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

-------