May 1994
Chesapeake Bay
Attitudes Survey
Chesapeake Bay Program
i Printed on recycled paper
-------
Chesapeake Bay
Attitudes Survey
Chesapeake Bay Program
Communications Subcommittee
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
Final Report
April 28, 1994
OMB Clearance # 204~16S
The Chesapeake Bay Attitudes Survey
Submitted by the Survey Research Center
University of Maryland
Project Manager
Johnny Blair
Project Coordinator
Gregory Slater
Research Assistant
Amy McLaughlin
-------
Table
of
Contents
Executive
Summary......
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.
Overall
results
3
Perception of Water Quality and Recreational Use.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Causes of Pollution............. e... . . ...... . ....... ..... ... . .....7
Opinions About Clean-Up Efforts.
................................ .9
2.
Analysis
by
States
12
Pennsylvania.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
All
states. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
3.
Opinions
by
Distance
from the
Bay
24
4.
Differences
by Demographic
Characteristics
29
Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Ra c e. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0
Age. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ." . . . 31
Income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.
Survey Methods
36
Sample......
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
Questionnaire and Data Collection.
.. . ..... . . . .... . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .36
Survey Rates and Resul ts.
...... . . . . . . . ..... . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .... .. .39
Sample
Weights. .
................................................ .40
6.
Appendices
42
-------
Executive Summary
The Survey Research Center at the University of Maryland at College Park conducted
a survey of residents of counties in the watershed of the Chesapeake Bay. The counties are
located in the Commonwealths of Virginia and Pennsylvania, the state of Maryland, and the
District of Columbia. The survey was sponsored by the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay and
conducted for the Chesapeake Bay Program in conjunction with the United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
The target population for this telephone survey was adults age 18 or older residing in
telephone households in the watershed of the Chesapeake Bay. The goal of the study was to
provide baseline data on the attitudes, behaviors and opinions of the residents about pollution,
water quality, funding, and clean-up efforts for the Bay and its tributaries. Therefore, the data
represents both the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed and the individual jurisdictions. The
survey was conducted from October 6, 1993 through January 27, 1994 and 2,004 respondents
were interviewed. The margin of error for the overall data is between 2 and 3 percent.
The study found that 85 % of all respondents were either very concerned or somewhat
concerned with pollution in the Bay. This level of concern for pollution in the Bay varied by
distance from the Bay. Approximately 90% of those living less than 50 miles from the Bay,
84% of those living 50 to 100 miles from the Bay and 80% of those living over 100 miles from
the Bay said that they were either very concerned or somewhat c~ncerned' with pollution in the
Bay.
Overall about a third of respondents thought that business and industry was the main
1
-------
cause of pollution in the Bay, 7 % thought individuals were the main cause of pollution, and 3 %
thought farmers were the main cause of pollution in the Bay. When respondents were asked if
they knew whether their state government was working with the federal government to help
reduce pollution in the Bay about half said yes. But when those who said yes were asked if they
knew the name of this group of governments working together only 12 % said they did. Out of
the 2,004 respondents, 4 correctly identified the name of the group as the Chesapeake Bay
Program.
About half of the respondents thought the Bay was more polluted today compared to ten
years ago, 20% thought it was less polluted, 18% thought the Bay pollution was about the same,
and 16% said they didn't know.
Approximately half of all respondents said that the Bay clean-up was one of the most
important problems relative to other social, economic, and environmental problems that
governments must resolve, 40% said the Bay clean-up was important, but not the most important
problem, and 8 % thought that the Bay clean-up was one of the least important problems.
2
-------
1. Overall results
PerceDtion of Water Ouality and Recreational Use
This section presents the results aggregated across all respondents. All respondents were
asked to rate their familiarity with the Chesapeake Bay and to rate their level of concern with
pollution in the Bay as well. Only those respondents who reported that they were either very
or somewhat familiar with the Bay or the Susquehanna1 and either very or somewhat concerned
with pollution in the Bay or Susquehanna, were asked subsequent questions on water quality and
recreational use. As Table 1 shows, 14% of all respondents said they were very familiar with
Chesapeake Bay, 38% were somewhat familiar, 22% were not very familiar, and 26% were not
at all familiar with the Bay2.
Pennsylvania residents were also asked to rate their familiarity with the Susquehanna
river. The results are also included in Table 1. Two-thirds of those sampled in Pennsylvania
said they were either very familiar (21 %) or somewhat familiar (44%) with the Susquehanna,
while 20% said they were not very familiar and 15% said they were not at all familiar with the'
Susquehanna.
1 Questions about the Susquehanna River were asked only of Pennsylvania residents.
2 The "don't know" and "refused" responses were excluded this analysis.
3
-------
Table 1-
Overall Familiarity with
Bay/Susquehanna
(Percent of all respondents)
Chesapeake Bay
n = 1996
Susquehanna
n =478
Very familiar 14% 21%
Somewhat familiar 38 44
Not very familiar 22 20
Not at all familiar 26 15
100%
100%
- Weighted sample used'; "don't know" and "refused" responses were excluded; columns may not add to 100 due to rounding.
All respondents were also asked how concerned they were with pollution in the Bay. In
addition, Pennsylvania residents were asked about their concern with pollution in the.
Susquehanna. Table 2 shows that half of all respondents were very concerned with pollution in
the Bay, 37% were somewhat concerned, 7% were not very concerned, and only 6% said they
were not at all concerned with pollution in the Bay.
Similarly, eight out of ten Pennsylvania respondents said they were either very concerned
(42%) or somewhat concerned (43%) with pollution in the Susquehanna. Only 7% said they
were not very concerned and 8 % said they were not at all concerned about pollution in the
Susquehanna. These results are also presented in Table 2.
3 The weighting procedures are fully explained in the methods section.
4
-------
Table 2.
Overall Concern with Pollution
in Bay/Susquehanna
(percent of all respondents)
Chesapeake Bay Susquehanna
n=1958 n=472
Very concerned 50% 42%
Somewhat concerned 37 43
Not very concerned 7 7
Not at all concerned 6 8
100%
100%
. Weighted sample used; "don't know" and "refused" responses were excluded; columns may not add to 100 due to rounding.
Respondents who reported being familiar with the Bay were asked if pollution in the Bay
caused them to do less of, or stop doing, any recreational activities. Nearly eight out of ten
respondents (78 %) said that pollution in the Bay had not caused them to do less of, or stop
doing, any of the things they used to do for recreation, 20% of respondents said it had.
Pennsylvania respondents familiar with the Susquehanna were also asked about changes
in their recreational activities. Again, eight out of ten (79 %) said pollution had not caused them
to do less of, or stop doing, any of the things they used to do for recreation on the Susquehanna,
21 % said it had.
We also examined differences between respondents on issues of safe water quality. Only
those who were either very or somewhat familiar with the Bay were asked questions about
safety. Of the respondents who were asked how safe the water quality in the Bay was, 68 %
thought the water quality was unsafe for aquatic life, 60 % thought the water quality was unsafe
5
-------
for swimming, and 53% thought the water quality made eating seafood unsafe.
If a respondent said that the current water quality was not very safe in at least two ways,
they were asked which should have the highest safety priority. Sixty-seven percent thought the
highest safety priority should be for aquatic life, 20% thoughtall had equally high priority, 12 %
thought that being able to eat the seafood was the highest priority, and 1 % thought swimming
should be the highest safety priority.
Pennsylvania. residents were also asked about water quality safety priorities for the
Susquehanna. The results were similar to those about the Bay, 71 % reported that the highest
safety priority should be for aquatic life, 22 % reported all had equally high priority, 5 %
reported that being able to eat the seafood was the highest priority, and 2 % reported swimming
safety should be the highest safety priority.
6
-------
Table 3.
.Highest Safety Priority
(percent of all respondents)
Chesapeake Bay
n=998
Susquehanna
n=282
Safe for swimming
1%
2%
Safe to eat seafood
12
5
Safe for aquatic life
67
71
All equal
20
22
100%
100%
. Weighted Sample used; "don't know" and "refused" responses were excluded; columns may not add to 100 due to rounding.
Finally, all respondents were asked if they thought that there was more pollution in the
Bay, less, or about the same as ten years ago. About half (46%) said that they thought the Bay
was more polluted, 20% thought it was less polluted and 18% thought pollution was about the
same as it was ten years ago.
Causes of Pollution
All respondents were asked which of nine sources they saw as the main causes of
pollution in the Bay (sewage treatment plants, landfills, farming, commercial shipping spills,
construction, other business and industry, population growth, recreational boating, and things
that individuals do). The answers ranged from 74% for other business and industry, 70% for
commercial shipping spills, and 67% for recreational boating, to 54% for landfills, 45% for
construction, and 36% for farming.
. Respondents who identified more than one source as being a main cause of pollution in
7
-------
the Bay were asked which one was the most serious (see Table 4). The source identified most
often as being the most serious cause of pollution in the Bay was business and industry (32 %),
followed by sewage treatment plants (16%) and spills from commercial shipping (15%). Other
sources identified were farming and population growth, with 8% and 9% respectively,
individuals with 7 %, landfills were cited 6 % of the time, and recreational boating was cited 4 %
of the time. Construction was cited as being the main cause of pollution 2 % of the time.
Respondents also were asked to identify which one source was the least serious cause
from among those sources that were identified as not being a main cause of pollution. The
source identified as being the least serious cause of pollution in the Bay was farming (34 % ),
followed by recreational boating (14%) and individuals (14%). Population growth was cited
11 % of the time and construction 11 % of the time. Landfills were cited 6% of the time and
sewage treatment plants were cited 5 % of the time. Spills from commercial shipping was cited
4 % of the time. Finally business and industry was cited as being the least serious cause of
pollution in the Bay 1 % of the time (see Table 4).
8
-------
Table 4.
Most & Least Serious Causes of Pollution
(percent of all respondents)
Percent
Most Serious
n=I,805
Percent
Least Serious
n= 1232
Sewage Treatment 16% 5%
Landfills 6 6
Farming 8 34
Commercial Shipping 15 4
Construction 2 11
Business/Industry 32 1
Population Growth 9 11
Recreational Boating 4 14
Individuals 7 14
100%
100%
. Weighted sample used; "don't know" and "refused" responses were excluded; columns may not add to 100 due to rounding.
DDinions About Clean-UD Efforts
All respondents were asked if the current Bay clean-up efforts were too much, about right
or too little. Only 4% said the current effort to reduce pollution in the Bay was too much.
Another 35 % of respondents said the efforts were just right and six in ten (61 %) said the efforts
to clean-up the Bay were too little.
Respondents were also asked if they or anyone in their household had ever participated
in any Bay pollution reduction activities. Seventy-eight percent reported they had not, 21 %
9
-------
reporting that they had, and 2% said they didn't know. When respondents were asked to .
describe how active they were in reducing pollution in general, 17% said they were very active.
Just over half (51 %) of all respondents described themselves as somewhat active and 32% said
they were not very active.
Respondents were then asked to identify whether new funding for improving the Bay
environment should be spent mostly on prevention of additional pollution or on repairing damage
already caused by pollution (see Table 5). Slightly less than half (47%) said that most of the new
funding should be spent on preventing more pollution, 41 % said most of the new funding should
be spent on repairing damage already done, and 12 % said both should be funded equally.
Table 5
Funding to Prevent Pollution or
to Repair Damage.
(Percent of all respondents)
n=I,915
Prevention
47%
Repair
41
Other
12
100%
. Weighted sample used; "don't know" and "refused" responses were excluded; colwnns may not add to 100 due to rounding.
Those who said funding should be spent for preventing additional pollution were asked
how the funds should be spent (see Table 6). Enforcement of regulations was the number one
choice with 40% of the responses, followed by education (30%), scientific research (10%),
technical assistance to volunteer groups (12%), with 8% suggesting something else.
10
i .
I
-------
Table 6
How to spend Pollution
Prevention Funds.
(percent of all respondents)
n=857
Education
30%
Scientific Research
10
Enforcement
40
Technical Assistance to
Volunteer Groups
12
Other
8
100%
. Weighted sample used; "don't know" and "refused" responses were excluded; columns may not add to 100 due to rounding.
Those who said funding should be spent on repairing damage already caused by pollution
were asked where those funds should be spent (see Table 7). More than half (54%) said the
funding should be spent on reducing water pollution, 19% said restoring wildlife areas, and 8%
said encouraging public participation. Replenishing the fish population was cited by 9 % and
something else mentioned 10 % of the time.
11
-------
Table 7
How to Spend Poilution
Repair Funds.
(Percent of all respondents)
n=763
Restore wildlife
19%
Replenish fish
9
Public participation
8
. Reduce water poll.
54
Other
10
100%
. Weighted sample used; "don't know" and "refused" responses were excluded; columns may not add to 100 due to rounding.
2. Analysis by States
Analysis was done by geopolitical unit.
Pennsylvania
Of the signatory jurisdictions to the Chesapeake Bay agreement, Pennsylvania is the only
jurisdiction that does not physically touch the Bay. However, because Pennsylvania is home to
444 miles of the Susquehanna River which supplies 50% of the fresh water to the Bay, it plays
a major role in the health of the Bay.
Because most Pennsylvanians live hundreds of miles from the Chesapeake Bay, the Bay
Attitudes Survey also asked Pennsylvania respondents questions relating specifically to the
Susquehanna River, as well as to the Bay. Pennsylvanians had a greater familiarity and concern
with the Susquehanna River than with the Chesapeake Bay. However, their overall concern for
the Susquehanna River resembled the other jurisdiction's overall concern for the Bay, with 87%
12
-------
of the respondents in Pennsylvania indicating that they were very concerned or somewhat
concerned about pollution in the Susquehanna.
Sixty-three percent of the Pennsylvania respondents said that they were either very
familiar or somewhat familiar with the Susquehanna River compared to 52 percent of the other
jurisdictions who said they were very familiar or somewhat familiar with the Chesapeake Bay.
All States
When collapsing the categories very familiar and somewhat familiar Marylanders rank
first in familiarity with the Bay among the four regions. More than six out of ten respondents
in Maryland (67%) had some familiarity with the Bay. Virginia followed closely with 56% of
respondents reporting at least some familiarity with the Bay. In the District of Columbia, 43 %
reported some familiarity with the Bay, and in Pennsylvania about one in three reported being
at least somewhat familiar with the Bay. In Table 8, the four areas are shown individually with
the overall results. Overall, the differences reported by state in this section are statistically
significant unless otherwise noted4.
4 Runs are reported as significant if the P value for the Chi Square statistic is .05 or less.
This means that the chance of a relationship as strong as the observed one being attributable to
sampling error alone is no more than 5 in 100. .
13
-------
Table 8
Familiarity with Bay by State.
(Percent of all respondents)
DC MD PA VA Total * *
n=471 n=506 n=516 n=519 n=1996
Very familiar 10% 19% 4% 15% 14%
Somewhat familiar 33 46 24 41 38
Not very familiar 26 21 24 22 22
Not at all familiar 31 14 47 21 26
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
. Weighted sample used; "don't know" and "refused" responses were excluded; columns may not add to 100 due to rounding.
..For the following tables in this section, the total column is not tile sum of the four regions. 11 is based on a weight that adjusts for the different proportion
of the population of the watershed in each of the four regions. s~ the Methods section for a complete explanation of the different weights used.
When asked how concerned they were with pollution in the Bay,
overwhelmingly
respondents in all regions had a high level of concern (see Table 9).
About nine in ten
respondents in both Maryland and Virginia, 92 % and 88 % respectively, expressed being either
very concerned or somewhat concerned with pollution in the Bay.
About eight in ten
. respondents from the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania, 83% and 77% respectively, said
they were either very concerned or somewhat concerned.
14
-------
Table 9
Concern with Pollution in Bay
by State.
(Percent of all respondents)
DC MD PA VA Total
n=454 n=501 n =493 n=513 n=.1958
Very concerned 49% 57% 34% 53% 50%
Somewhat concerned 34 35 43 35 37
Not very concerned 9 4 11 7 7
Not at all concerned ' 7 4 12 4 6
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
. W~ightcd sampl~ used; "don't know" and "refused" respons~s w~r~ ~xcluded; columns may not add to 100 du~ to rounding.
We also examined opinion differences on safe water quality by state, though these
differences were not statistically significant. Nearly 70% each in the District of Columbia,
Maryland and Virginia said the highest water quality safety priority should be for aquatic life.
In Pennsylvania 60% reported that making the water safe for aquatic life should be the highest
priority (see Table 10).
15
-------
Table 10
Highest Safety Priority
by State-
(percent of respondents meeting criteria)
DC MD PA VA Total
n = 197 n=315 n=139 n=282 n=998
Swimming 2% 1% 2% 1% 1%
Eat seafood 14 10 17 12 12
Aquatic life 67 67 60 70 67
All equal 16 22 21 17 20
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
- Weighted sample used; "don't mow" and "refused" responses were excluded; columns may not add to 100 due to rounding.
When asked what the most serious cause of pollution was in the Bay, respondents in
Maryland (33%), Pennsylvania (37%), and Virginia (29%) were more likely to cite business and
industry over all other sources (see Table 11). Respondents in the District of Columbia cited
sewage treatment. plants (23 %) as the most serious cause, however that was followed closely by
business and industry (22%). Commercial shipping spills was cited 19% of the time by Virginia
respondents, 14% of the time by Maryland respondents, 14% of the time by District of
Columbia respondents, and farming was cited 11 % of the time by Pennsylvania respondents.
Sewage treatment was cited third most often as the most serious cause of pollution in the Bay
by Marylanders (16%), Pennsylvanians (15%) and Virginians (15%) (see Table 11).
16
-------
Table 11
.Most Serious Cause of
Pollution by State.
DC MD PA VA Total
n=423 n =469 n=453 n=466 n = 1805
Sewage Treatment 23% 16% 15% 15% 16%
Landfills 6 7 10 4 6
Farming 4 8 11 8 8
Commercial Ship. 14 14 10 19 15
Spills
Construction 3 3 3 2 2
Business/Industry 22 33 37 29 32
Population Growth 8 8 7 11 9
Rec. Boating 8 4 3 6 4
Individuals 11 8 5 7 7
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
. Weighted sample used; "don't know" and "refused" responses were excluded; columns may not add to 100 due to rounding.
Respondents were asked how important restoration of the Bay was compared to other
social, economic and environmental problems which federal, state, and local governments must
resolve. About 60% of Maryland respondents thought that the Bay restoration was one of the'
most important problems governments must resolve. About 50% of Virginia and District of
Columbia respondents thought it was one of the most im~ortant problems and about 40% of
Pennsylvania respondents thought so. (see Table 12).
17
-------
Table 12
Importance of Bay Restoration
by State.
(percent of all respondents)
DC MD PA VA Total
n=441 n =499 n =488 n =503 n = 1933
One of the most important 48% 57% 42% 49% 50%
Important, but not the most 37 35 48 43 41
One of the least important 11 7 8 7 7
Not important at all 3 1 2 1 1
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
. Weighted sample used; "doo't know" and "refused" responses were excluded; colwnns may not add to 100 due to rounding.
When respondents were asked if the current effort to reduce pollution in the Bay was too
much, about right, or too little, about six in ten respondents in Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, and the District of Columbia thought that the current efforts to reduce pollution in the
Bay were too little (see Table 13), though these differences between states are not statistically
significant.
18
-------
Table 13
Effort to Reduce Bay Pollution
by State.
(percent of respondents answering)
DC MD PA VA Total
n=374 n=436 n=377 n=432 n = 1631
Too much 7% 5% 5% 3% 4%
About right 29 35 37 34 35
Too little 64 60 58 62 61
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
. W~ighted sampl~ used; "don't know" and "refused" respons~s w~re ~xcluded; columns may not add to 100 du~ to rounding.
Respondents in each of the four areas were asked their perceptions on how much their
state government has helped manage pollution reduction in the Bay. Maryland respondents were
more likely to say that their government had helped a great deal (18%) than respondents in the
other states reported. Respondents in the District of Columbia were more likely to say that their
government helped little (45%) or none (15%) than respondents in the other states. Nearly eight
out of ten respondents in both Virginia (78 %) and Maryland (78 %) thought that their
governments had either helped a great deal or some in reducing pollution in the Bay. About
seven out of ten respondents in Pennsylvania thought their government had helped some or a
great deal (see Table 14).
19
-------
. Table 14
Has State Government Helped Manage
Bay Pollution Reduction By State.
(Percent of all respondents)
DC MD PA VA
n=362 n=431 n=368 n=419
Great deal 11% 18% 13% 9%
Smne 30 60 60 67
Little 45 18 23 19
None 15 4 4 4
100%
100%
100%
100%
. Weighted sample used; "don't know" and "refused" responses were excluded; columns may not add 10 100 due 10 rounding.
Respondents were asked if they or anyone in their household had participated in any Bay
pollution reduction activities. Nearly nine out of ten in the District of Columbia said neither
they nor anyone else in the household had participated in any pollution reduction activities, as
did nine out of ten in Pennsylvania, and eight out of ten in Virginia. In Maryland nearly seven
out of ten said neither they nor anyone in their household had participated in any Bay pollution
. reduction activities (see Table 15).
20
-------
Table 15
Participated in Bay Cleanup
by State.
(Percent of all respondents)
DC ~ PA VA Total
n =467 n=503 n=5oo n=512 n = 1967
Yes 14% 34% 7% 18% 21%
No 86 66 93 82 79
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
. We:ighted sample: usc:d; "don't know" and "rdusc:d" response:s we:re e:xcludc:d; colwnns may not add to 100 due: to rounding.
Overall, respondents describing their level of pollution reduction activity in the
environment in general as very active was 17% (see Table 16).
Approximately half of
respondents in all areas said they were somewhat active, and about a third of respondents in all
areas said they were not very active in helping to reduce pollution in general in the environment.
The differences between the states are not statistically significant.
Table 16
Level of Pollution Reduction Activity
by State.
(Percent of all respondents)
DC MD PA VA Total
n =465 n=504 n=506 n=518 n=1982
Very active 17% 17% 17% 17% 17%
Somewhat active 46 51 50 54 51
Not very active 37 32 33 29 32
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
. weighted sample: usc:d; "don't know" and "re:fused" response:s were e:xc1uded; columns may not add to 100% due: to rounding.
21
-------
We also examined the differences between the total sample and individual states on
funding issues. We asked respondents whether new funding for improving the Bay environment
should be spent mostly on prevention of additional pollution or on repairing damage already
caused by pollution.
. .
Similar to the overall sample results, Virginia and Pennsylvania
respondents were more likely to cite prevention over repair and District of Columbia respondents
more likely to cite repair. Marylanders were evenly split on this issue (see Table 17).
Those who said funding should be spent on preventing additional pollution were asked
where the funds should be spent. There was little difference between state results and the
overall sample. Overall, 40% of respondents said funding should be spent on enforcement.
However, in District of Columbia 32 % said enforcement. The differences between the states
are not statistically significant.
Overall results on repairing the damage already caused by pollution issue were similar
to the state results with the exception of District of Columbia. Overall, 19% thought funding
for repair should be spent on restoring wildlife areas, while 10 % of DC respondents thought that'
should be the priority. Overall, 54 % thought funding for repair should be spent on reducing
water pollution, while 63% in DC thought so (see Table 19).
22
-------
Table 17
Funding to Prevent Pollution or
to Repair Damage by State.
(Percent of all respondents)
DC MD PA VA Total
n=445 n=496 n=485 n =494 n= 1916
Prevention 44% 43% 51% 48% 47%
Repair 48 43 38 40 41
Other 8 13 11 12 12
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
. Weighted sample used; "don't know" and "refused" responses were excluded; columns may not add to 100% due to rounding.
Table 18
How to spend Pollution
Prevention Funds by State.
(Percent of all respondents)
DC MD PA VA Total
n = 189 n = 208 n=232 n=228 n=859
Education 31% 33% 28% 27% 30%
Scientific Research 16 9 11 10 10
Enforcement 32 39 42 42 40
Tech Assistance to 11 8 14 13 12
Volunteer Groups
Other 10 10 5 8 8
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
. Weighted sample used; "don't know" and "refused" responses were excluded; columns may not add to 100% due to rounding.
23
-------
Table 19
. How to Spend Pollution'
Repair Funds by State.
(percent of all respondents)
DC MD PA VA Total
n=207 n =206 n = 175 n=195 n=764
Restore wildlife 10% 18% 21% 20% 19%
Replenish fish 8 9 5 10 9
Public par. 10 8 10 8 8
Reduce water poll. 63 54, 50 56 54
Other 9 11 14 6 10
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
. Weighted sample used; "don't know" and "refused" responses were excluded; columns may not add to 100% due to rounding.
3. Opinions by Distance from the Bay
In this section the data are analyzed by the distance between where the respondent lives
and the Chesapeake Bay. Respondents were grouped into three categories: less than fifty miles
from the Bay, between fifty to one hundred miles from the Bay, and over one hundred miles
from the Bay. Sixty percent of the respondents lived less than fifty miles, 21 % lived between
fifty to one hundred miles from the Bay, and 19% lived over one hundred miles from the Bay.
Familiarity with the Chesapeake Bay was correlated with distance. Of those respondents
who lived less than 50 miles, 61 % were very or somewhat familiar with the Chesapeake Bay.
Of the respondents who lived between fifty and one hundred miles from the Bay 43 % were very
or somewhat familiar with it. The respondents who lived over 100 miles from the Bay were the
24
-------
least familiar; 34% were very or somewhat familiar. Unless otherwise noted, the differences
by distance reported in this section are statistically significant at the .05 level.
Concern with the pollution in the Chesapeake Bay is also correlated with. distance.
Ninety percent of those respondents who live within fifty miles are either very much or
somewhat concerned about the amount of pollution in the Bay. Eighty-four percent of those who
live within fifty to one hundred miles from the Bay are either very much or somewhat concerned
about pollution in the Bay. Similarly, 80% of those who live over 100 miles from the Bay who
are very much or somewhat concerned.
Respondents who live closer to the Bay are also more likely to feel that the restoration
of the Bay is one of the most important problems which state and district governments must
solve. Fifty-four percent of those respondents who live less than 50 miles of the Bay felt
restoration of the Chesapeake Bay to be one of the most important issues compared to 44 % of
those respondents who live between fifty and one hundred miles, and 45 % of those who live
over one hundred miles from the Bay (see Table 20).
25
-------
Table 20
Distance from the Chesapeake Bay
by Importance of Bay Restoration
(percent of all respondents)
Within 50
Miles
n = 1199
Between 50-
100 Miles
n=423
Over 100
Miles
n=381
One of the Most
Important 54% 44% 45%
ImportaIi.t, but
not the most 37 48 47
One of the
least important 8 6 6
Not important
at all 1 2 1
100%
100%
100%
. W~igbted sampl~ used; "don't know" and "refusw" respon~s w~r~ ~xcludw; rows may not add to 100% du~ to rounding.
Distance from the Bay is strongly correlated with the respondent or a member of the
respondent's household having participated in Chesapeake Bay pollution reduction activities.
Twenty-eight percent of those respondents who lived within fifty miles have either participated
or had a household member participate, while 14% of those who lived between fifty and one
hundred miles and 6 % of those who lived over one hundred miles from the Bay have
participated or had a household member participate in Bay pollution reduction activities.
Sixty-three percent of those respondents who live within fifty miles of the Bay reported
. .
that the current effort to reduce Bay pollution is too little. Similarly, 58 % percent of the
respondents who live fifty to one hundred miles away and 55 % of those who live over, one
26
-------
hundred miles away feel current efforts are too little. Few respondents felt current efforts were
too much: 5 % of those less than fifty miles, 5 % fifty to one hundred, and 3 % living over one
hundred miles away.
Of those respondents who live less than fifty miles from the Bay, 49% reported that they
or a household member had stopped using a household product because of concern that it was
polluting the waterways. Forty-six percent of those who live between fifty and one hundred
miles of the Bay have stopped using such products and 42 % of those respondents who live over
one hundred miles from the Bay have stopped using a product because of concern about
pollution.
The following table illustrates use of the Chesapeake Bay for recreational purposes over
the past year by distance from the Bay. Those respondents who live over one hundred miles
from the Bay are less likely than those living closer to have used the Bay at all during the past
year.
Also, 9% of those respondents who live within 50 miles use the Bay weekly for
recreation.
27
-------
Table 21
Distance from the Chesapeake Bay by
How Often Use Bay for Recreation
(percent of all respondents)
Weekly
Monthly
A Few Times
A Year 42 41 31
Not at all 41 49 67
Within 50 Between 50- Over 100
Miles 100 Miles Miles
n = 1199 n=423 n=381
9% 2% 1%
8 8 1
100%
100%
100%
. Weighted sample used; "don't know" and "refused" responses were excluded; rows may not add to 100% due to rounding.
Pollution in the Chesapeake Bay had the greatest impact on the recreation of those
respondents who live within fifty miles of the Bay. Twenty-six percent of these respondents
indicated that the pollution in the Chesapeake Bay caused them to stop doing, or do less of,
things they used to do for recreation. This figure is 14% for both those who live between fifty
and one hundred miles and those who live further than one hundred miles from the Bay.
Regardless of distance, the majority of respondents in each area indicated they believe
that Bay pollution is much worse today than ten years ago, and that business and industry were
the most serious cause of pollution. Farming was considered to be the least serious cause of
pollution in th~ Chesapeake Bay by all respondents with no differences by distance from the
Bay.
28
-------
4. Differences by other Demographic Characteristics
Gender
In this section the relationship of demographic characteristics to attitude, behavior, and
knowledge are analyzed. When we examined familiarity (both very familiar and somewhat
familiar) by gender, males were found to more familiar (58%) with the Bay than females (46%).
This difference is statistically significant as are all the differences reported in this section unless
otherwise noted (see Table 22). However, when the level of concern (both very concerned and
somewhat concerned) was compared by gender that gap closed to just two percent which is not
a statistically significant difference.
About 75 % of males and 80 % of females said they had not participated in any Bay
pollution reduction activities. Only 17% of both males and females said they were very active
in helping to reduce pollution in the environment in general, about half of both said they were
somewhat active, and about a third of each were not very active.
29
-------
Table 22
Familiarity with the Bay
Gender.
(Percent of all respondents)
Male Female Total
n =970 n= 1033 n=2oo4
Very familiar 18% 10% 14%
Somewhat familiar 40 36 38
Not very familiar 23 22 22
Not at all familiar 19 32 26
100%
100%
100%
. Weighted sample used; "doo't know" and "refused" responses were excluded; columns may not add to 100% due to rounding.
Race
With regard to familiarity, 55 % of whites, 43 % of blacks and 42 % of other races were
either very or somewhat familiar with the Bay (see Table 23). However, 88% of whites, 82%
of blacks and 89 % of other races were either very or somewhat concerned with pollution in the
Bay. About 70% of whites, 50% of blacks and 75% of other races thought the highest safety
. priority for water quality should be for aquatic life. A third of blacks, 18% of whites and 13%
of other races thought all had equal priority. When asked about the current effort to reduce
pollution in the Bay, about half of both whites and blacks thought the effort was too little, while
somewhat more than half (56%) of other races thought the,effort was too little. About a third
of whites, a quarter of blacks and 20 % of other races thought the effort was about right.
About two-thirds of all racial groups thought chemicals were more harmful to aquatic life
30
-------
than was animal waste or sewage. When asked if they or household members had participated
in any Bay pollution reduction activities, 76 % of whites, 86 % of blacks and 73 % of other races
said they had not participated. Less than one in five of the respondents in any racial category
(19% blacks, 16% whites, 15% other races) said they were very active in reducing pollution in
the environment in general.
Table 23
Familiarity with the Bay
by Race .
(percent of all respondents)
White Black Other Overall
n= 1531 n=358 n=94 n=1983
Very familiar 15% 8% 12% 14%
Somewhat familiar 40 35 30 38
Not very familiar 21 28 28 22
Not at all familiar 24 29 29 26
100%
100%
100%
100%
. W~ighted sampl~ used; "don't know" and "refused" r~sponses W~~ excluded; columns may not add to 100% due to rounding.
Age
Respondents' answers were analyzed by age group. Respondents were grouped into the
following categories: 18-24 years of age (11 %), 25-34 (21 %), 35-44 (23%), 45-54 (19%), 55-
64 (12%), and 65 and over (14%).
Responqents were asked how much pollution in the Bay concerned them. Table 24 shows
the breakdown by age. Ninety-two percent of those respondents aged 35-44 rated themselves
either very much concerned or somewhat concerned. The group that rated lowest on concern
31
-------
was respondents aged 65 and over.
Table 24
. Concern about Chesapeake Bay Pollution by Age
(percent of all respondents)
Very Much Somewhat Not very Not at all
Concerned Concerned Concerned Concerned
18-24 44% 42% 12% 2% 100%
(n=225)
25-34 48% 40 6 5 100%
(n=394)
35-44 56% 36 5 2 100%
(n=454)
45-54 52% 35 7 7 100%
(n=367)
55-64 52% 33 7 8 100%
(n=221)
65+ 42% 33 10 15 100%
(n=255)
Total 50% 37 7 6 100%
(n=1915)
. Wtighted sample used; "don't lcnow" and "refused" responses were excluded; rows may not add to 100% due to rounding.
Regardless of age group, a majority of respondents indicated that they believe the highest
safety priority for water quality in the Chesapeake Bay should be to make the Bay safe for
aquatic life. Also a majority of respondents, regardless of age group, believe that chemicals are
more harmful to aquatic life than animal waste and sewage.
For age groups from 18-64, approximately 20% indicate that they or someone in their
household has participated in a Chesapeake Bay pollution reduction activity. This contrasts with
32
-------
10% of the respondents over 65 years old. .
Respondents age 55-64 were most likely to rate themselves as very active in helping to
reduce pollution in the environment (see Table 25). This was followed by the groups from 35-
44 and 45-54 at 17% each. The group which had the smallest percentage of respondents rate
themselves as very active was those 18-24 (12%).
Table 25
Level of Pollution Reduction
Activity by Age
(Percent of all respondents)
Very Somewhat Not Very
Active Active Active
18-24 12% 58% 30% 100%
(n=225)
25-45 17% 58 25 100%
(n=394)
35-44 17% 58 25 100%
(n =454)
45-55 17% 51 32 100%
(n=367)
55-64 25% 40 35 100%
(n=221)
65+ 14% 34 51 100%
(n=255)
Total 17% 52 32 100%
(n=1915)
. Weighted sample used; "don't know" and "refused" responses were excluded; rows may not add to 100% due to rounding.
33
-------
Income
Respondents' answers were also analyzed by reported household income: 5% of the
respondents reported (,in income of $12,000 or less, 11 % reported $12,000 - $20,000, 18%
reported $20,000 - $30,000,32 % reported $30,000 - $50,000,20% reported $50,000 - $75,000,
and 14% reported $75,000 - $100,000.
Twenty-two percent of the respondents in the $12,000 - $20,000 income range rate
themselves as very active in helping to reduce pollution in the environment generally compared
to only 13% of the respondents in the $75,000 - $100,000 (See Table 26). Of the respondents
who reported income of $12,000 or less, 46% rate themselves as not very active in helping to
reduce pollution.
34
-------
Table 26
Level of Pollution Reduction
Activity by Income
(Percent of all respondents)
Very Somewhat Not very
Active Active ACtive
$12,000 or less 16% 38% 46% 100%
(n=76)
12,000-20,000 22 40 38 100%
(n= 163)
20,000-30,000 18 49 34 100%
(n=287)
30,000-50,000 15 60 24 100%
(n=514)
50,000-75,000 20 51 29 100%
(n=329)
75,000-100,000 13 59 29 100%
(n =237)
Total 17 53 30 100%
n = 1605
. Weighted sample used; "don't know" and "refused" responses were excluded; rows may not add to 100% due to rounding.
In every income group, the majority of respondents felt that chemicals are more harmful
to fish and other aquatic life than animal waste and sewage. A majority of respondents in every
income category who felt that current efforts to reduce pollution in the Chesapeake Bay are too
. little.
Thirty percent ofthe respondents with incomes between $50,000 - $100,000 reported that
either they or a member of their household had participated .in a Bay pollution reduction activity.
In contrast, 19% of those with incomes of $30,000 -$50,000, 15% of those with incomes of
35
-------
$20,000 - $30,000, 12% of those with incomes of $12,000 - $20,000, and 15% of those with
incomes of $12,000 or less said that they or a household member had participated in a
Chesapeake Bay pollution reduction activity.
s. Survey Methods
SamDle
The random digit dial (RDD) sample was selected using a standard two-stage,
Waksberg-Mitofsky design. This design gives all households an equal chance of inclusion in the
survey, regardless of whether or not their phone number is listed. The target population for this
telephone survey was adults age 18 or older, residing in telephone households in the watershed
counties of the Chesapeake Bay. The average cluster size, defined as identified working
residential telephone numbers, was approximately 7.5
Within each sample household, the target respondent was selected at random from among
all adults residing there. The Next Birthday selection method was used. In this procedure, the
interviewer asks to interview the adult, 18 or older, who will have the next birthday. This
method avoids the bias of selecting whoever answers the phone or happens to be home at the
time of the call. It provides a random respondent without having to ask intrusive questions about
household composition.
Ouestionnaire and Data Collection
Preceding the pretest, interviewers went through a structured training session. There was
S The sample frame was the Bellcore list of all working area codes - prefix combinations.
36
-------
a mix of experienced and newly recruited interviewers. Experienced interviewers are best able
to identify characteristics of the study which could potentially pose problems. However, less
experienced interviewers are often more likely to notice additional problems that may have been
naturally compensated for, or dealt with, by the more experienced interviewers.
In the pretest training session, interviewers were given an outline of standard pretest
procedures and specific items to be aware of such as:
.
.
.
.
.
.
Respondent reaction to the survey introduction
Any issues regarding selecting the random respondent
Identifying question wording which is ambiguous or awkward to read
Inconsistencies in question logic .
Respondents' comments about questions (to be recorded verbatim)
Inconsistencies in skip patterns
Following the pretest, a debriefing was held in which interviewers and supervisors
reviewed any problems encountered and made suggestions for improvements in the
questionnaire. Based on the pretest results, the final version of the questionnaire was developed.
Prior to main data collection, a group training session was conducted. The training
session provided information on the background and goals of the study. This included:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Purpose of the study
Sponsor and project director
Eligible respondent
Goals of the study
Target cooperation rate
Schedule
Refusal conversion plans
The interviewers were trained in procedures used in identifying the correct respondent.
This entailed problem solving exercises in addition to written instructions. The supervisors
37
-------
coached each interviewer by asking questions that a respondent might ask.
A major part of the training involved persuading reluctant respondents to cooperate. The
training manual contained suggested responses to a number of questions frequently asked by
reluctant respondents. The supervisors assumed the role of respondent in this exercise. This
practice continued until all interviewers could handle these situations comfortably and correctly.
The next stage of the training required interviewers to go through the questionnaire noting
the question-by-question instructions and skip patterns. Interviewers read the survey instrument
repeatedly to supervisors in order to familiarize themselves with the questionnaire and to learn
how to correctly pace the interview. Finally, interviewers worked in pairs, with one interviewer
acting as the respondent. Then, the pair switched roles, providing an opportunity for both to
act as the interviewer.
During data collection, interviewers were monitored from the onset of the study to its
completion. Supervisors regularly monitored each interviewer's calls and rated them on:
.
.
Introduction and respondent selection
Properly administering the questionnaire (reading the questions verbatim,
probing, keeping respondents on track)
Correctly recording the respondents' answers
Refraining from personal comments
.
.
In addition to monitoring, the Field Manager received daily reports on each interviewer's
response rate and refusal rate. Interviewers who experienced difficulties were retrained by a
supervisor. If there was no improvement by the interviewer after the retraining, the interviewer
was removed from the study.
An experienced telephone supervisor was on duty at all times to monitor quality and
38
-------
handle any problems. Shifts were scheduled both during the day, in the evenings, and on
weekends. All telephone numbers in the sample were tried up to 20 times. Respondents who
initially refused were recontacted by a specialist in refusal conversion.
Interviewing for the study occurred from October 6, 1993 to January 27, 1994. All
interviewing was conducted from the SRC Telephone Facility on the College Park campus.
Survey Rates and Results
A sample of 5144 telephone numbers were generated from the RDD design. Of these,
2812 were identified as households. Of these households, 71 % agreed to the interview, 17%
refused, 8 % were non-contacts, and the remaining 4 % were miscellaneous problems such as
respondent illness and non-English language. A total of 2,004 interviews were completed. The
refusal conversion effort was successful. Of the households that initially refused the interview,
51 % agreed when re-contacted.
The sample results are summarized in Table 27.
39
-------
Table 27
Final Sample Disposition
Total Sample 5144
Non-households 2161
Households status 171
(unknown) DC MD VA PA
Households 2812 100% 696 100% 670 100% 711 100% 735 100%
interviews 2004 71% 472 68 % 502 75 % 513 72% 517 70%
refusals 463 17% 121 17% 96 15 % 123 17% 123 17%
non-contacts 244 8% 73 11% 56 8% 50 7% 65 9%
problems 101 4% 30 4% 16 2% 25 4% 30 4%
Samvle Weights
Two design-level sample weights are necessary for the correct analysis of each sample
region. First, since every telephone number had an equal probability of selection into the
sample, those households with more than one telephone number had higher chances of inclusion.
A question was asked to determine how many non-business telephone numbers each household'
had. This item was used to construct the first weight. Secondly, since only one adult was
r
selected from among all adults in the household, a weight is necessary to adjust for household
sIze.
In addition to the design weights, we felt it advisable to post-stratify on one demographic
variable, education, for all four regions and one other variable, gender, for the District of
Columbia. Education corrects for under-representation of people with less than a high school
education and. over-representation of those with a college degree. Gender corrects for an
under-representation of males. These under-representations are due mainly to varying
40
-------
cooperation rates. The effect of weighting by education and gender is to adjust the sample
distribution to match population proportions based on census data.
For user convenience, the two design weights and the post-stratification weights have
been combined into one overall region weight called REGWT. This weight is used when the
regions are analyzed individually, for example, when only the opinions of Pennsylvania residents
are examined.
Because the sample allocated to each region was not proportional to that region's
percentage of the total survey area population, an additional weight adjustment is necessary when
regions are combined. The use of this weight realigns the sample distribution to match the
population proportions. This weight is call WEIGHT and is used when the sample from all
regions is analyzed together.
All frequencies provided in this report and appendices are appropriately weighted. Both
the region weight (REGWT) and the combined weight (WEIGHT) are included in the data set.
For ,any further analysis the proper weight variable should be assigned.
41
-------
6. Appendices
42
-------
The questionnaire
-------
CLIENT.Q
>int2<
April 28, 1994
Page 1
Hello, I'm calling from the University of Maryland. My name is
We are conducting a study for. the U.s. Environmental Protection Agency
about people's views on the environment, water pollution, and its
effect on recreational activities. For this study I need to speak
with the adult in your household, who is 18 or older and will
have the NEXT birthday. Who would that be?
** IF INFORMANT DOES NOT KNOW ALL THE BIRTHDAYS ASK: [equiv intI]
Of the ones you do know who will have the NEXT birthday?
<1>
<2>
<7>
<8>
<9>
>int3<
===>
I need
INFORMANT HAS NEXT BIRTHDAY (BEGIN SURVEY) [goto sw1]
SOMEONE ELSE HAS NEXT BIRTHDAY
RESPONDENT PROBLEM (LANGUAGE, HEALTH, AGE, OTHER) [goto lang]
NON HOUSEHOLD - BUSINESS, GROUP HOME, PAY OR CAR PHONE, HOSPITAL [goto ReS1]
IF CALL BACK OR REFUSAL [goto RES1]
** NO ANSWER / TROUBLE WITH LINES [goto res1]
** HOME RECORDER / ANSWERING SERVICE [goto rrSS]
to speak with that person please.
Hello, I'm calling from the University of Maryland. My name is
We are conducting a study for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
about people's views on the environment, water pollution, and its
effect on recreational activities.
<1>
<7>
<9>
===>
May I speak with [fill cont]?
>int4<
TO CONTINUE WITH INTERVIEW [goto sw1]
RESPONDENT PROBLEM (LANGUAGE, HEALTH, AGE, OTHER) [goto lang]
IF CALL BACK OR REFUSAL [goto RES1]
Hello, I'm calling from the University of Maryland. My name is
We are conducting a study for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
about people's views on the environment, water pollution, and its
effect on recreational activities.
<1>
<7>
<9>
TO CONTINUE WITH INTERVIEW [goto sw1]
RESPONDENT PROBLEM (LANGUAGE, HEALTH, AGE, OTHER) [goto lang]
IF CALL BACK OR REFUSAL [goto RESl]
** NO ANSWER / TROUBLE WITH LINES {goto resl]
** HOME RECORDER / ANSWERING SERVICE [goto rrSS]
IF [fill cont] IS NOT CORRECT RESPONDENT (GO BACK TO FIRST INTRO)
>Q1<
===>
How familiar are you with the SUSQUEHANNA RIVER?
Are you:
<1> very familiar
<2> somewhat familiar
<3> not very familiar
<4> not at all familiar.
<8> DK
IF INTERVIEW TERMED OR NEVER BEGUN [goto nono]
===>
-------
CLIENT.Q
>Q2<
>Q3<
>cpa2<
>Q4<
>Q4a<
>Q5<
>Q5a<
>chk1<
>Q6<
>Q7a<
>Q7b<
April 28, 1994
Page 1-2
How familiar are you with the CHESAPEAKE BAY?
Are you:
<1> very familiar
<2> somewhat familiar
<3> not very familiar
<4> not at all familiar.
<8> DK
IF INTERVIEW TERMED OR NEVER BEGUN [goto nono]
===>
What kinds of things indicate to YOU that a body of water is polluted?
===>
[if AREA eq goto Q4] [store <9> in Q4] [goto QS] .
Would you say that pollution in the Susquehanna concerns you
very much, somewhat, not very much or not at all?
<1>
<2>
<3>
<4>
<8>
===>
Why is that?
===>
Would you say that pollution in the CHESAPEAKE BAY
very much, somewhat, not very much or not at all?
VERY MUCH
SOMEWHAT
NOT VERY MUCH
NOT AT ALL
DK
concerns you
<1>
<2>
<3>
<4>
<8>
===>
Why is
===>
[if Q1 ge <3> goto chk2]
In the last year, that is since [fill mon] 1992, on the average have
YOU used the Susquehanna River for recreation weekly, monthly, a few
times a year, or not at all?
VERY MUCH
SOMEWHAT
NOT VERY MUCH
NOT AT ALL
DK (goto chk1]
that?
<1>
<2>
<3>
<4>
<8>
===>
In the last year, have you used the Susquehanna for FISHING?
(CRABBING, CLAMMING ARE INCLUDED)
<0> NO
<1> YES
<8> DK
===>
In the last year, have you used the Susquehanna for
SWIMMING or BOATING?
<0> NO
<1> YES
<8> DK
===>
WEEKLY
MONTHLY
A FEW TIMES A YEAR
NOT AT ALL [goto Q8]
DK [goto Q8]
-------
CLIENT.Q
>Q7c<
>Q8<
>Q8a<
>chk2<
>Q9<
>Q9a<
>Q9b<
>Q9c<
>Q10<
>Q10a<
>chk3<
>Qlla<
April 28, 1994
Page 1-3
last
NO
YES
OK
year, have you been sightseeing along the Susquehanna?
In the
<0>
<1>
, <8>
===>
Has pollution in the Susquehanna River
less of, ANY of the things you used to
caused you to stop doing, or do
do for recreation?
<0> NO
<1> YES [goto Q8a]
<8> OK
===>[goto chk2]
Why is that?
===>
[if Q2 ge <3> goto chk3]
In the last year, that is since
you used the CHESAPEAKE BAY for
a year, or not at all?
[fill mon] 1992, on the average have -
recreation weekly, monthly, a few times
<1>
<2>
<3>
<4>
<8>
===>
In the last year, have you used the Chesapeake Bay for FISHING?
(CRABBING, CLAMMING ARE INCLUDED)
<0> NO
<1> YES
<8> OK
===>
(In the last year, have you used the Chesapeake Bay) for
SWIMMING or BOATING?
<0> NO
<1> YES
<8> OK
===>
In the last year, have you been sightseeing in the CHESAPEAKE BAY
region?
WEEKLY
MONTHLY
A FEW TIMES A YEAR
NOT AT ALL [goto Q10]
OK [goto Q10]
<0>
<1>
<8>
===>
Has pollution in the CHESAPEAKE BAY
less of, ANY of the things you used
NO
YES
OK
caused you to stop doing, or do
to do for recreation?
<0> NO
<1> YES [goto QlOa]
<8> OK
===>[goto chk3]
Why is that?
===>
[if Q1 ge <3> goto chk4]
00 you think that the current water quality in the Susquehanna River
makes it very safe for swimming, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, or
very unsafe?
-------
CLIENT.Q
>chk4<
>Q11b<
>chk5<
>Q12a<
>chk6<
>Q12b<
>chk7<
>Q13a<
>chk8<
>Q13b<
April 28, 1994
Page 1-4
<1>
<2>
<3>
<4>
<5>
<8>
===>
[if Q2 ge <3> goto chk5]
Do you think that the current water quality in the Chesapeake Bay
makes it very safe for swimming, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, or
very unsafe?
VERY SAFE
SOMEWHAT SAFE
SOMEWHAT UNSAFE
VERY UNSAFE
DEPENDS WHERE (VOLUNTEERED)
DK
<1>
<2>
<3>
<4>
<5>
<8>
===>
[if Q1 ge <3> goto chk6]
Do you think that the current water quality in the Susquehanna River
makes it very safe to eat fish and other seafood from the Susquehanna
River, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, or very unsafe?
VERY SAFE
SOMEWHAT SAFE
SOMEWHAT UNSAFE
VERY UNSAFE
DEP~NDS WHERE (VOLUNTEERED)
DK
<1>
<2>
<3>
<4>
<8>
===>
[if Q2 ge <3> goto chk7]
Do you think that the current water quality in the Chesapeake Bay
makes it very safe to eat fish and other seafood from the Chesapeake
Bay, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, or very unsafe?
VERY SAFE
SOMEWHAT SAFE
SOMEWHAT UNSAFE
VERY UNSAFE
DK
<1>
<2>
<3>
<4>
<8>
===>
[if Q1 ge <3> goto chk8]
Do you think that the current water quality in the
makes it very safe for fish and other aquatic life
Susquehanna River, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe,
VERY SAFE
SOMEWHAT SAFE
SOMEWHAT UNSAFE
VERY UNSAFE
DK
Susquehanna River
that live in the
or very unsafe?
<1>
<2>
<3>
<4>
<8>
===>
[if Q2 ge <3> goto ncks]
Do you think that the current water quality in the Chesapeake Bay
makes it very safe for fish and other aquatic life that live in the
Bay, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, or very unsafe?
VERY SAFE
SOMEWHAT SAFE
SOMEWHAT UNSAFE
VERY UNSAFE
DK
<1>
VERY SAFE
-------
CLIENT.Q
>Q14a<
>Q14b<
>chk9<
>Q15<
>Q15a<
>Q15b<
>ck10<
:>Q16<
>Q16a<
>Q16b<
>cpa8<
>Q17<
April 28, 1994
Page 1-5
<2>
<3>
<4>
<8>
===>
Now, just considering the Susquehanna River, do you think that the
highest priority should be to make it
[fill those that were not answered 'very safe']
SOMEWHAT SAFE
SOMEWHAT UNSAFE
VERY UNSAFE
DK
<1>
<2>
<3>
SAFE FOR SWIMMING
SAFE TO EAT SEAFOOD FROM
SAFE FOR FISH AND OTHER AQUATIC LIFE
<4>
<8>
===>
Just considering the Chesapeake
priority should be to make it
EQUALLY HIGH PRIORITIES (VOLUNTEER)
DK
Bay, do you think that the highest
[fill those that were not answered 'very safe']
<1>
<2>
<3>
SAFE FOR SWIMMING
SAFE TO EAT SEAFOOD FROM
SAFE FOR FISH AND OTHER AQUATIC LIFE
<4>
<8>
===>
[if Q1 ge <3> goto ck10]
Compared to ten years ago, would you say that the Susquehanna River
is more polluted than it was, less polluted, or about the same?
EQUALLY HIGH PRIORITIES (VOLUNTEER)
DK
<1>
<2>
<3>
<8>
===>
Why do
===>
Why do
===>
[if Q2 ge <3> goto cpa8]
Compared to ten years ago, would you say that the Chesapeake Bay is
more polluted than it was, less polluted, or about the same?
<1> MORE POLLUTED [goto Q16a]
<2> LESS POLLUTED [goto Q16b]
<3> ABOUT. THE SAME [goto cpa8]
<8> DK [goto cpa8]
===>
Why do you think that it is more polluted?
===> [goto cpa8]
Why do you think that it is less polluted?
===>
[if AREA ne goto chkp] [if Q15 eq <1> goto Q17a][if Q16 eq <1> goto Q17a]
I'm going to name some possible causes of pollution in the
Chesapeake Bay or its connecting rivers like the Susquehanna River.
Please tell me which ones you think are the MAIN causes of pollution.
MORE POLLUTED [goto Q15a]
LESS POLLUTED [goto Q15b]
ABOUT THE SAME [goto ck10]
DK [goto ck10]
you think that it is more polluted?
[goto ck10]
you think that it is less polluted?
-------
CLIENT.Q
>Q17a<
>chkp<
>Q17b<
>Q17c<
April 28, 1994
Page 1-6
TYPE TO CONTINUE
===> [goto 1r01]
I'm going to name some other possible causes of pollution in the
Chesapeake Bay or its connecting rivers like the Susquehanna River
including some you may have already mentioned. Please tell me which
ones you think are the MAIN causes of pollution.
TYPE TO CONTINUE
===> [equiv Q17]
[if Q16 eq <1> goto Q17c]
I'm going to name some possible causes of pollution in the
Chesapeake Bay or its connecting rivers. Please tell me which
you think are the MAIN causes of pollution.
ones
TYPE TO CONTINUE
===> /
I'm going to name some other possible causes of pollution in the
Chesapeake Bay or its connecting rivers including some you may have
already mentioned. Please tell me which ones you think are the
MAIN causes of pollution.
TYPE TO CONTINUE
===> [equiv Q17b]
QUESTIONS 18 TO 20b ASKED IN RANDOM ORDER
>Q18<
>Q18a<
>Q19<
>Q19a<
How about municipal sewage treatment plants?
(Do you think municipal sewage treatment plants are one of the MAIN
causes of pollution in the Chesapeake Bay or its connecting rivers?)
<0> NO [goto fl]
<1> YES [goto f2]
<8> OK [goto bl]
===>
How about landfills?
(Do you think landfills are one of the MAIN causes of pollution in the
Chesapeake Bay or its connecting rivers?)
<0> NO [goto f3]
<1> YES [goto f4]
<8> OK [goto b2]
===>
How about farming?
(Do you think. farming
Chesapeake Bay or its
is one of the MAIN causes of pollution in the
connecting rivers?)
<0> NO [goto f5]
<1> YES [goto f6]
<8> DK [goto b3]
===>
How about accidental spills from commercial shipping?
(Do you think accidental spills from commercial shipping are one of
the MAIN causes of pollution in the Chesapeake Bay or its connecting
rivers?)
-------
CLIENT.Q
>Q19b<
>Q19c<
>Q19d<
>Q20<
>Q20b<
>Q20c<
>q21<
April 28, 1994
Page 1-7
<0> NO [goto f7]
<1> YES [goto f8]
<8> DK [goto b4]
===>
Construction of roads, houses, and shopping centers?
(Do you think construction of roads, houses, and shopping
one of the MAIN causes of pollution in the Chesapeake Bay
connecting rivers?)
centers is
or its
<0> NO [goto f9]
<1> YES [goto f10]
<8> DK [goto bs]
===>
Other businesses and industry?
(Do you think other business and industry
of pollution in the Chesapeake Bay or its
are one of the MAIN causes
connecting rivers?)
<0> NO [goto fl1]
<1> YES [goto f12]
<8> DK [goto b6]
===>
How about population growth?
(DO you think population growth is one of the MAIN
in the Chesapeake Bay or its connecting rivers?)
causes of pollution
<0> NO [goto f13]
<1> YES [goto f14]
<8> DK [goto b7]
===>
How about the disposal of garbage and sewage from recreational boats?
(Do you think the disposal of garbage and sewage from recreational
boats is one of the MAIN causes of pollution in the Chesapeake Bay or
its connecting rivers?)
<0> NO [goto f1s]
<1> YES [goto f16]
<8> DK [goto b8]
===>
How about things that individuals do that harm the bay?
(DO you think that things individuals do that harm the bay are one
of the MAIN causes of pollution in the Chesapeake Bay or its
connecting rivers?)
<0> NO [goto f17]
<1> YES [goto f18]
<8> DK [goto b9]
===>
Are there any things I haven't mentioned that you
MAIN causes of pollution in the Chesapeake Bay or
rivers?
think are
its connecting
<0>
<1>
<8>
===>
I'm going
causes of
NO
YES - what are they?
DK
to read to you the things you identified as serious
pollution.
-------
CLIENT.Q
April 28, 1994
Page 1-8
You mentioned:
[fill appropriate reasons]
Of these causes, which ONE do.you think is the most serious cause
of pollution in the Chesapeake Bay or its connecting rivers?
<1>
<2>
<3>
<4>
<5>
<6>
<7>
<8>
<9>
<88>
fill
appropriate
response
categories
DK
>q21a<
===>
You mentioned: [fill appropriate reasons]
as NOT being serious causes of pollution.
Which ONE of these do you think contributes the least amount of
pollution in the Chesapeake Bay or its connecting rivers?
<1>
<2>
<3>
<4>
<5>
<6>
<7>
<8>
<9>
<88>
===>
Two types of pollution harm fish and other aquatic life in the
Chesapeake Bay system. One comes from chemicals which directly harm
the fish and other aquatic life. The other comes from animal waste
and sewage which reduce the food supply for fish and other aquatic
life.
>Q22<
fill
appropriate
response
categories
\
Which of these do you think is most harmful to the aquatic life
in the Chesapeake Bay system?
<1> CHEMICALS WHICH ARE DIRECTLY HARMFUL
<2> ANIMAL WASTE AND SEWAGE WHICH REDUCE FOOD SUPPLY
<8> DK
===>
[if AREA eq goto D22A]
As you know, there are many
governments must resolve.
>dist<
'>Q22A<
problems which federal, state, and local
Compared to other social, economic, and environmental problems in
[fill st], do you think the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay
and its connecting rivers is:
<1> one of the most important
<2> important but not one of the
<3> one of the less important or
<4> not important at all?
most important
-------
CLIENT.Q
>D22A<
>q22<
>Q22a<
>Q23<
>Q23a<
>Q24<
>Q24a<
>Q25<
April 28, 1994
Page 1-9
<8> DK
===> [goto q22]
As you know, there are many environmental
and local governments must resolve.
problems which federal
Compared to other social, economic, and environmental problems in the
District, do you think the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and its
connecting rivers is: .
<1> one of the most important
<2> important but not one of the most important
<3> one of the less important or
<4> not important at all?
<8> DK
===>[equiv Q22A]
Do you think that the current efforts to reduce pollution in the
Chesapeake Bay are
<1>
<2>
<3>
too much
about right
or too little [goto Q22a]
<8> DK
===> [goto Q23]
What do you think is the MAIN problem which hampers
the Bay pollution reduction effort?
===>
How much do you think the following groups have helped manage
pollution reduction in the Chesapeake Bay and its connecting rivers?
Do you think the [fill GOVT] government has helped a
great deal, some, little, or none, to manage pollution
in the Chesapeake Bay system?
reduction
<1> GREAT DEAL
<2> SOME
<3> LITTLE
<4> NONE
<8> DK [goto Q24]
===> .
Can you tell me why you think that?
===>
The federal government? Do you think it has helped a great deal,
some, little, or none to manage the pollution reduction in the
Chesapeake Bay and its connecting rivers?
.
<1>
<2>
<3>
<4>
<8>
===>
Can you tell me why you think that?
===>
Local governments? (Do you think they have helped a great
some, little, or none to manage the pollution reduction in
Chesapeake Bay and its connecting rivers?)
GREAT DEAL
SOME.
LITTLE
NONE
DK [goto Q25]
deal,
the
-------
CLIENT.Q
>Q25a<
>q25<
>q25a<
>Q26<
>Q26a<
>Q27<
>Q27a<
>Q28<
>Q28a<
April 28, 1994
Page 1-10
<1>
<2>
<3>
<4>
<8>
===>
Can you tell me why you think that?
===>
Farming? (Do you think it has helped a great deal, some, little,
or none to manage the pollution reduction in the Chesapeake Bay and
its connecting rivers?)
GREAT. DEAL
SOME
LITTLE
NONE
DK [goto q25]
GREAT DEAL
SOME
LITTLE
NONE
DK [goto Q26]
<1>
<2>
<3>
<4>
<8>
===>
Can you tell me why you think that?
===>
Business and industry? (Do you think they have helped a great
some, little, or none to manage the pollution reduction in the
Chesapeake Bay and its connecting rivers?)
deal,
GREAT DEAL
SOME
LITTLE
NONE
DK [ goto
<1>
<2>
<3>
<4>
<8>
===>
Can you tell me why you think that?
===>
Private citizens or organizations? (Do you think they have helped a
great deal, some, little, or none to manage the pollution reduction in
the Chesapeake Bay and its connecting rivers?)
<1>
<2>
<3>
<4>
<8>
===>
Can you tell me why you think that?
===>
As far as you know, Is the [fill GOVT] government
working with other STATE governments to reduce pollution
Chesapeake Bay and its connecting rivers?
Q27]
GREAT DEAL
SOME
LITTLE
NONE
DK [ goto
Q28]
in the
<0>
<1>
<8>
===>
As far as you know, Is the [fill GOVT] government
working with the FEDERAL government to reduce pollution in the
Chesapeake Bay and its connecting rivers?
<0>
<1>
NO
YES
DK
NO
YES [goto Q28b]
-------
CLIENT.Q
>Q28b<
>Q28c<
>Q29<
>Q30<
>Q30a<
>Q31<
>Q32<
>Q33<
April 28, 1994
Page 1-11
<8> DK
===>[goto Q29]
Do you know what
<0>
<1>
===>
What is
this group of governments working together is called?
NO [goto Q29]
YES
its name?
<1>
<2>
<3>
<4>
<5>
<8>
===>
Have you or anyone in your household participated in any
Chesapeake Bay pollution reduction activities?
<0> NO
<1> YES
<8> DK
===>
Would you describe yourself as very active, somewhat active,
or not very active in helping to reduce pollution in the environment
generally?
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
ALLIANCE FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION
THE SAVE THE BAY FOUNDATION
OTHER - SPECIFY
DK
<1> VERY ACTIVE
<2> SOMEWHAT ACTIVE
<3> NOT VERY ACTIVE [goto Q30a]
<8> DK
===> [goto Q31]
Is there something that would cause you to become more
in helping to reduce pollution in the environment?
<0> NO
<1> YES
<8> DK
===>
active
- SPECIFY
Do you or any member of your household belong to a.n environmental
group?
<0>
<1>
<8>
===>
Have you or anyone else in your household ever stopped using a
product because you were concerned that it was polluting
the waterways.?
NO
YES -- Which ones (SPECIFY)
DK
<0>
<1>
<8>
===>
Suppose some new funding became available for improving the environment
of the Chesapeake Bay System. Some of this money would go to repair
damage already done by pollution and some to prevent additional damage.
Would you like to see most of the new money go to:
NO
YES -- What product was that?
DK
-------
CLIENT.Q
>33a<
>33b<
>Q34<
>Q34a<
>Q35<
>D2<
>D3<
>D5<
>D6<
April 28, 1994
Page 1-12
<1> preventing additional damage by pollution or [goto 33a]
<2> repairing damage already done by pollution [goto 33b]
<3> OTHER (SPECIFY)
<8> DK
===> [goto Q34]
Should most of that money be spent on:
<1> education
<2> scientific research
<3> enforcement of existing regulations
<4> or technical assistance to volunteer groups?
<5> OTHER (SPECIFY)
<8> DK
===> [goto Q34]
Should most of that money be spent on:
restoring wildlife areas
replenishing the fish population
encouraging public participation
or reducing water pollution?
OTHER (SPECIFY)
DK
<1>
<2>
<3>
<4>
<5>
<8>
===>
Have you seen or
Chesapeake Bay?
<0> NO
<1> YES [gato Q34a]
<8> DK
===> [goto Q3 5 ']
Where was that?
===>
If you wanted more specific information on improving the Chesapeake Bay
environment where would you be MOST likely to get it?
===>
Finally, I'd like to ask you some background questions.
Including yourself, how many adults 18 years of age or older
live in this household?
<01-10> RECORD ACTUAL NUMBER
<11> MORE THAN 10
<99> NA-REF
===>
How many children younger than 18 live in this household?
<0> NONE
<1-7> RECORD ACTUAL NUMBER
<8> 8 OR MORE
<9> NA-REF
===>
In what
<00>
<01-75>
<99>
===>
Are you
<1>
<2>
<3>
<4>
heard any reports about reducing pollution in the
year were you
BEFORE 1900
19
NA-REF
born?
currently:
Employed full time
Employed part time
or not employed at
EMPLOYED BOTH FULL
all? [goto D6a]
AND PART-TIME
-------
<9>
===>
Is that
<1>
<2>
<3>
<4>
<5>
<6>
<9>
===>
What is
<0>
<1-7>
<8>
<9-11>
<12>
<13-15>
<16>
<17>
<18>
<99>
===>
Are you of Spanish
or descent?
CLIENT.Q
>D6a<
>D7<
>D8<
>D8a<
<0>
<1>
<8>
<9>
===>
Are you:
>D9<
<1>
<2>
<3>
<4>
<5>
<9>
===>
Are you
<1>
<2>
<3>
<4>
<5>
<9>
===>
Do you
<1>
<2>
<3>
<9>
===>
Do you
<0>
<1>
<9>
>D10<
>D11<
April 28, 1994
Page 1-13
REF
[goto D7]
mainly because you are:
retired
keeping house
temporarily unemployed
a student
disabled
or something else: (SPECIFY)
REF
the last grade or year of school you completed?
NONE
SOME ELEMENTARY
ELEMENTARY GRAD
SOME HIGH SCHOOL
HIGH SCHOOL GRAD
SOME COLLEGE
COLLEGE GRAD
SOME GRADUATE SCHOOL
GRADUATE OR PROFESSIONAL DEGREE
NA-REF
or Hispanic origin
NO
YES
DK
REF
White
Black
Asian
or another race (SPECIFY)
HISPANIC (VOLUNTEER)
REF
currently:
married
separated
divorced
widowed
or have you
NA-REF
never been married
own your
OWN
RENT
OTHER
REF
home or rent it?
(SPECIFY)
ever
NO
YES
REF
go sailing or boating for recreation?
-------
CLIENT.Q
>D12<
>D12a<
>D12b<
>D12c<
>D12d<
>cntm<
April 28, 1994
Page 1-14
===>
If you added together all the yearly incomes, before taxes, of
all the members of your household for last year, 1992, would
the total be more than $30,OOO?
<0> NO
<1> YES [goto D12c]
<9> NA-REF [goto hinc]
===>
Was it more than $20,OOO?
<0>
<1>
<9>
===>
Was it more than $12,OOO?
<0> NO
<1> YES
<9> NA-REF
===> [goto hinc]
Was it more than $50,OOO?
<0> NO [goto hinc]
<1> YES
<9> NA-REF [goto hinc]
===>
Was it
<0>
<1>
<9>
===>
In what
NO
YES [goto hinc]
NA-REF [goto hinc]
more than $75,000?
NO
YES
NA-REF
county do you live?
<01> ALLEGANY <09> CHARLES <17> PG COUNTY
<02> ANNE ARUNDEL <10> DORCHESTER <18> QUEEN ANNE
<03> BALTIMORE <11> FREDERICK <19> SOMERSET
<04> BALT CITY <12> GARRETT <20> ST. MARY'S
<05> CALVERT <13> HARFORD <21> TALBOT
<06> CAROLINE <14> HOWARD <22> WASHINGTON
<07> CARROLL <15> KENT <23> WICOMICO
<08> CECIL <16> MONTGOMERY <24> WORCESTER
<99> DK/REF
<0> OTHER - SPECIFY
===>[goto zip]
>cntp< In what county do you live?
<01> ADAMS <12> FRANKLIN <23> NORTHHUMBERLAND
<02> BEDFORD <13> FULTON <24> PERRY
<03> BLAIR <14> HUNTINGDON <;25> POTTER
<04> BRADFORD <15> JUNIATA <26> SCHUYLKILL
<05> CAMERON <16> LACKAWANNA <27> SNYDER
<06> CENTRE <17> LANCASTER <28> SULLIVAN
<07> CLEARFIELD <18> LEBANON <29> SUSQUEHANNA
<08> CLINTON <19> LUZERNE <30> TIOGA
<09> COLUMBIA <20> LYCOMING <31> UNION
<10> CUMBERLAND <21> MIFFLIN <32> WYOMING
<11> DAUPHIN <22> MONTOUR <33> YORK
<99> REF
<0> OTHER - SPECIFY
-------
CLIENT.Q
>cntv<
April 28, 1994
Page 1-15
===>[goto zip]
In what county do you live?
<01> ACCOMACK <18> CULPEPER <35> KING WILLIAM <52> ORANGE
<02> ALBENARLE <19> CUMBERLAND <36> KING & QUEEN <53> PAGE
<03> ALLEGHANY <20> ESSEX <37> KING GEORGE <54> PONHATAN
<04> AMELIA <21> FAIRFAX <38> LANCASTER <55> PORTSMOUTH
<05> AMHERST <22> FAUQUIER <39> LOUDOUN <56> PRINCE GEORGE
<06> APPOMATTOX <23> FLUVANNA <40> LOUISA <57> PRINCE WILLIAM
<07> ARLINGTON <24> FREDERICK <41> MADISON <58> PRINCE EDWARD
<08> AUGUSTA <25> FREDRCKSBRG <42> MATHEWS <59> RAPPAHANNOCK
<09> BATH <26> GLOUCESTER <43> MIDDLESEX <60> RICHMOND
<10> BOTETOURT <27> GOOCHLAND <44> NELSON <61> ROCKBRIDGE
<11> BUCKINGHAM <28> GREENE <45> NESTMORELAND <62> ROCKINGHAM
<12> CAROLINE <29> HAMPTON <46> NEW KENT <63> SHENANDOAH
<13> CHARLES CITY <30> HANOVER <47> NEWPORT NEWS <64> SPOTSYLVANIA
<14> CHESTERFIELD <31> HENRI CO <48> NORFOLK <65> STAFFORD
<15> CLARKE <32> HIGHLAND <49> NORTHHAMPTON <66> SUFFOLK
<16> COLONIAL HGHTS <33> ISLE OF WGHT <50> NRTHHMBRLAN <67> WARREN
<17> CRAIG <34> JAMES CITY <51> NOTTOWAY <68> YORK
<99> REF <0> OTHER - SPECIFY
===>
>zip<
>fone<
>VERF<
>Rsex<
What is your zipcode? [loc 7/76]
<15000-25000> ENTER ZIPCODE
<99999> NA-REF
===>
All together, how many different phone NUMBERS does your
household have for non-business use?
<1-6> RECORD
<7> 7 OR MORE
<8> DK
<9> REF
===>
And,
<0>
<1>
<9>
===>
Those are all the questions I have. Thank you for your time and
help.
your
NO -
YES
REF
number is [fill racd] [fill tel1]-[fill te12:0]?
What number have I reached? (SPECIFY)
** TYPE (f) IF SEX IS ALREADY RECORDED CORRECTLY
** RECORD RESPONDENT'S SEX
<1> MALE
<2> FEMALE
===>
AL HGHTS <33>
<17> CRAIG
<99> REF
===>
>zip<
>fone<
ISLE OF WGHT <50> NRTHHMBRLAN <67> WARREN
<34> JAMES CITY <51> NOTTOWAY <68> YORK
<0> OTHER - SPECIFY [specify]
What is your zipeode? [loe 7/76]
<15000-25000> ENTER ZIPCODE .
<99999> NA-REF
===>
All together, how many different phone
household have for non-business use?
<1-6> RECORD
NUMBERS does your
-------
CLIENT.Q
April 28, 1994
Page 1-16
>VERF<
<7> 7 OR MORE
<8> DK
<9> REF
===> [lac 1/21]
And, your number is [fill racd] [fill tel1]-[fill te12:0]?
<0> NO - What number have I reached? (SPECIFY) [specify]
<1> YES
<9> REF
===> [lac 7/33] ,
Those are all the questions I have. Thank you for your time and
help.
>Rsex<
** TYPE (f) IF SEX IS ALREADY RECORDED CORRECTLY
** RECORD RESPONDENT'S SEX
<1> MALE
<2> FEMALE
===> [lac 1/19]
-------
Frequencies for the Entire Watershed
-------
CLIENT.FRQ
April 28, 1994
Page 1
STUDY SAMPLING AREA
Value Label
Value
Frequency
Valid
Percent
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MARYLAND
PENNSYLVANIA
VIRGINIA
9
21
39
49
108
729
480
687
5.4
36.4
24.0
34.3
-------
-------
TOTAL
2004
100.0
- - - - - - - - -
-----
-----
-----
- - - - - - - -
RESPONDENT GENDER
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
MALE 1 970 48.4
FEMALE 2 1033 51.6
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-------
- - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
REGION OF THE COUNTRY
Value Label
Valid
Value Frequency Percent
1 480 24.0
3 1524 76.0
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
NORTHEAST
SOUTH
-------
CLIENT.FRQ April 28, 1994 Page 2
NUMBER OF PHONE LINES
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
1 1866 93.9
2 106 5.3
3 8 .4
4 1 .0
5 1 .1
7 '2 .1
8 5 .2
REFUSED 9 16 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
------
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Ql
FAMILIARITY WITH SUSQUEHANNA RIVER
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
VERY FAMILIAR 1 98 20.4
SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR 2 211 44.0
NOT VERY FAMILIAR 3 98 20.4
NOT AT ALL FAMILIAR 4 71 14.7
DON'T KNOW 8 2 .4
NOT ASKED 9 1524 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
------
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - .- - - - - - -
Q2
FAMILIARITY WITH CHESAPEAKE BAY
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
VERY FAMILIAR 1 273 13.6
SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR 2 767 38.3
NOT VERY FAMILIAR 3 448 22.3
NOT AT ALL FAMILIAR 4 509 25.4
DON'T KNOW 8 8 .4
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-------
CLIENT.FRQ April 28, 1994 Page 3
Q4 HOW CONCERNED W/POLLUTION IN SUSQUEHANNA
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
VERY MUCH 1 197 41.0
SOMEWHAT 2 204 42.5
NOT VERY MUCH 3 33 6.9
NOT AT ALL 4 38 8.0
DON'T KNOW 8 8 1.6
NOT ASKED 9 1524 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
- - - - - - - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q5
HOW CONCERNED W/POLLUTION IN CHESAPEAKE
Value Label
Valid
Value Frequency Percent
1 974 48.6
2 721 36.0
~ 142 7.1
4 120 6.0
8 46 2.3
------- -------
TOTAL 2004' 100.0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
VERY MUCH
SOMEWHAT
NOT VERY MUCH
NOT AT ALL
DON'T KNOW
-------
Q6 HOW OFTEN PAST YR RECREATE ON SUSQUEHNNA
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
WEEKLY 1 20 6.5
MONTHLY 2 23 7.3
A FEW TIMES A YEAR 3 96 31.0
NOT AT ALL 4 171 55.2
NOT ASKED 9 1694 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q7A
USED SUSQUEHANNA FOR FISHING PAST YEAR
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
NO 0 65 47.3
YES 1 72 52.7
NOT ASKED 9 1866 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
- - - - - - - - -
-----
- - - - - - - - -
-------
Q7B
USED SUSQUEHANNA SWIM/BOATING PAST YEAR
Value Label
Value
Frequency
Valid
Percent
-------
CLIENT.FRQ April 28, 1994 Page 3-2
NO 0 56 40.8
YES 1 81 59.2
NOT ASKED 9 1866 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
- - - - - - - - -
-----
------
- - - - - - - - - -
Q7C
BEEN SIGHTSEEING ON SUSQUEHANNA PAST YR
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
NO 0 30 21.8
YES 1 106 77.3
DON'T KNOW 8 1 .9
NOT ASKED 9 1866 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q8
SUSQUEHANNA POLLUTION IMPEDED RECREATION
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
NO 0 243 . 78.5
YES 1 64 20.5
DON'T KNOW 8 3 .9
NOT ASKED 9 1694 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
-----
- - - -
------
------
- - - - - - - - -
Q9
HOW OFTEN PAST YR RECREATE ON CHESAPEAKE
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
WEEKLY 1 75 7.2
MONTHLY 2 77 7.4
A FEW TIMES A YEAR 3 416 40.1
NOT AT ALL 4 471 45.3
NOT ASKED 9 964 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
-----
------
-----
- - - - - - - - - - -
Q9A
USED CHESAPEAKE FOR FISHING PAST YEAR
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
NO 0 270 47.5
YES 1 299 52.5
NOT ASKED 9 1435 MISSING
------- -------
-------
CLIENT.FRQ
April 28, 1994
Page 3-3
TOTAL
2004
100.0
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q9B,
USED CHESAPEAKE SWIM/BOATING PAST YEAR
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
NO 0 138 24.3
YES 1 430 75.7
NOT ASKED 9 1435 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
Q9C
BEEN SIGHTSEEING ON CHESAPEAKE PAST YEAR
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
NO 0 151 26.5
YES 1 418 73.5
NOT ASKED 9 1435 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-------
Q10
CHESAPEAK~ POLLUTION IMPEDED RECREATION
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
NO 0 804 77.4
YES 1 230 22.1
DON'T KNOW 8 5 .5
NOT ASKED 9 964 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-------
CLIENT.FRQ
April 28, 1994
Page 4
Q11A
SUSQUEHANNA WATER QUALITY: SWIMMING
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
VERY SAFE 1 19 6.2
SOMEWHAT SAFE 2 106 34.4
SOMEWHAT UNSAFE 3 88 28.4
VERY UNSAFE 4 50 16.0
DEPENDS WHERE 5 9 2.8
DON'T KNOW 8 38 12.2
NOT ASKED 9 1694 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-----
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Q11B
CHESAPEAKE WATER QUALITY: SWIMMING
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
VERY SAFE' 1 43 4.1
SOMEWHAT SAFE 2 303 29.1
SOMEWHAT UNSAFE 3 389 37.5
VERY UNSAFE 4 139 13.3
DEPENDS WHERE 5 25 2.4
DON'T KNOW 8 141 13.5
NOT ASKED 9 964 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
------
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
Q12A
SUSQUEHANNA WATER QUALITY: EAT SEAFOOD
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
VERY SAFE 1 20 6.5
SOMEWHAT SAFE 2 106 34.2
SOMEWHAT UNSAFE 3 110 35.5
VERY UNSAFE 4 55 17.9
DON'T KNOW 8 18 6.0
NOT ASKED 9 1694 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
------------------~--------------------------------------------------
Q12B
CHESAPEAKE WATER QUALITY: EAT SEAFOOD
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
VERY SAFE 1 56 5.4
SOMEWHAT SAFE 2 397 38.2
SOMEWHAT UNSAFE 3 405 38.9
VERY UNSAFE 4 116 11.2
-------
CLIENT.FRQ April 28, 1994 Page 4-2
DON'T KNOW 8 66 6.4
NOT ASKED 9 964 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
------
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
Q13A
SUSQUEHANNA WATER QUALITY: AQUATIC LIFE
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
VERY SAFE 1 25 8.0
SOMEWHAT SAFE 2 107 34.6
SOMEWHAT UNSAFE 3 109 35.3
VERY UNSAFE 4 50 16.0
DON'T KNOW 8 19 6.0
NOT ASKED 9 1694 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
Q13B
CHESAPEAKE WATER QUALITY: AQUATIC LIFE
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
VERY SAFE 1 27 2.6
SOMEWHAT SAFE 2 280 27.0
SOMEWHAT UNSAFE 3 443 42.6
VERY UNSAFE 4 228 22.0
DON'T KNOW 8 61 5.9
NOT ASKED 9 964 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q14A HIGHEST PRIORITY W/SUSQUEHANNA
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
SAFE FOR SWIMMING 1 5 1.8
EAT SAFE SEAFOOD FROM 2 14 4.9
SAFE FOR AQUATIC LIFE 3 200 68.9
EQUALY HIGH PRIORITY. 4 62 21.3
DON'T KNOW 8 9 3.1
NOT ASKED 9 1713 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
-------
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q14B
HIGHEST PRIORITY W/CHESAPEAKE
Value Label
Value
Frequency
Valid
Percent
-------
CLIENT.FRQ April 28, 1994 Page 4-3
SAFE FOR SWIMMING 1 11 1.1
EAT SAFE SEAFOOD FROM 2 121 12.0
SAFE FOR AQUATIC LIFE 3 671 66.5
EQUALY HIGH PRIORITY 4 195 19.3
DON'T KNOW 8 11 1.1
NOT ASKED 9 995 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
------
-----
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
Q15
SUSQUEHANNA POLLUTION COMPARED 10 YRS AG
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
MORE POLLUTED 1 131 42.5
LESS POLLUTED 2 61 19.7
ABOUT THE SAME 3 73 23.8
DON'T KNOW 8 43 14.0
NOT ASKED 9 1694 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q16
CHESAPEAKE POLLUTION COMPARED 10 YRS AGO
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
MORE POLLUTED 1 475 45.7
LESS POLLUTED 2 204 19.6
ABOUT THE SAME 3 191 18.4
DON'T KNOW 8 170 16.4
NOT ASKED 9 964 MISSING
------- --------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
-----
-----
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
Q18
MUNICIPAL TX PLANTS MAIN POLLUTION CAUSE
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
NO 0 438 21.9
YES 1 1140 56.9
DON'T KNOW 8 426 21.3
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
-------
- - - -
-----
- - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
Q18A
LANDFILLS ONE OF MAIN POLLUTION CAUSES
Valid
-------
CLIENT.FRQ April 28, 1994 Page 4-4
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
NO 0 524 26.1
YES 1 1087 54.3
DON'T KNOW 8 393 19.6
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-------
CLIENT.FRQ
April 28, 1994
Page 5
Q19
FARMING ONE OF MAIN POLLUTION CAUSES
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
NO 0 1006 50.2
YES 1 714 35.6
DON'T KNOW 8 283 14.1
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
Q19A
COMMERCIAL SHIPPING SPILLS CAUSE POLLUTE
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
NO 0 445 22.2
YES 1 1400 69.9
DON'T KNOW 8 159 7.9
------- --------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
Q198
ROAD/ETC CONSTRUCTION MAIN CAUSE POLLUTE
valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
NO 0 840 41.9
YES 1 897 44.8
DON'T KNOW 8 267 13.3
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-------
CLIENT.FRQ
April 28, 1994
Page 6
Q19C
OTHER BUSINESS/INDUSTRY CAUSE POLLUTION
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
NO 0 317 15.8
YES 1 1480 73.8
DON'T KNOW 8 207 10.3
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
Q19D
POPULATION GROWTH MAIN POLLUTION CAUSE
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
NO 0 595 29.7
YES 1 1239 61.8
DON'T KNOW 8 170 8.5
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-------
- - - - - - - - - -
-----
- - - - - - - - - -
Q20
REC BOAT GARBAGE/SEWAGE CAUSE POLLUTION
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
NO 0 493 24.6
YES 1 1353 67.5
DON'T KNOW 8 157 7.8
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-------
CLIENT.FRQ
April 28, 1994
Page 7
Q20B
INDIVIDUAL ACTION MAIN POLLUTION CAUSE
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
NO 0 551 27.5
YES 1 1235 61. 6
DON'T KNOW 8 218 10.9
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
------
-----
-----
- - - - - - - - - - -
Q20C
OTHER THINGS MAIN CAUSES OF POLLUTION
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
NO '0 1635 81.6.
YES 1 315 15.7
DON'T KNOW 8 54 2.7
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
- - - - - - - - - - -
-----
- - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
Q21
MOST SERIOUS CAUSE OF POLLUTION IN BAY
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
SEWAGE TREATMT PLANT 1 282 14.8
GRBAGE DUMP-LANDFILL 2 116 6.1
FARMING 3 151 8.0
COMMRCAL SHIP SPILLS 4 267 14.0
CONSTRUCTION 5 43 2.3
BUSINESS-INDUSTRY 6 578 30.4
GENERAL PUBLIC 7 128 6.7
POP GROWTH 8 159 8.3
REC BOATING 9 81 4.3
DON'T KNOW 88 96 5.1
NOT ASKED 99 103 MISSING
------- --------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-------
CLIENT.FRQ April 28, 1994 Page 8
Q21A LEAST SERIOUS CAUSE OF POLLUTON IN BAY
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
SEWAGE TREATMT PLANT 1 58 4.4
GRBAGE DUMP-LANDFILL 2 79 6.0
FARMING 3 423 32.1
COMMRCAL SHIP SPILLS 4 49 3.7
CONSTRUCTION 5 133 10.1
BUSINESS-INDUSTRY 6 12 .9
GENERAL PUBLIC 7 168 12.8
POP GROWTH 8 130 9.9
REC BOATING 9 179 13.6
DON'T KNOW 88 84 6.4
NOT ASKED 99 688 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
- - - - - - - - -
Q22
CHEMICALS OR ANIMAL WASTE HARM FISH MORE
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
CHEMICAL DIRECT HARM 1 1332 66.5
WASTE CAUSE OVERGROW 2 502 25.1
DON'T KNOW 8 170 8.5
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Q22A
RELATIVE IMPORT OF BAY RESTORATION
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
ONE OF MOST IMPORTNT 1 978 48.8
IMPRTNT,BUT NOT MOST 2 792 39.5
ONE OF LEAST IMPRTNT 3 140 7.0
NOT IMPORTANT AT ALL 4 23 1.1
DON'T KNOW 8 70 3.5
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-------
CLIENT.FRQ
April 28, 1994
Page 9
QQ22
CURRENT EFFORT TO REDUCE BAY POLLUTION
valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
TOO MUCH 1 71 3.5
ABOUT RIGHT 2 571 28.5
TOO LITTLE 3 989 49.4
DON'T KNOW 8 373 18.6
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
-------
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
Q23
STATE GOVT HAS HELP MANAGE BAY POLLUTION
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
GREAT DEAL 1 213 10.7
SOME 2 973 48.6
LITTLE 3 331 16.5
NONE 4 78 3.9
DON'T KNOW 8 408 20.4
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
Q24
FED GOVT HAS HELPED MANAGE BAY POLLUTION
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
GREAT DEAL 1 117 5.9
SOME 2 719 35.9
LITTLE 3 534 26.6
NONE 4 123 6.2
DON'T KNOW 8 510 25.5
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-------
CLIENT.FRQ
April 28, 1994
Page 10
Q25
LOCAL GOVT HAS HELP MANAGE BAY POLLUTION
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
GREAT DEAL 1 180 9.0
SOME 2 845 42.2
LITTLE 3 373 18.6
NONE 4 157 7.8
DON'T KNOW 8 447 22.3
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
------
-----
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
QQ25
FARMERS HAVE HELP MANAGE BAY POLLUTION
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
GREAT DEAL 1 145 7.2
SOME 2 549 27.4
LITTLE 3 404 20.2
NONE 4 235 11. 7
DON'T KNOW 8 670 33.5
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0 ,
-----
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
Q26
BUSINESS HAS HELPED MANAGE BAY POLLUTION
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
GREAT DEAL 1 104 5.2
SOME 2 667 33.3
LITTLE 3 571 28.5
NONE 4 281 14.0
DON'T KNOW 8 380 19.0
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-------
CLIENT.FRQ
April 28, 1994
Page 11
Q27
CITIZENS/ORGANIZATIONS HELP W/POLLUTION
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
GREAT DEAL 1 540 27.0
SOME 2 852 42.5
LITTLE 3 207 10.3
NONE 4 84 4.2
DON'T KNOW 8 320 16.0
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
- - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
Q28
STATE GOVT WORKING W/OTHER STATE GOVTS
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
NO 0 163 8.2
YES 1 958 47.8
DON'T KNOW 8 882 44.0
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q28A
STATE GOVT WORKING W/FEDERAL GOVT
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
NO 0 173 8.6
YES 1 881 44.0
DON'T KNOW 8 949 47.4
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-------
CLIENT.FRQ
April 28, 1994
Page 12
Q28B
KNOW WHAT GOVT POLLUTION GROUP IS CALLED
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
NO 0 777 88.2
YES 1 104 11.8
NOT ASKED 9 1122 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
- - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q28C
NAME OF GOVT POLLUTION GROUP
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
CHESPEAKE BAY PROGRM 1 4 4.1
ALLIANCE FOR CPK BAY 2 1 1.0
CPK BAY FOUNDATION 3 3 3.3
SAVE BAY FOUNDATION 4 11 10.3
OTHER-SPECIFY 5 68 65.3
DON'T KNOW 8 17 15.9
NOT ASKED 9 1900 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0 100.0
-----
------
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
Q29
R/HH MEMBER PARTICIPATED IN BAY CLEANUP
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
NO 0 1555 77.6
YES 1 412 20.6
DON'T KNOW 8 37 1.8
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q30
DESCRIBE SELF HELPING REDUCE POLLUTION
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
VERY ACTIVE 1 337 16.8
SOMEWHAT ACTIVE 2 1019 50.9
NOT VERY ACTIVE 3 626 .31.3
DON'T KNOW 8 21 1.0
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
-----
------
- - - -
- - - - - - - - -
Q30A
SOMETHING WOULD CAUSE BECOME MORE ACTIVE
-------
CLIENT.FRQ
April 28, 1994
Page 12-2
Value Label
Valid
Value Frequency Percent
o 242 38.6
1 264 42.1
8 121 19.4
9 1377 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
NO
YES-OTHER
DON'T KNOW
NOT ASKED
-----
------
-----
- - - -
------
- - - - - - - - -
Q31
R/HH MEMBER BELONG TO ENVIRONMNTAL GROUP
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
NO 0 1774 88.6
YES-WHICH GROUPS 1 211 10.5
DON'T KNOW 8 18 .9
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-------
CLIENT.FRQ
April 28, 1994
Page 13
Q32 R/HH MEMBER STOP PRODUCT USE IF IT POLLU
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
NO 0 1021 51.0
YES-WHICH PRODUCT 1 912 45.5
DON'T KNOW 8 71 3.5
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
-----
-------
-------
- - - - - - - - - - -
Q33
NEW FUNDS TO PREVENT OR REPAIR DAMAGE
Value Label
Value
Frequency
Valid
Percent
PREVENT MORE DAMAGE
REPAIR DAMAGE DONE
OTHER-SPECIFY
DON'T KNOW
1 894 44.6
2 792 39.5
3 230 11. 5
8 88 4.4
------- -------
TOTAL' 2004 100.0
-------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
Q33A
HOW TO SPEND POLLUTION PREVENTION FUNDS
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
EDUCATION 1 256 28.6
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 2 88 9.8
ENFORCE REGULATION 3 347 38.8
TECH ASSIS-VOLUNTEER 4 99 11.0
OTHER-SPECIFY 5 69 7.7
DON'T KNOW 8 36 4.1
NOT ASKED 9 1110 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-------
CLIENT.FRQ April 28, 1994 Page 14
Q33B HOW TO SPEND POLLUTION REPAIR FUNDS
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
RESTORE WILDLIF AREA 1 144 18.1
REPLENISH FISH POP 2 65 8.3
'ENCOURAGE PUB PARTCP 3 64 8.0
REDUCE WATER POLLT 4 416 52.5
OTHER-SPECIFY 5 75 9.4
DON'T KNOW 8 29 3.6
NOT ASKED 9 1212 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
- - - - - - - -
-----
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
Q34
EVER SEEN/HEARD REPORT ON REDUCE POLLUTE
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
NO 0 1144 57.1
YES 1 844 42.1
DON'T KNOW 8 16 .8
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-------
CLIENT.FRQ April 28, 1994 Page 15
D2 NUMBER OF HH ADULTS 18 OR OLDER
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
1 248 12.4
2 1066 53.5
3 429 .21. 5
4 172 8.6
5 39 1.9.
6 10 .5
7 9 .4
8 2 .1
9 3 .2
10 5 .3
MORE THAN 10 11 9 .4
REFUSED 99 12 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
-----
_. - - - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
D3
NUMBER OF HH CHILDREN YOUNGER THAN 18
Value Label
Valid
Value Frequency Percent
o 1119 56.2
1 375 18.9
2 285 14.3
3 138 6.9
4 56 2.8
5 10 .5
6 7 .3
7 1 .0
8 0 .0
9 12 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
NONE
8 OR MORE
REFUSED
-------
CLIENT.FRQ April 28, 1994 Page 16
D5 IN WHAT YEAR WAS RESPONDENT BORN
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
1 1 .1
2 0 .0
3 1 .0
4 0 .0
5 1 .0
6 2 .1
7 2 .1
8 13 .6
9 7 .4
10 5 .2
11 3 .2
12 6 .3
13 8 .4
14 9 .4
15 16 .8
16 8 .4
17 11 .6
18 16 .8
19 31 1.6
20 8 .4
21 11 .5
22 21 1.1
23 15 .8
24 13 .7
25 12 .6
26 12 .6
27 17 .9
28 21 1.1
29 11 .6
30 31 L6
31 18 .9
32 31 1.6
33 16 .8
34 32 1.7
35 15 .8
36 23 1.2
37 23 1.2
38 30 1.5
39 41 2.1
40 21 1.1
41 29 1.5
42 35 1.8
43 23 1.2
44 44 2.2
45 32 1.7
46 53 2.7
47 50 2.5
48 43 2.2
49 45 2.3
50 53 2.7
51 44 2.2
-------
CLIENT.FRQ April 28, 1994 Page 17
D5 IN WHAT YEAR WAS RESPONDENT BORN (Continued)
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
52 40 2.1
53 49 2.5
54 46 2.4
55 54 2.8
56 40 2.0
57 44 2.3
58 40 2.0
59 41 2.1
60 37 1.9
61 49 2.5
62 54 2.7
63 41 2.1
64 54 2.8
65 31 1.6
66 38 1.9
67 33 1.7
68 29 1.5
69 50 2.6
70 38 1.9
71 24 1.3
72 25 1.3
73 15 .8
74 42 2.1
75 30 1.5
REFUSED 99 48 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
- - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D6
CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
EMPLOYED FULL-TIME 1 1139 57.3
EMPLOYED PART-TIME 2 201 10.1
NOT EMPLOED AT ALL 3 635 31.9
EMPLOYED BOTH PT-FT 4 13 .7
REFUSED 9 16 ISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-------
CLIENT.FRQ April 28, 1994 Page 18
D6A REASON WHY RESPONDENT IS UNEMPLOYED
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
RETIRED 1 268 42.7
KEEPING HOUSE 2 147 23.3
'TEMP UNEMPLOYED 3 49 7.8
STUDENT 4 60 9.5
DISABLED 5 61 9.7
SOMETNG ELSE-SPECIFY 6 44 7.0
REFUSED 9 1375 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
-------
- - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
LAST GRADE OR YEAR OF SCHOOL COMPLETED
D7
Value Label
Value
NONE
SOME ELEMENTARY
o
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
99
ELEMENTARY GRAD
SOME HIGH SCHOOL
HIGH SCHOOL GRAD
SOME COLLEGE
COLLEGE GRAD
SOME GRAD SCHOOL
GRAD OR PROF DEGREE
REFUSED
TOTAL
Frequency
5
1
5
2
12
17
21
90
78
85
146
603
171
220
90
275
30
135
18
-------
2004
Valid
Percent
.2
.0
.3
.1
.6
.9
1.1
4.5
3.9
4.3
7.4
30.4
8.6
11.1
4.5
13.8
1.5
6.8
MISSING
-------
100.0
-------
CLIENT.FRQ
April 28, 1994
Page 19
D8'
IS R OF SPANISH OR HISPANIC ORIGIN
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
NO 0 1942 97.6
YES 1 46 2.3
DON'T KNOW 8 1 .0
REFUSED 9 14 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
- - - - - - - - - -
-------
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
D8A
WHAT RACE/ENTHICITY IS RESPONDENT
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
WHITE 1 1531 77.2
BLACK 2 358 18.0
ASIAN 3 31 1.5
OTHER RACE-SPECIFY 4 40 2.0
HISPANIC 5 23 1.2
REF 9 21 MISSING
------- '-------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
- - - - - - - -
- - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D9
CURRENT MARITAL STATUS
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
MARRIED 1 1237 62.5
SEPARATED 2 48 2.4
DIVORCED 3 156 7.9
WIDOWED 4 139 7.0
NEVER MARRIED 5 399 20.2
REFUSED 9 25 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-------
CLIENT.FRQ
April 28, 1994
Page 20
DI0
DOES RESPONDENT OWN OR RENT HOME
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
OWN 1 1307 66.4
RENT 2 549 27.9
OTHER-SPECIFY 3 114 5.8
REFUSED 9 34 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-----
- - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
D11
EVER GO RECREATIONAL SAILING OR BOATING
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
NO 0 1028 51.4
YES 1 971 48.6
REFUSED 9 5 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HINC
COMPUTED HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
$12,000 OR LESS 1 79 4.4
$20,000 OR LESS 2 18 1.0
$30,000 OR LESS 3 38 2.2
$12,000 - 20,000 4 172 9.7
$20,000 - 30,000 5 293 16.5
$30,000 - 50,000 6 521 29.4
$50,000 - 75,000 7 334 18.9
$30,000 OR MORE 8 55 3.1
$50,000 OR MORE 9 26 1.5
$75,000 - 100,000 10 237 13.4
REFUSED 99 231 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-------
CLIENT.FRQ April 28, 1994 Page 21
CNTM MARYLAND COUNTY RESPONDENT LIVES IN
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
ALLEGANY 1 12 1.6
ANNE ARUNDEL 2 83 11.4
BALTIMORE 3 162 22.2
BALT CITY 4 104 14.3
CALVERT 5 4 .6
CARROLL 7 12 1.7
CECIL 8 17 2.3
CHARLES 9 22 3.0
DORCHESTER 10 2 .3
FREDERICK 11 33 4.6
HARFORD 13 18 2.5
HOWARD 14 39 5.3
MONTGOMERY 16 75 10.3
PG CNTY 17 99 13.6
QUEEN ANNE 18 4 .6
SOMERSET 19 6 .9
TALBOT 21 4 .5
WASHINGTON 22 25 3.4
WICOMICO 23 7 .9
WORCESTER 24 1 .1
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 99 1274 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-------
CLIENT.FRQ April 28, 1994 Page 22
CNTP PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY RESPONDENT LIVES IN
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
ADAMS 1 3 .5
BEDFORD 2 1 .1
BLAIR 3 24 4.9
BRADFORD 4 8 1.8
CENTRE 6 8 1.7
CLEARFIELD 7 4 .8
COLUMBIA 9 13 2.8
CUMBERLAND 10 36 7.5
DAUPHIN 11 37 7.8
FRANKLIN 12 7 1.5
HUNTINGDON 14 4 .9
JUNIATA 15 12 2.5
LACKAWANNA 16 29 6.0
LANCASTER 17 72 15.1
LEBANON 18 28 5.8
LUZERNE 19 35 7.4
LYCOMING 20 15 3.1
MIFFLIN 21 4 .9
MONTOUR 22 6 1.2
NORTHHUMBERLAND 23 16 3.4
PERRY 24 15 3.0
SCHUYLKILL 26 16 3.3
SNYDER 27 9 1.8
SUSQUEHANNA 29 3 .7
TIOGA 30 6 1.3
WYOMING 32 9 1.8
YORK 33 59 12.4
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 99 1524 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
-------
CLIENT.FRQ April 28, 1994 Page 23
CNTV VIRGINIA COUNTY RESPONDENT LIVES IN
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
ACCOMACK 1 5 .7
ALBENARLE 2 25 3.7
ALLEGHANY 3 6 .9
APPOMATTOX 6 32 4.6
ARLINGTON 7 19 2.7
AUGUSTA 8 9 1.3
BOTETOURT 10 2 .3
BUCKINGHAM 11 3 .4
CAROLINE 12 11 1.6
CHESTERFIELD 14 42 6.1
CRAIG 17 10 1.4
CUMBERLAND 19 1 .1
FAIRFAX 21 88 12.9
FAUQUIER 22 18 2.6
FLUVANNA 23 5 .7
FREDERICK 24 18 2.6
GLOUCESTER 26 3 .5
GOOCHLAND 27 6 .9
HAMPTON 29 20 2.9
HANOVER 30 9 1.2
HENRICO 31 19 2.8
HIGHLAND 32 6 .9
ISLE OF WIGHT 33 8 1.1
LANCASTER 38 1 .2
LOUDOUN 39 5 .8
LOUISA 40 13 1.9
NEWPORT NEWS 47 20 2.8
NORFOLK 48 37 5.3
NORTHHAMPTON 49 4 .6
ORANGE 52 4 .5
PAGE 53 6 .8
PORTSMOUTH 55 21 3.1
PRINCE GEORGE 56 3 .4
PRINCE WILLIAM 57 27 4.0
PRINCE EDWARD 58 1 .1
RICHMOND CITY 60 25 3.7
ROCKINGHAM 62 26 3.8
SHENANDOAH 63 16 2.4
SPOTSYLVANIA 64 8 1.2
STAFFORD 65 10 1.5
SUFFOLK 66 6 .9
WARREN 67 7 1.0
YORK 68 16 2.3
ALEXANDRIA 69 6 .8
STAUTON CITY 70 1 .2
CHESAPEAKE 71 9 1.3
VIRGINIA BEACH 72 35 5.1
PETERSBURG 73 7 1.0
CHARLOTTESVILLE 74 1 .2
LYNCHBURG 75 8 1.2
WILLIAMSBURG 76 1 .1
-------
CLIENT.FRQ
April 28, 1994
Page 24
CNTV
VIRGINIA COUNTY RESPONDENT LIVES IN (Continued)
Value
Frequency
Valid
Percent
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
99
1317
MISSING
-------
--------
TOTAL
2004
100.0
- - - - - - - - -
------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DIST
DISTANCE FROM CHESAPEAKE
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
WITHIN 50 MILES 1 1199 59.8
WITHIN 100 MILES 2 423 21.1
OVER 100 MILES 3 381 19.0
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
----- - - - - -----
REDUC RECODED EDUCATION
Valid.
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
LT HIGH SCHOOL 1 461 23.2
HIGH SCHOOL GRAD 2 603 30.4
SOME COLLEGE 3 481 24.2
COLLEGE GRAD 4 275 13.8
POST GRAD 5 166 8.3
REFUSED 9 18 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-------
CLIENT.FRQ April 28, 1994 Page 25
RAGE RESPONDENT AGE GROUPS
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
18-24 1 225 11.5
25-34 2 406 20.8
35-44 3 456 23.3
45-54 4 370 18.9
55-64 5 230 11.8
65+ 6 269 13.7
REFUSED 9 48 MISSING
------- -------
TOTAL 2004 100.0
------- |