0
64.2
2.3
69.9
9.7
90.3
0
33.0 26.7
62.2 70.1
36.6 28.4
1.2 1.4
65.7 71.3
1.3 2.0
67.6 69.0
10.4 11.5
86.5 85.4
3.1 3.2
32.2 30.8
.2 .2
28.2 24.1
11.5 16.8
88.3 82.7
.2 .5
69.8 74.0
2.0 1.9
78.8 79.3
15.6 15.9
84.0 83.0
.4 1.1
26.4 32.2
61.4 68.3
37.7 30.2
.9 1.5
72.1 66.0
1.5 1.8
61.9 72.6
8.9 12.0
88.4 84.6
2.7 3.3
37.9 27.1
.2 .2
24.5 27.3
10.6 15.8
88.7 84.0
.6 .2
73.8 70.6
1.7 2.1
77.8 79.9
13.0 17.4
86.4 81.8
.6 .9
35.1 33.2 20.0
65.9 67.3 60.9
33.3 30.7 39.1
.8 2.0 0
62.7 65.1 78.7
2.2 1.6 1.3
81.9 70.1 53.8
8.2 13.1 9.3
90.5 83.2 86.9
1.4 3.7 3.7
17.8 29.8 45.9
.3 .1 .3
26.5 27.6 23.8
10.0 16.9 11.3
88.9 83.1 88.3
1.1 0 .5
71.9 70.1 74.8
1.7 2.3 1.5
89.1 80.1 69.1
14.7 18.3 11.5
84.8 80.8 87.7
.5 .9 .8
-------
Comnuni ty
Mid-
Education
Age
O
I
Question
No • not located in area (Q. 11)
Incinerator
Yes - located in area (0. 11)
Yes - poses threat (0. 12)
No • does not pose a threat (0. 12)
Don't know (0. 12)
No - not located in area (Q. 11)
Don't know (0. 11)
Landfill
Yes - located in area (0. 11)
Yes • poses threat (0. 12)
No • does not pose a threat (0. 12)
Don't know (0. 12)
No - not located in area (0. 11)
Don't know (0.11)
Sewage treatment plant
Yes - located in area (Q. 11)
Yes • poses threat (0. 12)
No - does not pose a threat (0. 12)
Don't know (0. 12)
No - not located in area (0. 11)
Don't know (0. 11)
Hazardous waste facility
Yes • located in area (0. 11)
Yes - poses threat (0. 12)
No - does not pose threat (0. 12)
Don't know (0. 12)
No - not located in area (0. 11)
Don't know (0. 11)
Total
20.9
8.5
57.7
41.9
.4
89.5
1.9
30.5
59.6
39.6
.8
67.9
1.6
28.5
34.0
65.1
.9
69.8
1.7
10.4
82.2
16.3
1.5
87.1
2.5
Rich
MWw4
HUf U
18.8
6.7
50.0
50.0
0
90.7
2.6
26.1
41.7
55.3
3.0
72.3
1.6
25.5
48.1
50.4
1.6
73.7
.8
5.5
82.1
17.9
0
92.9
1.6
Dur-
ham
20.8
9.3
46.8
53.2
0
88.5
2.2
24.2
42.6
56.6
.8
74.1
1.8
35.4
22.3
77.1
.6
63.2
1.4
8.5
81.4
18.6
0
88.5
3.0
Albu
quer
-aue
20.2
3.8
52.6
47.4
0
94.5
1.6
20.2
43.1
55.9
1.0
78.3
1.6
16.0
43.2
55.6
1.2
82.6
1.4
10.9
72.7
23.6
3.6
88.3
.8
Cin-
cin-
nati
20.2
11.5
65.5
34.5
0
87.1
1.4
24.0
62.0
38.0
0
73.5
2.6
23.4
39.8
59.3
.8
74.5
2.2
15.0
88.2
9.2
2.6
82.6
2.4
die-
sex
coun
•tv
13.7
12.7
81.3
18.8
0
84.5
2.8
49.3
86.3
13.3
.4
48.7
2.0
28.8
53.1
45.5
1.4
66.8
4.4
17.9
87.8
11.1
1.1
77.7
4.4
Ra-
cine
coun
•ty
30.1
7.5
33.3
64.4
2.2
91.4
1.2
38.1
56.1
43.5
.4
61.6
.3
39.6
17.6
82.0
.4
60.1
.3
5.6
70.6
29.4
0
91.6
2.8
Gender
Fe-
Male male
21.1 20.7
8.7 8.4
54.0 61.5
46.0 37.7
0 .8
89.9 89.1
1.3 2.5
34.3 26.7
55.7 64.6
43.1 34.9
1.1 .5
65.0 70.8
.7 2.5
32.6 24.3
30.0 39.5
69.3 59.4
.8 1.1
66.3 73.4
1.1 2.3
10.9 10.0
80.7 83.9
18.1 14.2
1.2 1.9
87.1 87.1
2.0 3.0
Some
HS Col I
or or
less more
22.2 20.1
8.6 8.5
56.0 58.9
3.7 40.5
0 .6
89.9 89.2
1.4 2.3
30.3 30.8
55.6 62.1
43.9 36.8
.5 1.1
67.9 67.8
1.8 1.5
28.2 28.5
30.0 36.9
69.5 62.0
.6 1.1
70.6 69.4
1.2 2.1
9.8 10.8
77.4 85.0
21.8 13.0
.8 2.0
88.2 86.3
2.0 2.9
Less
than
30
yrs.
10.9
12.7
58.2
40.7
1.1
84.5
2.8
33.8
57.6
42.4
0
64.9
1-3
31.9
39.7
59.0
1.3
66.9
1.3
12.8
82.6
16.3
1.1
85.2
1.9
More
30- than
50 50
yrs. vrs.
19.9 30.9
8.6 5.2
63.6 40.4
36.4 59.6
0 0
89.3 93.9
2.1 .9
34.4 21.4
60.6 58.9
38.3 40.1
1.2 1.0
64.0 76.8
1.6 1.8
30.9 21.8
37.6 18.5
62.0 80.5
.4 1.0
67.4 76.2
1.7 2.0
11.7 6.1
81.8 81.8
.8 16.4
1.7 1.8
85.4 91.6
2.9 2.2
-------
Question
Total
Communi ty
Mid-
dle- Ra-
Albu Cin- sex cine
Rich Our- quer cin- coin coin
mond ham -que nati -ty -tv
Educat i on
Age
Some Less More
Gender HS Coll than 30- than
Fe- or or 30 50 50
Hale male less more vrs. vrs. vrs.
O
I
--J
13/14. In the past three months, have you read or heard anything about the
risks of chemicals or hazardous wastes in your community?
(If yes to 0. 13) In the past week, have you read or heard anything about the
risks of chemicals or hazardous wastes in your community?
Yes - past three months (0. 13)
Yes - past week (0. U)
No - not in past week (0. 14)
No - not in past three months (0. 13)
Don't know (0. 13)
15. (If yes to 0. 14) What was the information that you heard or read?
Transportation/storage/disposal information (net)
Water pollution information (net)
Accidental chemical le«kego/di«ch»re«/«piIt
Chemical plant blew up/caught fire
Air pollution information (net)
An evacuation was necessary
Cleanup of hazardous materials/emissions
Debate over location of treatment/disposal plant or incinerator
Negative health effects
Dangerous businesses permitted in residential areas/1andfill/chem. plant
Buildings/plants shut down
Companies facing lawsuits/fines
Work-related procedures/training
Radon
Nuclear/chemical testing
Right-to-know laws/new emissions laws
Other
16. (If yes to 0. 14) Where did you read or hear this information?
Newspapers (net)
Local newspapers
National newspapers
51.8
41.3
58.6
48.0
.3
34.4
30.2
20.0
16.6
10.5
9.6
6.0
4.9
3.7
3.4
3.0
.9
.7
.6
.4
.4
6.7
76.4
69.5
2.8
47.6
29.0
70.5
52.4
0
31.4
28.6
37.1
0
14.3
5.7
5.7
2.9
2.9
0
0
1.4
1.4
1.4
0
1.4
5.7
65.7
58.6
1.4
67.1
53.1
46.9
32.7
.2
12.2
9.4
21.1
60.0
3.9
31.7
1.7
5.0
2.8
3.9
5.6
0
.6
0
0
0
7.8
80.0
77.8
1.1
58.9
50.7
49.3
40.9
.2
58.3
34.4
17.9
0
5.3
0
7.3
4.6
1.3
2.0
.7
0
.7
0
2.0
0
5.3
76.2
67.5
1.3
57.4
29.3
70.7
41.6
1.0
21.2
36.5
35.3
1.2
11.8
1.2
17.6
2.4
9.4
2.4
4.7
1.2
2.4
1.2
0
1.2
7.1
60.0
50.6
2.4
59.0
45.8
53.9
40.8
.2
51.5
52.9
6.6
.7
11.0
.7
2.9
9.6
3.7
5.9
0
2.9
0
1.5
0
0
2.2
88.2
76.5
8.1
25.7
30.3
69.7
74.3
0
21.3
21.3
8. 5
2.1
42.6
2.1
6.4
0
6.4
6.4
10.6
0
0
0
0
2.1
21.3
74.5
74.5
2.1
53.0
42.0
57.9
46.9
.1
37.4
33.1
1B.6
15.1
8.3
6.3
7.4
5.7
2.0
2.9
2.3
1.1
.9
.6
.3
.6
7.4
80.0
71.7
3.1
50.6
40.6
59.3
49.0
.4
31.0
27.0
21.6
18.2
12.9
13.2
4.4
4.1
5.6
4.1
3.8
.6
.6
.6
.6
.3
6.0
72.4
67.1
2.5
42.6
38.3
61.3
57.0
.5
32.5
29.6
21.8
18.9
8.3
9.2
4.4
5.8
6.3
3.9
4.4
.5
0
0
0
.5
4.9
74.3
68.4
2.9
57.9
42.9
57.1
42.0
.1
34.8
30.7
19.1
15.7
11.3
9.8
6.7
4.6
2.6
3.3
2.2
1.1
1.1
.9
.7
.4
7.6
77.4
70.0
2.8
44.3 56.0 50.4
46.9 39.1 41.4
52.8 60.9 58.4
55.6 43.8 49.1
.1 .2 .4
36.2 32.6 34.8
28.9 33.5 26.2
19.5 20.4 19.8
15.4 18.0 15.5
10.7 9.5 11.8
12.1 10.4 6.4
4.7 5.8 7.5
3.4 4.9 5.9
4.7 2.7 4.8
3.4 3.0 4.3
2.7 1.8 4.8
.7 1.2 .5
1.3 .9 0
1.3 .6 0
.7 0 1.1
2.0 0 0
6.0 6.7 7.5
70.5 75.6 82.9
63.1 68.6 76.5
3.4 2.7 2.7
-------
Community
Question
.
Other newspapers
Television/Radio (net)
Local television news
Radio
National television
Friends or neighbors
Magazines (net)
Newsweek
Time
Other (specified)
f~\ Government (net)
' Local government officials
State government officials
National government officials
Government publications
At work
Fatni ly members
Not i ces in mai I
Town meetings
Library
Doctors or other health professionals
Local businesses
Local emergency planning committee
Other
Total
6*%
,t
72.6
62.2
19.1
10.5
7.3
2.8
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.6
1.0
.6
.3
.3
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.0
.3
.1
.1
.1
6.3
Rich
___-!
umiiu
57
.1
77.1
72.9
18.6
8.6
7.1
1.4
0
0
1.4
0
0
0
0
0
2.9
0
1 4
0
0
0
0
0
Dur-
ham
17
. f
81.1
74.4
16.1
2.8
7.8
0
0
0
0
1 i
1.1
0
0
0
1.7
1.7
1.1
.6
0
0
0
0
Albu
quer
•oue
7Q£
• TH
80.1
72.8
17.2
7.3
4.0
2.6
1.3
.7
.7
.7
0
0
.7
0
.7
.7
.7
.7
0
0
.7
0
Cin-
cin-
nati
89-7
• cf
77.6
68.2
22.4
5.9
12.9
4.7
0
1.2
2.4
3.5
2.4
1.2
1.2
1.2
3.5
1.2
2.4
0
0
1.2
0
0
Mid-
dle-
sex
coun
-tv
11 7
11 . f
58.1
34.6
26.5
30.1
8.1
5.9
2.9
3.7
2.2
1.5
.7
0
0
.7
0
2.9
1.5
2.9
.7
0
0
.7
Ra-
cine
coun
•tv
42.6
34.0
10.6
4.3
4.3
4.3
2.1
0
4.3
6.4
4.3
6.4
0
0
4.3
2.1
4.3
2.1
2.1
0
0
0
Gender
Fe-
Male male
66.3 79.6
56.3 68.7
20.9 17.2
7.2 13.8
6.6 8.2
2.9 2.8
0.3 1.9
1.4 .6
1.4 1.3
2.3 .9
1.1 .9
1.1 0
.3 .3
.6 0
2.6 .6
1.1 1.9
1.7 1.3
.9 1.3
.6 0
0 .3
.3 0
0 .3
Education
Some
HS Col I
or or
less more
77.2
64.6
19.9
15.5
8.3
2.9
1.9
.5
1.0
.5
.5
0
0
0
1.5
1.5
.5
1.0
.5
0
0
.5
70.4
60.9
18.7
8.3
7.0
2.8
.7
1.3
1.5
2.2
1.3
.9
.4
.4
1.7
1.5
2.0
1.1
.2
.2
.2
0
Less
than
30
vrs.
70.5
59.1
17.4
8.7
8.7
5.4
2.0
2.7
0
2.7
.7
.7
1.3
.7
2.0
3.4
1.3
.7
1.3
.7
0
0
Age
More
30- than
50 50
vrs. vrs.
71.3 75.9
61.0 65.8
21.3 16.0
8.8 15.0
6.4 8.0
1.8 2.7
.3 1.6
.6 .5
1.2 2.7
1.5 1.1
1.2 1.1
.6 .5
0 0
.3 0
1.8 1.1
.9 1.1
1.5 1.6
.9 1.6
0 0
0 0
0 .5
0 .5
17. Would you say you got a lot, some, or no information about the risks
of chemicals in your community from ?
Friends and relatives
A lot of information
Some information
No information
7.4 5.5 7.5 4.2 8.1 14.1 5.1 7.0 7.7
35.1 36.0 38.8 31.6 31.7 40.6 32.3 32.837.3
56.9 58.5 52.7 63.2 59.2 44.9 61.9 59.654.2
6.5 7.9 9.1 7.8 5.2
32.2 37.0 36.9 39.2 26.6
60.7 54.4. 53.9 52.4 67.1
-------
Community
Question
Local emergency planning committees
A lot of information
Some information
No information
Not applicable
Doctor
A lot of information
Some information
No information
Not applicable
<"} State government officials
^o .A lot of information
Some information
No information
Officials who work for the chemical industry
A lot of information
Some information
No information
Not applicable
Federal government officials
A lot of information
Some information
No information
Environmental groups
A lot of information
Some information
No information
People you know who work for the chemical industry
A lot of information
Some information
No information
Not applicable
Total
5.6
30.6
60.8
2.6
3.3
13.2
80.5
2.8
5C
.3
44.6
49.2
2.8
21.1
73.3
2.2
4.2
40.9
54.0
21.0
46.9
31.2
5.4
17.4
57.4
19.0
Rich
mond
4.3
29.1
63.4
2.8
3.4
14.6
79.8
2.2
43. 5
51.2
2.6
22.9
71.7
2.0
5.1
39.9
53.6
17.0
50.0
32.0
4.9
18.2
60.3
16.0
Dur-
ham
10.1
35.2
52.1
2.0
3.6
14.9
19.4
2.2
44.2
47.5
4.2
27.3
65.1
2.6
4.8
40.8
52.9
26.7
45.5
26.5
4.8
20.8
50.1
23.0
Albu
quer
-gue
3.8
32.6
61.5
2.0
1.4
10.9
83.6
3.8
49.6
42.9
2.6
20.2
73.5
3.0
4.5
45.8
48.8
26.9
46.4
26.3
3.
14.8
55.1
26.1
Cin-
cin-
nati
4.6
31.5
61.6
2.0
4.8
12.9
78.8
3.4
45.0
50.3
2.2
23.6
72.3
1.4
5.0
45.7
48.9
21.6
47.1
30.3
5.7
19.0
57.6
17.0
Mid-
dle-
sex
court
-tv
5.8
22.5
66.4
4.8
4.6
13.1
78.5
3.6
44.3
51.3
2.4
14.1
79.9
3.2
2.4
35.8
61.2
19.1
45.5
34.0
8.3
16.3
58.4
16.3
Ra-
cine
coun
-ty
5.3
32.1
59.8
2.0
2.5
12.7
82.3
2.2
41.9
51.8
3.0
18.7
76.5
1.5
3.3
37.7
57.9
15.6
46.9
37.1
5.6
15.6
61.9
16.2
Gender
Fe-
Male male
6.5 4.7
28.8 32.4
61.9 59.6
2.7 2.4
3.4 3.3
14.2 12.1
78.9 82.0
3.2 2.4
44.1 45.2
48.7 49.8
3.9 1.7
20.1 22.1
74.0 72.5
1.7 2.8
5.5 2.8
41.1 40.6
52.8 55.3
21.7 20.3
48.8 45.0
28.8 33.7
7.1 3.7
17.1 17.7
59.5 55.3
15.7 22.4
Education
Some
HS Col I
or or
less more
5.9
30.5
60.9
2.2
3.6
14.1
79.3
2.8
37.3
57.2
3.4
20.1
73.5
2.5
3.3
35.0
60.7
15.7
41.1
42.1
5.4
16.0
55.4
22.3
5.4
30.7
60.7
2.8
3.2
12.5
81.3
2.9
49.7
43.9
2.4
21.8
73.1
2.1
4.7
44.8
49.5
24.6
50.8
23.9
5.5
18.3
58.8
16.8
Age
Less More
than 30- than
30 50 50
yrs. vrs. vrs.
5.7 4.5 7.5
30.4 30.8 30.2
61.8 61.7 58.1
1.9 2.6 3.0
4.3 3.2 2.8
16.0 14.0 9.5
77.7 80.1 83.1
1.8 2.5 4.4
42.2 47.1 42.5
53.9 47.7 48.2
3.2 2.5 3.0
24.5 21.3 17.9
71.7 74.3 72.9
.1 1.3 5.2
4.3 3.5 5.1
39.4 43.4 38.1
56.0 52.4 55.0
21.3 22.3 18.3
46.5 50.3 41.7
31.3 27.0 38.2
5.2 6.2 4.5
21.0 19.9 10.3
62.7 58.4 51.6
10.3^14.8 32.8
-------
Community
Question
Local government officials
A lot of information
Some information
No information
News reporters
A lot of information
Some information
No information
18. Would you say you trust a lot. some, or not at all when it
Q comes to finding out about the risks of chemicals in your community?
1 Friends and relatives
O Trust o lot
Trust somewhat
Do not trust at all
Not applicable
Local emergency planning committees
Trust a lot
Trust somewhat
Do not trust at all
Not applicable
Your doctor
Trust a lot
Trust somewhat
Do not trust at all
Not applicable
State government officials
Trust a lot
Trust somewhat
Do not trust at al I
Total
5.1
44.0
49.9
26.8
54.3
'18.6
34.0
49.4
13.2
3.0
27.9
53.7
13.0
4.8
46.4
34.1
14.2
5.0
12.0
65.1
22.3
Rich
nvwi
3.2
42.7
53.2
27.1
56.7
15.6
34.0
50.6
13.4
2.0
29.4
52.2
12.6
4.9
44.7
38.1
13.2
3.8
13.8
65.8
20.2
Our-
ham
7.1
46.7
44.8
31.7
54.9
13.3
35.2
48.1
11.9
4.2
30.1
53.5
11.9
4.6
44.0
34.1
15.8
5.7
11.1
65.9
22.0
Albu
quer
-oue
6.7
50.2
42.3
32.4
53.2
14.2
26.5
51.0
17.6
4.2
25.3
54.3
14.8
4.9
39.3
36.8
18.0
5.9
11.7
65.8
21.9
Cin-
cin-
nati
5.9
47.5
45.3
31.5
55.6
12.7
33.9
46.3
15.8
3.8
26.3
54.5
14.9
3.4
50.5
29.1
14.1
5.9
10.5
64.8
24.4
Mid-
dle-
sex
coun
•ty
3.8
36.6
59.0
26.0
52.5
21.1
40.4
48.1
8.3
2.8
23.9
52.9
14.9
7.6
48.1
33.4
12.5
5.6
8.2
62.6
28.4
Ra-
cine
coun
-ty
4.1
41.1
54.0
14.7
53.0
32.0
34.3
52.0
12.1
1.7
31.5
54.6
9.8
3.8
50.8
33.4
12.1
3.3
16.2
65.6
18.0
Gender
Fe-
Male male
6.0 4.2
42.9 45.2
50.3 49.4
27.6 26.1
54.5 54.0
17.6 19.6
32.3 35.8
49.5 49.4
14.2 12.2
3.6 2.4
27.7 28.0
51.7 55.7
14.2 11.8
5.7 3.9
44.7 48.1
35.1 33.1
14.0 14.4
5.9 4.1
12.9 11.2
65.3 64.9
21.3 23.4
Education
Some
HS Col I
or or
less more
4.5
36.0
58.2
24.1
48.6
26.7
36.9
46.0
14.2
2.7
25.6
56.0
14.7
3.2
49.5
32.3
14.0
4.0
12.9
61.4
25.2
5.6
49.5
44.2
28.8
58.1
13.0
32.1
51.8
12.5
3.2
29.4
52.2
11.9
5.9
43.9
35.4
14.5
5.7
11.5
67.6
20.5
Age
Less More
than 30- than
30 50 50
vrs. vrs. vrs.
3.8 4.1 7.8
42.5 47.5 39.6
53.1 47.8 50.8
25.9 27.8 25.9
57.1 56.7 48.0
16.7 15.3 25.6
36.8 32.9 34.0
50.4 52.6 43.2
11.1 12.3 16.2
1.3 1.8 6.4
33.7 26.1 26.5
54.5 54.6 51.3
8.6 13.9 15.1
3.2 4.8 6.1
49.6 44.3 47.2
35.2 37.6 27.5
11.6 13.5 17.4
3.5 4.2 7.6
12.7 9.9 15.3
66.0 65.3 64.0
21.3 24.3 19.6
-------
C annum ty
Question
O
1
h-1
M
19.
Officials who work for the chemical industry
Trust a lot
Trust somewhat
Do not trust at all
Not applicable
Federal government officials
Trust a lot
Trust somewhat
Do not trust at all
Environmental groups
Trust a lot
Trust somewhat
Do not trust at all
People you know who work for the chemical industry
Trust a lot
Trust somewhat
Do not trust at all
Not applicable
Local government officials
Trust a lot
Trust somewhat
Do not trust at all
News reporters
Trust a lot
Trust somewhat
Do not trust at all
Would you say are very, somewhat, or not at all
Total
8.3
45.8
43.4
2.1
11.6
64.0
23.4
40.1
51.0
8.0
18.7
38.9
20.3
21.3
11.3
65.4
22.3
26.6
64.1
8.8
Rich
mond
9.7
45.8
42.1
2.0
12 1
64.8
22.1
39.9
51 0
8 *>
19.8
39.9
21.9
18.0
11.3
64.2
23.5
29.2
63.4
6.5
Dur-
ham
8.9
49.9
38.6
1.8
13.5
62.0
22.6
39.2
52.7
6.9
18.2
37.4
17.0
26.3
11.9
66.5
19.6
28.5
63.4
7.3
Albu
quer
-due
7.9
45.3
43.9
2.4
11.9
64.0
23.7
37.0
53.8
8.9
12.5
36.4
22.1
27.7
9.3
67.6
22.7
25.9
63.4
10.5
Cin-
cin-
nati
7.1
50.1
41.6
1.0
10.3
63.4
25.1
37.0
52.1
9.3
17.0
40.6
21.8
19.8
10.3
68.5
20.0
30.1
62.6
6.5
Mid-
dle-
sex
coin
•ty
5.4
34.8
56.7
3.2
8.2
63.2
27.8
44.5
46.3
8.2
26.6
33.0
21.9
17.7
9.1
58.1
32.2
25.8
64.6
8.9
Ra-
cine
court
-ty
10.6
48.5
38.4
2.2
13.6
66.2
19.5
42.5
50.3
6.3
18.0
44.7
17.4
18.9
15.4
66.9
17.1
21.2
66.6
12.3
Gender
Fe-
Male male
8.9 7.8
43.0 48.6
45.8 40.9
1.9 2.3
12.8 10.5
63.9 64.2
22.7 24.1
38.5 41.7
52.1 49.9
8.9 7.0
19.0 18.3
39.4 38.4
22.7 17.8
17.9 24.8
11.8 10.9
65.6 65.1
21.8 22.8
26.2 27.0
63.2 64.9
9.8 7.8
Education
Some
HS Coll
or or
less more
10.3 6.9
47.5 44.7
39.1 46.4
2.5 1.8
12.3 11.2
59.4 67.3
26.9 20.8
35.4 43.2
51.7 50.6
11.5 5.5
17.7 19.2
37.7 39.8
20.0 20.4
23.6 19.8
11.8 11.1
61.2 68.1
25.7 20.1
28.3 25.5
61.2 66.1
9.9 8.0
Age
Less More
than 30- than
30 50 50
yrs. yrs. yrs.
12.7 5.5 9.7
51.5 45.6 41.7
35.5 47.4 42.7
.3 1.4 4.7
12.8 9.9 13.8
65.7 66.4 58.9
21.4 23.1 24.9
43.9 41.6 34.9
49.3 52.0 50.7
6.7 6.0 12.2
25.9 18.9 12.5
42.8 43.4 28.7
19.5 20.0 21.1
11.0 17.7 36.4
9.3 9.3 16.6
69.8 66.5 59.7
20.8 23.5 21.7
28.0 26.4 25.9
64.6 65.7 61.0
7.2 7.6 11.9
knowledgeable about the risks of chemicals in your connunity?
Friends and relatives
Very knowledgeable
Somewhat knowledgeable
Not at all knowledgeable
8.9
63.4
25.5
10.3
60.7
26.9
10.3
66.3
20.4
4.7
62.1
30.4
9.1
59.8
28.7
11.1
64.2
22.9
8.1
66.6
24.2
8.1 9.8
61.3 65.5
28.3 22.7
11.2 7.3
61.6 64.5
25.0 26.0
7.2 8.3 11.2
64.5 65.5 59.0
27.4 25.2 24.7
-------
Communi ty
Question
Local emergency planning committees
Very knowledgeable
Somewhat knowledgeable
Not at all knowledgeable
Not applicable
Your doctor
Very knowledgeable
Somewhat knowledgeable
Not at all knowledgeable
Not applicable
^ State government officials
H1 Very knowledgeable
Somewhat knowledgeable
Not at all knowledgeable
Officials who work in the chemical industry
Very knowledgeable
Somewhat knowledgeable
Not 8t Si 1 KnOW I GOCJC8DI 6
Not applicable
Federal government officials
Very knowledgeable
Somewhat knowledgeable
Not at all knowledgeable
Environmental groups
Very knowledgeable
Somewhat knowledgeable
Not at all knowledgeable
People you know who work for the chemical industry
Very knowledgeable
Somewhat knowledgeable
Not at all knowledgeable
Not applicable
Total
33
55
5
4
26
56
11
4
28
62
7
58
33
1
35
56
6
53
.2
.8
.6
.1
.7
.2
.8
.0
.7
.8
.6
.3
.2
.9
.8
.2
.9
.4
42.4
3
29
41
7
21
.1
.5
.0
.6
.1
Rich
nwuvl
luDTu
32.0
56.1
5.1
5.3
23.5
60.1
11.3
3.0
27.9
63.4
7.1
57.5
36.2
39
.£
2.0
34.4
57.5
6.5
51.2
44.9
2.4
28.7
44.3
8.3
18.6
Dur-
ham
41.8
50.7
3.2
4.0
29.3
56.2
9.1
4.4
30.5
62.6
5.7
58.0
34.9
4ft
.11
2.0
39.0
54.5
5.5
54.5
42.2
2.0
29.3
38.0
5.7
26.1
Albu
<*ier
•due
30.6
57.3
7.3
4.0
24.9
52.6
15.6
5.3
22.9
67.2
9.5
57.1
33.0
SO
• Y.
2.6
35.2
57.7
5.9
47.0
48.4
3.8
24.9
37.2
7.9
29.2
Cin-
cin-
nati
32.3
56.2
6.1
3.0
26.7
55.8
11.3
4.4
27.3
63.6
8.1
55.8
36.8
1.4
34.1
56.0
8.3
53.3
42.4
3.8
27.7
45.9
5.9
19.2
Mid-
dle-
sex
coun
-ty
31.4
54.5
6.2
6.2
27.6
55.9
11.5
4.0
33.4
56. 5
9.5
64.8
25.2
1.6
39.4
50.5
9.3
59.8
36.0
3.4
34.6
39.2
8.9
16.7
Ra-
cine
coun
•ty
31.5
59.4
5.8
2.5
27.6
56.5
11.8
6.0
30.1
63.4
6.1
56.6
33.1
1.8
33.3
60.4
5.8
54.6
41.1
3.5
31.3
41.2
8.8
17.5
Gender
Fe-
Male male
33.3 33.1
55.2 56.4
6.3 5.0
4.3 3.9
27.6 25.7
54.6 57.8
12.5 11.0
4.4 3.5
27.2 30.2
63.5 62.1
8.9 6.4
60.9 55.6
30.1 36.4
1.5 2.3
36.7 34.9
54.8 57.7
7.6 6.2
51.1 55.8
44.9 40.0
3.5 2.8
32.7 26.2
40.4 41.5
8.4 6.9
17.8 24.5
Education
Some
MS Col I
or or
less more
32.0 33.9
57.0 55.0
7.0 4.7
2.2 5.4
29.8 24.3
52.9 58.5
11.7 11.9
3.8 4.1
31.8 26.5
58. 8 65.7
8.0 7.3
52.5 62.3
36.6 30.8
2.4 1.6
38.1 34.3
51.6 59.5
8.7 5.6
47.9 57.3
45.4 40.3
5.1 1.8
26.3 31.7
39.9 41.7
10.8 5.5
22.1 20.4
Age
Less More
than 30- than
30 50 50
vrs . vrs . vrs .
38.3 32.5 30.4
54.7 57.0 54.6
3.9 5.5 7.3
2.2 4.2 5.5
26.6 23.2 32.0
60.0 60.8 45.8
10.6 11.3 13.5
2.2 3.7 5.9
29.7 28.8 27.8
63.2 62.9 62.7
6.5 8.1 7.5
65.5 60.5 49.0
29.7 33.4 35.6
0 .9 5.1
35.4 36.6 34.8
57.0 56.8 54.9
7.1 6.1 7.8
57.9 56.2 45.5
38.9 41.0 47.3
2.8 2.5 4.6
33.6 31.8 22.5
49.0 42.6 31.9
6.3 7.8 8.5
10.2 17.3 35.8
-------
Community
Question
Local government officials
Very knowledgeable
Somewhat knowledgeable
Not at all knowledgeable
News reporters
Very knowledgeable
Somewhat knowledgeable
Mnt At* al I bn/iu 1 ArlnonKI A
NOl HI o\ \ Know Icugcoul C
O20. Would you say you know a lot. a little, very little or nothing about
«««_^
1 The location of facilities in your area where chemicals are
oj stored or used
Know a lot
Know a little
Know very little
Know nothing
Releases of chemicals into the atmosphere
^n/\Lf n 1 nt
^nOH o IQl
Know a little
Know very I ittle
Know nothing
The quality of your area's drinking water
Know a lot
Know a little
Know very little
Know nothing
Community right-to-know laws
Know a lot
Know a little
Know very little
Know nothing
Total
22.4
66.7
9.6
17.3
73.5
81
.H
12.0
32.8
33.2
21.8
7 a
.6
35.5
36.6
20.0
23.7
41.3
26.0
8.8
10.5
34.2
35.3
19.7
Rich
mond
21.7
66.4
9.9
18.4
73.3
8.9
29.8
38.3
22.9
32.2
37.7
21.9
17.8
39.9
31.4
10.5
7.1
30.0
39.9
22.9
Dur-
ham
21.2
69.5
7.7
17.4
74.9
15.4
36.4
30.7
17.4
36.0
36.2
20.6
22.8
43.4
24.6
9.3
12.3
35.8
31.9
19.6
Albu
quer
-aue
20.6
67.4
10.5
17.0
72.9
12.3
29.6
34.4
23.3
34.2
37.0
20.4
26.5
43.3
24.7
5.5
10.5
33.6
34.6
21.1
Cin-
cin-
nati
22.4
68.7
7.7
20.4
71.9
11.5
35.6
30.1
22.6
35.6
36.0
19.0
25.0
40.0
26.1
8.9
10.1
37.0
34.9
17.4
Mid-
dle-
sex
court
-ty
25.0
57.7
15.9
17.3
71.8
14.1
35.2
30.8
19.9
39.0
35.8
16.5
22.9
40.0
26.8
10.1
13.7
34.0
34.0
17.9
Ra-
cine
coin
-ty
23.2
69.7
6.5
14.1
76.0
10.4
30.6
34.8
24.2
35.8
36.9
21.5
27.0
41.1
23.0
8.6
9.4
34.8
36.1
19.4
Gender
Fe-
Male male
22.0 22.8
65.3 68.0
11.7 7.5
17.0 17.6
71.2 75.9
16.1 7.9
35.5 30.1
30.1 36.4
18.3 25.4
in / co
1U.4 j.e.
37.1 33.8
35.4 37.9
17.1 23.0
28.0 19.4
40.2 42.3
24.2 27.9
7.6 10.1
13.1 7.8
35.9 32.5
33.8 36.7
16.9 22.6
Education
Some
HS Col I
or or
less more
25.9 19.9
62.2 69.8
9.9 9.3
21.0 14.8
70.2 75.8
8.9 14.1
26.3 37.3
35.4 31.8
29.3 16.8
6T fi O
.0 o.y
28.3 40.4
38.5 35.2
26.9 15.4
20.1 26.0
36.2 44.8
30.8 22.8
12.7 6.2
7.2 12.7
31.7 35.9
37.5 33.8
23.1 17.3
Less
than
30
vrs.
24.2
67.0
8.4
14.3
76.9
8C
.J
12.7
33.0
32.6
21.7
6Q
.O
35.5
36.8
20.9
20.2
40.6
29.1
10.4
9.9
29.9
37.5
22.4
Age
More
30- than
50 50
vrs. yrs.
20.5 23.8
68.7 63.3
9.7 10.2
15.3 23.2
75.9 67.0
89 ft A
mC. O.O
12.9 10.2
35.4 28.5
33.6 33.0
18.1 28.0
77 on
. r v.u
37.7 31.6
37.0 35.8
17.5 23.5
22.3 28.9
43.9 37.5
25.7 24.2
8.0 9.0
10.4 11.3
36.2 34.2
36.4 31.9
17.0 21.9
-------
Communi tv
Question
n
i
i — *
21.
Emergency preparedness plans in your area '-
Know a lot
Know a little
Know very little
Know nothing
Hazardous waste facilities in your area
Know a lot
Know a little
Know very little
Know nothing
Activities to clean up acidental spills of hazardous materials
Know a lot '
Know a little
Know very little
Know nothing
The risks of chemicals in your area
Know a lot
Know a little
Know very little
Know nothing
Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or
Total
8.6
28.4
33.4
29.4
1ft 1
IV. 1
32.6
33.5
23.4
10.6
35. 5
32.4
21.3
13.1
41.3
31.6
14.0
Rich
tnond
7.7
25.5
34.8
32.0
25.9
38.1
27.7
10.3
34.4
32.8
22.5
11.1
40.1
62.0
16.8
Dur-
ham
12.7
36.0
25.1
25.9
37.8
31.9
19.8
11.3
40.8
29.7
18.2
12.9
46.5
29.3
11.3
Albu
-cue
9.3
27.3
35.2
28.1
32.2
31.8
21.1
12.3
37.0
31.4
19.0
15.6
37.0
34.2
13.0
Cin-
cin-
nati
7.1
28.5
37.4
26.9
34.5
35.2
21.0
10.5
33.5
35.8
20.0
13.3
41.8
31.7
13.1
Mid-
dle-
sex
coun
•tv
5.8
20.3
35.4
38.0
35.4
30.8
23.7
9.7
34.6
31.4
26.3
15.9
42.9
28.8
12.3
Ra-
cine
coun
-tv
8.9
32.0
32.8
26.2
30.3
33.3
26.3
9.8
33.3
33.1
23.5
10.4
39.6
33.3
16.7
Gender
Fe-
Male male
9.7 7.5
28.6 28.1
34.0 32.9
27.6 31.2
«
-------
Community
Question
We should assume a chemical is safe unless tests prove it to be
dangerous
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
Chemicals have improved our health more than they have harmed it
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
1 Somewhat disagree
[~j Strongly disagree
Don't know
Any release of chemicals into aofl, water, or air is unacceptable
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
Planned releases of chemicals into the air, water, or soil
are generally safe
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
The only time the public hears about the release of toxic chemicals
is when the problem is so big it can't be kept secret anymore
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
Total
14.4
15.9
18.2
51.3
15.5
34.4
22.9
24.3
2.6
41.5
21.5
22.9
12.9
5.1
22.1
28.3
43.0
65.3
20.3
8.1
6.0
Rich
mond
16.0
13 0
16.4
54.2
15.0
36.2
23.5
22.5
2.6
34.4
22.9
27.3
13.8
5.3
22.9
30.6
38.3
61.9
22.3
8.7
6.7
Dur-
ham
10.9
17.8
21.6
49.3
15.6
31.7
23.6
25.1
3.2
38.2
20.2
26.1
14.3
4.8
22.2
29.9
41.6
58.6
24.0
9.7
7.5
Albu
quer
-due
14.6
11.9
19.6
53.6
17.2
35.0
19.4
25.7
2.8
41.1
21.7
24.3
11.5
5.7
21.7
28.9
42.5
63.0
19.2
10.5
6.7
Cin-
cin-
nati
14.7
19.6
17.4
48.1
17.2
35.0
20.0
24.8
2.8
39.2
24.0
20.4
15.2
5.1
24.2
26.7
42.6
67.9
19.0
7.3
5.3
Mid-
dle-
sex
coin
-ty
15.9
12.5
16.1
55.3
13.1
30.0
25.6
27.6
3.0
54.3
16.7
17.1
11.1
5.0
16.1
24.7
53.1
75.9
14.3
4.0
5.6
Ra-
cine
coun
•ty
14.4
19.5
17.9
48.0
14.9
37.7
24.8
20.7
1.7
42.1
23.2
22.2
11.8
4.6
25.0
29.1
40.4
64.7
22.4
8.1
4.6
Gender
Fe-
Male male
14.9 14.0
15.7 16.0
17.9 18.4
51.4 51.2
20.5 10.4
37.3 31.5
19.9 25.9
20.2 28.4
1.7 3.5
37.4 45.8
21.8 21.2
25.5 20.2
14.5 11.3
6.0 4.1
24.3 19.9
28.8 27.9
39.8 46.2
60.4 70.3
23.4 17.1
9.4 6.7
6.5 5.5
Education
Some
HS Col I
or or
less more
20.9 10.0
20.6 12.6
14.3 20.8
43.8 56.3
13.1 17.1
28.3 38.5
22.9 22.9
32.8 18.6
2.8 2.5
49.0 36.6
18.7 23.6
17.7 26.3
13.6 12.3
5.6 4.7
19.2 24.1
25.2 30.5
48.7 39.0
68.9 62.9
17.1 22.5
6.5 9.2
7.0 5.3
Less
than
30
yrs.
13.2
16.2
22.0
48.6
12.0
37.2
26.9
22.6
1.4
35.5
28.3
25.3
10.3
4.3
25.1
33.4
36.5
62.0
25.8
8.5
3.8
Age
More
30- than
50 50
yrs. yrs.
10.5 22.1
12.6 21.2
18.7 14.1
58.0 41.9
14.9 19.2
34.0 32.8
24.0 18.0
24.9 24.4
1.7 5.2
41.0 47.3
20.2 18.5
25.4 16.6
12.6 15.5
3.5 8.5
21.4 21.1
30.1 21.7
43.8 46.3
67.8 63.8
18.8 18.3
7.6 8.5
5.7 8.4
-------
Communi ty
Question
It's not how much of a chemical you are exposed to that matters to
your health, it's whether or not you're exposed at all
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
If a person is exposed to a chemical that can cause cancer, then
that person is likely to get cancer later in life
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Q Somewhat disagree
1 Strongly disagree
cr» Don't know
There are some chemical risks that are too small to worry about
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
I feel that 1 am involved in environmental decisions that may
affect my health
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
local businesses are usually very careful with dangerous chemicals
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
Don't know
Burying toxic wastes in landfills is not a serious problem
Strongly agrpe
Total
39.2
23.5
17.0
18.6
37.5
35.8
18.3
6.5
1.6
16.8
26.4
21.1
35.3
20.9
22.2
24.2
31.7
13.3
31.9
27.9
25.2
1.5
6.1
Rich
40.9
25.1
15.0
16.6
36.4
34.8
19.0
6.7
2.8
16.2
28.3
19.6
36.0
19.2
21.7
26.9
31.4
14.2
29.6
29.6
24.3
2.2
7 7
Dur-
ham
38.2
20.6
17.8
22.0
33.3
38.4
20.0
5.7
2.2
16.6
26.1
19.6
36.2
21.4
21.0
26.3
30.1
14.9
33.5
28.7
21.8
1.0
6.5
Albu
Cfjer
•oue
39.7
21.9
19.4
17.4
34.0
34.6
21.1
8.1
2.0
18.0
28.9
20.9
31.6
19.8
20.0
27.5
32.4
10.7
32.4
27.9
27.5
1.6
4.3
Cin-
cin-
nati
36.8
24.2
17.0
20.6
39.8
34.1
17.4
6.9
1.4
18.2
25.0
23.0
33.5
21.4
20.0
22.0
34.9
11.1
32.7
28.7
25.7
1.4
5.5
Mid-
dle-
sex
coin
-tv
40.2
23.7
14.7
19.7
42.9
35.6
15.3
5.0
.8
15.5
22.3
23.7
38.6
22.3
21.7
19.1
36.2
8.9
25.0
30.2
34.6
1.2
5.2
Ra-
cine
court
-ty
39.6
25.0
18.0
16.1
38.4
37.3
17.2
6.3
.8
16.6
27.6
20.0
35.8
21.4
27.8
23.7
26.2
19.0
37.3
23.3
18.9
1.5
7.1
Gender
Fe-
Male male
35.7 42.8
24.9 22.0
19.4 14.7
18.7 18.5
34.2 40.8
35.2 36.5
20.4 16.2
7.9 5.0
1.8 1.4
21.1 12.5
28.0 24.8
20.0 22.2
30.7 39.9
19.7 22.1
23.2 21.2
24.2 24.3
32.3 31.0
13.5 13.2
30.7 33.1
28.6 27.3
26.3 24.1
.8 2.2
6.2 6.0
Education
Some
MS Col I
or or
less more
43.3
22.0
13.3
19.8
50.2
31.3
11.7
5.7
1.1
15.6
22.1
20.6
41.0
28.1
22.9
21.4
26.3
17.8
32.1
23.0
25.4
1.6
fl.1)
36.5
24.4
19.6
17.8
28.8
39.0
22.8
7.0
2.0
17.6
29.4
21.4
31.5
16.0
21.6
26.2
35.4
10.3
31.8
31.3
25.1
1.4
4.5
Age
Less More
than 30- than
30 50 50
vrs. vrs. vrs.
36.2 38.2 43.3
22.6 24.1 23.3
21.6 17.7 12.4
19.2 18.7 17.7
33.7 36.0 43.2
43.5 37.0 27.6
17.7 19.0 17.6
4.6 5.9 8.8
.4 1.6 2.6
13.0 15.6 22.0
25.2 28.4 24.1
24.8 21.1 18.2
37.0 34.5 34.9
19.4 18.1 27.0
22.7 22.3 21.7
26.7 23.3 23.4
30.6 35.3 26.5
11.6 10.0 20.3
33.0 31.2 32.5
32.3 29.9 21.3
22.3 27.6 23.3
.8 1.1 2.5
3.3 4.7 10.8
-------
Community
O
I
Question
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
Local officials are interested in what the public has to say
about chemicals in the area
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
22. Would you say it is true that in your community/area ?
Total
7.7
16.2
69.1
18.1
40.9
22.6
17.6
Rich
mond
7.7
17.2
66.2
16.2
39.9
25.7
17.4
Dur-
ham
9.7
18.0
64.6
18.6
41.8
22.6
15.8
Albu
quer
•oue
7.7
18.6
68.2
16.6
42.7
20.0
20.2
Cin-
cin-
nati
7.5
17.0
69.3
17.6
40.4
23.6
18.0
Mid-
dle-
sex
coun
•ty
4.2
10.7
79.5
16.5
35.0
26.4
21.3
Ra-
cine
coun
-ty
9.1
15.9
67.4
22.4
44.9
18.4
13.9
Gender
Hale
8.4
15.5
69.2
19.0
41.6
22.6
16.4
Fe-
male
6.9
17.0
69.0
17.2
40.2
22.7
18.9
Education
Some
HS Coll
or or
less more
8.5 7.1
15.6 16.7
66.5 71.0
21.5 15.8
34.8 45.2
22.2 22.9
21.0 15.3
Age
Less More
than 30- than
30 50 50
vrs. vrs. yrs.
7.2 7.1 9.0
21.9 14.0 15.5
66.9 73.5 63.4
14.6 14.3 27.2
41.6 42.1 38.7
27.6 24.2 16.0
15.7 18.7 17.0
(X yes)
The police or fire department have trained p»r«omol to r««pood
to chemical emergencies
Environmental groups have been active in discussing the risks
of toxic chemicals
The local government has been actively working on the problem of
chemicals in the environment
There is an emergency preparedness plan for hazardous materials
Local businesses have reduced the amount of toxic chemicals
they store, use, or release
Local businesses have notified the community about toxic chemicals
they store, use, or release
81.3 88.5 85.7 84.4 80.0 67.4 81.5 83.579.0 82.580.5 77.080.985.5
60.2 50.8 76.0 67.6 63.6 52.1 52.8 61.059.5 56.662.6 55.259.865.1
58.5 52.8 66.1 63.6 62.8 49.7 56.5 59.6 57.5 61.1 56.6 51.5 56.4 67.6
54.0 61.3 65.9 58.9 49.3 38.2 51.2 57.5 50.6 53.4 54.4 49.6 55.9 54.7
46.9 47.2 47.1 39.5 48.1 37.2 59.9 47.4 46.5 50.0 44.7 39.0 44.0 58.3
26.8 27.7 32.5 25.1 26.3 16.3 32.0 28.6 25.0 29.1 25.1 26.3 24.6 31.0
25. Would you say that
is doing an excellent job, a good job.
a fair job, or a poor job at keeping your community safe from the risks
of hazardous chemicals?
Local government
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
3.5
28.9
49.1
17.0
4
28
47
16
.2
.9
.8
.6
4.4
30.7
48.3
15.4
4.2
28.5
47.4
19.2
2.4
28.1
52.9
15.2
2.2
19.3
50.3
26.8
3
36
48
10
.6
.3
.2
.3
3
26
50
18
.8
.5
.0
.5
3.2
31.3
48.2
15.5
4.8 2.5 2.9 1.9 6.7
32.6 26.2 25.5 26.6 35.5
45.4 51.7 55.7 49.3 43.5
15.6 18.1 15.6 20.5 12.4
-------
Communi tv
Question
Local businesses
Excel lent
Good
Fair
Poor
Federal Environmental Protection Agency
Excel lent
Good
Fair
Poor
Never heard of /not familiar
1 State government
^ Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Local emergency planning committee
Excel lent
Good
Fair
Poor
Never heard of/not familiar
Don't know
Local environmental groups
Excel lent
Good
Fair
Poor
Never heard of/ not familiar
Don't know
Total
2
22
48
24
5
37
42
13
1
3
29
50
15
5
33
40
12
5
2
7
42
39
7
1
1
.8
.4
.0
.7
.1
.0
.1
.6
.2
.6
.2
.5
.2
.1
.7
.5
.2
.7
.7
.7
.3
.0
.7
.7
.4
Rich
mood
3.4
22.1
48.0
23.7
4.5
38.5
40.1
13.2
2.2
3.8
32.0
49.2
12.3
5.7
37.0
38.3
9.7
6.7
2.4
7.7
41.7
36.6
9.5
2.6
2.0
Dur-
ham
3.8
24.0
45.7
25.0
8.3
41.0
37.2
11.9
.8
4.2
30.5
51.1
13.5
6.5
34.3
41.6
11.7
4.2
1.8
11.1
45.1
36.8
4.4
1.6
1.0
Albu
<**sr
-oue
3.2
20.0
48.4
26.5
6.5
32.8
44.9
14.0
1.0
4.5
27.3
50.2
17.0
5.1
35.6
37.4
14.4
4.9
2.4
7.5
44.7
37.5
8.3
.8
1.2
Cin-
cin-
nati
1.6
20.6
52.1
24.0
4.2
40.2
44.0
9.9
.8
3.0
23.6
55.1
16.2
5.0
30.3
44.8
10.9
6.1
2.8
7.3
39.2
43.4
5.7
1.8
2.4
Mid-
dle-
sex
coin
•tv
1.0
15.9
44.7
36.2
2.8
27.2
47.7
21.1
.8
2.4
21.7
50.9
23.7
3.2
23.7
41.6
19.1
7.4
5.0
4.6
35.2
44.9
11.9
1.6
1.6
Ra-
cine
coun
-tv
4.0
30.3
48.7
14.7
4.3
41.2
39.4
12.1
1.8
3.8
38.2
47.4
9.8
5.0
39.9
39.7
8.1
5.1
2.2
8.1
47.2
35.6
6.6
1.8
.7
Gender
Fe-
Male male
2.5 3.2
21.1 23.7
46.7 49.3
27.9 21.4
5.3 4.8
34.5 39.4
42.5 41.7
16.1 11.1
1.0 1.5
3.6 3.6
28.3 30.1
50.5 50.5
16.6 13.8
5.0 5.2
30.9 36.4
40.5 40.5
14.7 9.6
6.0 5.4
2.6 2.8
7.9 7.5
39.0 45.7
41.0 37.1
9.7 5.7
1.4 2.0
.9 2.0
Education
Some
HS Col I
or or
less more
4.4 1.8
26.2 19.8
46.6 48.8
20.4 27.7
6.3 4.3
39.0 35.6
42.0 42.1
10.5 15.8
1.5 1.1
5.0 2.7
31.8 27.4
48.3 52.0
13.8 16.2
6.7 3.9
37.3 31.2
39.5 41.3
10.4 13.3
4.3 6.7
1.9 3.3
8.1 7.4
43.8 41.3
37.9 39.9
7.0 8.1
1.8 1.6
1.3 1.5
Age
Less More
than 30- than
30 50 50
vrs. vrs. vrs.
2.4 1.8 5.0
20.9 19.8 28.1
51.0 48.2 44.9
25.3 28.4 18.1
5.6 3.6 7.3
42.5 34.8 36.5
41.2 44.7 38.4
9.9 15.3 13.7
.7 .6 2.8
3.1 2.3 6.3
29.4 25. 4 35.4
51.9 54.6 42.6
15.0 16.5 13.2
4.6 3.1 8.7
33.1 32.6 35.8
43.7 41.8 35.9
12.4 14.2 8.5
4.2 5.0 8.3
1.9 3.0 2.7
7.2 6.7 9.8
44.2 42.5 40.6
40.1 39.4 37.7
7.1 8.5 6.6
.6 1.7 2.7
.8 1.1 2.6
-------
Community
O
I
Question
26.
Have you ever faced a situation involving chemicals in the environment
Total
Rich
mond
Dur-
ham
Albu
oyer
-o.ue
Cin-
cin-
nati
Mid-
dle-
sex
coin
-ty
Ra-
cine
coun
-ty
Gender
Fe-
Male male
Education
Some
HS Col 1
or or
less more
Age
Less More
than 30- than
30 50 50
vrs. yrs. yrs.
that you considered threatening to you or your immediate family?
27.
28.
Yes
No
(If yes to 0. 26) Would you briefly describe the situation?
Personal exposure (net)
Work with chemicals/work hazard
Exposed to toxic cloud/gases/fumes/odors
Hazards in air (net)
Chemical accident (net)
Hazards in water (net)
Situation(s) caused health problems (net)
Evacuation of my area
Improper/illegal dumping
Insecticides are dangerous
Agricultural chemicals
Household chemicals/lye/ammonia/paint/wood preservatives
Dangerous businesses/plants/landfill possibly being built nearby
Open sewage
Chemical lawn care
Woodburning/f i replaces
Other
Have you ever because of risks in the environment? (X yes)
Contributed time or money to an environmental cause
Used bottled drinking water
Attended a town or community meeting
Talked to your doctor
26.5
73.3
52.4
25.7
21.1
31.5
30.8
22.0
17.0
7.5
6.2
3.3
3.1
2.4
1.7
.8
.7
.7
4.5
36.9
36.4
19.5
19.5
24.9
74.7
46.0
23.8
17.5
26.2
31.7
26.2
13.5
9.5
7.1
4.0
2.4
1.6
0
.8
0
0
3.2
39.5
43.5
14.2
20.4
21.4
78.4
54.6
30.6
12.0
17.6
45.4
8.3
13.0
19.4
2.8
4.6
3.7
1.9
2.8
.9
.9
0
5.6
36.0
23.2
24. .2
18.0
24.1
75.7
39.3
21.3
11.5
21.3
36.9
21.3
17.2
5.7
4.9
6.6
1.6
3.3
0
3.3
1.6
4.9
6.6
29.1
28.5
21.1
17.8
27.7
71.9
60.7
30.0
27.9
36.4
29.3
27.1
20.0
6.4
4.3
.7
.7
2.1
2.9
.7
0
0
3.6
36.4
47.9
15.6
21.0
39.0
60.8
56.6
18.9
35.2
45.4
30.1
19.9
19.4
4.6
9.7
2.0
0
1.0
3.6
0
.5
0
4.1
41.9
59.4
25.2
20.7
22.7
77.3
53.3
32.8
13.1
31.4
15.3
27.0
16.8
2.9
5.8
2.9
11.7
5.1
0
0
1.5
0
4.4
38.4
19.4
17.2
19.4
29.7 23.3
70.1 76.5
57.8 45.3
33.6 15.5
20.1 22.4
29.3 34.3
31.7 29.6
20.3 24.0
14.8 19.9
5.1 10.5
7.5 4.4
2.6 4.1
2.6 3.9
3.0 1.7
.6 3.0
.9 .8
.6 .8
.9 .6
4.3 4.7
37.6 36.3
31.7 41.1
21.0 18.0
18.8 20.3
20.7 30.3
78.9 69.6
53.8 51.8
29.4 24.0
17.9 22.4
28.2 32.9
25.6 32.7
20.2 23.0
18.7 16.2
5.0 8.4
6.9 5.9
1.1 4.3
2.3 3.6
1.9 2.7
1.9 1.6
.8 .9
.4 .9
.8 .7
4.6 4.4
25.2 44.9
32.6 39.2
13.2 23.9
16.5 21.5
25.9 31.5 18.5
74.0 68.2 81.3
45.7 53.4 57.2
20.4 27.3 27.1
19.4 20.6 23.5
29.6 30.3 36.7
39.2 29.4 23.5
15.1 25.2 21.1
17.2 17.2 16.3
14.0 6.1 3.6
8.6 5.7 4.8
2.2 3.6 3.6
1.6 3.0 5.4
2.2 2.3 3.0
3.2 1.3 1.2
1.6 .8 0
.5 .8 .6
0 .8 1.2
3.2 4.4 6.0
28.1 44.2 31.7
38.3 39.9 29.2
14.8 22.9 17.6
19.2 22.6 14.5
-------
Comnuni ty
Mid-
Education
Age
Question
Total
Rich
Our-
Albu
quer
•due
Cin-
cin-
nati
die-
sex
coun
•ty
Ra-
cine
coun
-ty
Gender
Fe-
Male male
Some
HS Col I
or or
less more
Less More
than 30- than
30 50 50
vrs. vrs. vrs.
29. If there was a large spill or release of hazardous chemicals in your
community, how do you think you would be first notified?
Media (net)
Local officials (net)
Siren/warning signal
Personal contact (net)
Other
30. Age
18 • 24 years
Q 25-29 years
^ 30-35 years
O 36-40 years
41 • 45 years
46 - 50 years
51 - 55 years
56 - 60 years
61 • 65 years
66 • 70 years
71 • 75 years
76 • 80 years
81 • 85 years
86 • 90 years
32. What is the highest level of education you completed?
8th grade or less
Less than high school
High school degree
Some col lege
College degree
Some graduate work
Graduate degree
Vocational /technical school
82
9
2
1
2
10
12
16
12
11
7
5
5
5
4
3
2
2
31
22
19
2
11
3
.3
.8
.4
.6
.9
.6
.3
.6
.4
.2
.7
.6
.9
.8
.8
.3
.2
.7
.3
.6
.9
.5
.0
.5
.4
.7
87.7
5.7
1.4
1 4
1.8
11.1
9.7
17.4
12.3
10.9
8.5
8.1
5.7
5.1
6.3
2.2
1.6
.6
.2
3.2
64
. 1
28 1
22.1
22.3
3.4
11.9
2.2
84.4
10.5
1.6
.8
2.4
10.9
13.3
16.2
13.7
12.3
8.1
4.6
5.7
5.9
3.8
2.6
2.2
.2
.2
3.8
23.4
21.8
22.8
3.6
15.4
3.2
88.5
4.9
2.4
1.6
2.2
9.3
13.6
17.4
12.6
11.1
6.7
4.9
6.1
6.3
3.6
3.0
2.6
1.0
.4
1.2
29.2
29.2
16.0
2.6
13.6
3.4
87.5
5.3
3.6
1.0
2.2
10.5
13.1
17.4
9.5
11.1
6.7
5.0
5.7
5.1
5.5
4.6
3.8
1.4
.4
2.0
33.9
23.4
16.8
1.6
10.7
2.2
71.8
17.9
1.4
2.4
5.2
12.7
14.3
16.1
12.1
10.1
6.8
6.2
5.4
6.8
4.2
3.6
1.0
.2
.2
2.4
31.8
21.1
22.9
2.2
11.3
4.4
75.3
13.9
4.0
2.3
3.8
9.4
10.4
15.4
13.7
11. B
9.1
4.8
6.8
5.6
5.5
4.0
2.0
.7
.3
3.1
5O
.O
42.7
18.4
14.4
1.8
6.5
6.6
81.6 83.1
10.3 9.3
2.8 2.1
1.3 1.9
3.1 2.8
11.7 9.5
12.7 12.0
16.1 17.1
13.1 11.6
13.3 9.1
7.2 8.2
5.5 5.7
5.6 6.3
5.3 6.4
4.4 5.3
2.6 4.7
1.5 2.8
.3 1.0
.3 .3
2.7 2.5
5c At
. j O. J
27.6 36.2
22.8 22.3
20.7 17.4
2.5 2.4
14.2 8.6
3.6 3.9
78.2 85.1
13.2 7.6
2.6 2.3
1.9 1.4
3.0 2.8
11.7 9.9
10.4 13.7
14.1 18.5
9.3 14.6
9.4 12.5
7.8 7.7
5.9 5.4
7.4 5.0
7.7 4.5
6.4 3.8
5.0 2.2
3.5 1.3
.9 .5
.4 .2
6.5 --
UA
.O
79.0
•• 38.0
-- 32.2
-- 4.2
•• 19.3
-- 6.3
86.5 84.7 74.9
6.5 8.7 14.4
1.1 1.9 4.4
2.6 1.7 .7
2.9 2.5 3.6
46.2
53.8
34.7
25.8
23.4
16.1
19.4
20.8
20.3
16.9
11.6
7.6
2.3
1.0
.6 .6 7.7
5n T 7 in i
.U j.f lU.j
33.4 29.9 34.4
27.6 22.1 19.2
21.9 20.8.14.0
.8 3.4 2.2
5.8 16.0 8.3
4.7 3.3 3.7
-------
Comnuni ty
n
Question
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
What is your marital status?
Single
Married
Divorced
Separated
Widow/ widower
How many people live in your household, including yourself?
1
2
3
4
5
6
More than 6
How many children, under 18, live in your household?
0
1
2
3
4
More than 4
Do you own or rent your current place of residence?
Own
Rent
Parent's/family home
Other
Is this your year-round residence?
Yes
No
Total
25.5
56.7
8.6
1.7
7.0
19.5
30.0
21.1
17.8
7.9
2.1
1.2
59.9
16.9
15.3
5.4
1.6
.5
66.1
31.8
1.1
.3
98.0
1.7
Rich
nood
27.9
50.6
11.7
2.4
6.7
22.1
33.4
21.7
13.2
6.1
1.6
1.0
67.6
14.6
11.5
4.3
1.0
.2
62.6
34.0
2.2
0
97.8
1.6
Dur-
ham
29.1
53.5
7.5
3.4
5.9
20.8
30.9
23.6
17.4
4.8
1.2
1.2
60.4
18.0
16.2
3.6
1.4
.4
61.2
37.4
.6
.4
97.8
2.0
Albu
quer
-aue
22.1
58.1
10.7
1.6
6.7
21.1
29.1
20.2
18.8
7.1
2.0
.6
54.9
17.0
19.2
5.5
1.6
.6
66.2
31.4
.6
.4
98.0
1.4
Cin-
cin-
nati
26.1
53.5
8.5
1.4
10.3
24.0
27.9
18.2
14.9
10.3
3.2
1.4
60.0
16.0
13.1
7.1
3.0
.6
66.9
31.7
.4
.4
98.8
1.0
Mid-
dle-
sex
coin
-ty
29.8
56.3
6.6
1.4
5.8
16.5
28.0
21.9
20.3
10.3
2.0
.8
63.4
18.9
12.7
4.0
.8
0
66.2
31.4
2.0
.2
98.4
1.4
Ra-
cine
coun
-ty
19.4
66.4
7.1
.2
6.5
13.4
30.8
21.0
21.5
8.6
2.6
1.8
54.0
17.1
18.5
7.5
1.8
.8
72.2
26.0
1.0
.2
97.4
2.5
Gender
Fe-
Male male
26.9 24.1
63.8 49.5
5.6 11.7
1.1 2.2
1.8 12.2
15.0 23.9
32.5 27.5
21.2 21.0
18.9 16.7
8.6 7.1
2.1 2.1
1.0 1.2
59.9 59.8
18.0 15.9
14.5 16.1
5.3 5.5
1.3 1.9
.4 .4
69.1 63.1
28.9 34.7
1.2 1.0
.2 .3
98.0 98.0
1.5 1.9
Education
Some
HS Coll
or or
less more
23.1 27.3
56.1 57.4
8.3 8.9
2.0 1.5
10.0 4.9
19.2 19.6
29.0 30.8
22.2 20.5
17.3 18.2
8.1 7.8
2.5 1.8
1.4 1.0
60.3 59.7
17.2 16.8
14.6 15.9
5.7 5.2
1. 1.7
.7 .4
63.9 67.9
34.2 30.2
.9 1.2
.4 .2
98.6 97.9
1.3 1.9
Age
Less More
than 30- then
30 50 50
yrs. yrs. yrs.
62.0 19.2 7.3
35.4 65.4 59.9
1.7 11.9 8.8
.8 2.3 1.3
0 1.0 22.4
14.8 14.1 32.1
31.6 21.1 44.1
24.9 22.8 15.3
15.5 26.6 5.4
7.8 11.5 2.1
3.1 2.7 .4
2.3 1.1 .3
61.3 40.8 91.0
20.5 21.5 6.6
12.3 24.9 2.0
3.5 9.5 .2
1.9 2.4 0
.5 .6 0
42.8 70.8 77.7
52.5 28.1 21.7
4.2 .2 .2
.3 .3 .2
94.7 99.1 99.6
5.3 .7 .4
-------
Commoni ty
Question
38. How many years have you (lived in/been coming to) your community?
Less than 6 months
6 months to one year
1 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
10 to 15 years
Hore than 15 years
39. Are you currently employed outside the home? (X Yes)
Full-time
Part-time
Not employed outside the home
O
1 40. (Not encloved - 0. 39) Are you ?
•.j A hofnefnaker
A student
Retired
Disabled
Temporarily laid off
Mot employed/ look ing for work
Sel f * employed
i>2. (Yes to Full- or Part-time • 0. 39) What is your exact job
profession, or line of work?
Health care provider (net)
Physicians, dentists, and related practitioners (sub-net)
Nurses, dieticians, and therapists (sub-net)
Health technologies and technicians (sub-net)
Heal th- related professionals (net)
Professional, technical other than health (net)
Managers and administrators other than farm (net)
Craftsmen and kindred workers (net)
Operatives, except transport (net)
Total
1.5
2.5
12.9
7rt
.y
8.6
66.3
63.3
9.5
26.9
33.7
6.0
42.1
7 A
.O
1.7
5.3
1.9
7.6
14.5
49.7
12.1
1.6
21.5
13.9
11.7
5.7
Rich
mood
1.4
1.6
13.8
77
• I
9.3
65.6
67.4
8.7
23.3
33.9
4.2
44.9
1.7
5.1
1 7
7.3
3.6
39.3
3.6
1.3
17.9
16.9
10.1
4.4
Dur-
ham
1.6
4.4
17.2
1ft T
1U,J
9.3
57.0
69.3
7.9
22.6
23.7
10.5
48.2
.9
6.1
1.8
12.6
8.2
53.1
18.4
1.5
27.7
9.0
10.0
5.4
Albu
quer
-oue
2.2
2.8
15.6
12.3
54.0
58.5
8.5
32.2
31.3
6.1
41.1
1.2
8.6
2.5
5.3
11.1
55.6
11.1
2.1
27.7
18.9
10.3
2.9
Cin-
cin-
nati
1.0
2.2
7.9
5.1
80.2
56.2
10.9
32.7
37.0
7.9
38.2
3.0
3.6
2.4
8.6
10.3
48.3
13.8
1.5
18.9
13.6
11.8
6.5
Mid-
dle-
sex
coun
•ty
1.6
2.8
15.9
7.8
62.8
66.6
10.1
23.3
36.8
5.1
37.6
1.7
4.3
1.7
5.4
19.0
47.6
14.3
2.1
22.8
10.4
13.7
3.1
Ra-
cine
coun
•tv
1.3
1.7
7.9
8.1
76.0
61.9
10.4
27.5
37.3
3.0
44.0
1.2
4.2
1.2
6.4
3.6
53.6
7.1
1.1
15.1
15.1
15.6
11.0
Gender
Fe-
Male male
1.7 1.4
2.7 2.4
14.3 11.5
9.3 7.9
64.2 68.3
75.7 50.7
6.5 12.4
17.3 36.7
2.2 48.8
7.3 5.4
64.1 31.6
2.9 1.1
7.7 4.2
3.3 1.2
3.3 13.3
37.2 6.9
34.9 54.6
16.3 10.8
.7 2.8
23.4 19.0
16.3 10.7
19.3 1.6
5.8 5.6
Education
Some
HS Col I
or or
less more
1.0
1.0
6.7
7.1
78.8
52.4
10.6
36.9
35.6
3.0
40.8
2.4
5.4
1.1
4.0
0
25.0
9.4
.4
4.6
9.4
19.1
11.1
1.8
3.6
17.2
90
• O
9.7
57.9
71.0
8.7
20.1
31.4
9.9
43.7
.8
5.4
2.9
9.4
18.0
54.7
12.9
2.2
30.6
16.3
7.7
2.8
Age
Less More
than 30- than
30 50 50
yrs. yrs. vrs.
3.2 1.4 .3
4.6 2.7 .6
18.4 14.5 5.8
9"* OP en
.3 O.O D.U
7.0 11.2 5.7
57.5 61.2 82.6
70.8 78.3 32.8
14.1 8.3 7.9
15.2 13.3 59.3
38.5 58.0 23.5
31.2 8.0 .2
0 2.0 65.7
5.5 4.0 0
18.3 10.5 .8
.9 4.5 1.1
7.6 8.4 4.7
17.4 14.7 5.9
34.8 56.9 41.2
19.6 10.1 5.9
.7 2.1 1.4
19.4 22.6 21.1
9.7 15.1 16.7
13.1 11.6 9.9
5.1 5.9 6.0
-------
Community
Question
Transport equipment operatives (net)
Laborers, except farm (net)
Farmers and farm managers (net)
Private household workers (net)
43. Does anyone in your household have a job that requires working
with industrial chemicals?
Yes
No
44/45. Does anyone in your immediate family work as a health professional?
O Who would that be?
Ivj Yes - health professional in fimwdtate family (O. 44)
w Husband (0. 45)
Wife (0. 45)
Son/stepson (0. 45)
Daughter/stepdaughter (Q. 45)
Brother (0. 45)
Sister (0. 45)
Father/stepfather (Q. 45)
Mother/stepmother (0. 45)
No - no health professional in immediate family (0. 44)
46. (Yes to 0. 44) What type of health professional is your family member?
Health care provider (net)
Nurses, dieticians, and therapists (sub-net)
Physicians, dentists, and related practitioners (sub-net)
Health technologies and technitians (sub-net)
Health service workers (sub-net)
Health-related professionals (net)
Total
2.6
2.2
.2
.3
16.6
82.8
11.9
6.4
27.9
5.4
20.4
6.7
21.4
9.1
11.0
87.6
89.8
52.5
22.3
11.0
10.2
7.5
Rich
mond
2.6
1.3
0
.8
12.5
87.0
10.7
7.4
29.6
3.7
14.8
7.4
16.7
18.5
9.3
88.3
90.7
44.9
31.5
7.4
9.3
7.4
Dur-
ham
1.8
1.5
0
.5
13.3
86.1
16. 6
10.7
27.4
2.4
17.9
8.3
22.6
13.1
10.7
83.0
88.1
48.6
26.2
14.3
6.0
7.1
Albu
quer
-oue
2.1
.9
.3
.3
15.6
83.2
12.6
10.9
28.1
7.8
15.6
1.6
20.3
7.8
12.5
86.6
95.3
44.3
25.0
17.2
10.9
3.1
Cin-
cin-
nati
2.9
2.1
.3
0
16.2
83.6
11.9
5.0
28.3
6.7
23.3
8.3
18.3
5.0
8.3
87.7
88.3
54.7
16.7
8.3
10.0
8.3
Mid-
dle-
sex
coun
•ty
2.1
3.1
0
.3
15.5
83.5
10.7
1.9
18.5
9.3
25.9
3.7
33.3
3.7
13.0
88.9
87.0
63.8
1418.
11.1
9.3
13.0
Ra-
cine
coun
-ty
4.1
3.9
.7
0
24.7
75.2
9.4
0
35.1
3.5
26.3
10.5
17.5
5.3
12.3
90.4
89.5
62.7
520.1
5.3
17.5
7.0
Gender
Fe-
Male male
4.4 .3
3.2 .8
.3 .1
0 .7
18.3 14.7
80.7 85.0
13.3 10.6
.5 14.0
49.3 .6
4.8 6.1
14.4 28.0
3.8 10.4
18.2 25.6
8.6 9.8
7.7 15.2
86.0 89.2
92.8 86.0
55.2 48.9
25.0 16.8
13.4 7.9
11.0 9.1
6.2 9.1
Education
Some
HS Col I
or or
less more
5.3 1.2
4.4 1.0
.3 .2
.6 .1
16.7 16.5
82.7 83.2
7.5 14.9
4.2 7.2
20.0 30.7
6.3 5.1
30.5 17.0
2.1 8.3
30.5 17.4
6.3 9.7
9.5 11.6
91.9 84.9
93.7 88.4
48.3 54.3
24.2 24.1
14.7 9.7
13.7 8.7
2.1 9.4
Less
than
30
yrs.
2.5
3.0
.5
0
19.9
79.2
12.1
4.6
17.2
0
0
11.5
34.5
20.7
24.1
87.5
93.1
48.1
22.0
16.1
11.5
5.7
Age
More
30- than
50 50
yrs. vrs.
2.7 2.7
2.2 1.1
.1 .3
.3 .8
20.6 7.3
79.0 92.7
11.8 12.2
8.5 4.6
39.5 17.4
1.1 16.5
4.7 57.8
7.9 .9
23.2 8.3
9.0 0
10.7 .9
88.0 87.5
89.8 87.2
50.9 58.9
21.1 17.2
9.6 9.2
12.4 5.5
7.3 9.2
-------
Contnuni ty
O
I
Question
47.
the
48.
49.
How often would you say you are asked for advice on chemical risks in
environment?
Often
Sometimes
Never
In the past month, have you experienced ? (X yes)
Irritation of the eyes, nose, or throat
Headaches
Shortness of breath
Nausea
Skin rashes
No to all
(Has experienced (0. 48)) Did you consult a doctor about
Total
4.0
24.3
71.2
36.8
36.1
18.4
12.8
11.7
39.8
Rich
mond
3.2
24.7
71.1
36.2
36.4
15.8
11.9
12.1
40.3
Dur-
ham
3.2
27.9
68.1
28.9
33.7
12.5
11.7
12.1
45.9
Albu
quer
-due
4.9
20.8
73.5
35.6
32.4
11.7
10.5
10.1
42.1
Cin-
cin-
nati
5.0
23.0
71.9
40.0
40.0
20.8
14.7
13.5
36.8
Mid-
dle-
sex
coun
-ty
4.2
26.2
69.0
44.7
43.7
22.3
17.7
11.3
34.2
Ra-
cine
coun
•ty
3.6
23.3
73.0
35.4
31.3
26.0
10.6
11.3
39.6
Gender
Fe-
Male male
5.3 2.6
26.7 21.9
67.0 75.4
31.3 42.3
26.3 46.0
14.8 22.1
8.2 17.4
9.1 14.3
49.0 30.5
Education
Some
HS Coll
or or
less more
2.5 5.0
21.0 26.5
75.8 68.3
32.7 39.6
35.3 36.8
21.5 16.2
13.3 12.3
10.4 12.5
42.4 38.0
Age
Less More
than 30- than
30 50 50
vrs. vrs. yrs.
3.6 4.5 3.5
22.7 25.8 23.3
73.3 69.4 72.9
38.4 39.8 30.2
42.8 39.9 24.7
14.6 17.7 22.5
17.1 12.7 9.3
12.1 13.5 8.5
34.8 36.8 48.4
this problem? (X yes)
50.
was
Headache
Nausea
Irritation of eyes, nose, or throat
Shortness of breath
Skin rashes
(Has experienced (0. 48)) Do you think the
caused by chemicals in the air, water, or soil?
Headache
Nausea
Irritation of eyes, nose, or throat
Shortness of breath
Skin rashes
22.5
35.3
27.0
39.4
42.4
20.1
28.1
50.4
41.2
27.6
27.7
35.0
31.7
45.0
52.5
16.9
10.0
48.6
31.3
29.5
24.1
38.9
29.5
47.6
49.2
10.0
25.4
41.1
25.4
13.1
18.9
43.4
28.3
47.5
43.1
16.5
18.9
30.6
23.7
21.6
26.2
36.5
30.7
47.6
36.8
25.3
35.1
54.5
41.9
30.1
20.0
32.6
25.8
36.6
47.4
26.4
38.2
60.0
48.2
38.6
18.0
28.1
18.2
26.8
27.9
28.0
32.8
60.8
53.5
30.9
16.9 25.7
28.7 38.5
22.7 30.3
38.2 40.2
38.9 44.6
21.0 21.0
27.1 28.5
51.5 49.5
38.6 42.9
23.6 30.2
26.5 20.0
39.3 32.5
28.8 26.2
46.0 33.9
47.7 39.0
20.9 20.9
32.7 24.6
49.2 51.0
39.3 42.5
32.6 25.1
18.9 19.9 34.8
26.8 34.0 51.8
22.5 24.5 37.3
35.2 28.6 55.9
44.8 33.2 64.5
19.5 21.2 22.2
27.6 26.2 33.7
46.4 53.3 48.3
44.8 45.1 34.2
27.6 26.7 30.3
-------
Communi ty
O
I
NJ
Question
51. Have you or any member of your immediate family had cancer or children
with birth defects?
Yes
No
52. (Yes to 0. 51) Do you think this was caused by chemicals in the air,
water, or soi I?
Yes
No
Don't know
53. Which of the following best describes your total annual household
income, before taxes?
Less than $20,000
$20,000 up to $35,000
$35,000 up to $50,000
$50,000 or over
Refused
54. Gender of respondent
Male
Female
Total
26.4
73.0
24.7
64.1
11.0
22.0
31.1
22.3
18.8
47
. (
50.3
49.7
Rich
mond
21.5
77.7
18.3
65.1
16.5
23.9
29.1
21.1
20.0
/ C
H.3
48.8
51.2
Dur-
ham
25.5
73.7
22.5
68.2
9.3
22.4
28.9
22.2
21.4
49.5
50.5
Albu
qjjer
-que
25.1
73.7
19.7
70.9
9.4
24.7
33.2
20.4
15.8
53.4
46.6
Cin-
cin-
nati
28.3
71.3
27.3
61.5
10.5
28.5
30.5
20.0
15.8
49.5
50.5
Mid-
dle-
sex
coun
-ty
30.8
68.4
33.5
53.5
12.9
11.7
28.4
26.8
25.8
49.7
50.3
Ra-
cine
coun
•tv
26.8
73.2
24.1
67.3
8.6
21.0
35.6
23.2
14.9
51.0
49.0
Ger
Male
22.0
76.8
22.8
64.6
12.4
14.9
30.4
25.8
23.7
--
--
xter
Fe-
male
30.8
69.1
26.2
63.8
10.0
29.3
31.8
18.8
13.9
--
--
Education
Some
HS Col I
or or
less more
27.0 26.1
72.3 73.6
24.3 25.1
66.3 62.5
9.4 12.2
34.7 13.4
32.4 30.3
17.7 25.6
8.5 26.0
44.6 54.2
55.4 45.8
Aqe
Less More
than 30- than
30 50 50
vrs. vrs. yrs.
21.2 25.6 32.3
78.0 74.1 67.3
26.3 30.2 16.6
65.8 59.1 69.9
7.9 10.7 13.1
23.0 14.5 34.0
38.9 29.4 28.2
20.9 27.5 15.1
13.2 24.3 14.5
53.6 52.3 44.6
46.4 47.7 55.4
------- |