Grantee Research Project Results
Final Report: Public Opinion on Environment and Water Quality Management in the New York City Watershed
EPA Grant Number: R823466Title: Public Opinion on Environment and Water Quality Management in the New York City Watershed
Investigators: Pfeffer, Max A. , Stycos, Mayone
Institution: Cornell University
EPA Project Officer: Packard, Benjamin H
Project Period: May 1, 1995 through April 1, 1998
Project Amount: $371,317
RFA: Socio-Economics (1995) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Environmental Justice
Objective:
This project took advantage of a natural experiment in environmental management in rural watersheds that supply New York City (NYC). It focused on the development of public knowledge, attitudes and behavior toward the environment in samples of l,000 households in upstate communities and 1,500 NYC residents.
In the late 1980s, NYC learned that if it could not meet standards set by the l986 federal Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments, it would be required to construct the world's largest water filtration plant at an initial outlay of over $5 billion (this remains true today). Despite the heavy investments (e.g., $250 million in capital funds for land acquisition, $80 million for upgrading sewage treatment plants, and another $240 million in capital funds for watershed protection investments) made by NYC as part of it Memorandum of Agreement with upstate towns and environmentalists, social research on the determinants and development of public opinion toward the environment and the watershed was almost entirely absent. We attempted to fill this gap in part, by conducting a study of the of public opinion.
Because knowledge and opinion were expected to differ markedly between NYC residents and upstate watershed residents, separate sampling schemes for each population were used. A probability sample of 1,000 NYC households received a brief telephone interview in the fall of l995, and a second interview 2 years later. These data supplemented an ongoing panel study conducted with separate funding. In the panel study, communities were selected in an experimental design in order to evaluate the impact of outreach efforts on environmental knowledge, attitudes, and practice. An inventory of community characteristics and two telephone interviews with 70 households in each of l4 watershed communities and two control communities outside the watershed yielded baseline data in the first year of the study. Personal qualitative interviews with a sub-sample of community leaders provided data corroborating or qualifying the survey data.
The objectives of our research were to:
1. Describe public opinion regarding the environment in general and watershed issues in particular, among a representative sample of NYC dwellers and a sample of upstate townspeople.
2. Identify differences in environment related knowledge, attitudes, and behavior between city and town residents, among towns and among individuals.
3. Assess change and the determinants of change in knowledge, attitudes, and behavior over a three year period, as the debate between the towns and the city unfolds.
4. Feed back survey results to community leaders and to NYC officials, and to establish appropriate mechanisms to enhance utilization of the survey findings.
5. Evaluate educational efforts to be introduced by Cornell Cooperative Extension.
Summary/Accomplishments (Outputs/Outcomes):
Research based on data from this project continues, and we expect to publish these results over the next few years. To date, we have published nine articles and book chapters, contributed findings from this project to two National Research Council Reports, one Ph.D. dissertation was completed under this project, ten invited presentations were given, and our findings were reported at thirteen professional meetings. Currently, we have six papers under review or in preparation for publication. Finally, we completed five summary reports that were distributed to the public and officials. The results of the project are summarized below.
Objective 1: Public Opinion in the Watershed and City. Controversy between NYC and upstate towns regarding watershed regulations and land use was softened by adoption of the Memorandum of Agreement between the parties, but expediting the agreement will depend on continuing public concern and support, especially among the upstate towns.
Our study found that the upstate population evidenced considerable concern for general environmental problems, but that a sizable minority did not share these concerns or did not have attitudes strong enough to be translated into action. These attitudes were almost identical to those of a control group from two towns adjacent to but outside the watershed. We also found that attitudes toward watershed issues were more conciliatory than might have been expected, before the Memorandum of Agreement was signed and at the height of hostile relations between the towns and NYC. By far the most popular management option was locally based environmental programs funded by the City. However, enthusiasm for negotiation had been far from unanimous, and a substantial minority preferred suing the City to further the negotiations.
Most notable, however, was the low level of information possessed by many upstate watershed residents, especially those living east of the Hudson River. Although knowledge among watershed residents was clearly superior to knowledge in the control villages, only one in every ten could correctly identify some of the leading actors in the watershed controversy, and over one-quarter had not even heard of towns' lawsuit against the City.
Exposure to newspaper and television news about watershed issues was positively related to knowledge, and watershed residents reported themselves to be considerably more exposed than the control groups to mass media information on the watershed. However, our analysis could not tell us whether media exposure produces more knowledge or more knowledge leads to greater media exposure.
We tried to explain differences in knowledge and attitude by relating them to five characteristics: age, political affiliation, education, gender, and residence east or west of the Hudson. Residence dominates the other variables in accounting for watershed attitudes and knowledge itself cannot be explained away by its relation to the other characteristics. That is, striking differences between East and West residents cannot be explained by politics, education, age, or gender. This is in contrast to general attitudes toward the environment, where education and political affiliation are the chief correlates and which virtually eliminate differences by residence.
Our findings on the determinants of "involvement" in watershed issues should be of particular interest to those engaged in programs of watershed action or education. The involvement measure combined behavior (whether the respondent had talked about the watershed to local leaders or close friends) with a self-appraisal of involvement (how closely he or she followed watershed issues). Among both East and West residents, knowledge was a strong correlate of involvement B, the greater the knowledge, the greater the involvement. It is superior knowledge that largely explains the greater involvement in watershed issues on the part of better educated and West-of-the-Hudson residents. The fact that knowledge did not help to explain attitudes toward the City, however, may indicate that knowledge stimulated personal action but did not determine what direction that action would take. However, we could not ascertain the direction of the relationship. Although increased knowledge may have stimulated involvement, it is equally plausible that increased involvement stimulated knowledge seeking, without altering the direction of attitudes. (See #4 below for more details.)
In a related analysis we evaluated the relationship between the form and content of environmental knowledge. We contrasted basic concepts from the sociology of knowledge and rational choice theory, and this comparison served as the basis for the generation of several hypotheses about how individuals develop environmental knowledge. These hypotheses were tested with data from our study of individuals rural communities in the NYC watershed, which have been engaged in an extended controversy over management of watershed lands by New York City. We specified several models to evaluate the effects of "cultural praxis" on persons' environmental knowledge. We then modeled these results as community level outcomes that expressed local history and culture. The results of our analyses showed that personal interactions with fellow community members regarding local environmental problems, or "cultural praxis," was the strongest individual level predictor of environmental knowledge. However, community culture/history strongly conditioned the effect of cultural praxis. We concluded with a discussion of the theoretical relevance of our empirical findings. (See #38 below for more details.)
Objective #2: Environmental Knowledge Attitudes and Behavior. In some of our treatment of environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior, we attempted to evaluate a "realist" explanation of the growth of environmental concern. Some social scientists argue that worldwide evidence of high levels of national and global environmental concern refute the post-materialist explanation of the growth of environmentalism. That thesis, it is argued, cannot account for levels of environmental concern as high in less developed countries as in advanced industrial ones. Some have posed an alternative, "realist," explanation of environmental concern. They argue that the direct experience of environmental degradation contributes to higher levels of generalized environmental concern. Our case study of the NYC watershed offered a useful context to evaluate the realist thesis, with our data on public opinion in the NYC watershed. In a series of nested ordinary least squares regression models, we estimated national environmental concern and evaluated its relationship to local environmental concern. Analysis of our survey data revealed considerable discrepancy between local and national environmental concern in the United States, offering little support for the realist explanation. In our study, local and national environmental concerns were most closely connected by a socioeconomic elite within the NYC watershed. Our findings suggested that the connection between local and national environmental concern was socially constructed rather than a reflection of the direct experience of environmental degradation. This connection was made by a socioeconomic elite with a common educational background and other shared social experiences, creating a shared set of values. These common values include both strong concern for environmental quality coupled with a personal sense of responsibility for local environmental problems. (See #42 below for more details.)
Also, using our survey data, we evaluated perceptions of national, local, and world population size. Considerable public ignorance of population size was revealed, with gender differences the most critical explanatory variable. Males were much more likely to respond to knowledge questions on population size, and to respond more accurately, even after several other characteristics were held constant. However, knowledge is at best unrelated to measures of concern about population, and even show a slight tendency to be associated with lower concern. (See #6 below for more details.)
Another of our analyses examined value conflict in environmental planning focusing on the NYC watershed case. We argued that value conflicts in modern society create ethical dilemmas for individuals. Specific value conflicts appeared with the growth of environmentalism in the United States. Values emphasizing common goods like ecosystem integrity became more important with the emergence of environmentalism. These environmental values often clash with the American cultural heritage treating nature as a collection of resources separately available for appropriation and exploitation. The clash between these value spheres presents individuals with conflicting norms and obligations. Under such circumstances, individual behavior is based primarily on personal choice. But are these decisions based on definable value orientations held by individuals? If so, which value orientations are most important, and what is their social and political content? These questions are of practical importance for addressing environmental problems, like non-point source pollution, which are not effectively addressed by either command and control environmental policies or market based incentives. We addressed these questions with data from our NYC survey. We hypothesized the existence of two key value orientations and their relationship to environmental behavior. We analyzed our attitudinal data with confirmatory factor analysis to test our hypotheses about value orientations. To test our hypotheses about the relationship between value orientations and environmental behavior, we regressed an index of environmental behavior on our computed measures of value orientations and additional control variables. Our analysis showed that competing value orientations exist and have opposing impacts on the environmental behaviors of individuals. One of the implications of our findings is that individuals may be torn between incompatible demands of competing values, potentially leading to inconsistent and less effective behavior. We suggested that under these circumstances individuals must rely on an ethic of responsibility to guide their behavior, and we discuss possible means for encouraging the exercise of an environmental ethnic of responsibility. (See #38 below for more details.)
Several of our analyses focused on NYC residents. One of these compared environmental behaviors of immigrants and the native-born to answer questions about potential impacts of immigration on the United States' environment. We considered immigrant/native-born differences in the likelihood of engaging in environmental behavior. With data from a survey of New York City residents, we tested two hypotheses regarding environmental behavior: (1) controlling for ethnicity would increase immigrant/native-born differences; and (2) controlling for acculturation, environmental knowledge, environmental orientation, community attachment, and economic status would reduce immigrant/native-born differences. Our analysis provided no support for the first hypothesis, but there were varied results for the second depending on the type of environmental behavior considered. (1) When considering behaviors we labeled "green" consumerism, our hypothesis was confirmed. (2) Controlling for acculturation, environmental knowledge and community attachment increased immigrant/native-born differences in the likelihood of conserving water. (3) Immigrants are significantly less likely than the native-born to engage in environmental advocacy or political behaviors even after controlling for other factors in the analysis. Our findings for New York City showed that fears of immigrants being less likely to engage in environmentally-friendly behaviors were unfounded. Of greater significance to environmental organizations was the lower level of immigrant involvement in environmentally-oriented political behaviors, suggesting that continued immigration will present challenges in both making the environmental movement more ethnically diverse and in maintaining its vitality. (See #37 below for more details.)
Another analysis centered on consumer confidence in NYC tap water. This issue is of substantial interest as Americans have become increasingly distrustful of public authorities, and this lack of confidence is perhaps most pronounced in environmental matters ranging from the disposal of hazardous wastes to the management of local drinking water supplies. One way to evaluate NYC residents' confidence in the water supply system is to ask them if they think it is safe and clean. In our telephone interviews of mare than 1,500 NYC residents we asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: "New York City has one of the safest and cleanest water supplies in the world." Opinion was evenly split; a little more than half (54 percent) agreed, while almost one-half (46 percent) disagreed. This indicator of confidence in the water supply revealed clear differences in City residents' perceptions of the overall quality of the water supply, the performance of DEP, satisfaction with federal water quality standards and the likelihood of drinking bottled water.
Differences in confidence in the water supply were related to trust in the NYC Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). In fact, the majority of those who lacked confidence rated DEP's performance as "fair" or "poor." Those who lack confidence were also much more likely to think that federal water quality standards were "not strict enough," whereas those confident in the system were more likely to think that the guidelines were "about right." Differences in levels of confidence in the water supply were also reflected in water consumption. Those lacking confidence were twice as likely to drink bottled water only. Overall NYC residents were less likely to drink tap water than central city residents nationwide. Most striking was the finding that about thirty percent of all New Yorkers drank only tap water, compared with almost one-half of central city residents nationwide. Clearly a substantial proportion of NYC's population lacked confidence in the water supply, and this lack of confidence was related to perception of water quality, overall rating of DEP's performance, satisfaction with federal drinking water standards and drinking bottled water for concerns about health. (See #43 below for more details.)
Finally, some of our analyses attempted to link the needs and concerns of upstate residents with those of the City. In one analysis we begin with the observation that recent metropolitan expansion reduced the spatial separation of the urban population and farming and created the conditions for agriculture to re-emerge as a meaningful part of urban individuals' lives; i.e., that agricultural production is salient to them and that they value it not only for the commodities it produces, but also its role in the local community and ecology. We examined this argument in New York State, which provides interesting contrasts between very dense urban settlements, suburban sprawl, and sparsely settled rural areas. We also considered the relationship between New York City residents and agriculture in the rural areas which provide its drinking water. This case is illustrative because of programmatic efforts to build rural-urban linkages through agriculture. Our analysis of survey data in New York indicates that spatial proximity to agriculture made people more likely to be interested in and aware of food produced within the state. A relatively small proportion of NYC residents expressed interest in generically labeled New York State produce. In contrast, a large proportion of NYC residents would be willing to pay more for products from an agricultural program that protected water quality. We also found that the propensity to pay more for such products was accentuated by individuals' concerns about the common environmental and social good. For example, the willingness to pay more for these products was not related to personal experiences with tap water, but with broader concerns about the importance of environmental protection, the perceived need for stricter environmental regulations, and a belief that NYC had a responsibility to pay upstate towns for protecting this water supply. These findings indicated that urban consumers value agriculture for specific services provided, and that they relate these services to broader community needs. By addressing such consumer preferences, farmers in peri-urban areas can connect with the urban population, serve the common good, and tap a tremendous market potential. (See #2 below for more details.)
Objective #3: Assessment of Changes in Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior. This work is ongoing. We found that the effort to understand these changes only with panel data resulted in incomplete and inconclusive analyses. We are in the process of supplementing our panel survey data with available secondary data and personal accounts from persons involved in the NYC watershed controversies of the 1990s. We will publish these findings which take a more historical and less statistical approach in coming years.
Objective 4: Feedback Survey Results to Community Leaders and NYC Officials. We most directly addressed this objective in publishing and distributing a series of reports summarizing our survey findings. (For details see #33-36 below). Results from our study are also presented in two National Research Council Reports which have been widely distributed in NYC, the watershed, and throughout the Nation. (See #s 43 and 44 below for more details).
Objective 5: Evaluation of Educational Efforts Introduced by Cornell Cooperative Extension. Integrated watershed management encompasses complex physical and social issues that have impacts on environmental resources. A key aspect of this holistic effort is public education. Most researchers and practitioners agree that an informed public is a crucial part of the environmental management process. Yet, educational programs that provide stakeholders with information about physical processes in watersheds are often unavailable. We assessed the effect of an education program for residents of the NYC watershed. Surveys evaluated certain knowledge levels and attitudes of participants and compared three groups: individuals who utilized the educational materials completely (full users), those who received the materials but did not use them completely (partial users), and watershed residents who did not receive the educational program (nonrecipients). Full users displayed a higher level of knowledge concerning specific watershed processes than did partial users and nonrecipients. In terms of applying that knowledge across linked concepts, however, we observed no significant differences between the three readership levels. Furthermore, partial users engaged in less evaluation of issues that related to the broader watershed context. The findings from this project have implications for educational and regulatory institutions and program development relating to watershed protection. (See #s 5, 7, 8, 9, and 45 for more details.)
Journal Articles on this Report : 5 Displayed | Download in RIS Format
Other project views: | All 43 publications | 8 publications in selected types | All 5 journal articles |
---|
Type | Citation | ||
---|---|---|---|
|
Pfeffer MJ, Stycos JM. Immigrant environmental behaviors in New York City. Social Science Quarterly 2002;83(1):64-81. |
R823466 (Final) |
Exit |
|
Platt RH, Barten PK, Pfeffer MJ. A full, clean glass? Managing New York City's watersheds. Environment 2000;42(5):8-20. |
R823466 (Final) |
not available |
|
Stycos JM, Pfeffer MJ. Does demographic knowledge matter? Results of a poll in the New York City Watershed. Population Research and Policy Review 1998;17(4):389-402. |
R823466 (Final) |
Exit |
|
Wagenet LP, Pfeffer MJ, Sutphin HD, Stycos JM. Educating the public about on-site wastewater treatment system maintenance and watershed protection. Water Courses 1997;4(3):3-4. |
R823466 (Final) |
not available |
|
Wagenet LP, Pfeffer MJ, Sutphin D, Stycos JM. Adult education and watershed knowledge in upstate New York. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 1999;35(3):609-621. |
R823466 (Final) |
Exit |
Supplemental Keywords:
RFA, Economic, Social, & Behavioral Science Research Program, Water, decision-making, Drinking Water, Economics & Decision Making, public resources, watershed, environmental assets, environmental values, environmental policy, psychological attitudes, water quality, interviews, public policy, regulations, other - risk managementRelevant Websites:
watershed, New York, New York City, NYC, survey, water quality, drinking water.Progress and Final Reports:
Original AbstractThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.