Charlotte Steeh

Gary T. Henry

Mark D. Rivera

English

This baseline Ozone Reduction Survey, conducted in May of 1997, is the first of a series of ozone surveys to be conducted by Georgia State University's Applied Research Center in conjunction with GSU's School of Policy Studies. The surveys are being conducted as a part of the Voluntary Ozone Action Program (VOAP)

IssueLab

Ozone ReductionSurvey ResultsSpring 1997Gary T. Henry, Principal InvestigatorCharlotte Steeh, Project DirectorMark D. Rivera, Project MangerAPPLIED RESEARCH CENTERSchool of Policy StudiesGeorgia State UniversityJuly 2, 1997General IntroductionThis baseline Ozone Reduction Survey, conducted in May of 1997, is the first of a series of ozone surveysto be conducted by Georgia State University’s Applied Research Center in conjunction with GSU’s Schoolof Policy Studies.  The surveys are being conducted as a part of the Voluntary Ozone Action Program(VOAP).The VOAP represents an unconventional approach to managing ozone in which the Georgia EnvironmentalProtection Division will partner with businesses; federal, state and local governments; and otherorganizations in the metro Atlanta ozone area to obtain commitments to take ozone-reducing actions duringperiods of time when conditions are conducive to high ozone concentrations.  The ultimate goal of theVOAP is to reduce ozone violations in the Atlanta metro area through these short-term changes in behavior.Several other programs are also aimed at changing behaviors to help reduce Atlanta’s ozone levels.  TheClean Air Campaign, for instance, is launching a comprehensive public education campaign in the summerof 1997; and the Atlanta Regional Commission’s Commute Connections Program, has initiated effortsaimed at changing year-round employer-based commuting behavior.Surveys are one of few feasible means for estimating the overall effectiveness of the VOAP and these othervoluntary programs.  The results of these surveys will ultimately lead to estimates of the level of changedue to voluntary ozone programs and the relationship between those changes and changes in the ozonelevels.The semi-annual surveys are being conducted for a random sample of between 800 and 1200 residents ofthe 13-county ozone nonattainment area.  The 1997 follow-up to the baseline survey will be conducted inmid-October.   In addition, in May of 1998, a daily tracking survey will supplement the semi-annual surveyby allowing a constant monitoring of the day-to-day effects from the VOAP and other ozone programs onbehaviors throughout the ozone season (May through September).  Also, an enhanced survey will beconducted in response to the periods during the ozone season when ozone advisories are issued to thepublic.What follows are sections of this report entitled:  Theoretical Background; Survey Methodology; Summaryof Survey Results; Survey Results; and Survey Questions.Theoretical BackgroundSuccess of the Voluntary Ozone Action Program and related voluntary programs ultimately depend onchanging human behaviors through education, policy initiatives, voluntary participation by employers inthe public and private sectors, and individual choice.  However, patterns of human behavior are remarkablyresistant to change.  Resistance is especially problematic when a strong series of reinforcements for theprevious patterns of behaviors are present in the environment where change is being attempted.One theory that can be used to analyze change and pinpoint the factors causing resistance is based upon theinterconnection between knowledge, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors (Stolzenberg 1994; Azjen andFishbein 1980).  The basic structure of this theory is that individuals first must be aware of the relationshipbetween their individual behaviors and the consequences of those behaviors, in this case, the relationshipbetween driving and ozone production on summer days of the year, for instance.  They must also havefactual information about trigger mechanisms, such as ozone advisories.Attitudes are the next attribute to come into play.  These attitudes fall into two distinct categories: processand outcomes.  Most research that does not use this theoretical framework concentrates on the connectionbetween attitudes about outcomes and behaviors.  Research shows that process attitudes are likely to bemore important.  For example, we need to ask about the direction and magnitude of opinions about thespecific steps that an individual must take in order to alleviate the production of ozone-forming emissions,that is filling the cars with gasoline at night or on week-ends or working from home one day per week.Accurate measures of these attitudes are likely to show more influence on actual behavioral changes thanattitudes about outcomes.  The latter are important.  Agreement with the goal of ozone reduction is animportant factor in considering the behavioral changes.  However, the outcome attitudes are more likely toshow an impact on the process attitudes rather than a direct impact on behavior.Intentions are sometimes referred to as behavioral attitudes.  These are often steps required to make thebehavioral changes that reflect a movement to the accept behavioral change, but without the actual change.For example, obtaining a home computer and fax may reflect an intention to work at home.  Or expressingan intention to fill the car in the evenings or on week-ends in the summer in the absence of an opportunityto do so (e.g. during the spring), is a weak intention.Changing actual behaviors must occur to accomplish the overall goal of ozone reduction.  Measuringbehaviors is the key to developing a leading indicator of program success.  It is also extremely important tobe able to relate behavioral changes to fluctuations in ozone levels.  If the program is successful inachieving the desired behavioral change, but ozone levels persist at the current levels, the nature of soughtafter changes must be reassessed.  However, if the behavioralchanges are not documented, it will be unclear whether the ozone levels have resisted the behavioralchanges or whether the behavioral changes have simply not been accomplished.A complicating factor is that success in changing attitudes and knowledge can impact responses to behavioritems without influencing behaviors.  Responses on surveys are affected by the social desirability of thebehaviors being surveyed.  To wit, people are more likely to indicate that they vote than actual votingrecords indicate.  The phenomena is common to a number of health and risk behaviors for which surveysare the only feasible methods of monitoring.  Therefore, the surveys must be designed to minimize the biasin behavioral responses.To document the success of the program and whether the success in changing behaviors causes ozone-forming emissions to decline, the survey must measure all four of the theoretical components that theprogram seeks to influence — knowledge, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors.  For purposes of this survey,the actual interview was structured such that it includes all four components.  (Refer to the section of thisreport entitled “Survey Questions” for a complete listing of the survey questions.)  Each interview beganwith informing the individual of the standard purpose of the survey and the organization responsible forconducting the survey.  Second, a battery of behavioral questions that relate specifically to the behaviorstargeted for change by the program were administered.  Next, a series of knowledge or informationalquestions were asked.  Then, questions relating to process and outcome were asked, followed by a series ofquestions that reflect intentions.  Finally, a few questions were asked concerning the demographics of therespondent.Survey MethodologyThe Ozone Reduction telephone survey measures ground level ozone knowledge, attitudes, intentions, andbehaviors.  It is administered to metro Atlanta residents living and working in the 13-county ozonenonattainment area.  The baseline survey was conducted by the Applied Research Center at Georgia StateUniversity.  Residents were randomly selected and interviewed from May 10 -May 24, 1997.  Interviewingwas conducted on weekdays from 10:00 a.m. to 9:15 p.m. Monday through Thursday, and 10:00 a.m. to5:00 p.m. on Friday.  Weekend interviewing was conducted Saturday 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and Sunday10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.  Each number was contacted a minimum of 7 times, or until a final disposition wasreached.  The actual results collected were weighted using the most recent U.S. Census data on the State ofGeorgia.The results of the Survey are likely to contain some error.  Ninety-five percent of the time, error due to therandom selection process will be no more than 3.5 percentage points plus or minus the reported percentagefor all Georgians.  Error for subgroups is likely to be slightly larger.  Other sources of error are caused byindividuals refusing to participate in the interview and inability to connect with the selected telephonenumber.  For the Spring 1997 survey, 828 surveys were completed, a response rate of 66%.  Every feasibleeffort was made to obtain a response and reduce the error, but the reader should be aware that some error isinherent in all research.Approximately 66% of respondents were white and 24% were African American; 64% were female and36% male. The median family income was $54,000-$70,000 and 68% of those surveyed owned their home.

Ozone Reduction Survey Results: The Spring 97 Report Part 1

Summary of Survey ResultsTopic Page •  Car Availability, Mileage, Trips, and Average Miles per Trip 2-3•  Commuting Behavior 3-4•  Automobile Maintenance and Driving Tendencies 5-6•  Lawn Care Behavior 7-8•  Knowledge 9•  Process Attitudes 10•  Outcome Attitudes 11•  Behavioral Intentions and Ozone Alert Response 12-13•  Most Frequent Respondent Job Categories 14Car Availability, Mileage, Trips, and Average Miles per TripAvailability90% of all respondents (747) reported having access to a car that they drive frequently.MileageOf the 747 respondents with access to a car:•  544  (73%) reported having driven at least 1 mile in the last 24 hours•  125 (17%)  reported having driven at least 50 miles in the last 24 hours•  the median number of miles driven was 13.0 and the average 25.2 milesMiles Driven51 or more41-5031-4021-3011-201-10Frequency of Response2001000Number of Trips in the Last 24 HoursOf the 747 respondents with access to a car:•  93% of all respondents (695) reported taking at least one trip in their car in the last 24hours•  The median number of trips for the last 24 hours was 4.0 and the average was 4.4Average Number of Miles per tripFor the 696 respondents who both had access to a car and took a trip in the last 24 hoursthe median distance for a trip was 3.3 miles and the average distance was 7.1 milesNUMBER OF TRIPS IN LAST 24 HOURS13 or more10-127-94-61-3Frequency of response4003002001000Commuting BehaviorsRush Hour DrivingOf the 747 respondents with access to a car that they report driving frequently:•  51% (381) drove during morning rush hour•  45% (336) drove during evening rush hour•  34% (255) drove during both morning and evening rush hourMethods of Commuting to WorkFor the 828 respondents living in the 13 county Metro Atlanta area:•  Over 39% drove by themselves to work five days in the previous week•  Only 18% reported carpooling on a trip during the last 24 hours•  Only 8% took mass transit at all the previous week•  Only 5% walked to work at all the previous week•  The following chart indicates the average numbers of days for each method ofcommuting during the previous week:Average Frequency for Methods of Commuting During the Previous Week 0.140.310.650.813.060 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5WalkMass TransitCarpoolWork at HomeDrive AloneAverage Number of Days During the Previous WeekPercentages for the above chart are provided in the table belowPercent of Respondents Using Each Method of Commuting in the Last Week0 Days 1 Days 2 Days 3 Days 4 Days 5 Days 6 Days 7 Days Total %Walk 96.7 .8 .6 .7 0 .7 .2 .3 100MassTransit95.6 .9 .6 1.1 .4 1.2 .2 0 100Work atHome80.1 2.6 3.0 2.3 2.0 6.1 1.2 2.7 100Carpool 82.3 2.4 3.4 3.6 2.9 4.5 .6 .3 100DriveAlone28 5.8 6.8 8.6 4.1 38.6 5.4 2.7 100For the previous week:•  The dominant commuting pattern by levels of domain is that 38.6% of respondentsdrove alone to work five days•  6% of respondents worked at home five days•  3% of respondents took mass transit five days and did not work at home •  15% of respondents did not engage in any of the commuting behaviorsAutomobile Maintenance and Driving TendenciesAutomobile MaintenanceFor the 747 respondents with access to a car that they report driving frequently:•  40% owned a car that had not had a tune-up in the last six months•  12% were required to have repairs as a result of their last emissions test•  36% frequently fill their gas tank on weekday mornings and weekday afternoonsPercent of Respondents Normally Filling Their Gas Tanks at Specified Times1.21.63.66.714.71718.736.30 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Don't KnowWeekend MorningWeekend EveningWeekend AfternoonWeekday EveningWeekday AfternoonWeekday MorningNo Usual TimePercent of RespondentsRespondents Driving TendenciesIn addition to asking respondents when and how often they drive and get gas, theywere asked how frequently they practice a series of other driving-related behavioraltendencies (or habits).  Each respondent rated how frequently they engaged in eachbehavior on a scale from 1 (Almost Never) to 4 (Almost All the Time).•  40.6% of respondents reported almost never checking their tire pressure whenstopping to fill their gas tank and an additional 28% reported checking their tirepressure only occasionally•  35% of respondents reported exceeding the speed limit almost all the time and anadditional 24% reported speeding frequently•  32.7% of respondents reported topping-off their gas tank almost all the time•  16.5% of respondents reported almost always driving to lunch•  15.1% of respondents reported quick-starting their car at intersections almost all thetime•  9.8% of respondents reported almost never turning off lights and equipment when notin use•  7.5% of respondents reported almost never consolidating errandsFrequency Ratings for Three Positive Driving Tendencies1.973.243.430 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5Tire PressureFew er ErrandsTurn OffEquipmentScale: 1 (Almost Never) to 4 (Almost Always)Frequency Ratings for Four of Negative Driving Tendencies1.942.012.272.710 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3Quick StartDrive To LunchFill Tank to TopSpeedScale: 1 (Almost Never) to 4 (Almost Always)7Lawn Care Behavior•  70% of all respondents living in the 13 county metro Atlanta area (544) reported beingresponsible for the upkeep of a lawn. 84% of these respondents (responsible for lawn care)used gasoline powered equipment in the last week (e.g., mowers, weed cutters, leaf blowersand chain saws) while the remaining 17% did not use it or did not know if it had been used.•  Respondents were randomly selected to answer questions regarding one of three types ofgasoline powered lawn care equipment. 282 respondents were asked questions regarding useof weed cutters, 276 respondents were asked questions regarding use of leaf blowers and 301respondents were asked questions regarding use of chain saws.•  Of the 679 respondents with a gasoline powered mower, only 27% had it tuned during thelast growing season.•  The following chart shows the percent of respondents who indicated using a given type ofgasoline powered lawn care equipment:   Percent of Respondents Using Gasoline Powered Lawn Care Equipment During the Previous Week6.9%19.3%28.7%0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0%Chain SawLeaf Blow erWeed CutterPercent of Respondents(Note: Respondents were each asked randomly about the use ofone of the above types of gasoline powered lawn care equipment)                   •  The following chart provides reported lawn care by time-of-day and time-of-week:Lawn Care Reported by Time-of-Day and Time-of-Week6%14%18%18%19%25%0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%Weekend MorningWeekday MorningWeekend AfternoonWeekend EveningWeekday EveningWeekday AfternoonPercent of RespondentsKnowledge of Ground Level Ozone PollutionCorrect Answer      % Correct •  Correctly answered that the day surveyed was not an ozone alert day True 92.0%•  Ozone pollution causes severe respiratory problems True 87.1%•  Emissions from cars are major causes of ozone pollution True 84.7%•  Ground level ozone is caused by gasoline powered engines True 80.3%•  Ozone pollution is worse in the winter months False 53.0%•  Ground level ozone causes the hole in the ozone layer to decrease  False 44.6%•  Ozone pollution is high throughout the year in Atlanta False 11.8%•  Ozone pollution is caused by aerosol sprays that contain CFC’s False 6.50%Percent of Respondents Who Answered Each Ozone Knowledge Question Correctly 7%12%45%54%80%85%87%92%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%CFC's CauseHigh all YearHole DecreasesWorse in WinterEngines CauseEmissions CauseCauses Severe Resp.Ozone Alert Day?Percent of RespondentsProcess AttitudesThe following questions required the assignment of a rating of agreement of each item byrespondents ranging from 1 (Strongly Against Ground-Level Ozone Reduction Behavior) to 5(Strongly in Favor of Ground-Level Ozone Reduction Behavior). Mean and median responsesare reported for each question:Mean Median•  It is nearly impossible to put off cutting the lawnto the weekend   3.6    4.0•  I would really like to work fewer days per week withmore hours per day   3.4    4.0•  Gas powered mowers are the only type of mower thatI would consider using   3.0    3.0•  From where I live and work, carpooling is impossible   2.7    2.0•  I have to put gas in the car when I can, often headingto or from work   2.4    2.0Average Ratings of Process-Related Attitudes Regarding Ground-Level Ozone Reduction2.42.733.43.60 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4Get Gas When CanCarpoolingGas Mow er OnlyWork Few er DaysMow ing Law nImpossibleResponse Scale: 1 (Strongly Opposed to Ground-Level Ozone Reduction Behavior) to 5 (Strongly in Favor of Ground-Level Ozone Reduction Behavior)Outcome Attitudes    Mean Median•  Reducing ground level ozone will reduce respiratory problems   4.1    4.0•  Ground level ozone doesn’t seem to cause people to be hospitalized   3.4    4.0•  The air quality in Atlanta is very good   3.5    4.0•  Problems from ozone pollution are really exaggerated   3.3    4.0•  Air quality in Atlanta will cause businesses to locate elsewhere   3.0    2.0•  Air quality makes Atlanta a less pleasant place to live   2.6    2.0Average Rating for Items Assessing Ground-Level Ozone Reduction Outcome Attitudes2.633.33.53.54.10 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5Less PleasantWill RelocateExaggeratedAir Quality is GoodDoesn't Cause Hosp.Will Reduce Resp.Scale: 1 (Strongly Against Reduction Behavior) to 4 (Strongly In Favor of Reduction Behavior)Behavioral Intentions and Ozone Alert ResponseRespondents were asked to indicate their intentions for the a series of ozone relatedbehaviors.  Specifically, they were given two behavioral alternatives one resulting in areduction in ground  level ozone and one leading to an increase.  It was found that:•  62.9% intend to use charcoal less frequently;•  37.6% intend to telecommute if their employer would agree;•  36.8% intend to cut their lawn on the weekends;•  23.5% intend to wait until the weekend to get gasoline; and•  20.6% intend to use MARTA.Percent Indicating Intentions to Engage in Behavior Resulting in Reduction of Ground-Level Ozone20.623.536.837.662.90 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Marta or CarpoolGas Evenings orWeekendsLawn IntentionTelecommuteUse Charcoal LessPercent of Respondents•  56.4% of respondents could not indicate any behavioral changes that they would make inresponse to an ozone warning.Percent of Respondents Indicating Numbers OzoneAlert Behaviors0%10%20%30%40%50%60%None One Two Three Four Five Six orMoreNumber of Behaviors ReportedThe Six Most Prevalent Job CategoriesComprising 45% of All Respondents586366761130 20 40 60 80 100 120TechnicalSalesClericalManagerProfessionalTotal Number of Respondents Indicating a Given Job Category

Ozone Reduction Survey Results: The Spring 97 Report Part 2

https://issuelab.org/resources/4122/4122.pdf

Ozone Reduction Survey Results: The Spring 97 Report Part 2

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

IssueLab

IssueLab