THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
AND THEIR ENVIRONMENT
-1973
A Study of National Opinion and
Attitudes about Environhiental
Problems and their Solution
For the United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Volume I
-------
November. "2, 1973
Mr. Charles M. Rogers, Director
Headquarters Support Division
Public Affairs Office
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Rogers:
The research reported herein was performed pursuant to a contract
with your Agency.
From the onset, we have been encouraged to express our independent
professional judgement in the conduct of this project. Consequently,
the points of view expressed in the interpretation of the findings
are our own.
We hope this study will, in some measure, make a contribution towards
a greater understanding of people's opinions and attitudes toward the
environment.
Sincerely,
Joseph M. Viladas
JMVrlll
Enclosure
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIGHLIGHTS v
I. INTRODUCTION.. 1
Why This Study Was Done 1
Scope Of This Survey 3
The Study Design 5
II. PEOPLE'S PERCEPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND
ITS QUALITY 7
Questions Asked About the Perception of
the Environment 8
Popular Meaning of Environment 8
Demographic Differences in the Idea of an
Excellent Environment 9
Questions Asked About the Quality of
the Environment 12
Environmental Quality Ratings 12
Demographic Differences in Environmental
Qual ity Ratings 15
Summary 17
III. OPINIONS ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE AND
HEALTH EFFECTS 19
Questions Asked 20
Ratings of Damage to the Environment ..22
Environmental Damage and Area Size 24
Environmental Quality Ratings and Concern
About Damage 27
Ratings of Effect on People's Health 28
Comparison of Environmental Damage and
Health Effect Ratings 31
Summary 32
-------
- ii -
Page
IV. THE FIGHT AGAINST POLLUTION 34
Questions Asked About Current Issues 35
Prominence of Pollution Control Among Nine Issues 35
Prominence of Pollution Control and Concern
About Environmental Damage 37
Demographic Differences in Prominence of
Pollution Control 39
Questions Concerning Feelings About the Fight
Against Pollution 40
Feelings About Progress Made in the Fight
Against Pollution 41
Does the Prominence of an Issue Measure
Its Importance? 43
Questions About Personal Involvement 45
What People Do to Improve Their Environment 46
Differences in Personal Involvement 47
Questions About Priorities in Environmental
Protection 49
Desired Allocation of Expenditures to Improve 50
the Environment 50
Summary 52
V. AWARENESS AND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT EPA 54
Questions Asked 54
Awareness of EPA 55
Familiarity with EPA 57
Accompl ishments Attributed to EPA 57
Demographic Differences 59
Opinion and Attitude Differences 59
EPA Awareness and the Fight Agains Pollution 61
Summary 64
VI. WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR SPECIFIC PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE
THE ENVIRONMENT 66
Summary of Averages Obtained 68
Willingness to Pay for Automobile Emission Control...69
Feelings About Hypothetical New Car Price Increases..75
Correlation Ratios 84
Willingness to Pay Higher Electric Bills 87
Willingness to Pay for Recycling Solid Waste 90
Willingness to Pay for Sewage Treatment 92
Willingness to Pay for Eliminating Water Pollution
from Food Production and Processtng 94
Feelings About a Factory Closing .97
Preference Between Higher Prices and Higher Taxes...102
Summary 104
-------
- 111 -
Page
VII. OVERALL WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT...108
Question Asked 109
Meaning of Dollar Amounts 109
Multivariate Analysis of Overall Willingness to Pay..110
Guide to Charts and Analysis 112
Effect of Household Income on Willingness to Pay 113
Effect of Concern About Fertilizer and Pesticide
Damage 116
Effect of Concern About Radiation 118
Effect of Awareness of EPA 121
Effect of Concern About Sol id Waste 123
Effect of Age 126
Effect of Concern About Strip Mining 128
Effect of Concern About Factory Effluent 130
Effect of Concern About Ground Level Noise 132
Effect of Concern About Automobile Exhaust 134
Summary 136
VIII. ATTITUDES TOWARD ENFORCEMENT 137
Questions About Enforcement 137
Positions Identified as One's Own 140
Acceptance, Rejection and Noncommitment 141
Reasons for Rejection .' 143
Concern About Environmental Damage and
Position on Enforcement 144
Quality Rating of Environment and Position
on Enforcement 145
Area Size and Position on Enforcement 146
Willingness to Pay and Position on Enforcement 147
Reaction to Car Price Increases and Position
on Enforcement 148
Likelihood of a Pragmatic Reaction to Enforcement 150
Summary 152
IX. INCOME, AREA SIZE AND CONCERN ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT...154
Effect of Income Al one 155
Effect of Area Size Alone 156
Income and Area Size 156
Concern About the Environment Related to
Income and Area Size 158
Summary 160
-------
- TV -
Page
Appendix A
Sampl ing and Weighting Procedures 161
Appendix B
Notes on Multivariate Analysis 169
Appendix C
Table of Sampling Tolerances 183
QUESTIONNAIRE
-------
HIGHLIGHTS
This study deals with people's opinions about the environment and their
attitudes toward the fight against pollution. It attempts to answer
questions about the perception of the environment and its quality, the
concern about pollution, the willingness to pay for a better environment
and the attitudes toward enforcement. Relationships between opinions,
attitudes and demographic factors are examined in a way designed to gain
a better understanding of the complexities of public opinion and atti-
tudes.
The data was gathered through 3,012 personal interviews with a representa-
tive sample of adults, 18 years of age and older, who reside in the conti-
nental United States. These interviews covered a broad range of topics
concerning the environment. They were completed in June 1973.
Perception of the Environment and Its Quality
This study begins with a look at the popular meaning of the word environment.
How do people define that word? How do they describe excellent and very
poor environments?
People define the environment in terms of physical and social conditions
that surround them. The emphasis varies and many people use several of
these terms together.
-------
- vi -
Most frequently, an excellent environment is described as natural and
relatively pollution-free surroundings. This idea is expressed by 58 per-
cent of the people and is the most common regardless of age, occupation
and area size. The idea of relatively pollution-free surroundings is domi-
nant in today's perception of the environment.
Good social relations, including good relations with family and friends
and neighbors, and the absence of crime, drugs, slums and other social ills
are key elements in the definitions of an excellent environment given by
38 percent of the people.
Better housing and a better life style, including better jobs and better
public services, are terms used by 30 percent of the people to describe an
ideal environment.
Clearly, while pollution and the desire to eliminate it are dominant,
other physical, social and cultural conditions continue to be integral ele-
ments in people's perception of their environment.
Turning to the quality of the environment, we find widespread dissatisfact-
ion with it. People who feel their environment is getting worse outnumber
those who feel it is getting better, particularly in metropolitan areas with
more than one million people. In these areas, for every person who says
the environment is getting better, there are two who say it is getting
worse.
-------
- vii -
Only 27 percent of the adult population feel that their environment is
"excellent" or "very good" and staying that way or getting better. At the
other end of the spectrum, 29 percent feel their environment is "fair",
"poor" or "very poor" and staying that way or getting worse.
The lower the income, the worse the quality of the environment. Of the
people in households with an income of $15,000 or more per year, 40 percent
rate their environment "excellent" or "very good". In middle-income
households, $7,000 to $15,000 per year, 31 percent rate their environment
"excellent" or "very good". At the $3,000 to $6,999 level, that percentage
drops to 25 and when the income is $3,000 or less only 22 percent rate their
environment "excellent" or "very good".
While the degradation of the environment affects the lower-income people
most severely, it also affects large segments of middle and upper-income
people. The percentages rating their environment less than "good", that
is "fair", "poor" and "very poor", show this. At the income levels of
$3,000 or less, that percentage is 43 percent; at the income levels of
$15,000 or more, that percentage is 28. In fact, nearly one-half of the
people who rate their environment "fair", "poor" or "very poor" enjoy above-
average incomes. Since most of them live in metropolitan areas, where the
degradation of the environment is worst, their dissatisfaction with the
environment is not surprising.
-------
- vm -
Concern About Damage to the Environment
What are people concerned about? Are their concerns related to the size
of the area where they live?
With few exceptions, people are concerned about the same sources of pollu-
tion and other types of damage to the environment regardless of area size,
but the larger the population in the area, the worse the quality of the
environment and the greater the concern about it. In metropolitan areas
with one million or more people, 32 percent express a high degree of con-
cern; in non-metropolitan areas, only 4 percent do.
Nationally, the top six concerns, as shown by the percentage who rate the
damage to the environment "a lot" or "some", are: truck, bus and airplane
exhaust (71%), automobile exhaust (69%), industrial smoke and gases (62%),
untreated sewage (60%), solid waste (58%) and factory effluent (56%).
A comparatively high percentage of people, about 30 percent, have not formed
an opinion about the damage done by the heating of rivers by atomic plants,
radiation from nuclear facilities and strip mining.
Income has no effect on concern about damage to the environment. Looking
at three area sizes -- metropolitan with one million population or more,
metropolitan with fewer than one million and non-metropolitan -- within each
area the level of concern about pollution and other sources of damage to
the environment is about the same at all income levels. It is not true
-------
- ix -
that the poor are not concerned; where pollution is a problem they are
just as concerned as anyone else.
The Fight Against Pollution
In the four years since Congress passed the National Environmental Policy
Act, this country's commitment to protect the environment has intensified.
Do people feel we are making progress? Are people involved? What is their
sense of priorities?
Asked about the fight against air pollution, only 4 percent of the people
feel air pollution is not a big problem; 12 percent have not decided how
big it is and 84 percent feel it is a big problem. In addition to saying
it is a big problem, 13 percent say we are making a lot of progress, 36
percent say we are beginning to solve it, 29 percent say we are not trying
hard enough and 6 percent say the air pollution problem will never be
solved.
When asked about the fight against water pollution, only 7 percent of the
people feel water pollution is not a big problem; 11 percent are undecided
and 84 percent feel it is a big problem. In addition to saying it is a
big problem, 15 percent say we are making a lot of progress, 34 percent say
we are beginning to solve it, 30 percent say we are not trying hard enough
and 5 percent say it will never be solved.
When it comes to the fight against solid waste, 13 percent of the people
feel solid waste is not a big problem, 13 percent are undecided and 75
-------
- X -
percent feel it is a big problem. In addition to saying it is a big
problem, 18 percent say we are making a lot of progress, 30 percent say we
are beginning to solve it, 23 percent say we are not trying hard enough
and 4 percent say it will never be solved.
Clearly, there is a broad consensus on the view that air pollution, water
pollution and solid waste are big problems. Feelings about solving these
problems are generally optimistic but impatience with the progress made is
quite common.
When it comes to hazardous pesticides, there is more uncertainty about the
size of the problem: 15 percent of the people say it is not a big problem,
22 percent are undecided and 64 percent say it is a big problem. In addi-
tion to saying it is a big problem, 15 percent say we are making a lot of
progress, 27 percent say we are beginning to solve it, 19 percent say we
are not trying hard enough and 3 percent say it will never be solved. In
other words, there is more uncertainty about pesticides and less impatience
with their control than there is about air and water pollution and solid
waste, but the majority feel it is a big problem and the prevailing feelings
are optimistic about solving it.
The level of participation in the fight against pollution is impressive.
Asked if they have done anything personally to improve the environment, 28
percent of the people report a variety of activities that include recycling
and other solid waste disposal or removal efforts, cutting down the use of
-------
- XI -
the car or improving its operation, and working in or supporting environ-
mental organizations.
Concerning priorities in environmental protection, people rank sewage
treatment first, industrial air pollution control second and solid waste
management third among a list of nine activities. Making car and truck
engines that cause little or no pollution, finding safer pesticides and
improving mass transportation rank fourth, fifth and sixth respectively.
Completing the list, making sure atomic plants are safe, eliminating excess-
ive noise and restoring lands affected by strip mining rank seventh, eighth,
and ninth in spending priority.
Awareness of and Knowledge About EPA
Only 10 percent of the people can name the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency unaided. When the Agency's name is mentioned, another 48 percent
say yes, they have heard of it. Thus a total of 58 percent are aware of
EPA. The balance, 42 percent, have not heard of it.
Of the people who are aware of EPA, 40 percent say they know "almost nothing"
or "nothing at all" about the Agency. Another 41 percent say they know "a
little". The remaining 19 percent say they know "a fair amount" or "a great
deal".
Concerning EPA's accomplishments, air and water pollution standards and
control are mentioned most often.
-------
- XII -
People who are aware of EPA are more likely to be personally involved in
fighting pollution than those who are not aware of the Agency. Among the
aware, 39 percent report some meaningful activity such as recycling and
the others mentioned above. Among the not aware, only 13 percent report
being involved in these activities.
Generally, people who are aware of EPA are more likely to have made their
minds up about environmental issues and are more willing to pay the cost of
improving the environment.
Willingness to Pay for Pollution Abatement
Granted that people are concerned about the quality of their environment,
the question that becomes paramount is whether they are willing to pay the
cost of protecting it.
In order to explore their willingness to pay the cost of environmental pro-
tection, people were asked four series of questions: how much they are
willing to pay for specific steps to reduce pollution, how they feel about
hypothetical costs of automobile emission control, how they feel about a
factory closing and how much they are willing to pay, overall, for a clean
environment.
When asked how much they are willing to pay for antipollution devices in
new cars, people volunteer an average of $62 per car. When it comes to
higher operating costs because of increased car maintenance and lower
-------
- xiii -
efficiency, the average amount volunteered is $27 per year. The amounts
volunteered increase with household income and with the degree of concern
about damage to the environment done by motor vehicle exhaust.
This applies to every issue included in these series of questions. Both
income and concern about damage to the environment affect people's willing-
ness to pay for pollution abatement. Income has a greater effect than
concern but the sum of the two effects is considerably greater than either
one alone.
We have found that the amounts people volunteer to pay for automobile
emission control are not the maximum amounts they will pay, but they are a
good indicator of their relative willingness to pay higher costs than they
had anticipated. The larger the amount they volunteer, the more likely
they are to accept higher costs than anticipated.
A majority of car owners react favorably to an increase of $150 per car to
pay for antipollution devices; 19 percent choose the phrase "I'll be de-
lighted to pay" and 34 percent choose the phrase "It's only fair that if we
drive cars we pay money to fight air pollution". As would be expected,
the frequency of favorable reactions declines as the hypothetical price
increases: from 58 percent at $150 to 28 percent at $300 and a low 15 per-
cent at $500 per car. We estimate that, at 1973 prices, an average increase
of about $250 per car would be the maximum amount to receive the support of
a majority of car owners.
-------
- XIV -
Turning to air pollution control at electric power generating plants, we
find that people are willing to pay an average increase of 22 percent in
their monthly bill. The average monthly bill reported is $17.42; the aver-
age monthly increase volunteered by people is $3.84. The larger the current
monthly bill and the greater the concern about industrial air pollution,
the larger the amount volunteered to pay for pollution abatement at electric
power-generating plants.
Concerning solid waste, people volunteer to pay, on average, a 15 percent
increase in handling costs in order to recycle it. People were told that
the average cost of solid waste handling and disposal today is about $80 per
family. When asked how much more they are willing to pay in order to have
solid waste recycled, the average amount volunteered is a $12 increase per
year. Again, the amount volunteered increases with household income and
with concern about solid waste damage to the environment.
A question about sewage treatment was asked of three-fourths of the sample
who have public sewer systems. They volunteer to pay a 20 percent increase
in order to treat sewer waste. The average amount paid now is reported by
these people to be $43 per year. They volunteer to pay, on average, an
additional $8.80 per year for sewage treatment. The greater the amount
people pay now and the greater their concern about water pollution, the
larger the amount they volunteer to pay for sewage treatment.
-------
- XV -
Turning to the reduction of water pollution from food production and
processing, people are willing to pay $37.43 per year; they volunteer $7.43
more than the estimated $30 mentioned to them as the increase in annual
food costs the average family may have to pay in order to eliminate water
pollution from these sources.. Again, the amount volunteered increases with
income and concern about pollution.
People were asked how they would feel about a factory closing in their area
because of pollution problems. They were asked first to assume that people
laid off by the closing would be left to find jobs on their own. Then they
were asked to assume that the government would help retrain these people
and find jobs for them.
When no special government help is assumed, 35 percent of the people find
it hard to choose between "a little more pollution for a time" and "seeing
people laid off". Usually, this kind of indecision reveals a lack of in-
volvement in the issue presented in the question.
When special government help for the people laid off is assumed, only 19
percent find the choice difficult. Acceptance of the closing increases
from 43 percent if no government help is assumed to 69 percent if help is
assumed.
When confronted with the need to choose between higher prices and higher
taxes in order to pay for pollution control, 62 percent of the people choose
higher prices and 29 percent choose higher taxes. The remaining 9 percent
-------
- XVI -
refuse to choose. The preference for higher prices increases with income.
Overall Uillingness to Pay for a Better Environment
Another measure of willingness to pay, which in the interview preceded
the ones just discussed, was obtained by asking people how much they would
be willing to pay a year to improve the quality of their environment.
Inasmuch as people were not given any estimate of what the cost of improving
the environment might be, the dollar amounts volunteered should not be taken
literally. Instead, percentages above or below average are used. The
purpose of this question was to provide a criterion measure for an analysis
of the reasons that underlie people's willingness to pay. To what extent
do income, age and concern about the environment influence the relative
willingness to pay for a better environment? In order to measure each
effect while holding the others constant, a multivariate statistical analy-
sis technique was used here.
Household income is the best indicator of willingness to pay. On average,
the more people can afford, the larger the amount they volunteer to pay.
People in the $3,000 to $5,000 a year bracket volunteer to pay an amount
21 percent below average; those in the $20,000 and over bracket volunteer
an amount 58 percent above average.
Age has a moderate effect on willingness to pay. People under 30 and those
55 to 64 volunteer amounts above average. To some extent, this reflects a
greater concern among young people, but it also seems to relate to the life
-------
- xvii -
cycle of household expenditure patterns. For example, at ages 45 to 54,
when many parents are paying the cost of college education for their
children, the average amount volunteered to pay is 13 percent below aver-
age; at age 55 to 64, when many family obligations have been taken care of,
the amount volunteered is 12 percent above average. People age 25 to 29
volunteer the largest amount, 18 percent above average.
Awareness of EPA is a rather good indicator of willingness to pay for a
better environment. People who have not heard of EPA volunteer an amount
17 percent below the average. At the other end, those who can readily name
the Agency unaided volunteer an amount 29 percent above average.
Of seven concerns about damage to the environment included in the analysis,
concern about hazardous fertilizers and pesticides is most closely associa-
ted with willingness to pay for a better environment. People who say
fertilizers and pesticides do "hardly any or no damage" volunteer an
amount 26 percent below average; those who say they do "a lot" of damage
volunteer to pay an amount 22 percent above average.
In other words, if people are classified by their concern about fertilizer
and pesticide damage, differences in willingness to pay for a better environ-
ment are quite pronounced. By contrast, if people are classified by their
concern about automobile exhaust damage, differences in willingness to pay
for a better environment remain hidden. How can this be when, as shown above,
a majority said they are willing to pay considerable amounts for antipollution
-------
- xvm -
devices? The answer reveals interesting differences between the issues.
Automobile exhaust is a settled issue. Since most people are concerned
about automobile exhaust damage, the amount they volunteer to pay has to
be close to average; separating the concerned from the unconcerned is not
helpful to our understanding of why some people are willing to pay more
than others for a better environment.
The most telling issues are those on which people are divided, the unsettled
issues. In addition to hazardous fertilizers and pesticides, strip mining
is also one of the better indicators of willingness to pay for a better
environment. People who say strip mining does "hardly any or no damage"
to the environment volunteer to pay an amount close to average; those who
say it does "a lot" of damage volunteer to pay an amount 12 percent above
average.
Concern about factory effluent has a similar effect. Those who say factory
effluent does "hardly any or no damage" volunteer an amount 16 percent
below average; those who say it does "a lot" of damage volunteer an amount
3 percent above average.
Concern about noise is not as good an indicator as the two just mentioned.
Differences in amounts volunteered are rather modest when people are
classified by their concern about ground-level noise.
-------
- xix -
Concern about radiation is a very uncertain indicator of willingness to
pay. Many people are not concerned about it and volunteer an above-average
amount, indicating that many people who care about a better environment do
not believe radiation from nuclear facilities is causing any damage to the
environment. A few people say it does "some but not a lot" of damage and
also volunteer to pay an amount above average. Those who say it does "a
lot" of damage volunteer to pay a below-average amount, suggesting that
their concern reflects anxiety and is not backed up by a determination to
pay for a better environment.
Anxiety also seems to accompany people's concern about solid waste; so
much so that the greater the concern, the lower the amount volunteered to
pay.
Since in measuring the effect of each variable the other variables were
held constant, this analysis reveals the net effect of each of the ten
factors included in it.
Attitudes Toward Enforcement in Pollution Abatement
Enforcement is closely related to the cost of pollution abatement and to
the consequences of pollution. The stricter the enforcement, the higher
the cost; the more permissive the enforcement, the greater the damage or
the risk of damage to health, property and the environment in general.
-------
- XX -
This dilemma was presented to people in a series of nine statements repre-
senting a range of positions on enforcement ranging from extremely strict
at one end ("regardless of what it costs and of who gets hurt by the cost")
to extremely permissive at the other end ("regardless of what may happen to
our health or to the environment"). Moderately and mildly strict and per-
missive positions were stated between the extremes; the middle ground
position ("it is hard to decide whether to force...or let them do it volun-
tarily") was at the center.
Although people lean toward strict enforcement, no clear majority is found
on either side of the choice between strict and permissive enforcement in
pollution abatement. The extreme positions are rejected by a majority and
this is not surprising. What is significant is to find each of the moderate
positions rejected by one-third of the people and to find the middle-ground
position rejected by only one-fourth of them. These findings suggest that
the consequences of enforcement have not been debated enough to stimulate
the formation of attitudes among many people.
Nevertheless, interesting differences emerge when people are classified by
their views on the environment. We find that concern about environmental
damage, rating one's environment as less than good, and living in a metro-
politan area increase the probability of favoring strict enforcement in
pollution abatement. It is also worth noting that the greater the amount
volunteered to pay for a better environment, the stricter the level of
enforcement favored. Attitudes toward enforcement are also quite consistent
-------
- xxi -
with the reactions to hypothetical car price increases to pay for emission
control.
It appears that people are approaching the enforcement issue pragmatically.
When faced with the facts, they balance the cost of pollution abatement and
its benefits and then take a stand. Once they know what the cost will be,
people will decide whether they want to pay for strict enforcement or not;
they are not inclined to approach the issue in terms of voluntary compli-
ance versus mandatory controls.
As environmental protection proceeds to meet statutory quality standards,
the cost issue will become increasingly clear to the people. One impression
left by this study is that the people are ready to meet the cost of a
cleaner, better environment.
The level of concern about the environment varies a great deal by area size.
The relationship between concern, willingness to pay and attitudes on en-
forcement suggest that in areas where a particular form of environmental
degradation is not evident or does not seem serious, the corresponding
environmental quality standards are likely to be rejected until the eventual
consequences of lower standards become understood.
As environmental quality standards are enforced, people will need reliable,
objective information about costs and about the benefits they can reasonably
expect from paying these costs.
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 declared "a national
policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man
and his environment". That Act and subsequent legislation have acceler-
ated this country's effort to protect itself from the effects of
environmental pollution. The executive, judicial and legislative branches
of our State and Federal governments have made and continue to make
decisions with far-reachinq impact on the quality of our lives.
The search for this productive and enjoyable harmony is not free of
tension. On the one hand, environmental protection poses real and
imaginary threats to productivity, some jobs, the return on invested
capital and the amount of energy at our disposal, to name a few. On the
other hand, public concern over the unhealthy effects of pollution and the
desire for a more enjoyable environment generate pressures to produce tan-
gible results. In the ensuing debate, it could happen that only the loudest
voices are heard, but the attainment of a national environmental policy
ultimately depends on the "consent of the governed".
Why This Study Mas Hone
The United States Environmental Protection Agency has been assigned a
crucial role in the pursuit of the national environmental policy declared
by Congress, a role that requires acting in close coordination with the
American public. EPA needs to know people's opinions about environmental
issues and their attitudes toward solutions to environmental problems.
-------
- 2 -
With this in mind, this study was conceived with three basic themes,
namely the people's perception of environmental problems and priorities,
their willingness to pay for a better environment and their attitudes
about enforcement of antipollution measures.
One of EPA's tasks is to research the causes of pollution and the tech-
niques of pollution control. The feasibility of pollution control
depends not only on the state of technology but also on the people's
willingness to pay for what is technologically possible. Until recently
we thought of clean air and water as free commodities, an assumption
that was true when the world had a much smaller population. While we
know better now, we have yet to find a practical and universal method to
put a price on clean air and water; the only way to learn how much
people are willing to pay for clean air and water is to ask them.
Another EPA task is to set standards, sometimes in cooperation with the
States. This task is dependent on public acceptance of the sacrifices
required to achieve these standards and public support for various
programs. Because the price to be paid for environmental protection is
often unclear to people, the state of public opinion cannot be measured
by merely asking people whether or not they want a better environment; it
must be measured also by asking how much they are willing to pay for the
benefits of environmental protection. Similarly, the expression of
people's priorities concerning environmental protection programs must be
based on the premise that resources are limited, that we cannot do every-
thing at once.
-------
- 3 -
Once standards are set, EPA is also charged with enforcing them, a task
sometimes shared with the States. Although these standards have the force
of law, their enforcement is dependent on the will and determination of
the people to have the standards adhered to. The state of public opinion
about the choice between enforcement and voluntary action in fighting
pollution is an important element in the study of environmental issues,
one that may well grow in importance as the cost of environmental pro-
tection becomes more visible.
While these three themes explain the thrust of this study, they do not
fully describe its scope nor its specific contents. A brief outline of
these will assist the reader at this point.
Scope Of This Survey
The 3,012 persons who answered this survey were asked some seventy questions
about environmental matters. These questions can be sorted into three
types: opinions, attitudes and background.
• Opinions The term is used here to include beliefs or conclusions
held by people concerning the following:
- Importance of air and water pollution control in relation
to other current issues.
- Rating of the quality of their environment.
- Direction of change in the quality of their environment.
- Rating of 20 alleged causes of damage to the environment.
- Rating of 13 of these causes on their effect on people's
health.
- Optimism or pessimism about the progress being made in
the fight against air pollution, the fight against water
-------
- 4 -
pollution, in controlling the use of hazardous chemical
pesticides and finding safer ones, and in finding better
and more sanitary ways of disposing of solid waste.
- Preference between higher prices and higher taxes as
alternative ways of paying for improving the environ-
ment.
Attitudes The term is used here to include the people's feelings
or states of mind with regard to the solution of environmental
problems as follows:
- Priorities, that is given a limited amount of money to
improve the environment and a list of nine environmental
protection activities, how much, if anything,, should be
spent on each.
- Willingness to pay, in total, to improve the quality of
the environment and specifically to eliminate or reduce
pollution from power generation, solid waste disposal,
food production and processing, sewage treatment and
automobiles.
- Feelings about hypothetical increases in new car prices
of $150, $300 and $500 to pay for new antipollution devices.
- Feelings about a hypothetical factory closing, related
to antipollution enforcement, under two assumptions,
namely that people were given or not given help to find
new jobs.
- People's attitudes toward enforcement measured by their
reactions to seven statements ranging from a position of
extreme antipollution enforcement at one end to a neutral
position in the middle and extreme laissez faire at the
other end.
Background This term is used here to include a variety of charac-
teristics of the person interviewed:
- Meaning of the word environment and description of
excellent and very poor environments.
- Awareness of EPA.
- Rating of personal knowledge about EPA.
-------
- 5 -
- Awareness of specific EPA accomplishments.
- Amount of monthly electric bill and of annual sewer bill,
if any.
- What, if anything, this person has done to improve the
environment.
- Awareness of a factory closing rather than spending money
to stop pollutinq the air or water.
- Age, sex, education, occupation, household income and
other demographic characteristics.
- Membership in various types of organizations, some of
which actively advocate or promote environmental pro-
tection.
A complete list of items used in the questionnaire, a description of each
item and a reference to the number of the corresponding question as it
appears in the questionnaire will be found in Appendix 6. The questionnaire
itself will be found at the end of this volume.
The Study Design
The 3,012 persons interviewed were selected among those 18 years of age and
older residing in areas selected according to a multi-stage probability
sampling procedure which results in a representative cross-section of the
adult population in the continental United States. Details of the sampling
plan and of the appropriate weighting procedures for tabulations of results
are described in Appendix A.
The tables of data show a total of 3,038 interviews rather than 3,012.
This slight discrepancy is the result of weighting procedures designed to
-------
- 6 -
adjust for generally small discrepancies between the sample and the Census
distribution of the population. When a table is based on less than the
total sample, the base is shown in parentheses at the top of each column of
numbers.
Interviews were conducted in the homes of respondents by trained and super-
vised interviewers using a printed questionnaire which included the usual
question and answer methods as well as some self-administered questions
which the respondent answered with pencil in hand. A variety of questioning
techniques was selected for this survey in order to obtain reliable and
penetrating responses to the topics being studied. Questions were designed
to give respondents an opportunity to express a full range of opinions and
attitudes without regard to current policy.
Interviewing began on May 15 and ended on June 22, 1973.
This study of environmental opinions and attitudes was designed to go
beyond the polling or counting of heads on a series of questions. In
addition to the head count on each question, it was felt necessary to pro-
vide an analysis of relationships between answers to various questions.
These relationships provide a deeper understanding of what the public is
saying about a relatively complex issue'.
-------
- 7 -
II. PEOPLE'S PERCEPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND ITS QUALITY
The word environment is used a great deal. We speak of an environ-
mental crisis, of environmental protection, of learning environments
and of good and bad environments. In every case we are referring to
a complex of conditions which may be physical, social or psychological.
The Federal, State and local governments have had a significant impact
on our environment for a long time with legislation and expenditures
affecting housing, highways, safety, health, education and many other
living conditions. In recent years we have developed a greater aware-
ness of the complex relationships between conditions that in the past
we had often treated as separate from each other and we have a National
Environmental Policy Act, a federal Environmental Protection Agency,
environmental state offices and many citizen groups devoted to a better
environment.
This survey begins with a look at the popular meaning of environment.
Does this word have the same meaning to young and old, rich and poor?
Does the quality rating vary according to the meaning each respondent
attaches to the word environment?
-------
- 8 -
Questions Asked about the Perception of the Fnvironment
People were asked three questions to explore the meaning of environment:
. The word environment is used a great deal nowadays.
What does the word environment mean to you?
. How would you describe your idea of an excellent
environment?
. How would you describe your idea of a very poor
environment?
These questions were intended to learn which meanings are salient
among people today. They also provided a check against the possibility
of misinterpreting people's answers to questions that include the word
environment.
Popular Meaning of Environment
Answers to these three questions have been summarized in Table II-l
into four categories: (1) natural surroundings and pollution-related
meanings; (2) housing and life style; (3) social relations, encompass-
ing relationships between family, friends and neighbors and such social
ills as crime, slums and alienation; and (4) surroundings in general
and miscellaneous definitions too infrequent to list separately.
-------
- 9 -
TABLE II-l
MEANINGS OF THE WORD ENVIRONMENT AND
OF EXCELLENT AND VERY POOR ENVIRONMENTS
Idea of
Word Very
Meaning Excellent Poor
1 * *
Natural surroundings and
pollution related 35 58 48
Housing and life style 36 30 51
Social relations 23 38 45
Surroundings in general
and miscellaneous 41 12 7
The totals in Table II-l exceed 100 because many people gave more than
one definition. It is interesting that the frequency of the word
surroundings and other general expressions is highest when defining
the word environment and diminishes greatly when describing excellent
and very poor environments. The most common description of an ex-
cellent environment is the absence of pollution (clean air, clean
water, etc.), but better housing and life style (including social and
public services) and better social relations are mentioned often
enough to reveal a broad public concern.
Demographic Differences in the Idea of an Excellent Environment
The question examined here is whether the perception of one's environ-
ment varies according to personal background and conditions. We will
look at differences in age, education, occupation, income and place of
residence. Detailed data for these groups will be found in Volume II.
-------
- 10 -
For the sake of brevity, we will examine only differences in the de-
scription of an excellent environment. As shown above, those descrip-
tions are more specific than the definitions of environment.
Fourteen demographic groups shown in Table II-2 reveal small to medium
differences in their description of an ideal environment. A pollution
free, natural environment is more often the ideal among younger,
college educated, white collar, higher income people and those resid-
ing in metropolitan areas. Yet, with the sole exception of those with
annual household incomes under $3,000, a majority among all groups
describe an excellent environment as one with less pollution or a more
natural one.
On average, descriptions of an excellent environment in terms of hous-
ing, life style and social and public services are given only half as
often as pollution related descriptions. They are, as would be expec-
ted, more frequent among older, less educated and lower income groups.
A similar pattern occurs in the frequency of descriptions in social
relationships.
-------
- 11 -
TABLE II-2
DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES IN DESCRIPTION OF EXCELLENT ENVIRONMENT
Total Sample
Age:
18 -34
35 and over
Education:
College
No college
Occupation of Household Head;
White collar
Blue collar; farm
Not employed
Household Income:
Under $3,000
$3,000 - $6,999
$7,000 - $14,999
$15,000 and over
Area Type and Size:
Metropolitan, 1MM and over
Metropolitan, 50M - 1MM
Non-metropolitan
Natural
and
Pollution
Related
*
58
64
54
69
52
67
55
49
41
53
60
69
61
57
53
Housing
and
Life
Style
X
30
25
32
26
32
26
30
34
33
32
32
26
32
32
24
Social
Rela-
tions
%_
38_
34
40
34
40
34
39
42
42
39
38
35
37
40
36
-------
- 12 -
We now turn to people's rating of their environment as it is today and
as it has changed during the past twelve months. We will also examine
how quality ratings vary according to the individual's perception of
the environment.
Questions Asked about the Quality of the Environment
The following two questions provided the information discussed in this
section:
. Some people talk about the quality of our environment.
Would you say that the environment you live in is ex-
cellent, very good, good, fair, poor, or very poor?
. Would you say that during the past twelve months the
environment you live in has been getting better, stay-
ing about the same getting worse or don't you know?
Environmental Quality Ratings
The frequency of each rating is shown in Table II-3. The figures speak
for themselves.
TABLE I I -3
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY RATINGS
Excellent ...... 9
Very good ...... 21
Good .......... .34
Fair ........... 25
Poor ........... 6
Very poor ...... 3
No answer ...... 2
-------
- 13 -
Opinions about quality change during the past twelve months are shown
in Table II-4.
TABLE I I -4
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CHANGE DURING PAST TWELVE MONTHS
Getting better ............. 15
Staying about the same ..... 59
Getting worse .............. 21
Don ' t know ................. 5
The majority feel that the quality of their environment is staying
about the same. Of the people who feel that it is not staying the
same, those who say their environment is getting worse outnumber those
who say it is getting better.
Combining the answers to both questions results in a composite rating
showing both the opinions about today's quality and the direction of
change. Table II-5 shows these combinations based on the total sample.
TABLE I I -5
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND DIRECTION OF CHANGE
Today's Quality
Excellent, Fair, Poor,
Very Good Good Very Poor Total
Change Past 12 Months
Getting better 5 6 4 15
Staying about the same 22 21 16 59
Getting worse 2 6 13. 21_
Total 2? 33 33 95
-------
- 14 -
This composite view of environmental quality and how it is changing
presents a disturbing picture. Nearly one third (29% to he exact)
of the adult population in the continental United States feel that
their environment is fair, poor or very poor and that it is staying
that way or getting worse. Not quite another third (27*) feel their
environment is excellent or very good and staying that way or get-
ting better. Of the remaining third, the majority find it good or
changing in that direction.
Who are the people who rate their environment on the lower end of the
scale? Does their definition of environment throw some light on their
ratings? The frequency of various quality ratings is about the same
regardless of how people define their environment. The largest
difference is about two percentage points. Conversely, people who say
their environment is excellent or very good do not define it differ-
ently from those who say it is fair, poor or very poor. (See Volume
II for detailed tabulations). Clearly, definitions of the environ-
ment do not explain quality differences. Let us then look at demo-
graphic factors.
-------
- 15 -
Demographic Differences in Environmental Quality Ratings
Of the demographic factors analyzed — age, education, occupation,
income and area type — only income and area type show large differ-
ences in environmental quality ratings and direction of change.
The most striking differences, shown in Table 11-6 are between residents
of metropolitan areas, particularly those with more than one million
people, and residents of non-metropolitan areas.
TABLE II-6
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BY TYPE OF AREA
Metropolitan Areas
Over One50,000 to Non-
Million One Million Metropolitan
BASE: (1250) [99TJJ797J
% % %
Quality Rating
Excellent, very good 23 32 38
Good 33 35 34
Fair, poor, very poor 43 32 24
No answer 1 1 4
Change Past 12 Months
Getting better 12 16 16
Staying the same 55 60 65
Getting worse 28 19 12
Don't know 557
-------
- 16 -
Income also reveals significant differences; the lower the household
income, the worse the rating of their environment, as shown in Table
II-7. Interestingly, the rating of change during the past twelve
months varies relatively little among income groups.
TABLE II-7
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BY INCOME LEVEL
Annual Household Income
BASE:
Quality Rating
Excellent, very good
Good
Fair, poor, very poor
No answer
Change Past 12 Months
Getting better
Staying the same
Getting worse
Don't know
It is not surprising that people with lower incomes rate their environ-
ment fair to very poor more frequently than people with higher incomes.
What is striking is that only 40 percent of those with incomes of
$15,000 or more rate their environment excellent or very good and that
as many as 28 percent rate it fair to very poor. We must conclude
that major elements of what people consider a good environment are now
beyond the reach of both rich and poor. This conclusion is supported
Under
$3,000
(333)
i
22
28
43
7
12
56
21
11
S3 ,000
to
$6,999
(585)
%
25
31
42
2
12
59
23
6
$7,000
to
$14,999
(1144)
X
31
37
31
1
17
60
20
3
$15,000
and
Over
(640)
X
40
32
28
15
61
20
4
-------
- 17 -
by the small differences in opinion about changes in the environment
between income levels. Regardless of income, about one-fifth of the
people feel that their environment is getting worse.
Summary
People define the environment in terms of physical and social condi-
tions that surround them. The emphasis varies. The most frequent
(58%) description of an excellent environment is given in terms of
natural, pollution-free surroundings. The ideal of pollution-free
surroundings is dominant in today's perception of the environment.
Next in frequency (3835) are the descriptions in terms of good social
relations, including relations with family, friends and neighbors and
less crime and slums. The ideal environment includes social as well
as physical conditions. Many people used both in defining the environ-
ment and its quality.
Somewhat lower in frequency (30%) we find descriptions of an ideal
environment in terms of better housing and life style, including better
jobs and better social and public services.
Public opinion about the quality of the environment reveals some
striking facts. Only 27 percent of the adult population feel that
their environment is excellent or very good and staying that way or
getting better. At the other end of the spectrum, 29 percent feel
-------
- 18 -
their environment is fair to very poor and staying that way or getting
worse. The remaining 44 percent fall in the middle; about one-half of
them (21%) saying that their environment is good and staying that way
and the others expressing a variety of opinions.
Those who feel the environment is getting worse outnumber those who
feel it is getting better, particularly in metropolitan areas with more
than one million people where the ratio is better than two to one.
Opinions about the environment getting better, getting worse or stay-
ing the same do not vary between income levels; whatever their income,
about one in five people feel that their environment is getting worse.
-------
- 19 -
III. OPINIONS ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE AND HEALTH EFFECTS
The purpose of environmental protection laws enacted these last few
years is to promote the public health and welfare. As a result, en-
vironmental quality criteria are often based on the adverse effect of
pollutants on public health and welfare. Loqic suggests that public
support for these criteria should bear a close relationship to the
public's perception of threats to its health and welfare.
The findings described in Chapter II reveal widespread dissatisfaction
with the quality of the environment and suggest reasons for that dis-
satisfaction. We learned, for example, that pollution plays a large
role in people's perception of their environment and its quality.
In this chapter we will see how people evaluate a variety of condi-
tions and events that can affect the quality of their environment and
their health.
To gather the opinions examined in this chapter we chose a five-point
rating scale that ranges from "a lot" to "none at all" and "not sure",
and asked people to apply it to a list of items describing conditions
and events that either have demonstrable adverse effects on the en-
vironment or have been said to have such effects. Untreated sewage.
automobile exhaust and land use are examples of the items selected
for rating.
-------
- 20-
Questions Asked
The wording of the two questions which were separated by several
paqes, was as follows:
. I am going to read a list of things people have mentioned
as damaging our environment. Using the words on this card,
I would like you to tell me how much damage each one causes
to the environment in this part of the country in your
opinion. [The card had the following list of expressions
to be used : A lot of damage, Some but not a lot of damage,
Only a little damage, Hardly any damage or none at all, Not
sure how much damage.]
. Now I'm going to read a list of things that are said to
affect people's health. For each one I read, I'd like you
to tell me to what extent you believe people's health is
affected by each one of these things. To give your answers,
please use the words on this card that come closest to
expressing your opinion. To what extent is people's health
affected by... [The card had the following list: A lot,
Some but not a lot, A little bit, Not at all, Not sure].
Of the items read to the respondent, thirteen were common to both
questions and seven were used with the environmental damage question
only. The two lists of items follow. They are not necessarily in
interview sequence and they are identified by a letter for easy
reference, for in the data tables the wording of these items has
been shortened.
-------
- 21 -
Common Items Environmental Damage Only Items
a. Untreated sewaqe from cities f. The heating of rivers by atomic
and towns power plants
b. Oil spills from tankers, pipe- m. Use of land for housing
lines, storage tanks, etc.
n. Use of land for large office
c. Fertilizers, insecticides and buildings
weed killers washed away from
farms and lawns o. Use of land for factories
d. Untreated liquid wastes from p. Strip mining
factories
q' Cutting down of trees
e. Garbage, trash and other
solid waste r. Growth of population in this
area
q. Septic tanks of private homes
h. Burning of trash at farms,
homes, apartments and town
incinerators or dumps
i. Exhaust from private automo-
biles
j. Exhaust from trucks, buses
and airplanes
k. Smoke and gases from factories,
refineries and electric power
plants
1. Radiation from nuclear facili-
ties
s. Noise from traffic, equipment
and machines
t. Noise from airplanes
.Each of these items was read by the interviewer to the respondent who
held the card with the rating scale ranginq from "a lot" to "not sure",
-------
- 22 -
As each item was read, the respondent selected the appropriate phrase
to express his opinion.
Ratings of Damage to the Environment
The frequency with which each of the twenty items was rated as doing
"a lot", "some", "a little" and "no damage" is shown in Table III-l
as a percentage of the total sample. The "not sure" column shows how
many people have not formed an opinion. Thus, except for small round-
inq errors, each row adds up to 100 percent of the sample.
The most noticeable feature of the data is the range of frequencies
within each rating level. Leading the list, truck, bus and airplane
exhaust is rated as doing "a lot" of damage by 51 percent of the people.
It is followed closely by automobile exhaust which 46 percent say does
"a lot" of damage to the environment. Septic tanks are at the bottom
of the list; only 10 percent of the people say they cause "a lot" of
damage. Conversely, truck, bus and airplane exhaust is rated as
causing "hardly any or no damage" by only 15 percent; 42 percent rate
septic tanks as causing "hardly any or no damage".
The last column shows the frequency of "not sure" ratings, indicating
how may people have not formed an opinion on the damage caused by each
item listed. Three items stand out: strip mining, radiation from nuclear
facilities and the heating of rivers by atomic plants; about one-third
of the people are "not sure" about these items.
-------
- 23 -
TABLE II1-1
FREQUENCIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE RATINGS
Some But Only a Hardly Not
A Lot Not a Lot Little Any/None Sure
% * * * i
j. Truck, bus, plane exhaust 51 20 10 15 3
i. Automobile exhaust 46 23 12 15 4
k. Industrial smoke, gases 43 19 8 24 5
a. Untreated sewage 42 18 9 18 14
d. Factory effluent 42 14 8 23 13
e. Solid waste 35 23 13 23 6
g. Cutting trees 31 18 13 30 8
b. Oil spills 29 16 12 32 12
s. Ground level noise 26 22 18 31 4
p. Strip mining 23 8 5 36 28
r. Population growth 22 21 15 33 9
c. Fertilizers, pesticides 21 23 16 23 16
h. Trash burning 20 22 18 32 6
m. Use of land for housing 17 18 13 39 13
t. Airplane noise 17 17 18 43 5
o. Use of land for factories 16 19 14 39 13
n. Use of land for office bldgs. 14 18 13 43 13
f. Heating of rivers 14 10 7 39 31
1. Radiation 13 7 7 44 29
g. Septic tanks 10 14 14 42 19
-------
- 24 -
Environmental Damage and Area Size
We will look at area differences in two ways: we will compare the
rankings of things people are concerned about and we will compare
the levels of concern about each one of those things.
Table III-2 contains the following information. For each of three
area types -- metropolitan areas with one million or more people,
metropolitan areas with fewer than one million and non-metropolitan
areas -- the table shows the percentage of people rating each item as
doing "a lot" of damage and, next to it, the rank of that item from
#1 for the highest percentage to #20 for the lowest. With the aid of
these rankings one can readily identify, for example, the five top
concerns in each type of area. The last column in Table III-2 shows
the difference between metropolitan areas with one million or more
and non-metropolitan areas in the percentage of "a lot" of damage
ratings. Thus the differences in levels of concern about each item
can be readily seen. The items are listed from highest to lowest
difference. The level of concern in non-metropolitan areas is lower
than in metropolitan areas for all items.
Table III-2 makes it easy to see that air pollution from engine exhaust
and industrial sources arouses much greater concern in metropolitan
areas than in non-metropolitan areas, but in both areas they rank these
among the top third sources of damage to the environment.
-------
- 25 -
Untreated sewage and solid waste are rated among the top third sources
of environmental damage In all types of areas and the degree of con-
cern is not very different by area size.
Industrial water pollution (represented by factory effluent) also ranks
high in all types of areas but the level of concern is much higher in
metropolitan areas.
Fertilizers and pesticides rank comparatively high in non-metropolitan
areas only.
Land use ranks relatively low among the twenty items regardless of
area size.
Ground level noise ranks about midway in the three types of areas and
it ranks higher than airplane noise.
With few exceptions, such as fertilizers and pesticides, people are
concerned about the same sources of environmental damage regardless
of the size of the area where they live, but the level of concern is
nearly always higher in the more populated areas.
-------
- 26 -
TABLE 111-2
DIFFERENCES IN ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE RATINGS BY AREA SIZE
Percentage of people rating damage "a lot" and rank of
each item according to that rating
Metropolitan Area Non- Difference
1,000,000 50,000- Metro- Large Met.
and Over 1.000,000 politan & Hon-met.
j.
i.
k.
r.
d.
g-
s.
t.
b.
m.
n.
e.
0.
a.
h.
P-
1.
f.
c.
g.
Truck, bus, airplane exhaust
Automobile exhaust
Industrial smoke, gases
Population growth
Factory effluent
Cutting trees
Ground level noise
Airplane noise
Oil spills
Use of land for housing
Use of land for office bldgs.
Solid waste
Use of land for factories
Sewage
Trash burning
Strip mining
Radiation
Heating of rivers
Fertilizers, pesticides
Septic tanks
%
65
58
54
32
50
39
34
25
36
24
20
42
23
45
23
26
14
16
23
9
Rank
1
2
3
10
4
7
9
12
8
13
17
6
15
5
14
n
19
18
16
20
%
52
48
45
24
44
32
27
17
30
18
14
36
17
47
25
25
15
14
23
11
Rank
1
2
4
12
5
7
9
15
8
14
19
6
16
3
10
11
17
18
13
20
%
28
24
24
5
26
17
12
4
16
5
3
25
6
30
11
15
7
9
18
8
Rank
2
5
6
18
3
8
11
19
9
17
20
4
16
1
12
10
15
13
7
14
% pts.
37
34
30
27
24
22
22
21
20
19
17
17
17
15
12
11
7
7
5
1
-------
- 27 -
Environmental Quality Ratings and Concern About Damage
It seems reasonable to postulate that people who rate a large number
of sources as doing a lot of damage are more concerned about environ-
mental damage than those who rate only a few of them that high. It
follows that a simple count of how many times a person used the high-
est rating ("a lot" of damage) should provide a simple summary measure
of that person's concern about environmental damage.
After studying the frequency with which each item was rated at that
level, survey respondents were assigned a concern score as follows:
Concern Score Items Rated "A Lot of Damage" Percent of Sample
High 9 - 20 23%
Medium 3-8 44%
Low 0-3 33*
In Chapter II we discussed how people rate their environment. It
will be recalled that about one third of the people rated it excellent,
or very good, another third rated it good and the remaining third
rated it fair, poor or very poor.
We can now relate that quality rating to the concern score and learn
whether it relates to the quality of the environment people live in.
A priori, one would expect people who live in excellent or very good
environments to be less concerned about environmental damage, for both
scores refer to their own environment. This expectation is borne out
-------
- 28 -
by the data. As Table III-3 shows, the better the environment the
lower the concern score; the worse the environment, the higher the
concern score.
TABLE III-3
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE QUALITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT
AND CONCERN ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE
BASE:
Damage Score
High
Medium
Low
This is an important finding, for it is sometimes assumed that the
environment is primarily a concern of affluent people. Instead, we
find that the lower the income, the lower the quality rating of the
environment; and the Tower the quality, the greater the concern about
environmental damage.
Ratings of Effect on People's Health
As described at the beginning of this chapter, thirteen of the twenty
items rated on damage to the environment were also rated on their
effect on health. The elimination of seven items from the health
ratings question does not imply that the items eliminated have no
Rating of the Environment
Excellent,
Very Good
(914)
"L
15
41
44
Good
(TW)
*
21
45
34
Fair, Poor,
Very Poor
(1039)
i
33
46
21
-------
- 29 -
possible effect on health. They were eliminated because it was ex-
pected that most people would have difficulty rating them on health
effects.
The frequency with which each of the thirteen items was rated as
affecting people's health "a lot", "some", "a little" or "not at all"
is shown in Table IIJ-4 as a percentage of the total sample.
The thirteen items are listed in descending frequency of "a lot"
ratings, thus the relative position of each item can be readily seen.
Untreated sewage and truck, bus and airplane exhaust head the list
with 56 percent of the people saying they affect people's health a
lot. Thus Table III-4 provides a list of perceived environmental
hazards ranked according to public opinion about their relative
health effects.
The "not sure" column provides a measurement of the extent to which
people have formed opinions on this issue. People are most likely to
be uncertain about the health effect of radiation from nuclear facili-
ties and septic tanks probably because they lack experience or infor-
mation on these alleged health hazards.
-------
- 30 -
TABLE 111-4
FREQUENCIES OF HEALTH EFFECT RATINGS
Some but Only a Hardly Not
A Lot Not a Lot Little Any/None Sure
%_ %_ ill
a. Untreated sewage 56 22 10 4 8
j. Truck, bus, airplane exhaust 56 24 12 44
k. Industrial smoke, gases 55 23 10 6 5
i. Automobile exhaust 50 25 16 54
d. Factory effluent 50 24 10 5 10
e. Solid waste 47 27 15 74
b. Oil spills 32 28 18 11 12
c. Fertilizers, pesticides 29 30 22 7 11
h. Trash burning 27 28 26 12 6
1. Radiation 24 14 11 19 32
s. Ground level noise 21 28 28 16 7
t. Airplane noise 17 23 29 23 7
g. Septic tanks 15 21 22 24 19
NOTE: The letters preceding each item are the ones used in Table
III-l and in the verbatim listing of items provided at the
beginning of this chapter. These letters do not necessarily
coincide with those used in the questionnaire (Qll).
-------
- 31 -
Comparison of Environmental Damage and Health Effect Ratings
We have now looked at two measures of public concern about the environ-
ment. How do these measures compare? Is one better than the other?
These questions are relevant to this study because of the emphais on
public health in environmental protection.
To begin with, a comparison of Tables III-l and III-4 shows that the
frequencies of "a lot" ratings are higher for health effects than for
environmental damage ratings. When rating ten of the thirteen items,
more people chose to say "a lot" when rating health effects than when
rating environmental damage. The two exceptions are airplane noise
(no difference) and ground level noise (health rating is five points
lower).
At first sight this seems to suggest that people have a greater con-
cern about the health effects of pollution than about its broader
impact on the environment (expressed as "damage" in this survey).
An alternative hypothesis is that people responded differently to the
two questions because of their wording. It is possible that the word
health evoked anxiety in some people and because of that anxiety they
shifted their answers toward the upper end of the scale.
-------
- 32 -
Left with these two hypotheses, we tested the two questions statistic-
ally by measuring their ability to explain variance in several criterion
dimensions to be discussed later. With rare exceptions, the environ-
mental damage ratings explained more variance than the health effect
ratings. Since the criterion dimensions included willingness to pay
and priorities, which should relate to personal concern about environ-
mental damage, explained variance is an appropriate test.
We conclude that the environmental damage question is the more reliable
of the two as a measure of public concern about the environment. The
damage concept incorporates the health effect but it does not arouse
as much anxiety; as a result it produces a more meaningful measurement
of public opinion.
Summary
People were asked to rate twenty alleged sources of environmental
damage. Two ratings were used: damage to the environment and effect
on people's health. The damage rating provides a more reliable
measure of public opinion.
The environmental damaqe ratings provide a measure of how many people
have formed an opinion about conditions and events that damage the
environment and a comparative measure of concern about that damage.
-------
- 33 -
Concern about environmental damage is greater in high-density popula-
tion areas than in low-density ones, but people in all areas rank
their concerns in approximately the same order. With the exception
of fertilizers and pesticides, people are concerned about the same
pollution sources regardless of population size but the level of con-
cern increases with population size. In the case of fertilizers and
pesticides, concern about damage ranks much higher in non-metropolitan
than in metropolitan areas.
The top five concerns in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas are:
exhaust from internal combustion engines, industrial smoke and gases,
factory effluent, solid waste and sewage.
Relating environmental damage scores to environmental quality ratings,
it is found that the better the environment the lower the level of
concern about damage to it; the worse the environment, the higher the
level of concern about it.
-------
- 34 -
IV. THE FIGHT AGAINST POLLUTION
In the preceding two chapters we found evidence of widespread concern
about the quality of the environment. In this chapter we will look
at public opinions and attitudes concerning the fight against pollu-
tion. Where does pollution control rank among other issues of the day?
Do people feel we are making progress? Are people involved? What is
the public's sense of priorities?
Every day, a number of issues claim our attention. The amount of
information made available is more than we can bear; inevitably, we
sort it out and simplify it. This process of sorting out and simpli-
fying is not only personal but social as well. Some issues that were
prominent yesterday seem forgotten today; others linger until they are
resolved. The study of public opinion must try to tell the difference
between the changes in tentative opinions and changes in deeper feel-
ings and attitudes that reveal desire and support for change.
In this chapter we will discuss four measures that are related in the
sense that they probe the public's stand on the fight against pollu-
tion at several depths. We begin with the prominence of the issue
in the context of other issues of the day. As other issues come and
go, that prominence is, by definition, only a surface measure of public
-------
- 35 -
opinion. This is followed by an exploration of feelings about the
fight against four types of pollution. We want to learn how many
people feel these problems are big or small and how many feel opti-
mistic or pessimistic about the progress in fighting pollution. Next,
we will see how many people have done something to-fight pollution and
we will consider whether or not this is a qodd measure of involvement.
Finally, we will look at the spending priorities people assign to nine
activities representing a broad range of environmental protection
measures.
Questions Asked About Current Issues
The question about the prominence of current issues was asked as follows:
. Here's a list of issues many people find important.
Would you please read the whole list first and then
choose three issues that, in your opinion, are most
important today.
The following list of issues was given to the respondent:
State of the economy
Control of air and water pollution
Controlling inflation
Taxes and government spending
Crime
Drugs
Racial relations
Student unrest
Education
Each respondent named three issues without ranking them in relation to
each other. Four different lists were used to rotate item positions.
-------
- 36 -
Prominence of Pollution Control Among Nine Issues
With nine issues to choose from, if people had named three at random
each issue would have been chosen by 33 percent of the people. In
fact people did not choose at random. Taxes and government spending
and drugs turned out to be the two most prominent issues and each one
was chosen by 49 percent of the people. Crime and control of air and
water pollution came next in prominence; each one was chosen by 43 per-
cent of the people. Student unrest, no longer an issue at the time of
the survey, was chosen by 4 percent of the people. The nine issues
are shown in Table IV-1 . Detailed data by various classifications is
included in Volume II.
TABLE IV-1
THREE MOST PROMINENT ISSUES WHEN THE SURVEY WAS TAKEN
Frequency of For Each Issue,
Choice as % Who Also Chose
One of Three Pollution Control
Issues Rated
Taxes and government spending 49 35
Drugs 49 34
Crime 43 '30
Pollution control 43
Controlling inflation 36 35
Education 32 38
State of the economy 25 33
Racial relations 14 30
Student unrest 4 24
Today we would expect different answers to this question. Inflation
and other issues have become more prominent topics of conversation
-------
- 37 -
than just three months ago, but we would not expect the concern about
the environment to have diminished durinq that time.
One may wonder whether pollution control was particularly associated
with other issues. Table IV-1 shows for each issue the percentage of
people who also chose pollution control. For example, 49 percent of
the people chose taxes and government spending as one of the three
main issues; about one third of them (35%) also chose pollution con-
trol.
Pollution control was selected along with the other issues 25 to 38
percent of the time as shown in Table IV-1. In other words, it was
not very strongly associated with any particular issue.
Prominence of Pollution Control and Concern About Environmental Damage
To further probe to what extent pollution control may have been dis-^
placed by other issues we can view its prominence against the concern
measure introduced in Chapter III. Table IV-2 shows, for each level
of concern about environmental damage, the deviations from average in
the frequency with which pollution control and the other eight issues
were chosen as one of the three most important at the time of the
survey.
The frequency with which pollution control was chosen as one of the
three most important issues is 13 percentage points above average among
people who have a high level of concern about environmental damage.
-------
- 38 -
In other words, 56 percent of the people highly concerned about en-
vironmental damage chose pollution control as one of the most important
issues of the day. People with a medium concern level do not differ
from the average. Those with a low level of concern are 10 points
below average, that is to say that only 33 percent chose pollution
control as one of the most important issues of the day.
What about the other issues? If one or more are above average, others
have to be below average, for people had a fixed number of issues to
choose from. Me find the differences for other issues to be small;
again, this confirms that pollution is not particularly associated
with any other issue.
TABLE IV-2
PROMINENCE OF POLLUTION CONTROL
AND CONCERN ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE
Deviations from Average
Total by Level of Environmental
Samp 1 e Damage Concern
Average High Medium Low
BASE (3038) TTlO) (1337) (990~)
J t % %
Issues Rated
Pollution control 43 +13 0 -10
Taxes and government spending 49 - 1 - 3 + 5
Drugs ' 49 - 3 0 + 2
Crime 43 - 2 +1 0
Controlling inflation 36 - 6 - 1 +5
Education ' 32 0 0 0
State of the economy 25 - 2 +1 0
Racial relations 14 +2 +1 - 3
Student unrest 4 000
-------
- 39 -
Demographic Differences in Prominence of Pollution Control
The prominence of pollution control was higher among the young, the
college educated, the actively employed and those residing in metro-
politan areas than it was among their counterparts. But it was not
by any means limited to these groups.
TABLE IV-3
DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES IN SELECTION OF
POLLUTION CONTROL AS ONE OF MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES
%
Total Sample 43.
Age:
18 - 34 51
35 and over 38
Education:
College 48
No college 40
Occupation of Household Head:
White collar 48
Blue collar, farm 42
Not employed 38
Household Income:
Under $3,000 42
$3,000 - $6,999 40
$7,000 - $14,999 44
$15,000 and over 45
Area Type and Size:
Metropolitan, 1MM and over 45
Metropolitan, BOM - 1MM 46
Non-metropoli tan 36
-------
- 40 -
We will now turn to the other measure included in this chapter, namely
the feelings about progress made in the fight against pollution. After
discussing the key findings we will compare it with the prominence of
pollution control.
Questions Concerning Feelings About the Fight Against Pollution
Four questions were subsequently asked concerning feelings about the
fight against pollution. Here are the questions:
. Here's a card with feelings people have expressed
about the fight against air pollution. Would you
read it please and tell me which one statement
comes closest to expressing how you feel? Just
give me the number in front of the one you choose.
. How about water pollution? Which one statement
comes closest to expressing how you feel?
. Which one statement comes closest to expressing
how you feel about controlling the use of hazardous
chemical pesticides and finding safer ones?
. Which one statement comes closest to expressing
how you feel about the effort to find better and
more sanitary ways of disposing of garbage, trash
and other solid wastes?
The following list of statements was handed to the respondent when
asking the first of these four questions:
1. The problem is^too big and it will never be solved,
no matter how hard we try.
2. It is a big problem and it is not being solved because
we are not trying hard enough.
3. It is a big problem but we are beginning to solve it.
4. It is a big problem but we are making a lot of
progress in solving it.
-------
- 41 -
5. It is hard to say whether it is a big problem or
not and whether we are making progress in solving
it or not.
6. It is not a big problem and we are making a lot of
progress in solving it.
7. It is not a big problem and it is pretty well solved
already.
8. It is not a big problem and we are putting too much
effort into solving it.
9. It is not a problem at all and there is no need to
do anything about it.
These nine statements provide a broad range of options ranging from
opposite extremes to a middle ground position for those who have not
formed an opinion and experience no particular feelings about the
issue. On either side, the statements provide opportunities to express
various levels of optimism or pessimism based on the premise that the
problem is big or thafr'it is small.
Feelings About Progress Made in the Fight Against Pollution
Feelings about progress made were measured concerning the fight against
air pollution and against water pollution, control of hazardous pesti-
cides and the management of solid waste.
Few people think these are not big problems. The most frequent answers
are either that the problem is big and is not being solved because we
are not trying hard enough or that the problem is big and we are
beginning to solve it. Forty-six to 65 percent of the people gave one
of these two answers depending on the issue.
-------
- 42 -
TABLE IV-4
FEELINGS ABOUT PROGRESS MADE IN THE FIGHT AGAINST POLLUTION
Air Water Pesti- Solid
Pollution Pollution cides Waste
%a cf at
— _ £. 2.
It is a big problem and...
...will never be solved 6 534
...we are not trying hard enough 29 29 19 23
...we are beginning to solve it 36 34 27 30
...we are making a lot of progress 13 15 15 18
It is hard to say how big it is and
how much progress is being made 12 11 22 13
It is not a big problem and...
...we are making a lot of progress 2 376
...it is pretty well solved - 244
...we are putting in too much effort 1 132
...there is no need to do anything 1 111
NOTE: The phrases used are greatly abbreviated here. A full
description is given on page 40.
-------
- 43 -
Taking the four issues together, more people lean toward optimism
than pessimism. The feeling that we are beginning to solve these
problems or are making a lot of progress is held by more people than
the feeling that these problems are not being solved.
Does the Prominence of an Issue Measure Its Importance?
Having examined the feelings expressed about progress made in the fight
against pollution, we now turn to the question raised earlier, namely
whether a question about the most important issues of the day is a
reliable guide to the importance people attach to pollution control.
The information gathered through the two questions discussed in this
chapter is shown in Table IV-5. In that table, feelings about the fight
against air pollution expressd by people who chose air and water pollu-
tion control as one of the three most important issues are compared
with feelings expressed by people who did not choose pollution control
as one of the three most important issues. The differences between the
two groups, shown in the third column, are small except at two points
along the feelings scale.
-------
- 44 -
TABLE IV-5
IMPORTANCE OF POLLUTION CONTROL AND FEELINGS
ABOUT PROGRESS MADE AGAINST POLLUTION
BASE
Control of air pollution is a big
problem and...
...will never be solved
...we are not trying hard enough
...we are beginning to solve it
...we are making a lot of progress
Most
Important
Issue
(1302)
Not Most
Important
Issue
(1736)
Difference
% pts
5
37
37
11
8
23
34
14
- 3
+14
+ 3
- 3
It is hard to say how big it is and
how much progress is being made
15
- 8
It is a big problem and...
...we are making a lot of progress
...it is pretty well solved
...we are putting in too much effort
...there is no need to do anything
2
1
-
-
2
1
2
1
0
0
- 2
- 1
The incidence of people who have not formed an opinion about progress
made is eight percentage points higher among those who did not name
pollution control as one of the most important issues. The incidence
of people who feel that we are not trying hard enough to solve air
pollution problems is 14 percentage points higher among those who
named pollution control as one of the most important issues.
-------
- 45 -
In spite of these differences, there remain 23 percent who feel we
are not trying hard enough and 34 percent who feel we are beginning
to solve the problem and did not name pollution control as one of the
most important issues. In other words, the failure to name pollution
control as one of three most important issues cannot be interpreted
as a lack of concern or as implying that pollution is not a big
problem nor as an indication that we should not try to do something
about it.
It is clear that when we ask people to name the three most important
issues of the day, we give them a comparatively crude device to ex-
press their opinions; we may measure the prominence of issues but not
necessarily their importance.
Questions About Personal Involvement
The question about what people have done to improve the environment
was asked as follows:
. During these last twelve months, have you had an
opportunity to do anything for the purpose of
improving the quality of your environment? [If
the answer was yes] What did you do?
-------
- 46 -
What People Do to Improve Their Environment
The majority, 58 percent to be exact, say that they have not done
anything. Those who say they have done something mention property
improvements (19ft), recycling (5%), cleaning up public areas (5%) and
a variety of other activities listed in Table IV-6.
TABLE IV-6
WHAT PEOPLE DO TO IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENT
Total Sample
£
Did nothing _5g
Did something AJ3
Home and job directed 22_
Property improvements 19
Job related contribution 2
Pollution directed 2JJ
Solid waste related;
Cleaning public areas 5
Recycling 5
Proper trash disposal 3
Not litter 2
Automobile related:
Cut down on use of car 2
Improved car operation 3
Orqanizational activities 4
All other pollution related 4
All other not pollution related 4
NOTE: The sum of item frequencies exceeds 40 because of multiple
answers.
-------
- 47 -
Differences in Personal Involvement
We will now relate the activities reported by people to their views
on the prominence of pollution control, their rating of the environ-
ment and their level of concern about environmental damage. For that
purpose we will summarize the percentages rather than use the full
list because of its length and the low frequency of most activities.
TABLE IV-7
WHAT PEOPLE DO TO IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENT — FREQUENCIES BY
PROMINENCE OF ISSUE, RATING OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONCERN ABOUT DAMAGE
Pollution Rating of
Control Is: Environment
One of Not Fair, Concern About
Most One of Excel. Poor, Environmental
Important Most Very Very Damage
Issues Important Good Good Poor High Medium Low
BASE (1302)(1736) (914) (1032)(1039) (710)(1337)(990)
Home and job directed 20 22 25_ .22 li 21_ 2£ 21
Property improvements 18 20 22 20 17 19 20 19
Job related 2 2 322222
Pollution directed 36 2J_ 30 25. 30 42_ 30 16.
Solid waste related 19 12 18 14 15 23 16 10
Automobile related 6 3 445752
Organizational 5 4 436652
Other 6 2 444642
-------
- 48 -
The frequency of home and job related activities does not vary with
the person's view on the prominence of pollution control nor his level
of concern about environmental damage. It does increase somewhat
with the rating of the environment and most of the increase is in
property improvements. The detailed tabulations show that increase
to be strongly related to household income. Home and job directed
activities reported as designed to improve the environment are clearly
not a good measure of personal involvement in environmental issues.
The frequency of pollution directed activities does not vary with a
person's rating of the environment; it does vary with his view on the
prominence of pollution control and particularly with his degree of
concern about environmental damage.
In a later chapter we will discuss a measure of willingness to pay
for a better environment. It should be pointed out here that the
frequency of pollution related activities also increases with willing-
ness to pay. The data is shown in Volume II.
We conclude that the pollution related activities reported by people
as designed to improve the environment do reflect personal involvement
in the fight against pollution. In fact, the 28 percent level (Table
IV-6) of participation in these activities is quite impressive, probably
quite a bit higher than participation in political campaigns, for
example.
-------
- 49 -
Questions About Priorities In Environmental Protection
All environmental problems cannot be solved immediately and it is
unlikely that sufficient resources will be allocated to solving all
the problems in a short time. Consequently, questions about priorities
must be framed in the context of limited resources.
Respondents to this survey were asked to allocate a constant sum to
nine items representing various ways of attacking pollution. After
asking the question, the interviewer handed the list of items and a
pencil to the respondent who filled in the answers. The question was
stated as follows:
. Now I'm going to give you a list of things that could
be done with the money people are willing to pay to
improve the environment. The question is this: for
every 100 dollars collected, how many dollars should
be spent on each of the things listed here? You can
answer this by yourself. Give as many or as few
dollars as you wish to each item listed. It is NOT
necessary to give something to each item. You must
make sure the total adds up to $100.
The following list was handed to the respondent with spaces to be
filled in:
Eliminating air pollution from plants and factories
Treating sewer wastes so that they don't pollute the water
Improving mass transportation
Making sure atomic plants are safe
Eliminating excessive noise
Disposing of trash and garbage in a sanitary fashion
Restoring lands affected by strip mining
Making car and truck engines that cause little or no
air pollution
Finding safer pesticides to kill weeds, bugs, funguses, etc.
-------
- 50 -
Desired Allocation of Expenditures to Improve the Environment
The percentage of dollars people allocated to each item represents
their sense of spending priorities. If people felt all items to be
equally important, they would have allocated 11 percent of the dollars
to each one. As it turned out, the averages ranged from 17 percent for
sewage treatment, and about the same for industrial air pollution
control, to 5 percent for restoring lands affected by strip mining.
Table IV-8 summarizes the public's sense of spending priorities on
environmental protection. For the sake of brevity, we will use the
conventional terms rather than the phrases used in the questionnaire.
TABLE IV-8
DESIRED ALLOCATION OF EXPENDITURES
Percent of Priority
Dollars Rank
Sewage treatment 17 1
Industrial air pollution control 17 2
Solid waste management 14 3
Automotive emission control 13 4
Safer pesticide development 11 5
Mass transportation 10 6
Atomic power risk protection 7 7
Noise abatement 6 8
Strip-mined land restoration 5 9
The figures in Table IV-8 speak for themselves. With three exceptions
the rank of each item does not change more than one place when priori-
ties are examined by subgroups. These subgroups are shown in Volume II,
-------
- 51 -
The three exceptions are pesticide development, mass transportation
and solid waste management.
Safer pesticide development, which ranks fifth in the country as a
whole, ranks sixth in metropolitan areas with one million people or
more (9% of the dollars), fifth in metropolitan areas with fewer than
one million people (11% of the dollars) and fourth in non-metropolitan
areas (14% of the dollars).
Mass transportation, which ranks sixth in the country as a whole,
ranks fifth in metropolitan areas with one million or more people
(12% of the dollars), sixth in metropolitan areas with fewer than one
million people (10% of the dollars) and seventh in non-metropolitan
areas (6% of the dollars).
Solid waste management, which ranks third in the country as a whole,
ranks fourth in metropolitan areas with more than one million people
(12% of the dollars), third in metropolitan areas with fewer than one
million people (14% of the dollars) and second in non-metropolitan
areas (17% of the dollars).
-------
- 52 -
Summary
The fight against pollution is likely to be a long one and will need
continuing public support. In this chapter we have looked at three
measures that, to a greater or lesser extent, reveal where people
stand on. this issue.
First we looked at a question of the type frequently used in polls;
we asked people to choose the three most important issues of the day.
Crime and pollution control tied for third place among a list of nine
issues, following taxes and government spending (listed as one issue)
and drugs. We also found that, compared to other measures, the promi-
nence of pollution as an issue is a relatively poor measure of concern
about environmental damage and of feelings about the fight against
pollution.
Next we looked at feelings about the fight against air pollution,
water pollution, hazardous pesticides and solid waste. Few people
feel that these are not big problems; the majority say that they are
big problems. In terms of solving the problems, more people lean
toward optimism than pessimism.
The next question discussed in this chapter is the personal involve-
ment in improving the environment. Although 58 percent say they have
not done anything and 22 percent mention property improvements and job
-------
- SI -
related contributions that do not seem to reveal involvement in the
issue, the 28 percent who have been involved in antipollution activi-
ties represent a substantial level of participation. Among people
most concerned about environmental damage, the involvement level is
42 percent. The activities mentioned include recycling and other solid
waste removal or disposal efforts, cutting down the use of the car or
improving its operation and participating in environment oriented
organizations.
The last question discussed in this chapter is the public's sense
of priorities in environmental protection. Priorities were measured
by the percentage of dollars assigned to each activity out of the
total dollars to be dedicated to environmental protection. We found
that sewage treatment, industrial air pollution control and solid
waste management rank first, second and third among the nine. These
are followed by automotive emission control, safer pesticide develop-
ment and mass transportation. The three that rank lowest in priority
are atomic power risk protection, noise abatement and the restoration
of strip-mined lands.
-------
- 54 -
V. AWARENESS OF AND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT EPA
The level of personal involvement in the fight against pollution dis-
cussed in the preceding chapter is impressive. Yet the will and deter-
mination of the people to win that fight must be nurtured by institutions
that carry out what people cannot do by themselves individually. It
would have been impractical in this study to try to capture opinions
about the vast number of federal, state and local government agencies
and profit and non-profit organizations that participate in environ-
mental protection. Consequently we limited our inquiry to public
awareness of government participation at the federal level. Questions
about specific knowledge of accomplishments were limited to the
Environmental Protection Agency.
The questions addressed here are how many people know about the exist-
tence of a federal agency directly involved in fighting pollution,
what they know about the accomplishments of EPA and how their aware-
ness of EPA relates to opinions and attitudes discussed in this study.
Questions Asked
The following questions were asked to gather the data discussed in
this chapter:
. Do you know whether there is a Federal Agency or
Department directly involved in fiqhtinq pollution
and protecting the environment? [If yes] What is
the name of that Agency or Department?
. Two years ago, Congress created the United States
Environmental Protection Agency. Have you ever
heard of the Agency before?
-------
- 55 -
How much would you say you know about the.
Environmental Protection Agency, a great deal,
a fair amount, a little, almost nothing or
nothing at all?
Have you heard anything specific that the
Environmental Protection Agency has accomplished?
[If yes] What have you heard?
Of course, not everyone was asked all these questions. For example,
if a respondent said he had never heard of EPA he was not asked how
much he knew about it.
Awareness of EPA
When asked whether there is a Federal Agency or Department directly
involved in fighting pollution and protecting the environment, 55
percent of the people say they do not know. The 45 percent who say
"yes" break down as follows: 10 percent name EPA correctly, 9 percent
give the name of other agencies and 26 percent say there is an agency
directly involved in protecting the environment but do not know its
name.
When asked whether they have heard of the U. S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, 58 percent say yes and 42 percent say no.
As we will see shortly, those who have heard of EPA have opinions
and attitudes toward environmental issues that are different from
those who have not heard of the Agency.
-------
- 56 -
TABLE V-l
AWARENESS OF EPA
Total
Sample
*
Unaided Awareness
Heard of a Federal Agency involved
in protecting the environment and...
...Named EPA correctly 10
...Named other agencies 9
...Didn't know name 26
Have not heard of such Federal Agency 55^
Aided Awareness
Has respondent heard of EPA?
Yes 58*
No 42_
* Includes 10% who named EPA correctly unaided.
-------
- 57 -
Familiarity with EPA
People who had heard of EPA were asked to rate their knowledge about
the Agency. As Table V-2 shows, most people who have heard of EPA
know little or nothing about it.
TABLE V--2
FAMILIARITY WITH EPA
Total
Aware
BASE: Aware of EPA (l7«)
2.
Familiarity Rating :
Know a great deal 3
Know a fair amount 16
Know a little 41
Know almost nothing 30
Know nothing at all 10
Accomplishments Attributed to EPA
People who had heard of EPA were also asked what the Agency has
accomplished. The accomplishments mentioned by the forty-six percent
who had heard something specific are listed in Table V-3.
-------
- 58 -
TABLE V-3
ACCOMPLISHMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO EPA
Total Aware
of EPA
Air pollution (net total) "&_
Auto emission standards 14
Industrial emission control 7
Other air pollution 4
Water pollution (net total) ]B_
Industrial effluent control 6
Cleaning streams, lakes, etc. 4
Oil spill related activities 4
Sewage treatment, control 2
Banning phosphates 1
Other water pollution 4
Other industrial pollution 7
Solid waste management 4
Land conservation 3
Pesticide control 2
Making people aware, education 2
Noise pollution related 2
Radiation related 1
Alaskan pipeline issue 1
Other positive comments 4
Negative comments 2
Don't know 2
Heard nothing specific 54
-------
- 59 -
Demographic Differences
Awareness of EPA and its accomplishments increases with education,
income and degree of urbanization. But it is higher among younger
than older people. This is the same pattern observed with other
dimensions included in the study. The figures are shown in Table V-4.
Opinion and Attitude Differences
People who are aware of EPA answered most questions differently from
those who are not. Because the answers to many questions differ be-
tween income groups and awareness of EPA increases with income, the
differences in opinions between those aware and those not aware of EPA
shown in Volume II must be interpreted with due regard to those inter-
correlations. The same problem exists with age, area size, education
and occupation.
In the analysis of overall willingness to pay for a better environment
discussed in Chapter VII, the net effect of EPA awareness has been
measured using multivariate statistical analysis. As will be shown,
even after adjustment for income, age and other variables, awareness
of EPA has a strong effect on overall willingness to pay; the greater
the awareness of EPA, the larger the amount people are willing to pay
for a better environment. Thus, while the comparisons shown in this
chapter do overstate differences between people aware and not aware,
it can'be confidently predicted that adjustments for income and other
demographic factors would not wipe out most of the differences shown
here.
-------
TABLE V-4
DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES IN AWARENESS OF
EPA AND ITS ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Aware of EPA Aware of
Unaided Aided Accomplishments
yt^ a a
Total Sample 1£ 58 4j[
Age:
18 - 34 13 66 48
35 and over 8 54 45
Education:
College 20 77 56
No college 5 49 39
Occupation of Household Head:
White collar 17 73 52
Blue collar, farm 7 55 44
Not employed 6 44 41
Income:
Under $3,000 3 30 46
$3,000 - $6,999 4 46 38
$7,000 - $14,999 9 64 45
$15,000 and over 18 76 55
Area Type and Size:
Metropolitan, 1MM and over 11 63 46
Metropolitan, 50M - 1MM 10 59 50
Non-metropolitan 7 49 43
-------
- fil -
EPA Awareness and the Fight Against Pollution
In Chapter IV we discussed personal involvement in the fight against
pollution and feelings of optimism and pessimism about progress being
made. In this section we will relate these two measures to awareness
of EPA.
The relationship with personal involvement is shown in Table V-5.
The types of action taken are identified by the two major descriptive
labels applied earlier, namely home and job related action and pollu-
tion directed action which includes clean-up campaigns, organizational
activities, recycling, use of low-phosphate detergents, etc.
TABLE V-5
EPA AWARENESS AND PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT
IN IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENT
Total Aware Not Aware
Sample of EPA of EPA
BASE (3038) (1768) (1270)
% % %
Action Taken
Home and job directed 22 23 20
Pollution directed 28 39 13
As pointed out in Chapter IV, home and job directed actions are not
a measure of involvement; pollution directed actions are a good
measure. Table V-5 shows that people who are aware of EPA are more
involved in the fiqht against pollution than those who are not aware
-------
- 62 -
of EPA; the incidence of action taken apainst pollution is 39 percent
amona the aware and 13 percent among the not aware, a three-to-one
ratio.
Turning to the relationship between awareness of EPA and feelings
about the progress made in the fight against pollution, we find
interesting differences between issues. The figures are in TableV-6.
The percentages of people who say "it is hard to decide" are highest
when it comes to controlling the use of hazardous chemical pesticides
and finding safer ones. Twenty percent of those aware of EPA and
24 percent of those not aware have come to no conclusion on this
issue. In fact, the differences between aware and not aware are small
along all points of the scale when it comes to pesticides. It is
apparent that this is an issue people have difficulty resolving in
their minds.
Concerning the other three issues, namely air pollution, water
pollution and solid waste, it is apparent that people aware of EPA
are more likely to have made their minds up and to feel more opti-
mistic about the progress being made.
-------
- 63 -
TABLE V-6
AWARENESS OF EPA AND FEELINGS ABOUT
PROGRESS MADE IN THE FIGHT AGAINST POLLUTION
It Is a big problem and...
...it will never be solved
...we are not trying hard enough
...we are beginning to solve it
...we are making a lot of progress
It is hard to say how big it is and
how much progress is being made
It is not a big problem and...
...we are making a lot of progress
...it is pretty well solved
...we are putting in too much effort
...there is no need to do anything
Air
Pollution
Aware
1
4
31
39
13
9
2
-
1
-
Not
Aware
X
10
27
30
13
15
3
-
1
1
Water
Pollution
Aware
%_
3
32
36
16
8
2
1
1
-
Not
Aware
X
7
25
32
13
16
4
2
1
1
Pesticides
Aware
X
2
22
27
15
20
7
4
2
1
Not
Aware
X
4
16
26
14
24
6
4
3
2
Solid
Aware
%_
2
24
32
19
11
6
4
1
-
Waste
Not
Aware
X
6
21
26
16
16
5
5
2
2
NOTE: The phrases used are qreatly abbreviated here.
on page 40.
A full description is given
-------
- 64 -
We do not mean to imply that awareness of EPA changes people's
attitudes; we do not know whether it does or not. We showed earlier
in this chapter that awareness of FPA is often accompanied by aware-
ness of specific environmental protection activities. It seems reason-
able to assume that public support for environmental protection will
be contingent on the perception of what is being accomplished and on
public confidence in those who legislate, implement and enforce pro-
tection measures. It follows that a flow of accurate and reliable
information to the public is necessary for their continued support.
Summary
This survey included four questions designed to learn how many people
know about the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and what they
perceive its accomplishments to be.
Many people don't even know whether there is a Federal Agency involved
in protecting the environment. Only 10 percent of the people can name
EPA without help. When the name is mentioned, another 48 percent say
yes, they have heard of EPA. Thus a total of 58 percent are aware of
EPA.
Of the people who are aware of EPA, 40 percent say they know almost
nothing or nothing at all about the Agency. Another 41 percent say
they know a little. The remaining 19 percent say they know a fair
amount or a great deal.
-------
- 65 -
Concerning the perception of EPA accomplishments, air pollution
standards and control head the list with a frequency of 22 percent of
people aware of EPA, followed by water pollution control with a fre-
quency of 18 percent. The frequency of negative comments is extremely
low at 2 percent. Fifty-four percent have heard nothing specific.
People aware of EPA are more involved in the fight against pollution
than people not aware of EPA. Among those aware, 39 percent report
some meaningful activity directed against pollution, including re-
cycling, clean up of public areas, resource conservation and others.
Among those not aware, the frequency is 13 percent, only one-third as
much.
When it comes to feelings about progress in fighting pollution, EPA
awareness makes little difference with respect to pesticides, an issue
many people are undecided about. Awareness of EPA does make a differ-
ence with respect to air and water pollution and solid waste management.
Generally, people aware of EPA are more likely to have mad? their minds
up about these issues and to be more optimistic aoout the progress
being made.
-------
- 66 -
VI. WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR'SPECIFIC PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENT
In the preceding chapters we have discussed people's perception of
the environment, their quality ratings, their concern about alleged
sources of damage to the environment, their feelings about the fight
against pollution, their sense of priorities and their awareness of
EPA. Each one of these measures of public opinion and attitudes has
revealed widespread concern about the environment.
Two major questions remain to be answered: Will people pay for a better
environment? What deqree of enforcement will they support?
People's willingness to pay for a better environment is examined in
Chapters VI and VII. Their attitudes towards enforcement are examined
in Chapter VIII.
In order to explore their willingness to pay the cost of environmental
protection, people were asked four series of questions: how much they
are willing to pay for specific programs, how they feel about hypo-
thetical costs which may go beyond the range of what most people expect
to pay, how they feel about a factory closing and how much they are
willing to pay overall. This chapter includes all but the last of
these questions.
The specific "programs" we asked about are: reduction of air pollution
in power generation, reduction of water pollution in food production
-------
- 67 -
and processing, recyclinq solid waste, sewage treatment and reduction
of automobile emissions.
These questions give concrete form to environmental protection and
translate its cost into price or tax increases so that people can
respond in a meaningful context. Nevertheless, these questions are
projective, for they ask people to say what they would do rather than
what they do now. The dollar amounts thus obtained cannot be taken
as the upper limit of what people are willing to pay. They must be
seen as the amount people volunteer in the absence of definite infor-
mation. It is well known that once people are confronted with an
accomplished fact there is a significant shift in opinion. For this
reason, we also asked people to react to what is now an impending
event, namely the implementation of mandatory emission control
standards for automobiles; we tested their reactions to $150, $300
and $500 hypothetical increases in new car prices. Thus we can
relate the amount people volunteered to pay to their reaction to set
price increases which, as we will show, exceed the amount most people
volunteered.
Another type of cost is the displacement and uncertainty represented
by the closing of marginal industrial plants when faced with stricter
pollution standards and their enforcement. This issue was also probed
in terms of reactions to an accomplished fact.
-------
- 68 -
Finally, a question about the preference between higher prices and
higher taxes completes this chapter.
Summary of Averages Obtained
It should be noted that in four of these open-end questions an "anchor"
or reference point was given to or provided by the respondent. In the
case of additional electric and sewer costs, the respondent provided
current amounts paid. In the case of solid waste management, respon-
dents were told that the average family now spends $80 per year in
solid waste disposal. In the case of food processing, respondents were
told that to clean up that form of pollution may raise the cost of food
items as much as $30 per year for the average family. The "anchors"
are listed in Table VI-1 under the heading "base amount".
TABLE VI-1
AVERAGE AMOUNTS PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO PAY
FOR SPECIFIC PROGRAMS
Additional Amount
Willing to Pay
Base Average Percent
Willingness to Pay Measure Amount Amount Increase
Antipollution devices in new cars not used $62.47 N.A.
Automobile operating costs (annual) not used $26.70 N.A.
Electric bill (monthly) $17.42 $ 3.84 22%
Recycling solid waste (annual) $80.00 $12.22 15%
Sewage treatment (annual) $42.81 $ 8.80 21%
Food processing (annual) $30.00 $ 7.43 N.A.
-------
- 69 -
Table VI-1 shows the average amounts volunteered in dollars and as a
percentage increase over the base amounts when applicable. For the
sake of brevity and simplicity, we will use dollar averages in the
discussion, but the reader should keep in mind that the ranges of
dollar figures given by people are very wide. Frequency distributions
of dollar amounts are included in Volume II with other tabular data.
Willingness to Pay for Automobile Emmission Control
When we wrote the questionnaire for this survey, the timetable of
mandatory standards for automotive emission controls was uncertain and
the cost of those standards to automobile owners was even more uncer-
tain. The questions asked were phrased accordingly but recognizing
that there is a statutory mandate to meet air quality standards.
The data used here are based on respondents who live in car-owning
households; we refer to them simply as car owners regardless of who
holds title to the household car or cars.
Questions asked. Three open-end questions were asked about the
willingness to pay for auto emission controls and the reaction to
hypothetical price increases:
. As you may know, automobiles are one of the major
sources of air pollution. Would you be willing to
pay a higher price for a car and higher operating
costs if it helps clean the air? [If the answer
was "no", it was coded zero on the next two
questions.]
-------
- 70 -
With respect to purchasing a car, how much extra
would you be willing to pay to have the anti-
pollution devices added?
How much extra would you be willing to pay in
annual operating costs for extra gas and main-
tenance?
Amounts volunteered. As shown in Table VI-1, the averages of all
responses are $62 for antipollution devices in a new car and $27 for
additional annual operating costs. As we will see shortly, many
people will pay more for a new car if asked to do so. First we will
look at two factors that explain differences in the amounts people
volunteer.
Table VI-2 shows the average amounts volunteered for additional
operating costs at different income levels. It shows these averages
for all car owners and also by their concern about automobile exhaust
damage to the environment. The upper half of the table shows dollar
averages; the lower half shows these averages as percentages above or
below the sample average. For example, the average amount volunteered
by all car owners is $27 per year; the average volunteered by those
in households with incomes of $15,000 or more who rate auto exhaust
damage "a lot" or "some" is $44, an amount 63 percent above that aver-
age.
-------
- 71 -
The effect of income is striking; the higher the income, the greater
the amount volunteered to pay for additional automobile operating costs
to help clean the air. Even if the lowest income bracket is excluded,
we find that people with household incomes in the $3,000 to $6,999
range volunteer $18 per year, an amount 33 percent below the overall
average; people with household incomes of $15,000 or more volunteer
to pay $42, an amount 56 percent above the average for all car owners.
Between these two groups, we find that people with incomes close to
average volunteer an average amount.
The effect of concern about automobile exhaust damage is also evident
but considerably smaller than the effect of income'. Car owners who
are concerned about exhaust damage, the ones who say exhaust does "a
lot" or "some" damage, volunteer to pay $30, that is an amount 11 per-
cent above average, those not concerned about exhaust damage volunteer
$19, an amount 30 percent below average.
This effect is observable at every income level. Conversely, the
income effect operates among car owners concerned about damage and those
not concerned about it.
-------
- 72 -
TABLE VI-2
AMOUNT WILLING TO PAY ANNUALLY IN ADDITIONAL
AUTOMOBILE OPERATING COSTS TO HELP CLEAN THE AIR
Total Household Income
Car Under$3,000- $7,000- $15,000
Owners $3.000 $6.999 $14,999 & Over
Amount Hilling to Pay
Total car owners $27 $10 $18 $27 $42
Rate auto exhaust damage
"a lot" or "some" $30 $12 $18 $31 $44
Rate auto exhaust damage
"a little" or "none" $19 $ 6 $17 $18 $35
% Above or Below Average
Total car owners -6335 -33% 0% +56%
Rate auto exhaust damage
"a lot" or "some" +11% -5655 -33% +15% +63%
Rate auto exhaust damage
"a little" or "none" -30% -78% -37% -33% +30%
-------
- 73 -
Turning to the amount volunteered to pay for antipollution devices
in new cars, shown in Table VI-3, we find a considerably smaller in-
come effect and a slightly larger effect of concern about car exhaust.
In spite of this, the income effect is the stronger of the two.
Car owners in the $15,000 and over income bracket volunteer to pay $80
per car or 29 percent more than the $62 average for all car owners;
those in the $3,000 to $6,999 income bracket volunteer to pay $48, an
amount 23 percent below the average.
Car owners concerned about exhaust damage volunteer to pay $71, an
amount 14 percent above average; those not concerned volunteer to pay
$43, an amount 31 percent below average. Clearly, the amount volun-
teered rises faster with income than with concern about automobile
exhaust damage.
As mentioned earlier, these amounts do not represent the maximum
people are willing to pay. To explore this issue, we will look at
another question asked about new-car prices.
-------
- 74 -
TABLE VI-3
AMOUNT WILLING TO PAY FOR ANTIPOLLUTION DEVICES
IN A NEW AUTOMOBILE
Total Household Income
Car Under $3,000- ^7,000- T15.000
Owners $3.000 $6.999 $14.999 & Over
Amount Willing to Pay
Total car owners $62 $33 $48 $67 $80
Rate auto exhaust damage
"a lot" or "some" $71 $41 $50 $75 $86
Rate auto exhaust damaae
"a little" or "none" $43 $19 $45 $46 $60
% Above or Below Average
Total car owners -47% -23% + 8% +29%
Rate auto exhaust damage
"a lot" or "some" ' +14% -34% -19% +21% +39%
Rate auto exhaust damaae
"a little" or "none" " -31% -69% -27% -26% - 3%
-------
- 75-
Feelings About Hypothetical New Car Price Increases
We now turn to the reactions of people to an "accomplished fact",
namely the need to pay higher prices for new cars within a few years.
We will look at these reactions in relation to the amounts volunteered
first, and in relation to the concern about pollution from automobile
emissions.
Questions asked. Respondents were asked to read the following state-
ment:
"Because air pollution is considered a health hazard,
within two or three years all new cars will be required
by law to come equipped with new devices to eliminate
most of the fumes that now cause air pollution from
automobiles. This additional equipment, which is not
yet perfected, together with some changes in the engine,
will not only cost money but will probably cut down on
the car's performance such as power and acceleration.
Many cars will also use more gas per mile."
When the respondent finished reading the statement, the interviewer
continued as follows:
This card has five kinds of answers people give when
they learn that the new models beginning with 1975
or 1976 will cost more money.
The card handed to the respondent had the following statements:
A. It's a good thing; I'll be delighted to pay the extra
money to fight air pollution.
B. It's O.K. with me; it's only fair that if we drive
cars we pay money to fight air pollution.
C. It's hard to say. I'm not too concerned about the
price of cars.
-------
- 76 -
D. It's a bad thing; It's unfair to force everybody
who buys a car to pay that much to fight pollution.
E. It's a terrible thing; I resent very much having
to pay that much to fiqht pollution.
The three questions followed in sequence:
. Suppose that these new antipollution devices made
the price of every new car go up $150, which stat-
ment on this card comes closest to saying how you
would feel?
. Suppose that these new antipollution devices made
the price of every new car go up $300, which state-
ment on this card comes closest to saying how you
would feel?
. Suppose that these new antipollution devices made
the price of every new car qo up $500, which state-
ment on this card comes closest to saying how you
would feel?
Feelings expressed. It is not surprising that the higher the price
the greater the frequency of negative reactions. At $150, 53 percent
give a positive response. At $500 only 15 percent give a positive
response. The difference, 38 percentage points, is nearly equal to
the increase in negative responses. The figures are shown in Table
VI-4.
At $150 the positive responses outnumber the negative responses nearly
2 to 1 (53% vs. 29%). At $300 the ratio is reversed and negative re-
ponses outnumber the positive ones nearly 2 to 1 and at $500 the ratio
is nearly 5 to 1.
-------
- 77 -
TABLE VI-4
FEELINGS ABOUT NEW CAR PRICE INCREASES
BECAUSE OF ANTIPOLLUTION DEVICES
(Base: Respondents in car-owning households)
Hypothetical
Price Increase
$150 $300 $500
X X %
Positive 53 28 ]5_
It's a good thing; I'll be delighted to pay.. 19 7 4
It's O.K. with me; it's only fair... 34 21 11
Neutral
It's hard to say; I'm not too concerned... 18 19 16
Negative 29 54 .69
It's a bad thing; it's unfair... 15 23 19
It's a terrible thing; I resent very much... 9 23 40
None of these* 5 8 10
* Usually one of the following: "wouldn't buy new car" or
"manufacturer should absorb it". Hence they are included
in the negative response totals.
-------
- 78-
A straight-line interpolation, as done in Chart VI-1, shows that the
frequencies of positive and negative feelings would be about equal at
a price increase of $200. Thus, it could be argued that $200 is a
reasonable ceiling for the price of emission controls, but neutral car
owners are more likely to become positive than negative. Another
estimate of the ceiling is $250, for at this level the frequency of
negative reaction is still below 50 percent of car owners. In
practice, much will depend on other factors not included in this sur-
vey such as the impact of inflation on real purchasing power and
the level of consumer preference for smaller, lower priced cars.
CHART VI-1
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE FEELINGS ABOUT NEW CAR
PRICE INCREASES BECAUSE OF ANTIPOLLUTION DEVICES
75 -
70 -
65 -
60 - Negative
55 - v
II' "-
45 -
40 -
35 -
30 -
25 -
20 - """•—^ Positive
15 -
i j ~
10 -
5 -
0 -
$150 $300 $500
HYPOTHETICAL CAR PRICE INCREASE
-------
- 79-
Feelings about price increases related to amounts volunteered. When
not told how many dollars antipollution devices might add to the price
of a new car, people volunteered to pay an average of $62. When dis-
cussing that finding, we mentioned that there was a great deal of
variation around that average. We will now group car owners into the
following brackets According to the amount they volunteered to pay:
$0, $1 to $50, $51 to $100, and $101 or more. We will also show the
frequencies of feelings expressed by car owners in each of these
brackets when told they might have to pay $150, $300 or even $500.
In this manner, we will see whether or not their reactions vary accord-
ing to the amount originally volunteered. This comparison is shown
in Table VI-5. In this table, instead of using the five levels of
the feelings scale we are using only the three class summary: posi-
tive, neutral and negative, for it is simpler and equally informative.
Previous research would lead us to expect, as mentioned earlier, that
presenting people with an accomplished fact would cause a significant
shift in opinion. This is, indeed, what happened.
To begin with, the sizeable group who did not volunteer to pay anything
(W percent) reacts as follows to a $150 price increase: 28 percent
positive, 23 percent neutral and 49 percent negative. But the fre-
quency of positive reactions in this group shrinks fast as hypothetical
price increases go to $300 and $500. At $500 only 6 percent remain
positive.
-------
- 80 -
TAPLE VI-5
FEELINGS ABOUT NEW CAR PRICE INCREASES RELATED TO
WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR ANTIPOLLUTION DEVICES
Percent of Car Owners
BASE
Feelings About $150 Increase
Positive
Neutral
Negative
Total
Car
Owners
(100%)
Amount Wining to Pay*
Nothing
(49%)
$1 -
$50
52
18
30
28
23
49
$51 -
$100
(2699) (1329) (422) (359)
64
15
21
77
15
8
TI01 or
More
(14%)
(377)
&
90
6
4
Feelings About $300 Increase
Positive 27 10 28 39 70
Neutral 19 19 21 21 12
Negative 54 71 51 40 18
Feelings About $500 Increase
Positive 15 6 11 18 43
Neutral 16 15 15 14 19
Negative 69 79 74 68 38
* Amount volunteered by respondent before hypothetical increases of
$150, $300 and $500 were mentioned. "No" answers are not shown but
are included in the total column.
-------
- 81 -
At the other end of the distribution, car owners who volunteered to
pay $101 or more (14 percent of the total) react to a $150 increase
as follows: 90 percent positive, 6 percent neutral and 4 percent nega-
tive. As many as 43 percent remain positive about a $500 price in-
crease.
Table VI-5 shows two clear patterns. First, the frequency of positive
response to any of the three price increases tested here rises dramatic-
ally with the amount the respondent volunteered to pay before specific
price increases were mentioned. Second, within groups of car owners
who volunteered to pay similar amounts, the frequency of positive
response to the three price increases declines as the price increase
goes up.
Me conclude that the amount people volunteered to pay is a good rela-
tive measure of their attitude toward the cost of emission control but
does not measure the absolute amount they are in fact willing to pay
when confronted with presumably realistic estimates of actual costs.
When the cost becomes an accomplished fact, simulated here with the
statement that 1975 or 1976 cars will cost more money, opinions shift
toward greater acceptance of the price increase. As of this time,
increases of more than $250 would bring negative reactions from a
majority of car owners.
-------
- 82 -
Feelings about price Increases related to exhaust damage ratings.
In the preceding pages we have shown the positive, neutral and nega-
tive reactions to hypothetical price increases of $150, $300 and $500.
We found that the amount volunteered to pay, before these hypothetical
increases were mentioned to him, provide a good indication of the car
owner's willingness to pay. We will now look at the effect of con-
cern about automobile exhaust damage and the effect of the amount
volunteered; comparing the two effects we will see which one is
stronger. For the sake of brevity, we will do this at the $150 level
only and we will compare the incidence of positive feelings only.
Table VI-6 shows the percentage of positive reactions to a $150 in-
crease by the amount volunteered to pay and by the level of concern
about automobile exhaust. Differences between each percentage and the
sample average (52%) are shown in the lower portion of the table.
It is readily apparent that the amount volunteered to pay has a
stronger effect on the level of positive reactions to a $150 price in-
crease than concern about exhaust damage does. Among car owners who
are concerned about exhaust damage, the frequency of positive reactions
is 6 percentage points above average; among those not concerned, that
frequency is 12 percentage points below average.
Among car owners who volunteered to pay nothing for exhaust control
devices, the frequency of positive response to the $150 price increase
-------
- 83 -
TABLE VI-6
FEELINGS ABOUT NEW CAR PRICE INCREASE OF $150
RELATED TO WILLINGNESS TO PAY FORANTIPOLLUTION DEVICES
AND TO RATING OF AUTOMOBILE EXHAUST DAMAGE
Percent of Car Owners
BASE
Positive Response to $150
Increase
Total car owners
Rate auto exhaust damage
"a lot" or "some"
Rate auto exhaust damage
"a little" or "none"
Total Amount Willing to Pay*
Car $1 - $51 - $101 or
Owners Nothing $50 $100 More
(100%) (49%) "(16%) 7J3%T (14%)
(2699) (1329) (422) (359) (377)
% % % % %
52 28 64 77 90
58 32 67 79 90
40 21 57 70 88
Points Above or Below
Average
Total car owners
Rate auto exhaust damage
"a lot" or "some"
Rate auto exhaust damage
"a little" or "none"
-24% +12% +25% +38%
+ 6% -20% +15% +27% +38%
-12% -31% + 5% +18% +36%
* Amount volunteered by respondent before hypothetical increases of
$150, $300 and $500 were mentioned. "No" answers are not shown but
are included in the total column.
-------
- 84 -
is 24 percentage points below average; among those who volunteered to
pay $101 or more, the frequency of positive response is 38 percentage
points above average. Clearly this is a stronger effect that that of
concern about exhaust damage alone or .income alone. A measure of these
associations is discussed in the next section.
Correlation Ratios
Earlier in this chapter, when examining the findings shown in Table
VI-2, we found that income has a greater impact on the amount people
volunteer to pay than concern about exhaust does. Later on, when
discussing the findings presented in Table VI-5, we pointed out that
feelings about hypothetical price increases are rather closely related
to the amounts people volunteered to pay. We now find that concern
about exhaust has little impact on the acceptance of price increases
among car owners who volunteered to pay large increases. It follows
that willingness to pay for auto emission control is a function of
both income and concern about car exhaust pollution but more dependent
on income than on concern about car pollution. If we take these
variables one at a time, the correlation ratios confirm this. In fact,
the higher the hypothetical price increase, the stronger its associa-
tion with income. The same is not true of concern about exhaust
damage.
-------
- 85 -
The correlation ratios between the measures of willingness to pay
extra for a new car with antipollution devices, exhaust damage rating
and household income are shown in Table VI-7.
TABLE VI-7
CORRELATION RATIOS BETWEEN WILLINGNESS
TO PAY FOR ANTIPOLLUTION DEVICES, CONCERN
ABOUT EXHAUST DAMAGE AND INCOME
Independent Variable
Exhaust DamageHouseholdAmount
Rating Income Volunteered
Eta* Eta* Eta*
Dependent Variable
Additional amount willing to
pay for a new car .118 .283 1.000
Feelings about $150 increase .173 .184 .393
Feelings about $300 increase .161 .217 .434
Feelings about $500 increase .173 .249 .428
* Pearson's correlation ratio (Eta) is better suited than Pearson's r
to categorical variables used in public opinion surveys. It has the
added advantage of not requiring linearity assumptions. The two
measures are similar but Eta never has negative values even if the
relationship is inverse.
Household income is more strongly associated with the amount volun-
teered to pay for antipollution devices in new cars than concern about
automobile exhaust is. The association between feelings about price
increases and exhaust damage remains fairly constant at the three price
levels; the association between feelings and household income is
stronger at each successive price level.
-------
- 86 -
In closing this section, we will summarize the association between
income and willingness to pay for motor vehicle emission control, as
shown in Table VI-8.
TABLE VI-8
INCOME AND WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR
OPERATING COSTS AND ANTIPOLLUTION DEVICES IN NEW CARS
Willingness to Pay
Operating Car Price
Household Percent of Costs Increase Positive Reaction to
Income Households (Average) (Average) $150 Price Increase
$ % $ i %
Under $3,000 11 10 33 38
$3,000 - $6,999 19 18 48 44
$7,000 - $14,999 38 27 67 54
$15,000 & over 21 42 80 60
It is well known that the number of cars in the household increases
with income, yet it should not be assumed that the greater the
number of cars in the household the greater the amount people are
yilling to pay per car for antipollution devices. Actually the
Affect of number of cars is ambiguous: the amount volunteered tends
Uo decline as the number of cars increases; the incidence of positive
Reactions to hypothetical price increases tends to rise as the number
(if cars increases. (See tables in Volume II.) This is consisitent
V/ith the finding that the amounts volunteered are not the limit of
willingness to pay. It can be concluded that the reactions of multi-
car owners will vary according to their income rather than according
to the number of cars they own.
-------
- 87 -
Willingness to Pay Higher Electric Bills
As shown in Chapter III, industrial smoke and gases rank high in the
ratings of environmental damage; they rank just below automotive ex-
haust. One of the highly visible sources of industrial air pollution
is the power-generating plant that burns fossil fuels. The willingness
to pay for the reduction of pollution caused by these plants is a good
test of the willingness to pay for the reduction of industrial air
pollution in 'general; power plants are a familiar sight in many parts
of the country and the eventual cost of pollution control to the con-
sumer can be easily expressed as an increase in the electric bill.
Questions asked. In order to obtain an "anchor" or reference point,
people were asked to name the amount of their last electric bill.
Following this, they were asked how much more they would be willing
to pay. Here are the questions:
. Now let's talk about electric power for a minute.
How much was your last electric bill?
. Was this for 1 month or 2 months?
. Now suppose that the only way to stop the electric
power plants from polluting is to install expensive
equipment, and this equipment made your electric bill
go up unless you used less electricity than you use
now. How much more would you be willing to pay a
month to clean up this form of pollution?
Only 12 percent of the people were unable to name the amount of the
electric bill and they are excluded from the tabulations used here.
Detailed tables are included in Volume II.
-------
- 88 -
Amount volunteered. The average amount people said they would pay is
$3.84 more per month than they pay now. Since the average reported
bill is $17.42 per month, this respresents an increase of 22 percent.
The larger the current monthly bill, the larger the additional amount
people are willing to pay to stop air pollution from power plants;
the percentage increase is quite stable. Table VI-9 shows the figures.
TABLE VI-9
ADDITIONAL MONTHLY AMOUNT WILLING TO PAY FOR
ELECTRICITY TO CLEAN UP POWER-PLANT POLLUTION
Current Monthly Electric Bill
Total Up to $10.01 $15.01 Over
Sample $10 $15 $20 $20
Amount Willing to Pay
Total electricity users $3.84 $2.74 $3.31 $3.83 $5.08
Rate industrial smoke and
gas damage "a lot", "some" $4.54* $3.33 $3.85 $4.82 $5.79
Rate industrial smoke and
gas damage "a little", "none" $2.68 $1.64 $2.52 $2.06 $4.09
% Above or Below Average
Total electricity users -29% -14% OX +32%
Rate industrial smoke and
gas damage "a lot", "some" +18% -13% 0% +26% +51%
Rate industrial smoke and
gas damage "a little", "none" -30% -57% -34% -46% + 6%
-------
- 89 -
The concern about industrial air pollution, expressed as the environ-
mental damage ratine] of industrial smoke and gases, has a strong effect
on the amount people are willing to pay, but their current electric
bill has an even stronger effect. The combined effect of the two is
evident: people who now pay up to $10 a month for electricity and are
not'concerned about smoke damage, volunteer to pay $1.64 extra per
month, an amount 57% below average; those who now pay over $20 and
,are concerned, volunteer to pay $5.79 extra, an amount 51 percent
above average.
The monthly electric bill increases with household income and so does
the amount willing to pay. The figures are summarized in Table VI-10.
TABLE VI-10
INCOME,.SIZE OF ELECTRIC BILL AND
ADDITIONAL AMOUNT VOLUNTEERED TO
STOP AIR POLLUTION FROM POWER PLANTS
Percent of Current Additional Amount
Income Sample Electric Bill Willing to Pay
$/year %_ $/month$/month % Increase
Under $3,000 11 12.37 1.57 13
$3,000 - $6,999 19 14.37 2.84 20
$7,000 - $14,999 38 17.54 4.35 25
$15,000 & over 21 21.90 5.61 26
NOTE: Eta correlation ratios when the additional amount will-
ing to pay is the dependent variable are: Income, Eta =
.122; Current electric bill, Eta = .105; Rating of smoke
damage, Eta = .063.
-------
- 90 -
These figures need no other comment than to point out that the addition-
al amount people are willing to pay rises faster with income than the
current electric bill does; The higher the income, the larger the per-
centage increase volunteered. Again, those who can better afford it
are, on overage, willing to pay more than those who can afford less.
Willingness to Pay for Recycling Solid Waste
As shown in preceding chapters, solid waste ranks high in environ-
mental damage ratings. Recycling, clean-up drives and anti-litter
activities are mentioned often by people who report doing something
to improve the environment.
Solid waste management is a complex issue. Again, we presented the
issue in familiar terms: how much more than the current cost of waste
disposal would people be willing to pay to have waste recycled?
Question asked. Since the cost of waste disposal is unknown to many
people, the "anchor" or reference amount had to be included in the
question which was asked as follows:
. Some people say that solid waste is becoming a major
environmental problem not only in the handling and
disposing of the waste material, but also in terms of
resources used. For example, more paper requires more
trees cut. Many people claim that the best solution
to the solid waste problem from the environmental
point of view is to re-use the waste material. In most
cases it costs more to do that than simply to burn or
bury it. The average family now spends about $80 a
year on solid waste disposal. How much more would
you be willing to pay per year to have waste material
re-used or recycled?
-------
- 91 -
About 6 percent of the people did not answer the question and they
are excluded from the tables used in the discussion that follows. Com-
plete tabulations are included in Volume II.
Amount volunteered. The average of all answers is $12, which repre-
sents a 15 percent increase over the $80 estimate given to people
as the current cost of solid waste handling and disposal. Again, the
amount volunteered varies with income and, to a lesser extent, with
concern about solid waste damage to the environment. The figures are
shown in Table VI-11.
TABLE VI-11
AMOUNT WILLING TO PAY ANNUALLY IN ADDITIONAL
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL COSTS TO HAVE WASTE RECYCLED
Household Income
Total Under$3,000- $7,000- $15,000
Sample $3.000 $6.999 $14.999 & Over
Amount Willing to Pay
Total sample (exc. N.A.) $12
Rate solid waste damage
"a lot", "some" " $14
Rate solid waste damage
"a little", "none" $10
% Above or Below Average
Total sample (exc. N.A.)
Rate solid waste damage
"a lot", "some" +175!
Rate solid waste damage
"a little", "none" -1751!
$ 4
$ 6
$ 2
-67%
-5035
-83%
$10
$11
$ 7
-17*
- 8%
-42%
$13
$15
$10
+ 858
+25%
-17%
$20
$23
$17
+67%
+92%
+42%
-------
- 92 -
That income is more strongly associated with willingness to pay for
recycling is shown by the correlation ratios: Income, Eta = .224,
solid waste damage rating, Eta = .158.
Willingness to Pay for Sewage Treatment
Untreated sewage ranks fourth among the twenty alleged sources of
environmental damage rated in this survey. Are people willing to pay
for sewage treatment?
Questions asked. The "anchor" or reference point for this question
is the current cost of the sewer system serving the households where
interviews took place. People who do not have a sewer system were
not asked how much they would be willing to pay. The three questions
asked follow:
. Do you know what you are paying for your sewer system
now?
. How much is it per year?
Some water pollution comes from incomplete treatment
of sewer wastes. Water improvement requires additional
treatment which would increase water and sewer bills or
local taxes. How much more would you be willing to pay
per year to provide extra treatment of sewage to clean
up this form of water pollution?
Seventy-four percent of the sample have a sewer system serving their
area, but only 39 percent of them could answer how much they pay for
it.
-------
- 93 -
Amount volunteered. The average annual sewer bill reported is $43;
the additional amount volunteered for sewage treatment is $8.80 per
year, that is a 20 percent increase over current costs. Table VI-12
shows the amounts by size of current sewer bill and by concern about
untreated sewage damage. The higher the sewer bill and the greater
the concern about damage, the larger the amount volunteered to pay
for sewage treatment. The current sewer bill and concern about
damage have similar effects on the amount volunteered.
TABLE VI-12
ADDITIONAL AMOUNT WILLl'NG TO PAY ANNUALLY FOR
SEWAGE TREATMENT TO CLEAN UP WATER POLLUTION
Total Current Annual Sewer Bill
Have TT^ S?n:$41 or uorTT
Sewer $20 $40 More Know
Amount Willing to Pay
Total who have sewers
Rate sewer damage
"a lot", "some"
Rate sewer damage
"a little", "none"
% Above or Below Average
Total who have sewers
Rate sewer damage
"a lot", "some"
Rate sewer damage
"a little", "none"
$ 8.80 $5.63 $ 8.14 $10.08 $ 9.19
$10.31 $7.61 $10.27 $10.96 $10.55
$ 6.46 $3.31 $ 5.56 $ 8.63 $ 6.85
-36% - 8% +14% + 4*
+17% -14% +17% +24% +20%
-27% -62% -37% - 2% -22%
-------
- 94 -
The annual sewer bill increases with income and so does the amount
volunteered to pay for sewage treatment; the higher the income, the
larger the percentage increase volunteered.
TABLE VI-13
INCOME, SIZE OF SEWER BILL AND
ADDITIONAL AMOUNT VOLUNTEERED TO
PAY FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT
Percent Current Additional Amount
of Sample Sewer Bill Willing to Pay
°L
n
19
38
21
$/year
32
39
45
47
$/year 5
4
6
10
14
', Increase
12
15
22
30
Income
$/year
Under $3,000
$3,000 - $6,999
$7,000 - 14,999
$15,000 & Over
NOTE: Eta correlation ratios when the amount willing to
pay is the dependent variable are: Income, Eta =
.158; Current sewer bill, Eta = .307; Rating of
untreated sewage damage, Eta = .145.
Willingness to pay for Eliminating Water Pollution from Food
Production and Processing
Factory effluent ranks next to untreated sewage in the public's rating
of environmental damage. That the cost of waste treatment in food pro-
cessing would mean higher food costs can be expressed and grasped easily.
Thus, food processing provides a good vehicle to test people's willing-
ness to pay for eliminating industrial water pollution.
-------
- 95 -
Questions asked: The question was asked as follows:
Some people say that a major cause of pollution
of our lakes, streams and rivers is the food
industry, both producing the food and process-
ing it. Some people think not. Cleaning up
this form of pollution may raise the cost of
food items as much as $30 a year for the average
family. How much more than $30 a year would you
be willing to pay per year to clean up this form
of pollution?
About 6 percent of the people did not answer this question. They have
been excluded from the data used in this discussion.
Amount Volunteered. The average amount volunteered is $7.43 per year
above the $30 mentioned in the question. In effect, this means that
people are willing to pay an average of $37.43 per year to eliminate
water pollution in food production and processing. Table VI-14 shows
how the additional amount people volunteered varies by income and by
concern about industrial effluent damage to the environment.
The amount volunteered increases dramatically with income; from $2.74
by those in households under $3,000 to $12.51 by those in households
over $15,000 annual income. That increase is much more pronounced among
those who are concerned about factory effluent damage than among those
who are not.
-------
- 96 -
TABLE VI-14
ADDITIONAL AMOUNT WILLING TO PAY ANNUALLY IN EXCESS OF
$30 FOR FOOD PRODUCTION AND PROCESSING COSTS TO HELP
CLEAN UP WATER POLLUTION
Household Income
Total Under$3,000- $7,000- $15,000
Sample $3.000 $6.999 $14.999 & Over
Amount Willing to Pay
Total sample (exc. N.A.) $7.43 $2.74 $5.38 $7.80 $12.51
Rate factory effluent damage
"a lot", "some" $8.91 $2.77 $6.12 $8.92 $14.69
Rate factory effluent damage
"a little", "none" $5.53 $2.72 $4.73 $6.25 $ 8.48
% Above or Below Average
Total sample (exc. N.A.) -63% -28% + 5% +68%
Rate factory effluent damage
"a lot", "some" +20% -63% -18% +20% +98%
Rate factory effluent damage
"a little", "none" -26% -63% -36% -16% +14%
Again, income is more strongly associated with the amount willing to
pay (Eta = .217) than with concern about effluent damage (Eta = .184).
It is also worth noting that concern about fertilizer and pesticide
damage, not shown in Table VI-14, is as strongly associated with the
amount willing to pay (Eta = .184) as concern about industrial efflu-
ent damage is.
-------
- 97 -
So far, we have looked at monetary costs of pollution abatement. We
now turn to the feelings about a hypothetical factory closing because
of pollution problems.
Feelings About a Factory Closing
Occasionally, newspapers carry stories about factories closing because
of pollution problems. This sort of dislocation and hardship was
selected for this survey to represent another expression of the cost
of protecting the environment.
Questions asked. The following three questions were asked:
. Have you heard of any cases in your area where a
factory decided to close down for good rather than
spend money to stop polluting the air or water?
. Suppose that a factory in your area were told by
the government to stop polluting the air or the
water and the company decided to close the factory
down and build a new, modern one in another area.
Suppose that by closing the factory down, 200
people were thrown out of work in your area. Now
I'd like your reaction to this factory closing.
First, assuming that these 200 people were left
to find new jobs on their own and later assuming
that the government would retrain these people and
help them find new jobs.
At this point the respondent was given a card with the following state-
ments:
A. It's too bad but if that's what it takes to
eliminate pollution, it has to be done.
B. It's really too bad, but I suppose one has to
take the bad with the good if we are going to
get rid of pollution.
-------
- 98 -
C. It's hard to decide whether it might be better
to accept a little more pollution for a while
than to see people laid off.
0. It's a very bad thing to do. I don't think they
should lay people off. I'd rather have pollution
than layoffs.
E. It's a terrible thing. I can't see any justifica-
tion for laying people off. Pollution is nothing
compared to layoffs.
The interviewer continued as follows:
. Which statement on this card comes closest to
expressing how you would feel about the factory
closing if these people were left to find jobs on
their own?
. Which statement on this card comes closest to
expressing how you would feel about the factory
closing if the government retrained these people
and helped them find new jobs?
Feelings about factory closing related to awareness of one in the area.
Only 10 percent of the people have heard of a factory closing because
of pollution problems in their area. Table VI-15 shows how their
reactions compare with those of the majority who have not heard of a
factory closing in their area.
When asked to assume that people would be left to find jobs on their
own, people aware of a factory closing in their area react quite
similarly to those who are not aware of a factory closing. Signifi-
cantly, about one-third of the people say "it is hard to decide..."
-------
- 99 -
and those who accept the closing outnumber those who reject it. We
can only conclude that factory closings because of pollution problems
are not an issue at the national level, particularly when government
assistance is assumed.
TABLE VI-15
FEELINGS ABOUT FACTORY CLOSINGS RELATED TO
AWARENESS OF ONE IN THE AREA
Total Aware Not
Sample of One Aware
BASE T5015T T307T (25757
Assuming people were left
to find jobs on their own
It's too bad but it has to be done... 18 22 17
It's really too bad... 25 25 25
It's hard to decide... 35 31 35
It's a very bad thing... 10 9 11
It's a terrible thing... 10 11 10
Assuming goverment retrained
and helped people find jobs
It's too bad but it has to be done... 48 48 48
It's really too bad... 21 20 21
It's hard to decide... 19 19 19
It's a very bad thing... 444
It's a terrible thing.... 444
NOTE: Phrases have been shortened for this table. For full text
see page 97.
-------
- 100 -
Effect of government assistance. People react much more favorably
to the possibility of a factory closing when they are asked to assume
government help with job retraining and placement assistance than when
they are asked to assume that people would be left to find jobs on
their own. Looking at Table VI-15, the shift in frequencies is strik-
ing.
Without government assistance, the most frequent answer is that it is
hard to decide whether it might be better to accept a little more
pollution for a while than to see people laid off. Thirty-five percent
of the sample give that answer, which usually signifies a lack of in-
volvement with the issue. On the accepting side, 25 percent say "it's
really too bad but one has to accept the good with the bad" and 18
percent say "it's too bad but it has to be done". In total, 20 per-
cent reject the idea of a factory closing and 43 percent accept it.
When government assistance is assumed, the neutral, undecided answers
drop to 19 percent of the total sample; the accepting ones increase
to 69 percent, and only 8 percent continue to reject the closing.
The assumption of government assistance lets people off the hook;
those who were neutral are now relieved of the need to make a diffi-
cult decision and readily accept the factory closing.
-------
- 101 -
Feelings about factory closing related to occupation. Blue collar
workers are more apt to reject the idea of a factory closing than white
collar workers are. When no goverment assistance is assumed, the
frequencies of rejection ("it's a very bad thing", "it's a terrible
thing") are 21 percent of the blue collar workers and 14 percent of
the white collar workers. The neutral or undecided are 35 percent of
the blue collar and 37 percent of the white collar. (Tabulations
appear in Volume II.)
Feelings about factory closing related to concern about environmental
damage. Table VI-16 shows the effect of concern about environmental
damage from industrial smoke and gases on the feelings about a factory
closing expressed by white collar and blue collar and farm workers.
We use the data assuming people are left to find jobs on their own
because, as shown earlier, when government assistance is assumed, a
large majority accept the closing.
The effect of both occupation and concern about environmental damage
on acceptance of a factory closing is small, with the occupation effect being
the weaker of the two. (Occupation, Eta = .141; Industrial smoke and
gases, Eta = .152) The association with the damage rating of indus-
trial effluent is very weak (Eta = .095). (Tabulations for industrial
effluent appear in Volume II.)
-------
- 102 -
TABLE VI-16
FEELINGS ABOUT FACTORY CLOSING RELATED TO
RATING OF FACTORY SMOKE AND GAS DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT
Occupation
Blue
Total White Collar,
Employed Collar Farm
Accept Factory Closing
Total employed
Rate smoke and gas damage
"a lot" or "some"
Rate smoke and gas damage
"a little" or "none"
% Points Above or Below Average
Total employed
Rate smoke and gas damage
"a lot" or "some"
Rate smoke and gas damage
"a little" or "none"
X %
43 47
47 51
36 38
+4
+4 +8
-7 -5
X
41
44
35
-2
+1
-8
Preference Between Higher Prices and Higher Taxes
Unless one assumes a significant realignment of priorities in both
the private and public sectors, environmental protection will increase
prices and taxes. In order to probe public preference between these
alternatives, the following question was asked:
-------
- 103 -
To clean up pollution and to improve the quality
of our environment will cost money. Suppose you
have two choices to pay for the cost of improving
the environment. One choice is to pay higher
prices for those products that will cost more to
make if we want to stop pollution. The other
choice is to pay higher taxes to have enough money
available for pollution control. Given these two
choices, would you prefer to pay higher prices or
pay higher taxes?
The answers are shown in Table VI-17. Among the whole sample, 62
percent prefer higher prices and 29 percent prefer higher taxes. The
others either could not select one of these choices or wished another
solution were possible. The preference for higher prices rather than
higher taxes increases in frequency among households with incomes of
$7,000 or more.
TABLE VI-17
PREFERENCES BETWEEN HIGHER TAXES
AND HIGHER TAXES BY INCOME LEVEL
Household Income
Total Under $3,000- $7,000- $15,000
Sample $3.000 $6.999 $14.999 & Over
Percent of Sample (100%) (11%) "(M) f3W (21%)
BASE (3038) (333) (585) (1144) (640)
% 1 % X %_
Preference
Pay higher prices 62 57 57 64 67
Pay higher taxes 29 30 34 30 27
Neither 7 12 7 55
Don't know 212 11
-------
- 104 -
Summary
In this chapter we have discussed people's willingness to pay for
specific steps to prevent pollution and their reactions to three hy-
pothetical increases in car prices to pay for emission control devices.
We have found the amounts people volunteer to pay for motor vehicle
emission control to be a good indicator of their relative willingness
to pay. It is reasonable to assume that this would hold true for the
other pollution abatement steps discussed.
Both income and concern about damage to the environment effect willing-
ness to pay for pollution abatement. Income has a greater effect than
concern but the sum of the two effects is considerably greater than
either one alone.
When asked how much they would be willing to pay for antipollution
devices in new cars, people volunteer an average of $62 per car. The
ranqe above and below this average is large. Income and concern about
car exhaust damage make a difference; the higher the household income,
and the greater the concern, the more people are willing to pay.
When it comes to higher operating costs because of increased mainten-
ance and lower efficiency, the average amount volunteered is $27 per
year. Again, income and concern about car exhaust make a difference
in the amount volunteered.
-------
- 105 -
The amounts people volunteer are not the maximum amounts they are
willing to pay. While the average amount volunteered to pay for
antipollution devices in new cars is $62, a majority of motorists, 53
percent to be exact, react positively to a hypothetical increase of
$150 in the price of new cars in order to pay for antipollution devices.
As would be expected, the frequency of positive reactions diminishes
as the hypothetical price increases: at $300, 28 percent react posi-
tively; and at $500, only 15 percent react positively to the price
increase. We estimate that, at 1973 prices, an average increase of
about $250 per car would be the maximum to receive the support of a
majority of car owners.
Turning to air pollution control at electric power generating plants,
we find that people report an average monthly electric bill of $17.42
and volunteer to pay $3.84 extra to control pollution at those plants.
This amount represents a 22 percent increase in the monthly bill. The
higher the income, the larger the monthly electric bill and the
larger the increase people are willing to pay. Concern about air
pollution also affects willingness to pay. People who are concerned
about the damage air pollution does to the environment are willing to
pay more per month than those who are not concerned about it.
-------
- 106 -
Concerning solid waste, people volunteer to pay, on average, $12 more
per year than the estimated $80 cost mentioned to them as the average
amount currently spent in solid waste handling and disposal. This
represents a 15 percent increase people are willing to pay in order
to have solid waste recycled.
As for sewage treatment, the question was asked only of people who
have public sewer systems; they amount to three-fourths of the sample.
The amount they volunteer to pay for sewage treatment is $8.80
per year in addition to what they pay now for the sewer system. Those
who could name the amount paid currently report $43 a year on average.
Thus, the $8.80 represents a 20 percent increase in what people are
willing to pay for sewage treatment in order to reduce water pollution.
The greater the amount people pay now, the more they are willing to pay
extra for sewage treatment. Income and concern about water pollution
also affect their willingness to pay.
Turning to the reduction of water pollution from food production and
processing, people volunteer to pay $7.43 more than the $30 mentioned
to them as the increase in annual food costs to the average family
that may be required to eliminate these sources of water pollution.
Again, the amount volunteered increases with income and with concern
about water pollution.
-------
- 107 -
When asked how they would feel about a factory closing in their area
because of pollution problems, people were asked first to assume there
would be no help from the government for job retraining and placement;
then they were asked to assume the government would help. When no
special government help is assumed, 35 percent of the people find it
hard to choose between a little more pollution for a time and seeing
people laid off. Usually, this kind of answer reveals a lack of in-
volvement in the issue presented in the question. When special
government help for the people laid off is assumed, only 19 percent
of the people find the choice difficult to make. Acceptance of the
closing increases from 43 percent if no government help is assumed to
69 percent if that help is assumed.
When it comes to having to make a choice between higher prices and
higher taxes in order to pay for pollution control, twice as many
people choose higher prices as choose higher taxes (62% vs. 29%).
The preference for higher prices increases with income.
-------
- 108 -
VII. OVERALL WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT
In the preceding chapter we discussed people's willingness to pay for
specific measures that will be or could be taken to protect the en-
vironment. In this chapter we will discuss an analysis of factors
that explain people's overall willingness to pay.
Action is the ultimate test of beliefs and convictions. Similarly,
a person's opinions can be better understood when his actions are known.
Unfortunately, in the area of environmental protection we lack readily
identifiable actions to validate people's opinions. The issues are
seldom tested in the ballot box and personal participation in recycling
and other activities discussed in an earlier chapter are not widespread
enough to be a universal test of people's opinions.
In this situation, a surrogate measure of people's willingness to act
is appropriate to our purpose. By asking people to project their
behavior under given conditions, we can be confident of obtaining
information that tells us approximately what people will do under those
conditions. In this study, we have chosen the overall willingness to
pay for a better environment as that measure.
The purpose of the analysis discussed in this chapter is to gain a
better understanding of the factors that account for the large varia-
tion observed in people's willingness to pay. Some people do not
-------
- 109 -
volunteer to pay even a few cents; others volunteer to pay large
amounts. What is there about their age, income and opinions that
can help us understand differences in people's willingness to pay
for a better environment?
Question Asked
The following question, which preceded the ones discussed in Chapter
VI, was used to measure overall willingness to pay'for a better environ-
ment:
. To clean up pollution and to improve the quality
of our environment will cost money. Some people
say they are not willing to pay anything at all.
Others say they are willing to pay quite a lot.
How much would you be willing to pay a year to
improve the quality of your environment?
Meaning of Dollar Amounts
In Chapter VI we discussed several measures of willingness to pay and
how the amount people volunteered to pay for antipollution devices
relates to people's reactions to three hypothetical price increases.
We learned that the amounts people volunteer to pay in answer to open-
end questions do not represent the limit of their willingness to pay.
Many who volunteered nothing at all were actually willing to pay $150
for emission control systems in automobiles. While the amount volun-
teered is not the maximum they will pay, it was found to be a good
measure of relative willingness to pay; the greater the amount volun-
teered, the greater the likelihood of accepting larger price increases
when faced with them.
-------
- no -
It follows that, when discussing overall willingness to pay, we
should not take the amounts mentioned by people literally; we should
take them as a means of arraying the adult population from highest to
lowest willingness to pay. Consequently, throughout this chapter we
will use the percentage above or below average rather than the actual
dollar amount. The average amount for the whole sample is $71.
Multivariate Analysis of Overall Willingness to Pay
The purpose of the analysis that follows is to learn the effects of
age, income and concern about environmental issues on peoples overall
willingness to pay. We have learned so far that concern about environ-
mental issues varies with age and income and that willingness to pay
for specific measures to reduce pollution increases with income and
concern about damage to the environment. We will take the analysis
one step further by looking at ten factors together; we will attempt
to measure the effect of each factor by holding the other factors con-
stant. For example, we know that age and income are correlated;
income rises with age up to a point and then declines. To measure the
effect of age as such, we have to hold income constant; conversely, to
measure the effect of income, we have to hold age constant.
For this purpose, we chose Multiple Classification Analysis in prefer-
ence to other analysis of variance techniques because MCA is particularly
well suited to survey data which includes many more classification
variables than continuous ones.
-------
- Ill -
We have attempted to present this analysis in a non-technical manner-,
further details will be found in Appendix B. As an aid to the reader
not versed in the analysis of variance, we display the data with
charts designed to convey visually the differences in variance between
predictor variables.
The following variables will be examined for their effect on willing-
ness to pay; correlation ratios (Beta) are shown in parentheses.
A. Concerns about damage to the environment
Fertilizers and pesticides (.125)
Radiation from nuclear facilities (.108)
Solid waste (.084)
Strip mining (.059)
Factory effluent (.059)
Ground level noise (.035)
Automobile exhaust (.025)
B. Demographic factors
Income (.182)
Age (.084)
C. Awareness of EPA (.108)
We will discuss these variables in decending order of effect on willing-
ness to pay.
For the convenience of the reader, we are reproducing here the damage
ratings from Table III-l for the seven items used In this analysis.
-------
- 112 -
Rating of Damage to Environment
Fertilizers & pesticides
Strip mining
Factory effluent
Ground level noise
Automobile exhaust
Radiation
Solid waste
Hardly
Any/None
*
23
36
23
31
15
44
23
Only a
Little
*
16
5
8
18
12
7
13
Not
Sure
%
16
28
13
4
4
29
6
Some
%
23
8
14
22
23
7
23
A Lot
1
21
23
42
26
46
13
35
Guide to Charts and Analysis
The charts included in this chapter are designed to convey a visual
impression of three concepts used in the analysis: the frequency of
each level of concern, income, age and awareness; the usefulness of
each factor as an indicator of willingness to pay; and the kind of
association between each factor and willingness to pay. The data
tables supporting the charts are included in Appendix B.
Frequencies are represented by the width of the bars in the charts.
For example, Chart VII-1 shows the information about household
income. Each income bracket is represented by a bar and the width
of the bar is proportional to the percentage of the sample that falls
in that income bracket. (People with incomes under $3,000 have been
excluded.) The height of the bar is proportional to the average
amount volunteered to pay by the respondents in that income bracket;
-------
- 113 -
the amount Is expressed as a percentage above or below the average
amount for the sample used in the analysis.
The comparative usefulness of each factor as an indicator of willing-
ness to pay is conveyed by the total shaded area. For example, the
total shaded area in the income chart (VII-1) is the largest of the
ten charts; the shaded area in the automobile exhaust chart (VII-10)
is the smallest of the ten charts. Income has the strongest associa-
tion with willingness to pay; automobile exhaust has the weakest
association with willingness to pay. Income is the best indicator of
willingness to pay; concern about automobile exhaust is the poorest
indicator of willingness to pay among the ten analyzed here.
The type of association between each factor and willingness to pay is
revealed by the profile of the bars in the chart. For example, income
is positively correlated with willingness to pay; the higher the in-
come, the larger the amount volunteered to pay. Age (Chart VII-6) is
negatively correlated with willingness to pay; with the exception of
two age brackets, the older the person, the lower the amount volunteered
to pay for a better environment.
The analysis presented here reveals the effect of income and age on
people's willingness to pay. It reveals the effect of awareness of
EPA, an indirect measure of involvement. It also reveals the effect
of representative, specific concerns about damage to the environment.
-------
- 114 -
It shows that some issues are virtually settled and are no longer good
indicators of overall willinqness to pay for a better environment.
Other issues are not settled; some of them are good indicators of
willingness to pay, some are not.
Effect of Household Income on Willingness to Pay
It is not surprising that household income is the best indicator of
willingness to pay for a better environment. Its effect is strong:
people in households with incomes under $7,000 are willing to pay 20
percent less than the average amount; those in the $7,000 to $20,000
range volunteer amounts close to average; and those in the $20,000 and
over class volunteer 58 percent more than average. The better they
can afford it, the greater the amount people are willing to pay to
improve the environment. (Chart VII-1)
It should also be noted that because income is correlated with other
factors analyzed here, the inclusion of income in this analysis makes
the measurement of other effects more accurate.
-------
- 115 -
CHART VII-1
ADJUSTED EFFECT OF INCOME
ON WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT
AVERAGE
o
•c/v
I
o
O
O
l*»
IA
to- TJ
I ID
O O
O O
o o
in o
— CM
vt w
Household Income
-------
- 116 -
Effect of Concern About Fertilizer and Pesticide Damage
Concern about fertilizer and pesticide damage to the environment ranks
second among the ten factors included in this analysis in its effect
on overall willingness to pay for a better environment. That concern
and willingness to pay show a strong, positive correlation between
them.
When people are classified by their assessment of damage done by ferti-
lizers and pesticides, their differences in willingness to pay are very
pronounced; they range from 26 percent below average if they say no
damage is done, to 22 percent above average if they say a lot of damage
is done by fertilizers and pesticides. (Chart VII-2)
People are divided on this issue: about four out of ten are concerned
about it; about half of them are not concerned about it; and the rest
are undecided. Thus, it stands in sharp contrast with motor vehicle
exhaust, an issue virtually settled in people's minds. Fertilizers
and pesticides are an issue that is certainly not settled and concern
about this issue is a strong indicator of willingness to pay for a
better environment.
-------
- 117 -
CHART VII-2
ADJUSTED EFFECT OF FERTILIZER AND PESTICIDE DAMAGE RATING
ON WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT
+60-
AVERAGE
o
4)
u
I/I
o
o
to
o
<
Rating of Fertilizer and Pesticide Damage
to the Environment
-------
- 118 -
Effect of Concern About Radiation
The effect of concern about damage to the environment caused by
radiation from nuclear facilities ranks third among the ten factors
examined. The relationship between that concern and willingness to
pay cannot be described with a straight line; the damage rating level
and the amount willing to pay do not change in unison, so to speak.
(Chart VII-3)
Nearly one-third of the people have not formed an opinion about the
damage done by radiation from nuclear facilities and, judging by the
low willingness to pay, they have no interest in the issue and little
interest in environmental protection.
A large group, over 40 percent, believe that no damage is being done
by radiation from nuclear facilities and, judging by their above-
average willingness to pay, they are people who care about the environ-
ment.
A small group, less than 10 percent, believe that radiation does some
damage to the environment and are also willing to pay an above-average
amount. These people and the ones who believe no damage is done by
radiation share a common concern about the environment but differ in
their assessment of the damage done by radiation.
-------
- 119 -
About one out of six people believe that radiation from nuclear
facilities does a lot of damage but their willingness to pay is below
average. As pointed out in an earlier chapter, these people may
express anxiety rather than a reasoned concern about the environment.
These people tend to be less educated and less aware of EPA, a reason-
able indicator of involvement in environmental issues.
On the whole, radiation is found to be an important Issue character-
ized by differences of opinion and some amount of anxiety. It is an
uncertain indicator of concern about the environment and willingness
to pay for a better one.
-------
- 120 -
CHART VII-3
ADJUSTED EFFECT OF RADIATION DAMAGE RATING
ON" WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT
AVERAGE
3
U)
0)
O
O
t/1
O
"~
<
Rating of Radiation Damage
to the Environment
-------
- 121 -
Effect of Awareness of EPA
Awareness of EPA was discussed in Chapter VI. The awareness levels
used for this analysis combine two measures discussed in that chapter.
It will be recalled that unaided awareness was measured with an open-
end question asking the respondent if he knows of a government agency
directly involved in fighting pollution and protecting the environment
and a question asking if he knows the agency's name. Aided awareness
was measured by naming the Environmental Protection Agency and asking
the respondent if he had heard about it before. For this analysis,
respondents have been classified according to their answers to these
three questions.
Awareness of EPA ranks fourth among the ten factors and is positively
correlated with willingness to pay; the higher the level of awareness,
the greater the amount volunteered to pay for a better environment.
(Chart VII-4)
Awareness of EPA has a strong effect on willingness to pay. People
who are not at all aware of the Agency, that is they have never heard
of it, volunteer to pay an amount 17 percent below average. At the
other end, people who can readily name the agency, unaided, volunteer
an amount 29 percent above average.
-------
- 122 -
CHART \l\\-k
ADJUSTED EFFECT OF EPA AWARENESS LEVEL
ON WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT
AVERAGE
o
c
4) <
cno.
O t-
C O
M- TJ
O »-
(D
T3 T3
.- a)
a)
• • T:
TJ '
D ••
(TJ -D
3 <
O 4-1
C O
0) 01
01 u
(D l-
o
c o
nj •
BO)
E
C (TJ
^ z
-O TJ
0)
-------
- 123 -
Effect of Concern About Solid Waste
The effect of concern about solid waste on overall willingness to pay
for a better environment ranks fifth among the ten factors examined in
this analysis. The correlation between concern about solid waste and
willingness to pay is negative; the more damage a person attributes to
solid waste, the smaller the amount that person is willing to pay for
a better environment. (Chart VI1-5)
In Chapter VI we showed that people are willing to pay for recycling
and that income has a much greater effect than concern about solid
waste on the amount volunteered to pay for recycling. Now we find that
concern about solid waste is not a reliable indicator of overall
willingness to pay for a better environment.
We suspect that while most people express concern about solid waste,
the intensity of that concern is often not related to the ecological
problem. In Chapter III we showed that the health effect of solid
waste is rated much higher than the damage to the environment. This
also occurs with sewage, industrial smoke and radiation. It does not
occur with factory effluent, fertilizers and motor vehicle exhaust.
This gives us reason to believe that anxiety and sensory perceptions
influence the intensity of concern expressed about some items, in-
cluding solid waste.
-------
- 124 -
It is not surprising than an anxiety response or a narrow concern
with sensory symptoms of pollution should correlate negatively with
willingness to pay for a better environment, for those types of re-
sponses not only introduce "noise" in the data but also lack the
rationality that is inherent in the correlations being measured.
-------
-125 -
CHART VI1-5
ADJUSTED EFFECT OF SOLID WASTE DAMAGE RATING
ON WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT
AVERAGE
0)
I
3
in
o
<
Rating of Solid Waste Damage
to the Envi ronment
-------
- 126 -
Effect of Age
Age ranks sixth among the ten factors examined here and it has a
much smaller effect than income on willingness to pay.
Age is negatively correlated with overall willingness to pay (Chart
VII-6) This negative correlation was to be expected; we have found
consistently that younger people express greater concern about the
environment than older people do. Yet the problem may have another
dimension.
We mentioned earlier that in examining each factor, the other factors
are held constant. Thus, when looking at the effect of age, the income
differences between age groups are, in effect, removed. But this pro-
cedure does not take account of the life cycle in household expenditures.
We suspect that this factor may be responsible for some of the negative
correlation between age and willingness to pay.
Total family expenditures for current consumption reach a peak at age
35 to 44. when family size reaches its peak. Expenditures for education
reach a peak at age 45 to 54, when parents are most likely to have
children in college. The cycle of family exoense commitments illustrated
by these two facts must be a contributing factor to the willingness to
pay we have measured and may explain why at age 25 to 29 and 55 to 64
people volunteer to pay above-average amounts.
-------
- 127 -
CHART VI1-6
ADJUSTED EFFECT OF AGE
ON WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT
+60-
50-
40-
10
a. oi
O ID *
±J L. «•
g>> 20-
E I. 10-
30
-+ 0-
3 e*
| 10-
20-
-30-
AVERAGE
-y
CM
00
-------
- 128 -
Effect of Concern About Strip Mining
Strip mining damage ranks seventh among the ten factors in its effect
on willingness to pay for a better environment.
The correlation between strip mining damage and overall willingness
to pay is positive but not strong. (Chart VI1-7)
People who say strip mining does no damage constitute about one-third
of the sample and they are only slightly below average in willingness
to pay. Nearly another third are not sure and volunteer to pay an
amount 4 percent below average. About one-fourth say it does a lot of
damage and they are willing to pay 12 percent above average.
In Chapter III, we showed that concern about strip mining ranks tenth
among the twenty items rated on damage to the environment. The more
educated are much more likely to be concerned about it than the less
t
educated. Those aware of EPA are also much more likely to be concerned
about it than those not aware. To many others, strip mining is not an
important issue.
These findings suggest that strip mining is not a popular issue but can-
not be dismissed as unimportant to public opinion. Those who are most
concerned about it are also well above-average in willingness to pay,
indicating a commitment greater than the commitment many other issues
evoke.
-------
+60-
50-
- 129 -
CHART VI1-7
ADJUSTED EFFECT OF STRIP MINING DAMAGE RATING
ON WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT
O
20-
10-
0-
10-
20-
-30-
AVERAGE
V
i
2
I/I
Strip Mining Damage Rating
-------
- 130 -
Effect of Concern About Factory Effluent
Factory effluent ranks eighth among the ten factors used in this
analysis; Its effect on willingness to pay is relatively small.
(Chart VII-8)
The correlation between concern about factory effluent and willingness
to pay is positive but much of its effect is due to the group of people
who say it does no damage; they volunteer to pay 16 percent less than
average and include nearly one-fifth of the sample. Nearly one-half of
them live In non-metropolitan areas. Those who say it does a lot of
damage are willing to pay only 3 percent more than average and include
nearly one-half of the sample analyzed here.
These findings suggest that factory effluent is moving into the cate-
gory of settled issues; so many people accept the fact that untreated
industrial effluent damages the environment that their number includes
both people willing to pay a lot and people willing to pay little.
-------
- 131 -
CHART V!1-8.
ADJUSTED EFFECT OF FACTORY EFFLUENT DAMAGE RATING
ON WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT
+60-
AVERAGE
4)
O
O
O
<
Rating of Factory Effluent Damage
to the Environment
-------
- 132 -
Effect of Concern*About Ground Level Noise
The effect of concern about ground level noise ranks ninth among the
ten factors included in this analysis.
The association between the two is very weak. Although positively
correlated, overall willingness to pay is only a few percentage points
below average when concern is low and a few points above average when
concern is high. (Chart VII-9)
People are almost equally divided in their opinion about the damage
done by noise and their opinions are a poor predictor of willingness
to pay for a better environment.
-------
- 133 -
CHART VII-9
ADJUSTED EFFECT OF GROUND LEVEL NOISE DAMAGE RATING
ON WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT
AVERAGE
0)
o
V
I/I
4->
O
Rating of Ground Level Noise Damage
to the Environment
-------
- 134 -
Effect of Concern About Automobile Exhaust
Concern about automobile exhaust damage ranks last among the factors
analyzed here; it is positively correlated with the amount people
volunteer to pay for a better environment but that correlation is very
weak. (Chart VII-10)
The people who are most concerned volunteer to pay an amount only 2
percent above average. The less concerned volunteer to pay amounts
only slightly below average.
By now, about three-fourths of the people believe that automobile
exhaust damages the environment. It follows that the average amount
volunteered by a majority cannot be very different from the average
amount volunteered by the whole sample. This is why concern about
automobile exhaust is a poor indicator of willingness to pay for a
better environment. This is a settled issue in the minds of people,
a fact confirmed by the willingness to pay for emission controls
discussed in Chapter VI.
-------
- 135 -
CHART VI1-10
ADJUSTED EFFECT OF AUTOMOBILE EXHAUST DAMAGE RATING
ON WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT
+60-
50-
>. 40-
Q. 0)
o S1 30-
a>
c in 20-
~ I 10-
30
c * 0-
I 10-
20-
-30-
AVERAGE
c — *j
5 < £
O
<
Rating of Auto Exhaust Damage
to the Environment
-------
- 136 -
Summary
Household income is the best indicator of overall willingness to pay
for a better environment. This was found to be true also of people's
willingness to pay for specific pollution abatement programs. The
people who are willing to pay the most are those who can best afford
it.
Age has a moderate effect on willingness to pay. The shape of the
relationship between age and willingness to pay suggests that the
life cycle of family expenditures patterns contributes to the
generally negative correlation between age and income.
Awareness of EPA is a rather good indicator of overall willingness
to pay for a better environment.
Of the seven concerns about environmental damage included in this
analysis, concern about fertilizers and pesticides is most closely
associated with overall willingness to pay.
-------
- 137 -
VIII. ATTITUDES TOWARD ENFORCEMENT
How far should this country go in fighting pollution? As the practi-
cal implications of environmental quality standards become clear, that
question will have to be answered over and over. In Chapter VI we
discussed the public's reactions to the cost of automotive emission
controls and to the possibility of factory closings. In this chapter
we will discuss the enforcement issue in a broader sense.
Our society has long struggled to define the proper role of its govern-
ment. In contemporary language we speak of public and private sectors
and study the impact of their relative sizes. In times of unusual
economic disequilibrium we speak of mandatory controls versus voluntary
compliance. In fact, every new major social problem renews the debate
about the merits of coercion as an instrument of change.
Where do people stand today on the issue of enforcement of environ-
mental quality standards? Have people come to grips with the choice
between strict and permissive enforcement in pollution abatement?
Questions About Enforcement
The series of three questions about enforcement included in this survey
are based on the premise that attitudes are measured best when they
are approached in terms of acceptance and rejection of statements repre-
-------
- 138 -
senting a broad range of positions on an issue, from one extreme to
its opposite. It is a common experience, for example, to identify
another person's political views by the positions he rejects. The
same is true of attitudes toward child rearing, education, food,
religion and so on.
For the purpose of this study, we defined the enforcement issue as a
series of choices between forcing people to stop pollution at some
cost and personal sacrifice and letting people stop pollution volun-
tarily at the risk of their health and the quality of their environ-
ment.
The question was introduced as follows:
The question to be answered is this: How far should
this country go in fighting pollution? In answering
this question, keep in mind that pollution is unhealthy
and damages property, recreational opportunities and
beautiful things. Also keep in mind that fighting
pollution costs money and, in the end, we all have to
pay for it in some measure.
The following instructions were given:
First, read every one of the statements A through G
below; there are different ways of answering
the question. While you might think of other
ways, please just use the statements given
below.
Second, place a check mark [*/] in the box next to any
statement or statements that you find accept-
able.
-------
- 139 -
Third, look at the statement or statements you
checked and place a second check outside
the box next to the one statement that comes
closest to expressing your own position.
The statements read as follows:
A. Force farmers, industry, cities and towns to stop
pollution, without exception, regardless of what it
costs and of who gets hurt by the cost.
B. Force farmers, industry, cities and towns to stop
pollution except when the cost is so high that it
hurts a lot of people.
C. Force farmers, cities and towns to stop pollution
except when the cost is high enough to hurt a few
people.
D. It is hard to decide whether to force farmers,
industry, cities and towns to stop pollution or to
let them do it voluntarily without any pressure from
the government.
E. Let fanners, industry, cities and towns stop pollution
voluntarily, without any pressure from the government,
except when pollution is bad enough to hurt a few
people.
F. Let farmers, industry, cities and towns stop pollution
voluntarily, without any pressure from the government,
except when pollution is so bad that it hurts a lot
of people.
G. Let farmers, industry, cities and towns stop pollution
voluntarily, without any pressure from the government,
regardless of what may happen to our health or to the
environment.
-------
- 140 -
On the second page of this question the following instructions were
given:
The statements on this page are the same ones you read
in the preceding page. They are different ways of say-
ing how far this country should go in fighting pollution.
Place an "X" in the box next to any statement or state-
ments you find NOT acceptable to you.
The statements on that second page were the same ones listed above.
In spite of the apparent complexity of the question, only 7 percent
of the people refused to answer it or failed to follow the instructions.
In order to simplify the data tables, we have labeled the seven posi-
tions "strict", "middle ground" and "permissive" and qualified them
as "extremely", "moderately" or "mildly" so.
Positions Identified as One's Own
Each position was identified as one's own by some people but the
frequencies varied a great deal as shown in Table VIII-1. Position A,
we will call it extremely strict enforcement, was identified as their
own by 16 percent of the respondents to the survey; position 0, we
will call it the middle ground position, was identified as their own
by 22 percent of the respondents and turned out to be the most popular
position; position G, we will call it extremely permissive enforcement,
was chosen by 2 percent of the respondents.
-------
- 141 -
TABLE VIII-1
PEOPLE'S OWN POSITION ON ENFORCEMENT
Total Sample
i
Degree of Enforcement Favored
A. Extremely strict 16
B. Moderately strict 18
C. Mildly strict 5
D. Middle ground 22
E. Mildly permissive 10
F. Moderately permissive 20
6. Extremely permissive 2
No answer 7
Obviously, there is no popular consensus on the most desirable degree
of enforcement in environmental protection. Even the totals on either
side of the question fail to produce a majority; we find 39 percent
of the people on the side of strict enforcement and 32 percent on the
side of permissive enforcement. The fact that the middle-ground posi-
tion Js the most popular immediately suggests that many people have
not come to grips with this issue and this helps explain why a majority
has not emerged.
Acceptance, Rejection and Noncommitment
It has been said, and the saying is often repeated, that politics is
the art of compromise. Compromise, the settling of differences through
mutual concessions, is only possible when the parties to it find
positions that, though not their own, neither party rejects. When two
-------
- 142 -
parties reject all possible positions but their own, compromise is
impossible. The same principles apply to after-dinner conversation,
commerce and many other activities.
We can also appeal to ordinary experience to realize that if we want
to change another person's mind we must first find out where he stands
and that, unless we hear the limits of what he will accept, we run
the risk of provoking an unbending stance when we suggest a position
that person rejects.
It is for these reasons that we asked each respondent to this survey
to identify not only the statement that came closest to expressing his
own position on enforcement but also to accept, reject or remain non-
committal on every other statement. In this manner, a full view of
his attitude on enforcement would emerge.
Let us now look at the frequencies of acceptance, rejection and non-
commitment for every one of the seven statements chosen to represent a
broad spectrum of alternatives from extremely strict to extremely per-
missive enforcement. Table VIII-2 shows the percentages so that, for
each statement, they add to 100 percent of the sample when reading
across the table. Acceptance includes the statement identified as
one's own position. People who did not answer this question are
excluded from the calculations.
-------
- 143 -
TABLE VIII-2
FREQUENCIES OF ACCEPTANCE, REJECTION AND NONCOMMITMENT
FOR EACH DEGREE OF ENFORCEMENT
Accept Reject Noncommittal
Accept Reject
~^ T
Degree of Enforcement
A. Extremely strict 26 56 18
B. Moderately strict 36 34 30
C. Mildly strict 16 36 48
D. Middle ground 40 25 35
E. Mildly permissive 24 33 43
F. Moderately permissive 36 32 32
G. Extremely permissive 6 67 27
Clearly, many people have not developed well-defined attitudes toward
enforcement of environmental quality standards, at least in the basic
sense of choosing between coercion and voluntary compliance. Looking
at the positions between the two extremes, in B and F we find as many
people sitting on the fence as there are on either side of it; in C
and E we find more people sitting on the fence than on either side of
it.
This lack of well-defined attitudes suggests a lack of public debate
and of personal interaction on the issue, for that is how attitudes
are shaped.
Reasons for Rejection
When a person rejects a position, he many want stricter enforcement
-------
- 144 -
or more permissive enforcement. In Table VIII-3 the totals who reject
each position are broken down into those who want stricter and those
who want more permissive enforcement. For example, the 34 percent
who reject B (moderately strict enforcement) includes 6 percent who
want stricter enforcement (that is, A) and 28 percent who want more
permissive enforcement (that is, a degree lower than B). The size
of the opposition to each degree of enforcement and the direction in
which they lean can be readily seen in Table VIII-3.
TABLE VIII-3
REJECTION FREQUENCIES
Reject Position
Total wantWant More
Who Stricter Permissive
Reject Enforcement Enforcement
Degree of Enforcement Rejected
A. Extremely strict 56 - 56
B. Moderately strict 34 6 28
C. Mildly strict 36 13 23
D. Middle ground 25 17 8
E. Mildly permissive 33 27 6
F. Moderately permissive 32 31 1
G. Extremely permissive 67 67
Concern About Environmental Damage and Position on Enforcement
So far, we have looked at the data for the whole sample. Do attitudes
toward enforcement vary according to other views on environmental
issues? We find that concern about environmental damage makes a differ-
-------
- 145 -
ence; people who are most concerned are more likely to favor strict
enforcement than people who are least concerned about damage to the
environment. Table VIII-4 shows the data. The differences by level
of concern about environmental damage are striking and a majority of
the people who have a high level of concern favor strict enforcement.
TABLE VIII-4
OWN POSITION ON ENFORCEMENT AND
CONCERN ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE
Concern About
Environmenta1 Dama ge
HighMediumLow
BASE TJlO) (1337) (stlf)
111
Degree of Enforcement Favored
A. Extremely strict 25
B. Moderately strict 25
C. Mildly strict 4
D. Middle ground 20
E. Mildly permissive 7
F. Moderately permissive 12
G. Extremely permissive 2
Quality Rating of Environment and Position on
16
19
6
20
9
21
2
10
12
6
25
13
23
2
Enforcement
We would expect that the rating of one's own environment would affect
one's own stand on enforcement of environmental quality standards.
As shown in Table VIII-5, we find that to be true. The worse the rat-
inq of one's own environment, the more strict the level of enforcement
-------
- 146 -
favored. About half of the people living in a fair, poor or very
poor environment favor strict enforcement.
TABLE VIII-5
OWN POSITION ON ENFORCEMENT AND QUALITY
RATING OF ONE'S ENVIRONMENT
Environment Ratin
at ing
Excel 1
t-air, Poor, Excellent,
Very Poor Good Very Good
BASE (1039)(T032) (914)
1 i *
Degree of Enforcement Favored
A. Extremely strict 22 14 13
B. Moderately strict 21 17 16
C. Mildly strict 5 56
D. Middle ground 19 23 23
E. Mildly permissive 7 10 13
F. Moderately permissive 18 21 21
G. Extremely permissive 2 22
Area Size and Position on Enforcement
The quality of the environment is rated lower in more densely popu-
lated areas than in less densely populated ones. Furthermore, we
find greater concern about environmental damage in metropolitan areas.
Consequently, we would expect people who live in metropolitan areas
to favor stricter enforcement than people who live in non-metropolitan
areas. Table VII1-6 shows this to be the case and it shows also that
the larger the metropolitan area, the higher the percentage who favor
strict enforcement.
-------
- 147 -
TABLE VIII-6
OWN POSITION ON ENFORCEMENT AND AREA SIZE
Metropolitan Area Non-
BASE
Degree of Enforcement Favored
A. Extremely strict
B. Moderately strict
C. Mildly strict
D. Middle ground
E. Mildly permissive
F. Moderately permissive
G. Extremely permissive
Willingness to Pay and Position on
1 ,000,000
and Over
(1250)
%
20
23
6
20
9
16
2
Enforcement
50,000 -
1,000,000
(991)
1
16
19
4
20
9
21
2
(7977
11
10
6
26
12
24
3
Does willingness to pay for a better environment reflect a person's
attitude about enforcement of environmental quality standards? As we
showed in Chapter VII, the amount people volunteer to pay, overall,
for a better environment is strongly related to income; we would ex-
pect that many people who feel they cannot afford to pay anything
would nevertheless expect strict enforcement. Consequently, willing-
ness to pay would not necessarily reflect attitudes on enforcement.
Yet, inasmuch as other factors also affect willingness to pay, that
measure should bear some relationship to enforcement attitudes. As
-------
- 148 -
shown in table VIII-7, the larger the amount people volunteer to pay,
the more likely they are to favor strict enforcement. In fact, the
differences are quite pronounced.
TABLE VIII-7
OWN POSITION ON ENFORCEMENT AND
WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT
Amount Willing to Paj
BASE
Deqree of Enforcement Favored
A. Extremely strict
B. Moderately strict
C. Mildly strict
D. Middle ground
E. Mildly permissive
F. Moderately permissive
G. Extremely permissive
Reaction to Car Price Increases and
Over $50
(557)
-------
- 149 -
Is the most severe test. Do people continue to favor strict enforce-
ment when its price is high?
The data presented in Table VIII-8 shows large differences in atti-
tudes toward enforcement. At one extreme, among people who react
positively to a $500 price increase, the percentage who favor extremely
strict enforcement is nearly twice as high as among people who react
negatively to the $500 increase (26% vs. 1420. The frequency of the
next position, moderately strict enforcement, is 1.3 times as high
among those who react positively as among those who react negatively.
The ratios of positive to negative frequencies, shown in the last
column, fall below 1.0 at position C. Briefly, people who react posi-
tively to the $500 car price increase are more likely to favor strict
enforcement than those who react negatively to that price increase.
The apparent anomalies in these data do not necessarily mean that
people are inconsistent in their answers to these two questions. The
$500 increase may fall in the category of a "cost so high that it hurts
a lot of people" or "a few people", the escape clauses or exceptions
to statements B and C; thus positions B and C are not necessarily in-
consistent with a negative reaction to the $500 increase. Concerning
the 14 percent who favor enforcement "without exception, regardless of
what it costs and of who gets hurt", the inconsistency in rejecting
the $500 increase is evident; they probably failed to realize that the
cost of enforcement could be passed on to them.
-------
- 150 -
TABLE VIII-8
OWN POSITION ON ENFORCEMENT AND
REACTION TO A $500 CAR PRICE INCREASE
Positive to
Reaction to Price Increase Negative
BASE
Positive
(404)
Neutral
(428)
Negative
(1601)
Ratio
Degree of Enforcement Favored — - -
A. Extremely strict
B. Moderately strict
C. Mildly strict
D. Middle ground
E. Mildly permissive
F. Moderately permissive
G. Extremely permissive
Likelihood of a Pragmatic
26
24
4
19
9
15
1
Reaction to
14
21
4
24
11
18
2
Enforcement
14
18
6
22
10
22
2
1.9
1.3
.7
.9
.9
.7
.5
We have found that people are almost evenly divided on the issue of
strict versus permissive enforcement in the fight against pollution.
We have also found that their position on enforcement can be explained,
in part, by their concern about environmental damage, their views on
the quality of the environment and the size of the population in the
area where they live. We have learned that willingness to pay for a
better environment reflects, to some extent, people's position on
enforcement.
We have also found that people's positions on the choice between strict
and permissive enforcement are quite consistent with their reaction
to hypothetical price increases to pay for motor vehicle emission
control.
-------
- 151 -
We conclude that people's attitudes toward enforcement in pollution
abatement reflect both a preference for voluntary or compulsory com-
pliance and a balancing of abatement costs against health and environ-
mental damage effects of pollution.
Attitudes toward enforcement, in terms of strict and permissive
approaches to it, reveal a small latitude of acceptance and rejection
of positions other than one's own. We also find a high level of non-
commitment.
By contrast, dollar questions about the limits of willingness to pay
evoke more definite answers, suggesting that the enforcement issue is
approached on a pragmatic rather than doctrinaire basis.
We conclude that as the need to meet the costs of environmental
quality standards arises, people need reliable, objective information
about costs and about the benefits they can reasonably expect from
paying these costs.
Opposition to strict enforcement is most likely to arise in areas
where people perceive the standards to be unnecessarily high because
they see little degradation of the environment with respect to the
particular standard beinq applied.
-------
- 152 -
Summary
We have examined people's attitudes toward enforcement in pollution
abatement by posing a choice between various levels of strict and
permissive enforcement. We have found no clear majority on either
side of this choice. Only the extreme positions of strict enforce-
ment at all costs and non-enforcement regardless of the consequences
are rejected by a majority. Although people lean slightly toward
strict enforcement, all the positions between the extremes are re-
jected by about one-third of the people except the middle ground
position which is rejected by only one-fourth of them. These find-
ings suggest that the consequences of varying degrees of enforcement
have not been debated enough to stimulate attitude formation among
many people.
We find differences in the stand people take and in their commitment
to a position when we classify people by their views on the environ-
ment. Concern about environmental damage, rating one's environment
as less than good and living in a metropolitan area, increase the
probability of favoring strict enforcement in pollution abatement.
We also find that the more people are willing to pay for a better
environment, the stricter the level of enforcement favored.
We find attitudes toward enforcement to be quite consistent with the
reaction to hypothetical car price increases to pay for emission con-
trol.
-------
- 153 -
While attitudes toward enforcement reflect a complex of factors, we
conclude that people are approaching the enforcement issue pragmati-
cally. Faced with the facts, they balance the cost of pollution abate-
ment and its benefits and then take a stand.
In areas where a particular form of environmental degradation is not
evident or does not seem serious, the corresponding environmental
quality standards are likely to be rejected until the eventual conse-
quences of lower standards become understood.
As the need to meet environmental quality standards arises, people
will need reliable, objective information about costs and about the
benefits they can reasonably expect from paying these costs.
-------
- 154 -
IX. INCOME. AREA SIZE AND CONCERN ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT
It is not uncommon to hear statements to the effect that environmental
concerns are a preoccupation of well-to-do;people; the poor, it is said,
must have other things on their minds.
That statement runs counter to the logic suggested by the facts, for
the poor rate their environment worse than other people rate theirs
and, generally speaking, the worse the environment, the greater the
concern about environmental damage. Thus allowing for differences in
environmental factors other than pollution, income should not be a
determinant of concern about environmental damage.
In the first four chapters we have shown few of the customary compari-
sons by age, income and other demographic factors. This omission was
deliberate, for indiscriminate comparisons of that sort are often mis-
leading. In Chapters VI and VII we considered income together with
other factors so that the effect of income would not be overstated.
In spite of this, income was found to be most closely associated with
willingness to pay for pollution abatement and a better environment in
general. It is important that this finding should not be misconstrued.
In this chapter we will look at the effect of income and area size to-
gether for reasons that will become clear shortly. In doing this, we
will learn whether or not income is related to people's concern about
the environment.
-------
- 155 -
Effect of Income Alone
The statement to the effect that the poor are not concerned about the
environment is sometimes supported by numbers showing that the propor-
tion of people concerned about the environment or about pollution is
larger among higher income groups than lower income groups. Using the
summary rating of concern introduced in Chapter III, we have prepared
Table IX-1 to illustrate that sort of comparison.
TABLE IX-1
INCOME AND CONCERN ABOUT DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT
Annual Household Income
On3er$5,000- $15,000
$5.000 $14.999 & Over
BASE (612) (1451) (639)
* 1 1
Level of Concern
High
Medium
Low
20
42
38
24
44
32
26
47
27
Table IX-1 does show that the frequency of a high level of concern
rises with income; from 20 percent among households with incomes under
$5,000 to 25 percent among the $15,000 or more bracket. What is miss-
ing from that table is some information about where these people live,
for it is obvious that some areas have much more serious environmental
problems than others.
-------
- 156 -
Effect of Area Size Alone
As shown in Chapter II, people who live in non-metropolitan areas
rate the quality of their environment much higher than people who live
in metropolitan areas, particularly those with one million people or
more. In Chapter III we showed that the level of concern about the
items rated on their damage to the environment is higher in metro-
politan areas than in non-metropolitan areas. This finding is
summarized in Table IX-2 which shows the frequency of high, medium
and low concern levels by area size.
TABLE IX-2
CONCERN ABOUT DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND AREA SIZE
Metropolitan Non-
1,000,000 50,000 - metro-
& Over 1,000,000 politan
BASE (1249)(990) (797)
111
Level of Concern
High
Medium
Low
32
48
20
24
48
28
9
34
58
Income and Area Size
It is readily observable that income is not unrelated to area size,
a fact that cannot be overlooked when discussing concern about the en-
vironment, for income is, on average, highest where pollution problems
are most pervasive.
-------
- 157 -
Table IX-3 shows the incidence of various income levels by area size.
Notice that the incidence of households with incomes under $5,000 a
year is nearly twice as high in non-metropolitan areas as in metro-
politan areas with one million or more people.
TABLE IX-3
ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND AREA SIZE
Metropolitan Non-
BASE
Household Income
Under $5,000
$5,000 - $14,999
$15,000 & over
1,000,000
& Over
(1107)
1
17
53
30
50,000 -
1,000,000
(897)
I
23
53
24
metro-
politan
(774)
%
31
56
13
To put it differently, about two out of five households with incomes
under $5,000 a year live in non-metropolitan areas where pollution is
less serious than in metropolitan areas. By contrast, six out of seven
with household incomes $15,000 and over live in metropolitan areas where
pollution is generally most serious. Thus the fact that a larger percent-
age of middle and high income people are more concerned about pollution
may be related to where they live rather than to their income. In
other words, we have to look at income and area size together before
we can say whether concern about pollution is related to income or
not.
-------
- 158 -
Concern About the Environment Related to Income and Area Size
In order to avoid confusing the effect of where people live with the
effect of household income on concern about the environment, people
have to be classified by these two factors at the same time. This is
done in Table IX-4.
The upper part of Table IX-4 shows the percentages of people with a
high level of concern about the environment. It shows these percentages
for the total sample, by area size, by household income and by both.
The lower part of Table IX-4 shows the differences' between .the sample
average and each of the three income levels, each of the three area
size levels and each of the nine combinations of income and area size.
It is readily apparent that area size has a much greater effect on
concern than income does; in fact, the effect of income is so small
that it would practically disappear if the distribution of households
by area size were the same at each income level as it is nationally.
-------
- 159 -
TABLE IX-4
INCIDENCE OF HIGH LEVEL OF CONCERN ABOUT
ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE RELATED TO INCOME AND AREA SIZE
Metropolitan Non-
Total 1,000,000 50,000 - metro-
Sample & Over 1,000.000 politan
*.%.%. i
Household Income
Total sample
Under $5,000
$5,000 - $14,999
$15,000 & over
23
20
24
26
32
33
32
33
24
22
25
23
9
6
9
9
% Points Above or
Below Average
Total sample +9 +1 -14
Under $5,000 - 3 +10 - 1 -17
$5,000 - $14,999 +1 +9 +2 -14
$15,000 & over +3 +10 0 -14
In metropolitan areas with one million or more people, one-third of
them express a high level of concern about environmental damage
regardless of income. In metropolitan areas with fewer than one
million people, about one-fourth of the people express a high level
of concern and the differences between income levels are negligible.
In non-metropolitan areas, only one-tenth of the people express a
high level of concern about environmental damage; among those with
incomes under $5,000 the proportion is smaller but the difference is
barely significant statistically.
-------
- 160 -
Summary
It is sometimes said that poor people are not concerned about the en-
vironment. The evidence used to support that statement is usually
incomplete. Taking account of both income and area size, we find that
income is not associated with concern about the environment. While
it is true that fewer of the lower income people are concerned about
damage to the environment, this is because a good number of them have
less reason for concern; two out of five people with a household in-
come under $5,000 live in areas where pollution is less of a problem
than in metropolitan areas where most of the higher income people
live. The remaining three out of five are just as concerned as their
well-to-do neighbors. Once people are classified by the size of the
area they live in, it becomes apparent that differences in concern
are a function of area size; where pollution is a problem, it concerns
both rich and poor alike.
-------
- 161 -
Appendix A
SAMPLING AND WEIGHTING PROCEDURES
Description of Probability Sample
One of the requirements for this study was that a minimum of 200 interviews
be conducted in each of the ten Federal regions. If the interviews were
conducted proportional to the population in each Federal region, four regions
would have fewer than 200 interviews, as illustrated in the table below:
Proportional
Continental U.S. Distribution of
Federal Region # Population 3,000 Interviews
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I
5.9
12.5
11.5
15,9
21.7
10.1
5.5
2.8
11.0
3.1
100.0%
£
177
375
345
477
651
303
165
84
330
93
JJM
Therefore, the sample was selected disproportionately to population in each
Federal region. This was achieved by utilizing a National Probability
Sample consisting of 100 primary sampling units (PSU's) and 400 clusters
within these 100 PSU's (which were drawn based on the nine Census regions)
and adjusting the number and distribution of clusters to yield the require-
ment of at least 200 interviews in each Federal region.
-------
- 162 -
The following is a description of the 100 PSU/400 cluster National Proba-
bility Sample, after which the cluster adjustment will be described.
The National probability Sample is a multi-stage probability sample of the
Continental U.S., consisting of TOO PSU's and 400 clusters. The 1971 Sales
Management definition of metropolitan areas and the 1970 population statis-
tics were used to select the interviewing areas. The Sales Management
definition of metropolitan areas is:
"A group of contiguous counties featuring at least one central
city of 50,000 inhabitants or more, or 'twin cities' with a
combined population of 50,000. In addition to the county
containing such a city or cities, contiguous counties qualify
as component parts of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area
if they are essentially metropolitan in character, are economi-
cally and socially fused with the 'hub' or central city."
The specific interviewing areas were selected in two stages, as described
below:
Stage I - Selection of PSU's
In the selection of the 100 PSU's, the 34 largest metropolitan areas
(all having populations over one million) were approximately equal
to or larger than the average stratum size and thus, automatically
fell into the sample. (These PSU's are referred to as self-weighting
PSU's.)
The remaining 264 metropolitan areas (as defined by Sales Management)
were stratified on the basis of geography (nine Census regions) and
-------
- 163 -
size of metropolitan area. These metropolitan areas were arrayed by
size within each Census region. (The odd numbered regions were arrayed
from largest to smallest and the even numbered regions were arrayed in
reverse order.)
The total population of the 264 metropolitan areas was divided by 35
to yield the sampling interval which defined the 35 strata. The
interval numbers fell within a metropolitan area; the area was assigned
to the strata in which the larger part of its population fell. (Thus,
the strata size varied slightly around the average of approximately
one million.) Within each stratum, one PSD (metropolitan area) was
randomly selected, using random number tables, with probability pro-
portionate to size (PPS).
The 3,000 odd non-metropolitan counties were stratified on the basis
of geography (nine Census regions) and size of the largest central
place (city, town or village) within the county. The counties were
arrayed within each Census region, similarly to the metropolitan areas
(from largest to smallest in the odd number regions and in reverse
order in the even numbered regions). Thirty-one equal sized strata
were defined from the array.
It was predesignated that each non-metropolitan PSU include a minimum
population of 8,000. Counties with population under 8,000 were grouped
-------
- 164 -
with a neighboring county or counties within the stratum in forming
the PSU's. Within each non-metropolitan stratum, one PSU was randomly
selected, using random number tables with probability proportionate to
size.
The total number of clusters assigned by strata is proportionate to
the population of the Continental U.S., as illustrated by the follow-
ing table:
Number of Number of Continental U.S.
PSU's Clusters Population
~
Self-weighting
metropolitan areas 34 161 40 41
Other metropolitan areas 35 131 33 33
Non-metropolitan areas 31 108 27 26_
TOO 4W TO T00%
Stage II - Selection of Clusters
The number of clusters assigned to each PSU is proportionate to the
population of its stratum. The selected PSU's population was divided
by the number of clusters assigned to that PSU to determine the
sampling interval. All clusters were selected using the random sys-
tematic sampling technique.
The Census "listing of places by county" was used in determining in
which places the clusters fell. If the place selected was under 1,200
in size, it was automatically grouped with the preceding place (or
-------
- 165 -
places). Then the Census "listing of ED's" (enumeration districts)
was used to select the particular ED within the place. Where the ED
listing indicated to use block statistics books, these books were used
to select the specific block or blocks which constitute the clusters.
If the selected block contained fewer than 30 household units, the
succeeding block (or blocks) were added to form the cluster. The
blocks were selected using random number tables. For all other places,
ED maps were used. The selected ED's were then segmented into clusters
of 30 household units using geographical data on the maps (streets,
rivers, and other natural boundaries). The segment used was selected
using random number tables.
For each cluster, interviewers were given a random start number, going
in a clockwise direction starting from the northwest corner.
Since the study requirements included a minimum of 200 interviews in
each Federal region, it was necessary at this point to adjust the
Federal region cluster allocation. The final sample consisted of 102
PSU's and 430 clusters. The original and final allocations are shown
in the table below:
-------
- 166 -
Continental U.S.
Population
I
5.9
12.5
11.5
15.9
21.7
10.1
5.5
2.8
11.0
3.1
TTJOJ;
Original Sample
Allocation
%_ i
6.0 24
13.0 52
10.5 42
16.8 67
22.3 89
10.0 40
4.2 17
2.0 8
10.0 40
5.2 21
MKTM 4UO~
Final Sample
Allocation
i
29
48
40
58
87
40
29
29
40
30
415"
Federal Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Stage III - Selection of Individuals
Within every cluster, interviewers started contacting households at
the predesignated start point (nth household from the northwest corner
going in a clockwise direction) and continued contacting successive
households until seven interviews were completed.
Within each household, all members 18 years and older were determined.
Those who were at home at the time of the interviewer's call were then
listed in a specific sequence — males first from youngest to oldest,
then females, from youngest to oldest.
Each questionnaire had a predesignated selection procedure of the
specific person to be interviewed. Since males are at home less fre-
quently than females, a greater probability of selection was given to
the higher lines in order to better represent males in the sample.
-------
- 167 -
The following is an illustration of the instructions used to select
the specific person in the household to be interviewed:
INSTRUCTION: IN RESPONDENT SELECTION BOX BELOW, LIST THE POSITION
IN HOUSEHOLD OF EACH PERSON "AT HOME" STARTING WITH MALES FROM YOUNGEST
TO OLDEST, THEN FEMALES FROM YOUNGEST TO OLDEST.
RESPONDENT SELECTION BOX
POSITION IN HOUSEHOLD
OF PERSONS AT HOME
Red "X's"
Appeared
Here
INSTRUCTION: ASK TO INTERVIEW PERSON IN RESPONDENT SELECTION BOX WHO
IS LOWEST ON THE LIST AND HAS A RED "X" ON HIS/HER LINE. DO NOT
SUBSTITUTE.
Weighing Procedure^
Since the sample allocation was disproportionate to the population, it was
necessary to statistically weight the sample so the data would be representa-
tive of the total Continental U.S. Each cluster was assigned a statistical
weight so that it would be represented as it would be in a proportionate
sample. The following table illustrates the Census region distribution of
the actual and statistically weighted cluster.
-------
- 168 -
Census Region
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Continental
U.S. Population
5.8
18.3
19.8
8.1
15.3
6.3
9.6
4.2
12.6
T5O&
Cluster Allocation
Actual#
of Clusters
I
29
66
75
47
57
23
40
32
61
430
Weighted
Sample
25.0
79.2
84.7
34.9
65.7
27.0
40.9
18.3
54.5
41O"
5.8
18.4
18.7
8.1
15.3
6.3
8.5
4.3
12.6
100.0%
The sample was then compared to population statistics on sex and age.
Since there were differences in the sample distributions compared to the
total population, the sample was statistically weighted for sex and age so
the survey data would be representative of the country on these character-
istics.
Weighted
1970 Sample
Population Sample Data
% * I
Sex
Male 47.5 38.6 47.2
Female 52.5 61.4 52.8
Age
18 - 24 17.7 14.7
25 - 34 18.7 22.5
35 - 44 17.3 17.8
45 - 54 17.4 16.7
55 - 64 13.9 14.1
65 and over 15.0 14.2
17,
19,
16.6
17.9
13.9
14.9
-------
- 169 -
Appendix B
NOTES ON HULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS
This Appendix provides a fuller description of the analysis presented in
Chapter VII. The Multiple Classification Analysis output is included.
The MCA technique can be considered the equivalent of multiple regression
analysis using dummy variables but it is a far more convenient tool for
survey data analysis.
Three advantages of MCA over other regression techniques are worth mention-
ing: MCA deals with nominal predictors widely used in survey questionnaires;
it handles missing data (no opinion, no answer) by treating it as another
predictor category; and it handles a wide range of relationships between
variables avoiding the need to search for functions that best describe
these relationships. The key restriction is that the model describing
the multiple relationships be additive.
The MCA "coefficients" are deviations from the grand mean adjusted for the
effects of other predictors. They are computed for each predictor category.
Thus the sum of the grand mean and the coefficient equals the adjusted
mean for the category.
-------
- 170 -
Of the statistics computed, the Eta correlation ratio has been identified
earlier in the report; it measures the effect of the predictor alone, that
is without adjustment for other predictors. The Beta ratio refers to the
effect of the predictor together with others, that is when all other pre-
dictors are "held constant" as if they were distributed within each cate-
gory as they are for the total sample. The output also includes R, a
multiple correlation coefficient which is adjusted for degrees of freedom.
Correlation coefficients obtained from opinion survey data are usually
small but this should not be a deterrant to exploring associations between
variables. Our intent is not to establish causality but to proceed heu-
ristically in the hope of discovering new information that can help the
users of this study.
A few comments about the selection of data are in order at this point.
It is most improbable that all of the questions asked can be equally
useful in the analysis and some need not be used together because they
overlap a great deal. Income and occupation and concern about automobile
and truck exhaust are examples of overlapping pairs. Besides, highly over-
lapping variables produce uncertain results. It is also necessary to
limit the number of predictors.
-------
- 171
As a first step toward the selection of variables, we obtained corre-
lation ratios (Eta) between willingness to pay and seventy-seven
measures of opinion and background factors included in the question-
naire. Thirty-two variables were then selected for analysis of the
data structure and of possible interactions between predictors.
Finally, the list of predictors was narrowed down to ten for the
Multiple Classification Analysis presented here. Predictors were
selected on judgement as well as statistical criteria. For example,
auto exhaust damage and truck, bus and airplaine damage are nearly
equally correlated with willingness to pay, but they overlap consider-
ably. Because of their overlap only one should be used. Auto exhaust
was selected because it seemed more reliable as a predictor.
It was also necessary to be selective with the observations used. The
distribution of amounts people volunteered is so skewed that it would
certainly cause trouble in the multivariate analysis. To begin with,
the incidence of zeroes is very high and it was desirable to lower it.
We found, for example, that people in households with an income under
$3,000 volunteered to pay nothing; it seemed reasonable to exclude
them from this multivariate analysis, for these people will not be
able to pay much anyway. Other zeroes were excluded on a random basis.
Values in excess of $964 were also excluded; that cut-off point was selected
-------
- 172 -
because it is at the three-sigma level, the maximum recommended range for
the analytical program used here. Frequency distributions of the obser-
vations selected for multivariate analysis were then compared to the total
sample distributions on all predictor variables as a safety check
against the possibility of distortions; the distributions were found
to be quite similar. As mentioned earlier, in the presentation of results
we use percentage deviations of the dependent variable from the grand mean.
In the computer analysis we used the dollar amount given by the respondent;
the grand mean of that subsample was, of course, higher than that of the
whole sample.
The following tables, numbered VII-1 to VII-10 contain the data presented
in chart form in Chapter VII. Computer class codes are shown to the left
of the class description.
-------
- 173 -
TABLE VII-1.
EFFECT OF INCOME ON
WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT
Deviation from Average
Willingness to Pay
Code
0
2
3
4
5
6
7
Household Income
Refused
$3,
$5,
$7,
$10
$15
$20
000
000
000
,000
,000
,000
, don't know
- $4,999
- $6,999
- $9,999
- $14,999
- $19,999
and over
Frequency
8
7
11
18
28
12
13
.1%
.8X
.6%
.0%
.15!
.6%
.7%
Unadjusted
-22.
-25.
-31.
- 7.
- 4.
+ 7.
+67.
0%
4%
6%
8%
6%
2%
5%
Adjusted
-21
-16
-21
- 5
- 6
+ 1
+58
.4%
.8%
.6%
.OX
.3%
.6%
.5X
Eta = .218 Beta = .182
-------
- 174 -
TABLE VI 1-2
EFFECT OF FERTILIZER, PESTICIDE DAMAGE RATING ON
WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT
Deviation from Average
Willingness to Pay
Code
2
3
1
4
5
Fertilizer,
Hardly any,
A little
Not sure
Frequency Unadjusted
Insecticide Damage'
none 17.0% -27.2%
16.7% -12.1%
16.2% - 5.5%
Some, but not a lot 26. 7% +10.9%
A lot
23.5% +19.6%
Adjusted
-26.3%
-16.3%
+ 3.4%
+ 5.9%
+21.6%
Eta = .124 Beta = .125
NOTE: The placement of the class "not sure" is arbitrary. We have
placed it in the middle position in order to keep the scales
uniform and thus make it easier to read the charts. Unfortu-
nately, this may create wrong impressions about the shape of
regression lines suggested by the charts. It must be kept in
mind that the opinion predictors used here are not continuous
variables; they are verbal scales with subjective intervals.
-------
- 175 -
TABLE VII-3
EFFECT OF RADIATION DAMAGE RATING ON
WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT
Deviation from Average
Willingness to Pay
Code
2
3
1
4
5
Radiation Damaqe
Hardly any, none
A little
Not sure
Some, but not a lot
A lot
Frequency
38.3%
8.45!
29.7%
8.5%
15.1%
Unadjusted
+ 7.4%
+ 1.6%
-18.0%
+29.8%
- 1.0%
Adjusted
+13.4%
+ 1.0%
-18.6%
+18.1%
- 8.2%
Eta = .103 Beta = .108
NOTE: This table and Chart VII-3 illustrate the advantages
of using Pearson's correlation ratio (Eta) with class
variables. First, the damage rating scale is non-
continuous and the placement of "not sure" is uncertain.
Second, since deviations are computed from class means,
no assumptions about linearity are needed.
-------
- 176 -
TABLE VI1-4
EFFECT OF EPA AWARENESS LEVEL ON
WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT
Deviation from Average
Willingness to Pay
Frequency Unadjusted Adjusted
'ode Awareness of EPA
[Unaided: Know of no Agency 1
0 J f 34.53! -26. OX -17. OX
[Aided: Not heard of EPA J
("Unaided: Know of an Agency 1
(Aided: Not heard of EPA J
22.2% + .IX + 1.1
[Unaided: Know of no Agency 1
2 i I 32.2% +10.5% + 7.1%
.Aided: Heard of EPA J
[
[Unaided: Know of an Agency 1
34 \ 11.1% +50.2% +28.9%
[Unaided: Name EPA correctly!
Eta • .175 Beta = .108
-------
- 177 -
TABLE VII-5
EFFECT OF SOLID .WASTE DAMAGE RATING ON
WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT
Deviation from Average
Willingness to Pay
Frequency
Code
2
3
1
4
5
Solid Waste Damage
Hardly any, none
A little
Not sure
Some, but not a lot
A lot
16.
13.
5.
28.
37.
655
2%
0*
3%
0%
Unadjusted
+ 3
+ 2
-14
+ 4
- 4
.0%
.3%
.5*
.756
.0*
Adjusted
+20.
+ 8.
-18.
+ .
- 9.
OX
5%
4%
2%
7X
Eta = .038 Beta = .084
-------
- 178 -
TABLE VI1-6
EFFECT OF AGE ON
WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT
Deviation from Average
Willingness to Pay
Frequency Unadjusted
Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Age
18
25
30
35
45
55
65
- 24
- 29
- 34
- 44
- 54
- 64
& older
21
15
13
17
15
10
6
.5%
.9%
.0%
.3%
.2%
.4%
.5*
+ 1
+17
+
-
-12
+11
-39
.2%
.9%
.7%
.8%
.7%
.0%
.4%
Adjusted
+ 1
+17
- 2
- 2
-13
+12
-23
.6%
.9%
.1*
.8%
.0%
.5%
.6%
Eta = .102 Beta = .084
-------
- 179 -
TABLE VII-7
EFFECT OF STRIP MINING DAMAGE RATING ON
WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT
Code Strip Mining Damage
2 Hardly any, none
3 A little
1 Not sure
4 Some, but not a lot
5 A lot
Deviation from Average
Willingness to Pay
Frequency
30.6%
6.0%
28.7%
8.1%
26.7%
Unadjusted
- 8.8%
-22.2%
-15.6%
- 1.0%
+29.0%
Adjusted
- .9%
-15.2%
- 4.0%
- 9.5%
+11.7%
Eta = .116 Beta = .059
-------
- 180 -
TABLE VI1-8
EFFECT OF FACTORY EFFLUENT DAMAGE RATING ON
WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT
Deviation from Average
Willingness to Pay
Frequency
Code
2
3
1
4
5
Factory Effluent Damage
Hardly any, none
A little
Not sure
Some, but not a lot
A lot
17.
8.
11.
15.
47.
335
4X
7%
IX
6%
Unadjusted
-18
-17
- 2
- 1
+10
.0%
.6*
.5X
.0%
.6%
Adjusted
-16
- 2
+ 9
+ 2
+ 3
.3%
.6%
.0%
.3%
.4%
Eta = .087 Beta = .059
-------
- 181 -
TABLE
VII-9
EFFECT OF GROUND LEVEL NOISE DAMAGE RATING ON
WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT
Deviation from Average
Willingness to Pay
Code
2
3
1
4
5
Ground Level Noise Damage
Hardly any, none
A little
Not sure
Some, but not a lot
A lot
Frequency
22.3%
17.9%
3.5%
25.8%
30.5%
Unadjusted
- 6.4%
- 5.6%
-15.0%
+ 9.6%
+ 8.9%
Adjusted
- 1.2%
- 7.8%
+ 5.9%
- .9%
+ 5.6%
Eta = .051 Beta = .035
-------
- 182 -
TABLE VII-10
EFFECT OF AUTO EXHAUST DAMAGE RATING ON
WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT
Deviation from Average
Willingness to Pay
Frequency
Code
2
3
1
4
5
Auto Exhaust Damage
Hardly any, none
A little
Not sure
Some, but not a lot
A lot
8.
10.
2.
25.
53.
2%
51
4%
9%
0%
Unadjusted
,-13.
-16.
- 4.
- 4.
+ 8.
7%
8%
2«
8%
0%
Adjusted
- 1.
- 7.
-10.
- 1.
+ 2.
0%
0%
5%
0%
5%
Eta = .069 Beta = .025
-------
CONVERSED TEST TYPE 2 ITERATION 7
DEPENDENT VARIABLE (V) • Oil VAR 6j HILLINB TO PAY
MEAN
SUM OP V
SUM OP V SQUARE
STANDARD DEVIATION
TOTAL SUM OP SQUARES
EXPLAINED SUM OF SQUARE
RESIDUAL SUM OP SQUARES
• O.S9744095E OZ
0.10661600E 06
0.26755856E OS
O.I2033264E 03
0.17167696E 06
0.1831S9BDE 07
0.1S356098E 09
PREDICTOR
CLASS
1
2
4
S
61 VAR 6 FERTILIZER
NO OF 8UM OF P£» CLASS DEVIATION PROM
CASES HEIGHTS CENTS MEAN GRAND MEAN COEFFICIENT
192
202
HB
317
279
ETA-SQUARE •
ETA •
192 16,2 0.84844E 02 •0.49003E 01 0.30557E 01
202 17.0 0.65307E 02 •0.24437E 02 •0.23587E 02
198 16.7 C«7B884E 02 -0.10B60E 02 «0,14654« 02
317 26,7 0,99549E 02 0.98048E 01 0.52S7BE 01
279 23,5 0.10736E 03 0.17632E 02 0.19399E 02
0*15464973E»01 BETA-SQUARE • Ot15735213C«01
0.1243SB24E 00 BETA m 0.12S44006E 00
UNADJUSTED DEVIATION 83 a
ADJUSTED DEVIATION 8S •
0.26580731E 0*
0.27045206E 06
ADJUSTED MEAN
0.92800E 02
0.66157E 02
0(7S090E 02
0.9S002E 02
0.10914E OS
PREDICTOR
NO OF
CLASS CASES
139
205
too
179
565
ETA-SQUARE •
ETA •
71 VAR
SUM OF
WEIGHTS
1J9
203
100
179
565
7 LIQUID
PER
CENTS
11.7
17,3
8.4
15,1
47,6
WASTE
C L A S
M E A
0.87489E
0,73610E
0.739SOE
OJ99221E
0.7557««6UE-02
0.86933851E.01
BETA
S
N
02
02
02
02
02
DEVIATION PROM
GRAND MEAN
•0.22549E
•0,16134E
•0.15794E
•0,a6142E
0.94771E
01
02
02
00
01
COEFFICIENT
C, 810712
•0.14604E
•0.23262E
0.20599E
0.306346
•SQUARE • 0.34593849E
BETA m 0(58816537E
•02
•01
01
02
01
01
01
UNADJUSTED DEVIATION S3 »
ADJUSTED DEVIATION S3 •
0,129a9600E 06
0.59458859E OS
ADJUSTED MEAN
0.97BS1E 02
0.75140E 02
0,B74I8E 02
0.91B04E 02
0.92307E 02
PREDICTOR
Bt VAR8 SOLID HASTE
-------
NO OF SU* OP
CLASS
1
2
1
4
5
CASES WEIGHTS
59
197
1ST
336
459
59
197
137
336
439
PER
CENTS
5
16
13
28
37
• o
•*
.2
.3
.0
C L A S
rt E A
0,767 6 IE
0.9198SE
0.91796E
0.94423E
0.86169E
S DEVIATION FROM
N
02
02
02
02
02
GRAND M£AH
•0.12981E
0.22407E
0.20521E
0.46745E
•0.35755E
02
01
01
01
01
COEFFICIENT
-0.16541E
0.17910E
0.76008E
0.21104E
-0.669S9E
02
02
01
00
01
ETA-SQUARE •
ETA •
0.142B9012E«02
0.37«OOBll€-01
BETA • 0,a
-------
CLASS CASES HEIGHTS CENTS
MEAN
GRAND MEAN
COEFFICIENT
ADJUSTED MEAN
301
J63
71
96
517
ETA.SQUAfie
ETA
UNADJUSTED" DEVIATION S8 a
ADJUSTED DEVIATION 83 «
341
363
71
96
317
34081
26,
30.
6.
8.
26.
P24E-
157960JE
7
6
0
1
7
01
00
0
0
0
.75780E
.88953E
.698(76
0.888136
0
.11042E
02
02
02
oa
03
•
»
•
•
0
0
0
0
.
.
.
•
13964E 02
79094E 00
19927E 02
93159E 00
0.206T2E 02
BETA -SQUARE •
BETA
•
•0.36334E
•0.836836
•0.136546
•0,854546
0.10S12E
01
00
02
01
02
0,34929167E«03
0.59100904E.01
0,230465136 06
0.60035191E OS
0.86HIE 02
0,689076 02
0.760906 02
0,611996 02
0,10026E OS
PREDICTOR 221 VAR 22 TRAFFIC NOISE
NO OF
CLASS CASES
1
2
3
4
5
ETA
41
265
213
307
362
•SQUARE •
ETA •
SUM OF
HEIGHTS
41
263
211
307
362
PER
CENTS
3
22
17
25
30
O.Z619U63E
0.5U77304C
.9
.3
.9
.B
.5
•02
•01
C L A 3
M E A
0.76293E
0
0
0
0
.B3966E
.B4704E
.90603E
.97739E
BETA
S
N
oa
02
02
02
02
DEVIATION FROM
GRAND MEAN
•0.134516 OZ
•O.S77BIE 01
•0.503996 01
o.esasiE oo
0.799Q7E 01
COEFFICIENT
0
•0
•0
-0
0
•SQUARE * 0.12411510C
BETA • 0,352299736
.'933266
.10S97E
,705096
,810766
.sooaie
•02
•01
01
01
01
00
01
UNADJUSTED DEVIATION S3
ADJUSTED DEVIATION 89
Q.aS016578E OS
C.213J2927E 09
ADJUSTED MEAN
0.9SOT7E 02
0,BB6S4E 02
0,826946 02
0,669336 02
0,947926 02
PREDICTOR 47l VAR 47 E.P.A. KNOWUED8E
NO OF
CLASS CASES
0
1
2
3
ETA
410
264
3»2
132
•SQUARE •
ETA •
BUM OF
HEIGHTS
419
264
182
132
PER
CENTS
34.5
22.2
32.2
11.1
0.30606963E-
0,l7a<>48«5£
01
00
CLASS DEVIATION FROM
MEAN GRAND MEAN
0,66368£
0.89B33E
0.99207E
0.134796
BETA
03 •
02
02
03
•SQUARE
BETA
0.23376E 02
0.69233E-01
0.94627E 01
0.4S044E 02
COEFFICIENT
•0.1S299E
O.JS672E
0.6353SE
0.2S960E
• 0.11693169E
• 0.10614422E
•01
00
02
01
01
02
UNADJUSTED DEVIATION SS
ADJUSTED DEVIATION S3
0.52606319E 06
0,201013066 Oft
ADJUSTED MEAN
0,74445E 02
0.9J331E 02
0,960986 02
0.11570E 0)
PREDICTOR
571 VAR S7 ACE
CLASS
NO OF
CAS6S
SUM OF
HEIGHTS
PER
CENTS
CLASS
MEAN
DEVIATION PROM
GRAND MEAN
COEFFICIENT
ADJUSTED MEAN
-------
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
356
189
153
206
181
124
77
ETA-SQUARE
ETA
UNADJUSTED DEVIATION 88 •
ADJUSTED DEVIATION S3 R
356
189
153
206
161
124
77
03651
oieii
21.5
15.9
13,0
17.3
15.2
10.4
6.5
i09E»01
165E 00
0,9Q7B1E
o.iossue
0.90394E
0.90432E
0.78773E
0.99073E
0.54403E
BETA
03 0.10372E 01 0,140«4E
01 0.16097E 02 0.16031E
02 0.6U940E 00 •0.1B902E
02 0.68790E 00 -O.Z5402E
02 -0.10971E 02 -0.116906
03 0.9S2B5E 01 0.94520E
03 •0.3S342E 02 •0.21162E
•SQUARE • 0,70S48840E-02
BETA 4 0,8399J375E«Ol
01
02
01
01
02
01
02
0.17S16100E 06
0.12125725E 06
0.91149E 02
0.10578E 03
0,87854E 02
O.B7204E 02
0.7S054E 02
0.99196E 02
0,68563E 02
PREDICTOR 601 VAR
NO OF SUM OF
CLASS
0
2
3
4
5
6
7
CASES
96
93
138
214
334
150
163
ETA»3QUARE •
ETA •
HEIGHTS
96
93
138
214
334
150
163
60 INCOME
PER CLASS DEVIATION FROM
CENTS MEAN GRAND MEAN COEFFICIENT
8,1 0.699SBE 02 -0.197B6E 02 •O.J9191E 02
7.8 0.669S7E 02 -0.22787E 02 •0.15037E 02
11.6 0.6135SE 02 •0.283B9E 02 .0.1*38SE 02
18,0 0.82692E 02 -0.7052SE 01 -0.4S283E 01
28.1 0.85587E 02 -0.41573E 01 -0.56232E 01
12.6 0.96167E 02 0.64226E 01 0.139UE 01
13.7 0.15030E 03 0.60557E 02 0.52481E 02
O.U7559079E-01 BETA-SQUARE • 0.33304550E-01
0.2180B046E 00 BETA • 0.18249S36E 00
ADJUSTED MEAN
0.70S53E 02
0.74707E 02
0.7D360E 02
0.85216E 02
o.sotzie 02
0.91135E 02
0.14223E 03
UNADJUSTED DEVIATION S3 • O.B1743100E 06
ADJUSTED DEVIATION S3 • O.S72426SOE 06
R-SQUAREDCUNADJUSTED) • PROPORTION OF VARIATION EXPLAINED BY PITTED MODEL • 0,107
ADJUSTMENT FOR DECREES OF FREEDOM • 1.03759
•••MULTIPLE R (ADJUSTED) • 0,27019
OUTPUT COMPLETED,
MULTIPLE R-SQUARECADJUSTED) » 0,07298
-------
- 183 -
Appendix C
TABLE OF SAMPLING TOLERANCES
(At the 95% Confidence Level)
Sample Base
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,750
1,500
1,250
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
'100
Reported Percentages
50%
40%
or
60%
30%
or
70%
20%
or
80%
10%
or
90%
5%
of
95%
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
6
9
.8
.0
.2
.3
.5
.8
.1
.3
.5
.7
.0
.4
.9
.7
.9
.8
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
5
6
9
.8
.9
.1
.3
.5
.7
.0
.2
.4
.6
.9
.3
.8
.5
.8
.6'
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
5
6
9
.6
.8
.0
.1
.3
.5
.8
.0
.2
.4
.7
.0
.5
.2
.4
.0
1:4
1.6
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.2 1
2.5 1
2.6 <
2.8 <
3.0 ;
3.2 ;
3.5 ;
3.9 ;
4.5 :
5.5 i
7.8 I
.1
.2
.3 1
.4 1
.5 1
.7 1
.9 1
>.0 1
M 1
1.2 1
>.4 1
>.6 1
>.9 2
J.4 2
L.2 3
5.9 4
.8
.9
.0
.0
.1
.2
.4
.4
.5
.6
.7
.9
.1
.5
.0
.3
How To Read; There are 95 chances in 100 that the universe percentage is
in the range of the reported percentage for the sample plus or minus the
tolerance percentage appearing in the table. For example, if the reported
percentage for a base of 1,000 is 20%, then it can be said that there are
95 chances in 100 that the universe percentage lies between 17.5% and 22.5%.
t',1
-------
J. M. Viladas Division of
de Kadt Marketing and Research, Inc.
12 Havemeyer Place
Greenwich, Conn. 06830
V-267
May 73
ENVIRONMENT STUDY
NAME
ADDRESS.
INTERVIEWER
TELEPHONE
CITY
DATE
VALIDATED [ ] BY
Hello, I'm
CLUSTER#
(5-9)
.. from de Kadt Marketing and Research, and we are conducting a survey of
opinions on an issue of public interest.
1. Before starting, t would like to have a list of all the members of your household who are eighteen
years or older.
a. First, please tell me the names of the males 18 years or older living in your household, starting
with the youngest male to the oldest. Also, please give me their ages, and their position in the
home-whether they are the son, the male head of the house or what. (RECORD POSITION IN
HOUSEHOLD AND AGE FOR EACH IN "MALES" COLUMN BELOW.)
b. Now, please tell me the names of the females, from youngest to oldest. Again, give me their ages,
and their position in the home. (LIST IN "FEMALES" COLUMN BELOW.)
c. I would like to interview one of these members of your household. Which ones are at home now?
(CHECK IN "AT HOME" COLUMN BELOW.)
Name
MALES
Position in
Household Age
At Home
(10-11) []
(12-13) []
(14-15) []
(16-17) []
Name
FEMALES
Position in
Household Age
At Home
(18-19) [)
(20-21) [J
(22-23) [ ]
(24-25) []
INSTRUCTION: IN RESPONDENT SELECTION BOX BELOW. LIST THE POSITION IN HOUSEHOLD
OF EACH PERSON WITH AN "X" IN "AT HOME" COLUMNS STARTING WITH MALES IN THE
ORDER IN WHICH THEY APPEAR ABOVE. DO NOT SKIP ANY LINES IN RESPONDENT SELEC-
TION BOX BELOW.
PUT"X"
ON LINE
RESPONDENT
SELECTION
BOX
POSITION IN HOUSEHOLD
OF PERSONS AT HOME
<-
>r
OF PERSON
INTERVIEWED
INSTRUCTION: ASK TO INTERVIEW PERSON IN RESPONDENT SELECTION BOX WHO IS LOWEST
ON THE LIST AND HAS A RED "X" ON HIS/HER LINE. DO NOT SUBSTITUTE. (IF NEW
RESPONDENT, RE-INTRODUCE YOURSELF.)
-------
V-267
May 73 . 2 .
2. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD A) Here's a list of issues many people find important. Would you
please read the whole list first and then choose three issues that, in your opinion, are most important
today; (CIRCLE BELOW THREE ISSUES NAMED.)
State of economy 1 26-
Control of air and water pollution 2
Controlling inflation 3
Taxes and government spending 4
Crime 5
Drugs 6
Racial relations 7
Student unrest 8
Education 9
3. The word environment is used a great deal nowadays. What does the word environment mean to you?
27-
28-
29-
4a. Some people talk about the quality of our environment. Would you say that the environment you live
in is (READ LIST AND CIRCLE ANSWER BELOW):
Excellent 6 30-
Verygood 5
Good 4
Fair 3
Poor 2
Very poor : . 1
4b. How would you describe your idea of an excellent environment?
31-
. 32-
33-
4c. How would you describe your idea of a very poor environment?
; 34-
35-
36-
5. Would you say that during the last twelve months, the environment you live in has been: (READ
ENTIRE LIST AND CIRCLE ANSWER BELOW)
Getting better 4 37-
Staying about the same 3
Getting worse 2
or Don't you know 1
-------
V-267
May 73
3-
6. {HAND RESPONDENT CARD B) I am going to read a list of things people have mentioned as
damaging our environment. Using the words on this card, I would like you to tell me how much
damage each one causes to the environment in this part of the country in your opinion.
A Lot
a. Untreated sewage from cities and
towns. 5
b. Oil spills from tankers, pipelines,
storage tanks, etc 5
c. Fertilizers, insecticides and weed
killers washed away from farms
and lawns 5
d. Untreated liquid wastes from factor-
ies 5
e. Garbage, trash and other solid waste . 5
f. The heating of rivers by atomic
power plants 5
g. Septic tanks of private homes 5
h. Burning of trash at farms, homes,
apartments and town incinerators
or dumps 5
i. Exhaust from private automobiles .... 5
j. Exhaust from trucks, buses and air-
planes 5
k. Smoke and gases from factories,
refineries and electric power plants . . .5
I. Radiation from nuclear facilities ... .5
m.Use of land for housing 5
n. Use of land for large office buildings . . 5
o. Use of land for factories 5
p. Strip mining 5
q. Cutting down of trees 5
r. Growth of population in this area ... .5
s. Noise from traffic, equipment and
machines 5
t. Noise from airplanes 5
Some but
not a lot
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Only
a little
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Hardly
any/none
2
2
Not
Sure
38
39-
40
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
41-
42-
43-
44-
45-
46-
47-
48-
49-
50-
51-
52-
53-
54-
55-
56-
57-
-------
V-267
May 73 - 4 -
la. During these last twelve months, have you had an opportunity to do anything for the purpose of
improving the quality of your environment?
Yes ... 1 -ASK Q7b No .... 2 -SKIP TO Q8 58-
7b. What did you do?
59-
60-
8. To clean up pollution and to improve the quality of our environment will cost money. Some people
say they are not willing to pay anything at all. Others say they are willing to pay quite a lot. How
much would you be willing to pay a year to improve the quality of your environment?
$ ____ (61-64)
9. Now I'm going to give you a list of things that could be done with the money people are willing to pay
to improve the environment. The question is this: for every $100 dollars collected, how many dollars
should be spent on each of the things listed here? You can answer this by yourself. Give as many or as
few dollars as you wish to each item listed. It is NOT necessary to give something to each item. You
must make sure the total adds up to $100. (HAND THIS PAGE TO RESPONDENT.)
Eliminating air pollution from plants and factories ......... $ __
Treating sewer wastes so that they don't pollute the water ..... $ _ (67-68)
Improved mass transportation .................... $ _ (69 ?o>
Making sure that atomic power plants are safe ............ $ - 171-721
Eliminating excessive noise ...................... $ ------ (73-74)
Disposing of trash and garbage in a sanitary fashion ......... $ ---- (75-76)
Restoring lands affected by strip mining ............... $ --- (77-78)
Making car and truck engines that cause little or no air pollution . . $ -- is-6)
Finding safer pesticides to kill weeds, bugs, funguses, etc ....... $ ----
TOTAL _ $10°
WHEN FINISHED, PLEASE RETURN TO INTERVIEWER.
-------
V-267
May 73 - 5 -
DO-IT-YOURSELF PAGE ON POLLUTION-PART 1.
IQa. The question to be answered is this: How far should this country go in fighting pollution? In
answering this question, keep'in mind that pollution is unhealthy and damages property, recreational
opportunities and beautiful things. Also keep in mind that fighting pollution costs money and, in the
end, we all have to pay for it in some measure.
Here is how to answer this question:
First, read every one of the statements A through G below; there are different ways of answering
the question. While you might think of other ways, please just use the statements given below.
Second, place a check mark [/] in the box next to any statement or statements that you find
acceptable.
Third, look at the statement or statements you checked and place a second check outside the box
next to the one statement that comes closest to expressing your own position.
(9) (10)
[ ] A. Force farmers, industry, cities and towns to stop pollution, without exception,
regardless of what it costs and of who gets hurt by the cost. 1 - 1-
[ ] B. Force farmers, industry, cities and towns to stop pollution except when the cost
is so high that it hurts a lot of people. 2 2-
[ ] C. Force farmers, cities and towns to stop pollution except when the cost is high
enough to hurt a few people. 3- 3-
[ ] D. It is hard to decide whether to force farmers, industry, cities and towns to stop
pollution or to let them do it voluntarily without any pressure from the
government. 4- 4-
[ ] E. Let farmers, industry, cities and towns stop pollution voluntarily, without any
pressure from the government, except when pollution is bad enough to hurt a few
people. 5- 5-
[ ] F. Let farmers, industry, cities and towns stop pollution voluntarily, without any
pressure from the government, except when pollution is so bad that it hurts a lot
of people. 6- 6-
[ ] G. Let farmers, industry, cities and towns stop pollution voluntarily, without any
pressure from the government, regardless of what may happen to our health or to
the environment. 7- 7-
WHEN FINISHED PLEASE TURN THE PAGE
-------
V-267
May 73 - 6 -
DO-IT-YOURSELF PAGE ON POLLUTION-PART 2.
10b. The statements on this page are the same ones you read in the preceding page. They are different ways
of saying how far this country should go in fighting pollution. Place an "X" in the box next to any
statement or statements you find NOT acceptable to you.
(11)
[ ] A. Force farmers, industry, cities and towns to stop pollution, without exception,
regardless of what it costs and of who gets hurt by the cost. 1 -
[ ] B. Force farmers, industry, cities and towns to stop pollution except when the cost
is so high that it hurts a lot of people. 2-
[ ] C. Force farmers, cities and towns to stop pollution except when the cost is high
enough to hurt a few people. 3-
[ ] 0. It is hard to decide whether to force farmers, industry, cities and towns to stop
pollution or to let them do it voluntarily without any pressure from the
government. 4-
[ ] E. Let farmers, industry, cities and towns stop pollution voluntarily, without any
pressure from the government, except when pollution is bad enough to hurt a few
people. 5-
[ 1 F. Let farmers, industry, cities and towns stop pollution voluntarily, without any
pressure from the government, except when pollution is so bad it hurts a lot of
people. 6-
[ ] G. Let farmers, industry, cities and towns stop pollution voluntarily, without any
pressure from the government, regardless of what may happen to our health or to
the environment. 7-
WHEN FINISHED. PLEASE RETURN TO INTERVIEWER
-------
V-267
May 73 - 7 -
11. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD C) Now I'm going to read a list of things thai are said to affect
people's health. For each one I read, I'd like you to tell me to what extent you believe people's health
is affected by each one of these things. To give your answers, please use the words on this card that
come closest to expressing your opinion. To what extent is people's hearth affected by: (READ LIST
AND CIRCLE ANSWER BELOW)
A Little Not Not
A Lot Some Bit At All Sure
a. Untreated sewage from cities and
towns 5 4 3 2 1 12-
b. Oil spills from tankers, pipelines,
storage tanks, etc 5 4 3 2 1 13-
c. Fertilizers, insecticides and weed
killers washed away from farms
and lawns 5 4 3 2 1 14-
d. Untreated liquid wastes from fac-
tories 5 4 3 2 1 15-
e. Garbage, trash and other solid
waste 5 4 3 2 1 16-
f. Septic tanks of private homes .... 5 4 3 2 1 17-
g. Burning of trash at farms, homes,
apartments and town
incinerators or dumps 5 4 3 2 1 18-
h. Exhaust from private automobiles. .5 4 3 2 1 19-
i. Exhaust from trucks, buses and
airplanes 5 4 3 2 1 20-
j. Smoke and gases from
factories, refineries and electric
power plants 5 4 3 2 1 21-
k. Radiation from nuclear facilities . . 5 4 3 2 1 22-
I. Noise from traffic, equipment
and machines 5 4 3 2 1 23-
m. Noise from airplanes 5 4 3 2 1 24-
-------
V-267
May 73 -8-
12a. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD D) Here's a card with feelings people have expressed about the fight
against air pollution. Would you read it please and tell me which one statement comes closest to
expressing how you feel? Just give me the number in front of the one you choose.
123456789 25-
12b. How about water pollution. Which one statement comes closest to expressing how you feel.
123456789 26-
12c. Which one statement comes closest to expressing how you feel about controlling the use of hazardous
chemical pesticides and finding safer ones.
123456789 27
12d. Which one statement comes closest to expressing how you feel about the effort to find better and
more sanitary ways of disposing of garbage, trash and other solid wastes?
123456789 28-
13a. Do you know whether there is a Federal Agency or Department directly involved in fighting pollution
and protecting the environment?
Yes ...1 .ASKQ13b No . . . . 2 .SKIPTOQ14a 29
13b. What is the name of that Agency or Department?
30-
14a. Two years ago. Congress created the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Have you ever
heard of that agency before?
Yes ...1^ASKQ14b No . . . . 2^SKIPTO Q15a 31-
14b How much would you say you know about the Environmental Protection Agency, a great deal, a fair
amount, a little, almost nothing or nothing at all?
A great deal ................... 1 32-
A fair amount .................. 2
A little ...................... 3
Almost nothing ................. 4
Nothing at all .................. 5
14c. Have you heard anything specific that the Environmental Protection Agency has accomplished?
Yes ...1 _ *ASKQ14d No . . . . 2 - SKIPTOQ15a 33-
14d. What have you heard?
. _ __ ____ 34-
___ ...... _. ____ ._ .......... 35-
-------
V-267 "-
MayT3
15a. Now let's talk about electric power for a minute. How much was your last electric bill? (WRITE
AMOUNT IN WHOLE DOLLARS.)
$ (36-37)
15b. Was this for 1 month or 2 months?
One month 1 38'
Two months 2
Other (Specify)
_3
15c. Now suppose that the only way to stop the electric power plants from polluting is to install expensive
equipment, and this equipment made your electric bill go up unless you used less electricity than you
use now. How much more would you be willing to pay a month to clean up this form of pollution?
$ (39-401
16. Some people say that solid waste is becoming a major environmental problem not only in the handling
and disposing of the waste material, but also in terms of resources used. For example more paper
requires more trees cut. Many people claim that the best solution to the solid waste problem from the
environmental point of view is re-use the waste material. In most cases it costs more to do that than
simply to burn or bury it. The average family now spends about $80 a year on solid waste disposal.
How much more would you be willing to pay per year to have waste material re-used or recycled?
$ (41-42)
17. Some people say that a major cause of pollution of our lakes, streams and rivers is the food industry,
both producing the food and processing it. Some people think not. Cleaning up this form of pollution
may raise the cost of food items as much as $30 a year for the average family. How much more than
$30 per year would you be willing to pay per year to clean up this form of water pollution?
$ (43-44)
ISa. Oo you know what you are paying for your sewer system now?
Yes . . . 1 _ ASK Q18b No .... 2 — SKIP TO Q18c 45-
Nothing, have septic tank 3— SKIPTOQIQa
18b. How much is it per year?
$ (46-48)
18c. Some water pollution comes from incomplete treatment of sewer wastes. Water improvement requires
additional treatment which would increase water and sewer bills or local taxes. How much more would
you be willing to pay per year to provide extra treatment of sewage to clean up this form of water
pollution? $ (49-51)
19a. As you may know, automobiles are one of the major sources of air pollution. Would you be willing to
pay a higher price for a car and higher operating costs if it helps clean up the air?
Yes . . . 1 — ASK Q19b8tc No .... 2 — SKIP TO Q20a 52
19b With respect to purchasing a car, how much extra would you be willing to pay to have the
anti-pollution devices added?
$ (53-55)
19c. How much extra would you be willing to pay in annual operating costs for extra gas and maintenance?
$ (56-58)
-------
V-267
May 73 -10-
20a. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD E) Would you please read this statement about new cars carefully.
(WAIT FOR RESPONDENT TO FINISH READING CARD E AND THEN HAND RESPONDENT
CARD F.) This card has five kinds of answers people give when they learn that the new models
beginning with 1975 or 1976 will cost mpre money. Suppose that these new antipollution devices
made the price of every new car go up $150, which statement on this card comes closest to saying how
you would feel? (CIRCLE ANSWER BELOW.)
20b. Suppose that these new antipollution devices made the price of every new car go up $300 which
statement on this card comes closest to saying what you would feel? (CIRCLE ANSWER BELOW.)
20c. Suppose that these new antipollution devices made the price of every new car go up $500 which
statement on this card comes closest to saying what you would feel? (Cl RCLE ANSWER BELOW.)
20a 20b 20c
$150 $300 $500
A. Ifsa good thing 1 59- 1 60- 1 61-
B. It's OK with me 2 2 2
C. It's hard to say 3 3 3
D. Ifsa badthing 4 4 4
E. It's a terrible thing 5 5 5
F. None of these (PROBE AND SPECIFY THEN GO TO Q21 a) .
: 6 6
21 a. Have you heard of any cases in your area where a factory decided to close down for good rather than
spend the money to stop polluting the air or the water?
Yes 1 No 2 62-
21 b. Suppose that a factory in your area were told by the government to stop polluting the air or the water
and the company decided to close that factory down and build a new, modern one in another area.
Suppose that by closing that factory down, 200 people were thrown out of work in your area. Now
I'd like your reaction to this factory closing. First assuming that these 200 people were left to find
new jobs on their own and later assuming that the government would retrain these people and help
them find new jobs.
21c. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD G) Which statement on this card comes closest to expressing how you
would feel about the factory closing if these people were left to find jobs on their own? (CIRCLE
BELOW.)
21 d. Which statement on this card comes closest to expressing how you would feel about the factory
closing if the government retrained these people and helped them find new jobs? (CIRCLE BELOW.)
21c 21d
A. It's too bad but it has to be done 1 63- 1 64-
B. It's really too bad 2 2
C. It's hard to decide 3 3
D. If s a very bad thing to do 4 4
E. It's a terrible thing 5 5
F. None of these (PROBE AND SPEC! FY)
22. To clean up pollution and to improve the quality of our environment will cost money. Suppose you
have two choices to pay for the cost of improving the environment. One choice is to pay higher prices
for those products that will cost more to make if we want to stop pollution. The other choice is to pay
higher taxes to have enough money available for pollution control. Given these choices, would you
prefer to pay higher prices or pay higher taxes?
Pay higher prices 1 65-
Pay higher taxes 2
-------
V-267
May 73 .11.
CLASSIFICATION DATA
You have been most helpful. Now I just need a few facts to help us classify the answers. By the way your
answers will be grouped with those of other people like yourself. Your name will not be used at all.
A. What relation are you to head of this household?
Head of house .... 1 _ SKIP TO QC Daughter 4 66-
Wife of male head ... 2 Other . . 5
Son 3
B. What type of work does the head of this household do? (INTERVIEWER: OBTAIN A PRECISE
DESCRIPTION.)
. 67-
C. Are you currently employed?
Yes [] , ASKQD No [J „ SKIP TO QE
D. What type of work do you do? (INTERVIEWER: OBTAIN A PRECISE DESCRIPTION)
— — 68-
E. What was the last grade of school you completed?
Eighth grade or less 1 Some college 4 69-
Some High School 2 College graduate or beyond ! ! 5
Completed High School ... 3
F. What is your age?
18-24 1 45.54 5 70.
25-29 2 55-64 6
30-34 3 65 or older 7
35-44 4
G. How many cars do you have in this household?
0123 4ormore 71-
H. Do you, yourself, drive a car?
Yes 1 No 2 72-
I. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD H) Would you tell me which letter on this card indicates your total
household income, that is the combined total for all the members of this household in one year.
A. Under$3,000 1 73.
B. $3.000-$4,999 2
C. $5.000-$6,999 3
D. $7,00&$9,999 4
E. $10,000-$14,999 5
F. $15,000-$! 9,999 6
G. $20,000 and over 7
Don't know 8
Refused 9
-------
V-267
May 73
-12-
J.
(HAND RESPONDENT CARD I) Please tell me whether you yourself or whether a member of your
household belongs to any of the following organizations. Please use the letters on this card to give
your answer.
_A
Only
Respondent
Does
__
Only Other
H.H. Member
Does
C_
Both
Respondent
& Other Do
Agricultural farm groups,
such as 4-H.FFA or others 1 74- 1 75- 1
League of Women Voters 2 2 2
A labor union 3 3 3
Sierra Club, Friends of
the Earth or similar organ-
ization 4 4 4
Boy or Girl Scouts 5 5 5
Audubon Society 6 6 6
Fraternal organization
such as Elks, Rotary,
Knights of Columbus, etc 7 7 7
Local environment club
or organization 8 8 8
Hunting and fishing club 9 9 9
Garden club 0 0 0
Chamber of Commerce,
Trade Association or
other business group x x x
K. INTERVIEWER RECORD:
Black 1
White 2
Other 3
Female 1
Male 2
76-
__
No One
In H.H.
Does
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
0
77-
78-
79-
------- |