Cross-Cultural Trends in Environmental Attitudes

Cross-Cultural Trends in Environmental Attitudes Pamela N. Waldron-Moore Associate Professor, Political Science Xavier University of Louisiana 1 Drexel Drive, New Orleans, LA 70125-0198 Tel #: 504-483-7405; Fax #: 504-485-7938 pnmoore@xula.edu Abstract In the wake of September 11, when the news media instilled in ordinary citizens a fear of environmental terrorism, utilizing chemical and biological hazards, a survey of 502 persons in western and southern USA was conducted to appraise public environmental attitudes and concerns. The survey invited responses to general questions of environmental concern; environmental activism; and confidence in institutions to protect citizens from environmental hazards. The results revealed that fears associated with terrorism, a perception of environmental threat, and media attentiveness predicted environmental concern, explaining nearly a third of the variance in public concern for the state of the environment. In addition, activism, access to strategic environmental information sources, fears about terrorist activity, and attentiveness to the national media predicted mass confidence in the authorities’ ability to safeguard the public from environmental harm. Most instructive about the findings were the cultural and regional differences uncovered in the study and the challenges these pose for policy makers. Understanding the connection between determinants of environmental concern and confidence in official institutions to address such concerns presents a new dynamic for policy engagement to meet differentially the environmental needs of the mass public while addressing strategies for sustainable trust in government institutions. This paper is prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, New Orleans, January 7-10, 2004. Introduction National environmental concerns have waxed and waned over the last decade. Within the last two years, however, as fears about weapons of mass destruction and the potential hazards of chemical and biological warfare circulated, individuals have been more focused in their concerns, paying attention not only to potential hazards but also to locations of such hazards and efforts of agencies to protect the public from harm. Given this heightened concern for environmental safety, a few questions arise for researchers. One question is about the factors that generate environmental concern across U.S. regions. A second, related question is about what determines the level of confidence individuals have in the established agencies to safeguard them against hazard. My investigation is intended to determine whether the media, the activist, or even access to up-to-date bulletins from relevant agencies play a significant role in why individuals feel the way they do about environmental issues. This search is not just an academic inquiry born of curiosity; it has positive relevance for social scientists, researchers and educators of related disciplines. If we know what environmental issues individuals are concerned about and what attitudes are popular in communities, we can bring about the kind of social change needed in society, if only by bringing our findings to the attention of policy-makers and community leaders. Some Theoretical Considerations A number of theories have been articulated about what generates environmental concern. Some participants in the debate have argued for cultural differences (see McLain, Montes and Sanchez 1994; Mohai & Bryant 1998; Minerd 2000), suggesting that race and ethnicity are likely to make a difference to whether or not individuals show concern for environmental issues. Yet, varied reasons are advanced for the impact of 2 culture. Mohai and Bryant focus on the environmental burden Blacks experience as opposed to Whites, leading Blacks to feel more exposed to hazards and therefore more concerned about environmental risks within their communities. On the other hand, McLain et al base their arguments on the spiritual connection people of color have to the land and their respect for the environment, which makes them more likely to be environmentally concerned than individuals with other cultural beliefs. Minerd, to a large extent, shares the latter position, noting a strong attitudinal difference between Native Americans and others espousing environmental consciousness. In addition, the Maslowian suggestion (see Maslow 1970) that the middle and upper classes, who have already satisfied their basic needs and have time to absorb information and pay attention to issues beyond the everyday humdrum of survival are more likely than others to be concerned with environmental issues. Further support for Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory comes from scholars who espouse the postmaterialist viewpoint (see Inglehart 1995; Dunlap 1975) that a value for the environment and its protection succeeds the basic satisfaction of material needs. Collectively, then, there is evidence that environmental attitudes are likely to be influenced by public awareness of the issues, public perception of the threat, public anxiety about recent terrorist events and by cultural predispositions. Apart from these perspectives, one may consider the matter of confidence. It is only natural to envision a gap between environmental concern and political confidence. As the preceding discussion suggests, concern is likely to be associated, inter alia, with attention to media reporting and individual perceptions of threat. These characteristics are also likely to influence individuals’ confidence in institutions to protect them from threat. However, researchers have perceived an association between environmental activism and 3 environmental concern (see Taylor 1989; Norris 1997; Uyeki 1999). One may construe from this the ability of the environmentally concerned to take the kind of action that predicts confidence in institutions. Although most researchers note that there is not a direct correlation between concern and action, many agree that the more politically and environmentally active one is, the more likely one is to develop confidence in the officials to protect the environment. In a democracy, activism reinforces confidence in the officials to do what is right. One might easily expect that the activist, aware of the dangers and hazards of the environment, especially in the post-terrorist period when the fear of biological activity was rampant, would be more likely to trust the establishment to take care of the environment under threat than at any other time. The anthrax scare and the motivation for all to be as alert as possible contributed much to the growing environmental concern of the public and a greater willingness to believe in the government’s might and will to take precautionary action. But, not all citizens are likely to think this way. Variations are expected to be found in degrees of media attentiveness and access to environmental information, levels of perceived terror and levels of political activism and political outlook. It should be instructive to test the argument that the amount of confidence one will invest in the authorities to protect the environment may be in direct proportion to one’s political outlook (see Rohrschneider1991). Many scholars understand the relationship between action and trust to be a two-way street, for as active publics express confidence in institutions to protect them from harm, these institutions make new commitments to protect citizens. As Gamson points out, “when trust is extensive, governments are able to make new commitments on the basis of it and, if successful, 4 increase support even more” (1968, 45-46). Further, as other scholars attest, in the absence of active support of government agencies, the latter cannot govern effectively (Citrin 1974; Miller 1974; Muller and Jukam 1977). Clearly, then, trust is important to the establishment of civil society; it fosters a sense of community (Eisenstadt 1995; Seligman 1992) and enhances the effect of institutions in a democracy. To the extent that environmentalists are active, the news media informative, and fears about terrorism palpable, the public may have little alternative but to place confidence in organizations like FEMA to safeguard them against environmental hazard. Scope of the Study In May 2002, less than a year after terrorism and media propelled fears sent ordinary citizens scurrying away from alleys, polluted lakes, rivers and streams and even personal mailboxes, I launched a search for current environmental attitudes.1 A 55-item survey was administered in a telephone interview to random residents of the Georgia, South Carolina and Washington areas. These areas were targeted because of their previous association with environmental hazard, when the Department of Defense, whose need for tritium and plutonium in the fabrication of nuclear weapons brought these sites to their neighborhoods.2 As the Department of Energy, currently engaged in the rehabilitation of the SRS facility on the Georgia/South Carolina border as well as the Hanford site in Washington, continues to take an interest in the opinions of residents of these communities, the vibrancy of terrorist fear prompted a search for contemporary attitudes in a comparative perspective. Five hundred and two persons participated in the 1 I am grateful for the funding and support given by the Department of Energy, whose work with the Center for Environmental Programs at Xavier has contributed much to scholarly research at Xavier University. 2 For more on this, see pages 33-35, Waldron-Moore, P. N. (2002) “Toward a Model of Eco-Political Activism: Differentiating the Impact of Race and Class.” 2000 Race, Gender and Class Conference, 9 (3):31-60 5 survey. This was approximately an 80% response rate, since at least one-fifth of the persons contacted declined to participate in the survey on the grounds of length or language. Since many calls were made during the daytime hours, we encountered some hesitancy among the retired, who were either not eager to answer all our questions or too eager to discuss their environmental attitudes in their own words, using their personal experiences in their home towns to define their perceptions of institutions charged with protecting their environment. In some neighborhoods, where many respondents were bilingual (Spanish- and English-speaking), only a handful of residents were willing to share their opinions, offering language difficulty as the primary reason for declining. Nonetheless, of those who participated, the veracity of their responses and attitudes is without question. Conceptualizing Concern and Confidence The two measures of primary importance in this study are Environmental Concern and Confidence in agents of environmental protection. A scale of concern was created by factor-analyzing responses, which measured how concerned (not at all concerned, not very concerned, somewhat concerned, very concerned, uncertain) individuals were about the air they breathe; the water they drink; the fish/game they eat; river/lake pollution, and soil contamination. Table 1.1 demonstrates distribution of the ‘very concerned’ response Table 1.1: Measuring Public Concern Very Concerned Air you breathe Water you drink Fish or Game you eat River or lake pollution Soil Contamination 50.2% 49.4% 36.9% 47.6% 38.2% Factor Loading .796 .810 .749 .800 .734 and illustrates the factor loading for each item. This uni-dimensional scale of concern indicates how strong each of these items is as a measure of concern, confirming that as a 6 multi-item index, the opportunity for measuring mass environmental concern is assured. The scale was also found to be reliable, with a coefficient estimate of .83 (alpha). That being the case, this measure was deemed sufficiently useful for us to proceed with an analysis of why some individuals are more concerned about the environment than others. As indicated in the introduction, another research question of interest in this study is the confidence (or lack thereof) that some individuals place in protection agencies. Below, in Table 1.2, is an indication of the responses to and factor loading of each of the items included in a measure of confidence. As illustrated, individuals expressed low Table 1.2: Measuring Mass Confidence Very Confident DOE Fire Department EPA U. S. Military Police FEMA 15.3% 50.4% 20.5% 62.2% 38.6% 27.5% Factor Loading .714 .730 .634 .764 .717 .563 confidence in four of the six agencies under scrutiny. Indeed, only the fire Department and the U. S. Military survived the litmus test of confidence. And, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which is very instrumental to the efficient preparation for and handling of natural and environmental disasters elicited very little confidence from the public. The biggest surprise was the response to the Department of Energy (DOE), given the regions in which the survey was conducted.3 Yet, in terms of the consistency of responses and the emergence of a single, reliable scale, this measure of confidence is deemed appropriate and should be instructive as we seek to analyze variations in public confidence in institutions of protection. 3 It must be mentioned that the DOE owns and manages the SRS facility in Savannah and the Hanford facility, two of the sites where our respondents work and in communities where they live. DOE was at the center of controversy in the late 90s about its efforts to rehabilitate the area, following accusations against the agency of contributing to the sites’ pollution. 7 Findings and Analysis Results of OLS regression to determine the bases of environmental concern and confidence dispelled any doubt that they shared some common influences. As the literature indicated, both concern and confidence were influenced by media attentiveness and terrorist fears. In addition, environmental concern was predicted by perceived environmental threat as well as dominant cultural attitudes within regions of the United States. On the other hand, confidence in protective institutions was determined by the nature of information individuals received from legitimate environmental sources and the degree of individual activism. Table 2.1 and 2.2 attempt to put these similarities and differences into [Place Table 2.1 and 2.2 About Here] comparative perspective, clearly highlighting the contributions made to explanations of concern and confidence by each of the predictors. Beginning with the similarities, it is noteworthy that fears about terrorist activity positively influenced both concern and confidence, though not to the same magnitude. Whereas the independent effect of terrorism on concern was .29 (p<.001), its impact on confidence was only .12 (p<.01). It is no surprise that in the wake of terrorist activity fear would give rise to environmental concern. However, it is less intuitive that such fear would increase confidence in agencies of protection. Two variables shed light on this result: activism and outlook.4 Since both of these indicators have controlling effect on fears about terrorism and both of these have a political dimension, as demonstrated in their measurement attributes, it becomes easier to understand that ‘terror’ would positively affect both concern and confidence. Unfortunately, ideological perspectives were not included in the survey instrument and 4 Outlook is conceptualized as respondents’ evaluation of their environmental situation. 8 therefore the researcher could only infer that favorable political attitudes account for the positive impact of terrorist fear on confidence in public agencies to protect citizens. Cultural and Class Variations Addressing the differences observed in the predictors of concern and confidence, one finds that whereas the culture hypothesis earns some mileage in the former, the class hypothesis may be more appropriate to the latter. As a predictor, ethnic variations in relation to environmental concern indicate that White Americans are less likely (Beta = -.17 (p<.001) to be concerned about the environment than people of color. The literature has offered varied explanations for such a phenomenon. It bears repeating that some scholars propose that people of color have a spiritual attachment to the environment and are more likely to be concerned about any hazard that may befall it, while others, responding to the hypothesis that non-Whites may be less concerned than Whites, suggest that concern within minority communities may derive from the experience of non-Whites with the burden of environmental hazards in their local communities. Either way, the hypothesis that one’s ethnicity predicts one’s level of concern with the environment was supported, providing both a cultural and class framework within which to consider concern for the environment. In relation to confidence in agents of environmental protection, the most different predictor is sources of information. I have labeled this a class predictor because almost every political researcher has recognized that access to strategic environmental information outside of the local news media is the purview of certain, privileged groups. Specifically, middle and upper class groups have traditionally been the ones to gain ready access to materials published or circulated by environmentalists, community activists or policy makers while survival issues (Maslow 1970) have often kept working classes in 9 the dark. Having the strongest (Beta=.15, p<.001) independent effect in the ‘confidence’ equation confirms the view that class accounts for environmental attitudes. Regional Considerations Given the environmental experiences of respondents participating in this study, and the comparative nature of this research design, it is appropriate to establish what, if any, attitudinal differences are to be found in the western and southern regions of the country. Table 3 illustrates the results. Whereas no regional variation is observed on the [Place Table 3 About Here] issue of confidence, greater environmental concern is indicated in the western region of the country. The interesting question here is what accounts for the regional difference, when controlling for the non-demographic predictors. Since fears about terrorism and media attentiveness are common to the two issues under study, the likely answer is that perceived threat and ethnicity may be exercising some influence on the environmental attitudes of individuals in the state of Washington as opposed to those in South Carolina and Georgia. In Hanford, as well as the surrounding areas, there are as many reasons to perceive environmental threat as there are ethnic differences. Hanford and its environs are home to a significant proportion of Native Americans and in recent years to a growing Hispanic population. There are also African and Anglo-Americans who reside there. Although there has not been widespread inter-ethnic rivalry, there have been complaints by people of color against disproportionate environmental burden. Indeed, confrontation with the DOE over rehabilitation efforts at the Hanford installation, assumed by that agency in the wake of environmental hazards but not satisfactorily undertaken, may be a likely explanation for the effect of perceived environmental threat. The fact that many Hanford residents live near or work at the site may add credence to 10 the belief that when threat is revived or heightened, via the media or grapevine, memory of past threat may exacerbate environmental concern, foster a renewed perception of threat, and attenuate confidence in institutions charged with public safety. Discussion and Conclusions Although not explicitly stated, some consideration was given to the view that in an atmosphere of fear, where citizens are convinced that their immediate environment is at risk, there would likely be a strong correlation between the level of public concern and the level of confidence Americans would invest in their government officials to ensure public safety. Indeed, one might expect that the less concerned the individual is, the more likely that individual is to trust the officials to protect him/her from harm. Such an expectation would imply that a correlation exists between concern and confidence. As empirical tests showed, however, only a spurious relationship existed between environmental concern and confidence in security agencies. In fact, were it not for media attentiveness, there would be no association whatever between these two variables. Such is the power of suggestion. A simple illustration of this relationship (see below) confirms Media Attention r=-.11* r=.13** Environmental Concern Confidence in Security the view that paying attention5 to national news may reduce environmental concern while, at the same time, boost public confidence in the variable capacity of the authorities to ensure personal safety. Given the clarity this sheds on the study of post terrorist attitudes toward the environment, it might be useful to pursue a more in-depth study of 5 It is worth noting that this sample did not contain a very attentive reading population. As shown in the Appendix, very few respondents read newspapers, magazines or internet news on a regular basis. Most (43%) relied on TV for regular news about environmental issues. 11 the capability of the media either to educate citizens on environmental realities or mislead them into a false sense of security that their right to clean water and clean air would be safeguarded by agents designed to protect them from environmental harm. To a certain extent, the variations observed by class and culture also suggest some media influence. Recall that the strongest predictor of confidence was access to environmental information sources. Is it farfetched to propose that those who have access to strategic information sources are likely to represent the elite in the community? And, if we take that proposition one step further, how difficult is it to recognize that the media are more likely to sway thinking among the middle/upper, rather than the working, classes? Similarly, perhaps, ethnic variations in concern are likely to be influenced by media attentiveness. After all, in light of the known class profiles in the USA, it is more conceivable that Anglo-Americans have greater media resources than persons of color and are therefore better prepared to determine the security available to them. Thus, whether in relation to confidence or concern, explanations of class and culture/ethnicity are pervaded by media influences. Of course, although media attentiveness (or lack thereof) accounts for some environmental attitudes, one may look to other sources for explanation of environmental attitudes. As regional variations suggest, individuals in the state of Washington, with their memory of environmental risk, are more concerned about the environment than persons from the South. This finding certainly cannot be attributed to media influence, since both regions have been subject over time to similar environmental controversy, fully engaged by the local media. The SRS (Savannah River Site) facility was no less plagued by environmental dissent than the Hanford site, so it makes little sense that 12 Hanford’s awareness of potential environmental hazard would be any more or less likely to increase their levels of concern. Nor is it immediately evident why concern should be differentiated across regional lines, unless attitudes are mitigated by perception of threat and reinforced by cultural perspectives on the environment. It is appropriate to point out that whereas there is zero relationship between trust and threat perception, there is a modest correlation (r=.39; p<.001) between the perception of threat and concern for the environment. It might not then be remiss to argue that in regions where there is a high degree of perceived threat, there is a likelihood that publics would be more environmentally concerned than those in less environmentally risky neighborhoods. Conclusion Overall, this study sheds useful insight on a number of political phenomena, many of which have policy implications. First, it seems clear that the media play an important role in public attitudes toward environmental issues. Not only do some media sources help to attenuate the environmental concern of attentive publics but they increase public confidence in officials to protect them from perceived harm. In this sample, it appears that the less respondents read the news, the more likely they were to be concerned about the environment and the more they viewed security activity on the television, the more likely they were to feel confident that their environment would be protected. This is an interesting finding and highlights the potential of news agencies to sway public opinion. If there is empirical support for the power of the media, then that power is also fully recognized by policy-makers, whose engagement of the media after September 11 may have contributed to a false sense of security among a large proportion of citizens. Second, as we continue to observe the role of ethnicity in predicting environmental concern, we cannot but wonder about the factors that trigger variations in 13 attitudes across groups. The cultural explanation has been successfully cited as accounting for variations in concern but there is little agreement about what causes some ethnic groups to be more or less concerned than others. This study lends support to the view that people of color are more likely to be environmentally concerned than others, although the impact of ethnic differences is not as independently persuasive as terrorist activity or threat perception. In an interesting affirmation of ethnicity as a predictor of concern, regional variations indicate that the Washington public is more likely to be concerned about the environment than its southern counterparts. Precisely because Washington has an active Native American population, who, over the last decade or so, has had to struggle with DOE to acquire basic environmental rights, region may be seen to predict levels of concern as a reinforcement of the variations that exist between Native American concern and that of other ethnic groups. Each of these inferences provides a framework for understanding public attitudes toward environmental concern and national security. Given the omission of explicit political indicators (e.g. ideology and party affiliation), it seems clear that there is need for additional answers to questions about the differential media role on regional and ethnic attitudes towards environmental issues. However, as a political tool, policy makers have a responsibility to disseminate information that the media can use constructively to encourage public trust in public institutions to ensure their security against environmental harm. As scholars have argued, while decisive leadership and economic success have occasionally increased political trust in government institutions (see Hetherington 1998; Citrin and Green 1986), such increases are short-lived without the necessary external support. This study suggests that the media are providing the 14 exogenous support needed to encourage a durable increase in publics’ confidence in protective institutions and, simultaneously, a reduction in concern for the environment. The flaw in this perception, nonetheless, is the recognition that the less attentive individuals are to the media and other exogenous support systems, the less durable confidence in environmental institutions is likely to be and the more concerned publics are apt to become in relation to the environment. 15 References Citrin, Jack. 1974. “Comment: The Political Relevance of Trust in Government.” American Political Science Review 68(3):973-88. Dunlap, R.E. 1975. “The Impact of Political Orientation on Environmental Attitudes and Actions.” Environment and Behavior 7:428-54. Eisenstadt, Samuel N. 1995. Power, Trust and Meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gamson, William A. 1968. Power and Discontent. Homewood, IL: Dorsey. Hetherington, Marc J. 1998. “The Political Relevance of Political Trust.” American Political Science Review 92(4): 791-808. Inglehart, Ronald. 1995. “Public Support for Environmental Protection: Objective Problem and Subjective Values in Forty-Three Societies.” P.S.: Political Science and Politics 28(1):57-72. Maslow, A. H. Motivation and Personality. 1970. 2nd ed. New York: Viking Press. McClain, Mildred, Juan Montes, and Gilbert Sanchez. 1994. “Community, Tribal and Labor Involvement in Public Health Service Activities at Department of Energy Facilities.” Report of a Workshop Sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Miller, Arthur H. 1974. “Political Issues and Trust in Government, 1964-1970.” American Political Science Review 68(3):951-72. Minerd, Jeff. 2000. “Native Americans vs. Environmentalists.” The Futurist 34(3):10-11. Mohai Paul and Bunyan Bryant. 1998. “Is There a Race Effect on Concern for Quality?” Public Opinion Quarterly 62:475-505. Environmental Political Muller, Edward N. and Thomas O. Jukam. 1977. “On the Meaning of Support.” American Science Review 71(4):1561-95. Norris, Pippa. 1997. “Are We All Green Now? Public Opinion on Environmentalism in Britain.” Government and Opposition 32:320-39. Rohrschneider, Robert. 1991. “Public Opinion toward Environmental Groups in Western Europe: One Movement or Two?” Social Science Quarterly 72:251-66. Seligman, Adam. 1992. The Idea of Civil Society. New York: Free Press. Taylor, Dorceta E. 1989. “Blacks and the Environment: Toward an Explanation of the Concern and Action Gap between Blacks and Whites.” Environment and Behavior 21:175-205. Uyeki, Eugene S. 1999. “Environmental Beliefs, Intended Action, and Behavior.” Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association Waldron-Moore, Pamela N. 2002. “Toward a Model of Eco-Political Activism: Differentiating the Impact of Race and Class.” Race Gender and Class 9(3): 31-60. 16 Table 2.1: Predicting Environmental Concern Variable Unstandardized Coefficients Std. B Error .269 -.166 .288 -.123 1.12 .041 .038 .042 .028 .20 Standardized Coefficients Beta .269 -.144 .288 -.169 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Sig. Perceived Threat Attention to National news Terror Factor Ethnicity Constant Adj. R 2 .28 *** Table 2.2: Confidence in Environmental Agents of Protection Unstandardized Coefficients Std. B Error Attention to National news Information Sources Activism Factor Terror Factor Constant .137 .153 .110 .117 -.497 .052 .044 .045 .044 .195 Standardized Coefficients Beta .117 .153 .110 .117 .009 .001 .009 .008 .011 Sig. Adj. R2 .07*** Table 3: Regional Trends in Environmental Attitudes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Environmental Confidence in Concern Security Agents B s.e.b Beta B s.e.b. Beta ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Perceived Threat .27 .04 .27*** ---Ethnicity -.11 .03 -.15*** ---Media Attention -.14 .05 -.12*** .14 .05 .12*** *** .15 .05 .15*** Terror Factor .28 .04 .28 Activism ---.11 .05 .11** Information Sources ---.18 .05 .18*** * Washington -.34 .17 -.17 .12 .19 .06 South Carolina -.18 .17 -.08 .13 .19 .06 Georgia -.21 .18 -.08 .21 .21 .08 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Constant .69*** .18 -.69* .29 2 Adjusted R .28 .08 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Note: ***p≤.001; **p≤.01; *p≤.05; Beta=standardized regression coefficient; B=unstandardized regression coefficient; s.e.b.=standard error. Variable 17 Appendix: Survey Instrument 1. How much threat do you perceive from the following hazards? Would you say ........ ? No Little Moderate Great Don’t Threat Threat Threat Threat Know V1. Oil refinery V2. Chemical and biological waste V3. Nuclear Power Plant V4. Landfill V5. Incinerator V6. Other ...... [specify] 2. In which of the following environmental activities have you participated? Answer Yes or No: Yes No Don’t Know V7. Written a letter to a public official. V8. Signed a petition. V9. Attended a public meeting. V10. Contributed time and/or money to an organization. V11. Attended a public demonstration. V12. Other ..... [specify] 3. How useful to you are the following sources of information? Are they ............. ? Not useful Of Little use Somewhat useful Very useful DK V13. Public meetings by DOE V14. Newspapers or Television. V15. Bulletin boards V16. DOE publications V17. Information from mailings V18. Workshops V19. Other ..... [specify] 4. How often do you refer to the following for environmental news? Is it Everyday Few times a week Once a week Less than once a week Never V20. Local Newspaper V21. National newspaper (e.g. NY Times, Wall Street Journal) V22. Local Television V23. National Television (e.g. CNN, Fox) V24. News Magazines (e.g. Time, Newsweek) V25. Internet V26. Other 5. V27. Do you think the environmental situation in your area has got better, worse or stayed the same during the past five years? Better Worse Stayed the same 6. V28. How long have you lived in this area? Less than 1 year At least 1 but less than 5 At least 5 but less than 10 At least 10 years 18 7. How much of a long-term threat do you think the recent terrorist attacks will have on the following: No threat Little threat Moderate Threat Great Threat DK V29. Availability of oil and gas V30. Electricity supply V31. Chemical & biological warfare V32. Environmental pollution V33. Employment V34. Other .... [specify] 8. Please tell me how concerned you are about the following? Would you say ........... ?? Not at all Not very Somewhat Very DK concerned concerned concerned concerned V35. Air you breathe V36. Water you drink V37. Fish or Game you eat V38. River or lake pollution V39. Soil contamination V40. Other .... [specify] 9. How confident are you about the authorities’ ability to ensure your safety in the event of an environmental disaster? In particular, how confident are you about ................................ Not at all Not very Somewhat Very DK confident confident confident confident V41. DOE V42. Fire Department V43. EPA V44. U.S. Military V45. Police V46. National Guard V47. Federal Emergency Management Association V48. Other ... [specify] 10. V49. What level of education have you attained? Less than high school Graduated from high school Some college or technical training College graduate Advanced graduate degree 11. V50. How old are you? 18 to 24 25 to 34 45 to 54 55 to 64 35 to 44 65 and over Asian American Other ..... [specify] 12. V51. To what ethnic group do you belong? Native American African American Hispanic Anglo American 13. V52. Which of the following categories is closest to your annual personal income? Less than $20,000 $20,001 to $35,000 $35,001 to $50,000 $50,001 to $75,000 $75,001 to $100,000 Over $100,000 14. V53. What gender are you? Male Female 19 Appendix II: Composition of Scales and Indexes Terror: How much of a long-term threat do you think the recent terrorist attacks will have on the : Item Availability of oil & gas Electric supply Chemical & Bio Warfare Environmental Pollution Employment Factor Loading .659 .729 .658 .738 .627 Confidence: How confident are you about the authorities’ ability to ensure your safety in the event of an environmental disaster? In particular, how confident are you about: Item DOE Fire Department EPA U. S. Military Police National Guard F.E.M.A. Factor Loading .680 .710 .618 .789 .720 .784 .529 Concern: Please tell me how concerned you are about the: Item Air you breathe Water you drink Fish or Game you eat River or lake pollution Soil Contamination Factor Loading .796 .810 .749 .800 .734 Activism: In which of the following environmental activities have you participated? Item Letter to Official Signed Petition Attend Public Meeting Contribute Time/Money Attend Public Demonstration Factor Loading .634 .712 .697 .682 .407 20 Usefulness of Information Sources: How useful to you are the following sources of environmental information? Item DOE Publications Bulletin Boards Newspapers or TV Public Meetings by DOE Information from Mailings Workshops Factor Loading .719 .661 .385 .613 .541 .682 Perceived Threat: How much threat do you perceive from the following hazards? Item Oil Refinery Chemical/Bio Waste Nuclear Power Plant Landfill Incinerator Factor Loading .686 .760 .699 .744 .691 National News: Mean responses to the following questions comprised the measure used for this indicator. Item National Newspapers National Television News Magazines Internet % Very Attentive 5.3 43.0 3.4 16.1 % Not Attentive 16.1 16.5 51.4 50.6 21