The Pittsburgh Regional Environment Survey

T H E P I T T S B U R G H R E G I O N A L

E N V I R O N M E N T

U C S U R

ENVIRONMENT

WHAT WE SAY(and do)

ABOUT THE



3

5

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

25

26

27

As the Pittsburgh region continues its ascent,regularly ranking as one of the nation’s most livable cities, maintaining and improving the region will require attention to a key long-termasset: the environment.

Across America and the globe, mobility be-tween regions and nations has become common-place, and people decide where they want to liveand why. Along with jobs, family and a variety ofamenities and attributes, environmental quality isemerging as a key factor in the calculus of whichcities will attract the talented people whoseenergy and efforts will shape and build the future.

While the Pittsburgh region’s environment hasimproved dramatically since its “Smoky City” era,we still face significant challenges includingimproving air quality, repairing an aged waterand sewer system, and ensuring that industry—including the Marcellus Shale—maintains ahealthy balance with the region’s environment.

In order to better understand what’s impor-tant to our region’s residents about the environ-ment—their behaviors and attitudes—we presentthe 2013 Pittsburgh Regional Environment Survey.

In this random and representative telephonesurvey—using land lines and cell phones—wehave posed more than 80 questions to regionalresidents, gauging their views and habits on anumber of environment-related topics, includingair quality, water quality, conservation, the role ofindividuals, business and the government in the

stewardship of the environment, and the balancebetween the economy and the environment.

We surveyed more than 400 residents ofAllegheny County and more than 400 residents ofthe six surrounding counties of the metropolitanstatistical area: Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette,Washington and Westmoreland counties. By thismethod, we are able to compare views and behav-iors between the region’s core—Alleheny County—and its surrounding counties.

This is the most in-depth and methodologi-cally sound environmental survey to have beenundertaken to date in Greater Pittsburgh. Andaside from lending greater knowledge of our resi-dents’ actions, understanding, and views regardingthe environment, we hope that the information inthis survey contributes to more-informed dialogueand decision-making regarding the region’s future.

Survey questions involve a blend of questionscreated by a team of local environmental expertsand questions from other local and nationalsurveys, which allows Pittsburgh responses to becompared with responses across the country. Thesurvey was funded by PittsburghTODAY throughits philanthropic supporters and by the Universityof Pittsburgh’s University Center for Social andUrban Research.

In the pages to come, in narrative journalismand in graphics, we highlight the survey results.For more detailed information, please visitpittsburghtoday.org.

from the directors

Douglas Heuck, Director of PittsburghTODAY

Richard Schulz, Director, University Center for Social and Urban Research

October 2013

pittsburghtoday.org // UCSUR 3

ENVIRONMENT

WHAT WE SAY(and do)

ABOUT THE


pittsburgh regional environment survey

The following is a summary of key findingsfrom the Pittsburgh Regional EnvironmentSurvey. More details, findings and issues arefound in the pages that follow. The completesurvey data sets, including findings by geog-raphy and demographic characteristics, areavailable in the special reports section of ourwebsite, pittsburghtoday.org.

regional environmental perspectives

• Some 45% of residents in the seven-countyPittsburgh Metropolitan Statistical Area rate thequality of the local environment as “good.” Only 4%of residents rate it as excellent; 5% describe it aspoor.

• More residents see the local environment asimproving (51%) than see it as getting worse (14%).

• Nearly 79% of residents in the region believe thereis little or nothing they can do to solve environmentalproblems.

air quality

• Nearly 65% of residents across the Pittsburgh MSAdescribe air quality as either a minor problem or nota problem at all.

• Several possible ways to improve the region’s airquality problems drew support from a majority ofresidents throughout the region, including tighteningcontrols on local factory and industrial emissions(72%), stricter controls on coal-fired power plantemissions (69%), and spending more on publictransportation (65%).

water quality

• More than two-thirds of residents across thePittsburgh MSA view the quality of the region’srivers and streams as a severe or moderate problem.

• About one-third of residents describe sewagerunoff as a severe or moderate problem. Only 7%feel it is not a problem at all.

• Nearly two-thirds of residents across the regionreport only minor problems with the quality of theirdrinking water or no problems at all. Fewer than 13%report having a severe problem with their drinkingwater.

behaviors & actions

• Nearly 60% of Pittsburgh MSA residents believethey are doing an excellent or good job protecting theenvironment.

• Some 95% report that they turn off lights andelectronics in unoccupied rooms.

• Nearly 63% of Pittsburgh MSA residents turn downthe thermostat when they are asleep or away fromhome. About the same percentage turn down the airconditioning in the summer when sleeping or not athome.

• About 74% report making an effort to take shortershowers and limit watering the lawn to reduce theirwater consumption.

• About 42% of Pittsburgh MSA residents say theyreduced the number of car trips in the past 12 monthsby carpooling, walking or taking public transportation.But 58% did not.

>>

6

• Across the region, 74% of residents report theyregularly recycle newspaper, glass and plastic. Farfewer residents recycle electronic devices.

• Residents also report a willingness to make en-ergy-conscious purchases. For example, 75% saythey upgraded to energy-saving appliances in thepast five years.

• But only about half of homeowners report makingenergy-saving home improvements.

parks & recreation

• Nearly 3 in 4 residents throughout the PittsburghMSA give the quality of the region’s parks and trailshigh marks. About 12% rate them as excellent. An-other 63% grade them as “very good” or “good.”

• The survey suggests most residents base their as-sessment of parks and trails on firsthand knowl-edge. Some 64% of residents report using them atleast six times a year.

• However, only 37% of residents overall say theyuse the region’s rivers and streams for recreationmore than five times a year. And more than one-third say they never do.

conservation

• More than 37% of Pittsburgh MSA residents iden-tify river and stream restoration as the conservationissue they are most concerned about. Another 37%report protection of wildlife habitat as their top con-cern.

• More than 3 in 4 residents favor providing tax de-ductions to encourage Americans to place land intoconservation.

policy

• More than 78% of Pittsburgh MSA residentsagree that government should be responsible forsolving Pennsylvania’s environmental problems.

• And two thirds of the region’s residents believestate government oversight of the environmentshould increase, with 21% saying it should be signif-icantly increased.

• The region is more divided over whether morestringent air quality regulations are needed. Morethan 48% of Pittsburgh MSA residents believe airquality regulations as they stand today are strongenough, while 43% feel they are not sufficient.

• The survey suggests residents are willing to sup-port a range of policies that have the potential to re-duce stress on the environment. The least popularoption—raising auto emissions standards—is sup-ported by 62% of Pittsburgh MSA residents.

• More popular policies include offering homeown-ers tax deductions to improve the energy efficiencyof their houses (85%), raising motor vehicle fuel ef-ficiency standards (82%), mandatory controls tocurb carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasemissions (73%) and spending more to developsolar and wind as energy sources (70%).

>>+



economy & environment

• Pittsburgh MSA residents overwhelmingly believethe environment is important to the region’s eco-nomic outlook (96%), with 65% saying it is “veryimportant.”

• More than 31% believe environmental regulationsstrengthen industry and job growth; 40% say regu-lations have a minimal effect; and 28% believe envi-ronmental regulations weaken industry and jobgrowth.

• Only 17% of residents overall believe environmen-tal regulations threaten their job.

• Nearly 57% of residents believe that protectingthe environment should be a higher priority thaneconomic growth, even if it means slowing eco-nomic growth.

energy, marcellus shale & environment

• Nearly 58% of Pittsburgh MSA residents believeprotecting the environment should be a priority overenergy production, even at the risk of limiting thenation’s supply of oil, natural gas or coal.

• Less than 7% believe natural gas as an energysource is worse for the environment than coal andoil, 47% believe it is better for the environment and46% see it as neither better or worse than coal andoil.

• More than 79% of Pittsburgh MSA residents be-lieve drilling for natural gas in the Marcellus Shalerepresents a significant or moderate economic op-portunity for the region.

• At the same time, 59% believe drilling poses asignificant or moderate threat to public health andthe environment.

• Despite such concerns, more Pittsburgh MSA res-idents support drilling (48%) than are opposed to it(29%).

• Their support, however, appears to come withconditions. For example, more than 95 percent ofresidents across the region believe drilling operatorsshould be legally required to publicly disclose all ofthe chemicals used in the fracking process.

climate change

• More than 64% of Pittsburgh MSA residents de-scribe climate change as a severe or moderate prob-lem. Only 18.5% don’t think it’s a problem.

• And more than 56% of the region’s residents be-lieve human activities are largely to blame for cli-mate change. The rest are of the opinion it is theresult of natural changes in the environment. zx

$

8

ori rieger had taken the dayoff from her job to spend it in PointState Park. It was a hot, humid Julyafternoon, the kind that invites ozonepollution to accumulate at levels thatviolate federal air quality standards,

which is something Pitts-burgh and the surrounding

region do on an annual basis. But if that was aproblem, Rieger didn’t notice.

“I don’t know anything about breathingdifficulties or asthma,” the Ross Townshipresident said. “We don’t see it in our circle—that anyone has breathing difficulties orproblems. I don’t think we have a lot ofindustry anymore that would lend itself tobad air. The humidity is always an issue, but Idon’t think that’s air quality. It’s more weather-related.”

Her perception belies the fact that longafter the smoky steel industry became ashadow of its former self, the ozone pollution inthe air she breathes remains at levels consid-ered unhealthy by Environmental ProtectionAgency standards.

But she is not alone. Hers is a view thatnearly two-thirds of southwestern Pennsylva-nia residents share, according to the findings ofthe Pittsburgh Regional Environment Survey.

In May 2013, 805 men and women livingin the seven-county Pittsburgh MetropolitanStatistical Area were interviewed for thetelephone survey, which is a product ofPittsburghTODAY and the University ofPittsburgh University Center for Social andUrban Research.

The results provide the most comprehen-sive profile to date of the environment-relatedbehaviors of residents of the seven-countyPittsburgh Metropolitan Statistical Area andtheir perspectives on issues ranging from airand water quality to government regulation,Marcellus Shale drilling and climate change.

What emerges is a regional populationthat generally acknowledges climate change asa problem, but is divided on whether humanactivity or a natural warming cycle is mostly toblame. They’re less concerned about the qual-ity of the air than they are about the conditionsof the region’s rivers and streams. Most takesteps to curb their energy use, but are lesslikely to park the car in favor of walking, bikingor taking the bus. More support drilling for nat-ural gas in the Marcellus Shale than oppose it,but are against drilling in state parks, gamelands and wildlife reserves. And most believethey share responsibility in solving environ-mental problems, but have little chance ofmaking a difference. zx

L

9



findings

10

hile they may not beexperts, few southwestern Penn-sylvania residents are in the darkwhen it comes to environmentalissues, the Pittsburgh RegionalEnvironment Survey suggests.

More than 72 percent of residents across thePittsburgh Metropolitan Statistical Area considerthemselves “somewhat knowledgeable” of environ-mental issues with another 9 percent going further bydescribing themselves as “extremely knowledgeable.”Only about 18 percent admit having no knowledge ofenvironmental issues, such as air and water quality.

Few of them are at the extremes in their assess-ments of the overall quality of the environment inthe region. Fewer than 4 percent of residents in thePittsburgh MSA rate the quality of the local environ-ment as excellent and only 5 percent describe it aspoor. The most common rating is “good,” which ishow 45 percent describe the overall quality of thelocal environment.

And more residents see the local environmentas improving than see it as getting worse by a marginof 51 percent to 14 percent. The survey suggests theresidents most likely to rate the quality of the envi-ronment highly and believe it is improving live out-side of Allegheny County, the urban center of theregion.

burden of responsibility

Residents throughout the region do not excludecitizens like themselves from sharing the burden ofsolving environmental problems in Pennsylvania.More than 86 percent agree that individual citizensshould be responsible for doing so.

Their dilemma is that most of them generallyfeel powerless. Nearly 79 percent of residents in theregion believe there is little or nothing they can do tosolve environmental problems. The survey suggeststhe level of pessimism transcends geographic bound-aries and that senior citizens and young adults are theleast likely to believe they can personally bring aboutsolutions. zx


WSPRAWL

To what degree, if at all, do you believe thatsprawl is a problem in Greater Pittsburgh?* ?

* Statistical significance of these data is available in the Pittsburgh RegionalEnvironment Survey data tables found online at: www.pittsburghtoday.org/The_Pittsburgh_Regional_Environmental_Survey.html

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

How would you rate the overall quality of theenvironment in our region?* ?




findings

12

ublic perceptions of airquality are largely at odds with recentdata on major pollutant levels insouthwestern Pennsylvania reportedby the Allegheny County HealthDepartment and the U.S. Environmen-

tal Protection Agency.Nearly 65 percent of residents across the seven-

county Pittsburgh Metropolitan Statistical Area seeair quality as either a minor problem or not a prob-lem at all. Of the residents surveyed, those mostlikely to describe air quality in those terms were men,young adults and seniors aged 65 or older.

On the extremes, slightly more than 5 percent ofresidents overall describe air quality as a severe prob-lem, while 30 percent feel it’s not a problem at all.

Ground-level ozone pollution, or smog, remainsa stubborn problem in the region. Although theozone levels have gradually improved, the EPA still

Pidentifies the Pittsburgh MSA counties as a regionthat fails to attain federal eight-hour standards. In2011, the region managed to fall within the annuallimits for fine particulate pollution for the first timein more than a decade. However, county HealthDepartment models suggest the region will fail tomeet the new, more stringent EPA fine particulatestandards now in place.

The findings of the Pittsburgh Regional Envi-ronment Survey suggest a lingering gap betweenperceptions of air quality and local air quality data,which was first reported in the Pittsburgh RegionalQuality of Life Survey conducted in 2011 by UCSURand PittsburghTODAY.

The most recent survey, however, finds the gapto be narrower. The 2011 Quality of Life Survey foundthat 81 percent of Pittsburgh MSA residents felt airquality was either a minor problem or not a problemat all compared with 65 percent who described it in

those terms in the Pittsburgh Regional EnvironmentSurvey.

The reasons for the difference are unclear. Onepossibility is the survey sample. People who agree toparticipate in surveys focused on a single issue, suchas the environment, are more likely to have an aware-ness of and interest in that issue compared to thosewho take a survey on a range of disparate issues, suchas the 2011 Quality of Life Survey. Another possibilityis an increased awareness of the region’s air qualityissues, which have received wide media coverage andare the topic of a public awareness campaign con-ducted by the nonprofit Breathe Project.

improving air quality

Several possible ways to improve the region’s airquality problems drew the support from a majorityof residents throughout the Pittsburgh MSA, butplacing greater restrictions on wood burning wasn’tone of them.

Spending more on public transportation, andtightening controls on local factory and industrialemissions and on coal-burning power plants emis-sions are favored by 65 percent, 72 percent and 69percent of residents, respectively. Only 42 percentfavor greater limits on wood burning. zx


AIR QUALITY IN YOUR COMMUNITY

Would you say that air quality in your community is a… * ?


... would you support increased government support for mass transportation?

... would you support greater emissions control of local factories and industry?

... would you support greater emissions control on coal-fired power plants?

... would you support greater restrictions on wood-burning?

support for mass transportation?... would you support increased government

i

support for mass transportation?... would you support increased government no

35.2yes64.864.8

Responses shown as percentages of residents in the 7-county Pittsburgh MSA

wood-burning?... would you support greater restrictions on

coal-fired power plants?... would you support greater emissions control on

local factories and industry?... would you support greater emissions control of

Responses shown as percentages of residents in the 7-county Pittsburgh MSA

... would you support greater restrictions on

... would you support greater emissions control on

... would you support greater emissions control of no28.3

yes71.7

no30.8

yes69.2

no57.7

yes42.3

71.7

69.2

42.3

AIR QUALITY

In order to improve regional air quality...* ?




findings

14

he quality of local streamsand rivers is a concern of the majorityof residents in the Pittsburgh Metro-politan Statistical Area, which is part ofthe 15-county region that PennsylvaniaDepartment of Environmental Protec-

tion data show contains 6,561 miles of impaired wa-terways.

The Pittsburgh Regional Environment Surveyfinds that more than two-thirds of residents acrossthe Pittsburgh MSA view the quality of the region’srivers and streams as a severe or moderate problem.The survey indicates that where residents live has lit-tle affect on the level of concern.

Streams and rivers in the region long have beenthreatened by sources of contamination ranging fromoverburdened municipal sewage systems to agricul-tural runoff to high levels of acidity as a result ofabandoned mine drainage.

TThe region’s most complex and expensive water

problem is found in Allegheny County, where even amodest rain causes raw sewage to routinely overflowinto rivers and streams from aged and overtaxed cityand suburban sewer systems. Addressing the sewageoverflow problem is estimated to cost at least $2.8billion, which would double the current consumersewage rate.

Sewage runoff was described as a severe or mod-erate problem by 48 percent of the Allegheny Countyresidents surveyed. Nearly 18 percent believe it is nota problem at all. It is important to note that such sur-vey results from a specific location in the sample areahave a higher margin of error than those from theoverall regional sample of residents.

The survey finds that across the PittsburghMSA about one-third of all residents describe sewagerunoff as a severe or moderate problem and 7 percentfeel it is not a problem at all.

A majority of them also believe that oversight ofstreams and rivers is less than adequate. More than60 percent say the state does not do a good job moni-toring streams and rivers for possible contaminants.

drinking water

Drinking water is much less of a concern. Nearlytwo-thirds of residents across the region report onlyminor problems with the quality of their drinkingwater or no problems at all. Fewer than 13 percent re-port having a severe problem with their drinkingwater.

The survey, however, suggests a wide gap in per-ceptions of drinking water quality among low andhigher levels of reported household income, althoughsuch demographic comparisons may not be represen-tative of the region due to sample size and other fac-tors.

Nearly 25 percent of residents surveyed whoearn $25,000 or less a year describe the quality oftheir drinking water as a severe problem compared toonly 3 percent of those whose annual income rangesfrom $75,000 to just under $100,000. And residentswith a high school diploma or less are much morelikely to report severe problems with their drinkingwater than those with a college degree. zx


WATER QUALITY

How about the quality of your drinking water?Would you say it’s a… * ?


25.5 7.2

25.0 5.1

39.4 9.326.0

STREAMS & RIVERS

How about pollution in streams and rivers?Would you say it is a…* ?




findings

16

water conscious

Residents also report behaviors that suggest theyare conscious of their water use. About 74 percent makean effort to take shorter showers and limit watering thelawn to reduce their water consumption. Those are justsome of the steps a majority of residents say they takeat home to keep the water bills low and minimize theiruse of water.

However, the survey suggests most PittsburghMSA residents either dramatically underestimate theirdaily household water usage or are exceptionally frugalwhen it comes to bathing, washing their car and water-ing their lawn.

More than 78 percent estimate that their house-hold uses 50 or fewer gallons a day with 38 percent say-ing they consume 25 gallons or less. By comparison, thePennsylvania Department of Environmental Protectionestimates individuals, on average, use 62 gallons ofwater a day. That suggests a family of four consumes 248gallons a day on average.

out and about

Energy savings efforts do not necessarily extend toresidents forgoing their cars to get around. Some 42percent of Pittsburgh MSA residents say they reduced

he majority of residents inthe seven-county Pittsburgh Metropoli-tan Statistical Area think highly of theirown efforts to protect the environment.Nearly 60 percent believe they are doingan excellent or good job in that regard.

Various self-reported behaviors lend support to thoseassessments, for the most part.

energy savings at home

The Pittsburgh Regional Environment Surveysuggests residents are willing to take basic steps to saveenergy and save money at home. For example, 95 per-cent report that they turn of lights and electronics inunoccupied rooms.

When it comes to their heating and cooling bills,most residents attempt to keep costs low by keeping aneye on the thermostat. Nearly 63 percent of PittsburghMSA residents turn down the thermostat when theyare asleep or away from home. About the same percent-age turn down the air conditioning in the summerwhen sleeping or not at home.

In most cases, such adjustments are done manu-ally. Only about one-third of residents own a thermo-stat that automatically adjusts heating or airconditioning during certain times of the day.

T

the number of car trips in the past 12 months by car-pooling, walking or taking public transportation. But 58percent did not.

To get to work, 82 percent of residents drive, 6 per-cent use public transportation and 8 percent bike orwalk. They rely on their cars outside of work evenmore. Only 5 percent use public transportation and 3percent bike or walk as their primary means of non-work transportation.

The survey suggests non-whites are more likely toreport having reduced the number of car trips in thepast year than whites. Such demographic comparisons,however, may not be representative of the region due tosample size and other factors.

recycling, with limits

The survey suggests recycling has become routinein the majority of southwestern Pennsylvania house-holds. Across the Pittsburgh MSA, 74 percent of resi-dents report they regularly recycle newspaper, glass andplastic.

Fewer of them extend the practice to electronics.A little more than half of residents overall say they recy-cled electronic items, such as computers and mobilephones, in the past year.

Several factors appear to influence recycling rates.The study suggests geographic differences, for example.Of residents surveyed, 79 percent living in AlleghenyCounty say they regularly recycle newspaper, glass orplastic compared to 70 percent in the six other MSAcounties. Also, non-white residents and residents with ahigh school diploma or less are less likely to recyclethan white residents and those with a college degree.

spending on efficiency

Whether they’re in the market for light bulbs orclothes washers and dryers, southwestern Pennsylvani-ans report a willingness to make energy-conscious pur-chases.

About 81 percent of residents in the PittsburghMSA report buying energy-saving light bulbs during theprevious 12 months. And 75 percent say they have up-graded to energy-saving appliances in their homes inthe past five years.

A much smaller proportion reported making en-ergy-saving home improvements. About half of all resi-dents surveyed say they have recently taken steps tomake their homes more energy efficient, such as by in-


ENERGY SAVINGS

During winter months, do you turn down yourheat or set your thermostat at a lower temper-ature down during hours when you’re asleepor not at home? *

?

WATER CONSERVATION

Do you currently take steps to minimize youruse of water, for example, taking shortershowers, not watering the lawn, etc.?*

?




stalling new windows, insulation or investing in solar panels.The survey suggests that Allegheny County residents are lesslikely to make such improvements than those who live in thesurrounding MSA counties.

The survey also suggests the idea of conducting anenergy audit is still relatively unknown to residents in theregion, where 90 percent say they have never had one doneon their home. zx

findings

18

dents believe there should be less government over-sight of environment-related issues.

Residents also favor stronger enforcement offederal environmental regulations by a margin of 70percent to 30 percent.

air quality regulations

The region is more divided over the questionof whether more stringent air quality regulations areneeded. More than 48 percent of residents through-out the Pittsburgh MSA believe air quality regula-tions as they stand today are strong enough, while 43percent feel they are not sufficient.

Only 8 percent of residents believe current airquality regulations are too strict.

olving environmentalproblems is widely seen as a govern-ment responsibility in southwesternPennsylvania. And to help governmentdo so, a majority of residents are willingto support greater oversight of environ-

mental issues and policies ranging from higher motorvehicle fuel efficiency standards to spending morepublic dollars to develop renewable energy sources.

More than 78 percent of residents across theseven-county Pittsburgh Metropolitan StatisticalArea agree that government should be responsiblefor solving Pennsylvania’s environmental problems.

And two thirds of the region’s residents believestate government oversight of the environmentshould increase, with 21 percent saying it should besignificantly increased. Only about 4 percent of resi-

S

energy & environment

Balancing energy production and environmentprotection raises policy questions that in recent yearshave been hotly debated. The findings of the Pitts-burgh Regional Environment Survey suggest that,while there is no definitive consensus on a preferredcourse among southwestern Pennsylvania residents,they are more likely to favor an environment-first ap-proach.

More than 57 percent of residents throughoutthe Pittsburgh MSA believe the government’s prior-ity should be on protecting the environment with therest in support of giving priority to domestic energyproduction.

Among residents surveyed, those most likely tofavor putting the environment first include 18-29-year-olds and those earning between $75,000 and justunder $100,000 a year. Seniors 65 years old or olderand residents with annual incomes of $150,000 andup are the most likely to believe energy productiondeserves top priority.

policy options

The survey suggests southwestern Pennsylvani-ans are willing to support a range of policies that havethe potential to reduce stress on the environment. Infact, the least popular option—increasing emissionsstandards on motor vehicles—is supported by 62 per-cent of those living within the Pittsburgh MSA.

Offering homeowners tax deductions to im-prove the energy efficiency of their houses is favoredby 85 percent of residents, ranking it as the mostpopular of the policy options that respondents had tochoose from. Raising fuel efficiency standards formotor vehicles is supported by nearly 82 percent ofresidents. More than 73 percent support mandatorycontrols to curb carbon dioxide and other green-house gas emissions. And 70 percent of residentsacross the Pittsburgh MSA support spending moretax dollars on developing solar and wind as viableenergy sources. zx


ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS

Do you believe that environmental regulations… * ?


REGULATIONS & JOBS

Do you believe that increased environmentalregulations would threaten your job? * ?




findings

20

regulations vs. jobs

The impact of environmental regulations onjobs and industry continues to be an issue of debateacross the region, state and nation. The PittsburghRegional Environment Survey reports mixed options,although only 28 percent of those who live in thePittsburgh MSA believe environmental regulationsweakens industry and job growth.

More than 31 percent believe environmentalregulations tend to strengthen the job growth andindustry while 40 percent say such regulations havea minimal effect.

The survey suggests that residents most likely tobelieve regulations weaken the job market and indus-try are those who live outside Allegheny County andthose with annual income between $100,000 and

f there is anything that SouthwesternPennsylvanians agree on it’s that the environ-ment has an important role in the economicfuture of the region.

Fewer than 4 percent of residents in theseven-county Pittsburgh Metropolitan Statisti-

cal Area hold the view that the environment is notimportant when it comes to the region’s economicoutlook. The rest believe it is, and 65 percent think itis “very important” to the economy.

There is also wide agreement that business andindustry have a key role to play in the search for solu-tions to Pennsylvania’s environmental problems. Morethan 87 percent of residents across the PittsburghMSA say business and industry should be responsiblefor solving environmental problems in the state, whilefewer than 13 percent disagree with that view.

I

$

$150,000. Residents earning $25,000 a year or lesswere among the most likely income group to believeenvironmental regulations strengthen the economy.

Most Pittsburgh MSA residents, however, don’tfeel environmental regulations jeopardize their liveli-hood. Only 17 percent of residents overall believesuch regulations threaten their job. The survey does,however, suggest that level of education may influ-ence those views. Of residents surveyed, nearly 24percent of those with a high school diploma or lessbelieve environmental regulations are a threat totheir job. By comparison, less than 11 percent of resi-dents who have earned a bachelor’s degree or higheracademic degree feel their job is at risk.

priorities

The majority of Pittsburgh MSA residents be-lieve that protecting the environment should be ahigher priority than economic growth. Nearly 57 per-cent of residents overall favor making protecting theenvironment a priority, even if it means slowing eco-nomic growth.

The survey suggests the residents most likely tothink that way include young adults and those withannual incomes between $50,000 and $75,000. Suchdemographic comparisons are drawn from a smallsample of residents and might not be representativeof the region.

Residents more likely to favor making economicgrowth a priority even at the risk of doing some harmto the environment include senior citizens and resi-dents earning $150,000 a year or more. zx


ENVIRONMENT & ECONOMY

?


ENVIRONMENT & ENERGY

?




With which one of these statements about theenvironment and energy production do youmost agree?*

With which one of these statements about theenvironment and the economy do you mostagree?*

$

findings

22

The most likely residents to make energy produc-tion a priority even at the risk of inflicting some harmto the environment include seniors aged 65 or older andresidents with incomes of $150,000 and up. Such demo-graphic comparisons, however, are drawn from rela-tively small samples of residents and might not berepresentative of the region.

marcellus shale drilling

Is natural gas better for the environment as an en-ergy source than coal and oil? On that question, south-western Pennsylvanians appear divided.

Fewer than 7 percent of residents believe relyingon natural gas as an energy source is worse for the envi-ronment than coal and oil. But the Pittsburgh RegionalEnvironment Survey finds no consensus on whether it

nergy production and its impact on the environment have emergedas high profile issues in southwesternPennsylvania, where drilling for naturalgas in the Marcellus Shale has rapidly ex-panded.

The Pittsburgh Regional Environment Surveysuggests the majority of residents living in the seven-county Pittsburgh Metropolitan Statistical Area sup-port an environment-first approach when it comes todeveloping domestic energy resources.

Nearly 58 percent of residents overall say protect-ing the environment should be given priority over en-ergy production, even at the risk of limiting thenation’s supply of oil, natural gas or coal. Among resi-dents surveyed, those most likely to think that way in-clude young adults and men and women who earnbetween $75,000 and $100,000 a year.

E

is better: 47 percent of residents throughout the seven-county Pittsburgh Metropolitan Statistical Area believeit is, while 46 percent see it as neither better or worsethan coal and oil.

It’s become an important question in southwest-ern Pennsylvania, where drilling for natural gas in theMarcellus Shale formation that runs beneath the regionhas emerged as a major economic and environmentalissue. The Pittsburgh MSA contains counties wheredrilling activity is sparse, such as in Allegheny County,and where it is robust, such as in Washington County.

On one hand, residents widely recognize naturalgas drilling as a local economic opportunity. More than79 percent across the Pittsburgh MSA describe the op-portunity as significant or moderate. Only 7 percentfeel drilling offers little or no economic opportunity forthe region.

Yet, 59 percent of Pittsburgh MSA residents arewary of the implications for the environment and pub-lic health, seeing it as a significant or moderate threat.Those terms were also used to describe the threat tothe environment and public health by 55 percent of resi-dents in the six counties outside of Allegheny Countywhere most of the drilling in the region is under way.

cautious support

Despite such concerns, more Pittsburgh MSA resi-dents support drilling than are opposed to it, by a mar-gin of 48 percent to 29 percent. The rest neithersupport nor oppose drilling.

The rate of opposition is similar to that reportedin the Pittsburgh Regional Quality of Life Survey, whichasked the same question in 2011. In the more recent sur-vey, however, the rate of support for drilling was higherthan the 40 percent reported two years earlier.

The Pittsburgh Regional Environment Survey sug-gests that the percentage of residents who considerdrilling to be a significant or moderate threat to the en-vironment and public health hasn’t changed signifi-cantly in the past two years.

It also suggests that support for drilling has limita-tions. No fewer than 7 in 10 residents in the PittsburghMSA say they are opposed to drilling in state parks,game lands, and wildlife and nature reserves.

They also overwhelmingly favor transparency inthe gas industry that is enforceable by law. More than95 percent of residents across the region believedrilling operators should be legally required to publiclydisclose all of the chemicals used in the hydrofracturingprocess. zx


MARCELLUS SHALE AS ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

Marcellus Shale represents a ————economic opportunity for this region. * ?

MARCELLUS SHALE AS A THREAT TO ENVIRONMENT, PUBLIC HEALTH

Marcellus Shale represents a ———— environ-mental and public health threat for this region.*

FEELINGS ABOUT MARCELLUS SHALE GAS EXTRACTION

Considering everything, how do you feel about naturalgas extraction from the Marcellus Shale region?*

?

?




rom scenic bike trails to city greens with a riverfront fountain,the region’s parks impress, the Pitts-burgh Regional Environment Surveysuggests. Nearly 3 in 4 residents through-out the seven-county Pittsburgh Metro-

politan Statistical Area give the quality of the region’sparks and trails high marks. About 12 percent ratethem as excellent with another 63 percent gradingthem as “very good” or “good.”

The survey also suggests most residents basetheir assessment of the parks and trails on firsthandknowledge. Some 64 percent of residents reportusing them at least six times a year. And only 12percent said they never do. The survey suggestsresidents most likely to get the most use out of theregion’s parks and trails live in Allegheny County,where 40 percent of residents surveyed say they visitparks and trails at least 20 times a year.

In terms of recreation, southwestern Pennsylva-nians are clearly land-lovers. Only 37 percent ofresidents overall say they use the region’s amplerivers and streams more than five times a year. Morethan one-third say they never use the region’s waterresources for recreation at all. Among residentssurveyed, more men than women report using theregion’s rivers and streams for recreation. zx

F14.910.4

13.59.5

26.7 10.9 11.4 16.3

PARKS USE

How frequently do you participate in recreationalactivities on regional streams, rivers and lakes? * ?




findings

24

iver and stream restoration and wildlife habitat are the clear conser-vation priorities of southwestern Penn-sylvanians. More than 37 percent of residents

across the seven-county PittsburghMetropolitan Statistical Area identify river andstream restoration as the conservation issue they aremost concerned about. Another 37 percent reportprotection of wildlife habitat as their top concern.

Those two issues are heavily favored over landacquisition and preservation of scenic views, whichwere the other options given residents who partici-pated in the Pittsburgh Regional EnvironmentSurvey.

The survey suggests men are more likely toidentify river and stream restoration as their biggestconcern, while women are more likely to make pre-serving wildlife habitat a priority. And among thosesurveyed, concern over wildlife habitat tends to fadethe older they are.

Residents over age 45, for example, are lesslikely to cite wildlife habitat as an issue of concern,while nearly half of those under age 30 identify it astheir greatest conservation concern. Such demo-graphic comparisons, however, may not be represen-


RCONSERVATION ISSUES

What conservation issue is of greatest concern to you? * ?

findings

tative of the region due to sample size and other statisticalissues.

Southwestern Pennsylvanians also strongly supportthe idea of encouraging conservation efforts through taxbreaks. More than 3 in 4 Pittsburgh MSA residents favorproviding tax deductions to Americans who place land intoconservation. zx


+

findings

26

hile they may disagree about its severity, the majorityof southwestern Pennsylvanianresidents see climate change asa problem. The PittsburghRegional Environment Survey

suggests that the debate is less about whether theclimate is changing than it is about what is causing itto do so.

More than 64 percent of residents across thePittsburgh Metropolitan Statistical Area describeclimate change as a severe or moderate problem.Only 18.5 percent don’t think it’s a problem.

The survey suggests differences in perspectivesacross age, income and other demographic cate-gories. Of those surveyed, for example, residentsearning more than $75,000 a year are less likely toview climate change as a severe problem than resi-dents in lower income brackets.

Also, far fewer non-white residents feel climatechange is not a problem than whites. Women aremore likely to describe climate change as a moderateor severe problem than men, who are more likely tobelieve it is not a problem at all. Such demographiccomparisons, however, may not be representative ofthe region due to sample size and other statisticalissues.

WCLIMATE CHANGE

To what extent, if any, is climate change a problem? Do you think it’s a… * ?

Residents are more closely divided on whether climatechange is due more to human activities, such as car andindustrial emissions, or more the result of natural changes inthe environment.

More than 56 percent of Pittsburgh MSA residentsbelieve human activities are more to blame, with AlleghenyCounty residents and young adults aged 18–29 years being themost likely of the residents surveyed to hold such opinions. zx

* Statistical significance of these data is available in the Pittsburgh RegionalEnvironment Survey data tables found online at: www.pittsburghtoday.org/The_Pittsburgh_ Regional_Environmental_Survey.html


The University Center for Social and UrbanResearch (UCSUR) conducted the 2013 Pitts-burgh Regional Environment Survey in collabora-tion with PittsburghTODAY, with fundingprovided by PittsburghTODAY and UCSUR. Ques-tions covered a broad range of topics related tothe environment, including general environmentalattitudes and perceptions, air quality, water qual-ity, environmental behaviors, and transportation.The majority of the survey items were existingquestions from prior local and national surveys toallow for comparisons, although many new ques-tions were written specifically for this survey. Thetarget geography for the survey was the seven-county Pittsburgh Metropolitan Statistical Area(MSA) that includes Allegheny, Armstrong,Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington, and West-moreland counties. The survey was conducted bytelephone using random digit dialing (RDD) sam-pling of both landline and cellular telephones inMay and June 2013. A total of 805 surveys (476landline, 329 cell) were completed. Details onsurvey methodology are provided in this appen-dix.

Sample designThe target population was English-speaking

adults (18 and older) living in private residencesin the 7-county Pittsburgh MSA (Allegheny, Arm-strong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington, andWestmoreland counties). The total populationage 18 and older in the MSA according to the2010 Decennial Census was 1,881,314 (981,685

or 52% in Allegheny County; 899,629 or 48% inthe 6-county remainder of the MSA). A stratifiedsample design was used with Allegheny Countyand the remaining six counties of the MSA de-fined as separate strata (along with landline andcell phones within the two geographies; seebelow). The goal was to conduct approximatelyequal numbers (n = 400) of interviews in Al-legheny County and the six-county remainder ofthe MSA (total n = 800).

Random Digit Dialing (RDD) samples of land-line and cellular telephones were drawn to con-duct the survey. The sample was purchased fromSurvey Sampling International (SSI), one of themajor survey sample providers in the U.S. Land-line RDD sampling involves generation of randomphone numbers in a defined geographic area—both listed and unlisted—and was the standardmethod for obtaining representative samples ofhouseholds by telephone until the last few years.The dramatic increase in the use of cell phonesover the past ten years—current estimates arethat slightly more than 50% of all U.S. householdsreceive all or most of their calls on cell phones—has made incorporation of cell phones into RDDdesigns standard practice to avoid coverage error.Research has shown that cell only householdstend be younger, minority, more mobile, morelikely to be employed, and to rent rather than owntheir home. Cell phones are assigned unique areacode/exchanges—which represent where thephone was purchased—which allows separatesampling of landline and cell phones. The landline

technical appendixdetailed survey methods

>>



and cell phone RDD samples were treated as ad-ditional strata within each of the two geographiesin the current sample design. In sum, the sampledesign consisted of four strata:

(1) Allegheny County landline(2) Allegheny County cell phone(3) six-county remainder MSA landline(4) six-county remainder MSA cell phone

The cell phone sample needs to be screenedfor geography, since the respondent may live in adifferent area than where the phone was pur-chased. Some households/individuals have bothlandline and cell phones, and are thus contactableusing either sample frame. Cell phone respon-dents were interviewed regardless of whether ornot they also had a landline phone. In otherwords, we used an overlapping dual frame designand did not screen for cell phone only respon-dents. While this makes statistical analysis some-what more complicated, it is more efficient andless costly than the screening approach. Phoneownership was measured in the survey and ad-justed for through the sampling weights, whichare described below. To balance cost and surveyprecision, the goal was to complete 40% of theinterviews by cell phone.

Within the landline strata, a respondent wasrandomly selected from multiple adult house-holds using the most recent birthday method. Nowithin-household selection was done for the cellphone sample, which was considered an individ-ual device. It should be noted that two potentialsources of coverage error—population membershaving no chance of being included in the sample

—are present with this design: (1) Households with no telephone service (estimated at approximately 2% of households inthe U.S.), and (2) individuals who’ve recently moved to theregion but purchased their cell phone outside theregion (no estimate available, but likely to befairly small). Individuals who were reached whohad purchased their cell phone in the region buthave since moved out of the region were screenedout of the survey.

Data collection and response ratesData were collected in UCSUR’s computer-

assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) lab bytrained interviewers between May 13 and June 12,2013. CATI involves programming the survey in-strument using standard software that displaysthe questions on the interviewer’s computerscreen in proper order with automated skip pat-terns. Data are entered into the system as an-swers are provided. UCSUR telephoneinterviewers receive rigorous training in survey in-terviewing techniques and are continuously moni-tored during data collection for quality controlpurposes. Each sampled telephone number wascalled up to six times on different days of theweek at different times of the day with eveningsand weekends emphasized to maximize probabil-ity of contact. Once an individual or householdwas contacted, as many calls as necessary weremade to either complete the survey or obtain arefusal. The CATI system also automates callscheduling and callbacks. A total of 805 inter-


28


views were completed, including 400 in Al-legheny County and 405 in the 6-county remain-der of the Pittsburgh MSA. In terms of landlineversus cell phone interviews, 476 of the inter-views were conducted on landlines (59.1%) and329 on cell phones (40.9%). Prior to conductingany cell phone interview, the respondent wasasked to confirm that they were in a safe place(i.e., not driving) to answer the questions. How-ever, the survey did not require that the cell phonerespondents be at home while answering thequestions. Interviews took an average of 15 min-utes to complete.

Of the initial 10,426 phone numbers put intothe system, 4,546 were determined (2,775) orestimated (1,771) to be non-households or not as-sociated with eligible individuals (businesses, dis-connected, non-working numbers, not an adult,not in target geography, etc.), and thus ineligible.Of the remaining 5,880 numbers, we were able tomake contact and deliver the survey request to2,681 households/individuals (45.6% contactrate), of whom 805 actually completed an inter-view (30.0% cooperation rate), for an overall re-sponse rate of 13.7%. The landline rates were45.0% contact and 31.8% cooperation, for anoverall response rate of 14.3%. The correspondingcell rates were 48.8% contact and 27.8% cooper-ation, for an overall response rate 13.6%. Note theslightly higher contact rate but lower cooperationrate for the cell phone sample, which resulted in alower overall cell response rate. Although thesemay seem low, they are comparable to current re-sponse rates obtained by similar survey organiza-tions using similar methods in other studies. The

rates are also higher than response rates obtainedusing standard 3–4 day political polling methodol-ogy, which process two to three times as manytelephone numbers to complete the same numberof surveys using limited callbacks. We also ap-plied standard weighting techniques to the data inan attempt to partially adjust for non-response(see below).

Statistical weightingA two-step statistical weighting process was

used in which each completed case was adjustedfor (1) initial probability of selection, and (2) post-stratification on sex, age, education, and raceusing statistical raking. These steps are describedin more detail here.

1. Probability of selection weight.This contained 3 components multiplied to-

gether: (a) initial probability of selection of thetelephone number, which varied across strata; (b)# adults in the household (landline sample only;weight equal to number of adults, always 1 for cellphone respondents); and (c) telephone owner-ship status—those reachable by both cell andlandline are given a weight of 0.5 at this stagegiven twice the probability of selection; those withcell only or landline only are given a weight of 1.

2. Post-stratification raking adjustment. To further adjust for survey non-response,

sex, age (18 –29, 30–44, 45–64, 65+), education(high school graduate or less, some college, bach-

>>

elor’s degree or higher), and race (non-HispanicWhite, other) were included in an iterative pro-portional fitting “raking” algorithm (“ipfweight”)using the STATA statistical package. The algo-rithm performs a stepwise adjustment of surveysampling weights (starting with the probability ofselection weight from step 1) to achieve knownpopulation distributions on the variables included.In this case, the 2010 American Community Sur-vey (ACS) data for the 18 and older population ofthe 7-county Pittsburgh MSA was used to obtainthe population totals. In other words, raking in-volves an attempt to adjust the weights in orderto make the survey distributions on the includedvariables “mirror” the population to the greatestextent possible. This a way to statistically adjustthe survey estimates in order to increase accuracyand reduce bias due to differential non-responseacross demographic sub-groups.

The probability of selection and post-stratifi-cation weights were combined to produce thefinal case weight, which is used for all of the esti-mates in this report. The weights ranged from alow of 0.15 to a high of 5.00. The median weightwas 0.77. The 10th and 90th percentiles were0.33 and 1.93 respectively. The 25th percentile ofthe weighting variable was 0.50 and the 75th per-centile was 1.27.

Precision of the survey estimatesSince the sample design was not a simple

random sample – we used stratified samples oflandline and cell phones and calculated sample

weights to adjust for selection probability andnon-response – the complex sample design re-sults in a loss of precision (i.e., “design effects”).The design effects in the survey (which are calcu-lated separately for each survey estimate) rangedfrom 1.1 to 1.5, with the typical design effect beingabout 1.25. This is an estimate of the variance ofour complex sample design parameter estimatesto the variance we would have obtained from asimple random sample of the same size withoutusing sample weights (i.e., our variance is 1.25 aslarge as an SRS of the same size). This typical de-sign effect is taken into account for the followingmargin of error (MOE) estimates. For the totalsample (n = 805) the (design-effect corrected)margin of error is +/- 4.3%. For the separate esti-mates for Allegheny County and the six-countyremainder MSA (approximate n = 400), the MOEis +/- 6.1%. However, these MOE are “worstcase” scenarios assuming that the parameterbeing estimated has a proportion of .50. For esti-mates closer to 0% or 100%, these MOE’s aresmaller.

However, it is important to note that surveys aresubject to additional non-sampling errors, includ-ing those due to coverage error, non-response andmeasurement errors (i.e., question wording, inter-viewer effects, respondent fatigue or deception),which are not accounted for in the margin of errorestimates. These should be taken into accountwhen interpreting these and any other surveydata. zx


30

Scott BeachPhD, Associate Director & Director of Survey Research, UCSUR

Emily D. CraigDirector of Communications and Business Development, PittsburghTODAY

Milana NickMPA, Director of Research, PittsburghTODAY

Isabel T. OrozcoMSW, Research Specialist, PittsburghTODAY


Jeffery FraserSenior Editor, PittsburghTODAY

Julia FraserStaff Writer, PittsburghTODAY

Report design by Jennifer McNulty; data charts by James HilstonPhotographs by Jim Judkis on pages 10, 14, 18, 20, 24; all other photos by iStockphoto


University of Pittsburgh

University Center for Social and Urban Research (UCSUR)

3343 Forbes Avenue

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260

ucsur.pitt.edu

PittsburghToday

3343 Forbes Avenue

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260

pittsburghtoday.org

U C S U R

The Pittsburgh Regional Environment Survey

Documents

Transcript of The Pittsburgh Regional Environment Survey