Grantee Research Project Results
Final Report: Evaluating the Dissemination and Impact of Toxics Release Inventory Data
EPA Grant Number: R828721Title: Evaluating the Dissemination and Impact of Toxics Release Inventory Data
Investigators: Vasu, Michael , Dimock, Michael
Institution: North Carolina State University
EPA Project Officer: Chung, Serena
Project Period: December 1, 2000 through November 30, 2002
Project Amount: $196,197
RFA: Market Mechanisms and Incentives for Environmental Management (2000) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Environmental Justice
Objective:
The objectives of this research project were to: (1) determine how Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) information, which is disseminated to the public, is received by the public; and (2) what, if any, means there are for improving the delivery and understanding of TRI data.
Summary/Accomplishments (Outputs/Outcomes):
Three waves of telephone surveys were conducted in two geographical areas to empirically assess the extent to which the public is aware of, and reacts to, TRI data. We conducted focus groups with the general public (selected from the sample of participants who agreed to phone interviews) and tested various forms of delivering TRI data. Finally, we conducted indepth interviews in the two survey locations of news media members to understand how they use and disseminate TRI information.
TRI is the most prominent environmental information program and many desirable outcomes have been attributed to it, at least through anecdotal evidence. TRI also is a very, if not the most, expensive environmental information program, now costing more than $500 million annually, with even more expansion of its reporting requirements being contemplated. Thus, just as with other environmental programs, it is important to evaluate its effectiveness.
Our research design proposed both a quantitative and qualitative approach to achieving our objective of evaluating the dissemination of TRI data. The quantitative portion of this research was a three-phase survey of 600 citizens in Baltimore, MD, and Wake County, NC. The surveys were designed to measure the extent of public awareness of TRI information. Overall, this three-phase survey design provides unique and important information about TRI accessibility, awareness, and impact. In addition to the comprehensive analysis of TRI, the surveys provide a rich source of information about more general environmental attitudes and behavior, overall evaluations of information approaches to environmental protection, and specific responses to other environmental information approaches. The telephone survey protocols included comprehensive information about a crucial assumption behind market-based solutions to environmental pollution; the extent to which the public is aware of, even in the most general terms, specific information about pollution sources and whether that awareness has any effect on their behavior as consumers or active citizens.
The phase one survey instrument was designed by the principal investigators to measure public awareness of TRI and TRI facilities in the respondents’ area and to identify the sources of that information. In phase two, respondents who expressed familiarity with TRI were asked followup questions that explored the extent of their knowledge. The phase two survey also asked respondents about their general attitudes regarding information approaches to environmental protection. These questions were asked to gauge the public’s general perception of, and support for, information approaches to environmental protection. In addition, the phase two survey included questions about other government efforts to increase public awareness of environmental issues.
Overall, the primary objective of the phase two survey was to identify any changes in awareness of TRI information since its release and to pursue more detailed questions about TRI awareness and usage that could not be included in the phase one instrument for fear of contamination. Shortly following the completion of the phase two survey, respondents in each research location were randomly assigned to one of three experimental subgroups. We mailed the subgroups a document displaying the 1999 data on local TRI facilities provided in three different formats. Respondents were asked a series of questions about the format they received. The final phase of the surveys was completed in the fall of 2001.
As the analyses in this paper have demonstrated, public awareness of TRI specifically, and of TRI facilities, is very low. After nearly 15 years of TRI data, only a small percentage of the respondents to our survey were aware of TRI and, on average, of any of the largest TRI facilities in their county. Thus, to the extent that the effectiveness of TRI depends on a substantial percentage of people being aware of its existence or of the facilities whose chemical use it discloses, TRI’s effectiveness must be narrowly constrained. There is no evidence that public awareness of TRI is at the level claimed by some of its advocates, even among our sample of respondents whose socioeconomic status and proximity to TRI facilities should have increased their awareness.
Those who were aware of TRI and TRI facilities appear to be a small segment of people who are either especially concerned about environmental issues and actively seek out environmental information from many sources or have come into contact with TRI facilities through personal experiences rather than environmental activism. The general population, however, appears to be overwhelmingly unfamiliar with TRI. Thus, to the extent that awareness of TRI or of TRI facilities is an important precondition for environmental activism pressuring facilities to reduce their chemical use, the pervasive lack of awareness is a significant obstacle. It is important to remember, however, that it might only require the efforts of a small percentage of people to effectively apply pressure on industrial facilities because a few percent of hundreds of thousands of people still produces thousands of people seeking a particular outcome.
Focus Groups
Two focus groups were conducted with a subsample of the telephone respondents. The general purpose of the focus groups was to isolate the search features respondents seek when searching a Web site. The protocols given to the respondents were hardcopy outputs of Web sites described subsequently. The majority of randomly selected respondents reported that they did not use the Internet to search for data. This was true even for those who used the Internet extensively to shop or for other commercial purposes. The objective of the focus groups was not necessarily the information (e.g., TRI data), but what search features were attractive to the respondents who were looking at a Web page in the first place. In this sense, it was an attempt to get the respondents to discuss search preferences and data display preferences. The respondents were given three forms of information (hardcopy output). Form A was ScoreCard: U.S. Counties by Cancer Risk From Air Pollution, Form B: The-Right-to Know-Network, and Form C: The Environmental Protection Agency Network.
We currently are (fall 2004) writing a more extensive article on our focus group experience. Our primary analysis indicates that the most important feature of the Web site is the ability of the user to locate his/her neighborhood (e.g., zip) and compare it to other counties, regions, and states. This “frame of reference” perspective was extremely important to high-end users of the Internet and to those who had never used the Internet before. In fact, many commented that the environmental data were otherwise useless. Other features noted as important were that the Web site clearly identifies the resources it contains in a clear and comprehensive fashion . It also was discovered that the terms “hazardous and toxic chemicals” were confusing to the average citizen. Many people wanted to know: “compared to what.” The search for a standard or operational definition, expressed in incidence and prevalence terms, was a major topic of discussion. The final important issue that emerged from the focus groups was a paradox; many users reported that they could not determine how they could be informed, persuaded, or prompted to search the Internet for this type of information. In other words, if they did not know the Web site existed, there was no consensus by what medium they could be prompted to inquire about Web sites on toxic materials.
Media Interviews
We sought to determine how environmental stories were formed and disseminated to the public in our target areas. To understand this issue, we conducted interviews with media representatives. We began by expressing the following: “We’re interested in whether and how news organizations in the Baltimore/Raleigh area have covered news stories related to local environmental conditions, particularly as they are related to industrial pollution.” We asked why some stories commanded a lot of attention. The typical answer was that the stories had to have a political angle. What issue commanded that political angle (e.g., Chesapeake Bay pollution versus Hog Lagoons) was different in different target areas, but the role of impact on the population (measured numerically) seems to be the operational expression of what constituted “the political angle.”
Next, we asked about the sources of environmental stories. Typical answer categories in both areas were: (1) phone calls from readers and environmental groups; (2) state legislative beat reporters (part of the problem with working the environmental beat is that it is so diffuse and there are so many agencies involved; thus, you cannot wait in a particular institution or the courthouse and expect to talk to all relevant actors); and (3) a fair amount through (vigorous) academic research circles. Many of these research organizations have active public relations (PR) organizations. Another conclusion, in both areas, was that the environmental beat is less “personal” than most other beats; reporters do get out in the field with scientists from time to time, but the job is almost entirely an office-bound job. The Internet contributes to this by making reporters more dependent on the PR representatives of environmental organizations.
Another type of environmental story is: “Is government telling the truth?” A third kind of environmental story that gets in the paper—the teaching story—is called “Ecology 101.” Editors and readers recognize that the natural world is more complicated than we realize and that engaging, intriguing stories are easier to get published than stories in other areas/beats. In addition, reporters go to original documents (this is one way that the Internet has made life easier for them). They also talk to the other side, to those without an economic, political, personal, or professional “stake” in the issue. In this sense, environmental stories are like any other beat. “People always try to provide information, whether data or case, that favors their position.” The reporter’s job is to discern the credibility of that information.
Next, we asked: “Are you familiar with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “Toxics Release Inventory?” All media representatives were aware of TRI. We asked: “Have you used data from TRI directly in news stories, or was it simply background material used in verifying information you had received from another source?” The answer was: “in both ways.” A common theme, however, was that TRI data are sometimes incomplete and at times inaccurate or misleading.
Moreover, media representatives report going to the EPA’s Web Site. They also use generic search engines. We asked: “Do you attempt to contact any industry representatives or members of the EPA in order to help interpret the meaning of TRI data?” A common answer was: “It depends on the substance of the story.” For example, one comment was: “I usually talk to people at the EPA but I don’t rely on them.” Some employed background sheets on a specific chemical. These were archived on the Web site links. They also employed manufacturer’s material safety data sheets, which are reports that are easily available. Also, the MERC medical reference dictionary was used frequently. Media representatives were asked: “How helpful is EPA?” The answer depends on the region. “At the national level the EPA press office is atrocious” was one comment. Another comment was: “Whether intentionally obstructionist or not, I try my best to avoid them. There are a couple of people there who are responsive—but most won’t call back until the next day or more, or won’t call back at all. If they know something will be unpopular, or will place the EPA in a bad light, they release the information on a Friday at 6pm. All places do this, but the EPA is particularly blatant about it.” The regional offices are reported to be much better, more responsive and more helpful.
Journal Articles:
No journal articles submitted with this report: View all 4 publications for this projectSupplemental Keywords:
public policy, cost-benefit, decisionmaking, Economic, Social, and Behavioral Science Research Program, chemistry, ecology, economics, market mechanisms, social science, community right-to-know, environmental compliance, environmental economics, incentives, information dissemination, interviews, pollution prevention, surveys, Toxics Release Inventory, TRI, spatial dimensions, geographic information system, GIS, media and environmental stories,, RFA, Scientific Discipline, Economic, Social, & Behavioral Science Research Program, Ecology, Chemistry, Economics, Market mechanisms, Social Science, community right-to-know, surveys, decision making, incentives, toxic release inventory (TRI), information dissemination, cost benefit, environmental Compliance, interviews, pollution prevention, environmental economicsProgress 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.