-------
Chapter IN. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 3. MSA Importance Ratings Compared to Other Region 1 MSAs Combined
Issue
Air pollution- cars
Air pollution- business, industrial sites
Air pollution- burning leaves
Ozone alerts
Adequacy of landfills
Location of landfills
Local hazardous waste dumping
Harmful pesticides
Animal waste disposal
Quality of drinking water
Protection of ground water and wells
Depletion of water table
Pollution of streams/lakes
Long-term supply of drinking water
Adequacy of sewage treatment facilities
c
o
m
•c
o
Q.
CD
0)
TJ
m
c
o
B
^
m
T
•o
.2
•c
CO
^
CO
o
0,
V
T
T
V
V
_o
CO
CD
"5
li.
s
c
CL
to
T
Mean MSA importance rating is significantly higher than other MSAs in the region combined
Mean MSA importance rating is significantly lower than other MSAs in the region combined
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 1
III-6
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
IV. Local Environmental Issues: Better, Worse, or the Same During
the Last Five Years
When asked whether each issue has become better, has stayed the same, or has become worse
during the last five years, 59% of Region 1 respondents reported that pollution of streams, lakes,
rivers, and oceans—which received the highest importance ratings of any environmental
issue—had become better during this time. Conversely, 41% of respondents indicated that the
adequacy of landfills has become worst during the last five years. (See Figure 4).
For eight local environmental issues, the percentage of Region 1 respondents reporting that the
issue had unproved during the last five years was significantly higher than in the other nine regions
combined (Figure 5). For one issue adequacy of landfills the percentage of Region 1
respondents reporting that the issue had worsened was significantly higher than in the other regions
combined.
Figure 4. Local Environmental Issues Improvement or Decline
During the Last Five Years: Region 1
Pollution of streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans
Quality of drinking w ater
Long-term supply of drinking w ater
Protection of ground w ater/w eHs
Adequacy of sew age treatment facilities
Local hazardous waste dumping
Depletion of water table
Harmful pesticides
Air pollution-cars
Location of landfills
Air pollution- businesses/Industry
Adequacy of landfills
Ozone alerts
Animal waste disposal
Air pollution-burning leaves
46%
21% I 20%~1
I 20%-|
56%
47%
44%
•- 43% ••
39%
58%
44%
vasaaaBssaeu
36%
55%
«imi«vW3%a»
^
41%
38%
55%
63%
1~18%~1
ID5%:i
3Z16%D
Hir%D
32%
[12%]
"34%~
"I 23% I
ZD6%I]
mi
49%
17%
0%
20%
40%
60% 80%
100%
El Better DSame
D Worse
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 1
III-7
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 5. Local Environmental Issues - Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years:
Regions Compared to Other Regions Combined
Issue
Air pollution- cars
Air pollution- business,
industrial sites
Air pollution- burning leaves
Ozone alerts f
Adequacy of landfills
Location of landfills
Local hazardous waste
dumping
Harmful pesticides
Animal waste disposal
Quality of drinking water
Protection of ground water
and wells
Depletion of water table
Pollution of streams/lakes
Long-term supply of drinking
water
Adequacy of sewage
treatment facilities
in
o
N.
II
Z
^—
§
en
tr
W
W
W
B
CO*
^»
•»—
II
z
^>
c
o
CD
W
W
B
B
W
W
co*
II
z
in
c
o
O)
o
a:
B
B
B
B
B
B
CO
o
•*—
ii
Z
CO
c
o
a>
W
B
B
W
B
CO*
o
ii
Z
^
c
o
I
W
o
co
ii
Z
CO
§
O)
a>
W
y
t—
II
Z
o
0
CD
§.
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
o*
o
II
W
o
g
I
W
B
W
W
B Percentage of respondents reporting that the issue has improved is significantly higher in this region than in
other regions combined
W Percentage of respondents reporting that the issue has declined is significantly higher in this region than in
other regions combined
NOTE: Only respondents who rated each issue six or higher were asked whether the issue had improved or
declined.
NOTE: The number of EMPACT MSAs vary by region. For regions with fewer MSAs (e.g., Region 10), and
therefore fewer survey responses, it is difficult to measure statistically significant differences from the combined
mean of other regions due to sample error.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 1
III-8
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 6. Local Environmental Issues Improvement or Decline Over Last Five Years:
MSAs Compared to Other MSAs Combined
Issue
Air pollution- cars
Air pollution- business, industrial sites
Air pollution- burning leaves
Ozone alerts
Adequacy of landfills
Location of landfills
Local hazardous waste dumping
Harmful pesticides
Animal waste disposal
Quality of drinking water
Protection of ground water and wells
Depletion of water table
Pollution of streams/lakes
Long-term supply of drinking water
Adequacy of sewage treatment facilities
c
o
o
CO
B
W
B
•c
o
Q.
(D
0>
T3
m
B
B
c
o
—
m
W
W
W
T3
£
•c
i
•a
c
(0
o
Q-
W
CO
<5
E
"co
u_
s
c
(D
^3
>
2
Q.
B
W
T-3
c
Q.
CO
W
B Percentage of respondents reporting that the issue has improved is significantly higher in this MSA than in
other MSAs combined
W Percentage of respondents reporting that the issue has declined is significantly higher in this MSA than in
other MSAs combined
NOTE: Only respondents who rated each issue six or higher were asked whether the issue had improved or
declined.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 1
III-9
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
The following section will focus on the responses about whether specific local environmental
conditions have gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse during the last five years.
Statistically significant findings for this "improvement-decline" data were summarized in Figures
5 and 6. The percentage responses are broken out and reported below. Each section discusses
some overall generalizations that can be made about each Region 1 EMPACT MSA. The issues
are grouped by type of issue (i.e., water, air, and waste). The data included within each section
reflects perceptions of the local environmental issues^/- respondents who rated each issues as a
six or higher.
A. Quality of Drinking Water from Public Water Systems
Compared to the other nine EPA Regions combined, respondents in Region 1 are significantly
more likely to report that the quality of drinking water has improved during the past five
years. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 1 MSAs combined, no
significant differences exist.
Figure 7. Quality of Drinking Water by Region 1 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 1
Boston
Bridgeport
Burlington
Hartford
Portland
Providence/ Fall River/ Warwick
Springfield
0%
I 34%
337%
131%
123%
133%
30%
135%
21 24%
126%
10% 20% 30% 40%
50%
60%
70%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 1
HMO
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
B. Long-Term Supply of Drinking Water
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 1 to the other nine EPA Regions
combined. Similarly, when comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 1 MSAs
combined, no significant differences exist.
Figure 8. Long-Term Supply of Drinking Water by Region 1 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 1
Boston
Bridgeport
Burlington
Hartford
Portland
Providence/ Fall River/ Warwick
Springfield
23%
126%
j 18%
130%
113%
19%
•J 19%
125%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
C. Pollution of Streams, Lakes. Rivers, and Oceans in the Urban Area
Compared to the other regions combined, Region 1 respondents are much more likely to
report that urban water pollution has become better during the last five years. Compared to
other Region 1 MSAs, Boston reported a significantly higher number of respondents who felt
that the pollution of lakes, rivers, and oceans in their urban area has improved over the last
five years. Both Burlington and Providence/Fall River/Warwick reported a significantly
higher number of respondents who felt that the pollution of lakes, rivers, and oceans in their
urban areas had gotten worse over the last five years.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 1
111-11
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental issues
Figure 9. Urban Water Pollution by Region 1 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 1
Boston
Bridgeport
Burlington
Hartford
Portland
Providence/ Fall River/ Warwick
Springfield
159%
170%
I 56%
142%
ej 35%
156%
154%
I 51%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
D. Protection of Ground Water and Wells
Compared to the other regions combined, Region I respondents are much more likely to
report that the protection of ground water and wells has become better during the last five
years. When compared to other Region 1 MSAs, Boston reported a significantly higher
number of respondents who felt that the protection of ground water and wells in their urban
area had gotten better over the last five years. Respondents from Portland reported a
significantly higher number of individuals than Region 1 who felt that the protection of ground
water and wells in their urban area had gotten worse over the last five years.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 1
111-12
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 10. Protection of Ground Water and Wells by Region"! MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 1
Boston
Bridgeport
Burlington
Hartford
Portland
Providence/Fall River/ Warwick
Springfield
——125%
3-53%
I 52%
123%
14%
128%
16%
|33%
—]3S%
3 9 %
123%
•"• > I 12%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
E. Adequacy of Sewage Treatment Facilities
Compared to the other regions combined, Region 1 respondents are significantly more likely
to report that the adequacy of sewage treatment facilities has become better during the last five
years. When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 1 MSAs combined, no
significant differences exist.
Figure 11. Adequacy of Sewage Treatment Facilities by Region 1 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 1
Boston
Bridgeport
Burlington
Hartford
Portland
Providence/ Fall River/ Warwick
Springfield
131%
I 34%
144%
I 31%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 1
111-13
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
F. Depletion of the Water Table
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 1 respondents to the other regions
combined. Compared to other Region 1 MS As, Boston reported a significantly higher number
of respondents who feel that the depletion of the water table has worsened in the last five
years.
Figure 12. Depletion of the Water Table by Region 1 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 1
Boston
Bridgeport
Burlington
Hartford
Portland
Providence/ Fall River/ Warwick
Springfield
] 33%
60% 70%
G. Air Pollution from Cars
When comparing Region 1 respondents to the other regions combined, no significant
differences exist When comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 1 MS As, Burlington
respondents are more likely to report that air pollution from cars has worsened over the last
five years..
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 1
111-14
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 13. Air Pollution from Cars by Region 1 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 1
Boston
Bridgeport
Burlington
Hartford
Portland
Providence/ Fall River/ Warwick
Springfield
0%
130%
130%
| 34%
I 33%
123%
132%
125%
129%
33%
33%
10% 20% 30% 40%
50%
60%
70%
H. Air Pollution from Businesses and Industries
Compared to the other regions combined, Region 1 respondents are more likely to report that
air pollution from businesses in their urban areas has unproved during the past five years.
Compared to other Region 1 MSAs, Burlington reported a significantly higher number of
respondents who feel that air pollution from businesses and industries has worsened over the
last five years.
Figure 14. Air Pollution from Businesses and Industries by Region 1 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 1
Boston
Bridgeport
Burlington
Hartford
Portland
Providence/ Fall River/Warwick
Springfield
0%
143%
316%
149%
I •"
-.->! 33%
36%
139%
138%
127%
10% 20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 1
111-15
-------
Chapter HI. Local Urban Environmental issues
I. Ozone Alerts in the Community
When comparing Region 1 respondents to the other regions combined, no significant
differences exist. Providence/Fall River/Warwick respondents are more likely to report an
improvement in ozone alerts in their urban area during the last five years compared to other
Region 1 MSAs.
Figure 15. Ozone Alerts in the Community by Region 1 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 1
Boston
Bridgeport
Burlington
„ Hartford
Portland
Providence/ Fall River/ Warwick
Springfield
10% 20%
30% 40%
50%
60%
70%
J. Air Pollution from Burning Leaves
No significant differences exist when comparing Region 1 respondents to the other regions
combined. Compared to other Region 1 MSAs, Springfield is more likely to have reported
that air pollution from burning leaves has worsened in the last five years.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 1
111-16
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 16. Air Pollution from Burning Leaves by Region 1 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 1
Boston
Bridgeport
Burlington
Hartford
Portland
Providence/ Fall River/ Warwick
Springfield
o%
124%
I 18%
I 44%
139%
]47%
147%
48%
154%
135%
—-•---J^s^ I 29%
0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
70%
K. Local Hazardous Waste Dumping
Compared to the other regions combined, Region 1 respondents are significantly more likely to
report that local hazardous waste dumping has become better during the last five years. When
comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 1 MSAs, no significant differences exist.
Figure 17. Local Hazardous Waste Dumping by Region 1 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 1
Boston
Bridgeport
Burlington
Hartford
Portland
Providence/ Fall River/ Warwick
Springfield
144%
151%
134%
141%
|38%
0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 1
111-17
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
L. Use of Potentially Harmful Pesticides
Compared to the other regions combined, Region 1 respondents are significantly more likely to
report that the use of potentially harmful pesticides has become better. When comparing the
individual MSAs to other Region 1 MSAs, no significant differences exist.
Figure 18. Use of Potentially Harmful Pesticides by Region 1 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 1
Boston
Bridgeport
Burlington
- Hartford
Portland
Providence/ Fall River/ Warwick
Springfield
0%
"•^IJ- 1 16%
=J 12%
10%
10%
137%
135%
44%
44%
146%
141%
I 54%
10% 20%
30% 40%
50% 60%
70%
M. Location of Landfills
When compared to the other regions combined, Region 1 respondents are more likely to
report that the location of landfills has gotten better in the last five years. Compared to other
Region 1 MSAs, Bridgeport reported a significantly higher number of respondents who felt
that-the location of landfills in then- urban area has improved over the last five years.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 1
111-18
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
Figure 19. Location of Landfills by Region 1 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 1
Boston
Bridgeport
Burlington
Hartford
Portland
Providence/ Fall River/ Warwick
Springfield
0%
118%
3 21*
22%
23%
20%
22%
135%
5J 18%
T20%
]23%
_T
Si 13%
| 18%
TOC] 21%
10% 20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
N. Adequacy of Landfills
Compared to the other regions combined, Region 1 respondents are significantly more likely
to report that the adequacy of landfills has become worse during the past five years. When
comparing the individual MSAs to other Region 1 MSAs, no significant differences exist.
Figure 20. Adequacy of Landfills by Region 1 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 1
Boston
Bridgeport
Burlington
Hartford
Portland
Providence/ Fall River/ Warwick
Springfield
0%
I 21%
31%
121%
122%
123%
I 35%
127%
38%
|20%
43%
121%
30%
119%
123%
41%
=] 43%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 1
111-19
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmental Issues
O. Disposal of Animal Waste
When comparing Region 1 to the other regions combined, no significant differences exist.
Bridgeport respondents are more likely to report that the disposal of animal waste in their urban
area has improved over the last five years compared to other Region 1 MSAs.
Figure 21. Animal Waste Disposal by Region 1 MSA:
Improvement or Decline During Last Five Years
National Urban
Region 1
Boston
Bridgeport
Burlington
Hartford
Portland
Providence/ Fall River/ Warwick
Springfield
123%
125%
16%
741%
128%
16%
19%
133%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50% 60%
70%
V. Summary of Open-Ended Comments on Environmental Issues
After providing importance ratings for each of the 29 local environmental and non-
environmental issues covered by the survey, respondents were asked if they could "think of any
other issues in (Their MSA of ResidenceV. Respondents who named an issue were also asked
the question a second time. Responses were unprompted and volunteered by respondents.
These responses were recorded verbatim and coded into the general categories listed hi Figure
22. Categories were developed based on 2,063 responses obtained in the overall survey of the
86 MSAs.
Region 1 respondents reported 173 open-ended responses. Forty-eight percent (48.6%) of the
unprompted responses provided by Region 1 respondents mentioned an environmental issue;
whereas, 51.5% mentioned a non-environmental issue. The most frequently mentioned type of
local environmental issue mentioned was land use (20.8% of all issues), followed by pollution
issues (15.6% of all issues for air, water, land combined). The land use category encompasses a
wide range of issues, including urban sprawl, over-development, loss of trees as a reult of
development, and traffic congestion.
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 1
III-20
-------
Chapter III. Local Urban Environmentai Issues
Figure 22. Summary of Open-Ended Comments on Environmental Issues
Issue
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Air Pollution
Water Pollution
Land Pollution
Water
Land Use
Nuclear Waste
Recycling
Noise Pollution
Overpopulation
EPA Regulations
Other
TOTAL NON-ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
TOTAL ALL ISSUES
Number of
Respondents
9
9
9
0
36
4
2
2
2
2
4
84
89
173
Percentage
5.2%
5.2%
5.2%
0.0%
20.8%
2.3%
1.2%
1.2%
1.2%
1.2%
2.3%
48.6%
51.5%
100.0%
Note: Numbers may not add to 100.0% due to rounding
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 1
111-21
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Chapter IV
Sources of Local Environmental Information
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Chapter IV. Sources of Local Environmental Information
I. Introduction
In addition to obtaining data about the importance of local environmental issues, the EMPACT
Local Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Metropolitan Areas also gathered data about how
people generally obtain information about local environmental issues in their communities. This
chapter summarizes Region 1 data about commonly reported information sources, the quality of
local urban environmental information provided by selected sources, and Internet usage.
II. Sources of Local Environmental Information
The survey asked respondents to identify the sources from which they usually hear or leam about
urban environmental issues and conditions in their local area. Respondents were allowed to
mention more than one source.
More than three quarters of Region 1 respondents (77%) report that they obtain their information
from newspapers, more than any other information source. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of
respondents report receiving local environmental information from television. Only 1% report
receiving local environmental information from the Internet. Several other sources, such as
billboards, bus-side ads, posters, hotlines, universities, state governments, and the Federal
Government were also mentioned, but by fewer than 1% of the respondents.
Figure 23. Most Common Sources of Local Environmental Information in Region 1
New spapers
Television
f» 1:—
rooio
Magazine
Word of mouth
Environmental groups
77%
58%
17%
8%
8%
4%
0%
60%
80%
100%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 1
IV-1
-------
Chapter IV. Sources of Local Environmental Information
III. Quality of Information Sources
Respondents were also asked to rate the quality of the local environmental information that they
received from selected information sources on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being excellent and 1
being ven' poor. The responses were categorized as follows:
Excellent (9 or 10)
Good (6, 7. or 8)
Fair (4 or 5)
Poor (1,2, or 3).
Region 1 respondents report that the most often used sources (newspapers and television) and
environmental groups provide the highest quality local information. Federal and state government
sources receive the lowest ratings.
Figure 24. Quality of Local Environmental Information from Selected Sources: Region 1
Television
New spapers
Radio
Federal government
State government
Local government
Environmental groups
Schools and colleges
20% | 44% | 36% |
22% --; | 55% | 23% |
-11% | 35% | 54% |
.7%) 27% | 66% |
8% | 34% 59% |
10% | 35% | 55% |
• 19% •:. | 46% 25% [
14% | 42% 44% |
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
a Excellent
D Good
D Fair/Poor
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 1
IV-2
-------
Chapter IV. Sources of Local Environmental Information
IV. Other Sources of Local Environmental Information
The survey asked whether the respondent or any other adult in the respondent's household has
obtained environmental information by:
Requesting information in-person, in writing, or by telephone
Subscribing to an environmental publication such as a magazine
Reading a book or brochure or having done a library search
Joining an environmental group
Searching the Internet
• Attending a public meeting for information.
This question did not specifically focus on local urban environmental issues, but on environmental
issues in general.
Compared to national-level results for all 86 EMPACT MSAs, Region 1 respondents are more
active than the national urban population as a whole. More than half of the Region 1 respondents
(51 %) report that a member of their household has read a book or brochure or has done a library
search for environmental information. Interestingly, although respondents were unlikely to
mention the Internet when asked to list their sources of local environmental information, more than
one third (35%) report that a member of their household has done an Internet search for
environmental information. This may be because the latter question pertained to all environmental
information (not just local) and asked the respondent to answer regarding all members of the
household.
Figure 25. Other Sources of Information on Environmental Issues: Region 1
Read book/brochure or
51%
library research
Searched the Internet
Attended public meeting
.. , . I 23%
writing/phone ' '
Requested info in-person/
writing/phone
Subscribe to
anmental publi
Joined environmental
. 19%
environmental publication
J 35%
31%
18%
group
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 1 IV-3
-------
Chapter IV. Sources of Local Environmental Information
A. Internet Access
When asked if they had access to the Internet, 68% of Region 1 respondents report that they
do. This is considerably higher than the 59% access reported by respondents in all 86
EMPACT MS As. Of the Region 1 respondents who have access to the Internet, 76% report
using the Internet during the last few days and 88% report using it during the last week. It
should be noted that Internet saturation is generally higher hi urban populations than hi the
overall United States population.
Figure 26. Region 1 Internet Usage
o%
Last few days In the last In the last
week month
In the last Longer than a
year year
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
Region 1
IV-4
-------
Chapter V
Discussion
-------
Chapter V. Discussion
The EMPA CTLocal Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas findings indicate
that local environmental issues are very important to citizens living in 86 of the nation's largest
metropolitan areas; as important as non-environmental issues, and in many cases, more important..
The Region 1 findings are consistent with the overall survey findings - local environmental issues are
very important to people living in the seven EMPACT MSAs in Region 1. These findings reflect
the opinions of citizens living in metropolitan areas and cannot be generalized to residents of small
communities and rural areas. Citizens' opinions are broadly based and include a host of experiences
and factors deemed important to the quality-of-life they want for themselves, their children and their
community.
Similar to the overall survey findings, water issues are the most important local environmental issues
to Region 1 respondents. Much like the overall survey findings, the Region 1 findings indicate that
the local environmental issues most important to citizens vary across MSAs. These differences point
to the different local environmental issues and environmental trends facing different urban areas.
Noteworthy Region 1 findings include:
• "Pollution of streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans" received the greatest mean importance
rating (8.58).
• Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Region 1 respondents reported that this issue had improved over
the last five years.
The results raise interesting questions about citizen opinion and perception versus scientific
assessment. How accurate are citizens' perceptions of local environmental improvement or decline
as compared to scientifically measured environmental parameters? A close look at the findings may
reveal instances where citizens' concerns, or even optimism, with a local environmental issue may
be inconsistent with the scientific evidence (e.g., monitoring data). Any such inconsistency would
not discount the importance of citizens' opinions. As noted above, citizens' opinions are more
broadly based, often including decades of personal observation and experience in an area, as well
as years of publicity around a subject. Consequently, differences between public opinion and
scientific evidence should be explored and may identify opportunities for public discourse about
local environmental issues, educational needs, resource allocations, community and individual
decision-making, and overall quality-of-life standards and goals
EPA-EMPACT Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas V-1
Region 1
-------
Appendix A
EMPACT Metropolitan Areas
-------
EMPACT Metropolitan Area
Albany- Schenectady- Troy, NY
Albuquerque, NM
Allentown- Bethlehem- Easton, PA
Anchorage, AK
Atlanta, GA
Austin- San Marcos, TX
Bakersfield, CA
Billings, MT
Birmingham, AL
Boise, ID
Boston, MA- NH
Bridgeport, CT
Buffalo- Niagara Falls, NY
Burlington, VT
Charleston- North Charleston, SC
Charleston, WV
Charlotte- Gastonia- Rock Hill, NC- SC
Cheyenne, WY
Chicago- Gary- Kenosha, IL-IN- WI
Cincinnati- Hamilton, OH- KT- IN
Cleveland- Akron, OH
Columbus, OH
Dallas- Fort Worth, TX
Dayton- Springfield, OH
Denver- Boulder- Greeley, CO
Detroit- Ann Arbor- Flint, MI
EL Paso, TX
Fargo- Moorhead, ND- MN
Fresno, CA
Grand Rapids- Muskegon-Holland, MI
Greensboro- Winston Salem- High Point, NC
Greenville- Spartanburg- Anderson, SC
Harrisburg- Lebanon- Carlisle, PA
Hartford, CT
Honolulu, HI
Houston- Galveston- Brazoria, TX
Indianapolis, IN
Jackson, MS
Jacksonville, FL
Kansas City, MO- KS
Knoxville, TN
Las Vegas, NV
EPA—EMPACT Study Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
A-1
-------
EMPACT Metropolitan Area
Little Rock- North Little Rock, AR
Los Angeles- Riverside- Orange County, CA
Louisville, KY- IN
Memphis, TN- AR- MS
Miami- Fort Lauderdale, FL
Milwaukee- Racine, WI
Minneapolis- St. Paul, MN
Nashville, TN
New Orleans, LA
New York- Northern New Jersey- Long Island, NY- NJ- CT- PA
Norfolk- Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA- NC
Oklahoma City, OK
Omaha, NE- IA
Orlando, FL
Philadelphia- Wilmington- Atlantic City, PA- NJ- DE- MD
Phoenix- Mesa, AZ
Pittsburgh, PA
Portland, ME
Portland- Salem, OR- WA
Providence- Fall River-Warwick, RI- MA
Raleigh- Durham- Chapel Hill, NC
Richmond- Petersburg, VA
Rochester, NY
Sacramento- Yolo, CA
Salt Lake City- Ogden, UT
San Antonio, TX
San Diego, CA
San Francisco- Oakland- San Jose, CA
San Juan, PR
Scranton- Wilkes- Barre- Hazleton, PA
Seattle- Tacoma- Bremerton, WA
Sioux Falls, SD
Springfield, MA
St. Louis- E. St. Louis, MO- IL
Stockton- Lodi, CA
Syracuse, NY
Tampa- St Petersburg-Clearwater, FL
Toledo, OH
Tucson, AZ
Tulsa,OK
Washington- Baltimore, DC- MD - VA - WV
West Palm Beach- Boca Raton, FL
Wichita, KS
Youngstown-Warren, OH
EPA—EMPACT Study Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
A-2
-------
EMPACT Metropolitan Area
Region I
Boston, MA- NH
Bridgeport, CT
Burlington, VT
Hartford, CT
Portland, ME
Providence- Fall River-Warwick, RI- MA
Springfield, MA
Region II
Albany- Schenectady- Troy, NY
Buffalo- Niagara Falls, NY
New York- Northern New Jersey- Long Island, NY- NJ- CT- PA
Rochester, NY
San Juan, PR
Syracuse, NY
Region HI
Allentown- Bethlehem- Easton, PA
Charleston, WV
Harrisburg- Lebanon- Carlisle, PA
Norfolk- Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA- NC
Philadelphia- Wilmington- Atlantic City, PA- NJ- DE- MD
Pittsburgh, PA
Richmond- Petersburg, VA
Scranton- Wilkes- Barre- Hazleton, PA
Washington- Baltimore, DC- MD-VA- WV
Region IV
Atlanta, GA
Birmingham, AL
Charleston- North Charleston, SC
Charlotte- Gastonia- Rock Hill, NC- SC
Greensboro- Winston Salem- High Point, NC
Greenville- Spartanburg- Anderson, SC
Jackson, MS
Jacksonville, FL
Knoxville, TN
Louisville, KY- IN
EPA—EMPACT Study Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
A-3
-------
EMPACT Metropolitan Area
Memphis, TN- AR- MS
Miami- Fort Lauderdale, FL
Nashville, TN
Orlando, FL
Raleigh- Durham- Chapel Hill, NC
Tampa- St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL
West Palm Beach- Boca Raton, FL
Region V
Chicago- Gary- Kenosha, DL-IN- WI
Cincinnati- Hamilton, OH- KT- IN
Cleveland- Akron, OH
Columbus, OH
Dayton- Springfield, OH
Detroit- Ann Arbor- Flint, MI
Grand Rapids- Muskegon-Holland, MI
Indianapolis, IN
Milwaukee- Racine, WI
Minneapolis- St. Paul, MN
Toledo, OH
Youngstown-Warren, OH
Region VI
Albuquerque, NM
Austin- San Marcos, TX
Dallas- Fort Worth, TX
EL Paso, TX
Houston- Galveston- Brazoria, TX
Little Rock- North Little Rock, AR
Oklahoma City-OK
New Orleans, LA
San Antonio, TX
Tulsa,OK
Region VH
Kansas City, MO- KS
Omaha, NE- IA
St. Louis- E. St. Louis, MO- IL
Wichita, KS
EPA—EMPACT Study Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
A-4
-------
EMPACT Metropolitan Area
Region VIII
Billings, MT
Cheyenne, WY
Denver- Boulder- Greeley, CO
Fargo- Moorhead, ND- MN
Salt Lake City- Ogden, UT
Sioux Falls, SD
Region IX
Bakersfield, CA
Fresno, CA
Honolulu, ffl
Las Vegas, NV
Los Angeles- Riverside- Orange County, CA
Phoenix- Mesa, AZ
Sacramento- Yolo, CA
San Diego, CA
San Francisco- Oakland- San Jose, CA
Stockton- Lodi, CA
Tucson, AZ
Region X
Anchorage, AK
Boise, ID
Portland- Salem, OR- WA
Seattle- Tacoma- Bremerton, WA
EPA—EMPACT Study Local Urban Environmental Issues Study of 86 Metropolitan Areas
A-5
-------
Appendix B
Survey Instrument
-------
EMPACT Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B-(1)
I. Introduction
[As the CATI system queues up and dials the phone number, the interviewer's screen will indicate
the needed gender of the respondent. The CATI system is programmed to track respondent gender
for completed interviews and to specify the needed gender for each subsequent interview. Gender
designation is essential to ensuring representative proportions of males and females. Research has
demonstrated females tend to answer phone calls disproportionately.]
[Upon contacting the potential respondent, the interviewer will say the following.]
Hello. I am calling from Macro International. We are conducting a brief survey for the United
States Environmental Protection Agency, also known as the EPA. Is someone available in your household
to complete this survey 18 of age or older and also [indicate needed gender]? [IF NECESSARY: The
survey will take only 12 minutes.]
[If they say they are eligible and will take the survey, then go to Part 1. If they say they are eligible
but do not want to take the survey, thank and terminate. If they say someone else is eligible then
go to introduction Part 2]
Parti
Thank you for participating in this survey. This information will help EPA and other federal agencies that are
working with communities to give citizens the kinds of information they want. Your answers and comments
are confidential and used only in summary form together with other people's opinions.
Q.A Have you participated in an EPA survey in the last six months?
1. Yes [THANK AND TERMINATE]
2. No [GO TO SECTION II]
3. Do not know [THANK AND TERMINATE]
Part 2
Q.B Are they available now?
•f. Yes [If they do not volunteer to check, ask them to do so. If
they return and say the eligible respondent is not
available then go to Q2. If the eligible respondent
returns, then go to Part 3]
2 No [SCHEDULE CALLBACK. IF REFUSE CALLBACK -
TERMINATE]
3. Do not know [THANK AND TERMINATE]
Part3
Hello, I am calling from Macro International. We are conducting a brief survey for the United
States Environmental Protection Agency, also known as the EPA. EPA is interested in your opinions and
concerns about the environment and other issues in the FPLACE NAME OF MSA HERE! area. This
information will help EPA and other federal agencies that work with communities to give their citizens the
kinds of information they want. Your answers and comments are confidential and used only in summary form
together with other people's opinions. [IF NECESSARY: The survey will take only 12 minutes.]
-------
EMPACT Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B-(2)
Q.C First, I would just like to confirm - Are you at least 18 years old?
1. Yes
2. No [TERMINATE]
3. Do Not Know/refused [TERMINATE]
Q.D Have you participated in an EPA survey in the last six months?
1. Yes [THANK AND TERMINATE]
2. No [GO TO SECTION II]
3. Do not know [THANK AND TERMINATE]
-------
EMPACT Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B-(3)
II. Local Urban Environmental and Non-environmental Issues
Q.1 First, I am going to read you a list of different issues that may or may not occur in the [PLACE NAME
OF MSA HERE! area.
Please tell me how important is each of these issues in the fPLACE NAME OF MSA HERE! area. Please
use a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being "extremely important" and 1 being "not important at all".
[All of the issues, environmental and non-environmental, will be presented together in a random
order. The CAT! system will re-randomize the list for each respondent.]
AIR
Issue:
1 . Air pollution from cars
2. Air pollution from businesses or
industrial sites
3. Air pollution from burning leaves
4. Ozone alerts in the community
Rating
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
DK
DK
DK
DK
WASTE
Issue:
5. The adequacy of landfills
6. Location of landfills
7. Hazardous waste dumping in the local
area
8. Use of potentially harmful pesticides
9. Disposal of animal waste
Rating
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
WATER
Issue:
1 0. The quality of drinking water from public
water systems
11. Protection of ground water and wells
1 2. Depletion of the water table
13. Pollution of streams, rivers, lakes, and
oceans in the urban area
14. Adequate long-term supply of drinking
water
15. Adequacy of sewaqe treatment facilities
Rating
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
-------
EMPACT Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B-(4)
NON-ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Issue:
16. Local crime rate
17. Illegal drug use
1 8. Quality of public education
19. Adequacy of local highway system
20. Availability of housing for low income
citizens
21 . Ability of the community to respond to
natural disasters
22. Availability of public transportation
23. Favorable business climate
24. Rate of unemployment
25. Level of local taxes
26. Poverty in local community
27. Adequacy of municipal services (e.g.,
trash and snow removal, police and fire
protection)
28. Rate of urban growth
29. Health of the local economy
Rating
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
-------
EMPACT Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B-(5)
Other Issues
[These issues will be asked after the environmental and non-environmental questions. They will not
be randomized.]
Q. 1 a Can you think of any other issues in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE] area?
RECORD
Please tell me how important is this issue in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE! area. Please use a scale
of 1 to 10, with 10 being "extremely important" and 1 being "not important at all".
123 456789 10 DK
| After survey is completed, need to specify whether the issue is environmental or not.
Q.1 b Can you think of any other issue in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE! area?
RECORD
Please tell me how important is this issue in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE] area Please use a scale
of 1 to 10, with 10 being "extremely important" and 1 being "not important at all".
123 456789 10 DK
| After survey is completed, need to specify whether the issue is environmental or not
Q.2. Now I would like to ask about the ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES you rated "Important". Please tell me
whether you think that these environmental issues have gotten better, worse or stayed about the same
in the last five years in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE! area.
[The CAT! system will recall all environmental issues rated 6 or higher and use in the following
routine]
Q2a. For HNSERT FIRST ISSUE], would you say it has gotten better, worse or stayed the same in the last
five years in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HEREl area?
1. Better
2. Worse
3. Same
4. DK/Refused
Q2b. For [INSERT FIRST ISSUE], is this an issue in which you have been actively involved, for example,
written letters, attended public meetings, joined an advocacy group?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Do not know/Refused
-------
EMPACT Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B-(6)
Q3a. What about HNSERT NEXT ISSUE1. would you say it has gotten better, worse or stayed the same
in the last five years in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HEREI area?
1. Better
2. Worse
3. Same
4. DK/Refused
Q3b. For [INSERT NEXT ISSUE], is this an issue in which you have been actively involved, for example,
written letters, attended public meetings, joined an advocacy group?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Do not know/Refused
[The CATI system will continue until all issues are rated.]
Q4a. Have you or anyone else in your family been negatively affected by these environmental issues.
By negatively affected, I mean negative influence on health, things like allergies or breathing problems.
1. Yes [CONTINUE TO Q.5]
2. No [SKIP TO NEXT SECTION]
3. Do not know/Refused [SKIP TO NEXT SECTION]
Q4b. Who in your family has been negatively affected?
[SELECT ALL THAT APPLY]
1. Self
2. Children
3. Spouse or significant other
4. Elderly family members
5. Pets
6. Other
7. Do not know/Refused
-------
EMPACT Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B-(7)
III. Communications Issues
Q5. From what sources do you usually hear or leam about urban environmental issues and conditions in
the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE! area?
[DO NOT READ LIST. ENTER ALL RESPONSES.]
Q5a IF ONLY "TV" MENTIONED IN Q.1, ASK: From sources other than TV, do you usually hear or leam
about urban environmental issues and conditions in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE] area?
Q.6 If you needed particular information on urban environmental issues and conditions in the [PLACE
NAME OF MSA HERE! area, where would you be likely to look for it?
Q.6a IF ONLY "TV" MENTIONED IN Q.2, ASK: Where else, besides TV, would you be likely to look for
information on urban environmental issues and conditions in the FPLACE NAME OF MSA HERE]
area?
[DO NOT READ LIST. ENTER ALL RESPONSES.]
Q5/5a Q6/6a
Billboards 1 1
Bus-side ads 2 2
Posters 3 3
Personal experience 4 4
Internet 5 5
Kids 6 6
Leaflets 7 7
Library 8 8
Personal observation 9 9
Word-of mouth 10 10
Media
Television 11 11
Radio 12 12
Newspapers 13 13
Magazines 14 14
School 15 15
Hotlines/800 numbers 16 16
Organizations
Local Schools 17 17
Universities/Community Colleges 18 18
Local government 19 19
State government 20 20
Federal government 21 21
Environmental groups 22 .22
Other [RECORD] 23 23
-------
EMPACT Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B-(8)
Q.7 Now I would like you to rate the following sources on how well they provide you with information about
environmental conditions in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE] area. Please rate these sources using
a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being EXCELLENT and 1 being VERY POOR.
Let's start with [READ EACH. CIRCLE APPROPRIATE RATING]
[The CAT! system will randomize the list for each respondent.]
Issue:
1. Television
2. Radio
3. Newspaper
4. Federal government
5. State government
6. Local government
7. Environmental groups
8. Schools, colleges or
universities.
Rating
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
Q.8 The next few questions are about your household and the environment When we use the word
"environment" we mean the air you breathe, the water you drink, or other aspects of the natural
environment in the area where you live and work, including the climate or wild animals. When you
think about the environment this way, have you or anyone else in your household age 18 and
olden
1 . Requested environmental information in
person, in writing, or by phone?
2. Subscribed to an environmental publication
such as a magazine?
3. Read a book or brochure or done a library
search about an environmental issue?
4. Joined an environmental group to get
information?
Searched the World Wide Web or Internet for
environmental information?
Attended a public meeting to get information
about an environmental issue?
Yes
1
1
1
1
1
1
No
2
2
2
2
2
2
Don't Know
7
7
7
7
7
7
Refuse
8
8
8
8
8
8
-------
EMPACT Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B-(9)
Q9. Do you currently have access to the World Wide Web or Internet?
Yes [ASK Q.6]
No [SKIP TO NEXT SECTION]
Do not know [SKIP TO NEXT SECTION]
Q10. Do you have World Wide Web or Internet access at...? [READ LIST. ENTER RESPONSES]
[READ ALL] YES NO DK
Home 1 2 DK
Work 1 2 DK
A local library 1 2 DK
A local school 1 2 DK
Some other place 1 2 DK
RECORD OTHER
Q11. When was the last time you used the World Wide Web or Internet? [READ LIST UNTIL FIRST ?YES?
RESPONSE]
[READ] YES NO DK
In the last few days 1 2 DK
In the last week 1 2 DK
In the last month 1 2 DK
In the last year 1 2 DK
Longer than a year 1 2 DK
-------
EMPACT Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B-(10)
IV. DEMOGRAPHICS
These last few questions are just to help us classify respondents for analytical purposes.
Q12. What best describes the type of neighborhood you live in? [READ LIST]
1. Urban or city
2. Suburbs
3 Rural
4 Other [RECORD]
5. DK/Refused [DO NOT READ]
Q13. Is your home a ... [READ LIST]?
1. Single-Family Detached
2. Duplex, triplex or townhouse/ rowhouse
3. Apartment or condominium
4. Trailer or mobile home
5. Other [RECORD]
6. DK/Refused [DO NOT READ]
Q14. Do you own or rent your residence?
1. Own
2. Rent
3. Other [RECORD]
4 DNK/Refused [DO NOT READ]
Q15. How long have you lived in your residence?
YRS
Q16. How long have you lived in the [PLACE NAME OF MSA HERE! area?
YRS
-------
EMPACT Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B-(11)
Q17. What is your age? (RECORD ANSWER) [IF NECESSARY, ASK: Is it between ... (READ LIST)]
1. 18-24
2. 25-29
3. 30-34
4. 35-39
5. 40-44
6. 45-49
7. 50-54
8. 55-59
9. 60-64
10. 65-69
11. 70-74
12. 75 or older
13. Refused [DO NOT READ]
Q18. Which of the following best describes your household?
[READ LIST UNTIL FIRST YES RESPONSE.]
1. Individual living alone
2. Single head of household with children living at home
3. Couple with children living at home
4. Couple with children not living at home
5. Couple without children
6. Single or couple living with other adults
7. Other [RECORD]
8. Refused [DO NOT READ]
Q19. What is your zip code?
Q20. Do you consider yourself to be Hispanic?
1. Yes
2. No
3. DK or refused [DO NOT READ]
Q21. For classification purposes, to which of the following categories do you belong? (READ LIST)
1. • American Indian or Alaskan Native
2. Asian
3 Black or African American
4 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
5. White
6. Other
7. DK or refused [DO NOT READ]
-------
EMPACT Urban Environmental Issues Survey of 86 Cities Appendix B-(12)
Q22. What language is most often spoken in your home? (RECORD ONE ANSWER)
1. English
2. Spanish
3. French
4. German
5. Vietnamese
6. Cambodian
7. Mandarin
8. Cantonese
9. Japanese
10. Korean
11. Arabic
12. Polish
13. Russian
14. Other [RECORD]
15. DK/Refused [DO NOT READ]
Q23. Please tell me which best describes your highest level of education.
[READ LIST UNTIL FIRST YES RESPONSE.]
1. Below high school
2. High school but no diploma
3. High school diploma
4. Some college but not a bachelor's nor associate's degree
5. Associate's degree
6. Bachelor's degree
7. Some graduate or professional school but no degree
8. Graduate or professional degree
9. Graduate or professional degree plus additional studies
10. Other
11. DK/Refused
Q24. Lastly, I am going to read several income categories. Please stop me when I read the category that
best describes your 1997 total household income before taxes.
1 Under $10,000
2 $10,000-$19,999
3 $20,000-$29,999
4 $30,000-339,999
5 $40,000-$49,999
6 $50,000-$59,999
7 $60,000-$69,999
8 $70,000-$79.999
9 $80,000-$89,999
10 $90,000-$99,999
11. $100,000 and over
12. Refused [DO NOT READ]
That was the last question I have for you. Thank you very much for taking the time to participate in
this study.
-------
Appendix C
National Urban Profile
-------
NATIONAL URBAN
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
1
Harmful pesticides
Landfill adequacy
"Local waste dumping
i
i
Ozone alerts
.
Pollution- burning leaves
Pollution- industry
•"Pollution of streams/lakes
•
"•Quality of drinking water
•
RATINGS OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
BETTER, SAME, OR WORSE DURING LAST 5 YEARS
31% 1 56% W//}Q$fS////\
v///////#w//////sa
37% | 47% V////AHffiy/ff)(
21% i 49% v///////////zxy?////4W/'///tli
34% | 45% V//////XM4W////A
53E 1 BRW vMjjjjjvwjsjjjsjji D Better
28% 1 47% V////S///2iEXf////////A 1—1 Odl 1 1C
44% 1 48% V/AM//A & Worse
30% 1 43% V/////////iWV///"f////Sft
34% 1 32% \S///////////SAlVXS/////tW$'Sfl\
23% 1 53% K^X>^>MS96<'fffj^J»fJ
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
"' Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
V ^
I 1
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL NON-ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
X"
c
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
18.5
IS.5
|8.4
_,_ 1 8.3
IB.T
123456789 10
^
f
Pubic education
Local crime rate
Itegal drug use
Natural disasters
Unemployment rate
e
V
^\
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
1 8.6
18.1
18.1
1 7.8
1 7.7
1 234S678910
^
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHOSE FAMILIES HAVE BEEN NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 32%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
Appendix D
Region 1 Urban Profile
-------
REGION
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
•"Ground water and wells
Harmful pesticides
'"Landfill adequacy
Landfill location
•"Local waste dumping
Long-term water supply
Ozone alerts
Pollution- burning leaves
Pollution- cars
Pollution-industry f_
-I
'••Pollution of streams/lakes
•"Quality of drinking water
Water table depletion
RATINGS OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
BETTER. SAME. OR WORSE DURING LAST 5 YEARS
40% 1
2b% 1
38% 1
44% IS////A&I6/////1
63% V///WfK///A
47% V////fifiW////3(
21% I
V////AW&S////A
V/////SJ&X//////A
30%
1/////////////SWKS////////////A
34%
10% 1
59% 1 21%
1 46%
38% I/////////
\///////XiGIW//S////\
V//////ZXM///////\
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
• Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
D Better
DSame
0 Worse
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL. ISSUES
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
Pollution of
streams/lakes
Long-term water
supply
Quality of drinking
water
Ground water and
wells
Adequacy of sewage
treatment
I 8.6
"I 8.3
:8.3
J8.3
IJ8.2
01234567
9 10
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL NON-ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
Public education
Illegal drug use
Local crime rate
Local taxes
Local economy
_|8.6
J7.8
]7.8
J7-7
] 7.6
01234567
9 10
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHOSE FAMILIES HAVE BEEN NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.
30%
-------
Appendix E
Profiles for Region 1 MSAs
-------
BOSTON
•"Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
'"Ground water and wells
Harmful pesticides
•"Landfill adequacy
Landfill location
•"Local waste dumping
•"Long-term water supply
Ozone alerts
•"Pollution- burning leaves
Pollution- cars
Pollution- industry
"'Pollution of streamsVlakes
•"Quality of drinking water
Water table depletion
RATINGS or LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
BETTER. SAME, OR WORSE DURING LAST 5 YEARS
V//////WTJIS//S//A
D Better
DSame |
0 Worse
70%
12% I
44%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
*** Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
80%
90%
100%
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Pollution of
streams/lakes
Local waste dumping
Ground water and
wens
Long-term water
supply
Quatty of drinking
water
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
I 8.6
I 8.5
IB.S
le.«
lfc»
123456789 10
^
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL NON-ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Public education
Local taxes
Local economy
Local crtme nte
Natural disasters
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
18.7
17.7
17.5
17.4
17.4
0123456789 10
^
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHOSE FAMILIES HAVE BEEN NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 28%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
BOSTON
i
Ar*n»lw*jlt
-------
BRIDGEPORT
"'Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
•"Harmful pesticides
Landfill adequacy
Landfill location
""Local waste dumping
Long-term water supply
•"Ozone alerts
Pollution- burning leaves
•"Pollution- cars
""Pollution- industry
"""Pollution of streams/lakes
""Quality of drinking water
Water table depletion
RATINGS OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL Issues
BETTER. SAME. OR WORSE DURING LAST 5 YEARS
41%
45%
35%
38%
537o
;D Better
DSame
; 0 Worse
33%
1////////////ZIXS////////7/7A
31*
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
' Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
80% 90% 100%
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Pollution of
streams/lakes
Long-term water
supply
Quality of drinking
water
Adequacy of sewage
treatment
Ground water and
weU
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
I 8.5
I 8.Z
I 8.1
l».l
lf.5f
0123456789 10
^
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL NON-ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Public education
Local cnma rate
Illegal drug u»
Natural disasters
Local economy
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
|8.6
18.4
18.2
17.7
17.6
0123456789 10
.J
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHOSE FAMILIES HAVE BEEN NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 36%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
Adequacy of samga treatment
Annul ««»««pe«il
Ground water ana •«•»
Hannu pasoodas
Landfii adequacy
Local Male dumping
Long>ajnn water supply
Q&wtt •tons
PvMtan-burning lamas
WOi Irtla aaplrtcin
BRIDGEPORT
IMPORTANCE RATINGS OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
J5.8
J8.1
7.9
6.9
J7.3
J7-8
]8.2
J7.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 8.0 1JQ &0 9O 1OO
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL tSSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
BURLINGTON
r
'"Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
Harmful pesticides
Landfill adequacy
Landfill location
Local waste dumping
Long-term water supply
Ozone alerts
'"Pollution- burning leaves
""Polution- cars
Pollution- industry
•"PolluDon of streams/lakes
•
"•Quality of drinking water
•
Water table depletion
RATINGS OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
BETTER. SAME. OR WORSE DURING LAST 5 YEARS
34% | 54% "V//JI&V//A
28% 1 68% K*J£1
28% 1 56% &^^9??5J2?^I
45% 1 45% VSJQCMfS^
27% | 35% \//////////////jffRKS///////S^///A
24% 1 5H% [/X^j^Hl^t^XX/H
n Better
34% 1 45% V/////J!XPX//////)i Ljoeuei
_„
ij>% i 65% v/////xs}yy/y%Q LJSame
25% i 47% v////////si&j6//)'y/jW/yi 0 Worse
47% 1 41% UJ8fiM
23% | 28% ]/j////////////////SjQStM////////////////?7(
36% i 31% \s///////////i&'iiys//////////\
42% 1 23% lS/S//////////XA$?/////r//////'r/l
23% 1 5S% \/////Si/&%ZZZZP%
12% I 65% \////////13f%S//////Sl
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
*** Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
S0%
90%
100%
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL NON-ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Local waste dumping
supply
C
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
iH.»
IB.4
le.a
I 8.0
IB.U
123456789 10
c
Public education
Local taxes
Local economy
Natural disasters
IMgal drug us*
C
^
N
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
18.2
17.7
17.7
17.3
17.2
123456789 10
IF RESPONDENTS WHOSE FAMILIES HAVE BEEN NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 17%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
BURLINGTON
Adequacy et Mwig* Imminent
Annul wisttdapaul
Ground wittr and w»te
HjrmU
LandM Ktoquicy
Local MM* dumping
Ozmafens
PcMuttofr buming
Pgtuben-cm
Poiuton- mdumy
QuHyordnnUnoiMHr
Wai
IMPORTANCE RATINGS OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
J4.1
_J6.1
-J5.5
1 7.7
]8.4
J7.1
J7-2
~~|7.4
_|8.0
J8.0
do
1jO
to xo
&0
J6.6
M
J6.7
I 8.5
J8-*
J7.1
ta
8.0
to
10.0
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
HARTFORD
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
•"Ground water and wells
Harmful pesticides
Landfill adequacy
Landfill location
'"Local waste dumping
•"Long-term water supply
Ozone alerts
Pollution- burning leaves
Pollution- cars
Pollution-industry £
-I
""Pollution of streams/lakes Q
Quality of drinking water
Water table depletion
RATINGS OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
BETTER, SAME. OR WORSE DURING LAST 5 YEARS
39% 1 4b%
41% 1 40%
15% 1 73%
48% 1
32% I 38%
w//?wjffi/ss///sA
V/////XS8(fj'////A
V//A&V///1
48% r/*M
v/////////s3&%s/////////A
39%
03%
53%
1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
' Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
QSame
:0 Worse
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL NON-ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
treatment
C
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
I 8,3
) 8.2
I 8.2
I «.*
IB.U
123456789 10
Public education
lOegal drug use
Local cnme rale
Local taxes
Local economy
C
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
18.3
18.1
I 7.7
(7.5
I 7.5
123456789 10
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHOSE FAMILIES HAVE BEEN NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 32%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
HARTFORD
Adequacy ol sewage vestment
Aim* wast* dopes*
Ground water and Mb
Harmful pesticides
Landlll adequacy
LandH IfKJtion
Local wats> dumping
Ozone alaflx
Poflutfon. buminpj leaves
Potutoo- Musty
Pduton of stnum/lakes
•
QuaMy of drinking wsttr
•
Wator table depMion
IMPORTANCE RATINGS or LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL Issues
| 8.0
1 5.5
| 8.2
|7.2
I7.2
I7.3 j
1 7.7
8.2
| 6.2
1 43
\7A i
I 7.4
I 8.3
8^
I 7.6
OJ> 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7X1 8.0 9.0 10.0
EPA-EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
PORTLAND, MAINE
RATINGS OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
BETTER, SAME. OR WORSE DURING LAST 5 YEARS
"Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
•"Harmful pesliodes [
"'Landfill adequacy
Landfill location
Local waste dumping
""Long-term water supply
"•Ozone alerts
Pollution- burning leaves
Pollution- cars
Pollution- industry
'"Pollution of streams/lakes
Quality of drinKing water
Water table depletion
48*7
1^% I
-54%
"•» I
I
,D Better
ID Same
i
!0 Worse
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
*** Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
Pollution of
streams/lakes
Ground water and
wete
Long-teim water
supply
Quality of drinking
water
Adequacy of sewage
treatment
I 8.2
I 8.0
J7-8
]7.8
J7.7
01234567
9 10
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL NON-ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
Public education
Natural disasters
Illegal drug use
Local crime rate
37.9
IJ7.9
II 7.3
J7-3
II 7-2
0123456789 10
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHOSE FAMILIES HAVE BEEN NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 22%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
PORTLAND, MAINE
Adequacy of snoge tmnmenl
Anim»lw»«e)*«x>«ii
Ground water and wvfe
Qssarmtiua
PdWIon- bumkig IMVM
PoMKin-an
Poluton-Minliy
Poftitton of
WMrabKdwMon
IMPORTANCE RATINGS OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL Issues
J3.5
J5.3
J6.3
]7.7
] 8.0
7.4
7.5
J7-8
6.6
]7.8
J7.2
L
OJO 1JD ZO 10 4J) 5.0 6.0 7JJ 8.0 9.0 10.0
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
PROVIDENCE/FALL RIVER/WARWICK
Adequacy of sewage treatment
Animal waste disposal
Ground water and wells
Harmful pesticides
Landfill adequacy
Landfill location
Local waste dumping
Long-term water supply
Ozone alerts
Pollution- burning leaves
Pollution- cars
Pollution- industry
"•Pollution of streams/lakes
—Quality of drinking water
Water table depletion
RATINGS OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
BETTER. SAME. OR WORSE DURING LAST 5 YEARS
33%
30%
4U%
16% I
I 22%
9ft I
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
" Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
D Better
DSame
0 Worse
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
Pollution of
streams/lakes
Long-term water
supply
Quality of drinking
water
Adequacy of sewage
treatment
Ground water and
woto
I 8.9
U8.7
"]8.6
12345
789 10
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL NON-ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
Public education
llegal drug use
Local taxes
Natural disasters
Local cnme rate
U8.9
18.3
] 8.1
J8.1
J8.1
0123456789 10
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHOSE FAMILIES HAVE SEEN NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 26%
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------
PROVIDENCE/FALL RIVER/WARWICK
r
Adequacy el nngt tMBiurt
AmmMMMApoM
Ground wjliE
-------
SPRINGFIELD
RATINGS OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL Issues
BETTER. SAME, OR WORSE DURING LAST 5 YEARS
Adequacy of sewage treatment [
Animal waste disposal
•"Ground water and wells
"•Harmful pesticides
-3TO
4H%
Quality of drinking water I a>% I'
•1
Water table depletion I 16% 1
\/////y&'j&'///'/\
21* 1
23% 1
41%
68% " ' " V/Mfit//,
65% V///2W//A
\ 43% l/////y&fof////r<
Landfill adequacy
Landfill location
Local waste dumping
Long-term water supply
Pollution- burning leaves
•
Pollution- cars
•
Pollution- industry
•
.
15% 1 b/% \/////AWif/////A
Jtt% i t>O% r/*/VWJ*5fVX'3
ito% 1 bOVc \////Xt9ff///A
V//////?Wtf/////7A
35% 1 35% l»^/X^^X^>99%^^V>^X^y)
20% 1 47% V//////////Siiifi'///////////J(
'ill* \ bb% fX^X/XVS%^^X/l
Sl2s 1 Yffff/f&mffffffA
V//////HVK//////A
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 60% 90% 100%
*** Denotes issues in which at least 10% of respondents are actively involved
|n Better
i
ID Same
0 Worse
MOST IMPORTANT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Quality ot drinking
water
Pollution of
streams/lakes
Ground water and
wets
Adequacy of sewage
treatment
Long-term water
supply
MEAN IMPORTANCE RATINGS
I 8.4
I 8.4
I 8.3
I 8.1
|8.0
0123456789 10 '
-------
SPRINGFIELD
IMPORTANCE RATINGS OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL Issues
Adequacy of M»*g« Hutment
Animal wuucfspoul
Ground water and unit
LandMadiquacy
tool MM dumping
I
PdkJton-bunlnglwvM
PQWUW cwv
Polulon-lndufliy
QuMyaldfMdna
OO IX) 2.0 3.0
J5.1
J5.5
J8.1
J8.3
J7.3
J6.8
J6.9
J8.0
_|8.4
J8.4
5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9X) 10.0
EPA- EMPACT LOCAL URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES STUDY OF 86 METROPOLITAN CITIES
-------