environmental facts THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THEIR ENVIRONMENT — 1973 SURVEY OF OPINION SHOWS PUBLIC RANKS SEWAGE TREATMENT, AIR POLLUTION CONTROLS AMONG TOP CONCERNS The study/ made by the J. M. Viladas Company under a contract from the Environmental Protection Agency, deals with people's opinions about the environment and their attitudes toward the fight against pollution. It attempts to answer questions relating to the perception of the environment and its quality, the concern about pollution, the willingness to pay for a better environment, and the attitudes toward enforce- ment. The data were gathered through 3,012 personal interviews with a representative sample of adults, 18 years of age and older, who reside in the continental United States. The inter- views were completed in June 1973. Perception of the Environment and Its Quality; Definition and Delineation People define the environment in terms of the physical and social conditions that surround them. The emphasis varies, and many people use several of these terms together. ------- -2- Most of the people interviewed described an excellent environ- ment as natural and relatively pollution-free surroundings. This idea is expressed by 58 percent of the people and is the most common one, regardless of age, occupation, and area size. While pollution and the desire to eliminate it are clearly dominant, other physical, social, and cultural conditions con- tinue to be integral elements in people's perception of their environment. Thirty-eight percent defined an excellent environment in terms of good social relations, including good relations with family and friends and neighbors, and the absence of crime, drugs, slums, and other social ills. Thirty percent described an ideal environment in terms of better housing and improved life style, including better jobs and better public services. As to the quality of the environment, more people say that the environment is getting worse than the number of those who feel that it is getting better, particularly in metropolitan areas with more than one million people. In these areas, for every person who says that the environment is getting better, there are two who feel that it is getting worse. Only 27 percent of the adult population rate the environ- ment "excellent" or "very good" and feel that it is remaining that way or getting better. On the other hand, 29 percent feel that the environment is "fair," "poor," or "very poor" and staying that way or getting worse. The lower the income, the worse the quality of the environ- ment is rated. In households with annual incomes of $15,000 or more, 40 percent rate the environment "excellent" or "very good." In the middle-income brackets of $7,000 to $15,000 per year, 31 percent feel that the environment is "excellent" or "very good." At the $3,000 to $6,999 level, the percentage drops to 25; and below the $3,000 bracket, only 22 percent rate the environment "excellent" or "very good." While the degradation of the environment has its severest impact on the lower-income groups, it also affects large seg- ments of middle and upper-income groups. At the income levels of $15,000 or more per year, 28 percent rate their environment as "fair," "poor," or "very poor? while in the income brackets of $3,000 or less, the comparable figure is 43 percent. In fact, nearly 50 percent of the people who rate their environment (more) ------- -3- "fair," "poor," or "very poor" enjoy above-average incomes. Since most of them live in metropolitan areas, where the en- vironmental degradation of the environment is worst, their dissatisfaction is not surprising. Concern About Damage to the Environment; Effects of Area Size and Main Sources of Concern With few exceptions, people are concerned about the same sources of pollution and other types of damage to the environ- ment, regardless of the population of the area in which they live. However, the larger the population in the area, the worse the quality of the environment and the greater the con- cern about it. In metropolitan areas with one million or more people, 32 percent express a high degree of concern compared with 4 percent in non-metropolitan areas. Nationally, the top six sources of pollution, as shown by the percentage who rate the damage to the environment "a lot" or "some" are: truck, bus, and airplane exhaust (71%), auto- mobile 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 per cent — 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 environ- ment. Within three area sizes — metropolitan with one million population or more, metropolitan with fewer than one million, and non-metropolitan — the level of concern about pollution and other sources of damage to the environment is about the same at all income levels. The poor are as concerned as those in other income brackets. The Fight Against Pollution; Degree of Problem, Extent of Participation and Progress, and Priorities Clearly there is a broad consensus that air pollution, water pollution, and solid waste are big problems. Generally, people are optimistic about solving these problems, but at the same time impatience with the progress being made is quite common. In the fight against air pollution, only 4 percent feel that this is not a big problem; 12 percent have not decided (more) ------- -4- how big it is; and 84 percent feel that it is a big problem. Of those who consider it a big problem, 13 percent say we are making a lot of progress; 36 percent feel that we are beginning to solve it; 29 percent say we are not trying hard enough; and 6 percent say that it will never be solved. Only seven percent of people feel that water pollution is not a big problem; 11 percent are undecided; and 84 percent feel that it is a big problem. Fifteen percent of those who consider it a big problem feel that we are making a good deal of progress in solving it; 34 percent say that we are beginning to solve it; 30 percent way that we are not trying hard enough; and 5 percent feel that it will never be solved. Solid waste pollution is not considered to be a big prob- lem by 13 percent of the people, while 13 percent are undecided, and 75 percent feel that it is a big problem. In addition to saying that it is a big problem, 18 percent feel that we are making a good deal of progress in solving it; 30 percent say that we are beginning to solve it; 23 percent say that we are not trying hard enough; and 4 percent feel that it will never be solved. i When it comes to hazardous pesticides, there is more un- certainty about the size of the problem: 15 percent feel that it is not a big problem; 22 percent are undecided; and 64 per- cent say that it is a big problem. Fifteen percent of those who feel that it is a big problem say that a good deal of pro- gress is being made in solving it; 27 percent feel that we are beginning to solve it; 19 percent say that we are not trying hard enough; and 3 percent feel that 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. However, the majority feel that it is a big problem and a greater feeling of optimism about solving it prevails. The level of participation in the fight against pollution is impressive. .Twenty-eight percent of the people indicate that they have personally engaged in a variety of activities to improve the environment. These activities include recycling and other solid waste disposal or removal efforts, cutting down on the use of the car or improving its operation, and working in or supporting environmental organizations. i Among a list of nine activities related to environmental protection, sewage treatment is ranked first in the list of priorities, with industrial air pollution control second and (more) ------- -5- solid waste management third. 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 of priorities are actions to make sure atomic plants are safe, eliminate excessive noise, and to restore land affected by strip mining. These rank seventh, eighth, and ninth in priority, respectively. Awareness of and Knowledge About EPA Only 10 percent of the people can name the U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency unaided. When the agency's name is mentioned, another 48 percent indicate that they have heard of it. Thus, a total of 58 percent are aware of EPA. Forty-two percent have not heard of it. Forty percent of the people who are aware of EPA say they know "almost nothing" or "nothing at all" about the agency. Another 41 percent indicate that they know a "little." The remaining 19 percent say that they know "a fair amount" or "a great deal." As to EPA's accomplishments, air and water pollution stand- ards and controls are mentioned most often. People who are aware of EPA are more likely to be per- sonally involved in fighting pollution than those who are not aware of the agency. Among those aware, 39 percent report some meaningful activity, such as recycling and the other activities previously referred to. Only 13 percent of those people not aware of EPA indicate that they are involved in these activities. Generally, people who are aware of EPA are more likely to have made up their minds about environmental issues and are more willing to pay the cost of improving the environment. Willingness to Pay for Pollution Abatement; Specific Costs, Overall Costs, and Plant Closings Four series of questions were asked: How much people 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. (more) ------- -6- In general, the amounts people volunteer to pay for pol- lution abatement increase with household income and with the degree of concern about damage to the environment. This applies to every issue included in these series of questions. Income has a greater effect than concern, but the sum of the two effects is considerably greater than either one alone. People volunteer an average of $62 per car as the amount they are willing to pay for antipollution devices in new cars. To meet higher operating costs because of increased car main- tenance and lower efficiency, the average amount volunteered is $27 per year. The study found that the amounts people volunteer to pay for automobile emission control are not the maximum amounts they will support. However, these amounts are a good indicatori- of their relative willingness to bear 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. Nineteen percent choose the phrase "I'll be delighted to pay," and 34 percent say that "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 of 15 percent at $500 per car. The study estimates that at 1973 prices, the maximum amount which the majority of car owners would support would be about $250 per car. To meet the cost of air pollution control at electric power generating plants, people are willing to bear an average increase of 22 percent in their monthly bill. The average monthly bill reported is $17.42; the average monthly increase volunteered 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. When people were asked how much more they are willing to pay in order to have solid waste recycled, they volunteered to pay, on the average, a 15-percent increase in handling costs. People were told that the average cost of solid waste handling and disposal today is about $80 per family. The average additional amount they volunteered to pay is $12 (more) ------- -7- increase per year. Again, the amount volunteered increases with the household income and with the concern about solid waste damage to the environment. A question about s'ewage treatment was asked of three-fourths of the sample who have public sewer systems. They are willing to pay a 20-percent increase in order to treat sewage. The average amount paid now as reported by these people is $43 per year. They volunteer to pay, on the average, an additional $8.80 per year. As in the case of air pollution control and solid waste damage, the greater the current monthly bill and the greater their concern about water pollution, the larger the amount they volunteer to pay for sewage treatment. To reduce water pollution caused by 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. People were asked how they would feel about a factory closing in their area because of pollution problems. They were asked to make the following assumptions: (a) That people laid off by the closing would be left to find jobs on their own; and (b) 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 pollu- tion for a time" and "seeing people laid off." Usually, this kind of indecision reveals a lack of involvement 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. In choosing between higher prices and higher taxes in order to pay for pollution control, 62 percent of the people choose higher prices, and 29 percent higher taxes. The remaining 9 percent make no choice. The preference for higher prices in- creases with income. Overall Willingness to Pay for a Better Environment;: Influence of Income, Age, and Concern for Kind of Environmental Damage Another measure of the willingness to pay was obtained by asking people how much they would pay each year to improve the (more) ------- -8- quality of their environment. Inasmuch as people were not given any estimate of what the cost of improving the environ- ment might be, the dollar amounts volunteered should not be taken literally. Instead, percentages above or below average are used. Household income is the best indicator of willingness to pay. On the average, the more people can afford, the larger the amount they volunteer to pay. Those in the $3,000 to $5,000- a-year bracket volunteer an amount 21 percent below average; those in the $20,000 and over bracket are willing to bear an amount 58 percent above average. Age has a moderate effect on the willingness to pay. People under age 30 and those aged 55ljto,64 volunteer amounts above average. To some extent, this IDeflects a greater concern among young people, but it also seems to relate to the life cycle of household expenditure patterns. For example, at ages 45 to 54, when many parents are paying the cost of their children's college education, the average amount volunteered is 13 percent below average; at ages 55 to 64, when many family obligations have been fulfilled, the amount volunteered is 12 percent above aver- age. People aged 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. On the other hand, those who can.readily name the agency unaided volun- teer an amount 29 percent above average. Of the seven concerns about damage to the environment in- cluded in the study, differences in how much people would pay for a better environment are brought out most sharply in the concern about fertilizer and pesticide damage. People who say fertilizers and pesticides do "hardly any or no damage" would support an amount 26 percent below average; those who say they do "a lot" of damage are willing to pay an amount 22 percent above average. In contrast, if people are classified by their concern about automobile exhaust damage, the differences in willing- ness to pay remain obscure. This is because automobile exhaust damage is a settled issue. Since most people are concerned about the effects of automobile exhaust, the amount they volun- teer has to be close to the average. Separation of the con- cerned from the unconcerned in this issue is not helpful to (more) ------- -9- an 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 fer- tilizers 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 pay an amount 12 percent above the average. The reaction to factory effluent is similar to the con- cern for strip mining. Those who say factory effluent does "hardly any or no damage" are willing to pay an amount 16 per- cent 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 strip mining and factory effluent. Differences in amounts volun- teered are rather modest when people are classified by their concern for ground-level noise. Radiation concern is a very uncertain indicator of will- ingness 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 environ- ment. A few say it does "some but not a lot" of damage and also volunteer to pay an amount above average. Those who feel 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 underline people's concern about solid waste. This is so much so that the greater the concern, the lower the amount volunteered. Attitudes Toward Enforcement in Pollution Abatement; Classification of Attitudes and Relation to Cost of Pollution and Willingness to Pay 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. (more) ------- - 10 - This dilemma was presented to people in a series of nine statements representing varied positions on enforcement; rang- ing from extremely strict at one end ("regardless of what it costs and of who gets hurt by the cost") to extremely permis- sive at the other end ("regardless of what may happen to our health or to the environment"). Moderately and mildly strict and permissive positions were stated between the extremes; the middle ground position ("it is hard to decide whether to force... or let them do it voluntarily") 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. Significantly, one-third of the people rejected the moderate positions and only one-fourth of them rejected the middle ground. These findings suggest that the consequences of enforce- ment have not been debated enough to stimulate the formation of attitudes among many people. Interesting differences emerge when people are classified by their views on the environment. 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. Also, 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 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 volun- tary compliance versus mandatory controls. As environmental protection proceeds to meet statutory quality standards, the cost issue will become increasingly clear to the people. One impression gained 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 very much by area size. The relationship between concern, willing- ness to pay, and attitudes on enforcement suggest that in areas (more) ------- - 11 - where a particular form of environmental degradation is not evident or does not seem serious, the corresponding environ- mental 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 be reasonably expect from paying these costs. ft # f ------- |