vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Monitoring and Technical EPA-600 5-79-004
Support February 1979
Washington DC 20460
Research and Development
Attitudes Toward
Environmental
Quality
Area,Ethnicity and
SES
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are.
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL
STUDIES series. This series includes research on environmental management,
economic analysis, ecological impacts, comprehensive planning and fore-
casting, and analysis methodologies. Included are tools for determining varying
impacts of alternative policies; analyses of environmental planning techniques
at the regional, state, and local levels; and approaches to measuring environ-
mental quality perceptions, as well as analysis of ecological and economic im-
pacts of environmental protection measures. Such topics as urban form, industrial
mix, growth policies, control, and organizational structure are discussed in terms
of optimal environmental performance. These interdisciplinary studies and sys-
tems analyses are presented in forms varying from quantitative relational analyses
to management and policy-oriented reports.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-6>00/5-79-OOif
February 1979
ATTITUDES TOWARD ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY:
AREA, ETHNICITY AND SES
by
Jerry L. Poli nard
Pan American University
Edinburg, Texas 78539
Contract No. 68-01-2683
Project Officer
C1yde C. B i shop, Jr.
Technical Support Division
Office of Monitoring and Technical Support
Washington, D.C. 20^60
OFFICE OF MONITORING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20^60
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Research and Development,
Minority Institutions Research Support, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products consti-
tute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the immense
task of defining, evaluating, promulgating, regulating, educating and
coercing activities which have a positive effect on environmental
quality. The social and economic impacts of environmental decisions in
the above categories can have a wide range of effects on human life and
life-styles. The staggering costs of corrective action to Governments
and industries could force a shift in policy toward educating and
coercing people to lend a greater hand in developing and implementing
abatement programs.
In order to develop effective abatement programs, the EPA must have
a base of information on the attitudes, preemptions and willingness of
the populace to cooperate. This report presents quantitative data on
these variables and shows the stratification of each variable in a range
of economic and social settings in the inner-city, suburban, and rural
societies.
.A. C. Trakowski
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Monitoring and Technical Support
-------
ABSTRACT
Americans are less than three generations removed from an era when
virgin land, clean water, pure air and quiet neighborhood were an integral
part of the nation's life style. This era, however, has passed. A host of
problems, including overcrowding, unclean air, impure water and high noise
levels, has formed what is known as "the environmental crisis."
In confronting this crisis our government is faced with different op-
tjons. And, as the nature of our political system is such that public
attitude are important influences on policy outputs, indeed, that public
policy is expected to reflect public values, it is essential that the environ-
mental attitude of the American public be known. This study focuses on the
environmental attitudes of residents in the San Antonio SMSA.
The data indicate that, while the respondents believe the environment
is deteriorating, they do not believe environmental problems are among the
most important faced by the nation. We found also that our respondents view
the environment in both physical and social terms. Respondents believe
television, from which they derive most of their information relating to
environmental problems, is the most accurate source of information (with
radio a distant second source).
We found significant relationships between environmental attitude and
area, ethnicity and SES. Our data indicate that concern with environmental
problems decrease as one moves away from the center city to the rural area.
Suburban respondents are more optimistic about current and future environ-
mental conditions than respondents living in the center city or rural areas.
Mexican-Americans rank environmental concerns higher than Anglos.
Anglos, although more optimistic about environmental conditions, are much more
aware of and active in organizations (both public and private) which focus
on the environment.
High SES respondents were more aware of environmental problems and more
actively involved in environmental organizations than low or middle SES
respondents.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-01-2683 by
Pan American University under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. This report covers the period September 197^ to
September 1977, and work was completed as of May 16, 1978.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword i i i
Abstract iv
Tables vi
1. Introduction i
2. Purpose, Scope and Methodology k
3- Frequencies 6
k. Area Responses to Environmental Problems 29
5. Ethnicity and the Environment ^8
6. SES 66
7- Media Influence 86
8. Multivariate Analysis !07
9. Conclusions 112
Bibliography . 115
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Most Important Problems 11
2 Definition of Environment 12
3 Perception of Present Environment 13
k' Perception of Past Environment 14
5 Perception of Future Environment 15
6 Contributors to Environmental Problems 16
7 National Media Use 1?
8 State Media Use 18
9 Local Media Use 19
10 Media Accuracy 20
11 Read Story on Environment 21
12 Saw TV Report on Environment 22
13 Life Styles and Environmental Problems 23
1A Knowledge of Governmental Environmental Agencies 2k
15 Knowledge of Civic Environmental Agencies 25
16 Membership in Environmental Group 26
17 Contacts With Public Officials 27
18 Attendance at Environmental Meetings 28
19 Important Problems By Area 33
20 Definition of Environment By Area 3^
-------
Number Page
21 Perception of Present Environment By Area 35
22 Perception of Future Environment By Area 36
23 Contributors to Environmental Problems By Area 37
2k Life Styles and Environmental Problems By Area 38
25 Allocation of Money to Auto Exhaust By Area 39
26 Allocation of Money to Water Pollution By Area ^0
27 Allocation of Money to Noise Pollution By Area. k]
28 Allocation of Money to Trash Pollution By Area hi
29 Allocation of Money to Recreation By Area 43
30 Knowledge of Governmental Environmental Agencies By Area kk
31 Knowledge of Civic Environmental Agencies' By Area ^5
32 Membership in Environmental Group By Area ^6
33 Contacts With Public Officials By Area , . . ^7
34 Most Important Problems By Ethnic Group 51
35 Definition of Environment By Ethnicity 52
36 Perception of Present Environment By Ethnicity 53
37 Perception of Future Environment By Ethnicity 5^
38 Contributors to Environmental Problems By Ethnicity 55
39 Allocation of Money to Auto Exhaust By Ethnicity 56
kQ Allocation of Money to Water Pollution By Ethnicity 57
k\ Allocation of Money to Noise Pollution By Ethnicity 58
k2 Allocation of Money to Trash Pollution By Ethnicity 59
^3 Allocation of Money to Recreation By Ethnicity 60
kk Life Styles and Environmental Problems By Ethnicity 61
kS Knowledge of Governmental Environmental Agencies By Ethnicity . - 62
V i !
-------
Number Page
46 Knowledge of Civic Environmental Agencies By Ethnicity 63
kl Membership in Environmental Group By Ethnicity 64
48 Contacts With Public Officials By Ethnicity 65
k3 Most Important Problems By SES 70
50 Definition of Environment By SES 71
51 Perception of Present Environment By SES 72
52 Perception of Future Environment By SES 73
53 Contributors to Environmental Problems By SES Ik
S'k Life Styles and Environmental Problems By SES 75
55 Allocation of Money to Auto Exhaust By SES 76
56 Allocation of Money to Water Pollution By SES 77
57 Allocation of Money to Noise Pollution By SES 78
58 Allocation of Money to Trash Pollution By SES 79
59 Allocation of Money to Recreation By SES 80
60 Knowledge of Governmental Environmental Agencies By SES 8l
61 Knowledge of Civic Environmental Agencies By SES 82
62 Membership in Environmental Group By SES 83
63 Contacts With Public Officials By SES 84
6k Attendance at Environmental Meetings By SES 85
65 National Media Use By Area 89
66 State Media Use By Area 90
67 Local Media Use By Area 91
68 National Media Use By Ethnicity 92
69 State Media Use By Ethnicity 93
70 Local Media Use By Ethnicity 9^
-------
Number Paqe
71 National Media Use By SES 95
72 State Media Use By SES 96
73 Local Media Use By SES 97
7k Media Accuracy By Area 98
75 Media Accuracy By Ethnicity 99
76 Media Accuracy By SES TOO
77 Read Environmental Story By Area 101
78 Saw TV Environmental Report By Area 102
79 Read Environmental Story By Ethnicity 103
80 Saw TV Environmental Report By Ethnicity 104
81 Read Environmental Story By SES I05
82 Saw TV Environmental Report By SES 106
83 Summary Tab 1 e : Resu 1 ts From Multiple Re gress i on 110
8k Summary Table: Results From Factor Analysis 111
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Americans are less than three generations removed from an era when
virgin land, clean water, pure air and quiet neighborhoods were an integral
part of the nation's life style. The nearness of this historical link
explains, in part, America's surprise at the recent emergence of environ-
mental quality as one of its most viable domestic concerns (in January, 1971,
Time magazine identified the environment as "the issue of the year").
A host of problems, including overcrowding, unclean air, impure water
and high noise levels, has formed what is known as l!the environmental crisis.1
The energy crisis of 197t»"75 added the element of scarcity to the expanding
list of environmental problems.
In response to this crisis something nebulously called "the environment
movement" has developed. Americans have begun seriously evaluating their
role in the human environment system, defined by the Council of Environmental
duality as including not only "the earth, its surrounding envelope of life-
giving water and air...," but also the public's interaction with its natural
and artificial surroundings.
The present environmental "movement" is not the first time Americans
have evidenced awareness of their ecology. In the 19th Century legislation
existed which prohibited the polluting of water and required forms of land
use (see, for instance, Euclid v. Amber Reality Co., 272 U.S. 3&5 (1926),
for a concise history of early land use legislation). Additional legislation
relating to air and water pollution appeared more than a generation ago.
Most of this early legislation, however, while recognizing in minor ways
a need to protect the human environment, was predicated on the traditional
values of the period in which the legislation was passed. These beliefs
included the sanctity of property rights, the non-interference of government
in the economy and the pursuance of economic success, even at the expense of
environmental destruction. The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, for example,
prohibited throwing refuse into any navigable waterway of the United States.
The prupose of the Act, however, was not to provide clean water, but rather
to eliminate potential shipping hazards.
;To be sure, these values still are evident today. However, the contemp-
orary environmental movement has taken a different tack. The present orien-
tation is more toward social, rather than economic needs. The writings of
Rachael Carson, Lewis Mumford and William Douglas have focused on the rela-
tionship of environmental factors to the quality of life, and this focus was
-------
embraced by the activists of the 1960's.
Nonetheless, the energy crisis of the 1970's has demonstrated clearly
that the environmental system cannot be divorced from either social and/or
economic considerations. The public must consider what qualitative and
monetary tradeoffs they are willing to make for environmental improvement.
They must strive for a balance between a qualitative environment and a viable
economy.
And, as the nature of our political system is such that public attitudes
are important influences on policy outputs, that public policy indeed is
expected to reflect public values, it is essential that the environmental
attitudes of the American public be known.
This study hopes to contribute to this knowledge.
American attitudes toward the environment already have been the subject
of much inquiry. Many public and private surveys have added to our know-
ledge of how America is reacting to environment problems. In general, surveys
have shown:
1. Between 19&5 and 1970 the percentage of Americans who identified
our pollution among the three major public problems increased 300
percent. No other issue about which the public was polled evidenced
such growth in recognition;
2. After 1970 the public response to environmental problems began to
be tempered with an i.ncreased awareness of the potential economic
costs of resolving these problems;
3. Americans believe the environment is continuing to deteriorate;
k. Americans believe our problems are more or as important as welfare,
national spending and taxes, but less important than inflation,
national security and corruption in government;
5. Although few Americans are willing to pay the necessary "personal
costs" to achieve economic goals, they do believe the current public
expenditures should not be decreased;
6. Americans view environmental problems primarily in terms of water
and air pol1ut ion;
7. Communities characterized by higher income and education levels are
more sensitive to environmental problems and are more willing to
act, or support action, to improve environmental conditions;
8. Most Americans rely on television and radio for information relating
to environmental quality.
This knowledge is important. It not only informs us, but also aids
public agencies in their efforts to address the problems of environmental
2
-------
quality. The most important public agency in the development of our national
environmental policy is the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
The EPA needs to know what, why and how the public perceives environmental
problems if it is to execute its tasks effectively.
If the EPA is to control the cause and effects of environmental problems,
if it is to establish national standards relating to the use of the environ-
ment, and if it is to enforce these actions it must know what the public
th i nks.
Public opinion is not static; it is continually in a state of flux.
That is why we need to continually ascertain the public attitudes toward the
environment. We need to ascertain what relationship, if any, the public's
awareness of environmental conditions has with respect to its awareness of
other problems, e.g., inflation, unemployment, taxes. We need to know at
any given time what cost trade-offs the public is willing to accept in return
for environmental improvement.
We need to know also how the public perceives the environment itself and
how this perception relates to individual lifestyles. We need to ascertain
the influence of the news media on the formation of environmental attitudes,
and which specific area of the media has the most significant impact.
The diversity of the American public has important consequences for
agencies involved in developing public policy. People living in the same
area do not necessarily think alike. Therefore, we need to know what effects
this diversity has on the public's perception of the environment. Do people
living in the same spatial regions, but residing in different spatial units
(e.g., inner city, suburbs, rural) perceive their environment and environ-
mental problems differently? What are people willing to "give up" to
initiate environmental change, and how does the willingness vary from one
Segment of the population to another? Arc perceptions of the environment
affected by ethnicity? By income?
These are the general types of questions which need to be asked about
the environment, and this study is directed toward these questions.
The second section of this report explains the purpose, scope and
methodology of this study. The third section describes the general frequency
of responses to the survey instrument. The fourth section explores the
results of the survey as they relate to people living in urban, suburban and
rural areas. The fifth section addresses the relationship between SES
income and survey responses. The seventh section explores the influence of
the media on the respondent's attitudes. The eighth section employes the
tools of multivariate analysis to learn in more detail what the survey data
tells us. The ninth section offers conclusions and suggestions for further
study.
-------
SECTION 2
PURPOSE, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
PURPOSE
This study Is designed to add to our knowledge of environmental attitudes
and perceptions. The central thrust of this study is to identify and measure
those aspects of environmental quality which have a significant impact on
respondents selected on the basis of (l) area stratification (i.e., urban,
suburban and rural areas), (2) ethnicity (primarily Anglo and Mexican-
American), and (3) SES income.
are:
Focusing on these three sub-groups, the central objectives of this study
1. To identify and evaluate the extent to which environmental attitude
may vary between and among individuals within the related subgroup
populat ions.
2. To identify and evaluate the relationships between environmental
problems and non-environmental problems as perceived by these
subgroup populations.
3- To identify and evaluate the extent to which individuals within
and among the subgroup population are willing to "pay" (in economic
and non-economic terms) for improvement in environmental quality.
^. To identify and evaluate the media influences which have the most
significant impact in shaping the environmental attitudes of respon-
dents .
5- To correlate these findings with existing empirical data.
Several tentative hypotheses suggest themselves as guidelines for our
i nqu i ry :
1. Affluence and education will be in direct relationship to one's
awareness of environmental problems. That is, the higher one's
income and more extensive one's education, the more likely one is
to be aware of and sensitive to the environmental system.
2. Individuals residing in a deteriorating environment are more likely
to be aware of environmental problems than those residing in a
-------
healthy environment. Note that this hypothesis may be incompatible
with the fi rs t.
3- Individuals with a greater awareness of the environmental system
will manifest also a greater awareness of the relationship of the
environmental system to all facets of life styles.
4. Individuals with a greater awareness of the environmental system
will be more willing to accept the "costs" of improving that system.
SCOPE
The regional scope of this study is the San Antonio, Texas SMSA, which
includes a population of almost one million people. These people reside in
defined urban, suburban and rural units. The population is also clearly
stratified by ethnicity with a large Mexican-American population (381).
METHODOLOGY
The methodology utilized in this study is survey research. An interview
schedule of forty-two questions was administered to 1088 people from an
initial sample design of 1650. The design was developed by drawing cluster
samples using block statistics. The clusters were composed of three housing
units, randomly selected from the 260,925 housing units in the SMSA. Within
each housing unit, one adult, also randomly selected through a respondent
selective randoming device, was scheduled to be interviewed. Five hundred
and fifty area cluster samples were used. The total number of housing units
divided by 550 resulted in the figure ^7^. Therefore, starting with a
randomly-selected housing unit, every ^7^th housing unit and the housing
unit on each side were selected for interviews.
Callbacks were made three times before a substitution housing unit or
respondent was selected. When substitutions were made, the data from these
interviews was collected and correlated with non-substitution results to
ascertain if significant differences existed. Similarily, at the end of the
survey, a sample of respondents who had refused earlier interviews was drawn.
These respondents were contacted again and the data collected to ascertain
if there were significant differences between those who refused and the
regular data.
The survey instrument was administered in both English and Spanish.
The interviewing was conducted by students of Pan American University (the
contractor). The students were trained in three separate sessions and
performed well in the field. Quality control checks were conducted during
the interviewing periods.
The sample thus obtained significantly under represented the Anglo
population of the SMSA. Thus, it was necessary to weight the respondents.
The procedure used was the weight procedure of the Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences. The reweighted percentage of Anglos wasthus 6^% of
the sample.
-------
SECTION 3
FREQUENCIES
This section is an overview of the data collected by the study. Such
an overview is important to an understanding of the relationships examined
in later sections.
It is important to understand the perceived relationship between
environmental problems and other public issues. We asked respondents first
to identify the various public problems with which they were concerned.
Two problem areas were identified most often: economy and crime. The
economic area, which included unemployment, was identified by almost half
of the respondents as a national problem and by a third as a community prob-
lem. Crime and corruption were cited by 16% as a national problem and by
15-5% as a community problem.
Only 2.1% of the respondents identified the environment as a specific
national problem, 3.8% agreed it was a local problem, while a slightly higher
percentage (1.k%) saw the energy shortage as a national problem (5-6% viewed
i t as a loca1 problem).
To examine one aspect of the relationship between these problems we
asked respondents to rank eight common problems according to which they
believed most important, second most important, and third most important.
We arranged a scale score on a 5~3"1 basis, 5 points for most important, 3
for second most important, and 1 for third most important.
Table 1 shows that economic problems (i.e., state of the economy and
unemployment) and crime and violence are perceived to be the most important
problems. If we add energy shortage to environmental problems, there is a
significant increase in the importance of the environmental area. However,
fewer than three hundred respondents identified the environment as one of
the three most important problems.
Most of the respondents, thus, do not see the environment as a major
problem facing either the nation or San Antonio.
We were interested in how people defined the term "environment." We
asked, "Will you tel! me in your own words what the environment means to
you?" Their answers were placed in the categories found in Table 2. Over
ha If^of the respondents (55-1%) identified the environment as including both
physical and social components. The next largest category was "no idea,"
with 1A.82 of the respondents selecting this category.' Thirteen and a half
-------
percent of the respondents viewed the environment primarily in physical terms
as contrasted with 8.61 who saw it primarily in a social context.
One issue which has been studied frequently concerns the trend of our
environment. We asked the respondents to identify the conditions of the
present environment, the environment five years earlier and five years into
the future. The question: "Here is a ladder. Imagine that the top of the
ladder represents the best possible environmental conditions, and the bottom
of the ladder represents the worst possible environmental conditions. Where
do you think San Antonio stands on the ladder at the present time?" A nine
would indicate the best possible conditions; a zero, the worst possible
cond i t i ons.
Table 3 shows that respondents generally viewed the present environment
in positive terms. If we take 0 through 3 to be below average, 4 through 6
to be average, and 7 through 9 to be above average, we find that 40.5% of
the respondents identified present environmental conditions as above average,
38% as average and 21.61 as below average. This might, in part, explain the
low percentage of responses identifying environmental problems as a major
problem (see above, p. 6).
Table k looks back to the past and presents a slightly more pessimistic
perception. About 40% of the respondents (38.4|) still identified the
environment as above average, but now 35.^. see past environmental conditions
as below average and 26. k% as average.
Table 5 offers us a picture of the future and a not-very-bright picture
at that. About half of the respondents [kk.0%] believe the future conditions
of the environment will be worse than that of either the present or past.
One third believe the environment will improve the next five years and 22.3%
believe it will be average.
In order to develop public policy relating to any problem it is most
important to identify the source of the problem. We asked the respondents
to name what they thought contributed the most to our environmental problems.
The question: "Who-or what do you feel is contributing most to the environ-
mental problems in this area?"
The contributor identified by the largest single group of respondents
(32.4%) was "individual" (see Table 6). However, 22.1?; identified no source.
Industry, frequently publicized as a major pollutant, was cited by 10.6? and
ranked behind government which was singled out by 12.8%.
We were interested in the impact of the media on the public's perception
of environmental problems. First, we asked each respondent to identify the
media source from which they obtained most of their information about national
state and local events. As Tables 7, 8, and 9 indicate, television and news-
papers far exceed any other media source in informing the respondents. In
each case about one half of the respondents obtained most of the information
from TV and 1/4 to 1/5 obtained their information from newspapers. It is
interesting to note that the impact of television lessens as one moves from
national to state to local news while the impact of radio increases.
-------
We asked the respondents to identify the media source they considered
most accurate. The question: "Which of these sources of information do you
think is most likely to give you an unbiased and accurate report of news
events?" Table 10 shows that 42.5% believed television to be most accurate,
followed by newspapers and radio. Fourteen and a half percent contended that
none of the media sources were unbiased.
We then asked the respondents if they recalled any recent news coverage
of environmental events. Table 11 reports data concerning the newspaper
coverage. About half (48.2%) of the respondents recalled reading something
in a newspaper relating to the environment (note that 8l% of the respondents
indicated they continually read a newspaper). Table 12 focused^on television
coverage. Forty-five and a half percent of the respondents believed they had
seen something on TV relating to the environment; 49.8% had not seen anything
concerning the environment. Of the 74.1% respondents who listen to a radio,
only 25.3% could recall anything recently that commented on the environment.
These figures were almost identical to those responding to similar questions
concerning magazines. Seventy percent said they read or subscribed to
,magazines on a regular basis, but only 23-5% recalled any article relating
to the environment.
There has been much discussion concerning America's life style and how
it contributes to many of our problems. We asked the respondents: "Do you
think that the ways that Americans live contributes to environmental
problems?"
Table 13 reveals that an overwhelming 67-3% of the respondents did see
our life styles as contributing to environmental problems. Only 16.4%
categorically rejected such an idea.
The knowledge of how much money the public is willing to spend is of
critical importance to public officials. We identified five genera! areas
of environmental problems: auto exhaust, water pollution, noise, garbage
and waste disposal, and creating recreational areas. We asked each respon-
dent: "If your total taxes for such items as sales tax, amusement tax, liquor
tax and the like were to be increased, say by $100, how much out of this $100
would you be willing to spend for the following: auto exhaust, water pollu-
tion, noise, garbage and waste disposal and creating recreational areas to
maintain a clear environment?"
The first problem identified was "auto exhaust pollution." About 50%
of the respondents (44.0%) were unwilling to spend any of the $100 here.
Fifteen and a half percent were willing to contribute $20 and 10.9%, $25.
Almost three-fourths (71.1%) of the respondents were unwilling to distribute
more than $20.
The second problem was water pollution. Thirty-six point one percent
of the respondents did not want any of the money distributed here. Fifteen
point three percent agreed to allocate $20 and 12.9%, $25. Ten point two
percent agreed to allocate $50. In general the respondents seem to attach
more importance to water pollution than to auto exhaust problems
-------
The third problem concerned "noise." Fifty-eight point nine percent of
the respondents refused to allocate any money to this problem. Nine point
eight percent were willing to contribute $10 and 12.8%, $20, but with over
75% of the respondents allocating less than $20, noise did not seem to be a
major problem.
The fourth area was trash and waste disposal. Here, the respondents
seemed more concerned. Still, over one-third (37-5%) allocated no money.
Fifteen point two percent were willing to allocate $20 and 12.61, $25. Ten
percent allocated $50.
The final problem area identified concerned recreational areas. This
seemed by far to be the category which generated an allocation of money.
Only 28.3% refused to distribute any of their money to this problem. Fourteen
and a half percent donated $20, 10.6%, $25 and 1^.8% spent $50. Less than
40% were unwilling to spend at least $20 on this problem.
With the exception of the latter problem, none of the problems claimed
a disproportionate amount of money from the respondents.
Citizen involvement in public policy is very important. We were inter-
ested both in the citizens' knowledge of governmental agencies focusing on
environmental issues and in their knowledge of and membership in relevant
citizen groups or civic agencies.
We asked "Do you happen to know if there are any governmental agencies
or organizations in the San Antonio area which are concerned with the pro-
tection of the environment?"
Table ]k indicates that 52.5% of the respondents were aware of some
governmental agencies concerned with environmental problems. Of these
respondents 2k.6% could identify the agency, with 6.6% recognizing the EPA
as such an agency. Thirty-seven point eight percent of the respondents know
of no government agency in the San Antonio area concerned with environmental
problems. Only 90 respondents identified the EPA.
We asked also if there were any citizens groups or civic clubs in the
San Antonio area that study environmental problems or take stands on environ-
men ta1 prob1 ems.
Here we found that more respondents were aware of local, non-governmental
agencies than had been aware of governmental agencies. Sixty point four per-
cent of the respondents were aware of such organizations (see Table 15). Of
these, 31-5% could identify the local organization by name, with the Sierra
Club being most widely recognized (8.2%).
We then asked, "Do you happen to belong to any organization that studies
or takes stands on environmental issues?"
"No," was the overwhelming answer. Table 16 indicates that about nine
out of ten respondents did not belong to any environmentally-active organi-
zation. Of the 9-9% that do belong to an organization, no more than 1.11
-------
belong to the same organization, indicating that no single environmentally-
active organization even remotely has a following in San Antonio.
We sought to identify other indices of environmental activism. We asked,
"Have you ever written any letters, telephoned or personally called on anyone
concerning environmental issues?"
As might be expected from the answer to the previous question, a signif-
icant number of respondents had never utilized any of these approaches.
Eighty point four percent had never contacted anyone concerning environmental
issues (see Table 17). Of the 17-9% who had made contact, 3. \% had called
a public official and 5.6% had written a public official.
Finally, we asked, "Have you ever attended any meetings or rallies to
complain or learn about the environmental problems?"
Again, the answers were consistent with responses to previous questions
concerning activities. Table 18 indicates that 85-8% of the respondents had
n,ever attended a meeting.
A demographic profile of the survey follows. Sixty point three percent
of the sample had resided in the San Antonio area five years or more (22.k%
had resided in the area for over 15 years). Twenty-six point three percent
of the respondents had lived there two years or less. Forty-nine point two
percent were employed. Twenty-eight percent of the sample had completed
high school, 15-6% had completed college. Nineteen and a half percent had
an 8th grade education or less. Virtually all adult age groups were evenly
represented with 30-34 year olds comprising the smallest portion of the
sample (10%) and ^5~5^ (16.5%) and 18-24 (16.4%) the largest. Twenty-five
point nine percent of the respondents had incomes of $15,000 or more; k$.k%
had incomes of less than $10,000. Fifty-eight point three percent of the
respondents were female. Sixty-four point one percent of the sample were
Anglo and almost one-third were Mexican-American. Sixty point eight percent
lived in the center city area, 8.1% in the suburbs and 17.1% in the rural
areas.
10
-------
TABLE 1. MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEMS
PROBLEM SCORE
Crime and Violence 28^8
State of the Economy 2652
Unemployment 2026
Drug Abuse 159')
Energy Shortage 13-^0
Governmental Conception 1071
Environmental Problems '(93
Race Relations 303
Scale Scores were controlled on a 5-3"! basis: 5 points for most
important; 3, second most important; 1, third most important.
-------
TABLE 2. DEFINITION OF ENVIRONMENT
ENVPROB
CATEGORY LABEL
PHYSICAL CHAR
INC NB CHAR
PRIMARILY SOCIAL
PHYSICAL AND
TIMES WE LIVE IN
NO IDEA
CODE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0.
9.
ABSOLUTE
185
83
118
755
24
1
203
RELATIVE
FREQ
( % )
13.5
6.1
8.6
55.1
1.8
2.1
14.8
ADJUSTED
FREQ
( % )
15.9
7.1
12.1
64.8
2.1
MISSING
MISSING
CUM
FREQ
( % )
15.9
23.0
33.1
97.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
TOTAL
1369
MEAN 3.300
VALID CASES 1165 MISSING CASES 274
100.0
100.0
-------
TABLE 3. PERCEPTION OF PRESENT ENVIRONMENT
ENVNOW
CATEGORY LABEL
POOR
EXCELLENT
VAL:C CASES
6,135
1133
DE
1 1
2.
3.
4 ,
5.
6,
7.
8.
9.
AL
ABSOLUTE
FREQ
3a
10
62
90
257
173
2.39
228
116
166
RELATIVE
FREQ
( X )
2
2
«
6
13
12
15
16
8
13
100
.8
.7
.5
.6
.8
.6
.3
,7
.5
.6
.2
ADJUSTED
FREC.
{ X )
3
e
5
7
21
14
17
19
9
MISS
100
i 2
.8
,2
.6
,7
.6
,7
,3
,S
ING
,e
CUM
FREQ
3
4
9
16
38
53
70
96
10?
100
.1
• i
.i
• V
. 6
.3
.9
.2
. 0
.0
MISSING
166
-------
TABLE k. PERCEPTION OF PAST ENVIRONMENT
ENV5P
CATEGORY LABEL
POOR
EXCELLENT
MEAN 6,346
VALID CASES 1026
CODE
1.
2,
3.
4,
5.
6,
7.
8,
9.
0,
TOTAL
ABSOLUTE
FrtEQ
25
31
85
94
146
120
135
215
175
343
— g "O" ~
*369
RELATIVE
FREQ
( X )
1,8
2.3
6,2
6,9
13.7
6,6
9.9
15.7
12.8
25,1
100,0
ADJUSTED
FREQ
( X )
2,4
3,e
8,3
9,2
14,2
11,7
13,2
21, e
17,1
MISSING
ik)0,e
CUM
FREQ
( X >
2-4
5.5
13.7
22.9
37.1
48.8
62.0
82.9
100. H
100.0
MISSING CASES 343
-------
TABLE 5. PERCEPTION OF FUTURE ENVIRONMENT
ENV5F
CATEGORY LABEL
POOR
EXCELLENT
MEAN 5.570
VALID CASES 1341
CODE
4. i
2.
3.
4,
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
0,
TOTAL
ABSOLUTE
FREQ
94
76
103
81
;28
97
133
195
134
328
1339
RELATIVE
FREQ
( X )
6.9
5.6
7.5
5,9
9.3
7,1
9.7
14.2
9.8
24,0
100,0
ADJUSTED
FREC
9,e
7,3
9.5
7,8
12,3
9,3
12.8
18,7
12,9
MISSING
100,0
CUM
FREQ
t x
9.0
16.3
26-2
34.0
46.3
55.6
66.4
87.1
100.0
100.0
MISSING CASES 328
-------
TABLE 6. CONTRIBUTORS TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
ABSOLUTE
CATEGQ-Y U A =} r L
INDUSmv
INDIVIDUALS
GOVT
TRAGIC
NOME-
DRUGS
CORRUPTION
TOO MANY AMWA|_S
MO RESPONSE
MEAN 3,880
VALID CASES 1369
CODE
0,
1,
2,
3.
4.
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
TOTAL
MISSING
FREQ
92
145
443
175
110
45
34
15
e
332
1369
CASES
( '-i )
6.7
H.6
32.4
12.8
a. If
3.3
2,5
1.1
3.6
22.1
100.0
0
( % >
6,7
iz.e
32,4
12, e
e,?
3,3
2,5
lil
2,6
22,1
122, e
£ * '
*,7
1^,3
49,7
i2,5
7*' ••->
73,8
76,3
77,4
77, V
i«e,«
-------
TABLE 7. NATIONAL MEDIA USE
NTIMEDI A
CATEGORY LA9EL
MAGAZ
RADIO
TELEVISION
FRIENDS
OTHER
RADIO AND TV
NEWSPAPER « TV
NO RESPONSE
MEAN 3,610
VALID CASES 1316
OE
1,
2,
3,
4,
5.
6,
7,
e,
9,
0,
•AL
ABSOLUTE
FREQ
284
58
106
714
13
1C
21
85
25
53
1369
RELATIVE
FSEQ
20,
4,
7,
52.
B,
0,
i,
6,
1,
3,
100,
7
2
7
2
9
7
5
2
8
9
0
ADjOSTED
FREC
( X )
?i,
4,
8,
54,
1,
e,
i,
6,
1,
6
4
1
3
B
e
6
5
9
HISSING
100,
0
CUM
FREC
t * )
21
26
34
88
89
90
91
98
1M
161
,6
,0
,0
,3
,3
,0
,6
,1
,e
,e
MISSING CASES
53
-------
TABLE 8. STATE MEDIA USE
oo
SMEDIA
CATEGORY LABEL
NEWSPAPERS
MAGAHlNES
RADIO
TELEVISION
FRIENDS
OTHER
RADIO AND TV
NEHSPAPER & TV
NO RESPONSE
MEAN 3,453
VALID CASES 1333
cone
i,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
6,
9,
0,
TOTAL
ABSOLUTE
f-REu
396
28
121
625
15
12
25
89
32
36
1369
RELATIVE
FREQ
( * )
28.9
t,5
8,8
45,7
1.1
»,9
1,8
6,5
2,2
2,6
100,6
ACJUSTED
FREC
! X )
29,7
1,5
9,1
46,9
1,1
0,9
1,9
6,7
2,3
MISSING
lee.e
COM
FREC
( * )
29,7
31.2
40 ,3
87,2
86,3
89,2
91,1
97,7
lea, 2
108,0
MISSING CASES
36
-------
TABLE 9. LOCAL MEDIA USE
LMEOU
CATEGORY LABEL
NEWSPAPERS
RADIO
TELEVISION
FRIENDS
OTHER
RADIO AND TV
NEWSPAPER « TV
NO "ESPONSE
MEAN
VALID CASES
3,«5?
1 J31
OE
1,
2,
3.
4,
5,
6,
7.
8.
9.
«,
•AL
ABSOLUTE
FREQ
398
a
151
583
38
10
23
95
25
38
136V
RELATIVE
f X )
29,1
8,6
11,8
42,6
2,8
0,7
1,7
6,9
1.8
2.6
i«e,e
ADJUSTED
FREC
( X )
29,9
f,6
11,3
43,8
2,9
e.e
1,7
7,1
1,9
MISSING
lee.e
CUM
( X )
29,9
36,'
41 ,8
65,6
88,5
89,3
91 ,0
99.1
!••,•
110,0
MISSING CASES
33
-------
TABLE 10. MEDIA ACCURACY
ACC1NFO
CATEGORY LABEL
NEWSPAPERS
MAOA^lhES
RADIO
TV
OTHER
NONE
NEWSPAPERiTV
NO RESPONSE
CODE
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
9,
B,
TOTAL
ABSOLUTE
276
97
144
582
20
199
3
44
2
1369
RELATIVE
t X )
28.3
7,1
10.5
42,5
1,5
14,5
0,2
3,2
0,1
iec,0
ADJUSTED
20,3
7,1
10,5
42,6
1,5
14,6
0,2
3,2
MISSING
iee,e
COM
FKEO
20,3
27,4
38, e
80,5
82,0
96,6
96,8
169,0
100,0
MEAN 3,6X6
VALID CASES 1367
MISSING CASES
-------
TABLE 11. READ STORY ON ENVIRONMENT
REAOST
CATEGORY L*8£l_
REAU-TAKES PAPER
READ-DOESN1T TAKE
TAKES-oicN'T REAO
DNT-CID NOT READ
HO RESP
1EAN 2,336
VALID CAStS 1367
COOE
1,
2.
3.
4.
9.
0.
TOTAL
ABSOLUTE
F^EO
545
115
44?
239
21
2
136?
RELATIVE
FREQ
( X )
39.8
8.4
32.7
17.5
1.5
0.1
100.0
AOjusTeo
FSEC
( x )
39,9
8,4
32,7
17,5
1,5
MISSING
100,0
CUM
FREC
( X )
39,9
48,3
31 ,0
98,5
109 ,0
100,0
MISSING CASES
-------
TABLE 12. SAW TV REPORT ON ENVIRONMENT
t-o
ISJ
TVSTO
CATEGORY LABEL
SAW STORY
DIDN'T see
NO RCSP
MEAN 1,700
VALID CASES 1.567
RELATIVE ADJUSTED
CUM
OE
1,
2.
3,
4,
9.
e,
•AL
ABSOLUTE
FREQ
623
662
36
1
2t>
2
1369
FREQ
45.5
4.9.8
2.6
0,1
1.8
0,1
100,0
FREO
( * )
45,6
49.9
2,6
8,1
1,8
MISSING
100,0
( » J
45,6
95,5
98,1
96,2
iee,«
119,8
MISSING CASCS
-------
TABLE 13- LIFE STYLES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
LIVECNT
CATEGORY LABEL
YES
NO
BOTH
NO RESPONSE:
MEAN 2,045
VALID CASES 1363
CODE
1,
2.
3,
4,
5,
V,
0,
TOTAL
HISSING
ABSOLUTE
FHEQ
922
224
87
2
1
127
6
1369
CASES
RELATIVE
TREQ
t X )
67,3
16.4
6.4
0,1
0,1
9.3
e,4
100,0
6
ADJUSTED
FREC
( X )
67,6
16,4
6,4
8,1
0,1
9,3
1JSSING
lee.e
CUM
FRED
67,6
84,1
90,5
92 > 6
90,7
180,0
loe.e
-------
TABLE
KNOWLEDGE OF GOVERNMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES
KNGAGN
CATEGORY LABEL
VES-IOE.NTIFY
YES-CAN'T 10
NO
NOT SURE
NO RESPONSE
MEAN 2,373
VALID CASES 1366
CODE
1,
2,
3,
<»,
5,
7.
9,
0,
TOTAL
&BSOLUU
FHEO
337
382
518
113
2
1
13
3
1369
RELATIVE
FREQ
( X )
24,6
27,9
37,8
8,3
0.1
0.1
e.9
0,2
100,0
ADJUSTED
FREC
( X )
2*i7
28,0
37,9
6,3
0,1
0,1
1,0
MtSSlKG
iee,e
CUM
FREQ
( * )
24,7
52*6
90,6
98, 8
99,0
99 ,0
100,0
laa.a
MISSING CASES
-------
TABLE 15. KNOWLEDGE OF CIVIC ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES
CIVIC
CATEGORY L*BEL
YES-ID
YES-CAN'T ID
NO
NOT SURE
NO RESPONSE
MEAN 2,219
VALID CASES 1364
CODE
1,
2,
3,
4,
9,
0,
TOTAL
MISSING
ABSOLUTE
FR.EO
131
395
411
114
13
5
1369
CASES
RELATIVE
FREQ
f X )
31,5
28,9
30,0
8,3
0.9
e,4
na,e
5
ADJUSTED
'FREC
31,6
29,0
30,1
8,4
1,0
MISSING
iee.0
CUM
FREC
f *
31,6
60.6
92,7
99,8
10010
100.0
-------
TABLE 16. MEMBERSHIP IN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
CATEGORY LABEL
YES
Mo
NO RESPONSE
1,935
VALIC CASES 1369
RELATIVE ADJUSTED
ABSOLUTE FREQ FREC
CODE
0.
1.
2,
«?.
9.
TOTAL
FREQ
6
136
1216
3
8
1369
( X )
0.4
9.9
88,8
?.2
0.6
100.3
( * )
B|4
5,9
58, e
e,2
e,6
1^2, e
( 51
?.4
1^.4
99,^
99,4
lis;,.^
HISSING CASES
-------
TABLE 17. CONTACTS WITH PUBLIC OFFICIALS
CONTOFr
CATEGORY LABEL
YES-CALL OFF
YES-WROTE OFF
YES-VISIT OFT
YES -CALL MP
YES-WROTC NP
NO
NO RESPONSE
MEAN 6,395
VALID CASES 1367
RELATIVE ADJUSTED
ABSOLUTE FREQ FREC
CUM
COCE
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
0
I
1
f
1
1
1
1
1
•
TOTAL
FREQ
124
76
28
7
IB
1101
2
19
2
1369
( X
9,
5,
2,
0,
0,
80,
0,
1,
0,
100,
)
1
6
0
5
7
4
1
4
1
0
(
9
5
2
2
e
82
2
1
X
I
1
(
,
1
,
,
,
)
1
6
0
5
7
e
1
4
MISSING
102
I
0
<
9
1<
16
17
17
98
96
100
I0e
*
,1
,6
,7
,2
,9
,5
,6
,e
,e
MISSING CASES
-------
TABLE 18. ATTENDANCE AT ENVIRONMENTAL MEETINGS
M
CO
ATTMEET
CATEGORY LABEL
YES
NO
NO RESPONSE
MEAN
VALID CASES
1,926
1366
CODE
1,
2,
«,
9,
0,
TOTAL
ABSOLUTE
FRCQ
180
1174
1
11
3
1369
RELATIVE
FREQ
( X >
13,1
85,8
0.1
0,8
0,2
100.0
ADJUSTED
ffiEC
( X )
13,2
85,9
0.1
0,8
MISSING
100, Z
CUM
FREO
< * )
13.2
99,1
99.2
lae.e
ie»i«
MISSING CASES
-------
SECTION k
AREA RESPONSES TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
The San Antonio SMSA was selected as the geographical focus for the
survey because it offered the opportunity to stratify our sample along rural,
suburban and center city lines. It has been suggested in other studies that
individuals residing in a deteriorating environment are more likely to be
aware of environmental problems than those residing in a healthy environment.
Or, more generally, that where one lives can directly affect one's perception
of environmental problems. This section looks at the responses stratified
according to area.
Does area affect the perception respondents have concerning the impor-
tance of public problems? Table 19 shows a significant relationship between
the area in which respondents live and their ranking of public problems.
Center city residents placed much emphasis on problems relating to the
economy (26.7%) and crimes (16.0%). Twenty-three point seven percent of
the suburban residents also cited the economy as the most important problem,
but 21.6% were unsure and cited no problem as most important. Rural respon-
dents were more concerned about the economy than their two counterparts
(41.1% of the rural respondents named the economy) and \b.k% identified
crime as the most important.
Thus, the state of the economy is the most important problem named by
all three groups, but in different proportions. Center city and rural
residents find crime to be a significant problem while suburban residents
evidence more uncertainty than the other two areas.
None of the three groups identified "environmental problems" to a
significant degree. Four point nine percent of the center city residents,
k.\% of the suburban residents and ^.0% of the rural residents mentioned
the environment by name. If we combine environmental problems with energy
and refuse, however, the significance is much higher. Twenty-one point three
percent of the center city residents, 22.6% of the suburban residents and
20.8% of the rural respondents cite these three areas as most important.
There is a significant relationship between area and the definition of
"environment." All three areas agreed that the environment should be defined
in terms of both physical and social characteristics (see Table 20). Sixty
point three percent of the center city respondents, ~jk% of the suburban
respondents and 66.1% of the rural respondents viewed the environment in this
dual manner. The data also indicate that center city and suburban residents
are more likely than their rural counterparts to see the environment in pri-
marily physical terms.
29
-------
We also attempted to identify what trends, if any, the respondents an-
ticipated in the area of environmental improvement. We asked them to estab-
lish, on a scale of one to nine, with higher numbers reflecting a better
environment, what conditions they believed the environment to be in today,
and what condition they anticipated five years hence. One through three
would be below average, four through six, average, and seven through nine,
above average.
There is a significant relationship between area and respondents' per-
ception of present and future environmental conditions. Table 21 shows that
suburban residents see present environmental conditions as better than either
center city or rural respondents. Fifty-eight point three percent of the
suburban respondents ranked the present environment as above average and
37-8% saw it as average. Only 3-9% labeled it below average. Center city
residents believed present conditions were average or above average with
S.k% choosing below average. Rural residents, however, were not so pleased.
Twelve and a half percent saw the present environment as below average and
not quite one third rated it above average.
These relationships remained significant when we asked about environ-
mental conditions five years hence (see Table 22). Over a third of the rural
respondents believed the environment would be below average. Center city and
suburban residents were less positive than they had been about present con-
ditions. One fourth of the center city residents predicted the environment
would be below average in five years. Suburban respondents remained the
most optomistic, but three times as many respondents as before now believed
the environment would be below average.
We asked the respondents to identify who or what they believed were
contributing most to our environmental conditions. Table 23 demonstrates
again a distinction based upon geographical stratification. All three areas
viewed individuals as contributing most to our environmental problems with
36.0% of the suburban dwellers holding such a viewpoint followed by 3^-2%
of the rural respondents and 32.0% of those residing in the center city area.
The three areas were rarely separated by more than a few percentage points
regardless of which contributor they were naming. However 12.^% of the
center city did cite industry as contrasted with 1.2% of the suburban resi-
dents. As one moved away from the core city, government became more of a
contributor.
When asked if the way Americans live contributes to our environmental
problems all three areas agreed that it did. However, there is no relation-
ship between area and response. Sixty-four point one percent of the center
city respondents agreed that America's life style was a significant factor
in our environmental deterioration and 6k% and 6k.1% of the suburban and
rural respondents respectively supported this proposition {see Table 2k).
Turning to the key issue of costs, we asked the respondents to distrib-
ute the sum of $100 over a group of environmental problems. We placed re-
spondent allocations into four categories: $0, $1-19, $20-^9, and $50 plus.
Tables 25 through 29 relate our findings. We found relationships be-
30
-------
twee'n response and area in all five problems examined. Suburban and rural
residents are more willing than center city residents to allocate money to
control auto exhaust. This is somewhat surprising as one might anticipate
that the center city area would be most adversely affected by auto exhaust.
Still, one-third of the center city respondents and rural respondents and
35-1% of the suburban respondents would spend $20 to $49 on auto exhaust
control. About half of the center city respondents, however, would allocate
no money to this area.
Suburban residents seemed slightly more concerned with water pollution
than the two area counterparts. Forty-five percent would spend $20 to $49
and 18.9? would spend over $50. Center city residents were the least con-
cerned with over one-third unwilling to contribute any money to this area.
Noise caused the least concern among all three groups. No more than
4.5% of any group was willing to contribute $50 or more and over half of
the center city and suburban respondents were unwilling to allocate any
money. Rural residents evidenced more interest in this area than either
other group, but even then, 47-9% would not allocate any money to control-
ling noise.
Waste disposal was an important concern of the suburban and rural areas,
but center city respondents were unwilling to spend $50 or more and 41%
would spend $20 to $49. Suburban residents would allocate slightly more
money, with 16.2% and k].4% responding respectively. Over one-third of the
center city residents would spend no money here.
The most popular problem was recreation. Twenty-six point nine percent
of the rural residents, 26.3? of the center city residents and 18.9% of the
suburban residents were willing to commit $50 or more to recreational areas.
Over half of the suburban residents (51.4%) would contribute $20 to $49 as
would 40.2% of the rural residents and 31-6% of the center city respondents.
This was the only category in which no respondent area exceeded 40% in al-
locating $0 to the problem.
In the area of citizen recognition and citizen participation we found
the following results. We asked respondents if they knew of any governmental
agencies or organizations in the San Antonio area which was concerned with
the protection of the environment. Fifty-six point seven percent of the sub-
urban respondents were aware of such organizations (25.2% of urban could
identify the organ!zation(s)). Fifty-three point nine percent of the center
city respondents made the same claim (24.8% could identify the organiza-
tion^)). However, less than half (47-4%) of the rural respondents indi-
cated such awareness (see Table 30).
When we referred to their knowledge of citizen groups or civic clubs
rather than governmental organizations, we did find a relationship between
area and response. Table 31 indicates that 65-7% of the suburban respond-
ents, 61.8% of the center city respondents and 60.2% of the rural respond-
ents were aware of such organizations. Suburban residents were least likely
to be unable to identify any such organization. The ability to identify
specifically the organizations remained at one-third or less for all three
31
-------
groups of respondents.
When asked which organizations they could identify, few respondents
could recall the specific organization. Fifty-four center city, 12 suburban
and 8 rural respondents could identify the EPA while 75 center city residents,
9 suburban and 28 rural respondents were able to name COPS.
Asked to identify non-government groups, respondents singled out the
Sierra Club. Fifty-six center city, 18 suburban and 9 rural respondents
identified the Sierra Club.
When questioned about actual membership in any of these organizations,
the respondents reflected no significant relationship based upon where they
lived. Table 32 shows that 13-5% of the suburban respondents belong to some
environment-oriented organization, 9-9% of the center city residents and
1.1% of the rural respondents.
We examined the activism of our respondents by asking about their
Contacting public officials and their actual attendance at meetings concern-
ing the environment. As might be expected from the responses to the questions
concerning knowledge of and membership in environmental organizations, the
level of activism among all these groups was quite low.
Table 33 shows that about 80% of the respondents in the center city,
suburban and rural areas have never contacted a public official or a news-
paper about environmental issues. Of the few who have made contact, tele-
phoning or writing a public official appears to be the most common method
of contact. No distinction along geographical lines is apparent. There is
no significant relationship here between area and response.
32
-------
TABLE 19- IMPORTANT PROBLEMS BY AREA
COUNT
COL
T»TAL
0,
VA)
OJ
i,
CITY
IMPTPBSt
•CRIME ECONOMY
SUBURBAN
RURAL
4,
COLUMN
TOTAL
176
14.9
C ENV
RfSTS S
ON
RETFUSE NOT SURE NO R£Sf>o
NSE
I.
16
•Li. 9
9.1
1.4
*«:0
16.0
66.2
13.2
11
11.3
6.3
U.9
29
14.4
16.5
2.5
2,
35
25.9
it. 3
?-,0
2^0
26.7
58.7
10.9
23
23.7
o.7
1.9
a3
41.1
24.3
7 .0
3-
13
9.6
17.8
1.1
39
5.2
53.4
3.3
10
10.3
13.7
0.8
3-
11
5.4
15.1
0.9
4.
7
5.2
12.5
0 . 6
37
4 . 9
66.1
3.1
4
4.1
7.1
lu.3
8
4 .0
14.0
'6.1
5.1 6.
11 ! B
8.1 : d.0
1 S , t : n . 0
1 d .tf
^ t 22
3,9 I 2.9
5l.o i 81.5
2.5 i 1.9
4 1 3
4,1 : 3.1
7.1 : ll.l
-------
TABLE 20. DEFINITION OF ENVIRONMENT BY AREA
(PHYSICAL INC NF C
AREA
PHYSICAL TIHES WE ROK
TOTAL
COL x
TlT4L X
2i
i,
TY
3.
4,
6,
7,
COLUMN
TOTAL
CHAR
1,
U
7.9
5.4
0.9
135
IV. 2
74. e
11.6
16
1* , 4
9.6
1.4
14
7,7
7.6
1.2
10
21.7
5,4
0.9
0
0.0
k) , 0
0.0
185
15.9
HAH
2 .
-
" . '
;• , i
f,f
5P
e.j
69.0
5.P
1
1,-"
1.?
7.1
1?
6,4
14,;
l.p
IP
21,7
12,0
2.9
?
Ik)?,?
2.4
*.J
83
7.1
Y SOCIAL
3,
2
1.6
1.7
P. 2
74
Id. 5
62.7
6.4
6
5.8
5.1
0,5
32
17,5
27,1
2.7
4
8,7
3,4
0.3
0
<).0
4,0
3,8
118
10.1
ANO
4,
115
9?. 6
15.2
9.9
424
60.3
56,2
36.4
77
74 ,0
10,2
6,6
121
66,1
16. a
10.4
18
39.1
2,4
1,5
e
0,0
0.0
0,0
755
64,8
LIVE IN
5.
e
e.0
e,0
e,0
12
1.7
52.0
1.0
4
3.8
16.7
e,3
4
2,2
16.7
2.3
4
8.7
16,7
2,3
0
e.0
e.0
0.0
24
2,1
CHI SQOARE • 131,50232 WITH 27. PECREES OF
NUMBER or MISSING OBSERVATIONS • 2*4
127
10.9
703
60,3
104
6,9
113
15,7
46
3.9
2
0,2
100,0
SIGNIFICANCE * 0,0000
-------
TABLE 21. PERCEPTION OF PRESENT ENVIRONMENT BY AREA
COUNT
ROW %
COL X
TOTAL x
i,
CENTER CITY
3,
SUBURBAN
4,
RURAL
6.
COLUMN
TOTAL
ENVNOH
POOR
1.
21
2.9
55.3
2.0
•»
2.9
7.9
0.3
13
6.3
34.2
1.2
1
2.6
2.6
0.1
38
3.5
2,
7
1.0
70.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
1.4
30.0
0.3
7
0.0
0,0
0.0
1*
0.9
3.
40
5.5
74.1
3.7
1
1.0
1.9
0.1
10
4.8
18.5
0.9
3
7.9
5.6
0.3
54
5.0
4.
57
7.9
67.9
5.3
2
1.9
2.4
0.2
23
11.1
27.4
2.1
2
5.3
2.4
0.2
84
7.8
5.
146
2e.i
62.4
13.6
20
19.4
8.5
1.9
58
28. 2
24,8
5.4
10
26.3
4.3
e.9
234
21.8
6.
108
14.9
65.9
10.1
17
16.5
10.4
1.6
32
15.5
19.5
3.0
7
18.4
4.3
0.7
164
15.3
7,
128
17.6
67,0
11.9
17
16.5
8.9
1.6
37
17,9
19,4
3.4
Q
23.7
4,7
0,8
I'l
17.8
8,
144
19.8
72.7
13.4
28
27.2
14.1
2.6
23
11.1
11.6
2.1
3
7.9
1.5
0.3
198
18.4
EXCELLEN
T
9. t
75
10.3
74.3
7.0
15
14.6
14.9
1.4
8
3.9
7.9
0.7
3
7.9
3.0
0.3
101
9.4
ROW
TOTAL
726
67.6
103
9.6
207
19.3
38
3.5
1074
100.0
CHI SQUARE
49.76756 WITH 24 DECREES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE - 0.0015
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS »
295
-------
TABLE 22. PERCEPTION OF FUTURE ENVIRONMENT BY AREA
AREA
UJ
CENTER CITy
SUBURBAN
RURAL
COUNT
ROW X
COL x
TOTAL x
i,
Ty
3,
4 ,
6,
COLUMN
TOTAL
POOR
1.
53
a. 5
60.2
5.7
5
5.8
5.7
0.5
25
13.6
28.4
2.7
5
14.3
5.7
U.5
88
9.5
2,
47
7.5
69,1
5.0
2
2.3
2.9
0.2
16
8.7
23.5
1.7
3
8.6
4,4
0,3
68
7.3
3.
60
9.6
64.5
6.4
4
4.7
4.3
0.4
23
12.5
24.7
2.5
6
17.1
6.5
0.6
93
10.0
4.
50
8.0
63.3
5.4
7
8.1
8.9
0.8
16
8.7
20.3
1.7
6
17.1
7 .6
0.6
79
8.5
5.
77
12.3
64.7
8.3
15
17,4
12.6
1.6
19
10.3
16. a
2.0
8
22.9
6,7
2,9
119
12,8
6.
58
9.3
68.2
6.2
14
16.3
16.5
1.5
12
6.5
14.1
1.3
1
2.9
1.2
0.1
85
9.1
7,1 8,
79 : 114
12,6 : 18,2
69,9 I 66.3
8.5 t 12.2
6 I 24
7,0 : 27.9
5,3 : 14.4
0,6 i 2.6
27 I 24
14,7 : 13.0
23,9 ! 14.4
2,9 t 2.6
1 I 5
2,9 1 14.3
0,9 : 3.0
0,1 : 0.5
113 167
12,1 17.9
TXCELLEN
T
9.
88
14.1
73.9
9.5
9
10.5
7.6
1.0
22
12.0
18.5
2.4
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
119
12,6
ROW
TOTAL
626
67.2
86
9.2
184
19.8
35
3.8
931
100.0
CHI SQUARE • 49.99868 WITH 24 DECREES or FREE.DOM SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0014
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS •
436
-------
TABLE 23. CONTRIBUTORS TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS BY AREA
S08UR34N
RURAL
COUNT
«pw *
COL x
T-rTiL. *
2,
1,
TV
3,
4,
6,
7,
a.
19
1-5.4
2Z.7
1.4
48
5.8
52.2
i.5
11
9.9
12, a
a. 8
i*
4.3
10.9
4.7
4
s.3
4 . 3
». 3
a
tt.a
a, 3
D.0
INDUSTR*
1,
15
7 .7
7.6
3,8
103
12,4
7l , F
7 ,1
f
7,?
5,5
a ,6
22
9,4
15,2
1,*
1
2,1
.-!, 7
f-,1
7
• ' ,r
z,r
a.?
[NCIVJIU GOVT
ALS
?.« 3,
4; 1 14
26,2 1 9.9
9,0 t 8,0
2,9 I 1.0
266 i 99
32, a 1 11,9
die. a : J6.6
19.4 i 7.2
43 1 16
36.3 1 14,4
9,0 1 9,1
2.9 I 1,2
80 1 40
34,2 1 17,1
18,1 i 22.9
5.8 I 2.9
17 1 6
35.4 i 12,5
3.8 1 3,4
1.2 I 0, 4
a i t>
2.3 i e,0
j,.z t 0,0
2,0 i a, a
— .....i. -._.._.
TRAFFIC
4,
12
e.5
12.9
e.«
74
8.9
67.3
5,4
IB
9 , 0
9,1
e,7
9
3.8
8,2
e.?
5
10.4
4 .5
e.4
0
e.e
e.0
e.e
NONE
5.
5
3,5
11, t
0,4
23
2,8
51,1
1,7
g
7.2
17,8
0,6
7
3,0
15,6
0,9
2
4,2
4,4
0.1
0
a , a
0,0
0,0
0"USS
6.
0
a, a
a.a
a, a
22
2,6
64,7
1.6
3
2,7
8,8
a, 2
9
3,8
26,5
0,7
0
0,0
0,0
a,e
a
0,e
0,0
e,a
CORRUPT!
ON
7,
3
2.1
20.0
a. 2
9
1.1
60. t
*,7
I
0,9
*, 7
0,1
1
0,4
6,7
0,1
1
2.1
6 , 7
0.1
?
0,2
a,?
...
TOO MAMY
ANIMALS
8,
id
4 , 9
0.0
a. 6
62,5
0,4
g
1 ,0
0.0
0,0
3
1.3
37,5
0.2
t
t ,9
0,0
0.0
0
0.0
0,0
0,0
NO RESPO
NSE
V,
0 S
26,8
12,6
2,8
183
22,0
60,6
13,4
14
12,6
4,6
i,e
93
22,6
17,5
3,9
12
29, a
4,1
a,«
2
100,0
a, 7
0,1
92
6. 7
14?
443
32,4
175
12.8
110
e.a
49
3,3
34
2,5
19
1.1
a
a,*
382
22,1
TOTAL
142
10,4
832
60,•
111
8,1
234
17,1
48
3,9
2
a.l
1369
100,0
Sl^iSt «
66,2919V WJTH 45 nEGKEES Or FREEDOM S1G*If ICANCt • 0,8141
-------
TABLE 24, LIFE STYLES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS BY AREA
ARE*
CENTER CITv
SUBURB*
COuNT
Row X
COL *
TCT»L X
J,
1.
Ty
3,
«,
6,
7,
COLUMN
a,
2
-------
TABLE 25- ALLOCATION OF MONEY TO AUTO EXHAUST BY AREA
AREA
COUNT
ROW
COL
TOTAL
vn
CENTER CITY
SUBURBAN
RURAL
4,
6,
7.
X
%
X
4
AUTOEX
0
0. :
373
44 .8
70.8
30.4
42
37.8
8.0
3.4
88
37.6
16.7
7.2
22
45.8
4.2
1.8
2
100.0
8.4
0.2
527
43.0
1-19
ii
64
10.1
55,3
6. .8
18
16.2
11,8
1.5
41
17.5
27,0
3.3
9
18.3
5.9
0.7
0
0.0
0..0
0.0
152
12.4
20-49
2 ,
280
33.7
69.1
22.8
39
35.1
9.6
3.2
78
33.3
19.3
6.4
8
16.7
2.0
0.7
0
0 .0
0.0
0.0
405
33.0
50 +
3.
95
11.4
66.4
7.7
12
10.8
8.4
1.0
27
11.5
18.9
2.2
9
18.8
6.3
0.7
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
143
11.7
RCH
TOTAL
832
67. d
111
9.U
234
19.1
4S
3 ,9
<:
2.2
1227
102.1?
COLUMN
TOTAL
CHI SQUARE « 23.38509 WITH 12 OtGKEES UF FREEDOM
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS « j.42
SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0246
-------
TABLE 26. ALLOCATION OF MONEY TO WATER POLLUTION BY AREA
UNTH20
AREA
-c-
o
CENTER CITY
SUBURBAN
RURAL
COUNT
ROW X
COL x
TOTAL x
i,
TY
3 i
4 i
6.
7 i
COLUMN
TOTAL
14
a.
307
36.9
70.3
25.0
33
29.7
7.6
2.7
73
31.2
16.7
5.9
24
54.4
5.5
2.0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
437
35.6
1-19
1,
7?
8.7
58.1
3,9
7
6.3
5.6
0.6
39
16.7
31.5
3.2
8----S-B
6
12.5
4.8
0.5
0
0,0
0.0
0.0
124
10.1
20-49
2.
311
37.4
67.0
25.3
50
45.0
10.8
4.1
^2
39.3
19.8
7.5
11
22.9
2.4
0.9
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
464
37.8
50*
142
17.1
70.3
11.6
21
18.9
10.4
1 7
30
12.8
14.9
2.4
14.6
3.5
0.6
2
100.0
1.0
d.2
202
16.5
RCW
TOTAL
832
67,6
111
9,f:
?34
19,1
48
3.y
2
e.^
122/
i0e.t=
CHJ SQUARE • 36.33796 WITH 12 DEGREEb OP FREEDOM
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS • 142
SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0003
-------
TABLE 27. ALLOCATION OF MONEY TO NOISE POLLUTION-BY AREA
RNOISE
AREA
CENTER
SUBURB;
RURAL
COUNT
ROW X
COL X
TOTAL x
1,
CITY
3,
*N
4,
6.
7,
COLUMN
TOTAL
0
Ql
495
59.5
71.1
40.3
61
55.0
8.8
5.0
112
47.9
16.1
9.1
26
54.2
3.7
2.1
100.0
0.3
0.2
1-19
1,
163
19.6
65.2
13.3
25
22.5
10.0
2.0
56
23.9
22.4
4.6
6
12.5
2.4
0.5
0
0.0
0.0
0,0
20-49
2.
149
17.9
62.3
12.1
20
18.0
8.4
1.6
60
25.6
25.1
4.9
10
20.8
4.2
0.8
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
50 +
3.
25
3.0
59.5
2.0
5
4.5
11.9
0.4
6
2.6
14.3
0.5
6
12.5
14.3
0.5
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
696 250 239 42
56.7 20.4 19.5 3.4
Rcw
TOTAL
832
67,8
Hi
9, ft
234
19.1
4b
3 .9
CHI SQUARE » 28.06756 WITH 12 DECREES OF FREEDOM
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS • i42
1227
SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0054
-------
TABLE 28. ALLOCATION OF MONEY TO TRASH POLLUTION BY AREA
.c-
i-o
COUNT
Ron x
COL X
TOTAL x
ii
CENTER CJTy
3,
SUBURBAN
4,
RURAL
6,
7,
COLUMN
TOTAL
TSH
0
0.
322
38.7
72.2
26.2
32
28.8
7.2
2.6
- — „
64
27.4
14.3
5.2
26
54.2
5.8
2.1
2
100.0
0.4
10.2
446
36.3
1-19
1,
108
13.0
66.3
8.8
15
13.5
9.2
1.2
»-«3-S-»
37
15.8
22.7
3.0
1
6.3
1.8
0.2
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
163
13.3
20-49
2.
285
J4.3
64.8
23.2
46
41.4
10.5
3.7
s-~
96
41.0
-------
TABLE 29. ALLOCATION OF MONEY TO RECREATION BY AREA
INEWREC
COUNT
ROW %
COL X
TOTAL x
i,
CENTER CITY
3,
SUBURBAN
4,
ftUHAL
6,
7,
COLUMN
TOTA:,
0
0.
248
29.6
74.0
20.2
24
21.6
7.2
2.0
49
20.9
14.6
4.0
12
25.0
3.6
1.0
2
100.0
0.6
a. 2
335
27.3
1-19
1,
102
12.3
72.3
• 8,3
9
8.1
6.4
0.7
28
12.0
19.9
2.3
?
4.2
1.4
0.2
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
141
11.5
20-49
2.
263
31.6
61.3
tl.4
57
51.4
13.3
4.6
94
40.2
21.9
7.7
15
31.3
3.5
1.2
0
0.0
2.0
0.0
429
35.0
50 +
\i •
219
26.3
68.0
17.6
21
18.9
6.5
1.7
63
26.9
19.6
5.1
19
39.6
5.9
1.5
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
322
26.2
PC*
TOTAi.
832
67.8
111
9.i
234
15,1
4«
3,9
2
z.y
1227
102. B
CHI SQUARE »
34.70516 WITH 12 DECREES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0005
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS
142
-------
TABLE 30. KNOWLEDGE OF GOVERNMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES BY AREA
COUNT
ROW x
COL X
TOTAL x
1.
YES-IDENTIFY
2,
YEb-CAN'T [0
i.
NO
4.
NOT SURE
7,
V,
NO RESPONSE
COLUMV
TOTAu
CLNTEfc C SUHUR8/.N
1TY
1. I -i.
2U6 : 23
69.6 : 9.5
24.6 : 25.2
16.8 : 2.3
24; : 35
6B.3 : 9.9
2«. 1 : 31.5
19.7 : 2.9
317 : 44
67,« : 7.2
3».2 : 3d, 6
2P.v : 2.<»
56 ! IS
6W.9 : 14.1
e.8 : 11.7
1.6 : i.l
1 : u
134. b : Z.a
•i.i •• a. a
tf.l : u.a
6 : 1
66. 7 : b.i
1.0 : «).»
«i.7 : u.l
d29 111
67.7 9.1
RJKAL
4 .
49
16.6
tia.9
4.12
62
i7.6
i6.5
5.1
V7
20.6
41.5
7.9
23
tS.tf
9. a
1.9
0
0.0
B.0
k).2
3
<;5.0
1.3
0.2
2)4
19.1
0.
13
4.4
27.1
1.1
15
4.2
31.3
1 .2
2d
4.3
41.7
1 .6
k)
2. a
0.D
a.e
K)
s.e
.: .e
^.a
j
tl.B
i'.lL
o.«;
48
3.9
7.
£
?.«'
C.-
C.-'
t.
1 ,~
e..
? . ••
£
e.-
lk)-!.i-
C • £
•^.'
e. .
e.-.
v . t.
V . .
?.•
». . '
v . .
/ .
^
1 ,<
ROn
TOTAL
296
24.2
353
2:1.8
4/a
38.4
V2
;.s
i
u. 1
12
l.t)
1224
l2
-------
TABLE 31. KNOWLEDGE OF CIVIC ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES BY AREA
CIVIC
COUIVT
ROW %
CDL *
T074L *
0.
L ,
TV
3
4 .
COLUMN
TOTAL
)ES-IO
1 .
4 4
31.4
10.5
3.3
281
33.9
67.2
21.4
30
27 . 0
7 .2
2.3
63
26.9
15.1
4. .8
418
31 .8
YES-c^rv1
T ID
2.
20
20.7
7 .6
2.2
233
28,1
60.8
17.7
43
38.7
I'. ,2
3.3
7&
33.3
20.4
5,0
383
29.1
NO
3.
59
42 . 1
15.2
4.5
237
28.6
61 .1
13.0
;>„
21.6
6.2
1 . 8
68
29.1
17.5
5.2
388
29.5
N/OT SUtff
"•
7
5.0
6.2
0.5
73
8.8
e>4 ,6
5 .6
14
12.6
12."
t . V
19
8 . 1
16 . a
1 .4
1 13
8 .6
MQ RtSPO
NSt
9. 1
1 1
0,7 1
8,3 :
0.1 1
5 i
0,6 :
41 , 7 }
0 ," I
0 1
0.0 I
0,0 1
0.0 i
6 :
2,6 !
50.0 1
0,5 ;
12
0.9
CHI
NUM&tR
= 35,71190 IV1TM 12 DECREES Of FREEDOM
Of MlSSiNf. OBSERVATIONS = 55
ROW
TOTAL
140
10,7
329
63.1
111
8. 4
234
17,8
1314
100.0
S/GNlfICANCC = 0,0000
-------
TABLE 32. MEMBERSHIP IN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP BY AREA
AREA
SUBURBAN
RURAL
COUNT
ROW %
COv. *
ToT/a %
8,
«U i
IY
3.
4,
COLUMN
TOTAL
YL$
1 .
15
' 10.7
11.5
1.1
82
9.9
63 . 1
6.2
15
13.5
11.2
-.1
18
7.7
13,8
1 .4
130
V.9
NC
^.
125
8?, 3
IB. 7
9 .5
736
88,9
62,8
56.1
96
86.5
3.2
7,3
215
91 ,9
18.3
16.4
117?
b9,3
NO RESPO
NSL
3,
0
(3.0
0.0
0.0
3
0.4
100.0
8.2
0
0.0
0 .0
0 .0
0
0.0
0.0
0 .2
3
Z.2
9, »
0 1
0.0 1
0,0
^ T
t • '
7
tf . fi
87.5
3.5
0
0 . 0
0 . !>,
0 .a
i
0.4 j
12.5 |
0.1 J
8
0.6
CH; SQUARE = 7.16933 WITH 9 DEGREES OF FREEDOM
OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS « 56
TOTftL
1-50
12.7
828
63,1
111
8,5
234
17,6
1213
SIGNIFICANCE:
0,6195
-------
TABLE 33- CONTACTS WITH PUBLIC OFFICIALS BY AREA
CONTOFF
COUNT
ROW
COL
TOTAL
AREA
CENTER CITY
SUBURBAN
RURAL
1,
3,
6,
7.
COLUMN
TOTAL
%
54
%
YtS-CALl
OFF
1.
81
9.8
71.7
6.6
12
10.8
12.6
1.0
17
7.3
15. to
1.4
3
6.3
2.7
0. 2
0
0.0
a .2
2.0
113
YESeWROT
E OFF
*•
48
5.8
64.9
3.9
8
7,2
10.8
0.7
18
7.7
24.3
1 . 5
0
0.0
0 . 0
0 . 0
0
0 . o
id, a
0.0
74
YES-VISI
T OFF
3 .
17
2.0
77.3
1.4
0
0.0
0. 0
0.0
4
1.7
18 .2
0.3
1
2.1
4.5
0.1
0
0.0
0 .0
0.0
22
YES -CAL
L NP
4.
5
0.6
83.3
0 .4
0
3.0
0.0
la.0
1
0.4
16.7
K.I
0
^ . 0
e .0
i?. .0
0
0.e
'4 . ft
'4 . 0
6
YES-WMOT \0
E. NP
5.1 7 .
6 i o60
e.7 i 79.5
60. £ 1 67.0
?.,5 i 53.9
2 : 99
1.8 : 80.2
22 .^ t 9.0
C.f I 7.3
2 : 190
e.v [ 81.2
22.'/' I 19.3
•2.5 : 15.5
< ! 44
Z.v,' 1 91.7
K.i. ! 4.5
e , * | 0.6
'- I 2
e ."• • 100 .0
?. .'<. ; a . 2
Z.(? I 0.2
I . vu5
8t
2
0.2
100.0
0.2
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0.0
U . 0
0.0
0
0.0
0 .0
J .0
0
0.0
4.0
.4.0
2
NO RESPO
NSE
9,
c~a ~
11
1.3
84.6
0.9
tf
0.0
J ,0
0.'3
2
0.9
15.4
0. 2
e
0 .0
kJ . (?
? . 0
J»
0.!?
It. 5)
a.e
e~3 H
13
9.2
6.0
1.8
•3.5
CHI SGIASE = 16.04867 WITH 28
NUMBEK OF MlsSlNS OBSERVATIONS «
s CF FREEDOM
1.1
ROW
TOTAL
830
67.8
111
9.1
234
19.1
48
3.9
2
.2
1225
144
-------
SECTION V
ETHNICITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Most existing knowledge concerning American attitudes toward the en-
vironment is based on surveys done of Anglo-Americans. One of the more in-
teresting facets of our study was the bi-ethnic nature of the inquiry. We
used both a Spanish and English survey instrument with approximately 18%
of the sample interviews conducted in Spanish.
The section examines the responses to the survey stratified in terms of
ethnic!ty.
When the respondents were asked to rank the public problems they consid-
ered most important, economic problems and crime/violence were ranked as the
most important. Anglos identified the state of the economy as most important
while Mexican-Americans rated crime and violence as most important (see Table
34). Concern for the environment and energy shortages were ranked low, sev-
enth and fifth respectively for Anglos and Mexican-Americans. With the excep-
tion of the slight reversal at the top from the two ethnic samples, the rank-
ings were very consistent as was the relative sallency of the issue areas.
For example, the number one rated problem scale score for Anglos is approxi-
mately b2% of the total possible score, while the scale scores for the Mexi-
can-American number one rated problem is approximately k^%. Here there is
virtually no difference in environmental concerns between the Anglo and Mexi-
can-American samples.
It is also important to know if different ethnic groups perceive the en-
vironment in different ways. We asked each respondent to tell us in their
own words what the word "environment" meant. There was no significant ethnic
difference in the way most respondents perceived the environment (see Table
35). Sixty-five and a half percent of the Anglos defined the environment in
both physical and social terms while 63-3% of the Mexican-Americans did so.
The only other significant bloc occured when almost one fourth of the Mexican-
Americans had no definition (this conceiveably may have resulted from a lang-
uage problem; there is not an exact Spanish translation for the term "environ-
ment") .
We were interested also in the perception that the respondents had con-
cerning the future of the environment. We asked our sample to rate the cur-
rent conditions of the environment on an ascending scale of 1 to 9. Then we
asked them to think about the environment five years from now and rate what
they thought it would be on the same scale. One to three would be below aver-
age, four through six average, and seven through nine, above average.
Our data indicates a significant relationship between the perception
-------
that respondents have of present and future environmental conditions and eth-
nicity. Table 36 shows that about twice as many Mexican-Americans as Anglos
believe the present environment is in below average condition. At the other
end of the scale, 57-7% of the Anglos believe environmental conditions are
above average, while less than a third of the Mexican-Americans perceive the
environment in such positive terms.
When we look at the perception respondents have of future environmental
conditions, again there is a significant relationship based on ethnicity.
The number of Mexican-Americans who see the future environment as below aver-
age have almost tripled as has the number of Anglos (see Table 37)- Anglos
continue to be m^re optimistic than Mexican-Americans (48.7% see future con-
ditions as above average while 36.3% of the Mexican-American respondents
agree), but the percentage has decreased from the perceptions of present en-
vironmental conditions.
Generally, then, Mexican-Americans perceive the environment to be in
worse shape than Anglos, both now and five years hence.
Anglos and Mexican-Americans differed also when identifying the major
contributors to the area's environmental problems. By far, the largest con-
tributor singled out was the category for "individuals." Thirty-five point
two percent of the Mexican-Americans and 34.4% of the Anglos identified indi-
viduals as the major source of environmental trouble (see Table 38). Govern-
ment and industry were seen as the next worse offenders with 11.11 and 18.1%
of the Anglo and Mexican-American respondents respectively identifying govern-
ment and 12.9% and 8.7% identifying industry. Anglos also viewed traffic as a
more serious contributor than Mexican-Americans.
One of the most important questions asked by the survey concerns the
amount of money respondents are willing to spend on specific areas of en-
vironmental improvement. We gave each respondent a hypothetical $100 and
asked how they would divide the money between five general environmental
areas; auto exhaust pollution, water pollution, noise, waste disposal and
recreational facilities. We placed respondent allocations into four cate-
gories: $0, $1-19, $20-49, and $50 plus.
Tables 39 through 43 include our findings in this area. We find no
significant relationship between allocation of money and ethnicity in the
problem areas of auto exhaust (39), noise (41), and trash (42). We do find a
significant relationship when we look at water pollution (40) and develop-
ment of recreational areas (43). Almost 20% of the Anglo respondents would
be willing to allocate $50 or more to the problem of water pollution while
13.6% of the Mexican-Americans would do likewise. Over one-third of each
group would spend nothing. Recreation appears to invite more participation
than any other area. Only 23-2% of the Mexican-American respondents and
31.2% of the Anglo respondents (the lowest figures for any of the five prob-
lem areas) would contribute nothing to this issue. Mexican-American respond-
ents are willing to allocate larger portions of their $100 than Anglos, but
here,' too, Anglos are willing to contribute more than to the other areas.
Both groups seemed least concerned with the issue of noise.
We asked the respondents if they believed American's life style was
contributing to our environmental problems. We found a significant, though
slight, difference based on ethnicity. Table 44 shows that 69.6% of the
49
-------
Anglo respondents said yes and 64.2% of the Mexican-American respondents said
yes. This seems to support the data displayed in Table 38 (see above, p. 49)
where individuals, rather than institutions, were singled out as contributing
to much of our environmental difficulties.
In the general area of citizen knowledge and activism concerning the en-
vironment we again found significant relationships based on ethnicity. We tri-
ed first to ascertain the state of familiarity the respondents had with the
various public and private organizations that address environmental concerns.
We asked if they knew of government organizations relating to the en-
vironment. Table 45 indicates that 39-2% of the Anglos responding did know
of environment-oriented organizations as contrasted with 40% of the Mexican-
American respondents. The number of respondents, however, who actually could
identify the organizations was very low. Eighty-six Anglos identified the
EPA while only four Mexican-Americans cited the agency. A local public ser-
vice organization, COPS (Community Organized for Public Service, a group
organized around Alinsky principles) had the widest recognition with 88 An-
glos and 43 Mexican-Americans naming them.
When we asked about knowledge of local civic organizations with environ-
mental concerns, the differences based on ethnicity were not as marked as
with the knowledge of government organizations. Table 46 shows that 63-8%
of the Anglo respondents and 54.7% of the Mexican American respondents were
aware of such organizations. Again, the number of respondents who could
identify specifically the organization was very small. Thirty-eight Anglos
identified both COPS and the San Antonio Conservation Society; twenty-eight
Mexican-Americans cited COPS.
We asked if respondents were members of these organizations. Only 11.7%
of the Anglo respondents and 6.3% of the Mexican-American respondents held
membership in an organization with environmental concerns (see Table 47).
In other words about twice as many Anglos as Mexican-Americans belong to an
organization which addresses environmental problems, but an overwhelming
number of each group belongs to no such organization. Of these respondents
who did belong tb organizations, 14 Anglos were members of the SA Conserva-
tion Society and 10 Mexican-Americans were members of COPS.
Membership is, of course, only one measure of citizen activism. One of
the most common ways people get involved in government is by contacting public
officials or the media to offer viewpoints concerning public problems. Table
48 indicates that there is a significant relationship between ethnicity and
respondents who contact public officials and the media. Eighty-five point
seven percent of the Mexican-American respondents had made no such contact as
contrasted with 77.6% of the Anglo respondents. Of those respondents that had
made some contact, 9.8% of the Anglos and 7-7% of the Mexican-Americans did
so by phoning a public official. Six point six percent of the Anglos had
written public officials, but only 3-7% of the Mexican-Americans had done so.
Finally, we asked respondents if they had ever attended a meeting or
rally which focused on environmental problems. There was no significant re-
lationship between attendance and ethnicity. Eighty-seven point two percent
of the Anglo respondents and 83-7% of the Mexican-American respondents had
never attended any meeting with an environmental orientation.
50
-------
TABLE 34. MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEMS BY ETHNIC GROUP
ETHNIC GROUP (Rank)
PROBLEM
State of the Economy
Crime and Violence
Unemployment
Drug Abuses
Energy Shortages
Governmental Corruption
Environmental Problems
Racial Relations
Anglo
(N=548)
1156
1088
734
502
500
476
216
148
(D
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Mexi can-Amer ican
(N=385)
581
864
696
481
372
263
104
75
(3)
(1)
(2)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Scale Scores were controlled on a 5-3-1 basis: 5 points for most
important; 3, second most important; 1, third most important.
-------
TABLE 35. DEFINITION OF ENVIRONMENT BY ETHNICITY
DEFINITION
Physical
Characteristics
Neighborhood
Character ist fcs
Social
Characteristics
Physical 6 Social
Characteristics
Times We Live In
No Idea
Anglo
73 (16.6)
25 (5.7)
31 (7.0
262 (59-7)
9 (2.1)
39 (8.9)
ETHNICITY
Mexican-Ameri can
39 (7-9)
33 (6.7)
56 (11. M
231 (47.0)
6 (1.2)
125 (25.5)
TOTAL ^39 490
-------
TABLE 36- PERCEPTION OF PRESENT ENVIRONMENT BY ETHNICITY
ENVNOH
ETHNIC
ANGLO
COUNT
ROW x
COL x
TOTAL x
i.
2,
CAN
COLUMN
TOTAL
POOR
*
1.1
21.1
0.7
30
7.0
7«.9
2.5
38
3.2
2,
2
0.3
20.0
0.2
*
1.9
60.0
0,7
1~
0.8
3.
42
5.6
67.7
3.6
20
4.7
32.3
1.7
62
5.2
4.
60
a .0
66 .7
5.1
30
7 .0
33 .3
2.5
90
7 .6
5.
140
18.6
54,5
11,8
11?
27,3
45.5
9.9
257
21.7
6.
112
14.9
64.7
9.5
61
14.2
35.3
5.2
173
14.6
7,
142
18.6
67,9
12,0
67
15,6
32.1
5.7
209
17,7
8,
164
21.8
71.9
13.9
64
14 .9
28.1
5.4
228
19.3
EXCELLED
T
9.
84
11.1
72.4
7.1
32
7.5
27.6
2.7
116
9.8
HOW
TOTAL
754
63.7
429
36.3
1183
1130.0
CHI SQUARE »
60.6088V WITH 8 DEGREES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0000
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS «
186
-------
TABLE 37- PERCEPTION OF FUTURE ENVIRONMENT BY ETHNICITY
ETHNIC
ANGLO
HEX-AMERICAN
COUNT
ROM X
COL x
TOTAL x
1,
2,
CAN
COLUMN
TOTAL
ENV5F
POOR
l.: 2,
38 I 3T
5.6 : 5.6
40.4 I 50.0
3.7 1 3.7
56 : 31
15.4 ! 10.5
59.6 ! 50.0
5.4 1 3.7
94 7-5
9.0 7.3
3.
62
9.1
60.2
6.0
41
11.3
39.8
3.9
103
9.9
4.
56
8.3
69.1
5.4
25
6.9
30.9
2.4
81
7.8
5.
t)H
11.8
62.5
7.7
48
13.2
37.5
4.6
126
12.3
6.
74
10.9
76.3
7.1
23
6.3
23.7
2.2
97
9.3
7,
94
13.9
70,7
9. 2
39
10,7
29.3
3.7
133
12.8
8,
146
21.5
74.9
14.0
49
13.5
25.1
4.7
195
18.7
EXCELLEN
T
9.
90
13.3
67.2
a. 6
44
12.1
32.8
4.2
134
12.9
HOW
TOTAL
678
65.1
363
34.9
1041
140.0
CHI SQUARE • 50.50067 WITH 8 DEGREES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE - 0.0000
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS
328
-------
TABLE 38. CONTRIBUTORS TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS BY ETHNICITY
ANGLO
n{.*- >
-------
TABLE 39. ALLOCATION OF MONEY TO AUTO EXHAUST BY ETHNICITY
AUTOEX
ETHNIC
ANGLO
COUNT
ROW %
COL X
TOTAL x
i,
2,
CAN
COLUMN
TOTAL
i
t>
386
44.2
64.5
28.3
214
43.6
35.5
15.6
602
44.0
1-19
1 1
96
10.9
58.9
7.0
67
13.6
41.1
4.9
163
11.9
20-49
2 ,
274
31.2
63.3
20.0
159
32.4
.66.7
11.6
433
31.6
50 +
3.
120
13.7
70.2
d.8
51
10.4
29.8
3.7
171
12.5
RCW
TOTAL
876
64.1
491
35.9
126V
I0e.*>
CHI SQUARE >
4.82172 WITH 3 DECREES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE = 0.1853
-------
TABLE 40. ALLOCATION OF MONEY TO WATER POLLUTION BY ETHNICITY
ETHNIC
ANGLO
MEX-AMER
CHJ SQUARE
COUNT
Row %
COL X
TOTAL x
1,
2.
CAN
COLUMN
TOTAL
« 10. <
CNTH20
0
0.
310
35.3
62.8
22.6
184
37.5
37.2
13.4
1-19
1.
72
8.2
55.8
5.3
57
11.6
44.2
4.2
2-2-49
2 ,
324
06.9
63.9
i:3.7
133
37.3
36. 1
13.4
50*
3.
172
19.6
72.0
12.6
67
13.6
2S.0
4.9
TOTA,.
87d
61 . 1
491
T= ^
J ^ \ '
494 129 507 239 12o
-------
TABLE 41. ALLOCATION OF MONEY TO NOISE POLLUTION BY ETHNICITY
fWOISE
vn
CO
ETHNIC
ANGLO
COUNT
ROW
COL
TOTAL
«-»s"
1,
HEX-AMERICAN
2,
COLUMN
TOTAL
X
X
X
0
0.
540
61.5
66.9
39.4
267
54.4
33.1
19.5
807
58.9
1-19
1,
19.1
61.8
12.3
104
21,2
38.2
7.6
27?
19.9
20-49
2.
144
16.4
58.1
10.5
104
21.2
41.9
7.6
248
18.1
50 +
3.
26
3.0
61.9
1.9
16
3.3
38.1
1.2
42
3.1
CHI SQUARE «
7.43B7B WITH 3 OE.G*EeS OF FREEDOM
TOTAL
878
64.1
491
35. S
1369
0e.c
SIGNIFICANCE
0.0592
-------
TABLE k2. ALLOCATION OF MONEY TO TRASH POLLUTION BY ETHNICITY
r TUNJ T r
c. i n ix i u.
ANGLO
MEX-AMER
CHI SQUARE
TSH
COUNT
ROW X
COL X
TOTAL %
i.
2i
ICAN
0 1-19 20-49 50* RCH
TOTAL
0.
350
39.9
66.1
25.6
le>4
3^.4
31.9
12.0
1.
1H6
12.1
60.6
7.7
09
14 . 1
39.4
5.0
2.
382
34 . 4
62 . 4
132
37.1
37.6
13.3
3.
120
13.7
61 .2
8,8
76
15,5
38.8
5.6
87fc
64 ,i
49i
T C Q
O , , '
COLUMN 5i4 i?3 4»4 i9& i36>
TOTAL 37.5 12.8 .55.4 14.3 10e.t>
s 5.82537 WITH 3 DEGREES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE
0.1204
-------
TABLE k3. ALLOCATION OF MONEY TO RECREATION BY ETHNICITY
1HEKREC
ON
O
ETHNIC
ANGLO
COUNT
ROW X
COL X
TOTAL x
l.
2,
CAN
COLUMN
TOTAL
to.
274
31.2
70.6
20.0
114
23.2
29.4
8.3
388
28.3
1-19
: 1.
1 98
: 11.2
: 64.5
: 7.2
: 54
: 11.0
: 35.5
: 3.9
152
11.1
20-49
2.
236
o2 .6
61.8
<;0.9
177
36.0
38.2
12.9
4c>3
33.8
50*
i .
220
25.1
60.1
16.1
146
29.7
39.9
10.7
366
26.7
TOTAL
87t
64 .1
491
35.9
136-;
i0e.«s
CHI SQUARE
10.8iJ179 WITH 3 DEGREES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0129
-------
TABLE kk. LIFE STYLES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS BY ETHNICITY
ETHNIC
ANGLO
COU,\|T
flow %
COL >.
TOUt X
J. *
2,
C4N
—
COLUMN
TCTtL
YtS
1 .
608
60 . 6
65.9
4 4 . 6
3l4
64^
34.;
?,3,0
922
67.6
NO
2,
128
14.6
57,1
9 , 4
96
19,6
42,9
7,0
224
16,4
80TM
3 t
66
7.6
75.9
4.8
21
4.3
24.1
1,5
87
6. 4
4,
0
0.0
3,0
0 . 0
2
2 .«
100,0
a , i
2
0. 1
MO RESPO
NSC
5 I 9t
2 I 72
3.0 I 8.?
2, i3 ! 56,7
9, id : 5.3
1 : 55
0,2 ! 11.2
18)0,0 : 43,3 '
3,1 1 4,0 |
1 127
0,1 9.3
TOI
874
64,1
489
35,9
CHI SQUARE = 19.69344 WITH 5 DECREES OF FREEDOM S}GNIF1
NUMBER OF MlSSjNG OBSERVATIONS s 6
1363
0j
(3,0014
-------
TABLE kS. KNOWLEDGE OF GOVERNMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES BY ETHNICITY
KNGAGN
YES-tDENT
YES-CAN'T
NO
NOT SURE
NO RESPON
COUNT
ROM X
COL X
TOTAL x
i.
irv
2.
10
•
3.
4,
*
5,
7.
9.
SE
COLUMN
TOTAL
ETHNIC
ANGLO
1.
258
76.6
29.5
IB. 9
261
68.1
29.7
19. a
262
54.4
32.2
20.6
70
61.9
8.0
5.1
100.0
0.2
0.1
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
30.8
8. 5
0.3
MEX.AMER
ICAN
2.!
79
23.4
16.1
5.8
12?
31.9
24.9
8.9
23«
45.6
48.2
17.3
43
38,1
8.8
3.1
e-"-«-3
0
0.0
0,0
0.0
1
100.0
0.2
0.1
l-«*-a-s
9
69.2
1.8
0.7
876 490
64.1 35.9
ROM
TOTAL
337
24.7
382
28.0
518
37.9
113
a. 3
2
0.1
1
0.1
13
1.0
1366
1^0.0
CHI SQUARE » 55.76831 WITH 6 DECREES Of FREEDOM
NUMBER OF MIsSlNC OBSERVATIONS • 3
SIGNIFICANCE ' 0.0B00
-------
TABLE 46. KNOWLEDGE OF CIVIC ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES BY ETHNICITY
C 0 U N T
nQW X
COL *
T 0 ^ £ L */•
1 ,
ANGLO
2 ,
*e.x-ArtFRiCAN
COLUMN
rOTAL
civic
1
: rfc.s-1
i
!
: 35.
I 12 .
1 22 ,
: 11
l 24 .
J ?7.
: 8.
43
?1~
0
1 .
2
7
4
*
3
6
7
j
6
YES-
•T ID
?
23
6?
ie
i
30
37
10
3
29
CAN'
2.
46
, 1
,3
,e
49
,4
. 7
• 8
95
. 0
NO
24
27.
58.
17,
17
34,
41 .
12.
41
30.
3, 1
0
5
4
6
j_
9
6
5
1
1
NOT
3
63
rj
8
36
3
i
8
SURE
4,
72
,?
.2
,3
4 ?
,6
.8
,1
1 ^
. 4
WO R£
NS£
a,
30,
0,
1 ,
69,
4
A
1 ,
SPO
9, :
4
5
8
3
9
6
2
7
3
£
ROrf
TOTAL
374
64.1
490
35.9
1364
100.0
CHI SQUARE a 25.56741 nJTM
NUMBER OP MISSING JdSERVAT IONS =
ES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE *
-------
TABLE 47- MEMBERSHIP IN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP BY ETHNICITY
ANGLO
COUNT
COL %
TOTAL %
1 1
2,
CAN
COLUMN
TOTAw
YLb
1 .
102
11.7
75.0
7.5
^4
o. V
2!? . 0
2.5
136
10.0
NO
^ i
764
87.6
62 , d
56.1
452
92.1
37.2
33.2
1216
89.2
NO RE.SPO
>ISE
3.
3
0.0
0 . $
tt.0
3
lo . 6
l*y 0 . 0
0.2
3
0.2
v .
6
0.7
75.0
0.4
2
0.4
25.0
f-.l
a
0.6
TOTAL
64 ,
36 ,
CHI SQUARE: * 13.61540 WITH 3
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS •
OF FKEEDOM SIGNIFICANCE =
-------
TABLE A8. CONTACTS WITH PUBLIC OFFICIALS BY ETHNICITY
ON
v_n
ETHNIC
ANG-.C
COUNT
ROW %
COL *
TOTAL %
l,
2,
CAN
COLUMM
TOTAL
YES-CALL
OFF
1 .
86
9.6
6V. 4
6.3
i8
7.7
3*.6
2.8
124
9.1
YES«rtRCT
£ OFF
<: ,
58
6.6
76.3
4.2
16
3.7
23.7
1.3
76
5.6
YLS-V1SI
T OFF
3 .
22
2.5
78.6
1.6
6
1.2
ti.4
0.4
28
2.0
YES -CAL
L HP
4 .
2
2.2
28.6
0 . 1
5
1 .0
71.4
0 .4
7
e.5
YES-*"UT >jO
£ NF
5.1 7.
lc l 6bt)
1.1 1 77.6
iBe.e l 61.6
2.7 ! 49.7
< : 4ii
2 .^ ! 85.7
C .; : 3d. 2
2 , / 1 3ti .8
i- 11/11
2.7 aa.5
8,
2
19.2
1550,0
d.l
M
3.0
fc . H
O.k3
2
0.1
NO HESPO
NS£
9.
--» •
16
± . d
84.2
1.2
3
0.6
15.3
r> n
t/ . (T
--» - -e
1«
1 . 4
POW
TOTAL
676
64.1
491
^5.9
1367
Itoe.V
CHI SOLARt r 25.4VJ63 WITH 7 QLCREEa UF
NUMBER OF NISSING OBSERVATIONS * 2
n3.100k;6
-------
SECTION 6
SES
We are interested in learning if a person's economic and educational
status (SES) affects their perception of and responses to environmental
problems. We might hypothesize, for example, that affluence and education
will bear a direct relationship to one's ranking of environmental problems.
That is, the higher one's income and more extensive one's education, the
more likely one is to be aware of environmental problems. Or, one might
suggest that individuals residing in deteriorating environments (i.e., low
SES respondents) are more likely to be aware of environmental problems than
those residing in a healthy environment. Note the potential conflict between
these two assertions.
This section reports on the effect of SES on environmental attitudes.
We have divided SES into three categories: low, medium, and high. Low SES
represents an annual income of less than $5000 and less than high school edu-
cational level. Middle SES includes an income of $6000 through $15,000 and
an educational level of high school. High SES stands for an income of above
$15,000 and an educational level of college.
Do respondents at different SES levels differ in their perception of
which public problems are most important? Table ^9 indicates a relationship
between SES and the ranking of public problems. Low SES respondents were
concerned with economic issues (29.6%) and crime (17.5%). Middle SES respond-
ents also focused on the economy (27-0%) and crime (17-3%). Upper SES re-
spondents also cited the economy (29.8%), but were more concerned with "ref-
use" (11.1%) than with crime (10.6%). Upper SES respondents also saw govern-
ment as an important problem (8.7%) while middle SES (*».!%) and lower SES
(1.8%) respondents were less concerned.
The perception of the environment as our number one problem bore a direct
relationship to SES. The higher the SES, the greater the concern with the
environment. Two point seven percent of the lower SES respondents named the
environment, as did k.3% of the middle SES respondents and 6.6% of the upper
SES respondents.
If we include "refuse" and "energy crisis" as environmental categories,
there is a significant upswing in response. Seventeen point five percent of
the low SES respondents, 22% of the middle SES respondents and 23.8% of the
upper SES respondents then identify this general environmental category as
our major problem.
66
-------
When asked for a definition of "environment," we find that all three
levels agreed to define "environment" in both physical and social terms (see
Table 50). Sixty-nine point one percent of the middle level, 60.9% of the
upper SES and 55-8% of the lower SES respondents defined "environment" this
way. Over one-fourth (26.1%) of the higher SES respondents viewed the en-
vironment primarily in physical terms while almost a fifth (19.4%) of the
lower SES respondents saw the environment in primarily social terms. There
was a significant relationship between SES and response.
Does SES have an effect on the way respondents view today's environmental
conditions and the way they anticipate conditions will be in the future? We
did find a relationship between responses and SES. Table 51 displays data
concerning present environmental conditions. Upper SES respondents believe
today's environment is in better condition than respondents from either other
SES level. Fifty-seven point one percent of the upper level respondents de-
clared today's environment to be above average; 35-9% believed it was average
and only 1% believed it below average. This is compared to 45-6%, 46%, and
8.4% for middle SES respondents and 36.3%, 50%, and 13-73; for lower SES re-
spondents. In other words, the higher one's SES level the more positive one
views the environmental conditions.
When we look five years into the future, the relationship between SES
levels becomes less ordered (see Table 52). More upper SES respondents still
view future conditions as average or above average than any other SES group,
but now more middle SES respondents (48.3%) believe the future environment
will be above average than do upper SES respondents (45-4%). Lower SES re-
spondents are still the most pessimistic about environmental conditions with
over one-third (34-3%) identifying future environmental conditions as below
average. Note, however, that the percentage of upper and middle level re-
spondents who believe that future environmental conditions will be below av-
erage have tripled.
We asked respondents to identify the major contributors to environmental
problems; there was again a relationship between SES and responses. Table 53
indicates that 60% of the higher SES respondents, 42% of the lower SES re-
spondents and 40.9% of the middle SES respondents believe that "individuals"
contribute mostly to our environmental conditions. The only other category
to receive consistant though minor support was "government" with 22.3%, 13-6%,
and 13-3% of the lower, middle and upper class respondents respectively ident-
ifying it. Interestingly, industry, probably the most publicized polluter,
was identified by no higher SES respondent.
The respondents also were influenced by SES when asked if Americans'
life style contributes to our environmental problems. Eighty-one percent of
the higher SES respondents, 78.1% of the middle SES respondents and 67.0% of
the lower SES respondents said yes (see Table 54). This supports the data
found in Table 53 in that individuals, rather than institutions are perceived
to be the major contributors to environmental conditions.
Tables 55 through 59 identify the willingness of respondents to allo-
cate a specified sum of money ($100) to help resolve various environmental
problems. We divided responses into four categories: $0, $1-19, $20-49, and
67
-------
$50 plus. We found a significant relationship between SES and the willingness
to allocate money to the problem area of water pollution (see Table 56) and
recreational areas (Table 59)- There was no significant relationship between
SES and the allocation of money to auto exhaust problems (Table 55), noise
(Table 57), and trash and waste disposal (Table 58).
Upper SES respondents were more willing to allocate money to control
water pollution than either of the other SES groups. Twenty point six percent
of the higher SES would allocate $50 or more and 37% would appropriate between
$20 and $1*9. The middle level SES respondents were almost as concerned with
water problems. Nineteen percent would give $50 or more and 37-8%, $20-$'*9-
Only 11.6% would give nothing (as contrasted with 3*»-9% and 33-7% of the
middle and upper SES respondents respectively). Thus, the higher one's SES
level, the more willing one was to allocate money to water problems.
Middle SES respondents were more concerned than the other two levels
with recreational areas. Thirty-one point seven percent would allocate $50
or more and 75% would allocate at least $50 and 71%, at least $10. The upper
-SES respondents, perhaps because they had access to alternative recreational
outlets, were less willing to contribute money to this area with about a third
(32.*•%) refusing to allocate any money at all.
Public action on the environment may be directly related to the public's
knowledge of andparticipation in the various civic and governmental groups
concerned with the environment. We examined the affect of SES on citizen
knowledge and action.
When questioned about their awareness of government agencies or organi-
zations in the San Antonio area concerned with the environment, respondents
were influenced by SES. Table 60 indicates that over half of the lower SES
respondents (52.2%) know of no agency so involved while 61% of the middle
level respondents and 5^.1% of the upper level respondents were able to iden-
tify some organizations. In the latter two responses almost one-third of
the respondents were able to identify specifically which agency or organiza-
tion they knew. There was, however, no overall consensus relating to which
agencies or organizations could be identified. Only 9-8% of the middle level
respondents cited the EPA as an organization focusing on the environment
while 1.7% of the lower level and an astonishingly 0% of the upper level
respondents did so. Only one organization, COPS (a local organization which
has generated considerable publicity in San Antonio for its activities in
public affairs) was identified by more than 10% of the respondents at any
level (11.2% of the middle level respondents cited COPS).
The respondents knowledge of local citizen or civic groups was much
broader than their knowledge of government organizations. Forty-nine point
nine percent of the lower SES respondents, 67-2% of the middle level respond-
ents and 63.8% of the upper level respondents did have some knowledge of such
groups (see Table 61). There is a relationship here between SES and the
responses.
As with government organizations, the knowledge of such groups was quite
general with few respondents actually able to name a specific group. Nine
68
-------
point one percent of the upper level respondents were able to identify the
San Antonio Conservation Society, but no other group was identified by more
than 6% of any SES level of respondents.
No SES level contained a significant number of respondents who admitted
to holding membership in a group oriented toward environmental concerns.
Table 62 shows that 11.9% of the middle level respondents and 1.k% of the
lower level respondents said they were members of some organization concerned
with the environment. No upper level respondents held memberships. There
was no significant relationship based on SES.
When questioned about personal involvement in public issues relating to
the environment, respondents were affected by SES (see Table 63). Eighty-
seven point four percent of the lower SES respondents, 78.5% of the middle SES
respondents and 66.7% of the upper SES respondents had never contacted any
public official concerning environmental problems, but no other method of con-
tact wa§ utilized frequently by any SES level.
Table 6*4 contains the general patterns of public apathy by indicating
that very few respondents at any SES level had attended any meeting concerning
the environment. The middle and lower SES respondents were almost identical
in their responses with 13-5% and 13.**% respectively having attended some
meetings. No upper SES respondent had attended such a meeting. There was no
significant relationship based on SES.
These latter tables describe an overwhelmingly apathetic reaction to
environmental problems.
69
-------
TABLE
MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEMS BY SES
IMPTPBS1
•—i
o
SES
LOU
MIOOLE
HIGH
UNT
OW X
OL X
AL X
1,
2,
3,
UHN
TAl
CRIME
1.
58
17.5
31.0
4.7
69
17.3
47.6
7.3
40
10.6
21.4
3.3
187
15.3
ECONOMY
2,
98
29,6
28.0
8.0
139
27.0
39.7
11.3
113
29.8
32.3
9,2
350
28.6
ENERGY c
RISIS
3 •
15
4.5
20.0
1.2
37
7.2
49.3
3.0
23
6.1
3B.7
1.9
75
6.1
ENV PROB
S
4. :
9
2.7
15.3
0.7
25
4.9
42.4
2.0
25
6.6
42 .4
2.0
59
4.8
GOVT
5.
6
1.8
10,2
e.s
21
4.1
35. e
1.7
33
8.7
55. e
2.7
60
4.9
CORRUPTi
ON
6.
5
1.5
18.5
0.4
20
3.9
74.1
1.6
2
0.5
7.4
0.2
27
2.2
REFUSE
7,
34
10.3
26,8
2,8
51
9,9
40,2
4.2
42
11.1
33,1
3.4
127
10,4
NOT SURE
8,
71
21.5
35.5
5.8
79
15.3
39.5
6.4
50
13.2
25.0
4-l
200
16.3
NO RESPO
NSE
9.
35
10.6
25.0
2.9
54
10.5
38.6
4.4
51
13.5
36.4
4.2
140
11.4
ROW
TOTAL
331
27.0
515
42.0
379
30.9
1225
100.0
CHI SQUARE <
57.29786 WITH 16 DEGREES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0000
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS »
144
-------
TABLE 50. DEFINITION OF ENVIRONMENT BY SES
ENVPROB
COUNT
ROW X
COL X
TOTAL x
i,
LOU
2,
MIDDLE
7
HIGH
COLUMN
TOTAL
PHYSICAL INC NB C
CHAR HAR
1.1 2,
30 I 31
12.1 : 12.5
16.2 1 37,3
2.6 I 2,7
94 ! 2'
17,7 i 5.5
5k). 8 I 34.9
8.1 : 2.5
61 : 23
15.8 ! 6.0
33.0 1 27,7
5.2 ! 2,0
185 83
1&.9 ?.l
PRIMARIL
Y SOCIAL
3.
55
22.2
46.6
4 .7
40
7.5
33.9
3.4
23
6.0
19.5
2.0
118
10.1
PHYSICAL
AND
4.
128
51.6
17,0
11 .0
359
67.5
47.5
30.8
268
69.6
35.5
23.0
755
64.8
TIMES WE
LIVE IN
5.
4
1.6
16.7
e.3
10
1.9
41.7
B.9
2.6
41,7
e.9
24
2.1
ROW
TOTAL
248
21.3
532
45.7
385
33.0
1165
100.0
CHI SQUARE « 71.34H139 WITH 8 DEGREES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE = -0.0000
NUMBER Or MISSING OBSERVATIONS « 204
-------
TABLE 51. PERCEPTION OF PRESENT ENVIRONMENT BY SES
ENVNOH
SES
—i
N3
LOW
MIDDLE
HIGH
COUNT
ROW X
COL x
TOTAL x
i.
2 1
3,
COLUMN
TOTAL
POOR
1.
19
6.3
50.0
1.6
12
2.3
3;. 6
1,0
7
1.9
18.4
0.6
36
3.2
?,
2
a. 7
20.0
0.2
0
1.1
60.0
- 0.5
Z
0.6
20.0
2,2
10
0.8
3.
20
6.7
32.3
1.7
26
5.0
<»1.9
2.2
16
4.5
25.8
1.4
62
5.2
4.
16
5.3
17.8
1 .4
42
8.0
46.7
3.6
32
8 .9
35.6
2 .7
90
7.6
5.
64
26.0
32,7
7.1
130
24,8
58.6
11.0
43
12.0
16.7
3.6
257
21.7
6 ,
50
16.7
26.9
4.2
69
13.2
39.9
5.8
54
15.0
31.2
4.6
173
14.6
7 i ! 3 i
53 l 37
17,7 : 12.3
25.4 : 16.2
4.5 i 3.1
97 | 91
18,5 I 17.4
46.4 i 39.9
8.2 : 7.7
59 : 100
16.4 : 27.9
28,2 ! 43.?
5,3 I 8.5
209 228
17,7 19.3
EXCELLEN
T
9.
19
6.3
10.4
1.6-
51
9.7
44.0
4.3
46
12.8
39.7
3.9
116
9. a
KQW
TOTAL
300
i>5-4
524
44.3
359
30.3
11B3
100.0
CHI SQUARE « 72.72937 WITH 16 DEGREES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE - -0.0000
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS « 186
-------
TABLE 52. PERCEPTION OF FUTURE ENVIRONMENT BY SES
ENV5F
SES
LOU
MIDDLE
HIGH
COUNT
ROW x
COU X
TOTAL x
i.
2.
3.
COLUMN
TOTAL
POOH
1 . ; 2 ,
42 ! 19
16.3 1 7.4
44.7 : 25.0
4.0 : i,6
26 1 3"
5.7 ! 8.3
27.7 1 50.0
2.5 ! 3.7
26 l 1*
7.9 ! 5,8
27,7 : 25.0
2.5 : 1.8
94 7i
V.0 7.3
3.
27
10.5
26.2
2.6
46
10.1
44.7
4.4
30
9.1
*9. 1
2.9
103
9.9
4 .
18
7.0
22.2
1. 7
37
8.1
45.7
3. 6
26
7.9
32.1
2.5
81
7.8
5.
33
12.8
25.8
3.2
54
11.8
42.2
5.2
4i
12.5
32. V,
2 .5
128
12.3
6.
25
9.7
25.8
2.4
35
7.7
36.1
3.4
37
11.3
38.1
3.6
97
9.3
7 , t 8 ,
29 : 33
11.3 : 12. B
21.6 1 16. '
2.8 1 3.2
61 1 98
13.4 I 21.5
45.9 t 50.3
5.9 : 9,4
43 : 64
13.1 : 19.5
32.3 : 32.8
4.1 l 6.1
133 195
12.8 18.7
EXCELLEN
T
9.
31
12.1
23.1
3.0
61
13.4
45.5
5.9
42
12.8
31.3
4.0
134
12.9
HOW
TOTAL
257
24.7
456
43.8
328
-51.5
1041
1U0.0
CHI SQUARE •
33.94043 WITH 16 DECREES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE - 2.0055
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS •
326
-------
TABLE 53. CONTRIBUTORS TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS BY SES
MSTCONT
SES
LOU
MIDDLE
HIGH
COUNT
ROW X
COL X
TOTAL x
i,
2.
3 i
COLUMN
TOTAL
INDUSTRY INDIVIDU
ALS
1.: 2,
21 1 102
5.8 ! 28.3
14.5 ! 23,0
1.6 : 8.0
69 1 216
12.8 : 40,1
47.6 I 48.8
5.4 ! 16.9
55 I 125
14.6 I 33.1
37.9 1 28.2
4.3 1 9.8
145 443
11.4 34.7
GOVT
3.
59
16.4
33.7
4.6
74
13.7
42.3
5.8
42
11.1
24.0
3.3
175
13.7
TRAFFIC
4 .
19
5.3
17.3
1.5
42
7.8
38.2
3.3
49
13.0
44.5
3.8
110
8.6
NONE
5.
14
3.9
31,1
1.1
21
3.9.
46.7
1.6
10
2.6
22.2
e,8
45
3,5
DRUGS
6.
11
3.1
32.4
0.9
13
2.4
38.2
1.0
Id
2.6
29.4
0.8
34
2.7
CORRUPTI TOO MANY
ON ANIMALS
7i I 8,
8 : 4
2.2 I 1.1
53,3 I 50.0
0,6 I 0.3
5 I 2
0,9 i 0.4
33,3 : 25.0
0,4 : 0.2
2 i 2
0,5 : 0.5
13.3 i 25.0
0.2 : 0.2
15 8
1,2 0.6
NO RESPO
NSE
9.
122
33.9
40.4
9.6
97
18.0
32.1
7.6
83
22.0
27.5
6.5
302
23.6
HOW
TOTAL
360
28.2
539
42.2
3/8
29.6
1277
100.0
CHI SQUARE • 72.33075 WITH 16 DEGREES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE = -0.0000
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS « 92
-------
TABLE 54. LIFE STYLES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS BY SES
LlVECNT
SES
LOW
MIDDLE
HIGH
COUNT
ROW y,
COL X
TOTAL x
i,
2,
3,
COLUMN
TOTAL
YES NO
1.1 2,
209 ! 92
56.2 : 24^7
22.7 : 41,1
15.3 i 6.7
420 ! 89
72.2 I 15.3
4t>.6 ! 39.7
30.8 ! 6.5
293 ! 43
71.6 ! 10.5
31.8 ! 19.2
21.5 1 3.2
922 224
67.6 16.4
BOTH
3.
19
5.1
21.8
1.4
32
5.5
36.8
2.3
36
8.8
41.4
2.6
87
6.4
4 .
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
0.3
100.0
0.1
e
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
0.1
5.
V
e.e
e .2
i
2.2
i0e .0
e. i
e .0
2,0
e.0
i
e.i
NO RESPO
9.
52
14 . d
40.9
3.8
38
6.5
29.9
2.8
37
9.0
29.1
2.7
127
9.3
ROW
TOTAL
372
27.3
582
42,7
409
30,0
1363
100,0
CHI SQUARE » 57.71412 WITH 10 DEC°EES Of FREEDOM
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS • 6
SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0000
-------
TABLE 55- ALLOCATION OF MONEY TO AUTO EXHAUST BY SES
AOTOLX
SES
LOW
MIDDLE
HIGH
COUNT
ROW X
COL X
TOTAL x
i,
2i
3,
COLUMN
TOTAL
d
a.
161
4,5.3
26.7
11.8
266
4S.5
44.2
IV. 4
175
42.4
2V. 1
12.8
602
44.0
1-19
1,
48
12.*
29.4
3.5
63
ll.o
41.7
5.0
47
11.4
! 28.8
1 3.4
i63
11.9
2<)-49
2.
126
33.9
<;9.1
9.2
178
00.5
41.1
13.0
129
31.2
29.8
9.4
433
31.6
50 +
3.
37
9.9
21 .6
2.7
72
12.3
42.1
5.3
62
15.0
36.3
4.5
171
12.5
RCW
TOTAL
37?
27,2
5d«
42, V
4i3
32,2
1369
I0e.i5
CHI SQUARE •
5.94S83 WITH 6 DEGREES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE ~ 0.4239
-------
TABLE 56. ALLOCATION OF MONEY TO WATER POLLUTION BY SES
CNTH20
SES
LOU
MIDDLE
HIGH
COUNT
ROM %
COL x
TOTAL x
i.
2.
3,
COLUMN
TOTAL
a
0.
151
40.6
30.6
11.0
204
34.9
41.3
14.9
139
33.7
28.1
10.2
494
36.1
1-19
1,
45
12.1
34,9
3.3
43
8.2
37.2
3.5
36
6.7
27.9
2.6
129
9.4
20-49
2.
133
35.8
9!?
221
43.6
16.1
153
37.0
30.2
11.2
507
37.0
50 +
3.
43
11 .6
18.0
3.1
111
19.0
46.4
8.1
85
20.6
35.6
6.2
239
17.5
new
TOTAL
27 J
584
413
1369
CHI SQUARE • 17.71563 WITH 6 DEGREES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0070
-------
TABLE 57. ALLOCATION OF MONEY TO NOISE POLLUTION BY SES
RNOISE
CO
c re
bLd
LOW
COUNT
ROW X
COL X
TOTAL x
i.
MIDDLE
NIGH
2,
3,
COLUMN
TOTAL
X
X
v
*).
198
53.2
24.5
14.5
361
61. tf
44.7
26.4
248
60.0
30.7
ld.1
807
58.9
1-19
1.
77
20.7
28.3
108
18.5
39.7
7.9
21.1
32.0
6.4
27'
19.9
20-49
2.
36
,54.7
6.3
16.8
09.5
7.2
64
15.5
4.7
248
18.1
3.
11
3.0
26.2
81.8
17
2.9
40.5
1.2
14
3.4
33.3
1.0
42
3.1
CHI SQUARE •
11.42739 WITH 6 OLCSEES OF FREEDOM
Ken
37'.:
27.2
42.7
413
3e.2
136*
iXl.'i
SIGNIFICANCE
0.0760
-------
TABLE 58. ALLOCATION OF MONEY TO TRASH POLLUTION BY SES
SES
LOU
MIDDLE
HIGH
COUNT
ROH x
COL x
TOTAL x
i,
2l
3,
COLUMN
TOTAi.
TSH
0
0.
137
36.8
26.7
10.0
224
38.4
43.6
16, 4
153
37. Z
29.8
11.2
514
37.5
1-19
1,
53
14.2
30.3
3.9
60
10.3
34.3
4.4
62
15.0
35.4
4,5
175
12.8
20-49
2.
120
32.3
24.8
8.8
211
36. 1
43.6
15.4
153
37.0
31-6
11.2
484
05.4
50 +
3.
62
16.7
31.6
4.5
89
15.2
45.4
6.5
45
10.9
23.0
3.3
196
14.3
RCW
TOTAL
37>
27.2
58"
42.7
CHI SQUARE
11.88655 WITH
OF FREEDOM
3e.2
136V
I0e.z
SIGNIFICANCE
-------
TABLE 59. ALLOCATION OF MONEY TO RECREATION BY SES
INEWREC
oo
o
SES
LOh
COUNT
ROM
COL
TOTAL x
MIDDLE
HIGH
1.
2,
3,
COLUMN
TOTAL
X .
%
X
0
0.
108
29.0
27.8
7.9
146
25.0
37.6
10.7
134
32.4
34.5
9.8
388
26.3
1-19
1 1
33
10.2
25. a
2.8
53
9.1
34.9
3.9
61
14.8
40.1
4.5
152
11.1
20-49
2 .
138
37.1
<:9.8
10.1
200
34.2
43.2
14.6
125
30.3
i7.0
9.1
463
33.8
50 +
3.
88
23.7
24. kl
6.4
185
31.7
50.5
13.5
93
22.5
25.4
6.8
366
26.7
TOTAL
27.2
413
32.2
1369
10e.0
CHI SQUARE
24.40435 WITH 6 OtGREES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0004
-------
TABLE 60. KNOWLEDGE OF GOVERNMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES BY SES
oo
SES
LOW
MIDDLE
HIGH
KNGAGN
COUNT
ROW X
COL X
TOTAL %
1 1
2,
3,
COLUMN
TOTAL
YES-IOEN YES-CAN1
TIFY T ID
1. : 2.
50 1 83
13.5 1 22.4
14.8 1 21.7
3.7 : 6,1
148 > 162
25.4 ! 27.8
43.9 ! 42.4
Id. 8 ! 11.9
139 : 137
33.7 : 33.2
41.2 : 35.9
10.2 i 10, a
337 382
24.7 28.0
NO
3.
198
53.5
38.2
14.5
219
37 .6
42.3
16.0
101
24 .5
19.5
7 ,4
518
37.9
NOT SURE
4 .
31
8.4
27.4
2.3
49
8.4
43.4
3.6
33
8.0
29.2
2.4
113
8.3
5.
0
e.e
e.e
e.K
•CB~"
a
e.0
e,e
e ,e
2
e.s
I0e.e
e.i
2
e,i
7.
0
0 .0
14. 0
0. 0
0
«).0
k).0
id. a
1
W.2
10(9.0
3.1
1
0.1
NO RESPO
NSE
V,
8
2.2
61,5
0.6
5
0.y
38.5
0.4
0
0,k)
0,0
0.0
13
1,0
ROW
TOTAL
370
27 .1
383
42.7
413
30.2
1366
100.0
CHI SQUARE « 100.51326 WITH 12 DECREES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE * 0.0000
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS •
-------
TABLE 61. KNOWLEDGE OF CIVIC ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES BY SES
CIVIC
OO
N>
COUNT
ROW X
COL X
TOTAL x
i,
LOW
2,
MIDDLE
3,
HIGH
COLUMN
TOTAL
YES-ID
1.
73
19.7
16.9
5.4
202
34.6
46.9
14.8
156
38.0
36.2
11.4
431
31.6
YES-CAN1
T ID
2,
101
27.3
25.6
7.4
157
26.9
39.7
11.5
137
33.3
34.7
10.0
395
29.0
NO
3 .
152
41.1
37.0
11.1
169
29.0
41.1
12.4
90
21.9
21.9
6.6
411
30.1
NOT SURE
4.
41
11. i
36.0
3.0
48
8.2
42.1
3". 5
25
6.1
21.9
1.8
114
8.4
NO RESPO
NSE
9.
2.8
23.1
e.2
7
1,2
53.8
e.5
3
23!l
e.2
13
1.0
ROM
TOTAL
370
27.1
583
42.7
411
30.1
1364
100.0
CHI SQUARE « 58.09601 WITH 8 DEGREES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE - 0.0000
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS • 5
-------
TABLE 62. MEMBERSHIP IN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP BY SES
oo
SES
LOU
MIDDLE
HIGH
COUNT
ROW X
COL X
TOTAL x
i .
2 ,
3 i
COLUMN
TOTAL
MEMORG
YES
1.
23
6.2
16.9
1.7
63
10.8
46.3
4.6
50
12.2
36.8
3.7
136
10.0
NO
2,
347
93.8
28,5
25,5
512
87.7
42.1
37.6
357
87.3
29.4
26.2
1216
89.2
NO RESPO
NS£
3.
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
0.3
66. 7
0.1
0.2
33.3
0.1
3
0.2
9.
0
0.0
0 . 0
0.0
1.2
87.5
0.5
0.2
12.5
0.1
8
0.6
RCW
TOTAL
37H
27.1
584
42.8
4C9
3Z.0
1363
100.0
CHJ SQUARE • 16.82733 WITH 6 DEGREES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE
NUMBER OF MISSIN5 OBSERVATIONS • 6
0.00V9
-------
TABLE 63. CONTACTS WITH PUBLIC OFFICIALS BY SES
CONTOFF
do
-c-
COUNT
ROW X
COL x
TOTAL x
i.
LOh
2,
MIDDLE
3,
HIGH
COLUMN
TOTAL
YES-CALL
OFF
1.
35
9.5
28.2
2.6
45
7.7
36.3
3.3
44
10.7
35.5
3.2
124
9.1
YES-WROT
£ OFF
2,
2
0.5
2.6
d.l
44
7.5
57.9
3.2
30
7.3
39.5
2.2
76
5.6
YES-VISI
T OFF
3.
4
1.1
14.3
0.3
11
1.9
39.3
0.8
13
3.1
46.4
1.0
28
2.0
YES -CAL
L NP
4.
1
0.3
14.3
0.1
6
1.0
85.7
0.4
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7
0.5
YES-WROT
E NP
5.
a
e.0
2.0
2.0
4
e.7
40.0
e.3
6
1.5
6e.B
0. t
10
e.7
NO
7.
325
87.8
29.5
23.8
467
80.0
42.4
34.2
309
74.8
28.1
22.6
1101
80.5
6,
2
0.5
100.0
0.1
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0.0
0.0
a.ki
2
0.1
NO RESPO
NSE
9,
1
0.3
5.3
0.1
7
1.2
36.8
0.5
11
2.7
57.9
0.8
19
1.4
ROW
TOTAL
37B
27.1
584
42.7
413
30.2
1367
100.0
CHI SQUARE • 58.70102 WITH 14 DEGREES OF FREEDOM
NUMBER OF MlsSlNG OBSERVATIONS • 2
SIGNIFICANCE 3 0.0000
-------
TABLE 64. ATTENDANCE AT ENVIRONMENTAL MEETINGS BY-SES
ATTMCET
oo
ui
SES
LOh
MIDDLE
HIGH
COUNT
ROW X
COL X
TOTAL x
i,
2,
3,
COLUMN
TOTAL
YES
1.
46
12.4
25.6
3.4
84
14.4
46.7
6.1
50
12.2
27.8
3.7
1819
1-J.2
NO
2.
324
87.1
27,6
23.7
492
84.4
41.9
36.0
353
87.1
34.5
26.2
1174
85,9
4.
0
0.0
0.0
a. a
i
0.2
iea.0
0.1
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
i
0.1
NO RESPO
NSE
9.
2
0.5
18.2
0.1
6
1 .0
54.5
0.4
3
0.7
27.3
0.2
11
0.8
RCH
TOTAL
372
27.2
583
42.7
411
3e .1
1366
i0e,0
CHI SQUARE « 3.52736 WITH 6 OECHEES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE = 0.7404
NUMBER OF MlsSlNG OBSERVATIONS • 3
-------
SECTION 7
MEDIA INFLUENCE
The people's perception of any public problem will be directly affected
by the sources from which information about the problems are derived. We
wanted to know which media sources respondents relied on and what amount of
trust they placed in the media. During the period in which the survey was
conducted, we monitored the San Antonio area media to identify any major
coverage of environmental conditions. No environmental issue emerged which
could be considered a story of major importance to the media. The media did
cover related stories (e.g., traffic problems, general energy issues, etc.),
and we attempted to ascertain if respondents were aware of this coverage.
This section addresses the influence of the media on respondents'
environmental attitudes.
We asked the respondents to identify the media sources from which they
derived information concerning national, state and local events. As noted
in Section 3 (see above, p. 7 ), television was the primary source for infor-
mation at all three levels with newspapers the most frequently cited secon-
dary source.
Tables 65, 66, and 6? show that area does not affect television's dom-
inance as the primary media source. Over half of the respondents living in
the center city, suburbs and rural areas gleaned most of their information
re national events from TV. Center city residents relied on TV the most;
of those 69-7? citing TV, most resided in the center city. This pattern
remained essentially the same when we looked at state and local problems.
When we control for ethnicity, we find that more Anglos than Mexican-
Americans rely on TV for information at the national and state levels, while
Mexican-Americans rely more on TV for information concerning local problems
(see Tables 68, 69, 70). At all three levels, the differences, though sig-
nificant by Chi Square, are slight. We find also that Mexican-Americans are
more likely than Anglos to utilize the radio as an informational source at
al1 three levels.
The single exception to television's number one position as a news source
is found when we control for SES. Focusing on national and state problems,
all three SES groups identify TV as their major news source (see Tables 71,
72, 73)- However, upper SES respondents said they used newspapers more than
television to garner news concerning local problems. We found also that
lower SES respondents utilize the radio much more than their counterparts
86
-------
at the other levels.
We asked the respondents to identify which source of information they
believed was most likely to give an unbiased and accurate report of news
events. Overall, *»2.5% of the respondents believed TV to be the most accur-
ate while 20.3% cited newspapers (and 14.5% said "none") (see above, Section
3, p. 8).
This trust in the probity of television existed regardless of where the
respondent lived. Table Ik shows that 45-1% of the rural respondents, ^3.1%
of the inner city respondents and 36.9% of the suburban respondents found TV
to be the most reliable source. These figures reflect, however, a large
amount of distrust in that no news source is believed by at least half of the
respondents to be accurate. Over one-fifth of the suburban respondents found
no news source reliable. Note, however, that ChiSquare indicates no signif-
icance when we control for area.
We do find significance where we control for ethnicity. Table 75 shows
that of those identifying television as the most trustworthy, 60.9% are Anglos
and 39-2, Mexican-Americans (although Mexican-Americans trust TV reporting
more than any other source). Anglos also are more suspicious of all forms of
reporting with 85.^% of those answering "none" while only lA.6% of the
Mexican-American respondents believed that no media source was accurate.
When we look at SES, again we find significant differences. Lower and
middle SES respondents identified TV as the most accurate news source, but
over one-third of the upper SES respondents said no news source was accurate
and another third identified newspapers as the most accurate source (see
Table 76). Only 12.5% of the upper respondents believed TV to be reliable
(this was less than \% of all respondents who identified TV).
Did the respondents recal1' read!ng or seeing or hearing stories concern-
ing the environment? We found that ^8.2% of the respondents recalled read-
ing an environmental story in a newspaper and ^5-5% had recently seen an
environmental story on television (see above Section 3, p. ?)•
Table 77 shows that of those that had recently read something concerning
the environment in the newspaper, most resided in the center city. At the
same time over half of the suburban residents recalled reading such a story
(as contrasted with 38.5% of those in the center city and 30% of those living
in rural areas). Note that 79-^% of the center city respondents, 93-6% of the
suburban residents and 69% of the rural residents take newspapers.
Suburban residents also recalled seeing more environmental reports on TV
than the other two areas (see Table 78). Over half of the rural residents
and half (^9-2%) of the center city did not recall seeing any story on tele-
vision relating to the environment.
Controlling for ethnicity, we find that 87-7% of the Anglos take a news-
paper as contrasted with 68.9% of the Mexican-Americans (see Table 79).
Fifty-five point one percent of the Anglos had recently read newspaper stories
concerning the environment while 36% of the Mexican-Americans had seen en-
87
-------
vironmental stories.
Almost half of each ethnic group recalled seeing television stories that
related to environmental conditions (see Table 80). Forty-six point seven
percent of the Anglo respondents and ^3-6% of the Mexican-American respondents
had viewed some television comment concerning the environment.
We controlled for SES and again found significant relationships. Ninety-
five point eighfl percent of the upper level SES respondents took newspapers,
89.3% of the middle SES respondents did likewise, while only 66.1\% of the
lower SES level respondents took a newspaper (see Table 81). We find signif-
icant differences between the SES level among those respondents who recalled
reading a newspaper story on the environment. Only 13.3% of the lower SES
had read such stories, contrasted with 58.3% and 56.6% of the upper and middle
level respondents respectively.
As might be expected, the awareness of television shows was distributed
somewhat more evenly (see Table 82). Here 39-9% of the lower SES respondents
recalled seeing an environmental story while 50% of the upper and middle lev-
el respondents had such recollection.
88
-------
TABLE 65. NATIONAL MEDIA USE BY AREA
NTLMEOIA
COUNT
ROW %
COL X
TOTAL x
i,
CENTER CITY
3,
SUBURBAN
A
RURAL
O i
7.
COLUMN
TOTAL
NEWSPAPE MAGAZINE
RS S
1. I 2.
161 1 3">
20.3 1 3, a
63.9 1 58.8
13.7 ! 2.6
27 : 11
24.3 1 9.9
IB. 7 : 21.6
2.3 : 0.9
50 : 6
22.0 ! 2.6
19.8 1 11.8
4.3 I 0.5
14 ! 4
31.8 t 9.1
5.6 : 7.8
1.2 ! 0.3
0 : *.
tf.0 i 0.0
0.0 i 0,0
0.0 1 0.0
252 51
21.4 4.3
RADIO
3.
50
6.3
55.6
4.3
2
1.8
2.2
0.2
34
15.0
37.8
2.9
4
9.1
4.4
0.3
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
90
7.7
TELEVISI
ON
4,
451
56.9
69.7
38.4
61
55.3
9.4
5.2
115
50.7
17.8
9.8
20
45.5
3.1
1.7
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
647
55.0
FRIENDS
5.
a
1.0
72.7
e.7
£
Z.-5
e.z
e.0
3
1.3
27.3
e,3
2
2 .0
e.e
2 , 0
2
e.0
0.13
e.0
11
B.9
OTHE*
6,
9
1.1
90.0
0.8
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.4
10.0
0.1
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10
0.9
RADIO AN
0 TV
7,
13
1.6
72,2
1.1
2
1.8
11.1
0.2
3
1.3
16.7
0.3
0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0
0.0
0,0
0.0
18
1.5
NEWSPAPE
R « TV
8'.
58
7.3
78.4
4.9
2
1.8
2.7
0.2
10
4.4
13.5
0.9
2
4 .5
2.7
0.2
2
100.0
2.7
0.2
74
6.3
NO RESPO
NSE
9.
12
1.5
52.2
1.0
6
5.4
26,1
0.5
5
2.2
21.7
0.4
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
a
0.0
0.0
0.0
23
2.0
HOW
TOTAL
7V2
67.3
111
9 .*
227
19.3
44
3.7
2
0.2
1176
100.0
CHI SQUARE » 90.22754 WITH 32 DECREES OF FREEDOM
NUMBER Or MISSING OBSERVATIONS « 193
SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0000
-------
TABLE 66. STATE MEDIA USE BY AREA
SMEOIA
AREA
RURAL
COUNT
f
-------
TABLE 67- LOCAL MEDIA USE BY AREA
AREA
CENTER CITY
RURAL
COUNT
ROW %
COL X
TOTAL x
0.
1,
TY
3,
4 ,
COLUMN
TOTAi.
NEWSPAPE
RS
1 .
38
27.5
la.ia
3.0
235
29.2
61.8
18.3
44
39.6
11.6
3.4
63
27.8
16.6
4 . 9
38k!
29.6
MAGA2lr»E
S
2,
2
1.4
25.0
0.2
6
2.7
75, a
0.5
a
0.0
a.0
3.0
0
2.0
k) . K)
0 . 0
d
0.6
RADIO
3.
15
10.9
10.3
1.2
64
u.0.4
^7.5
6.6
6
5.4
4.1
0.5
"1
18 . 1
28. 1
3.2
146
il.4
TELEVlbl
ON
4 .
57
41.3
1W . 1
4 .4
364
45.2
64.7
2H.4
49
44.1
8 . 7
3.6
93
«»1 .0
16.3
7.3
563
43.9
FRIENDS OTHER
5.1 6.
5 I 1
i , t : -a. "I
1 3 . > : 10.0
? . i : n.i
df. 1 6
2 . ; l a. 7
52. 6 i 60. e;
1,6 : d . 5
<:• i 2
Z.E 1 1.8
e . / i 2 id . to
£ , 2 I -i . 2
• ' i *
i ~ i *
5.7 | ,5.4
34.2 ! It. U
i . «; i ^ • i
36 13
3 .fc 0. 8
RADIO AN
0 TV
7 .
5
0.6
21.7
0.4
13
1 . 0
56.5
1.0
2
1.8
8. 7
2.2
3
1.3
13.0
vs. 2
23
1.8
NEWSPA^E NO RESPO
R & TV NSf
8.1 9.
12 1 3
8.7 1 2.2
13.5 1 12 .3
y .9 1 iJ .2
66 ! 12
b.2 ! 1.5
74.2 i 48. tf
5.1 1 i). V
2 ! 6
1.8 1 5.4
2.2 I ?4 . 0
0.2 ! k.5
y i 4
4 .6) 1 1.8
Ito.i : 16. to
\o .7 ; 0.3
39 25
6.9 2 . -2
HC
TUT
1
If
t
62
1
e
2
17
12
190
CHI SOUARE * 54,2,3238 WITH 24 QLGKEES iJF
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS • a/
SIGNIFICANCE =
-------
TABLE 68. NATIONAL MEDIA USE BY ETHNICITY
LTHNI'J
ANGLC
COUNT
ROW >•
COL %
TOTAL %
i,
2,
CAN
COLUMN
TOTAL
NtwSF'APE
r
-------
TABLE 63. STATE MEDIA USE BY ETHNICITY
]A
ETHNIC
AN6LO
COUNT
ROW *
COL ••
TOTAL X
1 ,
i,
CAN
_
COL UMN
TOTAL
N£W$PAPE
-s
i .
272
31 .8
b3.7
20.4
124
26.9
31.3
9.3
396
29.7
MAG/»Z INE
S
2.
10
1,2
0.8
18
2.)
50, e>
0.8
20
1 .5
f?AO [0
3.
50
5.8
41.3
3.8
n
14.9
58.7
5.3
121
9.1
TELEVISI
ON
4 ,
40?
47,0
64.3
30.2
223
46. a
J5.7
16.7
62*
46,9
FRIENDS QTHER
5,| 6,
10 I 6
1,2 I 0.7
66,7 t 50.0
0.8 t 0.5
5 : 6
1 .a : 1-3
33,3 i 50.0
0,4 | «. 5
15 12
1.1 a. 9
RADIO /IN NIUSP/»PE
0 TV ft i TV
7.1 6.
18 : 66
2,1 : 7.7
72,3 i 74,?
1,4 I 5.8
7 : 23
1.5 ! 4.8
28.0 t 25 , &
0,5 i 1.7
25 89
1.9 6.7
MO fiESPO
Nse
9 . !
22 :
2,6 I
73. J 1
1.7 I
8 (
v.7 :
26.7 I
0,6 I
30
-------
V,
» —
•*— \
TABLE 70. LOCAL MEDIA USE BY ETHNICITY
ETHNIC
AN6LQ
HEX-AMERICAN
ftow %
COL x
:oUt X
lt
2 ,
CAN
COLUMN
TOT»L
NCwSPaPE
P.S
l .
284
33 .3
'1.4
21 .3
114-
?3 .9
26. h
9.6
393
?9.9
MAGAZINE
s
2-
6
0,7
76,0
3.5
2
0 > 4
25,7
9.?
8
0.6
RADIO
3,
60
7.0
39.7
4.5
91
19.1
60. 3
0.3
151
11.3
T£LEVISI
ON
4 ,
}79
43,3
63.5
27.8
?13
4^.7
36.5
16.0
593
43.8
FRIENDS 0TME"
5,1 «..
22 : ^
2.6 s 0.7
57.9 i 60. a
1,7 t 0.5
16 : 4
3.4 : 0.9
42,1 1 4(5. *
1,2 | 0.3
38 18
2.9 0.8
RADIO 4N
D TV
7 ,
16
1.9
69,6
1.2
7
1,5
30, 4
0,5
23
1(7
NEWSPAPE
R 4 TV
8.
70
8.2
73.-?
5.3
25
?. 2
26,3
1 .9
95
7.1
NO BESPO
NSr
9.
2e
2.3
819.2
1.5
5
i .a
20.0
e . *
25
i.v
CHJ SQUARE. = 56.i64n WITH a ott«EES or FREEDOM SIGNITICAIUC? s 0,0a«0
NOMBtR OF nl£S|V6 08SEKVATIONS « 36
TOTAL
354
64.2
477
J5.8
180.0
-------
TABLE 71. NATIONAL MEDIA USE BY SES
NTLMEDIA
SES
LO*
COUNT
ROW X
COL x
TOTAL x
MIDDLE
HIGH
2,
3.
COLUMN
X
X
X
3
NEWSPAPE
R5
1.
70
19.4
24.6
5.3
120
21.5
42.3
V.I
94
23.7
33.1
7.1
284
21.6
MAGAZINE
S
2,
9
2,5
15,5
0.7
13
2.3
22.4
1.0
36
9.1
62,1
2.7
0----3-S
58
4.4
RADIO
3.
59
16.3
55.7
4.5
3----- —
28
5.0
26. 4
2.1
g __„
19
4.8
17.9
1.4
3-------
106
8.1
TELEVISI
ON
4 .
188
52.1
26.3
14.3
322
57.7
45.1
24.5
204
51.4
28.6
15.5
714
54.3
FRIENDS
5.
2
e.6
15.4
e.2
5
e.s
38.5
e .4
6
1.5
46.2
e,5
--S--
13
1 . K
OTHER
6.
5
1.4
50.0
0.4
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
1.3
50. 0
0.4
10
0.8
RADIO AN NEHSPAPE
0 TV R 4 TV
7 i ! 8 i
2 : 20
0.6 i 5,5
9,5 : 23.5
0.2 : 1.5
18 1 43
3.2 i 7.7
85.7 i 50.6
1.4 : 3.3
_----£.. -=- -e
1 ! 22
0.3 I 5.5
4.8 I 25.9
0.1 : 1.7
21 85
1,6 6.5
NO RESPO
NSE
9.
6
1.7
24.0
0.5
9
1.6
36.0
0.7
10
2.5
40.0
0.8
2&
1.9
CHI SQUARE » 103.19561 WITH 16 DEGREES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0000
NUMBER OF MISSING 09SERVATIONS » 53
ROW
TOTAL
361
27.4
42-4
397
30.2
1316
100.0
-------
TABLE 72. STATE MEDIA USE BY SES
SMED1A
VI3
cr>
SES
LOh
MIDDLE
HIGH
COUNT
ROW X
COL X
TOTAL x
i.
2,
3,
COLUMN
TOTAL
1
NEWSPAPE
RS
1.
84
23.2
21.2
6.3
166
29.4
41.9
12.5
146
35.9
36.9
11.0
396
29.7
MAGAilNE
S
2,
8__.-s-.
6
1.7
30.0
0.5
5
0.9
25.0
0.4
9
2.2
45.0
0.7
a-«--»-a
20
1.5
RADIO
*»
54
14.9
44.6
4.1
43
7.6
35.5
3.2
24
5.9
19.8
1.8
121
9.1
TELCVISI
ON
4.
180
49.7
28.8
13.5
268
47.5
42.9
20.1
177
43.5
28.3
13.3
625
46.9
FRIENUS
5.
6
1.7
4e .2
e.5
6
1.1
4g.e
e.s
3
e.7
2Z.0
e.2
15
1,1
OTHER
6,
4
1.1
33.3
0.3
4
a. 7
33.3
0.3
4
1.0
33.3
0.3
12
0.9
RADIO AN
0 TV
7 i
--. a
2
0,6
8,0
0.2
20
3,5
80.0
1.5
----e — e
3
0.7
12.0
0,2
— ._. — 8
25
1.9
MCHSPAPE
R « TV
8,
' ''"I "
5.0
20.2
l.« .
44
7.8
49.4
3.3
27
6.6
30.3
2.0
|.~£ -0
89
6.7
NO RESPO
NSF
9 .
8
2O
.2
26.7
0jt
. 6
8
4 A
1 .4
26.7
0. 6
14
3 A
.4
46.7
14 I
. 1 *
30
2^
.3
CHI SQUARE
57.76782 WITH 16 DECREES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0000
ROW
TOTAL
362
27-2
564
42.3
407
30.5
1333
100.0
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS •
36
-------
TABLE 73- LOCAL MEDIA USE BY SES
LMEDIA
SES
MIDDLE
HIGH
COUNT
ROW X
COL X
TOTAL x
i,
2,
3,
COLUMN
TOTAL
NEHSPAPE MAGA2INE
RS S
1. 1 2,
90 i 4
25.0 ! 1,1
22.6 1 50,0
6.8 ! 0.3
167 ! 0
29.5 ! 0.0
42.0 ! 0.0
12.5 1 0.0
141 ! 4
34.9 1 1.0
35.4 1 50.0
10.6 ! 0.3
398 6
29.9 0.6
RADIO
3.
75
20.8
49.7
5.6
52
9.2
34.4
3.9
24
5.9
15.9
1.8
a---
151
11.3
TELEVISI
ON
146
40.6
25.0
11.0
268
47.3
46.0
20.1
169
41.8
29.0
12.7
583
43.8
FRIENDS
5.
10
2.8
26,3
e.a
1.6
23.7
2.7
19
4.7
se.e
1.4
--S--
38
2.V
OTHER
6.
2
0.6
20.0
0.2
3
0.5
30.0
0.2
5
1.2
50.0
0.4
10
0.8
RADIO AN
0 TV
7,
1
0,3
4.3
0.1
15
2.6
65.2
1.1
7
1.7
30.4
0.5
23
1.7
NEWSPAPE
R 4 TV
8.
24
6.7
25.3
1.8
46
8.1
48.4
3.5
25
6.2
26.3
1.9
— -B *
95
7.1
NO RESPO
NSE
9.
8
2.2
32.0
0.6
7
1.2
28.0
B.5
10
2.5
40.0
0.8
25
l.«
ROW
TOTAL
360
27.0
567
42.6
404
100.0
CHI SQUARE •
77.02519 WITH 16 DECREES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE « 0.0000
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS •
38
-------
TABLE Ik. MEDIA ACCURACY BY AREA
AREA
oo
CEMER CITY
SUBURBAN
RURAL
COUMT
ROW >4
COL *
TOTAL *
0,
i,
TY
3,
4 ,
COLUMN
TOTA'.
NEWSPAPE
US
1.
29
20.4
10.6
2.2
177
21.3
63.8
13.4
16
16.2
6.7
1.4
45
19.3
16.7
0.4
265
2*1.4
MAGA2INE
S
2,
12
8.5
12.8
d.9
56
6.7
59.6
4.3
14
12.6
14.9
1.1
12
5.2
12. a
0 .9
94
7.1
RADIO
3.
14
9.9
10.1
1.1
04
10.1
00.9
6.4
10
9.0
7.2
0.8
,53
12.9
21.7
2.3
13fl
10.5
TV
55
38.7
9.8
4.2
358
43.1
64 .0
27.2
41
36.9
7.3
3.1
105
45.1
18.6
8.0
559
42.4
OTHEK NONE
5.1 6.
i : <:7
e,? i 19.0
5,6 I 14.0
2.1 : 2.1
!<• \ lid
1 .-4 1 14.2
66 ./ | 61.1
2 .S 1 9.0
? I 26
C.i : 23.4
e .(£ I lo.5
e , •«- t 2 . e
b : 22
2.1 ! V . 4
27,o 1 11.4
e . « i 1.7
If 193
1,4 14.7
NEwSPAPE
RSTV
7.
0
0.0
H9.0
0.0
i
0.2
66.7
0.2
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
id. 4
33.3
0.1
3
K>.2
NO RESPO
NSE
9.
4
2.8
9.3
0.3
24
2.9
55.8
1.8
s-e
2
1 .8
4.7
i3.2
= o ^-
13
5.6
30.2
1.0
43
3.3
ROW
TOTAL
142
10. 8
631
63.1
111
b.4
233
".1.1
1317
190.0
CHI SQLAKC » 32.41553 WITH 21 OtCREEb CF FHEEOOM SIGNIFICANCE =
Of MlsSlNS OBSERVATIONS s 52
-------
TABLE 75. MEDIA ACCURACY BY ETHNICITY
ACC1NFO
ETHNIC
ANGcC
HEX-AMERICAN
COUNT
ROW x
COL A
TOTAL "A
i,
2,
CAN
COLUMN
TOTAl.
.jEhlbKAPiL
rta
1.
176
2B.v5
63.3
12. V
102
2.5.9
36.7
7.5
270
2W.3
MAGA^JhiE
S
2,
72
e.2
74.2
5.3
25
5.X
25.8
1.8
97
7.1
MAC Jo
3.
76
8.7
3'i .8
5.6
68
13. 9
47.2
5.0
104
113.5
TV
4 .
354
4R . 3
6? .8
25.9
228
46 .6
39.2
16.7
582
42.6
jTHtrt -jONt
5,1 6.
IK ; 170
1.1 1 19.4
bZ.U i 8-3.4
e./ i 12.4
1 "i ! 2 y
2,^ : 5.9
5e.e i 14.6
e . 7 j 2.1
-------
TABLE 76. MEDIA ACCURACY BY SES
ACCINFO
SES
o
o
LOW
MIDDLE
HIGH
COUNT
Row x
COL x
TOTAL x
i.
2,
3 i
COLUMN
TOTAL
NEWSPAPE
RS
1.
79
21.2
28.4
5.8
125
21.5
45.3
9.1
74
17.9
26.6
5.4
<>78
2U.3
MAGAZINE
S
2.
13
3.5
13.4
1.0
35
6.0
36.1
2.6
49
11.9
50.5
3,6
97
7.1
RAO JO
3.
48
12.9
33.3
3.5
62
10.7
43.1
4.5
34
8.2
23.6
2.5
144
10.5
TV
4 .
176
47.3
30.2
12.9
271
46.6
46.6
19.8
135
32.7
23.2
9.9
582
42.6
OTHER
5.
6
1 .6
3e.e
e . 4
6
: .0
3e,u
e.«
a
1,»
«e.0
e.6
20
1,5
NONE
O ,
27
7.3
13.6
2.0
67
11.5
33.7
4.9
105
25.4
52.9
7.7
199
14.6
NEWSPAPE
RSTV
7,
3
0.8
100,0
0.2
0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0
0,0
0.0
0,0
3
0.2
NO RESPO
NSL
9.
2P
5.4
45.5
I-5
16
2.7
36.4
1.2
8
1.9
18.2
0.6
44
3.2
ROW
TOTAL
372
27.2
582
42.6
413
30.2
1367
100.0
CHI SQUARE • 108.55575 WITH 14 DEGREES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0000
NUMBER OF MJsSlNG OBSERVATIONS
-------
TABLE 77. READ ENVIRONMENTAL STORY BY AREA.
SUBURBAN'
RURAL
COUNT
ROu/ *
COL fc
TOTAL X
0,
V i
TV
3,
* ,
- i
CoUurN
TGTAU
PEA -YAK
£S PAPtfl
1.
77
54, <
14 .7
^>.0
32(2)
38.D
bl . 0
24.3
5g
52.3
11 .0
4. 4
70
32. B
13.3
5.3
i25
39.9
«LAD-DOE
SN ' T TAK
2,
37
28,3
2?. 9
5.1
f «£SF
9
0
0.0
0.0
0.13
16
1,«
76.2
1.2
0
0,0
0,«
0 .9
2.1
23,6
0,4
:12 427 Z32 21
8,5 32,4 17.6 1,6
,1
i
i
!
I
1
1
1
,
i
I
1
1
»0w
TOTAL
142
10.8
931
&3.1
111
8.4
233
17.7
1317
100,0
CHJ SQUARE. = is0. 74332 WITH i? DECREES or FREEDOM
NUMBER or HISSING OBSERVATIONS s «>2
0,0000
-------
TABLE 78. SAW TV ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT BY AREA
TVSTO
AREA
o
CENTER CITy
SUBURBAN
RURAL
COUNT
Row %
COL X
TOTAL %
0,
i,
TY
3,
4,
COLUMN
TOTAL
SAW STOR
Y
1.
61
43.0
10.1
4.6
,594
47.4
65.2
29.9
62
55.9
10.3
4.7
87
37,O
14.4
6.6
604
45.9
DIDN!T S
EE
£ i
67
47.2
10.3
5.1
409
49.2
62.7
31.1
38
34.2
5.8
2.9
138
59.2
21.2
10.5
652
49.5
3.
13
9.2
36.1
1.0
10
1.2
27.8
0.8
11
9.9
30.6
0.8
0.9
5.6
0.2
36
2.7
4.
0
0 . 0
0 . 0
0.0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0 . 0
0 . 0
0.0
1
0.4
100.0
0.1
1
0.1
NO RESP
9.
1
e.7
4,2
e.i
18
2,^
75,0
1.4
0
2,t
e.a
e.fc
u
2,1
2(2,8
2,4
2"
1,«
ROW
TOTAL
142
lid.8
831
63.1
111
8.4
233
17.7
1317
100.0
CHI SQUARE » 77.42144 WITH 12 OLGrtEES OF
NUMBER OF MlsSjNG OBSERVATIONS * 52
SIGNIFICANCE = -
-------
TABLE 79. READ ENVIRONMENTAL STORY BY ETHNICITY
READS!
ETHNIC
ANGLO
COUNT
ROW %
COL
TQTAL
1,
COLUMN
(y
%
%
rttAU-TAK
ES PAPLR
1.
388
44.2
71.2
28.4
157
32.1
2U.8
11.5
545
39.9
READ-DOE
SN'T TAK
2,
96
12.9
83.5
7.0
19
3.9
16.5
1*4
115
3.4
TAKES-OI
ON'T REA
3.
286
32.6
64 . 0
*0.9
161
32.9
06.0
11.8
447
32.7
DNT-DIC
NOT READ
4 .
96
10 .9
40.2
7.0
143
29.2
59 . b
10.5
239
17.5
,\0 PEoP
9. :
ix j
4 .
- I ' •
57,1 :
e . ••> i
v :
: ,c :
4 ? , 9 i
e,7 s
21
1 > 2
CHI SQLARE = 90.74576 WITH 4 DtGREEb UP
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS a 2
ROW
TUTAL
d/b
64. 2
4o9
35 . 8
1307
SIGNIFICANCE = «J.00ki0
-------
TABLE 80. SAW TV ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT BY ETHNICITY
TVSTO
o
jr-
ETHNIC
ANGLO
HEX-AMERICAN
C 0 U 'M T
ROW %
COL %
TOTAL %
i,
2,
CAN
COLUMN
TOTAL
SAW STOR
Y
1.
410
46.7
65.3
30.0
213
43.6
34.2
15.6
623
4!?.o
DIDN'T S
EE
J
422
48.1
61,9
30,9
260
53.2
33.1
19.0
062
49.9
3 .
30
3.4
o3.3
2.2
6
1.2
16.7
0.4
2.6
*7 •
0
0.0
a. a
0.0
1
W.2
i Id 0 . 1?
a.i
l
55.1
"j 0 * £ c P
9.
1 .0
64 .0
1,2
9
1 . £
36 . y-
e.';
25
1.3
TOTnL
d"/3
409
35.6
CHI SUUArtE = 9.63544 WITH 4 DtGREES OF FREEDOM
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 2
1367
kiJtf.id
SIGNIFICANCE =
-------
TABLE 81. READ ENVIRONMENTAL STORY BY SES.
REAOST
SES
LOh
MIDDLE
HIGH
COUNT
ROW x
COL x
TOTAL x
i,
2,
3.
COLUMN
TOTAi.
RE.AQ-TAK
ES PAPER
1. :
95 t
25.5 !
17.4 I
6.9 :
243 I
41.8 :
44,6 :
17.8 ;
207 :
58.1 :
3a.0 i
is.i :
545
39.9
READ-DOE
SN'T TAK
2.
20
5,4
17.4
1.5
53
9.1
46,1
3.9
42
121.2
36.5
3,1
115
8. 4
TAKES-Oi
ON'T REA
3 .
116
3A.2
26. 0
8.5
214
36.3
47.9
15.7
117
28.3
26.2
8.6
447
32.7
ONT-01D
NOT READ
4 .
133
35.8
55.6
9.7
66
11.3
27.6
4.6
40
9.7
16.7
2.9
239
17.5
NC RtSP
9.
8
2 . 2
38.1
2 .6
6
1 , 2
28.6
Z.4
7
1,7
33.3
2.5
21
1.5
ROrt
TOTAL
372
27.2
582
42.6
413
30.2
1367
100.0
CHJ SQUARE * 1J2,21025 WITH 3 DEGREES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0000
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS • 2
-------
TABLE 82. SAW TV ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT BY SES
TVSTQ
SES
LOS
MIDDLE
HIGH
COUNT
ROW x
COL %
TOTAL *
i.
2,
3.
COLUMN
TOTAL
SAW STOP
Y
*
143
36.4
23.0
1U.5
257
44 .2
41.3
18.8
223
54.0
3S.8
16.3
623
45.6
DIDN'T S
ZE
2.
216
58.1
31,7
15.8
303
52.1
44 ,4
22,2
163
39.5
23.9
11.9
632
49,9
3.
7
1.9
19.4
i3. 5
11
1.9
00.6
0.8
18
4 .4
5VJ.0
1.3
36
2.6
4 .
a
0.0
0.0
0.51
1
0.2
100.0
0.1
0
0.0
0.B
0.0
1
0.1
*o RESP
9.
6
1.6
24. k)
2.4
10
1,7
4e,*i
e.?
9
2 .2
36, a
e.7
25
1.8
ROW
TOTAL
372
27.2
582
42.6
413
3d. 2
1367
100.0
CHI SQUARE » 33.83672 WITH 8 OtGHEES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE = 4.0000
NUMBER OF Mls3lN3 OBSERVATIONS » 2
-------
SECTION 8
MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS
In one sense,
the ultimate
. i,
goal of this research
project is to under-
stand the why's and who's of environmental attitudes. The previous sections
have attempted to identify these attitudes from survey data. In this section,
we turn to a different, and more powerful technique of analysis: multivariate
analysis — spec! f ical ly regression and factor analysis.
Multiple regression attempts to "predict" the dependent variable. In
this case, we set variable IMPTPBSI (rating environmental problems as the
most important) as the dependent variable. We then include the following
list of independent variables:
INCOME
AREA (Center city/non-center city)
SES (Socioeconomic status)
WORKING (Employment status)
CARS (Ownership of automobiles)
HEALTH (State of respondents' health)
WCHORG (Membership in environmental organization)
MSTCONT (Industry as most contributing to pollution)
ATTMEET (Having attended environmental meeting)
AUTOEX (Willingness to spend above average to reduce auto emissions)
CNTH20 (Willingness to spend above average to reduce water pollution)
RNOISE (Willingness to spend above average to reduce noise)
TSH (Willingness to spend above average to reduce trash problems)
INEWREC (Willingness to spend above average to provide more recreation)
of the variable where
sui table for use
i n
The data were dichotomized into presence/absence
necessary to allow us to treat them as interval data,
multivariate analysis.
REGRESSION ANALYSIS
Our first analysis consisted of a stepwise multiple regression with
IMPTPBSI set as the dependent variable. The results are given in the follow-
ing summary table (Table 83). The most important aspect of Table 83 is the
column noted R SQUARE. This noted the amount of variance in the dependent
variable (IMPTPBSI) accounted for by each succeeding step in the regression
equation. As can be noted, willingness to spend above average in investing
in additional recreational facilities entered the equation first and accounts
for almost 3% of the variance in the dependent variable. No other variable
107
-------
accounted for as much as k% additional explanation of variance. The total
amount of variance explained by the 16 steps in the regression equation is
approximately 35%.
The column named BETA in Table 83 is also significant. BETA indicates
the relationship between the dependent variable and the named independent
variable. As can be seen, the BETA's for the first independent variable is
both negative and fairly large. This indicates that there is a fairly strong
inverse relationship between this variable (INEWREC) and the dependent var-
iable (IMPTPBSI). In other words, as the willingness to spend above average
to invest in additional recreational water facilities increases, ranking of
environmental problems as the most important problem declines.
The expected high relationship between income and high SES on the one
hand and willingness to rate environmental problems as the most important
is not borne out by this data. INCOME enters the equation on step 1A and
only explains an additional 0.1%, a very small figure. SES adds even less.
The BETA's for both income and SES are quite small, and income is positive,
whije SES is negative.
FACTOR ANALYSIS
This section presents the results of an additional multivariative
technique—factor analysis. One of the best uses of this technique is the
identification of an underlying pattern or factor which is related to the
variables under study. Factor analysis manipulates the variables so as to
disclose patterns of relationships, if any, extant among them. In essence,
a variable's factor loading can be taken as the correlation between that
variable and the underlying factor which underpins the data. We present
this analysis as a companion to the regression analysis presented above.
The factoring procedure used in this case is the Principal Factor with
Iterations (PA2) for the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. The
results of the factor analysis are shown in Table 8^. Using an eigenvalue
of 1.0 as a criterion level, we see four factors emerge, accounting for ~]k.l%
of the variance.
Factor One accounts for 23% of the variance, and is distinguished by
high loadings of four of the willingness to spend above average for environ-
mental quality variables. As a result, we have identified this factor as
Environmental Quality. The only item of expenditures which does not load
on this factor is INEWREC, willingness to spend above average on new recre-
ational facilities. Additionally, there is a relatively high loading of the
variable CARS, ownership of an automobile (.^3 loading).
Factor Two accounts for an additional 20% of the variance. It is
characterized by very high loadings of the SES and INCOME variables. Accord-
ingly, it has been identified as the "high status" factor. There are modest
negative loadings of ETHNIC (Mexican-American ethnicity) and willingness to
spend for new recreational facilities (INEWREC). The negative loading of
INEWREC) on thi^ factor aids in confirming the pattern of data reported
earlier.
108
-------
Factor Three accounts for an additional 13-3% of the variance and is
characterized by a high loading of the variable AREA (non-center city). A
slight negative loading of unemployment (WORKING) is also featured on this
factor. The ATTMEET variable loads at a moderate negative level on this
factor. We have characterized this factor as "Suburban/Rural."
The final factor which emerges accounts for an additional \2.k% of the
variance. We have entitled Factor Four as the anti-industry variable from
its high loading of MSTCONT variable. Also loading very high on this factor
is the SEX variable (female).
The factor analysis thus helps to confirm the general patterning of
data reported earlier. The most significant finding of the factor analysis
is the large relatively consistent loading that four of the willingness to
spend for environmental quality variables have on the first factor. The
major exception was spending for new recreational facilities.
109
-------
TABLE 83. SUMMARY TABLE: RESULTS FROM MULTIPLE REGRESSION
'HE UNIVERSITY Or V \ T rsBuSO-l, SPSS»J0. XtLEAbE
FILE NONAME (CREATION DATE • 14-HAY-78)
VARIABLE :
!MP'PBSl
iTHNU
TSH
•VSTCONT
INEWLC
4TTMEET
CARS
SUTOEX
:NTHJO
INCOME.
CCGNSi'ANTI
<4
|-_ T
«••
a •
*; •
i .
i- >
L. .
c .
f .
t .
/ .
c-.
c- .
v '
i: •
-,CV-7/J 14.MAY-7B
• Pit. 3£*jii£SS;ON
4i34^ ti.l7tf*3 £.17093
5, ..48,51
6l265 U.37^3^ 0,:;3465
6j26? ».4fc/2<; 0,424b8
6«67' is.4lj31 k3,J18K9
65716 ^.43186 e.t/1355
61,97; ^.44opa B.J1672
6779 1 ,; . 4 5 v 6 2 »;. e. «6277 tC.je2^2
6 e 1 5 J i . 46444 a.«Zlc7
^ol9; 3.46ic& u,.)2.32175l80»31
.34058 -^.63e5>6Ur*K)?
. 29085 *i.243843l*n*«'. -^
.27460 0 . 14 /54 640+ (33
.11100 *).47/&.42^0*tfK?
.21116 ti. S3<"9>;34D-i:.T
.02030 a.^774o27C""0
.18224 -8.34368760*1-.';
.22627 -^ . 41D-i*l
.21539 J . 65411 950-J1
.k>8651 -<) . 35156210-cl
;.<-s- iC.-J L IS'
BE'
-
^ . 14364
-j. i:
- ii . p ••
-i.U.
fe) . 01:
-a. a.
11?
44d
7o5
5vS
957
-------
TABLE 8*. SUMMARY TABLE: RESULTS FROM FACTOR ANALYSIS
VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX
FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 4 FACTOR 5 FACTOR 6 FACTOR 7
IMPTPBS1
INCOME
AREA
SES
ETHNIC
HEALTH
WCHORG
MSTCONT
ATTMEET
AUTOEX
CNTH20
RNOISE
HORKNG
CARS
TSH.
INEWREC
0,04589
0,93852
.0,01647
0.91726
00,24042
;0, 22891
»0, 27429
0,01787
•0,03366
0,04181
0,09591
0,0111?
00.26901
0,01218
.0,02705
00,1320*
0.45242
0.04117
0.12206
•0.10584
0,18842
0.42976
0. 13954
0.63205
0.22245
-0.06364
-0,71036
-0.24124
0.03533
0.06291
-0.58411
0.07445
0.72965
•0.01392
00-42253
0.21384
00.78753
•0.03696
0.48773
0.070126
0.07427
00.10042
e. 07382
0.12239
0.04855
0.14551
•0.11266
0.05931
-0.07075
0.05142
0.15542
0.00687
-0.07622
-0.34027
-0.26135
-0.22277
0.16872
0.89114
-0.06898
0.54273
-0.06712
0.28088
0.02609
0.01707
•0.14225
0,09061
0.02043
0.10354
-0,00625
0.37665
0.42875
-0,01960
-0 . 02460
0.02063
0.00621
0.51467
-0.67577
-0.13119
0.50901
0 ,00296
•0,03879
•0.02646
0.62770
0.05315
0.12682
•0.16515
;0. 17633
0,14766
•0.73292
iH, 01742
0.21220
0.05544
•0,00427
0.53277
0,03719
0.14053
-0.09719
0.09194
0.00884
0.03305
-0.04616
0.37839
0.01058
0.10739
0.19554
0.09342
0.18030
-0.16469
-0.00966
0.52998
-0.02720
-0.87859
TRANSFORMATION MATRIX
FACTCR
'ACTOR
^ACTOR
FACTOR
FACTOR
FACTOR
FACTOR
4
4.
2
3
4
5
6
7
FACTOR 1
0.49125
2. 62276
2,42634
.0,12200
• 0, 26619
0.24150
00,21219
FACTOR 2
-0.63906
0.14122
3. 42398
0.03812
0,11436
0.55813
0.25691
FACTOR 3
00-18660
0.66876
00.27377
30. 26693
2.22027
•0- 39148
B. 41226
FACTOR 4
0.44197
-a. 07875
0.00346
-0.05958
0.33021
0.29765
0.13059
FACTOR 5
0,21*10
0.12928
-0.48860
0.50779
-0.28202
0.41176
0,43545
FACTOR 6
0, 24818
.0.32196
0,41123
•0.22912
iB, 23617
i0, 18904
0,71506
FACTOR 7
0.01422
0.13571
0.39464
0.77364
0,20750
-0,42782
0.03214
-------
SECTION 9
CONCLUSIONS
What does all this mean? We noted in our introductory remarks that
previous studies have provided us with information relating to environmental
attitudes (see above, p. 2). These studies have indicated that a significant
portion of the American community are aware of and concerned about the prob-
lems of a deteriorating environment, but the most recent studies (Dunlap,
1976; Buttel , 197*0 have noted a decline in this public concern. Studies
have indicated generally that people with higher SES levels are more sensi-
tive- to environmental problems and are more willing to act, or support action,
to improve environmental conditions. Other studies have contended that:
Americans believe the environment is deteriorating; Americans view environ-
mental problems primarily in terms of water and air pollution; and most
Americans rely on television and radio for information relating to environ-
mental quali ty.
Our data support some of the above findings and do not support some of
them. We do find, as recent studies have reported, much less interest in
environmental problems than evidenced in 1960's and early 1970's. Fewer
than three hundred respondents listed the environment among the three most
important problems facing the nation.
We find also a relationship between SES and concern with the environment.
The percentage of respondents in the high SES level who ranked environmental
problems as most important is over twice that of the low SES respondents.
Upper and middle level SES respondents generally were more aware of organ-
izations dealing with environmental problems and had contacted public offic-
ials more frequently about environmental issues.
Our data support the belief that Americans view the environment as deter-
iorating. While about half of the respondents characterized present environ-
mental conditions as "above average" and only one-fifth characterized it as
"below average," when asked to predict environmental conditions five years
hence, almost half believed the environment would be "below average" and
only one-third believed it would be "above average."
Previous studies indicate that we view environmental problems primarily
in terms of air and water pollution. Our study takes issue with the former
contention. We found that our respondents identified the environment over-
whelmingly in terms of both physical and social characteristics. It is
noteworthy that the one environmental issue which stimulated the greatest
cost response was the need for recreational areas (this response cut across
112
-------
areas, ethnic, and SES groupings), a problem area related to both physical
and social concepts. We also found strong responses to water pollution, but
not to air pol1ut ion.
Previous studies also have noted that Americans derive most of their
information relating to environmental issues from television and radio. Our
research supports those studies which cite television as a major source. Not
only did our respondents indicate that television was the primary news source,
they also believed it to be the most accurate and unbiased news source. We
found, however, that newspapers rather than radio, were the second most
frequently cited information source.
In addition to these data which can be compared to existing studies,
we have findings which themselves need to be tested by further inquiry.
We have suggestions of significant relationships between environmental
attitudes and area, ethnicity, and SES. Our research indicates that concern
with environmental problems decreases slightly as one moves away from the
center city to the rural areas. Suburban residents also viewed the condition
of the environment, both present and future, in more optimistic terms than
respondents residing in the center city or rural areas. Rural residents
are more pessimistic than center city and suburban residents about the future.
This is somewhat of a surprise as one might hypothesize that those living
closest to a deteriorating environment (i.e., inner city) would be more
pessimistic about its future rather than those living in the areas (i.e.,
rural) where there is less pollution. In general, we found suburban respon-
dents to be more actively involved with the environment than the other two
area respondents.
Environmental studies often seemed to be a function of ethnicity.
Mexican-Americans ranked environmental concerns slightly higher than Anglos.
Mexican-Americans also perceived present and future environmental conditions
in more pessimistic terms than Anglos. This concern and pessimism did not
translate into political activism; more than twice as many Anglos as Mexican-
Americans are members of organizations with an environmental orientation,
and Anglos evidenced more knowledge of and activism in both public and private
groups focusing on the environment.
Environmental attitudes also were influenced by the SES of respondents.
While higher SES respondents seemed to be more aware of environmental prob-
lems, they also were more positive about present and future environmental
conditions. Lower SES respondents were more pessimistic about the environ-
mental conditions. Higher SES respondents seemed more interested in water
pollution and less interested in recreation than the other groups. As has
been indicated by various studies of political socialization, higher SES
respondents were more knowledgeable about organizations which were involved
with environmental problems and were more active than other respondents in
dealing with these problems.
We have attempted in this study to add to the growing literature of
environmental attitudes. The attitudes of our San Antonio sample indicate
that concern for the environment is not a highly salient feature of their
113
-------
attitudinal environment. Economic concerns, either unemployment or the
s,tate of the economy, virtually dominated the rankings of important public
problems.
Of course, policy preferences of the public are not divorced from
external influence. Our survey was conducted during a period of relative
calm where environmental issues are concerned. The energy crisis of the
early 1970's had dimmed and San Antonioans would not be immersed in their
conflict over fuel supply for several months. Had our study been conducted
a few months earlier or a few months later, our data might have generated
different conclusions. However, this is a caveat which must accompany any
study attempting to ascertain public opinion on a popular issue.
In sum, the environmental movement, as suggested by both Dunlap and
Downs (Dunlap, 1975; Downs, 1972), seems to have gone aground on the rocky
shoals of more immediate, pressing concerns — economic. While Buttel and
Flynn may well be correct in their assessment that there is no inherent
gross incompatibility between economic growth and environmental quality,
it is apparent from our data that environmental concern is being pushed
aside. As Springer and Costantini noted, "Currently, environmental concern
appears more as a national wish than a hard political commitment. The
growth and extent of this commitment, and the lines of political combat, will
become clearer as the costs and benefits of environmental policy become more
evident to decision-makers and the public." (Springer and Costantini, 197^:
217). Our data leads us to suggest that the "hard political commitment" is
not likely to be forthcoming.
111*
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Banfield, Edward. 1970. The Unheavenly City. (Boston: Little Brown).
Bartell, Ted. 1973- "Political Orientations and Public Response to the
Energy Crisis." Social Science Quarterly 57 (September).
Buttel, Frederick. 1976. "Social Science and the Environment: Competing
Theories." Social Science Quarterly 57 (September).
Council on Environmental Quality. 1975- Environmental Quality, 1975.
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office]"!
Crenson, Matthew. 1971. The Un-Politics of Air Pollution: A Study of
Non-Decisionmaking in the Cities'](Baltimore:Johns Hopki ns).
Davies, J. Clarence, and Davies, Barbara S. 1975- The Politics of Pollution
(2d ed.). Indianapolis: Pegusus.
Downs, Anthony. 1972. "Up and Down with Ecology." The Public Interest
28 (Summer).
Dunlap, Riley. 1976. "Decline in Public Support for Environmental Protec-
tion: Evidence from a 1970-7** Panel Study." Rural Sociology.
Gallup Organization, Inc. 1972. "The U.S. Public Considers Its Environment:
Survey II." Poll conducted for the National Wildlife Federation (Jan-
uary).
Garvey, Gerald. 1972. Energy, Ecology, Economy. (New York: Norton).
Harris, Louis and Associates, Inc. 1970. The Public View of Environmental
Problems in the State of Washington.
Jones, Charles 0. 1975. Clean Air: The Politics and Policies of Pollution
Control. (Pittsburgh!U. of Pittsburgh Press).
Kneese, Allen V. and Schultze, Charles L. 1975. Pollut ion, Prices and
Public Pol icy. (Washington, O.C.: Brookings Institution).
McEvoy, James III. 1971. The American Public's Concern With the Environ-
ment: A Study of Public Opinion. (Davi s , Cali forn i a: CT of Cali forni a,
Davis).
115
-------
Rosenbaum, Walter. 1973- The Politics of Environmental Concern. (New
York: Praeger).
Simon, Rita. 1971. "Public Attitudes Toward Population and Pollution."
Public Opinion Quarterly 35 (Spring).
Springer, J. Fred and Constantini, Edward. 197^- "Public Opinion and the
Environment: An Issue in Search of a Home," in Stuart Nagel , ed.,
Environmental Politics. (New York: Praeger).
Straayer, John A. 197*4. "A Note of Environmental Caution," unpublished
manuscript, Colorado State University.
Tognacci , L.N., e_t_ aj_. 1972. "Environmental Quality: How Universal is
Public Concern?" Environment and Behavior ^ (March).
Viladas, J.M. 1973- The American People and Their Environment. (Greenwich,
Conn.: J.M. Viladas Co.).
1973- "The American Public Considers Its Environment,"
report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
. 1974. "The Impact of the Fuel Shortage on Public Attitudes
Toward the Environment," report for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
Wenner, Lettie. 1976. One Environment Under Law: A Public Policy Pi lemma.
(Pacific Palisades, California:Goodyear).
116
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
!flease read Instructions on liic '»:vw bi'fori' c
- -
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/5-79-004
AMD SUBTITLE
\3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
ATTITUDES TOWARD ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: AREA,
ETHNICITY AND SES
5. REPORT DATE
j February 1979 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
. AUTHOR(S)
Jerry L. Polinard
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME A~NO~ADORF:¥s
Pan American University
Edinburg, Texas 78539
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REl'GliT NO
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Monitoring and Technical Support
Office .of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
| .1KW10J
JTT CONTRACT".-"GRANT" NO. ~
68-01-2683
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD CO VI-: RED
F_i_nal __
14. SPONSORING AGEINCY CODE
EPA/600/19
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
In a study of the San Antonio, Texas, SMSA, this report indicates that, while
respondents believe the environment is deteriorating, they do not believe environ-
mental problems are among the most important faced by the Nation. Analysis of the
dat a shows that:
1) there is a significant relationship between environmental attitude and area,
ethnicity and SES;
2) concern with environmental quality and problems is greater among inner-city
respondents than suburban respondents;
3) Mexican-Americans rank environmental concerns higher than Anglos no matter
where they live although Anglos are more aware of and active in organizations
that focus on the environment; and
4) high SES respondents were more aware of environmental problems and more
actively involved in environmental organizations than middle or low S17,S
respondents.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Pollution
Attitudes
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Environmental Surveys
c. COSA n l-'ickl/Cimiip
05A
13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to public
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS /This Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS ITiiispitKC)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
127
22~Fl7c¥
EPA Foim 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)
17
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Environmental Research Information Center
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE. S3OO
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA-335
Special Fourth-C lass Rate
Book
If your address is incorrect, please change on the above label
tear off; and return to the above address.
If you do not desire to continue receiving these technical
reports, CHECK HERE O; tear off label, and return it to the
above address.
EPA-600/5-79-004
------- |