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
------- |