MSU LIBRARIES RETURNING MATERIALS: lace in boo remove this your record. FINE A PUBLIC ASSESSMENT OF CONCERNS AND BELIEFS ABOUT FOREST APPLICATION OF SLUDGE By Larry Mark Gigliotti A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Fisheries and Wildlife 1983 ABSTRACT A PUBLIC ASSESSMENT OF CONCERNS AND BELIEFS ABOUT FOREST APPLICATION OF SLUDGE By Larry Mark Gigliotti Forest application of sewage sludge is a new issue in Michigan. At present only small scale experimental disposal programs exist, studying the technical aspects and impacts to forest lands. However, an important obstacle to the success of land application systems is the acceptance of such procedures by the public. The objectives of this research were to link current technical disposal research to the human aspects which influence public opinion. Almost half oftflngeneral public were undecided about forest ap— plication with about one/fourth favorable. Beliefs about the alter— native sludge disposal methods were the best predictor of attitudes towards forest application. Human health was the over-riding value priority by which beliefs were evaluated, i.e., the method believed to be safest for human health was preferred. Technical knowledge was low due mainly to a lackcflfknowledge rather than inaccurate know- ledge. The characteristics of this issue make it an optimal Opportunity for effective public involvement and education efforts by managing agencies. The time and efforts expended on this study are dedicated with love to Sara Lee Chubb, my strength and support, and my parents who have always given me love and encouragement. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Ben Peyton for his support and guidance through my Masters program. I truly consider him an exceptional advisor, teacher and friend. Appreciation is also extended to Dr. William Taylor and Dr. Joseph Fridgen for serving on my graduate committee. I want to also thank all of my friends and fellow students who supported and encouraged me. Special thanks to Tom Lagerstrom. Finally, I am grateful for Susan Hazard for the excellent job in typing this thesis. Funding for this research was provided by a grant from the Environ- mental Protection Agency administered through the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES. ........... 0.... ....... .0...00.0........ ..... 0.... Vi LIST OF FIGURES ... ............................... . .......... ..... Xi Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 0 o o o ...... o o o o o o o oooooo o o 00000000000000000 History of the Problem ......... .............................. Statement of the Problem ......... ........... . ................ Objectives and Research Questions ................ ............ Importance of This Research .................................. Limitations ............................. ................ ..... \so‘mmb ... Chapter 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ......... ..... .... ........ 9 Sludge Disposal ............................. ....... .......... 9 Public Participation ........ ....... .......... ..... ..... ..... . l7 Attitudes ................................ ....... ............. 24 Beliefs ................ ..... ............................. 25 Values ................................... ..... ........... 26 Assessment of Environmental Attitudes .................... 27 Attitude and Knowledge ....... ....... ..................... 30 Attitude and Behavior ................... . ........ .. ...... 31 Chapter3 RESEARCHMETHODS ......O... ....... ......0...0... ....... 34 Development of the Survey Instrument -- Theoretical Framework ................................................... 35 Instrument Validity and Reliability .......................... 36 Description of Survey Instrument .......... ....... . ..... ...... 37 Selection of Sample ....................... ...... ............. 42 Administration of the Instrument ............................. 43 Estimate of Non-Response Bias ..... ........ ................... 43 Data Analysis ................... ......... ......... ........ ... 44 Chapter 4 ANAIJYSIS OF SURVEY RESULTS 0 O O O . 0 . O 0 . . 0 0 ........ O ..... 0 45 Survey Response Rates ........................................ 45 County Comparisons on Demographic Variables .................. 45 Estimate of Non-Response Bias ................................ 49 Research Question 1 .......................................... 56 Research Question 2 .......................................... 68 Research Question 2 .......................................... 89 Research Question 2 ..... ...... . ..... ......................... 103 iv Page Research Question 3 ............. . ................. ........... 118 Research Question 3 ....... ........ .... ...... ................. 135 Research Question 3 ....... ......... ... ........ ...... ......... 140 Research Question 4 .......................................... 143 Chapter 5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..... ......... .......... 155 Estimate of Non—Response Bias ...................... ......... . 155 The State of the Issue ........................ ............... 156 Implications for Education and Public Involvement .. ......... . 157 Implications for Future Research ... ......... .. ......... . ..... 171 Summary of Major Findings ...... ................. . ...... . ..... 174 LIST OF REFERENCES ..................... ..... . ..... ....... ..... ... 178 Appendix A COMPLETE SURVEY INSTRUMENT ........................... 185 Appendix B SURVEY MAILINGS ........ ............. .. ............ ... 200 Appendix C TELEPHONE SURVEY INSTRUMENT USED TO DETERMINE NON-RESPONSE BIAS .................0..........0..00.... 203 Appendix D DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES Tables 1—11 .... ............ .... 209 Appendix E DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS OF SURVEY BY QUESTION ..... . ..... . 223 Number 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 LIST OF TABLES Page General public and public official survey reSponse rates for seven Michigan counties ............... ........ 46 Chi square tests of significance between respondents (mailed survey) and non-reSpondents (telephone survey) on key selected variables for the general public and public officials samples ........... .......... 50 T-tests of significance between age of respondents (mailed survey) and non-respondents (telephone survey) for the general public and public official samples ...... 51 Ranks, weighting and calculated scores of four categories of concerns about sludge disposal by the non-respondent general public and public officials samples and assigned values and ranks by respondents .... 52 Comparison of reSpondents and non-respondents on key selected variables for which chi square significance (a.= 0.05) was found for the general public ........ ..... 53 Comparison of reSpondents and non-respondents on key selected variables for which chi square significance (a = 0.05) was found for the public officials ........... 55 Mean number of past citizen actions by number of days taken to return questionnaire (o,= 0.05) ................ 56 County comparisons of attitudes of general public and public officials towards a hypothetical forest applica- tion proposal (a = 0.05) ..................... ..... . ..... 57 Comparison of county commissioners and township super- visors on their attitude towards a hypothetical forest application proposal ........................ ..... 59 Attitudes of the general public towards a hypothetical forest application proposal as a function of member- ship on environmental-outdoor type organizations (a g 0005) coo.so.0.00.0one...o.ooooooooooooceoooooeoqocc 59 vi Number 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 Attitudes of general public towards a hypothetical forest application program analyzed by significant demographic variables (a = 0.05) ................. ...... Comparison of preferred sludge disposal method by county (a = 0.05) .................. . ......... ... ....... Relationship of preference (first choice) for sewage sludge disposal method and membership in environ- mental-outdoor type organizations (a = 0.05) ..... ..... . Preference (first choice ) for sewage sludge dis- posal method analyzed by significant demographic variables (a - 0.05) ............... ..... ............... Relationship of the general public's attitude toward a hypothetical forest application pr0posa1 with their preference (first choice) of sewage sludge dis- posal methods (a = 0.05) ....... .................. ...... Mean knowledge score analyzed by significant demo- graphic variables (o,= 0.05) ........... ........ . ....... Percent of general public giving correct, incorrect and don't know responses on each knowledge item (N = 1475) ......... Perceived impact of forest application (effects score) compared by significant demographic variables (o.= 0.05) ........................................ ..... Perceived impact of forest application analyzed by each item in the effects score .........................a Number of reSpondents judging each disposal method as best or worst method ................................... Ranking of desirability of forest application by respondents grouped according to perceived impacts of forest application (effects score) preference for sludge disposal method and attitude towards forest application ....................................... ..... Frequency distribution of the relative forest impact socre for the general public ........................... vii Page 62 64 65 67 69 74 77 78 81 Number 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26 4.27 4.28 4.29 4.30 4.31 4.32 4.33 4.34 Page Mean relative forest impact score analyzed by signi- ficant demographic variables (a = 0.05) ............ ..... 82 Relationship between attitude towards a hypothetical forest application proposal and skepticism towards programs proposed by the Michigan DNR (Q 16) ............ 84 Relationship between attitude towardszahypothetical forest application prOposal and trust in local and state agencies to properly manage a forest application site (Q 37) ............... .... .......................... 84 Relationship between attitude towards a hypothetical forest application proposal and the perceived accuracy of the Michigan DNR as an information source ... 85 Frequency distribution of the variable, degree of skepticism, for the general public ..... ...... ........... 86 Mean skepticism analyzed by significant demographic variables (a = 0.05) ... .................. . .............. 88 Mean E/E (economic/environmental) scores analyzed by significant demographic variables (a = 0.05) ............ 91 Number of points allotted to each of the four values by reSpondents grouped according to their EE scores (environmental/economic) .......................... ...... 95 Number of points allotted each of the values by those opposed to, in favor of, or undecided about forest application 0.0.0....000.........0000............0....00. 96 Number of points allotted to each of four values by respondents grouped according to their preference for diaposal method ......... .. ..... ....... ..... .... ......... 97 Mean number of concerns about a state forest appli- cation proposal analyzed by significant demographic variables (0 = 0.05) ....... ...................... ....... 99 Relationship between respondents' feelings about the source of sludge used in nearby state forests and their attitude towards a hypothetical forest appli- cation proposal (a = 0.05) ........................ ...... 100 viii Number 4.35 4.45 4.46 Page Relationship between the respondents' degree of preservationist value (Q 17) and their knowledge scores, perceived impact of forest application (effects scores) and E/E (economic-enviornmental) scores (a = 0.05) .......... ........... ......... ......... 101 Relationship between the respondents' degree of pre- servationist value (Q 17) and their attitude towards a hypothetical forest application proposal (a = 0.05) ... 102 Relationship of types of forest activities with attitude towards forest application, preference for sludge disposal method and E/E (economic/environ- mental) groups .......................... ...... . ......... 104 Interest in learning more about the problems caused by sludge disposal (Q51) analyzed by significant demographic variables (a = 0.05) ............. ........... 106 Previous awareness of the concept of applying sludge to land (Q 50) analyzed by significant demographic variables (a = 0.05) ....... . ....... . .......... ... ....... 108 Likelihood that respondents will use various sources to seek more information on natural resource issues ..... 111 Relationship of likely information sources with attitude towards a forest application proposal .......... 112 Mean rating of perceived accuracy of information sources by the general public ......... ........ .................. 115 Mean rating of perceived accuracy of information sources analyzed by attitude towards a hypothetical forest appli— cation proposal ......................................... 116 Intention of respondents to become involved in a hy- pothetical forest application porposal analyzed by significant demographic variables (a = 0.05) ............ 123 Preferred level of involvement (Q 7) on sludge diSposal issues analyzed by significant demographic variables (c.0005) 0.0.0.000...00.0.0.0...OCOOOCC ........ 0.0.0... 124 Perferred level of involvement on sludge diSposal problems analyzed by attitude towards a hypothetical forest application proposal (a=l0.05) ............ ....... 126 ix Number 4.47 4.48 4.49 4.50 4.51 4.52 4.53 4.54 4.55 4.56 4.57 4.58 Preferred level of involvement in sludge disposal problems analyzed by significant variables (a = 0.05) .... Relationship of intention to take action with attitude towards a hypothetical forest application proposal (d»= 0.05) ........... . ....... . ...... ............ Relationship of intention to take action with intention to become involved in a hypothetical forest appli- cation proposal (G'= 0.05) ..... ............. ............. Relationship of intention to take action with know- ledge scores, effects (perceived impact of forest appli- cation) scores, E/E (economic/environmental) scores and skepticism.scores (o:= 0.05) ................ ........ . Frequency distribution of the involvement scale for the general public ... ............. . .......... ...... .......... Number of intended citizen actions for a hypothetical forest application prOposal analyzed by the re- spondent's most important forest activity (0 = 0.05) ..... Reported history of past participation (Q 6) analyzed by significant demographic variables (a = 0.05) .......... Past citizen actions score analyzed by E/E (economic/ environmental) groups (a = 0.05) ................... ...... Comparison of the preservationist and non-preservationist groups on the number of citizen actions respondents intend to take (“=0005) o.oooooooooooooooooooooooco ooooo Perceived influence score analyzed by intended invol- vement, E/E (economic/environmental) groups, intended actions and skepticism scale ................ ...... ....... Frequency distribution of the dependent variable, atti- tude towards forest application of sewage sludge, among the general public .......................... ....... Stepwise Multiple Regression: Prediction of attitude towards forest application of sewage sludge .............. Page 128 132 132 133 134 137 139 141 141 142 146 149 LIST OF FIGURES Number Page 4.1 Frequency distribution of the economic—environmental (E/E) score for the general public ................ ....... 90 4.2 Comparison of respondent's intended citizen actions to a hypotehtical forest application preposal and their past history of citizen actions on any issue during the past five years ...................... ......... 120 4.3 Level of their own influence on local, state and federal government agencies perceived by the general public (with 95% Confidence Intervals) ..... ...... ........ 121 4.4 Relationship of respondent's number of intended citizen actions to a hypothetical forest application proposal and the number of forest activities the respondent had engaged in during the past two years (F = 17.634; df = 7; p<=0.000) ........................................ 136 4.5 PrOposed model of value, attitude, and behavior re- lationships in a forest application issue ...... .......... 144 4.6 Sludge source belief and evaluation components held by those Opposed, favorable, and undecided about forest application of a sludge ............................. ..... 152 xi Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Sludge is a semi-liquid waste produced by the wastewater treatment process (Institute of Water Research, 1982). During the past decade, efforts to improve our nation's water quality have led to increased outputs from municipal wastewater treatment systems. As we strive to meet a national goal of zero discharge of pollutants into navigable waters by 1985 as mandated by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500), the annual volume of sludge will increase. Ironically, as we attempt to correct one problem we create another -- that of sludge disposal. According to Torrey (1979) sludge disposal has been defined as perhaps the thorniest problem associated with sewage treatment. An estimated 40 percent of the capital cost of a treatment plant goes for sludge handling with a significant portion going towards disposal costs. These costs are expected to increase since the amount of wastewater to be treated is projected to increase 48 percent while sludge volume is expected to increase 158 percent by 1990. In the past, disposal practices of sludge have been varied and almost always unregulated (Borchardt, et al. 1981). Current sludge disposal technology includes incineration, land-fills, ocean dumping and land application. However, if sludges are burned some of their constituents are put back into the air. If these constituents are washed out with scrubbers, they are put back into the water. Burning sludges also leaves residues that must be diSposed of in land-fills. One frequently used method of sludge disposal in the past was to bury it in land-fills. The soils were considered to have an un- limited capacity for wastes of all types. Little was known about the ion exchange and transfer potential of metals to plants or the filtering capacity of the soils. No one suspected that chemicals in the sludge could pass through the soils and contaminate the groundwaters. Ocean dumping, an alternative available to coastal cities, was mandated to end after December 31, 1981. However, a federal judge in New York indefinitely extended New York's right to continue ocean dumping while the alternatives are studied once again (Adler, 1982). Effects of ocean dumping are largely unknown. Recycling--called land application--offers a beneficial alter— native for sewage sludge management (Torrey, 1979). Recycling changes sludge from a waste to a resource. Sludges contain nutrients and organic material which can be beneficially utilized for plant growth (Jacobs, 1981). With dramatic increases occuring in the prices of oil, natural gas, fertilizers and chemicals derived from hydrocarbons, re- cycling of sludge has promising potentials. While three—quarters of the municipal sewage produced by Michigan is incinerated or dis- posed of in land-fills, an increasing quantity is being applied to land-- forest and agricultura1-as a low grade fertilizer and soil conditioner (Torrey, 1979). One advantage of forest application over agricultural application is the reduced threat of toxic chemicals being introduced into the human food chain. There is a wide range of various types of sludges each with its own unique chemistry and disposal problems. Not all sludges are safe for land application. Some sludges may contain unsafe levels of heavy metals, nitrates or toxic organic chemicals which would require special handling. Even 'safe' sewage sludge can cause problems if handled improperly. Obnoxious odors or pathogens may enter the en- vironment if pools of sludge remain for long periods after application. In addition, leaching into surface or groundwaters may result in a buildup of toxic chemicals. Land application of sludge is most cost-effective for smaller rural cities of 10,000 to 100,000 population where application sites are available within 30 miles of the treatment plant (Institute of Water Research, 1982). Sludge quality is expected to improve as many Michigan communities implement industrial pretreatment programs now required by law (Davidhizar, 1981). An important obstacle to the success of even safe land appli- cation systems is the acceptance of such procedures by the public (Loehr et al., 1979). The reasons for public rejection are di— verse and complex. Agency efforts to analyze public response to gain public support are just as important as the biological and engineering studies. Long before large amounts of money and time are spent on the biological and engineering studies the question of public involve— ment must be addressed and considered in the overall design. Public involvement is a desired goal in resource management as failure to involve the public may seriously misguide projects or lead to delays and increased costs if a project is halted by court or administrative action (Heberlein, 1976). However, public participation may take several forms and be motivated by a variety of reasons. It is important to match the right technique with the desired objec- tive(s) (Rosener, 1978). Yet, public participation does not assure that logical decisions will be made (Wengert, 1971), especially if the public is not knowledgeable (e.g. about waste management techniques). History of the Problem In 1980, the EPA, though the Michigan Department of Natural Re- sources (MDNR) planned to conduct a four year study of the effect of sewage sludge on four different upland forest types and associated fauna in the northern lower peninsula of Michigan. An ideal study area which met the criteria of containing the four upland forest com- munities in close proximity to each other, having well drained soils, and being easily accessible by good roads was located in Kalkaska County. The study plan was presented thhe local residents in 1981. However local opposition developed and each of the three affected town- ship boards passed a resolution rejecting the project. The MDNR then located a new study area in Montmorency County and studies conducted by Michigan State University have begun (see Lagerstrom, 1983 for analysis of citizen reaction in the two Michigan counties). The overall purpose of the MDNR studies is to gather data needed to develop guidelines for the safe use of forest application of sludge. The actual decision as to which sludge disposal technique will be used will be made by each municipality, subject to MDNR approval. Statement of the Problem Effective public participation will depend on the public being knowledgeable about all aspects of sludge management including the alternatives. A public which holds the view that sludge should not be applied in their area must understand that if sludge is not applied to land then some other type of disposal method must be used with its own set of consequences. People may not be aware of the effects of the project or the implication of their own preferences (Heberlein, 1976). Also, the public must realize that effective sludge management will require a statedwide approach and the community boundaries may have to be overlooked at times. Torrey (1979) stressed the need for a "holistic approach" to sludge management. In the case of sludge management in general and forest applica- tion specifically, beliefs, values and attitudes of key publics need to be assessed in order to predict response to this technology and to develop effective public involvement programs. Although public be- havior is related to beliefs, values and attitudes, the relationships are obscure, and research is needed to understand the theoretical aspects of these relationships. Without prior understanding of the sociological aspects, agencies could polarize public opinion on the issue of forest application as happened in Kalkaska County. Objectives and Research Questions The initial objective of this study was to develop a survey in- strument to assess the public's knowledge and value system on forest application of sludge and alternatives. This survey was used on a population to determine the relationships of knowledge, values, concerns, desires and other social variables that may interact and play a role in determining behavior toward forest application of sludge as a waste-management alternative. More specifically, research questions were: To what extent would the selected publics in Michigan accept a proposal to apply sludge to forest lands in their own or distant areas? How do selected Michigan publics representing environmentalists, political figures, and general public compare on the following dependent variables: A. extent of and accuracy of beliefs concerning forest application of sludge and alternatives? B. nature and priority of values and concerns about sludge disposal? C. perceived educational needs and preferred information sources? What is the type of public participation preferred by selected Michigan publics for this type of resource management decision making as indicated by: A. the public's stated preference for public involvement models? B. the reported history of past participation? C. the public's perception of their own effectiveness through public participation? What theoretical relationships may be inferred among values, beliefs and behavioral intentions concerning sludge disposal technologies? What type of educational model should be considered by the DNR concerning forest sludge application as indicated by: A. the preferred information sources indicated by various publics. B. self perceived and real information needs of the public. Importance of This Research This research will add to the understanding of the theoretical relationship between beliefs, values and behavior. The information gathered will be used to identify education program needs and re- commend public involvement procedures. Limitations The results of this survey pertain to the northern half of the lower peninsula and the upper peninsula of Michigan and may not be applicable to other areas. For example, southern Michigan, with its larger urban population centers, may have different values towards forest areas and/or a different perspective on sludge disposal. Also the degree of skepticism of state agencies may be quite different in southern Michigan or other states. Care must also be taken when generalizing to northern counties not included among the seven sample counties. It is possible that some county or counties may be quite different than the sample counties due to some unique history or situation. Lagerstrom (1983) has suggested that past history was an important variable influencing Kalkaska County residents' rejection of the forest application demonstration site. While the target population is adults, the sampling frame was people with driver licenses. This should not cause any bias for this survey, since few people will be excluded and the peOple excluded would not be expected to be different from license holders on the variables of interest (Harris, personal communications). An additional problem with this type of survey is the reliability and validity of responses. Many respondents have never thought about sludge disposal problems, their own reaction to them, nor how they would want to be involved in such problems. Some respondents may attempt to guess at the types of responses that they feel the re- searcher is looking for (demand characteristics) or will attempt to respond with the "right" answer rather than how they truely feel (social desirability). People may over-react to the issue and express much active opposition or they may under-react since they are not faced with the real situation (many people do not react until the "bull— dozer" is at their back door). Attempts were made in the design of the instrument to minimize these effects. First, the respondent's attitude was assessed near the end of the questionnaire to allow them to first consider their beliefs and values. Secondly, "don't know" responses were available for many of the questions so that the respondents were not forced to give an opinion. Thirdly, many variables were measured with a number of similar items to provide a more reliable measure. Finally, respondents were forced to consider alternative technologies in addi- tion to the forest application pr0posa1 to provide a more realistic context for their decision making. Chapter 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE This chapter is sub-divided into three parts. Part one deals with the literature concerning sludge disposal. Part two covers the related literature on public participation and part three deals with attitudes. SLUDGE DISPOSAL The Congressional mandate to clean up our nation's waters through increased secondary water treatment has greatly increased the pro- blem.of municipal sludge disposal. In the United States, the volume of municipal sludge requiring disposal is estimated to be about 17,000 dry tons per day (Kover cited in Torrey, 1979, p. 154). This volume is expected to increase to 23,000 dry tons per day over the next ten years. Sludge disposal technologies, and their percentage of use in the United States are (Bastian cited in Torrey, 1979, p. 116): Disposal Method Percentage Use Incineration 35% Landfilling 25% Ocean dumping 15% Land application Crops 20% Other 5% 10 The disposal of sludge is a complex problem that can affect the air, land and water and produce a variety of social and political problems. Ocean dumping, an alternative available to coastal cities, was mandated to end after December 31, 1981. However, a Federal Court indefinitely extended ocean dumping while the alternatives are studied once again (Adler, 1982). Although many effects of ocean dumping are unknown, U.S. EPA (1971) reported that sewage sludge de- stroys the marine habitat in the immediate vicinity of the sludge field. The main objective of incineration is volume reduction and steri- lization of the end product (Loehr, 1981). Incineration reduced sludge to about 30 percent of its dry weight volume, leaving a highly concentrated ash that must still be disposed in landfills (Sivinski and Morris cited in Torrey, 1979; p. 117). Incineration also pro- duces air pollutants-~nitrogen and sulfur oxides, heavy metals, and some toxic organics. While scrubbers can be used to reduce these air pollutants by concentrating them into a liquid waste, this new, highly concentrated waste produces special disposal problems of its own (Loehr, 1981). Finally, the incineration process is very expen- sive largely due to the fuel required to burn the sludge. A large percentage of the hazardous constituents introduced by industrial or other sources into the municipal wastewater system remain in sludge after wastewater treatment (Borchardt, et al., 1981). In landfill disposal, heavy metals and other hazardous materials may appear in the leachate from the sludges or residues 11 from oxidation. These can be transported into groundwater. In landspreading, metals can also contaminate ground or surface waters, and both metals and synthetic organics such as PCBs may endanger soils, crops and animals. Sludge is the inevitable product of our standard of living and our desire for a better environment (Borchardt, et al., 1981). Sludge must be considered as a potential threat to the environment and as a potential resource that should be utilized. In considering environmental impacts of sludge disposal it is important to consider the relative risks associated with sludge disposal options. Each option will involve environmental risks and there can be no hope of reducing all risks to zero. Proper operation, maintenance and monitoring of sludge utilization and disposal practices are essential to avoid adverse environmental impacts. Sewage sludge is a general term used to describe a variety of materials, commonly a suspension containing one to ten percent solids, produced during treatment of wastewater (Torrey, 1979). Sludge generated from domestic sewage plants is essentially organic, although measurable quantities of metals, mdnerals and other come pounds invariably are present (Borchardt, et al., 1981). The sludge also may contain pathogenic organisms that survive the wastewater treatment process. (EPA recommends application of only stabilized sludges on land due to the potential threat of diSpensing pathogens contained in 'raw' sludges.) Sewage sludge is a very heterogeneous material, varying in composition from city to city and from day to day in the same plant. Where the wastewaters contain industrial and commercial wastes, the potential for toxic materials in the sludge is increased. 12 As a result of the passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500), land application as a waste-management alternative has been reemphasized (Loehr, et al., 1979). For certification and shared-cost funding under this legi- slation, a waste treatment proposal must include evidence that the plan is based on "the best practical technology" and "the most cost effective method(s) over the life of the works." There is no apparent value in disposal of sludge in the ocean, air or buried underground--landspreading is the only option for which benefits can be measured. Another important advantage of land application is cost. Incineration and landfills are much more expensive (Parr, et al., 1983). Sludge is a potential resource. It contains nutrients, parti- cularly components of nitrogen and phosphorous, useful in agricul- ture and silviculture and in reclamation of strip-mined lands. It is estimated that sludge could meet up to five percent of the nation's fertilizer needs. As commercial fertilizer costs increase, use of sludge becomes more appealing (Torrey, 1979). The impact of toxic chemicals in sludges can be reduced by using proper management procedures. For example, if the soil is allowed to become acidic, the solubility of a number of the toxic metal compounds is increased, and an unnecessary accumulation of these substances in plants may result (Bitton, et al., 1980). Industrial pretreatment of wastewater from highly industrialized areas could decrease substantially the heavyemetal contents of sludges, and this would considerably reduce the hazards associated with use 13 of the sludges (Torrey, 1979). The impact of heavy metals in sludges on plants, animals and humans may be limited by rational management methods. Cadmium is one element of concern since it can be a serious hazard to animals and humans if dietary levels are increased substantially. Due to the possible risks involved, land applica- tion systems should be monitored. The application of municipal sludge to cropland poses a poten- tial health risk to the public due to the survival and transmission of pathogenic organisms (Bitton, et al., 1980). Conventional sewage treatment procedures remove most of the microbial pathogens associated with municipal sewage, but these procedures are not in- fallible nor 100 percent effective. Sludge applications to the land pose a potential for offensive odor nuisances if not properly managed (Torrey, 1979). Due to the variability of sludges with respect to odor generation, a case-by- case evaluation is usually necessary to determine the extent of the problem and best (if any) treatment procedure. Typically land application of sludge has been limited to agri- cultural lands (Reynolds and Cole, 1981). Forestlands provide an alternative to agriculture where heavy metals may be too high to permit economical application rates or where food processors refuse to accept food crops grown on sludged lands. The application of liquid anaerobically digested sludge to forestlands has been shown to be cost-effective. Research has demonstrated that sludge, when applied to Douglas fir forests in the Pacific Northwest at rates comparable to certain agricultural applications increased tree 14 growth dramatically without harming the environment (Reynolds and Cole, 1981). Nitrogen is a major factor that limits the annual application rate of many sewage sludges on cropland (Sommers and Nelson, 1981). Compared to conventional fertilizer materials, sewage sludges are a dilute source of plant available nitrogen. A 'typical' sludge contains approximately three percent total nitrogen. Whenever the amount of nitrogen applied exceeds the nitrogen requirement of the crop grown there is a potential for nitrate (N03) to leach into groundwater. Nitrates can be toxic to animals in elevated concen- trations. In addition, excess nitrogen can accelerate the eutro- phication process resulting in a deterioration of water quality. A.10 mg N0; N/liter limit has been established for drinking water supplies. Also, specific limits have been established by U.S. EPA (1979) for cadmium.and this metal may control annual application rates for high cadmium sludges. There have been numerous studies of the use of sewage sludge on various soils and vegetation types and their impact on the flora and fauna (Hahn, et al., 1977; Dressler and Wood, 1976; Sagmuller, 1965; Wood and Simpson, 1973; Brockway, 1979; Bulkey, 1981; Campa, 1983; Sopper and Kards, 1973; Sopper, 1977; Chmiel and Harrison, 1981; Lepp and Eardley, 1978; Zzsoki, et al., 1977; and Woodyard, 1982). Within the last decade, a considerable effort has been made to evaluate the feasibility of using forest lands as potential sites for recycling sludges. In addition to their abundance, forests possess other attributes that make them attractive sites for sludge 15 disposal, such as an extended growing season, an extensive rooting network with maximum opportunity for nutrient uptake, and less opportunity for toxic chemicals to get into the human food chain. Studies are currently being conducted exploring the possibilities of contaminates affecting humans through the wildlife food chain (personal communication, Woodyard, 1983). It is recommended that any land-recycling system be monitored for changes in water quality or vegetation. Then if any problems arise, they can be corrected before site quality is severely altered. The initial cost of forest land application might seem expensive, but recent evidence suggests that landspreading of sludge may be the least costly, yet environmentally safe, means of sludge dis- posal (Torrey, 1979). Thus, under good management and with proper site conditions, many communities may find sludge applications to forests a suitable alternative to the common and more expensive practice of incineration or landfilling of sludges. Social Concerns of Sewage Sludge Application to Land: Public accep- tance is a key determinant for the success of a land application project (Loehr, et al., 1979). However, most of the available in- formation on land application of sludges focuses on the technical aspects with little more than a mention of the importance of the social aspects. Yet opposition can be so great that the application site is rejected. The public may even reject land application as an alternative waste management technique. Human wastes have long been applied to land and until relatively recent times, in the form of raw sewages (Bitton, et al., 1980). 16 With advances in the understanding of the causes of disease the public realized the potential dangers associated with the use of raw sewage. The use of sewage on land acquired a stigma that is still with us today. Connotation in language is a signal to underlying values (Bealer, et al., 1982). Our language symbolizes human wastes as negative, disvalued or offensive which places a stigma on the reuse of such wastes that is not easily overcome in many people. For example, Coughlin, et a1. (cited in Bealer, et al., 1982, p. 18) found that certain residents living in proximity to a well-run sanitary land- fill operation listed as their major objection to the facility "just the fact that it is there." There are many concerns about sludge application to land on which the public may focus. Health concerns may be due to presence of metals, toxic organics and/or pathogens in the sludge. Aesthetic concerns include odors, appearance, erosion or runoff. When land application sites are proposed, local Opposition can be intense. This Opposition can escalate considerably when the sludge is from another political jurisdiction (Loehr, 1981). Lagerstrom (1983) found that the source of sludge was a major cause of Kalkaska county residents rejecting a proposed forest application demonstration study. Urbanization and the resulting population centers are exerting an ever-increasing demand on technology for procedures to manage municipal wastes in an environmentally 'safe' and acceptable manner (Bitton, et al., 1980). Society's awareness of our need to reuse, when possible, resources contained in wastes has led to an increased 17 interest in the application of municipal sewage sludge to agriculture and forest lands. The recent movement may be the key to acceptance of land application programs. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION To address the public's concern about resource management de- cisions in general and forest application of sludge specifically, some type of public participation is needed. Local citizen interest in sludge disposal stems from the public nature of sewage treatment issues and the potential external effects of land application (Toland, et al., 1981). Under certain Michigan laws, third parties have rights to either block the implementation of a program or to set restrictions on land application. "Many people appear no longer willing to tolerate unilateral decision-making by institutions but feel they must involve themselves in the events of the day, trust their own feelings, and make their own judgements," (Wilkinson, 1976). In a study by Haas, et a1. (1972) respondents were asked 0 0 who should decide whether or not scientists may experiment with cloud seeding in a community. Eighty-five percent thought that local residents or local public officials should make the decision, while ten percent preferred state or federal governmental officials. Only four percent wanted the decision made by scientists. These same respondents agreed (80%) that "scientific experiments in general usually produce useful results..." Thus, even though the public believes that something good may be accomplished they still insist on having a say in matters that affect them. 18 It was not until the "maximum feasible participation" clause of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 that citizen participation became an activity mandated by law in a large number of public programs (Rosener, 1978). Citizen participation mandates continue to proliferate at all levels of government and have made citizen participation an increasingly important issue. However, most man- dates are vague and ambiguous. There is little consistency in the way participation is perceived, developed, carried out and evaluated. In many cases, the concern for increasing public participation reflects democratic ideals, in other cases it reflects a recognition that the views and interests of some segments of society have been ignored (Wengert, 1971). In still other cases it may simply be a reaction to the politics of confrontation, demonstration and violence while for some it is just a matter of getting on the "band wagon." The demand for public involvement does not occur with regard to all matters that affect the public (Heberlein, 1976). In fact, there is usually very little such demand. According to Reidel (cited in Heberlein, 1976),..."concern for participation arises almost entirely in the context of real or imagined failure of govern— ment to respond appropriately to the more competitve needs and demands of citizens, some of whom feel that the reSponse would have been more satisfactory had their values been given and assured their hearing." As long as individuals trust the decision maker to act in their best interest, they have no need to participate; however, as trust erodes, the demand for public participation tends to in- crease (Heberlein, 1976). 19 Erickson (1980) defines public involvement as "any activity that (1) brings the viewpoints of organized citizen groups or in- dividual expressions into an agency for consideration and/or (2) encourages the transmission of technical information." However, public participation is not an all-or-nothing process--at one end of the continuum is the 'expert' or 'planning for others' position. At the other end of the continuum is a democratic participatory system in which the public is involved directly and throughout the entire process. Between the extremes are a variety of public participation methods. In the expert position, professionals design projects or make decisions to satisfy the people and their needs. This approach argues that public participation is not necessary and often unde- sirable because they make the project or decision making process more expensive and time consuming (Wandersman, 1979). In contrast to the expert approach, the argument for public participation is that people need to participate and that participation gives people a feeling of control. There may also be a dissonance effect whereby participants are more positive about projects or decisions that they had some input in. According to Wandersman (1979), participation influences satisfaction by considering the public's needs and values in the project and by reflecting the public's control over the situation. Wandersman (1979) studied three types of participation in planning environments: (1) 'self—planning' condition--the subject generates alternative designs from components already available and 20 chooses the one he/she wants, (2) 'choice' condition--the subject chooses between alternative plans that were developed by the planner, and (3) 'no participation' condition--the subject has no choice or feedback about the design. His results showed that both 'self—planning' and 'choice' types of participation resulted in greater user satis— faction than ‘no participation.‘ The general lack of significant difference between 'self—planning' and 'choice' is very important be- cause if it holds true for 'real world' situations, 'choice' is a 'much easier, cheaper and more feasible participation strategy than 'self-planning'. Subjects who participated in the planning process (self-planning and choice) clearly felt that they had more input and they liked these processes more than subjects who did not participate (no participation). wandersman's subjects ranked four types of participation as follows: (1) self-planning in consultation with an expert, 59 percent (ranked as first choice); (2) self-planning, 33 percent; (3) choice, 15 percent; and (4) no participation, i.e., expert plans for you, 2 percent. He also found that willingness to participate was not related to person- ality variables of need for independence and locus of control but tended to be related to how much the subjects cared about the environ- ment being considered (design of dorm room). Wandersman concludes that people want participation, especially in environments that are important to them and that most would prefer to work in conjunction with experts. Much caution should be applied before generalizing to other situations. For example, some people highly concerned about natural resources may elect not to become involved because they feel that the best decisions would be made by experts. 21 However, Wandersman suggests some people like to and want to par- ticipate, while others would be glad not to have the burdens and responsibilities of planning and would rather have someone else plan for them. Some examples (Peattie, 1968 and Warren, 1963) suggest that relatively few people actually participate when given the Oppor- tunity. Many planners consider the silent public as the really im- portant segment and view organized vocal groups as minorities who don't speak for many people (Willeke, 1977). However, such groups can be. effective surrogates for the general public, doing the necessary re- search, presenting the case to responsible decision makers and muStering the necessary political support. The general public is often skeptical about the sincerity Of officials at public meetings and. their Opportunity for involvement (Arnstein, 1969 and Beaulieu and Carter, 1979). Heberlein (1975) presents a list Of some common complaints by the public. Similarly, public Officials often fear the public and are frustrated by the de- mands frequently placed on the Officials by individuals attending public meetings (Wengert, 1971). Often the involvement Of citizens is viewed by public Officials as being time-consuming, inefficient, irrational and not very productive (Rosener, 1978). Hornback (1977) proposes a model of public involvement and states that... "the re- moval of Obstacles to public involvement depends on changing the nature of the relationship that exists between the public and the agency and, consequently, changing the nature Of the roles played by public Officials and members Of the public." When implementing any participation program the first step should include a determination Of the goals and Objectives (Rosener, 1978). 22 For example, it should be decided whether the participation is in- tended tO generate ideas, identify attitudes, disseminate information, resolve some identified conflict, measure Opinion, review a proposal or merely to serve as a safety valve for pent-up emotions. The list of possible Objectives will differ from time to time and from issue to issue. It should become clear that participation is perceived differently depending on the type Of issue, the parties involved, the policy process and the attitudes Of the public Officials and citizens who will be involved. Once the goals and Objectives Of a participation program have been articulated, the next step would be to select the participation tech- niques that are apprOpriate and suited to the program Objectives. Frequently tuna reason for lack of citizen involvement is the mis- match Of participation techniques with program Objectives and the capability Of citizens (Rosener, 1978). Rosener presents a matrix matching 14 participation functions with 39 participation techniques. Poorly planned participation programs can create a lack Of confidence and generate a stronger demand by citizens for increased participation. Heberlein (1976) critiqued the public hearing, public Opinion poll, the workshop and the quasi-experiment. He suggests the public hearings and workshops Often lack adequate representation while public Opinion polls and quasi-experiments require more time, money and ex- pertise. Lagerstrom (1983) gives a review of literature summarizing techniques of public participation and the need for public assessment. It is clear from the literature that a public assessment is a crucial aspect to public participation--identifying the public's positions 23 and concerns important to developing the goals and objectives of a participation program. While there are many real benefits from public participation not the least of which are management programs that better meet the publics' needs, it must be recognized that efficiency and partici- pation dO not necessarily converge Guiller and Rein, 1969). Also, neither equity nor justice are necessary consequences Of increased participation by itself (Weingert, 1971). For rational decisions to result, the sponsoring agency must have well defined Objectives for participation and must utilize the proper participation techniques. Effective participation will require time and planning, Otherwise, citizen involvement is likely to make decisions even more difficult. 24 ATTITUDES An Attitude Theory Framework The concept Of attitude has played a central role in the devel- opment of American social psychology, yet there is no single defi- nition of attitudes acceptable tO all who do research on attitude change (Kiesler, et al., 1969). However, most theorists agree with the framework that differentiates attitudes into two separate com- ponents--affect, the emotional component, and belief, the cognitive component (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Most also agree that affect is the most essential part of attitudes. Many also add conation (be- havioral intentions and actions) as a third component of attitudes (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Examining the theoretical organization of belief and affect is necessary in order to understand public preferences and attitudes to- ward resource management actions and policies (Heberlein, 1973). Fishbein (1963) has advanced an expectancy—value model mathematically defining the relationship between beliefs about an Object and attitudes toward that Object. This model is useful in measuring public atti- tudes. Fishbein's (1963) theory can be summarized as follows: (1) an individual holds many beliefs about any given Ob- ject, i.e., many different characteristics, attributes, values, goals, and Objects are positively or negatively associated with a given Object; (2) associated with each of these 're- lated Objects' is a mediating evaluation response, i.e., an attitude; (3) these evaluative responses summate; (4) through the mediation process, the summated evaluative response is associated with the attitude Object, and 25 thus (4) on future occasions the attitude Object will elicit this summated evaluative response, i.e., this attitude. and algebraically expressed as: A = the attitude toward some Object O, bi = belief 1 about Object O, the subjective probability that O is related to some attribute 1, e1 = the evaluation of attribute i, n = the number of beliefs, 1 = an attitude (another Object, concept, characteristic, goal, value, etc.) associated with Object O. Beliefs Beliefs represent the information the person has about the object, linking an Object to some attribute. For example, the belief 'forests are full Of wildlife' links the Object 'forests' to the attribute 'full Of wildlife'. The Object Of a belief may be a person, group, a behavior, policy, event, etc., and the associated attribute may be any Object, trait, property, quality, characteristic, outcome, or event. An important aspect Of Fishbein's model is that beliefs will vary in strength (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). In other words, peOple may differ in terms of the perceived likelihood that the Object has (or is associated with) the attribute in question. Attitudes are viewed as affective or evaluative in nature, and that it is determined by the person's beliefs about the attitude Ob- ject. People can hold positive and negative beliefs about an object, 26 and attitude is viewed as correSponding to the total affect asso- ciated with their beliefs. For example, a person's evaluation Of a forest will be positive or negative based on their belief that the 'forest is full of wildlife' and the sum Of other beliefs held about the forest. If wildlife is valued, then the belief that the 'forest is full Of wildlife' will be a positive belief. Values "A value is an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state Of existence is personally or socially preferable to an Opposite or converse mode Of conduct or end-state of existence" (ROkeach,1973; p.50. ROkeach identified five assumptions about the nature Of human values: (1) the total number Of values that a person possesses is relatively small; (2) all men everywhere possess the same values tO different degrees; (3) values are organized into value systems; (4) the antecedents Of human values can be traced to personality, culture, and society and its institutions; (5) the consequences Of human values will be mainfested in virtually all phenomena that social scientists might consider worth inves- tigating and understanding. Pierce (1979) defines values as ".... preferred outcomes or preferred ways of achieving those outcomes." He states that in- dividuals go through a process of "value preference ordering." His research shows that individuals will choose policies which favor their value preference. Specifically, Pierce found a higher ranking Of preservation as a water resource use priority positively asso- ciated with the ranking Of a "world of beauty" value. 27 The organization Of values into systems is probably similar to that of beliefs, with horizontal and vertical structure, and more central values (Langenau and Peyton, 1982). Values are very interrelated and probably do not function often in decision making as single entities. Centrality is an important characteristic Of the organization of values. ROkeach (1968) proposed a number Of central or foundational values (e.g., freedom, happiness). Kluckhohn (cited in Miles, 1978) refers to a "value orientation" as a "constellation Of values...that are 'organized' into a system of belief which influences behavior..." Values enter into environmental problems when either (1) beliefs that influence the selection of alternatives Of action are out Of touch with environmental reality, or (2) the valuative pro- cess breaks down, or both (Miles, 1978). The first can occur when a decision must be made based on few facts or inaccurate beliefs. The second can occur when people become committed to a value po- sition at an early awareness stage and fail to undergo a more com- plete process Of evaluation. These problems can lead to inadequate decision making. Assessment Of Environmental Attitudes Heberlein (1973) points out that there have been an increasing amount Of user attitude studies but little indication that the information gained has helped managers meet public needs. Most Often these studies have been tOO simply conceptualized or it was taken for granted that attitudes both cause behavior and can be 28 easily changed. Heberlein (1980) reviewed five papers (Weigel and Weigel, 1978; Maloney and Ward, 1973; Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978; Dunlap, et al., 1973 and Lounsbury and Tornatzky, 1977) devoted to environmental scale construction and concluded that... "within the generally accepted conventions Of attitude measurement it is possible tO measure something called environmental attitudes... His most important recommendation is that future studies on environ- mental attitudes be based On attitude theory and build on past work. Heberlein (1980) also warned that reSponses to a single item indicator are particularly suspect as measures of attitudes. They tend to measure single beliefs rather than the organization of be- liefs and affect which compose an attitude. Dunlap and Dillman (1976) and Dunlap and Van Liere (1977) looked at changes in en- vironmental attitudes Of Washington State residents using a single item type measure. Heberlein feels that the changes measured were largely due to the media. The respondents simply reported the most important problems in accordance to the media coverage (McCombs and Shaw, 1972). Trembly and Dunlap (1978) showed that there were few differences between rural and urban residents when reporting the extent Of environmental problems on a state or national level while rural residents were substantially less likely to identify air and water pollution as a problem when the frame Of reference was the local community. Both appear to be affected equally by media coverage which identifies pollution as a problem in areas outside their own experience. I 29 Recent surveys show that most Americans are in favor Of "saving the environment" (Dunlap, et al., 1973). Opinion polls indicate strong endorsement for cleaning up the landscape, protecting natural resources, stopping pollution, and preventing over-pOpula- tion. However, Dunlap, et a1. believe that these favorable attitudes towards environmental protection may run head-on into many tra- ditional values and time-honored practices, especially concern for economic growth and develOpment. Their research showed that college students had a great amount of concern for the welfare of the environment and that these high levels of concern were strongly related to willingness to resort to citizen action tactics. They concluded that the students' concern for the environment extends beyond simple endorsement of currently popular "save the environ- ment" platitudes. Faced with decisions between environmental welfare and traditional concerns such as economic priorities, a large majority of the students consistently gave primacy to environ- mental considerations. Large majorities Of the public reSpond affirmatively when asked whether various types Of enivronmental pollution or other ecolo- gical transformations represent problems (Swan, cited in Koenig, 1975). However, the public infrequently mentions such problems when asked to Specify the major problems which confront society. Even though the environment does not rate as a major problem, in- dividuals may be quickly aroused by sudden and visible environ- mental issues in their immediate environment. 30 Attitude and Knowledge There is a widespread assumption that environmental attitudes can be enhanced by improving public knowledge of ecology. The environmental movement is based on the premise that public education results in support for the aims of the movement (Ramsey and Rickson, 1977). However, there appears to be a wide range Of views among researchers regarding the relative importance of information on attitudes. Cohen (1973) found that those with more knowledge did have more favorable environmental attitudes. But more importantly, he found that those with more knowledge were more willing to ex- press their attitude, i.e., those with high knowledge were more likely to strongly agree or strongly disagree. Ramsey and Rickson (1977) reported that knowledge which includes trade-Off costs leads to moderate rather than extreme positions concerning the en- vironment. Stamm and Bowes (1972) found similar results. Persons with a moderate attitude towards an Army Corps of Engineers project knew more disadvantages than people strongly for or against the project. Arbuthnot (1977) on the other hand, found a high positive correlation between environmental knowledge and attitude towards recycling and recycling behavior. Pettus (1976) suggests that attitudes must be based on know- ledge but that other variables may be more important. Young (1980) showed that for a sample of Illinois residents, those with more knowledge had more positive environmental attitudes. And, Burris- Bammel (1978) showed that those who attended a camp which increased knowledge had both greater knowledge and a more liberal attitude 31 towards forest management than a control group. Yet, Abelson (1970) doubts that information has any effect on attitudes. Heberlein (1976) summarizes much of the literature concerning knowledge and attitudes. He feels that since few Of the studies rely much on attitude theory, the inconsistency in research findings is due to measuring a variety Of kinds of attitudes. For example, knowledge may be crucial for some highly specific attitudes, while specific knowledge may have little influence on general environ— nmmtal attitudes. Another failing of many researchers has been the lack of consideration of the affective component Of attitudes when evaluating the importance Of information on attitudes. Attitudes and Behavior One possible reason for the popularity of the attitude concept is that social psychologists have assumed that attitudes have some- thing to do with social behavior (Wicker, 1969). However, in the 19303 evidence was published contrary to the assumption that atti- tudes and behaviors are closely related. Campbell (cited in Wicker, 1969) suggests that the same attitude mediates both verbal and overt behavioral reSponses, but the way the attitude is mani- fested depends upon certain situational pressures. For example, the situational threshold for expressing negative feelings toward an ethnic group on a questionnaire may be lower than the threshold for denying them accommodations in a face-to-face situation. According to Wicker, research on the validity Of verbal measures is needed. 32 Many researchers have argued that there are many attitudes or values relevant to any given behavior and thus, the relationship between the behavior and a single attitude may appear to be incon- sistent because other attitudes have not been considered (Wicker, 1969). Newcomb, et al., cited by Wicker (1969), looked at a public opinion survey conducted at the time of the 1956 presidential.elec- tion. While an overt behavior may appear tO be inconsistent with a given attitude, the behavior may be consistent with one or more other attitudes which are more strongly held. Wicker (1969) also discusses a number of situation factors that may arise and account for the low correlations between reported attitudes and overt behaviors. He reports that the more similar the situations in which verbal and overt behavioral responses are ob- tained, the stronger will be the attitude-behavior relationship. Some situational factors discussed are: (1) actual or considered presence Of certain people (2) normative prescriptions of proper behavior (3) alternative behavior available (4) specificity of attitude Objects (5) unforseen extraneous events (6) expected and/or actual consequences of various acts Overall, Wicker's review shows that there is .... "Little evidence to support the postulated existence Of stable, underlying attitudes within the individual which influence both his verbal expressions and his actions." O'Riodan (1971) found that 80 percent of an affected population believed that their lake's water quality would deteriorate, but Of seven possible citizen actions (most of which were simple), the mean participation rate was less than seven percent. Weigel and 33 Newman (1976) advocate that .... "attitude measures should focus on the respondent's beliefs and feelings about engaging in particular behaviors (i.e., attitude toward the act) rather than on the respon- dent's beliefs and feelings about particular Objects," to increase attitude-behavior congruence. Chapter 3 RESEARCH METHODS Sludge application to forest lands is a new issue in Michigan. At present, only small scale experimental disposal programs exist. These programs are studying the technical aspects and impacts of sludge application to forest lands. However, the research has generally overlooked social factors which are critical to eventual public accep- tance. The objectives of this research, along with a companion study by Lagerstrom (1983), are to link current technical disposal research to the human aspects which influence public opinion. To accomplish this, a survey instrument was developed to measure important factors which contribute to the public's attitudes and behaviors by assessing beliefs and knowledge about sludge disposal and its anticipated im- pacts and the values (concerns) regarding sludge disposal. Preferred informational sources and perceived accuracy of informational sources were included. The public was also assessed on the preferred level Of involvement, past history of involvement, expected level of involvement in sludge disposal issues and perceived level of influence on planning and policy along with demographic characteristics and state forest USE. 34 35 This section describes procedures used in instrument design, sample selection, administration Of survey and procedures used for data analysis. DeveIOpment of the Survey Instrument-~Theoretical Framework Attitudes consist of at least two components--affect (the emotional component) and belief (the cognitive component) (Fishbein, 1963). Individual's attitudes towards any given Object are related to their beliefs that the object possesses certain attributes and to their affective evaluations of those attributes. Beliefs represent the information an individual has about an Object. For example, a person may hold the belief that sludge would have harmful effects on wildlife. The strengths of these beliefs will vary so that some peOple will be very certain that sludge will be harmful while Others will be less certain. The other component of an attitude is the evaluative reSponse (affect). Thus, some people may place a low value on wildlife while for others, wildlife would be highly valued. However, a person's attitude towards the concept of applying sludge in forest lands is most likely a combination of many beliefs, such as the effect on water quality and human health, presence of Odor, existing toxic chemicals, economic impact, restrictions on recreation and evaluation of alternative disposal methods. Further, the attitude includes a complex array Of values and priorities assigned to these factors in the process of evaluation. Thus, a person's overall attitude towards the application Of sludge in forest areas is the 36 result of the interaction of many beliefs and values and is likely to be dynamic and subject to change in some dimensions. There is ample evidence that knowledge of a person's verbalized attitude will be inadequate for predicting behavior. This is partially due to the complex and dynamic nature of attitude formation. Any educational program intended to bring about change must be based more on the underlying beliefs and values which make up atti- tudes than the verbalized attitudes themselves. The construction of the survey instrument reflected these principles of attitude theory. Key public beliefs and values were measured in addition to overall attitude statements. Attitude statements were assessed at the end of the questionnaire which provided opportunity for respondents to consider impinging knowledge and values before making an overall attitude commitment. This was intended to increase the reliability of the attitude responses. Further, value priorities were assessed in addition to merely iden- tifying pertinent values. Most importantly respondents were asked to evaluate not only sludge application for forest lands, but other sludge disposal methods as well. Instrument Validity and Reliability Items for the survey instrument were generated after a thorough literature review of material concerning sludge disposal and survey research. Consultation with experts in both sludge disposal and survey research were made periodically throughout the process. Item questions were reviewed by peers for clarity and understanding. The draft questionnaire was submitted to a face validity panel 37 consisting of six members associated with sludge disposal and forest application of sludge. Each member reviewed the questions dealing with beliefs about sludge and indicated which they considered to be the best answer. Ambiguous questions were either reworded or omitted. Responses by the face validity panel were used as a basis for comparison with the responses from the public. The instrument was also submitted to a panel for evaluation of its overall design. This panel consisted of four MSU researchers with expertise in the field of survey research. Comments from this review panel were incorporated into the final revision. The revised draft instrument was field tested using a senior level college class. Subjects were observed as they completed the survey to detect attitudes towards various sections. They were also encouraged to discuss their reactions to specific parts of the survey. The instrument was again revised accordingly. Description Of Survey Instrument The Survey (Michigan Public Opinion Survey on Natural Resource Management) was identified as a project of Michigan State Univer- sity, Department Of Fisheries and Wildlife. The complete survey is included in Appendix A. The survey instrument was divided into the following sections: 1) Public Involvement in Natural Resource Decisions This section measured the respondent's desire for public in- volvement (Q1 and 7), future citizen actions (Q5), past citizen actions (Q6) and perceived level of influence (Q2-4). This information 38 was used to determine if there were relationships among perceived level of influence, type and amount of past participation and de- sired level Of involvement. These first series of questions were designed to be easy to answer and to involve the respondents in order to increase returns (Dillman, 1978). 2) Your Opinions This section measured the respondent's knowledge and beliefs about sludge disposal and their economic/environmental value orien- tation. In the analysis of this survey, a slight distinction was made between knowledge and beliefs. Beliefs were considered to be something which an individual accepts as true, and knowledge as a judgement of an individual's beliefs by "authorities" in the field. The section began with a series of 20 (Q8-27) Likert type questions, ranging from Strongly Agree--Agree--Don't Know--Disagree-- Strongly Disagree. Within this series of questions, 12 were com? bined to form a sludge knowledge score--scored +1 for correct answers and zero for wrong or "don't know" responses. Also included in the series Of questions were four statements designed to determine a person's economic/environmental (E/E) value orientation (Q24-27). A minus two score was given for strongly agreeing with an economic value orientation response and a minus one score for agreeing with an economic value response. Positive values were used for environ- mental value orientation responses. The individual's score for each item was totaled to give the respondent an overall E/E value orientation score, ranging from -8 to +8. 39 In addition, four questions were included which were not in- cluded in any scales. Question 8 was to determine the perceived significance of the sludge disposal problem; Q16, to determine the degree of skepticism.in the MDNR's programs; Q17, to determine the degree of preservationist value; and Q20, to determine the degree of acceptance of non-local sludge. In the following part of the Opinion section (Q28-36), re5pon- dents were asked to assess the effect Of applying non-industrial sludge tO state forest lands for nine categories that might be impacted. The categories included forest growth, water quality, wildlife, human health, long-term environmental quality and others. The response scale ranged from: Very Beneficial (+1), Beneficial (+2), NO Impact (+3), Harmful (+4), Very Harmful (+5) and Don't Know (0). An "effects" score was established by adding an indivi- dual's response over the nine effect questions. Question 37 asks respondents if they felt that a program of sludge application to state forests would be properly managed by local and state agencies. Response from this item.were a measure of the respondents' trust and was used as one component of a skep- ticism.scale. The final series of questions in this section (Q38-40) dealt with beliefs and preferences for four types of sewage sludge dis- posal methods--landfills, incineration, agricultural land application and forest land application. A person's attitude towards forest application Of sludge may be related to beliefs about other sludge disposal methods, i.e., if it is strongly felt that other methods 40 are better, forest application may be rejected. Respondents were asked to indicate the method that they felt had the least and greatest threat to human health and to the environment, and which they felt were the least and most expensive methods. Their pre- ference (first, second and third) was also assessed. 3) Your Concerns This section identifies the public's concerns about applying sewage sludge to state forests by asking the respondents to rank four categories Of concerns (human health, ecOnomics, environmental quality and aesthetics) (Q47). A summation scale was used (respon- dents divided 100 points among the four categories) so that the relative difference among categories could be determined. An Open- ended question asked respondents to list additional salient con- cerns (Q48). 4) Your Attitude Question 49 was intended to determine if the public would accept a proposal to apply sludge to an area of state forest lands near them and whether or not they would get involved if the issue arose. The involved aspect of that attitude question was also in- tended to show a stronger attitude. Campbell (cited in Wicker, 1967) suggests that the same attitude mediates both verbal and overt behavioral responses, but that the way the attitude is manifested depends upon certain situational pressures. Simply being opposed or in favor may represent a lower situational threshold than re- porting that you would also get involved. According tO this logic, 41 actually becoming involved would represent an even higher threshold and fewer people would be expected to become involved than reported that they would. 5) Your Information Sources This section determined the sources the public would use to Obtain information about a local natural resource problem (Q50 and 65-74). Questions 52-64 asked respondents to rate the accuracy Of information sources. The response scale ranged over five points from "Always Accurate" (1) to "Never Accurate" (5) with a "NO Opinion" (6) reSponse also being provided. These questions were designed to gauge the level of trust that the public has for various information sources. This identified potential avenues through which information/education programs could be disseminated to, and received by a more trusting audience. Question 51 determined the receptivity of publics to learning more about sludge diSposal problems. Section 5 provided useful data for future planning Of I&E approaches. 6) Your Use of State Forests This section was deisgned to determine the relationship be- tween respondents' use of state forests and their opinions concerning application of sludge in state forest areas. More concerns about forest sludge application may be expressed by groups which report the greatest use of forest lands. Further, certain types of forest use may be associated with increased concerns about forest appli- cation. 42 7) Personal Information This information was needed to determine whether belief, value or attitude differences were related to sex, age, education, occu- pation, income, political Office and/or membership in environmental- outdoor type organizations. Selection of Sample Counties were selected from two regions on the basis Of prox- imity tx> urban areas which may have future sludge disposal problems and the availability of State Forest lands. The counties selected were: Wexford, Missaukee, Osceola, Leelanau, Grand Traverse, Marquette and Menominee. The general public sample (n=2,789) was selected by computer from the population of licensed drivers (20 years of age or Older) by the Secretary of State's Office (Data Processing). A second group, political Office holders (n=174) was selected since this group would be expected to be more influential in resource issues and problems. Township supervisors and county commissioners were chosen as the most important county Officials that may have Opinions about natural resources. The public officials were administered the same instrument received by the random public sample. The resulting data from public officials were used only for comparison with the general public's opinions, and were not incorporated into the public's data base. 43 Administration of Instrument All questionnaires were mailed out at the same time (July 6, 1982) by bulk rate mailing. Research has shown that bulk rate mailing reduces returns in some cases but the difference was small (Linsky, 1975). Return postage was guaranteed to give a better es- timate Of non-reSponse due to undeliverable questionnaires. The initial and third (second survey) mailings consisted of three en- closures (Appendix B): 1) a survey; 2) a cover letter; and 3) a response envelope to return the survey. Pre-paid return envelopes were sent along with the questionnaire and cover letter. The cover letter began by explaining the value of the study to the individual and had the theme of public involve- ment in natural resource problems. In addition, the value of the recipient's Opinion to the study was explained and complete con- fidentiality was assured. The first mailing was followed by a postcard reminder seven days later, July 13, 1982 (Appendix B). A third mailout (second survey) followed the postcard reminder by 17 days, July 30, 1982. The second cover letter again explained the value of the study to the individual and the importance of each recipient's response to our study. The questionnaires were coded with a six-digit number to keep a record of who responded. Estimate of Non-Response Bias The non-response bias was estimated by telephone survey Of the general public and public Officials during the last two weeks 44 of January, 1983. For the general public, 168 names were randomly selected. Telephone numbers were available for 100 of these. Telephone numbers were available for 36 of the 47 non-respondent public Officials. Some key questions (including demographics, beliefs, values and attitudes) from the survey instrument were picked to determine whether non-respondents were significantly different on those vari- ables (Appendix C). A training session was held to familiarize the telephone interviewers with the study and the use Of the survey instrument. At least eight attempts were made to contact each selected non-respondent. Attempts were made during day and night and week and weekend time periods. Data Analysis Data were key punched onto computer cards and verified by Michigan State University (MSU) Key Punch Services. Data were ana- lyzed with descriptive and inferential statistics utilizing the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. A discussion of statistical treatment by research question is included with the description Of the results. Chapter 4 ANALYSIS OF SURVEY RESULTS The following chapter begins with summaries Of the response rates Of the seven county samples and the public officials sample.. A brief comparison of the seven sample counties on demographic vari- ables is then presented. The remainder of the chapter is an analysis of the data by research question. A significance level of c1=0.05 was used to determine significance. Survey Response Rates A detailed breakdown Of the response rates for the seven county samples and the public officals sample are provided in Table 4.1. The total response rate was 60.5 percent for the general public and 72.0 percent for the public officials. Note that the reported rate excludes undeliverable surveys and includes surveys that were returned blank or too late. There was little difference in response rates among the seven sample counties, ranging from 56.8 percent to 64.7 percent. County Comparisons on Demographic Variables Frequency distributions of urban-rural residence, education levels, income levels and occupations were determined for the seven counties (Appendix D, Tables 1-4). Sex was the only demographic 45 46 OHH Ame o o.- was sea a Has mflmouaooo assess mnqa Amv Ne m.oo omma damn mum mwmu Ugansm Hmuocou HOOOH mmm Amv m n.qe Hmm nmm ma ooq whomxoz mom OH c.5m mam Hum mm 0mm maooomo OHN a m.mm mam mom on mam ooxsmwmaz NHN m m.wm mam mum mm 00: OOOaEOooz HON N m.~s mow mmm as mam «nauseous «mm q w.mo mmm mum mm cam socmaooa maa m w.om mma mam mm ooq omuo>mua porno oouhamc< m>o>usm ouwm oocusuom ouwm ooamamm .NMdsoo pooasz Aoumgv omooomom mao>usm oaoamm mxo>usm nonfisz HOOOH xOOHm ucoouom Hmuoe ooumsmo< OHAOHO>HHOOOD HOuOH mafiucsou omeSOfiz co>om How mouou mmdoamou ho>usm Hmfioammo OHHAOQ mam OHHAOQ Houoaoo H.¢ manna 47 variable for which there was no significant relationship with county residence (X2= 9.334; df- 6; p< 0.156). Comparison of Sample Counties--Demographic Profiles (Appendix D, Tables 1-9): Grand Traverse respondents were 32.1 percent urban, with a high mean education (13.8 yr.), highest mean income ($23,800) and a high mean membership (0.6). This group was younger (mean age = 43.7 yr.) than most of the other counties and reported the highest number of forest uses (R= 7.4). Leelanau respondents were 27.9 percent urban, with a high mean education (13.8 yr.), a medium mean income ($20,500) and high mean membership (0.6). This group had the highest mean age (47.7 yr.), reported a low number of forest uses (R==6.0) and included 25.9 percent Of the farmers. Marquette respondents were 71.1 percent urban, with a high mean education (13.7 yr.), second highest mean income ($23,000) and a medium mean membership (0.4). This group was younger (mean age = 43.8 yr.) than most of the counties, reported the second highest number of forest uses (R==7.3) and had the highest percentage of the sales/clerical workers (20.0%) and professionals (20.82) and included 16.9 percent of the skilled workers. Menominee respondents were 55.1 percent urban, with a medium education (12.9 yr.), second lowest mean income ($18,000) and a low mean membership (0.3). This group had the lowest mean age (43.0 yr.), reported a medium number of forest uses (R-t6.4) and had the highest percentage of the semi-skilled workers (21.4%) and in- cluded 16.9 percent of the skilled workers. 48 Missaukee respondents were 26.3 percent urban, with the lowest mean education (12.4 yr.), lowest mean income ($16,700) and a medium mean membership (0.5). This group had the second highest mean age (46.7 yr.), reported the lowest number Of forest uses (R-=5.8) and had the highest percentage of the retired people (21.6%) and in- cluded 25.4 percent Of the farmers. Oceola respondents were 43.7 percent urban, with a low mean education (12.6 yr.), a low mean income ($19,000) and a low mean membership (0.3). This group had a medium.mean age (45.3 yr.), reported the second lowest number of forest uses (R==5.9) and had the highest percentage of the homemakers (20.2%) and included 20.6 percent of the unemployed. Wexford reSpondents were 48.9 percent urban, with a low mean education (12.7 yr.), 3 medium mean income ($19,400) and a low mean membership (0.3). This group had a medium.mean age (46.1 yr.), re- ported a high number Of forest uses (is=7.2) and had the highest percentage of the manager/prOprietor occupations (18.0%) and included 20.6 percent of the unemployed. The counties were also grouped into Lower Peninsula (Grand Traverse, Leelanau, Missaukee, Osceola and Wexford) and Upper Penin- sula (Marquette and Menominee) samples. There was no significant relationship between Upper Peninsula and Lower Peninsula and sex, education, income, number of memberships or number of forest uses. The Upper Peninsula sample had more skilled workers and was more urban while the Lower Peninsula sample had more retired people and was more rural (Appendix D, Table 10). Also, the Upper Peninsula 49 sample was significantly younger (mean age = 43.4 yrs.) than the Lower Peninsula sample (mean age = 46.0 yrs.) (F==6.640; df= 1; p < 0.010). Estimate of Non-response Bias Four variables showed significant differences between responding and non-responding general public: age, degree of skepticism in Michigan DNR's programs, most expensive method, and first preference of sludge disposal methods (Tables 4.2 and 4.3). Three variables were significantly different between responding and non-responding public Officials: age, significance of sludge disposal problem, and method with greatest threat to human health. Age was the only variable which was significant for both groups. In both cases, the non-respondents were younger. For both general public and public Official samples, ranking scores for the four categories of concerns (health, economics, en- vironmental quality and aesthetics) of non-respondents showed the same ranking order and similar relative strengths as the respondents' value assignments (Table 4.4). General Public: Seventy-nine non-respondents were contacted with 17 refusals (22%); 21 non-residents could not be reached for various reasons. Comparison of the variable 'degree of skepticism in MDNR' showed that non-respondents were more likely to have 'no opinion' the respondents (37.1% vs 19.0%) and also, non-respondents expressed less extreme Opinions (Table 4.5). Table 4.2. Chi square tests of significance between respondents (mailed survey) and non-respondents (telephone survey) on key selected variables for the general public and public Officials samples. Variable General Public Public Officials X2 df Probability X2 df Probability Sex 0.544* 1 0.461 0.088* 1 0.766 Education 3.643 4 0.457 5.219 4 0.266 Income 2.479 5 0.780 4.015 5 0.547 Perceived significance of sludge disposal problem 3.477 4 0.481 10.319 3 0.016** Degree of skepticism of DNR 15.163 4 0.004** 6.238 4 0.182 Confidence that sludge site can be properly managed 1.202* 1 0.273 0.000* 1 0.988 Disposal method with greatest threat to human health 4.437 4 0.350 11.369 4 0.023** Disposal method with greatest threat to environment 2.734 4 0.600 1.621 4 0.805 Most expensive disposal method 10.647 4 0.031** 2.019 4 0.732 First preference Of sludge disposal method 31.219 4 0.000** 0.871 4 0.928 Attitude towards forest application 2.270 2 0.321 1.617 2 0.446 Anticipated involve- ment in forest application issue 1.808 2 0.405 4.529 2 0.104 * corrected Xz ** significant, o - 0.05 51 an.~ ~4.oe ~.a¢ an nunuoaoaaounaon 93.: a: 2.7 :4 8.: a .2 a: Bfieaaaum neueueuuo ueesaa Se 3;: 08 on BEER-8-8.. :5 .o 2...: 2 . T 3 .o 3.: n .9 3.: 3.3883. one: 4388 sneeze... as 81> not» 8233: In: 8.3 on 8...!» dual a 33m 2383 In!- .moaeamm HOHOfimmo oqansa one Ofiansa Hmuocow osu How Azm>usm ozonooaoav muaoocommoulooa vow Azo>u=m ooaamav mucoocoomou mo own :oo3uon mocmowmwcwfim mo mumoula .m.q OHQOH .xtooouau zoom to; autoun-a=n ozu ac.se:u can» on. mucouu-a:u «on 0» Logo.» «so.ox voeo.mns an an atoaeuao zoom No memou:OOLon as» oe_»—n—u—:s an veg-pau—qu a. .moocotmue.v e>euopot ecu neat» to» »—_u:mv> vetanoo on coo mu_=mot .to>oxo: .»_ucmtuemvu moan—:opou ecu: me=_o> acoucoamwt-eoc tea acoucoammt we» ouc.m come on coo cemetoaeoo —oo.umvueum oz c pus» e m.N— p.o_ e v.oo m.em _ m.¢m e.o N N.n m.m_ n m.o museum N m.o~ o.mN N «.me_ N.oN — N.oN .e.oo N N.mv N.mm m a.N_ zap—uso n ¢.op m.oN n ..NN— v.—¢ — ¢.Fo _.pN N m.mm w.m m N.m umou A. _ N.oe o.cv — m.NoN e.m _ e.m N.Nm N F.o_ N.NmN m e.NN gupoo: a, mpa_uicco u__s=a p.wmm e m.m_ m.N— v o.eN ~.n¢ _ H.m¢ ¢.oN N N.mp e.m m m._ acumen N ¢.NN N.NN N —.—o— e.pm — ¢.—m N.m.p N o.om m.o— n m.m sue—oao n o.mp o.m_ m o.mN m.mN _ m.mN o._v N m.ON w.o_ m o.m «moo _ o.om e.ov — _.oNN o.N _ o.N m.mp N e.m m.ch m —.nm :u—uox u_—a:a —utoeoo i.ego: x av A.ugox x we A.u;sx x a. Any capo» etoum etoom etoom urea veeormna M. meow ametoom -nsm agave: .m unsm ugueo: m -nam. osmium, km necoocou mucoueoamou aucovcoauot-coz - —-uo» n seem N xeaa — seam .«muaooooommu an ozone one mosam> mocwammm one mOHoEmm mHmHOfimmo OHHnso pom Ofiansa Hmuocow moooeoamoulcoa men he Homoomwo owoeam usonm mouooaoo mo mowuowoumo know No mouoom ooumasoamo one wowunwwos .mxaom .qé OHan 53 Table 4.5. Comparison of respondents and non-respondents on key selected variables for which chi square significance (a = 0.05) was found for the general public. General Public Respondents Non-respondents Variable . Percent (Number) Percent (Number) Degree of skepticism (X2 = 15.163; df = 4; p < 0.004) of DNR Strongly Agree 10.0 (143) 3.2 (2) Agree 22.0 (313) 22.6 (14) NO Opinion 19.0 (271) 37.1 (23) Disagree 43.4 (618) 35.5 (22) Strongly Disagree 5.5 78) 1.6 (l)__ Total Number (1423) (62) Most expensive disposal (X2 = 10.647; df - 4; p < 0.031) method Bury 23.5 (346) 39.3 (24) Incinerate 21.0 (310) 9.8 (6) Agriculture 7.5 (110) 4.9 (3) Forest 14.7 (217) 11.5 (7) No Opinion 33.3 (491) 34.4 (211_ Total Number (1474) (61) First preference of (X2 = 31.219; df = 4; p < 0.000) sludge disposal method Bury 19.6 (289) 15.0 (9) Incinerate 32.5 (479) 16.7 (10) Agriculture 16.9 (249) 18.3 (11) Forest 22.8 (336) 21.7 (13) No Opinion 8.2 121 28.3 17) TOtal lumber (1474) (60) 54 Comparison Of the variable 'most expensive method' showed that the main differences was between burying and incineration. Respon- dents' choices were equally divided between burying and incineration (23.5% vs 21.0%; respectively) while more non-respondents felt that burying was most expensive (39.3%) with only 9.8 percent picking incineration. A greater percentage of respondents than non-respondents picked incineration as their first preference (32.5% vs 16.7%). A greater percentage of non-reSpondents than reSpondents again had 'no opinion' (28.3% vs 8.2%). Other methods were approximately equal in preference. Public Officials: Thirty-two non—respondents were contacted with only one refusal; four non-respondents could not be reached. A higher percentage of respondents 'strongly agreed' that sludge is a significant problem (33.9% vs 9.7%) and fewer disagreed (0.9% vs 6.5%) (Table 4.6). A higher percentage Of non-respondents picked forest application as the method with 'the greatest threat to human health' (12.9% vs 0.9%) and fewer had no Opinion (22.6% vs 32.8%). Blank Questionnaires: Blank questionnaires are a special type of non-response. Time was spent to return the questionnaire and many took time to write a reason for not filling out the question- naire. Analysis of these reasons should be an indication of the reasons of all non-response. Forty-two surveys were returned blank of which 28 (67%) gave one or more of the following reasons for not filling out the questionnaire: Number of Responses Reason 18 not qualified to answer the questions 5 too Old 5 not interested 4 too sick 3 felt questionnaire was slanted 55 Table 4.6. Comparison of respondents and non-respondents on key selected variables for which chi square significance (o = 0.05) was found for the public officials. Variable Name Respondents Percent Public Officials Non—respondents (Number Percent (Number Perceived significance Of sludge problem (X2 = 10.319; df I 3; p < 0.016) Strongly Agree Agree No Opinion Disagree Strongly Disagree Total Number 33.9 45.5 19.6 0.9 (38) 9.7 (3) (51) 64.5 (20) (22) 19.4 (6) (1) 6.5 (2) _(o_)_ - (0) (112) (31) Disposal method with the greatest threat to human health (X2 = 11.369; df - 4; p < 0.023) Bury Incinerate Agriculture Forest NO Opinion Total Number 22.4 19.0 25.0 0.9 32.8 (26) 19.4 (6) (22) 19.4 (6) (29) 25.8 (8) (1) 12.9 (4) 38) 22.6 (7) (116) (31) 56 None of the returned-blank questionnaires were from public officials. Many of these reasons were interrelated, i.e., 'I'm not interested because I'm.too Old' or 'I'm not qualified because I'm too old.‘ Response Promptness: Past participation in citizen activities was highest for those who returned the questionnaire early and decreased significantly as response time increases (Table 4.7). Table 4.7. Mean number of past citizen actions by number of days taken to return questionnaire (c:- 0.05).* History of Citizen Actions No. of Days R NO. Of Actions SO N 1-11 2.0 2.2 457 12-21 1.6 2.1 489 22-33 1.4 2.0 293 34-43 1.5 2.1 183 44-80 1.3 1.6 53 *F- 3.991; dis 4; p< 0.003 Research Question 1 To what extent would the selected publics in Michigan accept a pro- posal to apply sludge to forest lands in their own or distant areas? Overall the general public was mainly undecided (45.1%) towards a hypothetical proposal tO apply sludge in a nearby state forest with 29.9 percent being Opposed and 25.0 percent in favor of the proposal (Table 4.8). There was no significant difference among the seven counties on attitude at the 0.05 significance level, however, 57 mood v a “N I up “36 I Nx "auaacuoom noon: .a> Ids-3:0.— uesoa ace omo.o v a “Ne - we “no.o~ u Nx "ooeuasoo\ueeaaa finances .. ooo.o v a “N u we "as.s~ . Nx "meaeoeuoo seeps» .m> ueenaa Hauoaoo a H.ooe a .am o.os o.co~ o.oo~ o.oo~ a¢m m.~n a.mN N.¢N «.mN H.0m o.mm voaoaao aces . no N Aosoe u no N AsHN - as N Asseucv N AmON u av N Aaom u so N wesueuu< «.155ch mega oasmcacom .3304 vuowxmz oaooomo moxsmmmfiz mucueOcoz «a. as .m> as -- season flamenco moeucnoo .. ueeasm Hauoaoo e.ooH o.ooH o.ooe o.ooH o.ooe saa n.em m.s~ n.0N «.mN s.s~ eumoaao Akme . as N AoNN u as N AosH u no N Amee . av Assq_ . co ouaueuu< Ouuoamemz nocmfieoq wagons 28.5 N 3.395 N 2.395 .. muescsoo -- ueeasa Hauocoo «meueoeooo deepen .ueeasm Huuucoo .Amo.o n OV Homoooue coauouuuneo umouou Hoowuosuoazz w moussOu mameouuuo uwansa can Odessa Humane» uo muoeuuuua uo meomumoelou huosoo .m.e edema 58 when combined into Lower and Upper Peninsula samples, the Upper Peni- sula was significantly more Opposed and undecided and less favorable. The separate public officials sample was significantly more favorable towards the hypothetical proposal to apply sludge in a nearby state forest than the general public (46.1% vs 25.0%) (Table 4.8). Although not significant at the c1= 0.05 level, county commis- sioners were more favorable towards forest application than town- ship supervisors (60.5% vs 37.5%) (Table 4.9). Members Of environmental-outdoor type organizations were signi- ficantly more favorable towards the hypothetical proposal to apply sludge in a nearby state forest, ranging from 21.7 percent for non- members to 44.0 percent for members of two or more organizations (Table 4.10). Members were much less undecided about the issue, ranging from 49.2 percent for nondmembers to 29.1 percent for members Of two or more organizations. Members were grouped into seven cate- gories as follows: 1. Environmental Audubon Sierra Club National Wildlife Federation Western or Eastern Michigan Environmental Action Council 2. League of Women Voters 3. Garden Clubs 4 Hunting-Fishing Organizations MUCC Trout Unlimited Steelheader Association Ruffed Grouse Society Ducks Unlimited A Michigan Trappers Association 5. ORV or Boating Clubs 6. Local Landowners Association 7 Other (any organization concerned with environmental or natural resource problems) 59 Table 4.9. Comparison of county commissioners and township super— visors on their attitude towards a hypothetical forest application proposal.* County Commissioners TownshippSupervisors Attitude Z (n=43) Z (72) Opposed 18.6 26.4 Favor 60.5 37.5 Undecided 20.9 36.1 Total 100.0 100.0 * X2=5.814; df=2; p<0.055 Table 4.10. Attitudes of the general public towards a hypothetical forest application proposal as a function Of membership on environmental-outdoor type organizations (<1= 0.05).* Attitude Opposed Favor Undecided Memberships N % % % Total None 1041 29.1 21.7 49.2 100.0 One 264 34.5 28.0 37.5 100.0 Two or more 141 27.0 44.0 29.0 100.0 * 18:43.47; df=4; p<0.000 60 There was no significant relationship among the members Of the above categories or organizations on their attitude towards forest appli- cation Of sludge (X2=8.601; df= 12; p< 0.264). Demographic Variables and Attitude: There was no significant relationship among income levels and attitude towards forest appli- cation Of sludge. There were significant relationships between sex, education level, occupation, urban-rural residence and age and the attitude. Males were more favorable than females (31.0% vs 18.5%), higher education levels were more favorable, and farmers and retirees were more favorable (Table 4.11). Lower education levels, semi- skilled and skilled workers and rural residents were more opposed. The Opposed group (mean age = 44.9 yr.) and the undecided group (mean age = 43.3 yr.) were younger than the favorable group (mean age 48.7 yr.) Appendix D, Table 11). Preferences for Sludge Disposal Methods: Incineration was the first choice of 32.5 percent of the general public followed by forest application (22.8%), burying in landfills (19.6%) and agricultural application (16.9%) with 8.3 percent having no opinion (Appendix E, Q44). There was a significant relationship with county residence and first choice of diSposal methods. Forest application was ranked first in Leelanau and agricultural application was first in Grand Traverse, while incineration was first for the other five counties (Table 4.12). The public officials were significantly different than the general public on their preference of sludge disposal methods 61 m.m¢ m.~q ~.mN N.Nn an Hausa o.oce n.ms m.sN N.aN cos east: Aeso.o v a MN a as “33.8 . Nxv «acmeemum Managuaaaua o.ooH . o.sm N.mm a.mN mNN noueuoa c.oo~ o.on n.NN n.8N an ousoNa-ona o.ss N.Nn N.¢e n.on NeN aux-suson o.oo~ a.an o.oN N.NN NLN Nocoeaaououm N.ooH n.ns N.aN N.nN as Nouoeuaoum\uou-aux o.ooH o.sn o.an m.oN mm nuance H.ooe N.ss «.mN N.NN NNN uueeeam o.ooH N.Nm m.ne o.NN ONH HoustoHONmoNom o.ooH n.ns m.me N.nm Nee eoeeexmuesom Aooo.o v a use I we “ma.Ns . Nxv aoeuaaauuo o.ooe m.Nn m.em N.on NNH .m.m season amoNNoo o.ooN «.ms n.oN N.ON one nauseous ommeeoo o.ooH s.ss n.NN N.NN was sausages .m.= uses no owoaaoo eaom o.ooN o.ms o.cN o.NN qu «unseen» Hoozum ewe: o.ooN m.os s.NN N.om NNN «ocean ewe: can» amen aNoo.o v e mm 0 up uwNJN a Nxv Ho>oq aoeumosvu o.ooH «.mm n.m~ H.aN awe Odwawm o.oc~ o.mm o.am c.0m Hem OHQZ Aooo.o v a “N u be "3N.NN . Nev xom aquH N N N z meanflwun> vooaooooa uo>om mmmmmmm . oasaauw0lon oesueuu< neaueueeaem .Amo.c I av moanmwuo> oaneouwoaoo unoowquwwm an commaoeu.amuwoua oouuoowfieeo umouou Hoowuonuoazn m monsoo» oedema Houooow mo muosuwuu< .HH.¢ sassy 62 ooo.o v a “3N we "No.00 n x “mmeuasoo\oeea=m Nauseau «a N ooo.o v a as n we “wo.eN u NN "mNmNUNNNo ueeasm .m> oNNasa Nmumcuu . o.o0N o.ooe e.ooe o.OON o.o0N neeoe m.N «.0 o.NH m.o N.m coeaeao oz Ame m.mN Nev N.aN Amv s.NN iNv m.sm aNV N.NN ease nausea Ou coaumowfieq< Ase s.eN Ase N.ON Nev N.¢N ANV N.oN Nev s.oe same Nausuesoeuw< Ou coaumowaoo< NNV N.om ANS m.NN ANV o.sN ANV N.oN Nev m.Nm aoeumuuceucH aNV s.sN ANV m.ON Nev m.me Ase N.NN “NV o.mN mNNNuecmN :N Noam Name N Name N .exemmw, N Assume N Assume N muamumouum E SE KS n 5 G: u 5 35: n 5 Ouuoscumz smcmaooq omuo>mue venue «mHmHOwao OHHoOm «oaambm Hmuoamo «emowuasou II Ofiansm Homoeoo Amo.o 0 av zuoaoo an monuoz Homoamfia owosam oouuommum mo comaumeaoo NH.¢ manmh 63 ooo.o v a NsN Ne “No.oo u N ”mmeuasoONUNNasm Naumauo *« N coo .o v a as u we “mo.NN u NN "mNmNUNNNo oeeasm .m> ueeaam Nahuamo « o.OON o.ooN o.ooe o.o0N Nme aoeumuaem m.mm N.s N.ON o.mN N.3N N.NN was mNmama o.ooe N.s N.mN N.ON m.om s.NN NNN mew: Acoo.o v a is u Ne m«NAN u NNV sum N N N N N z mmepmeum> ueaamumoaoa Hmuoe :OHOHmo oz umouom manuasufiuw¢ :OHumumcfiocH Nmsm ooamuommum Amo.o n 8v moamwfimm> oenamuwoaon osmoamficwfim xm wouxamq< vogue: Hmwommfia owoeam owmaom How AOOHOLO uwuwwv oucOH0momm «H.< OHQOH 66 ¢.¢m w.mH N.mN w.mH «.mN N.NH NmN oomfiuom o.ooN s.N s.oN m.NN N.Ns N.NN an emNoNasmas o.ooa ¢.m m.aH N.oH N.Nm N.mN ooN poxmBoEo: o.ooa w.m o.m~ m.aH w.NN ¢.ma oHN Hmcoemmomoum o.ooH o.q o.mN o.wH o.Nm o.NN ooH ecumeuooum\uowoomz H.00H o.mH ¢.ON m.wm m.mH m.m em weapon c.0oa m.m q.m~ a.oH o.¢m N.wH NmN ooaafixm ¢.mm m.o m.mN m.NH «.mm m.HN oma HOOHNOHO\mOHOm N.ooa ¢.m H.0H m. ownemuwoaoo HmuOH ooficemo Oz unopom OHOOHOOHHw< :OHumuocfioeH Neon mucouomoum euaaeuaoo 3N.s messy 67 agricultural application more than females, and preferences for forest and agricultural application increased with increasing education and income. Manager/proprietor occupations and retirees had the highest preferences for forest application. Mean age was similar for those pre- ferring burying (43.8 yr.) and incineration (44.3 yr.) while those preferring agriculture were youngest (41.8 yr.) and those preferring forest application were much older (47.6 yr.) (Appendix D, Table 11). The undecided group was the Oldest (54.2 yr.). Relationship Between Attitudes and Preferences: As expected there was a strong relationship between one's attitude towards a hypothe- tical proposal to apply sewage sludge in a nearby state forest and one's preference for a sludge disposal method (Table 4.15). Those who preferred incineration were least favorable (6.1%). There was a large percentage of respondents who preferred agricultural application yet were favorable towards forest application (46.3%). Table 4.15. Relationship of the general public's attitude toward a hypothetical forest application proposal with their pre- ference (first choice) Of sewage sludge disposal methods (O = 0.05) .* Attitude Against Favor Undecided (n=432) (n=362) (n=651) Preference N ‘”“§f‘“’ —‘_§f—" ““7:‘-“ Total Bury 285 36.8 12.6 50.5 99.9 Incineration 472 48.7 6.1 45.1 99.9 Agriculture 244 18.9 46.3 34.8 100.0 Forest 333 6.9 52.3 40.8 100.0 No Opinion 111 25.2 9.0 65.8 100.0 * X2=388.33; df=8; p<0.000 68 Research Question 2 How do selected Michigan publics representing environmentalists, po- litical figures and general public compare on the following dependent variables: A. extent Of and accuracy of beliefs concerning forest application of sludge and alternatives? B. nature and priority of values and concerns about sludge disposal? C. perceived educational needs and preferred informational sources? A. extent of and accuracy of beliefs concerning forest application of sludge and alternatives? Knowledge About Forest Application of Sludge: A knowledge score was developed from 12 questions (Q9-15, 18, 19, and 21-23) by scoring correct answers as one and incorrect answers and 'don't know' responses as zero (Appendix E indicates the correct answers). There was a sig- nificant relationship with county residence and knowledge, with Grand Traverse having the highest score (4.15) and Menominee the lowest (3.25) (Table 4.16). The Lower Peninsula had a significantly higher knowledge score than the Upper Peninsula (3.93 vs 3.30). Public officials had a significantly higher mean knowledge score than the general public (5.61 vs 3.75). Members of environmental-outdoor type organizations were significantly more knowledgable than non-members. Demographic Variables and Knowledge Score: Knowledge scores were not significantly different among education levels and income levels. Males had a significantly higher score (4.36) than females (3.10), rural residents had a significantly higher score (3.97) than urban residents (3.47) and there was a significant relationship with occupation, with farmers (5.51) and skilled workers (4.25) having the highest scores and sales/clerical (2.84) and homemakers (3.10) 69 Table 4.16 Mean Knowledge Score Analyzed by Significant Demographic Variables (o = 0.05) Knowledge Score 2 SD N Counties (F = 3.315; df = 6; p < 0.003) Grand Traverse (LP) 4.15 2.85 178 Leelanau (LP) 4.04 2.67 215 Marquette (UP) 3.35 2.55 181 Menomdnee (UP) 3.25 2.46 197 Missaukee (LP) 3.69 2.48 184 Osceola (LP) 3.80 2.61 191 Wexford (LP) 3.96 2.62 208 Lower Peninsula vs. Upper Peninsula (F = 16.003; df = l; p < 0.000) Lower Peninsula 3.93 2.64 976 Upper Peninsula 3.30 2.50 378 Public Officials vs. General Public (F= 50.157; df = l; p < 0.000) Public Officials 5.61 2.66 108 General public 3.75 2.62 1354 Membership (F = 19.528; df = 2; p < 0.000) No memberships 3.50 2.56 969 1 membership 4.17 2.65 249 2 or more memberships 4.82 2.67 136 Sex (F = 83.396; df = l; p < 0.000) Male 4.36 2.72 711 Female 3.10 2.33 640 Work (F - 8.242; df = 8; p < 0.000) Semi-skilled 3.81 2.58 104 Sales/Clerical 2.84 2.37 125 Skilled 4.25 2.68 218 Farmer 5.51 2.93 49 Manager/Proprietor 3.98 2.66 97 Professional 3.98 2.80 205 Homemaker 3.10 2.27 239 Unemployed 3.53 2.30 32 Retired 3.98 2.61 195 Urban-Rural Residence (F = 11.68; df = l; p < 0.001) Urban 3.47 2.56 563 Rural 3.97 2.64 776 70 the lowest (Table 4.16). Older respondents had significantly higher knowledge scores (Appendix D, Table 11). Knowledge Score Items: A breakdown of the knowledge items shows that only for question 12 was the percent right (59.7%) greater than the percent wrong. Questions 22, 19 and 23 had the highest percent wrong (85.8%, 85.5% and 82.0%; respectively). However, inaccurate information as opposed to lack of information is actually quite low. All but three items had less than 20 percent inaccurate responses and the three exceptions ranged from 31.0 percent to 37.4 percent in- accurate (Table 4.17). Thus, much of the low knowledge score can be explained by lack of knowledge (don't know responses) rather than inaccurate knowledge. Table 4.17. Percent of general public giving correct, incorrect and don't know responses on each knowledge item (N==1475). Question Correct (%) Incorrect (%) Don't Know (%) 9 46.5 10.2 43.3 10 26.6 19.5 54.0 11 26.4 35.9 37.6 12 57.8 7.3 34.8 13 23.6 14.3 62.1 14 41.7 15.0 43.3 15 37.3 19.3 43.4 18 35.6 5.4 59.1 19 14.0 31.0 55.0 21 25.2 17.8 56.9 22 13.8 16.3 70.0 23 17.5 37.4 45.2 KnowledgepScore and Attitude Towards Forest Application: There was a significantly higher knowledge score for those in favor Of a 71 hypothetical proposal to apply sludge in a nearby state forest (5.9) compared to those Opposed (3.1) and undecided (3.0) (F==205.987; df==2; p'<0.000). However, there is evidence that one's overall attitude influenced responses to the knowledge items. First, the group favorable to forest application tended to miss items (numbers 19 and 22) which when correct incriminated forest application. For example, question 19 -- "Most Of the toxic components in sludge are removed by the wastewater treatment plant." -- is an incriminating, but inaccurate statement missed significantly more by the group favorable to forest application (92.0% wrong vs 70.7% wrong). Second, neutral items (numbers 10 and 12) were about equally missed by both groups. For example, question 12 -— "Municipal sludge composition can vary greatly from one community to another." -- is a correct statement which was about equally missed by the Opposed group (35.2%) and the favorable group (37.6%). Third, the opposed group missed more of the items (numbers 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18 and 21) which when incorrect incriminated sludge. Since there were more items of this type their overall scores were lower. Knowledge Score and Preference for Sludge Dipposal Method: The knowledge score was significantly higher for those preferring agricul- tural land application (5.1) and forest application (5.0) than burying in landfills (3.0), incineration (3.0) or no Opinion (2.0) (F- 71.286; df- 4; p< 0.000). Due to the high relationship of atti- tude towards forest application and preference for sludge disposal methods it can be said that one's overall preference influenced reSponses to the knowledge items using the same evidence cited for knowledge 72 and attitude. Also, this information strongly suggests that agri- culture and forest application are viewed as similar practices. Benefits/Harm Assessment of Forest Application (Effects Score): The effects score which ranges from 1 (most beneficial) to 45 (most harmful) is a measure of the overall impact that respondents believe forest application Of sludge would have. There was no significant relationship with the perceived impact of forest application and county residence, however, the Upper Peninsula sample had a signi- ficantly higher effects score (perceived more harmful impact) than the Lower Peninsula sample (24.0 vs 22.3); however, this difference is not large (Table 4.18). There was no significant relationship with effects score between public officials and the general public or be- tween members Of environmental-outdoor type organization and non- members. Demggraphic Variables and Effects Score: There was no signi- ficant relationship with mean effects score and sex, education and income. There was a significant relationship among occupations and effects score, with skilled and semi-skilled workers expecting the most harm from forest application of sludge (24.2 and 24.1; respec- tively) and retirees the least (20.5) (Table 4.18). Rural residents perceived a significantly greater harmful effect (23.5) than urban residents (21.8). There was a significantly higher mean age among those who rated forest application as very beneficial compared to those who rated forest application as very harmful (49.0 yr vs 40.8 yr) (Appendix D, Table 11). 73 Table 4.18 Perceived Impact of Forest Application (effects score) Compared by Significant Demographic Variables (o - 0.05) Effects Score '1? SD N Lower vs. Upper Peninsula (F = 6.640; df = l; p < 0.010) Lower Peninsula 22.3 10.3 927 Upper Peninsula 24.0 10.2 342 Occupation (F = 2.500; df = 8; p < 0.011) Semi-skilled 24.1 9.7 98 Sales/clerical 23.7 11.2 108 Skilled 24.2 9.8 202 Farmer 21.9 8.4 48 Manager/Proprietor 21.2 9.4 84 Professional 23.5 10.7 190 Homemaker 22.9 10.5 224 Unemployed 23.2 10.4 28 Retired 20.5 10.2 206 Urban-Rural Residence (F = 9.130; df = 1; p < 0.003) Urban 21.8 10.4 522 Rural 23.5 10.1 734 74 Effects Score Items: For the general public 'forest growth' was perceived as a beneficial impact of applying sewage sludge in the forest, with a mean value Of 2.18 (Table 4.19). 'Long term environ- mental quality' was also perceived as a beneficial impact (2.87) while Table 4.19. Perceived impact of forest application analyzed by each item in the effects score. Item Effects Score Question Item 1' 0.95 0.1. SD 11* 28 Forest Growth 2.18 .:0.0S 0.93 1059 36 Long-term Environ— mental Quality 2.87 I:0.09 1.20 808 32 Wildlife Habitat 3.42 .iO°07 1.03 952 35 Wildlife Species 3.50 +0.06 0.99 918 31 Public Health 3.53 li0.05 0.77 885 30 Ground Water Quality 3.73 10.04 0.78 899 33 Recreation 3.75 10.05 0.81 985 34 Adjacent Property Value 3.85 10.05 0.82 1051 29 Surface Water Quality 3.96 ‘10.04 0.71 937 *N excludes those who responded 'don't know' or did not respond. the seven remaining items were perceived as a harmful impact, ranging from 3.42 ('wildlife species') to 3.96 ('surface water quality'). 'Don't know' re3ponses ranged from 26.3 percent for 'forest growth' to 43.6 percent for '1ong term environmental quality' (Appendix E, Q28-36). Effects Score, Attitude and Preference: Those Opposed to a hy- pothetical proposal to apply sludge in anearby state forest perceived 75 significantly higher harmful impact (29.4) than did those who favored the proposal (19.9) or were undecided (19.7) (F= 144.075; df= 2; p< 0.000). Analysis of each item shows that the Opposed group rated all nine items as significantly more harmful than the favorable group with the undecided group in between. Thoseepreferring incineration or burying in landfills perceived significantly more harm (25.9 and 24.0; respectively) than those pre— ferring forest or agricultural application (20.3 and 20.8; respectively) (F= 21.343; df= 4; p< 0.000). Beliefs About the Impacts Of Sludge Disposal Methods: The public's beliefs about the alternative methods Of sludge disposal are an im- portant variable in predicting attitudes about forest application of sludge. Incineration was believed to be the least threat to human health, least threat to environmental quality and cheapest method of the four sludge disposal methods by the greatest percent of the general public (36.5%, 27.4%, 23.1%; respectively) (Appendix E, Q38-43). Agri- cultural land application was considered the greatest threat to human health by 31.5 percent of the respondents, landfills and incineration were considered the two greatest threats to environmental quality by 18.3 and 18.2 percent respectively, and landfill was considered the most expensive method by 23.5 percent Of the respondents. To get an overall estimate of which method was believed to be the best based on the three criteria (human health, environmental quality and economic cost) a count of the number Of responses for the least threat to human health, least threat to environmental quality and least economic cost was made for each sludge diSposal method and a percent 76 determined which constituted a positive favorable score. The same was calculated for the greatest threat to human health, greatest threat to environmental quality and greatest economic cost which then constituted a negative unfavorable score. These two values were then added for each method and a ranking determined. Overall, incineration was ranked highest (+11.8% higher favorable score than unfavorable score) followed by forest application (+5.0%), bury in landfills (-6.0%) and finally agricultural application (—10.8%) (Table 4.20). Beliefs About the Impacts of Forest Application and Alternatives Attitude and Preference: This analysis looks at the beliefs about the impacts of the sludge disposal methods by: (1) the perceived impact of forest application (effects score), (2) preference for sludge disposal method and (3) attitude towards forest application. The effects score was recoded into three groups: beneficial (1-18), neutral (19-27) and harmful (28-45). Preference was recoded into two groups: other (all choices except forest application) and forest application. Attitude was recoded into two groups: Opposed and favor. Undecided responses were not included from the attitude for this analysis. This produces 12 groups for which beliefs about alternatives are compared (Table 4.21). For each group (effects by preference by attitude), each of the four disposal methods was evaluated by summing the percent of positive evaluations (least threat to human health, least threat to environmental quality and cheapest method) and substracting the sum of the percent of negative evaluations (greatest threat to human health, greatest threat to environmental quality and most expensive method). A positive score indicates 77 Ammoo owaooooo ammumoum osuv me a use Amuaamsv Nmuaoacouw>=o ou umousu unannouwv He c .Asuaoo: swan: Ou unease umouoouwv mm a mo sum unease Aumoo OHaoaooo umooav we a one ANNNNOOV Hmuaoeaoefi>oo Ou amounu unmoav oo o .Asuaoo: case: on amounu umooav mm a mo saw any as seasoned“ cowoano Oz moosaoxm « ouoom HHONO>O sermonumz umuoz «eooeooz noon o.oo mNom o.oo onN Naeoa o o.oN- .mwmw .ummm mum“. mMMI. ooooN NouooNooNum< oo ooNoooNNoo< m o.o- N.om Nmo N.oN NNN oNNNNoooN aN Noon N o.m+ m.oN ooo N.NN NON ooooN ooooom oo ooNoooNNoo< N N.NN+ o.oN oNN N.mm oNNN NNoNouomv ooNoooooNooN 3 N N .oz N .oz some oouosN: + noomN vogue: NoooooNn owoon «monuoz umuos no umom mm vogue: ammoamwo zoom mcamosh mucooaoamem mo Honfiez ON.¢ manna Table 4.21 Ranking of desirability of forest application by respondents grouped according to perceived impacts of forest application (effects score), preference for sludge disposal method and attitude towards forest application. Effects Score: Beneficial, Neutral or Harmful Preference Forest or other Attitude Opposed or Favor Perceived Disposal Attitude N % Rank of Forest Group Effect Preference Application 1 1. Beneficial Other Opposed 56 7.6 4 2. Beneficial Forest Opposed 6 0.8 1 3. Beneficial Other Favor 59 8.0 22 4. Beneficial Forest Favor 52 7.1 l 5. Neutral Other Opposed 68 9.2 3 6. Neutral Forest Opposed 6 0.8 l 7. Neutral Other Favor 98 13.3 22 8. Neutral Forest Favor 101 13.7 1 9. Harmful Other Opposed 243 33.0 4 10. Harmful Forest Opposed 10 1.4 1 ll. Harmful Other Favor 21 2.8 1 12. Harmful Forest Favor 17 2.3 1 737 100.0 Measures the perceived impact of forest application on health, environment, and economics in relation to other sludge disposal methods: 1 - Best Method and 4 2 Worst Method. 2 Agricultural application was rated as the best method 79 that more positive evaluations were received than negative evaluations and vice versa for negative scores. This analysis helps explain the respondents' attitudes and preferences based on their beliefs about the impact of forest appli- cation and alternative disposal methods. For example, one group felt that forest application.was beneficial, yet they preferred a method other than forest application and also opposed the hypothe- tical proposal to apply sludge to nearby state forests. Evidently, they perceived the alternative methods to be better (forest appli- cation was ranked last) (Table 4.21). The analysis shows that forest application and agricultural application are perceived as having relatively similar impacts by most of the respondents. For example, group 3 preferred agricultural application but was not Opposed to forest application. Favorability towards forest appli- cation by those preferring agricultural application appears to be because of similar evaluations about the impacts of the disposal methods. Groups 2 and 6 are difficult to explain because they perceive forest application as beneficial to neutral and prefer forest appli- cation, yet are opposed to the hypothetical proposal to apply sludge in a nearby state forest. These two groups represent only 12 re- spondents (1.6%) and may simply represent inconsistency in answering the survey. They may also reflect unmeasured reasons, e.g. Objection to use of state forests instead Of private forests. In summary, if forest application was preferred, the respondents evaluated forest application as having more positive benefits than 80 the other disposal methods (groups 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12, Table 4.21). If the respondents preferred methods other than forest application and they were also Opposed to forest application they evaluated forest application negatively (groups 1, 5 and 9). Respondents preferring methods other than forest application but favorable to— wards forest application generally preferred agricultural appli- cation and they evaluated forest and agricultural application as having a relatively similar impact (groups 3, 7 and 11). Relative Forest Impact: The relative forest impact variable was developed to Obtain an interval scale that looked at beliefs about the impacts of the sludge disposal methods and was coded as follows: If forest application was believed to be the ... least threat tO human health ....................... +1 greatest threat to human health .... ............... .—1 least threat to environmental quality ..............+l greatest threat to environmental quality ...........—1 least economic cost ...... ...... .. ................ ..+l greatest economic cost ............................. —1 Thus, forest application is rated along three categories (health, environment and economics) in relation to the alternative methods. This scale ranges from -3 (low evaluation) to +3 (high evaluation). The frequency distribution shows few people in the extreme ends of the scale with most (49.8%) occupying the mid-point (0) (Table 4.22). The mean for the general public was 0.14 (SD==1.04). There was a significant relationship with county residence and relative forest impact, especially between the Lower and Upper Peninsula samples (Table 4.23). Public Officials rated forest application signifi- cantly higher than the general public and there was a significant 81 Table 4.22. Frequency distribution of the relative forest impact score for the general public. Relative Forest Absolute Relative __ Impact Score* Frequency Frequency X SD —3 5 0.3 0.144 1.042 -2 71 4.8 —l 241 16.3 0 735 49.8 +1 272 18.4 +2 114 7.7 +3 37 2.5 Total 1475 99.8 *Summation of respondent's evaluation of forest application's impact on human health, environmental quality and economic cost relative to alternative methods: -3==forest application evaluated negatively and +3==forest application evaluated positively. 82 Table 4.23 Mean relative forest impact score analyzed by significant demographic variables (a 0.05) Significant Relative Forest Impact Demographic _ Variables X SD N Counties (F = 3.962; df = 6; p < 0.001) Grand Traverse 0.3 1.1 192 Leelanau 0.4 1.0 234 Marquette 0.0 1.0 201 Menominee 0.0 0.9 212 Missaukee 0.2 1.0 210 Osceola 0.1 1.1 203 Wexford 0.2 1.0 223 Lower Peninsula vs. Upper Peninsula (F = 13.459; df = l; p < 0.000) Lower Peninsula 0.2 1.1 1062 Upper Peninsula 0.0 1.0 413 Public Officials vs. General Public (F = 13.487; df = l; p < 0.000) Public Officials 0.5 1.1 116 General Public 0.1 1.0 1475 Work (F = 2.303; df = 8; p < 0.019) Semi-skilled 0.0 1.0 112 Sales/clerical 0.2 1.0 130 Skilled 0.1 1.1 231 Farmer 0.4 1.1 54 Manager/Proprietor 0.0 1.0 100 Professional 0.2 1.2 216 Homemaker 0.1 1.1 267 Unemployed -0.1 0.8 34 Retired 0.3 1.0 232 83 relationship among occupations with unemployed rating forest appli— cation lowest (-0.1) and farmers the highest (0.4). There was no significant relationship with relative forest impact and membership, sex, education, income or urban-rural residence. The relationship Of this variable with attitude will be discussed in a later section. Skepticism: The model proposes that skepticism may be an im- portant factor in predicting attitude towards forest application. There were three measures of skepticism in this survey._ Question 16 is a measure of the publics' skepticism towards management programs pr0posed by the Michigan DNR. Thirty-two percent agreed that they were skeptical while 50 percent disagreed. Nineteen percent had no opinion (Appendix E, 016). Question 37 is a measure of trust that the publics have in local and state agencies for properly managing a forest application site. Sixty-five percent felt that it would be prOperly managed while 35 percent felt that it would not be (Appendix E, Q37). Question 53 is a measure of how accurate the publics per- ceive the Michigan DNR is as an information source. ‘Most responded with usually (45%) or sometimes (34%) and few said seldom accurate (10%) or never accurate (3%) (Appendix E, Q53). Skepticism.and Attitude: A significantly higher percentage of those Opposed to the proposal were skeptical of MDNR programs and did not trust local and state agencies to properly manage a forest appli- cation site (Tables 4.24 and 4.25). Also, those Opposed perceived the MDNR as significantly less accurate as an information source than those who favored forest application or were undecided (Table 4.26). 84 Table 4.24 Relationship between attitude towards a hypothetical forest application prOposal and skepticism towards programs proposed by the Michigan DNR (Q l6)* Attitude Opposed Favor Undecided Total Skepticism N % (n=418) % (n=350) % (n=634) % (X2 = 103.331; df = 8; p < 0.000) Strongly Skeptical 143 51.7 19.6 28.7 100.0 Skeptical 310 40.3 17.7 41.9 99.9 Don't know 264 32.2 20.8 47.0 100.0‘ Not skeptical 611 19.3 29.2 51.5 100.0 Strongly not skeptical 74 20.3 45.9 33.8 100.0 1402 o = 0.05 Table 4.25 Relationship between attitude towards a hypothetical forest application proposal and trust in local and state agencies to properly manage a forest application site (Q 37)* Trust to Attitude Properly Manage a Opposed Favor Undecided Total Forest N % (n=412) % (n=354) % (n=608) % Application Site (x2: 193.172; df = 2; p < 0.000) Yes 893 18.1 33.9 47.9 99.9 No 481 52.0 10.6 37.4 100.0 1374 * a = 0.05 85 Table 4.26. Relationship between attitude towards a hypothetical forest application proposal and the perceived accuracy of the Michigan DNR as an information source.* Perceived Accuracy** Attitude IX .SD TN (F= 20. 192; df= 2; p< 0.000) Opposed 2.87 0.94 389 Favor 2.58 0.80 340 Undecided 2.55 0.75 598 * cx= 0.05 **On a scale from 1 (always accurate) to 5 (never accurate) Skepticism Scale: A skepticism scale was developed from the above three measures as follows: Skepticism of MDNR Trust in local and state agencies Accuracy Of MDNR information Strongly Skeptical......-2 Skeptical..... ..... .....—1 No Opinion.............. 0 Not Skeptical...........+1 Strongly Not Skeptical..+2 Yes.....................+1 Blank................... 0 NO......................-1 Always/Usually..........+1 Sometimes/NO Opinion.... 0 Seldom/Never............-1 This scale ranges from -4 (very high skepticism)tx>+4 (very low skep- ticism). The general public had a mean of 0.73 (SD==2.08) (Table 4.27). Overall, 57.8 percent Of the general public fell in the positive range (+1 through +4). There was a significant relationship with skepticism and county residence with Missaukee (0.34) and Osceola (0.47) having the highest skepticism and Grand Traverse (1.11) and Wexford (0.98) the lowest 86 Table 4.27 Frequency distribution of the variable, degree of skepticism, for the general public Absolute Relative Degree of Skepticism* Frequency Frequency R SD -4 64 4.3 .730 2.081 —3 59 4.0 -2 121 8.2 —l 155 10.5 0 225 15.3 +1 227 15.4 +2 237 16.1 +3 342 23.2 +4 45 3. 1 TOTAL T473" 1003' * —4 (very skeptical) to +4 (not skeptical) 87 (Table 4.28). There was no significant relationship with skepticism scores between the LP and UP samples, public officials and the general public or members and non-members of organizations. Skepticism Scale and Demographic Variables: Females had signi- ficantly more trust in government agencies (0.88) than males (0.60) and urban residents had significantly more trust (0.90) than rural residents (0.62) (Table 4.28). Higher education levels showed signi- ficantly higher trust and there was also a significant difference among occupations with unemployed having most trust (1.35) and skilled the least (0.36). There was no significant relationship with skepticism and income levels. Mean age was signficantly related to skepticism with younger ages occupying the extremes (Appendix D, Table 11). Skepticism, Attitude and Preference: Those Opposed to forest application had significantly more skepticism (-0.35) than those in favor (1.46) or those undecided (1.03) (F=—97.963; df-Z; p< 0.000). Those who preferred forest application had the least skepticism (1.35) followed by agricultural application (1.03), burying in landfills (0.64), no Opinion (0.40) and incineration (0.28) (F==15.854; df==4; p< 0.000). Significance of the Sludge Disposal Problem: Over two-thirds of the reSpondents agreed (45.0%) or strongly agreed (21.9%) that sludge diaposal is a significant problem for many cities in Michigan (Appendix E, Q8). Less than two percent disagreed (1.4%) or strongly disagreed (0.4%) and 31.3 percent did not have an opinion. Source of the Sludgg: Most (43.6%) Of the public did not know if sludge applied to northern Michigan would come from southern 88 Table 4.28 Mean skepticism analyzed by significant demographic variables (a = 0.05) Significant _ Skepticism Score Demographic X SD N Variables Counties (F = 3.837; df = 6; p < 0.001) Grand Traverse 1.11 2.02 192 Leelanau 0.85 2.02 234 Marquette 0.80 2.12 201 Menominee 0.55 2.07 212 Missaukee 0.34 2.10 210 Osceola 0.47 1.99 203 Wexford 0.98 2.16 223 Sex (F= 6.849; df = 1; p < 0.009 Male 0.60 2.15 771 Female 0.88 1.99 699 Education (F = 6.300; df = 4; p < 0.000) Less than high school 0.47 1.73 229 High school graduate 0.47 2.13 481 Some college or post H.S. training 0.91 2.10 458 College graduate 1.13 2.06 156 College beyond 3.8. 1.13 2.30 128 Occupation (F = 2.748; df = 8; p < 0.005) Semi-skilled 0.49 2.23 112 Sales/clerical 1.15 1.92 130 Skilled 0.36 2.16 231 Farmer 0.81 1.95 54 Manager/Proprietor 0.49 2.39 100 Professional 0.92 2.24 216 Homemaker 0.85 1.93 267 Unemployed 1.35 1.67 34 Retired 0.64 1.97 232 Urban-Rural residence (F = 6.483; df = 1; p < 0.011) Urban 0.90 2.02 612 Rural 0.62 2.12 843 89 Michigan cities, however, over one-third though that it would, while less than 20 percent thought that it would not (Appendix E, Q23). A higher percentage of those Opposed (46.7%) believed that the source of sludge applied to northern forests would come from southern Michigan cities, than in favor (20.1%) (X2= 34.483; df=4; p< 0.000). Research Qpestion 2 How do selected Michigan publics representing environmentalists, po- litical figures and general public compare on the following depen- dent variables: B. nature and priority of values and concerns about sludge disposal? Economic-Environmental Value (E/E): An economic-environmental (E/E) value score was develOped to measure the public along a continuum of high economic value orientation (-8) to high environmental value orientation (+8). The frequency distribution of the E/E value for the general public shows that the general public is largely located on the environmetal side of the continuum (Figure 4.1). There was a significant relationship between values and county residence with Marquette and Menominee, the two upper peninsula counties, having the lowest environmental value (2.3, each) and Leelanau and Wexford having the highest environmental value (3.0, each) (Table 4.29). Public Officials had significantly lower environmental values (1.0) than the general public (2.7). There was no significant relationship between members of environmental-outdoor type organizations and non-members on E/E values. E/E Values and Dempgraphic Variables: There was a significant increase in E/E values with increasing education levels (Table 4.29). 90 16 I 15.7 15 14 13 |12.1 1 12.3 12 11 10 18.2 7.8 a |5.7 [7.4 [ 7.5 J6.2 _ l 7.4 Percent Of Respondents on 3 2.4 [1.9 0.0 0.4 1 PF _.._I -8-7’6-5-4-3’2-1 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B Economic Environmental Figure 4.1 Frequency distribution of the economic - environmental (E/E) score for the general public. 91 Table 4.29 Mean E/E (economic/environmental) scores analyzed by significant demographic variables (a = 0.05) Significant - E/E Score Demographic x SD N Variables County (F = 2.197; df = 6; p < 0.041) Grand Traverse (LP) 2.8 3.0 182 Leelanau (LP) 3.0 3.3 226 Marquette (UP) 2.3 3.6 190 Menominee (UP) 2.3 3.3 203 Missaukee (LP) 2.4 3.3 194 Osceola (LP) 2.9 2.8 192 Wexford (LP) 3.0 3.2 216 Upper Peninsula vs. Lower Peninsula (F = 8.270; df = 1; p < 0.004) Lower Peninsula 2.8 3.1 1010 Upper Peninsula 2.3 3.4 393 Public Officials vs. General Public (F = 26.680; df =1; p < 0.000) Public Officials 1.0 3.6 110 General Public 2.7 3.2 1403 Education (F = 3.892; df = 4; p < 0.004) Less than high school 2.0 3.0 207 High school graduate 2.7 3.1 458 Some college or post H.S. training 2.8 3.3 445 College graduate 2.9 3.3 154 College beyond B.S. 3.2 3.3 124 Occupation (F = 5.741; df = 8; p < 0.000) Semi-skilled 2.6 3.4 107 Sales/clerical 3.2 2.9 127 Skilled 3.1 3.3 221 Farmer 1.8 3.3 51 Manager/preprietor 1.8 3.5 99 Professional 3.2 3.4 210 Homemaker 2.9 2.8 250 Unemployed 2.4 3.4 33 Retired 1.7 3.1 211 92 There was also a significant relationship among occupations with re- tirees (1.7), farmers (1.8) and manager/proprietors (1.8) having the lowest environmental values and professional (3.2), sales/clerical (3.2) and skilled (3.1) the highest environmental values. There was no significant relationship for sex, income and urban-rural residence and E/E values. Mean age was significantly related with the four E/E groups, being highest for the neutral group (53.1 yr) and lowest for the environmental group (38.2 yr) (Appendix D, Table 11). E/E Value, Attitude and Preference: The E/E value was signifi- cantly related to attitude towards a hypothetical proposal to apply sludge in a nearby state forest and to one's preference for type of sludge disposal method. Those opposed had higher environmental values (3.2) than those undecided (2.7) and those in favor (2.0) (F= 15.039; df==2; p‘<0.000). Those preferring forest application had lower en— vironmental values (2.1) than the other sludge disposal methods (environmetnal values ranged from 2.6 to 3.0) (F= 3.973; df= 4; p <0.003). Value Priorities: Value priorities were determined by asking the respondents to divide 100 points among four categories: Human Health Economics (Costs) Environmental Quality and Wildlife AesthetiCS' (Beauty) of the Area to show how important each category should be in making sludge- management decisions. Health was by far the most important category receiving a mean average of 50.9 points with environmental quality receiving 22.1 points and economics (13.5) and aesthetics (13.4) about equal (Appendix E, Q47). 93 There was no significant relationship between value priorities and the seven counties. Public officials had significantly higher economic values (18.5) and lower aesthetic values (11.6) than the general public (13.5 and 13.4; respectively), but there was no signi- ficant relationship with health and environmental values. There was no significant relationship between members and non-members of or- ganizations and any of the four values. Value Priorities and Demographic Variables: There were no signi- ficant relationships for sex, income and urban-rural residence on any of the four value priorities. Lower education levels had higher values for human health and lower values for environment than higher education levels. Sales/clerical workers had the lowest economic value (11.2) and retirees the highest (16.6), and professional occu- pations had the highest environment value (24.6) and retirees the lowest (18.0). Health and economic values increased with age while environmental and aesthetic values decreased (Appendix D, Table 11). Overall, there were little differences between value priorities and demographic variables, even the few significant differences were not large, age being the most significant. E/E and Value Priorities: The E/E value scores were recoded into four groups: Absolute Relative Frequency Frequency Economic (-8 through -1) 219 14.8 Neutral (0) 244 16.5 Low Environmental (1-4) 599. 40.6 High Environmental (5-8) 413 28.0 and were then compared with the mean number of points given to the four value priority categories (health, economic, environmental 94 quality and aesthetics) (Table 4.30). There was no significant re- lationship with health and the four E/E groups while there was a sig- nificant relationship for economics, environment and aesthetics. It is interesting to note that the rank for the economic group was health, economics, environment and aesthetics; the neutral group was health, environment, economics and aesthetics; and for the low and high en- vironmental groups the rank was health, environment, aesthetics and economics with the high environmental group having a much lower value for economics than the low environmental group. Thus, human health is a high value priority item regardless of one's position on the economic-environmental trade-offs continuum. Also, the results of these two variables, E/E values and value prorities, supports the validity of the instrument value measures. Value Priorities and Attitude: The mean number of points alloted to health was significantly greater for those opposed (53.3) than those who favored forest application (47.3) (Table 4.31). The mean number of points alloted to economics was significantly lower for these opposed (10.9) than those in favor (17.0) while there was no signi- ficant relationship with environment and aesthetic values and attitude. Value Priorities and Preference: Although significant, the dif- ferences in value priorities were not great, i.e., value priorities were similar regardless of preference for sludge disposal method (Table 4.32). Concerns About Forest Application of Sludge: A list of 16 con- cerns about applying sludge to state forest lands was generated by an open-ended question (Appendix E, Q48). Human health and disease 95 no. on samunmeawfim « oao.o v a mm n we “com.m u a "museum m\m an muauonumm< e ooo.o v a mm a we “mam.m~ n a “masons m\m an unmacoua>au m ooo.o v a mm a we u~e~.mo a a “masons m\m an mafiaoaoum N H~e.o v a “m n we mosa.o u a "masons m\m an summon H Ao.a v «.ma Ao.NHV H.N~ Am.OHV m.ma A4.aav m.om mend Hawum>o Am.a v «.44 A“.~Hv a.m~ Aa.h v a.w Aw.mHV m.om mos Awumv Houcoacoufi>om swam Ae.m V m.ma “n.4Hv w.HN as.a V H.ma Ao.mav «.4m com Ae14v Houcoaoouw>om 304 As.mv «.ma Ac.OHV «.mfi as.HHv o.na Am.mav m.~m NON on Hmuusmz Ao.wv N.~H Ao.HHV N.mH Am.~av a.mH Aa.mfiv m.me mom ma- spas wuv oqaocoom Ammo m Ammo m Ammo m Ammo m z masons m\m mofiumnumm< unwacoua>cm mofifioaoum guano: .3 «m «N H .Aofiaocoom\amu=oacoufi>aov mouoom mm Hams» Ou wcfiououom ommdouw mucoocoamou kn mosam> “sou mnu mo sumo cu omuuoaam muafiom mo Hoaaaz om.q manna 96 Table 4.31 Number of points allotted each of the values by those opposed to, in favor of, or undecided about forest application. Value Priorities )2 SD N * Human Health by Attitude (F = 9.720; df = 2; p < 0.000) Opposed 53.3 20.3 397 Favor 47.3 18.3 347 Undecided 51.3 18.4 615 * Economics by Attitude (F = 57.001; df = 2; p < 0.000) Opposed 10.9 9.8 397 Favor 17.0 11.3 347 Undecided 13.4 9.9 615 Environment by Attitude (F = 0.446; df = 2; p < 0.640) Opposed 22.0 13.0 397 Favor 22.6 13.0 347 Undecided 21.9 10.6 615 Aesthetic by Attitude (F = 0.484; df = 2; p < 0.616) Opposed 13.8 10.4 397 Favor 13.1 8.9 347 Undecided 13.4 8.3 615 * a = 0.05 97 Table 4.32 Number of points allotted to each of four values by respondents grouped according to their preference for disposal methods. Value Priorities SD N NI * Human Health by Preference (F = 10.572; df = 4; p < 0.000) Bury in Landfills 56.7 18.2 274 Incinerate 54.7 20.0 453 Agriculture 45.5 17.4 244 Forest 49.1 18.0 327 No Opinion 50.4 21.4 80 * Economic by Preference (F = 11.304; df = 4; p < 0.000) Bury in Landfills 12.4 9 2 274 Incinerate 11.6 10.5 453 Agriculture 15.4 10.9 244 Forest 15.9 10 4 327 No Opinion 13.1 11.6 80 * Environment by Preference (F = 4.836; df = 4; p < 0.000) Bury in Landfills 21.8 11.3 274 Incinerate 20.7 11.8 453 Agriculture 24.8 12.6 244 Forest 21.9 11.5 327 No Opinion 23.5 13.7 80 Aesthetic by Preference (F = 1.731; df = 4; p < 0.141) Bury in Landfills 14.1 8.2 274 Incinerate 12.8 9.9 453 Agriculture 14.4 9.2 244 Forest 13.1 8.5 327 No Opinion 12.8 9.0 80 * a = 0.05 98 received the highest number of responses (39.9%) followed by wild- life (38.9%), environment (25.2%), long term effects (20.2%), other (18.5%) and water quality (17.7%). The 'other' category was repre- sented mainly by two concerns: (1) where the sludge would be coming from and (2) how the sludge would be applied. A count of the number of concerns listed was made and used to show increasing concern. The frequency distribution shows that 28.3 percent of the general public listed one concern, 24.3 percent none, 23.0 percent listed two concerns, 13.6 percent listed three and 7.5 percent listed four while few listed five or more (3.2%). There was no significant relationship with number of concerns and county resi- dence or between public officials and the general public or members and non-members of organizations on the number of concerns. Concerns and Demographic Variables: There was no significant relationship with sex or urban-rural residence and the number of concerns. Higher number of concerns were listed by the higher educa— tion levels, higher income levels and professional (1.9) and sales/ clerical (1.9) occupations with farmers (1.3) and retirees (1.3) having the fewest concerns (Table 4.33). ‘Mean age was also significantly related to number of concerns, with the highest mean age for zero and one concerns and lower mean ages for two and more concerns (Appen- dix D, Table 11). Concerns, Attitude and Preference: Those opposed (1.7) or un- decided (1.8) about a proposal to apply sludge in a nearby state forest had significantly more concerns than those in favor (1.4) (F - 8.583; df - 2; pl<0.000). 99 Table 4.33 Mean number of concerns about a state forest application proposal analyzed by significant demographic variables (a = 0.05) Significant No. of Concerns Demographic _ Variables X SD N Education (F = 16.775; df = 4; p < 0.000) Less than high school 1.1 1.2 229 High school graduate 1.5 1.3 481 Some college or post H.S. training 1.8 1.4 458 College graduate 2.1 1.6 156 College beyond B.S. 1 9 1.5 128 Income (F = 4.489; df = 5; p < 0.001) Less than $8,000 1.4 1.4 217 $8,000 - $15,999 1.6 1.4 349 $16,000 - $23,999 1.8 1.5 340 $24,000 - $31,999 1.8 1.4 256 $32,000 - $39,999 1.9 1.2 80 $40,000 or more 1 9 1.5 101 Occupation (F = 3.475; df = 8; p < 0.001) Semi-skilled 1.7 1.5 112 Sales/clerical 1.9 1.4 130 Skilled 1.7 1.4 231 Farmer 1.3 1.2 54 Manager/proprietor 1.7 1.3 100 Professional 1.9 1.5 216 Homemaker 1.6 1.4 267 Unemployed 1.7 1.3 34 Retired 1.3 1.3 232 100 Sources of Sludge: A high percentage of respondents (72.2%) agreed or strongly agreed that if sludge is going to be applied to nearby state forests it should not be brought in from other parts of Michigan (Appendix E, Q20). Only 15.4 percent indicated that the source of the sludge was not important while 11.3 percent had no opinion. There was a strong relationship between attitude towards forest application and feelings about the source of sludge (Table 4.34). Table 4.34. Relationship between respondents' feelings about the source of sludge used in nearby state forests and their attitude towards a hypothetical forest application proposal (o = 0.05). Attitude Source of Opposed Favor Undecided Sludge Should (n=424) (n=351) (n=640) Total be Local N 1 % % % (x2= 166.062; df= 8; p< 0.000) Strongly Agree 452 47.3 16.4 36.3 100.0 Agree 585 26.5 23.6 49.9 100.0 Don't Know 159 17.6 21.4 61.0 100.0 Disagree 194 10.3 47.4 42.3 100.0 Strongly Disagree 25 28.0 52.0 20.0 100.0 Those who disagreed or strongly disagreed that sludge should not be brought in from other areas were much more favorable towards forest application. Preservationist Value: Almost one-third expressed some level of preservationist value by being opposed to forest application regardless of whether or not any bad effect occur, although only 10.9 percent 101 Table 4.35 Relationship between the respondents' degree of preservationist value (Q 17) and their knowledge scores, perceived impact of forest application (effects scores) and E/E (economic—environmental) scores (a = 0.05) Knowledge Score2 Response1 _ to Q 17 x SD N (F = 89.288; df = 4; p < 0.000) Strongly Agree 3.2 2.0 134 Agree 2.9 1.8 264 Don't Know 2.3 2.2 288 Disagree 4.7 2.6 559 Strongly Disagree 6.2 2.6 97 Effects Score3 (F = 46.272; df = 4; p < 0.000) Strongly Agree 30.0 11.5 142 Agree 27.0 10.3 261 Don't Know 20.5 10.8 205 Disagree 20.3 8.6 538 Strongly Disagree 20.4 6.3 97 E/E Score4 (F = 3.585; df = 4; p < 0.007) Strongly Agree 3.5 3 4 149 Agree 2.8 3.1 283 Don't Know 2.4 3.0 293 Disagree 2.6 3.2 568 Strongly Disagree 2.6 3.9 97 1 Q 17 Regardless of whether or not any bad effects result, it is wrong for society to dump sludge in the forest. 2 Low knowledge scores means less knowledge 3 Low effects scores means less perceived harm 4 High E/E scores means higher environmental values 102 strongly expressed this value (Appendix E, Q17). The large group ex- pressing some level of preservationist value had significantly lower knowledge scores and perceived more harmful effects (Table 4.35). However, only the smaller group that strongly felt that it was wrong to apply sludge in forests had high E/E values, i.e., were more en- vironmentally orientated. As expected, there was a strong relation- ship between attitude and the degree of preservationist value (Table 4.36). Table 4.36. Relationship between the respondents' degree of preser- vationist value (Q17) and their attitude towards a hypo— thetical forest application proposal ((1: 0.05). Opposed Favor Undecided Response (n=418) (n=345) (n=638) Total to Q17* N % % Z % (F=428.904; df=8; p<0.000) Strongly Agree 152 70.4 11.2 18.4 100.0 Agree 291 53.3 9.3 37.5 100.1 Don't Know 292 20.5 13.0 66.4 99.9 Disagree 570 15.6 34.7 49.6 99.9 Strongly Disagree 100 7.0 69.0 24.0 100.0 *Ql7. Regardless of whether or not any bad effects result it is wrong for society to dump sludge in the forest. Number of Forest Recreation Activities: Forest use is one variable expected to influence one's attitude towards forest application of sludge. The count of the number of types of forest recreation acti- vities participated in the past two years was used to indicate the importance of state forests to the respondent. The general public had 103 a mean of 6.6 uses of state forests. Scenic driving (86.7%), berry- picking and/or mushroom hunting (65.5%), swimming and/or boating (62.8%), fishing (57.0%), picknicking (55.0%) and looking for wild- life (53.9%) were the six most often reported activities (Appendix E, Q75). Number of Forest Uses, Attitude, Preference and E/E Value: Those opposed to forest application reported significantly more forest activities (7.5) than those in favor (6.4) or undecided (6.1) (Table 4.37). Those preferring agricultural application had the highest number of activities (7.3) and those with no opinion the lowest (5.1). The highest forest activity count was for the high environ- ‘mental group (8.1) and the lowest for the neutral group (5.2). Type of Forest Activities and Attitude: Type of forest use was also explored by using the most important forest use as a variable. Scenic driving (16.6%), fishing (11.6%), firearm deer hunting (11.5%), camping (12.9%) and looking for wildlife (8.4%) were the five most frequently reported as the most important forest activity (Appendix E, Q76). There was no significant relationship between attitude to— wards a hypothetical proposal to apply sludge in a nearby state forest and these top five most important forest uses (X2= 12.041; df- 8; p< 0.149). Research Question 2 How do selected Michigan publics representing environmentalists, political figures and general public compare on the following depen- dent variables: C. perceived educational needs and preferred informational sources? 104 Table 4.37 Relationship of types of forest activities with attitude towards forest application, preference for sludge disposal method and E/E (economic/environmental) groups.* Types of Forest Uses )1 SD N * Attitude (F = 16.123; df = 2; p < 0.000) Opposed 7.5 4.1 432 Favor 6.4 3.9 362 Undecided 6.1 3.7 652 * Preference (F = 7.589; df = 4; p < 0.000) Bury in Landfills 6.5 3.8 289 Incinerate 6.8 3.9 479 Agriculture 7.3 4.0 249 Forest 6.2 3.7 336 No Opinion 5.1 4.1 121 * E/E Groups (F = 37.107; df = 3; p < 0.000) Economic 5.7 3.5 219 Neutral 5.2 4.0 244 Low Environment 6.4 3.8 599 High Environment 8.1 3.8 413 * a = 0.05 105 Interest in Learning: Most (86.5%) of the respondents indicated that they were interested in learning more about the problems caused by sludge disposal (Appendix E, Q51). There was no significant re- lationship with interest in learning and county residence (Table 4.38). Public officials were significantly more interested in learning than the general public (93.9% vs 86.5%) and members of environmental- outdoor type organizations were more interested than non-members. Interest in Learning and Demographic Variables: Males and re- spondents with higher education levels were significantly more interested in learning more, however, these differences were not large (Table 4.38). There was no significant difference in interest in learning among income levels, occupations and urban-rural residence. There was no significant difference in mean age between those interested fillearning and those not interested (Appendix D, Table 11). Interest in Learning with Attitude, Preference, Knowledge, Effects and E/E Value: There was no significant relationship between interest in learning and attitude or disposal preference (X2-1.986; df-=2; p< 0.371 and X2- 7.521; df-4; p< 0.111; respectively). Respondents interested in learning more had a significantly higher mean knowledge score than those not interested (3.8 vs 3.3) although this difference is not large (F- 6.132; df- 1; p< 0.003). There was no significant relationship between interest in learning and perceived impact of forest applications (effects) (F-O.953; df= 1; p< 0.329). Respon- dents interested in learning more had a significantly higher (more environmental) E/E value (2.8 vs 1.8) (F= 17.373; df- 1; p<0.000). 106 Table 4.38 Interest in learning more about the problems caused by sludge disposal (Q 51) analyzed by significant demographic variables (a = 0.05) Significant Demographic Interest in Learningi variables Yes (%) N0 (z) N Public Officials vs. General Public (X2 = 4.450; df = 1; p < 0.035) Public Officials 93.9 6.1 114 General Public 86.5 13.5 1436 Environmental-Related Membership (X2 = 10.360; df = 2; p < 0.006) None 84.7 15.3 1035 One 90.1 9.9 262 Two or more 92.8 7.2 139 Sex (X2 = 6.379; df = 1; p < 0.012) Male 88.7 11.3 759 Female 84.0 16.0 673 Education (X2 . 15.374; df = 4; p < 0.004) Less than high school 82.0 18.0 217 High school graduate 83.4 16.6 469 Some college or post H.S. training 89.1 10.9 451 College graduate 92.3 7.7 155 College beyond B.S. 89.0 11.0 127 107 Previous Awareness of Land Application of Sludge: Over one-third (38.9%) of the general public reported that they had heard of the concept of applying sludge to land before receiving this survey (Appendix E, Q50). Lower Peninsula counties were significantly more likely to have had previous awareness than Upper Peninsula counties (43.5% vs 27.3%) (Table 4.39). Public officials were significantly more likely to have had previous awareness than the general public and members of environmental-outdoor type organizations were more likely than non-members. Previous Awareness and Demographic Variables: Males, rural re- sidents, higher education and income levels and farmers were signifi- cantly more likely to have had previous awareness of land application (Table 4.39). There was a significantly higher mean age for those with previous awareness (47.7 yr vs 43.7 yr) (Appendix D, Table 11). Previous Awareness, Attitude, Preference, Knowledge, Effects Score and E/E Value: Those in favor of forest application were more likely to have heard of the concept of land application than those Opposed or undecided (60.1%, 37.6% and 28.5%; respectively) (X2-=97.921; df==2; p1<0.000). Also, those in favor of agricultural or forest ap- plication were more likely to have had previous awareness of the con- cept (57.3% and 51.6%; respectively) than those who favor incineration (33.0%), landfills (24.2%) or have no opinion (24.6%) (X2- 101.083; df= 4; p < 0.000). Knowledge scores were significantly higher for those with pre- vious awareness (4.9 vs 3.0) (F8 177.964; df= 1; p< 0.000). There was no significant relationship between previous awareness and perceived 108 Table 4.39 Previous awareness of the concept of applying sludge to land (Q 50) analyzed by signficant demographic variables (a Significant Previous Awareness Demographic Variables Yes No N County (x2 = 43.287; df = 6; p < 0.000) Grand Traverse (LP) % 47.9 52.1 192 Leelanau (LP) % 46.8 53.2 233 Marquette (UP) % 22.6 77.4 199 Menominee (UP) % 31.6 68.4 212 Missaukee (LP) % 40.3 59.7 206 Osceola (LP) % 37.3 62.7 201 Wexford (LP) % 44.8 55.2 223 Upper Peninsula vs. Lower Peninsula (X2 = 32.192; df = l; p < 0.000) Upper Peninsula % 27.3 72.7 411 Lower Peninsula % 43.5 56.5 1055 Public Officials vs. General Public (X2 = 26.455; df = 1; p < 0.000) Public Officials % 63.8 36.2 116 General Public % 38.9 61.1 1466 Membership (X2 = 31.508; df = 2; p < 0.000) None % 34.9 65.1 1056 One % 44.9 55.1 267 Two or more % 57.3 42.7 143 Sex (X2 = 16.183; df = 1; p < 0.000) Male % 43.9 56.1 767 Female % 33.5 66.5 695 109 Table 4.39 continued Previous Knowledge Yes No Number Education (X2 = 22.508; df = 4; p < 0.000) Less than high school % 35.2 64.8 227 High school graduate % 32.4 67.6 479 Some college or post H.S. training % 45.7 54.3 457 College graduate % 37.2 62.8 156 College beyond B.S. % 46.9 53.1 128 Income (x2 = 11.463; df = 5; p < 0.043) Less than $8,000 % 30.5 69.5 213 $8,000 - $15,999 % 40.2 59.8 348 $16,000 - $23,999 % 38.1 61.9 339 $24,000 - $31,999 % 39.1 60.9 256 $32,000 - $39,999 % 40.0 60.0 80 $40,000 or more % 49.5 50.5 101 Occupation (X2 = 24.321; df = 8; p < 0.002) Semi-skilled % 34.2 65.8 111 Sales/clerical 1 32.3 67.7 130 Skilled % 41.7 58.3 230 Farmer % 55.6 44.4 54 Manager/proprietor % 47.0 53.0 100 Professional % 43.7 56.3 215 Homemaker % 30.9 69.1 265 Unemployed % 32.4 67.6 34 Retired % 42.9 57.1 231 urban-Rural residence (x2 = 11.968; df = 1; p < 0.001) Urban % 33.4 66.7 610 Rural % 42.6 57.4 839 110 impact of forest application (F=0.029; df= 1; p< 0.865) or E/E values (F= 0.059; df= 1; p< 0.808). Sources Used: The reSpondents who reported having previous awareness of the concept of applying sludge to land were asked to report how they received their information. Most (37.3%) reported newspapers, followed by other (30.3%), TV/radio (24.6%), magazine or journal (15.4%), another person (10.2%), pamphlet/brochure (1.2%) and school or class (0.8%)* (Appendix E, Q50). The large category of 'other' was due to respondents mentioning some place that uses a type of land disposal but not mentioning how they received the information. Sources Likely to be Used: Respondents were asked to rate ten sources of information from 1 (Definitely Use) to 4 (Not Likely Use) (Appendix E, Q65-74). Mean ratings were also calculated for each source. Newspapers received the highest rating (1.97), followed by TV/radio (2.04) and pamphlets/brochures (2.08) while adult education classes were least likely to be used (3.13) followed by contacting a university or government agency (2.91) and workshops/seminars/ special lectures (2.76) (Table 4.40). There was no significant relationship between mean rating of likelihood of use for newpapers, pamphlets/brochures and friends or relatives and attitude towards a hypothetical prOposal to apply sludge in a nearby state forest (Table 4.41). Those opposed and those in favor of forest application were relatively similar with most of the difference on the remaining seven information sources being attributable *Note: This total is greater than 100 percent because about 20 percent of the respondents listed two sources. 111 Table 4.40 Likelihood that respondents will use various sources to seek more information on natural resource issues. Rating of Use1 Information Sources X 95% C.I. SD N Newspapers 1.97 + 0.05 0.94 1415 TV/Radio 2.04 1 0.05 0.92 1403 Pamphlets and Brochures 2.08 l 0.05 0.85 1396 Magazine and Journals 2.13 i 0.05 0.91 1391 Attending Public Hearings 2.52 $ 0.06 1.04 1393 Friend or Relative 2.53 f 0.05 0.92 1389 Library 2.56 + 0.06 1.07 1396 Workshops, Seminars, - Special Lectures 2.76 + 0.06 l 05 1394 Contacting a University - or Govt. Agency 2.91 + 0.05 1.02 1389 Adult Education Class 3.13 f 0.05 0.92 1391 l 1 (Definitely Use), 2 (Probably Use), 3 (Seldom Use) and 4 (Not Likely Use) 112 Table 4.41 Relationship of likely information sources with attitude towards a forest application proposal. Ranking1 Information Sources K 0.95 C.I. SD N Newspapers (F = 1.915; df = 2; p < 0.148) Opposed 2.01 f 0.10 0.99 412 Favor 2.01 t 0.10 0.95 349 Undecided 1.91 t 0.07 0.90 633 *TV/Radio (F = 4.737; df = 2; p < 0.009) Opposed 2.07 f 0.09 0.97 404 Favor 2.14 t 0.10 0.90 349 Undecided 1.96 f 0.07 0.88 629 Pamphlets and Brochures (F = 0.315; df = 2; p < 0.730) Opposed 2.07 t 0.08 0.86 403 Favor 2.10 t 0.09 0.82 346 Undecided 2.06 f 0.07 0.85 625 * Magazines or Journals (F = 3.438; df = 2; p < 0.033) Opposed 2.22 t 0.09 0.94 404 Favor 2.14 + 0.09 0.88 342 Undecided 2.07 f 0.07 0.88 626 *Attending Public Hearings (F = 10.675; df = 2; p < 0.000) Opposed 2.38 t 0.10 1.06 402 Favor 2.46 + 0.11 1.03 346 Undecided 2.66 E 0.08 1.01 623 Friend or Relative (F = 2.068; df = 2; p < 0.127) Opposed 2.55 t 0.09 0.91 399 Favor 2.59 + 0.10 0.90 344 Undecided 2.47 f 0.07 0.92 625 *Library (F = 3.196; df = 2; p < 0.041) Opposed 2.47 t 0.11 1.12 405 Favor 2.51 f 0.11 1.06 350 Undecided 2.63 t 0.08 1.04 620 113 Table 4.41 continued Information Sources 2 0.95 C.I. SD N *WorkshOps, Seminars, Special Lectures (F = 8.941; df = 2; p < 0.000) Opposed 2.65 f 0.10 1.05 401 Favor 2.65 t 0.11 1.06 347 Undecided 2.89 t 0.08 1.02 624 *Contacting a University of Govt. Agency (F = 6.617; df = 2; p < 0.001) Opposed 2.86 t 0.10 1.05 404 Favor 2.79 ' f 0.11 1.04 346 Undecided 3.02 t 0.08 0.97 616 *Adult Education Class (F = 8.385; df = 2; p < 0.000) Opposed 3.01 t 0.10 0.98 401 Favor 3.08 t 0.10 0.92 349 Undecided 3.24 t 0.07 0.87 620 1 Ranking ranged from 1 (Definitely Use) to 4 (Not Likely Use). * a = 0.05 114 to those undecided. Undecided respondents reported that they would be more likely to use TV/radio and magazines or journals and less likely to attend public hearings, adult education classes, workshops/ seminars/special lectures, the library and contact a university or government agency than those decided about forest application. Perceived Accuracy of Information Sources: Respondents rated their perceived accuracy of 13 information sources (Appendix E, Q52- 64). Mean ratings were calculated for each source. University sources had the highest perceived accuracy rating (2.26) followed by the Michigan Department of Agriculture (2.42) and the Michigan Department of Public Health (2.44) (Table 4.42). Industrial sources (3.54) and local government officials (3.28) were perceived as the least accurate information sources. The three news media sources (magazines, news- papers and TV/radio) ranked relatively low (ninth, tenth and eleventh; respectively). Perceived Accuracy of Information Sources and Attitude: Those in favor of forest application perceived more accuracy for university sources, Dept. of Agriculture, MDNR, local government officials and industrial sources than those Opposed (Table 4.43). Those opposed perceived more accuracy for environmental organizations and sporting organizations than those in favor. The undecided perceived the Dept. of Public Health and EPA as more accurate than those Opposed or in favor. The three media sources (magazines, newspapers and TV/radio) were ranked lower in accuracy by those undecided than by those in favor or opposed. There was no significant relationship between per- ceived accuracy of the Michigan United Conservation Club (MUCC) and attitude. 115 Table 4.42 Mean rating of perceived accuracy of information sources by the general public. Rating1 Accuracy of - . Information Sources X 95‘ C'I' SD N University Sources 2.26 + 0.03 0.60 1291 Mich. Dept. of Agriculture 2.42 'T' 0.04 0.69 1293 Mich. Dept. of Public Health 2.44 'T' 0.04 0.74 1322 Mich. DNR 2.65 ¥ 0.05 0.83 1347 MUCC 2.66 4'- 0.05 0.75 1011 Environmental Organizations 2.70 f 0.06 0.84 1187 Sporting Organizations 2.73 x 0.05 0.82 1145 EPA 2.81 f 0.05 0.89 1207 Magazines 3.02 + 0.04 0.73 1244 Newspapers 3.14 $ 0.04 0.78 1280 TV/Radio 3.15 15 0.04 0.79 1251 Local th. Officials 3.28 $ 0.05 0.82 1201 Industrial Sources 3.54 E 0.05 0.84 1170 1Respondents rated each source as: (1) Always Accurate, (2) Usually Accurate, (3) Sometime Accurate, (4) Seldom Accurate or (5) Never Accurate 116 Table 4.43 Mean rating of perceived accuracy of information sources analyzed by attitude towards a hypothetical forest application proposal. Ranking 1 Perceived Accuracy X 0.95 C.I. SD N *University Sources (F = 11.342; df = 2; p < 0.000) Opposed 2.37 t 0.07 0.68 371 Favor 2.17 t 0.06 0.58 332 Undecided 2.23 i 0.04 0.54 569 *Mich. Dept. of Agriculture (F = 3.932; df = 2; p < 0.020) Opposed 2.50 f 0.07 0.74 381 Favor 2.37 t 0.08 0.71 330 Undecided 2.40 f 0.05 0.63 562 *Mich. Dept. of Public Health (F = 7.694; df = 2; p < 0.001) Opposed 2.56 t 0.08 0.80 386 Favor 2.44 f 0.09 0.80 332 Undecided 2.37 i 0.05 0.65 586 *Mich. DNR (F = 20.192; df = 2; p < 0.000) Opposed 2.87 t 0.09 0.94 389 Favor 2.58 t 0.09 0.80 340 Undecided 2.55 t 0.06 0.75 598 MUCC (F = 2.846; df = 2; p < 0.059) Opposed 2.62 f 0.09 0.81 303 Favor 2.75 t 0.09 0.77 272 Undecided 2.63 t 0.07 0.68 420 *Environmental Organizations(F = 14.234; df = 2; p < 0.000) Opposed 2.57 t 0.09 0.89 348 Favor 2.90 f 0.10 0.90 313 Undecided 2.66 f 0.06 0.73 507 *Sporting Organizations (F = 8.759; df = 2; p < 0.000) Opposed 2.60 t 0.09 0.86 358 Favor 2.86 f 0.09 0.82 294 Undecided 2.74 t 0.07 0.75 476 117 Table 4.43 continued Perceived Accuracy X 95% C.I. SD N *EPA (F = 4.735; df = 2; p < 0.009) Opposed 2.90 f 0.10 0.93 358 Favor 2.84 t 0.10 0.89 313 Undecided 2.72 i 0.07 0.84 517 *Magazines (F = 3.381; df = 2; p < 0.034) Opposed 3.08 t 0.08 0.81 358 Favor 3.03 t 0.08 0.75 322 Undecided 2.96 f 0.05 0.65 545 *Newspapers (F = 6.698; df = 2; p < 0.001) Opposed 3.19 t 0.09 0.86 377 Favor 3.22 f 0.09 0.82 329 Undecided 3.05 i 0.06 0.69 554 *TV/Radio (F = 10.430; df = 2; p < 0.000) Opposed 3.22 t 0.09 0.87 367 Favor 3.24 i 0.08 0.77 322 Undecided 3.03 f 0.06 0.71 543 *Local th. Officials (F = 10.427; df = 2; p < 0.000) Opposed 3.43 i 0.09 0.90 359 Favor 3.17 t 0.09 0.83 305 Undecided 3.22 i 0.06 0.74 518 *Industrial Sources (F = 12.154; df = 2; p < 0.000) Opposed 3.72 t 0.09 0.84 353 Favor 3.45 f 0.09 0.81 298 Undecided 3.47 i 0.07 0.83 500 lRanking ranged from 1 (Always Accurate) to 5 (Never Accurate) *a - 0.05 118 Research Question 3 What is the type of public participation preferred by selected Michigan publics for this type of resource management decisiondmaking as in- dicated by: A. the public's stated preference for public involvement models? B. the reported history of past participation? C. the public's perception of their own effectiveness through public participation? This section will first describe the public participation vari- ables singly and then look at the relationship among the variables. The general public overwhelmingly (98.0%) feels that citizens should be involved in natural resource decisions (Appendix E, 01). The general public was about evenly divided on the type of involve- ment that they would prefer to have on sludge disposal issues between level B, "experts should first obtain the views of the affected citi- zens and then proceed to do the planning and make the final decision" (38.3%) and level C, "experts should pply do the early planning and provide the alternatives from which citizens can select" (41.9%) (Appendix E, Q7). Only 8.2 percent felt that "planning and decision- making should be left totally to the experts" (level A) and 11.5 per- cent felt that "citizens should control the entire process using ex- perts only as consultants" (level D). When asked what kind of citizen actions they would take to show support or opposition to a proposal to apply sludge to nearby state forest, 13.4 percent reported that they would probably take no action (Appendix E 05). The three most often reported actions were: "read materials on the subject," "talk about it with friends, relatives or neighbors," and "sign a peition" (72.0%, 64.7% and 56.1%; respectively). A second question (Q49) asked whether they would be involved or not 119 if a proposal was made to apply sludge in a nearby area of state forests: 31.7 percent of the general public reported that they would, 23.3 percent would not and 45.1 percent were undecided*. A majority of those opposed to forest application planned to get involved (71.1%) (X2: 68.269; df= 1; p< 0.000). Yet, only 42.0 percent of those in favor planned to become involved. An indicator of the type of action a person is likely to take is their past history of citizen actions. Respondents were asked to in- dicate the type of activities they have participated in during the past five years for any issue (Appendix E, Q6). Only 53.2 percent of the sample reported some type of activity. About half of the reSpon- dents who stated that they would take a given action on a forest application issue had a history of taking that action on any issue during the past five years (Figure 4.2). The only exception was those reporting that they would donate money. One variable that might influence one's active involvement in natural resource management decisions is the degree of influence one feels he/she can exert. Respondents were asked to report the amount of influence they felt they could have on the natural resource planning and policy of local, state and federal government agencies ranging from 1 (Much Influence) to 4 (No Influence) (Appendix E, Q2—4). The general public perceived more influence on local government agencies (2.29) than on state (2.75) or federal agencies (3.12) (Figure 4.3). This ranking for local, state and federal government agencies is signifi— cant (Friedman Test: X2-582.213; df= 2; p< 0.000). An influence *Note: Since this question was combined with the attitude, 'undecided' cannot be interpreted for opposition or predicted involve- ment separately. 120 .mumom o>am ummn one magnum momma 5cm so mooauom cannons mo hHOumH: ammo Hausa com Homoaouo cowuoowanno amouow Hoofiumsuoamc m ou mcoauum couwuao voocouow .muoooaonmou mo comaumnaoo N.e ouamfim 0:03"; CONEO 0.. . ... ...... ...a u n a . ...... ...... .... .. ...... ...-v C one- o. I u v e ... ecu-JD of... . . n ...-l e... e . . . ...... as. . . . r... . . . u . c . . . . . . . . . . . . . o. ..u... ...... ea ... use... m an O e and-.... p .... ...... De 1 . - eq . . . .. - .‘t n'.‘- n'u'.‘.'.‘-‘u'-’. . . . .‘. . . . n . ‘IIIvtonlenntluu-h-l-QOII.A.--‘~eo-eeo .'.‘.'.'-'.'.'-’.'.'.‘.‘.‘.'.' ‘n‘u'. .‘.‘.'.'u‘-'-'.'.'.' '.'.' ' ' '.‘.'.‘ ee ..~- on ' n ’ ' on an e...---o.-e‘... ,, l .. IQOI..I.<4»-.l- .eoe'en'l.-.uaa.....o.¢q-~ I-C-O.A-u’lld.I.Q-II> y 'I‘. ' "' ~ I "’1'..-.1~.'.‘ "~‘-'o' .l\h‘"0'I-A...I.4..'\'I'Il" .I-I-l-I-h-O't.l-- {...-1.---a.'-'.>~o '.'..'.'..u.-ai ...» l I. I on at "98 L . . . 0e x-u .H. ...... ...... . ... u. ... ... . . . I ll- ...... ...... ...... . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ....... ....... ...... .....u ...... . . . . . .u... . . . drip.“ ....... . . . . . . . . . . III-- . . . . . . no. r 7’08 35;333-:55sszszgsgsgsgs;sgzgzg=gégs855532;:3:3;;:egsgszsgsgsgaésgsgsi~ epuodeeu av 10 wowed eo=o< enun— fia on no cozo< :23... D V99[ 00 O'COI Oh l'Oll’ on 121 3.2 3.12 3.0 2.9 2.75 2.8 2.7 i 2.6 2.5 2-4 2.28 2.3 d. 2.2 Mean Item Influence Score 2.1 2.0 Figure 4.3 Level of their own influence on local, state, and federal government agencies perceived by the general public (with 95% Confidence Intervals). 122 score was develOped by summing the responses to local, state and federal government agencies giving a range of three to 12, thus the higher the score the lower the perceived influence. The general public had a mean of 8.16 (SD= 2.22). Involvement: Intended involvement was one aspect of the attitude question. ReSpondents were asked if they would become involved to block or promote a forest application proposal. There was no signi- ficant relationship between involvement and counties, education levels or income levels. Public officials, members of organizations, males, rural residents, younger people and skilled and professional occupations were most likely to become involved (Table 4.44 and Appendix D, Table 11). Research Question 3 What is the type of public participation preferred by selected Michigan publics for this type of resource managenent decisiondmaking as in- dicated by: A. the public's stated preference for public involvement models? Level of Involvement and Demographic Variablep: There was no significant relationship between involvement and county of residence or membership in environmental-outdoor type organizations. Public officials were significantly more favorable towards citizen control of sludge diSposal issues than the general public (Table 4.45). Higher education levels, higher income levels and rural residents preferred more citizen control of sludge disposal issues. Most occu- pations preferred experts doing the early planning and providing a1- ternatives to choose from (level C) but farmers, retired and unemployed 123 Table 4.44 Intention of respondents to become involved in a hypothetical forest application proposal analyzed by significant demographic variables (a - 0.05) Significant Involvement Demographic Yes No Undecided Total Variables N % % % % Public Officials vs. General Public (X2 = 31.794; df = 2; p < 0.000) Public Officials 115 57.4 12.2 30.4 100.0 General Public 1446 31.7 23.2 45.1 100.0 Number of Memberships (X2 = 42.598; df = 4; p < 0.000) None 1041 27.1 23.7 49.2 100.0 One 264 41.3 21.2 37.5 100.0 Two or more 141 48.2 22.7 29.1 100.0 Sex (X2 = 29.755; df = 2; p < 0.000) Male 761 36.8 24.6 38.6 100.0 Female 681 26.0 21.6 52.4 100.0 Occupation (X2 = 51.504; df = 16; p < 0.000) Semi-skilled 112 33.0 21.4 45.5 99.9 Sales/clerical 126 27.0 15.9 57.1 100.0 Skilled 227 39.2 16.7 44.1 100.0 Farmer 53 32.1 28.3 39.6 100.0 Manager/proprietor 99 28.3 26.3 45.5 100.1 Professional 213 38.5 21.6 39.9 100.0 Homemaker 262 26.0 22.9 51.1 100.0 Unemployed 34 32.4 17.6 50.0 100.0 Retired 225 27.1 36.9 36.0 100.0 Urban-Rural Residence (X2 = 9.489; df = 2; p < 0.009) Urban 604 27.3 24.2 48.5 100.0 Rural 825 34.9 22.5 42.5 99.9 124 Table 4.45 Preferred level of involvement (Q 7) on sludge disposal issues analyzed by significant demographic variables (a = 0.05) Significant Demographic Variables Level of Involvementl Level A Level B Level C Level D N Public Officials vs. General Public (X2 = 9.920; df = 3; p < 0.019) Public Officials % 1.8 36.8 General Public % 8.2 38.3 Sex (X2 = 8.211; df = 3; p < 0.042) Male % 9.2 39.9 Female % 7.2 36.8 Education Level (X2 = 68.286; df = Less than high school % 16.9 42.2 High School graduate % 8.2 42.6 Some college or post H.S. training % 6.3 33.0 College graduate % 3.2 40.0 College beyond B.S. % 3.1 34.6 Income (X2 = 34.029; df = 15; p < 0.003) Less than $8,000 % 12.6 40.2 $8,000 - $15,999 % 9.6 38.8 $16,000 - $23,999 % 6.2 39.3 $24,000 — $31,999 % 5.9 35.5 $32,000 - $39,999 % 6.4 38.5 $40,000 or more % 5.0 30.7 Occupation (X a 58.629; df = 24; p < 0.000) Semi—skilled % 9.0 40.5 Sales/clerical % 3.9 32.6 Skilled % 6.1 35.9 Farmer % 11.3 34.0 Manager/proprietor % 9.0 37.0 Professional % 5.6 39.9 Homemaker % 6.4 37.7 Unemployed % 6.1 45.5 Retired % 15.7 42.2 12; p < 0. 43.0 41.9 38.5 45.5 000) 26.7 38.4 48.1 51.0 48.8 34.1 38.6 46.4 47.3 42.3 58.4 41.4 54.3 45.0 30.2 45.0 46.0 44.2 39.4 28.3 18.4 11.5 12.4 10.5 14.2 10.9 12.5 5.8 13.4 PJP‘ h'h‘ vanahaaauau: \ccntocacora NH .... onooxobunou: \DHNUIOU‘IOWO ..1 114 1464 764 696 225 477 457 155 127 214 345 338 256 78 101 111 129 231 53 100 213 265 33 230 125 Table 4.45 continued Significant Demographic Variables Level of Involvement1 Level A Level B Level C Level D N Urban-Rural Residence (X2 = 9.241; df = 3; p < 0.026) Urban % 9.2 38.6 42.4 9.2 609 Rural % 6.7 38.6 41.6 13.2 835 1Level A . . no citizen involvement Level B . . experts first obtain public views, then make final decisions Level C . . experts provide alternatives from which citizens can select Level D . . citizens in complete control of the process 126 respondents had a higher percentage preferring less citizen control (level B). 11). Level of Involvemenp, Attitude and Involvement: Younger respondents preferred level C (Appendix D, Table The preferred level of involvement was significantly related to attitude (Table 4.46). Those in favor of a hypothetical proposal to apply sludge in Table 4.46. Preferred level of involvement on sludge disposal pro- blems analyzed by attitude towards a hypothetical forest application pr0posal (cx= 0.05). Level of Involvementl Level A Level B Level C Level D Total Attitude N % % % % % (X2= 72.808; df= 6; p< 0.000) Opposed 426 6.6 29.6 44.1 19.7 100.0 Favor 362 10.8 49.6 31.8 7.7 99.9 Undecided 648 7.9 38.0 46.0 8.2 100.1 1 Level A ... no citizen involvement Level B experts first obtain public views, then make final decisions Level C ... experts provide alternatives from which citizens can select Level D ... citizens in complete control of the process a nearby state forest preferred less citizen involvement (had a greater preference for levels A and B). As expected, the preferred level of involvement was related to whether respondents felt they would get involved if a prOposal was made to apply sludge in a nearby state forest (Xzs 63.729; df- 6; p< 0.000). For those who preferred no citizen control (level A) more reported that they would not get 127 involved (41.5%) than would get involved (15.8%). For those pre- ferring complete citizen control (level D) more reported that they would get involved (46.1%) than not get involved (21.8%). In other words, those reporting that they would get involved preferred more citizen control and vice versa. Level of Involvement with Other Variables: Respondents pre- ferring more citizen control in sludge disposal had lower knowledge scores and perceived higher harmful effects (Table 4.47). This is consistent with knowledge score being influenced by one's overall general attitude towards forest application. ReSpondents preferring more citizen control were also more skeptical of local and state agencies (eSp. MDNR), expressed more concerns about forest application, had higher E/E values (more environmental), placed slightly more value on human health and less on economic value priorities, reported higher forest use, expected to be more involved and reported a higher history of past involvement. There was no significant relationship among preferred levels of involvement and relative forest impact, environ- mental and aesthetic value priorities and influence scores. Expected Citizen Action Groups: Actions respondents reported they would do to show support or Opposition to a proposal to apply sludge in a nearby state forest are shown in Appendix E, Q5. This list was divided into four groups as follows: Group 1 No Action Group 2 Low Action Read Materials Talk About It Sign Petitions Group 3 Medium Action Attend Meetings, etc. Contact Officials, etc. Donate Meney Join an Action Group 128 Table 4.47 Preferred level of involvement in sludge disposal problems analyzed by significant variables (a = 0.05) 2 Knowledge Score Level1 K SD N (F = 4.135; df = 3; p < 0.006) A 3.8 2.8 104 B 4.1 2.7 518 C 3.5 2.6 576 D 3.7 2.4 150 3 Effects Score '1': 50 N (F = 8.272; df = 3; p < 0.000) A 20.5 9.6 97 B 22.2 9.7 483 C 22.6 10.4 530 D 26.3 11.4 150 4 Skepticism Score 1? SD N (F = 30.484; df = 3; p < 0.000) A 0.9 1.8 120 B 1.1 2.0 561 C 0.7 2.1 614 D -0.6 2.2 169 E/E (economic-environmental) Score5 )1 SD N (F = 18.330; df = 3; p < 0.000) A 1.1 2.7 108 B 2.3 3.2 534 C 3.2 3.2 593 D 3.3 3.4 158 Table 4.47 continued 129 Number of concerns about forest application Level1 K SD N (F = 31.499; df = 3; p < 0.000) A 0.8 1.1 120 B 1.4 1.3 561 C 2.0 1.5 614 D 1.6 1.3 169 Number of Points Allotted to Health 71 SD N (F = 3.019; df = 3; p < 0.029) A 49.8 21.7 103 B 49.2 19.2 523 C 52.2 18.5 593 D 53.1 18.7 151 Number of Points Allotted to Economics )1 SD N (F = 9.373; df = 3; p < 0.000) A 16.8 11.5 103 B 14.5 10.6 523 C 12.6 9.8 593 D 11.1 10.7 151 Number of Forest Activities 31 SD N (F = 8.350; df = 3 ; p < 0.017) A 4.9 3.8 120 B 6.6 4.0 561 C 6.7 3.7 614 D 7.1 4.1 169 130 Table 4.47 continued Number of Intended Citizen Actions x SD N (F = 30.444; df = 3; p < 0.000) A 1.5 1.4 120 B 2.6 1.8 561 c 3.1 1.8 614 D 3.0 2.1 169 Number of Past Citizen Actions X SD N (F = 27.639; df = 3; p < 0.000) A 0.7 1.4 120 B 1.4 1.9 561 C 2.2 2.2 614 D 1.7 2.2 169 1Level A . . . no citizen involvement Level B . . . experts first obtain public views, then make final decisions Level C . . . experts provide alternatives from.which citizens can select Level D . . . citizens in complete control of the process 2Knowledge Score — higher scores indicate more knowledge 3Effects Score — higher scores indicate more perceived harmful impacts of forest application 4Skepticism Score - higher scores indicate less skepticism E/E Score - higher scores indicate higher environmental values 131 Group 4 High Action Organize a Meeting or Action Group Start a Petition Other Most of the general public were in the low action group (n=620, 42.0%) and the medium action group (588, 39.9%). Few people planned on taking no action (144, 9.8%) and few planned on taking high level action (123, 8.3%). Action Groups and Attitude: Those opposed to the hypothetical proposal to apply sludge to a nearby state forest had a significantly higher percentage of reSpondents planning on taking action (low, medium and high) than those in favor (Table 4.48). Those in favor had a higher percentage that reported they would not take any action. Those who planned to become involved reported more higher action plans than those who did not plan on becoming involved (Table 4.49). There was no significant relationship between action group and either the opposed-involved group or the favor-involved group (X2=-7.528; df==3; p<:0.057). In other words, the type of expected actions of the two groups are similar although there were more people in the opposed- involved group than the favor-involved group. Action Grogps and Knowledge, Effects Score, E/E Value and Skepticism: The low action group had significantly lower knowledge scores and perceived less harmful effects of forest application than the other three action groups (Table 4.50). Environmental values (E/E Values) significantly increased from 1.6 for the no action group to 3.5 for the high action group. There was no significant relation- ship between action groups and skepticism (F= 1.951; df- 3; p< 0.120). 132 Table 4.48 Relationship of intention to take action with attitude towards a hypothetical forest application prOposal (a = 0.05) Attitude Action Groups* Opppsed Fayor Undefided ToEal N o A A A (X2 = 21.395; df = 6; p < 0.000) No Action 139 28.1 30.9 41.0 100.0 Low Action 608 27.5 21.1 51.5 100.1 Medium Action 579 31.4 27.1 41.5 100.0 High Action 120 36.7 28.3 35.0 100.0 * Citizen actions were judged according to amount of effort and/or commitment required, e.g. high action constituted a leadership type action. Table 4.49 Relationship of intention to take action with intention to become involved in a hypothetical forest application proposal (a = 0.05). Plan to Become Involved Yes Np_ Undecided (n=459) (n=335) (n=652) Action Group* N % 1 % (x2 = 174.016; df = 6; p < 0.000) No Action 139 4.4 18.5 8.7 Low Action 608 24.8 54.0 48.0 Medium Action 579 57.5 22.4 36.8 High Action 120 13.3 5.1 6.4 TOTAL 1446 100.0 100.0 __89.9 *Citizen actions were judged according to amount of effort and/or commitment required, e.g. high action constituted a leadership type action. 133 Table 4.50 Relationship of intention to take action with knowledge scores, effects (perceived impact of forest application) scores, E/E (economic-environmental) scores and skepticism scores (a = 0.05) Knowledge Scores2 Action Groups1 X SD N (F a 5.842; df = 3; p < 0.001) No Action 3.9 3.1 129 Low Action 3.4 2.5 560 Medium Action 4.0 2.7 553 High Action 4.2 2.5 112 Effects Scores 1 SD N (F = 4.073; df = 3; p < 0.07) No Action 23.5 10.0 108 Low Action 21.6 10.2 523 Medium Action 23.4 10.3 525 High Action 24.4 10.2 111 4 E/E Scores 2 SD N (F = 11.660; df = 3; p < 0.000) No Action 1.6 3.0 135 Low Action 2.4 3.1 584 Medium Action 3.0 3.3 565 High Action 3.5 3.1 119 1Citizen actions were judged according to amount of effort and/or commitment required, e.g. high action constituted a leadership type action 2High knowledge scores indicate higher knowledge 3High effects scores indicate greater perceived harmful impact from forest application 4Higher E/E scores indicate higher environmental value 134 Involvement Scale: The number of types of expected citizen actions was shown to significantly increase with action group, i.e., those who reported they would take a high level action also planned to take low and medium actions as well. If the respondent indicated they would become involved a plus one was added to the number of re- ported citizen actions they planned to take. A minus one was added for those who would not be inovlved and zero added for those undecided. The mean for the general public on this score was 2.8 (Table 4.51). Table 4.51. Frequency distribution of the involvement scale for the general public. Involvement Scale* N % 'K SD —1 62 4.2 2.83 2.15 0 138 9.4 1 213 14.4 2 285 19.3 3 258 17.5 4 209 14.2 5 157 10.6 6 81 5.5 7 32 2.2 8 20 1.4 9 11 0.7 10 0.3 11 0.3 Total 1475 100.0 * -1 (No Intended Involvement) to 11 (Very High Level of Intended Involvement) There was no significant difference in score between those who planned to become involved and were opposed (4.5) and those who planned to become involved and were in favor of forest application (4.2). 135 Expected Citizen Actions and Forest Use: Figure 4.4 shows a significant positive relationship between the number of types of expected actions and the number of types of uses of state forests. There was also a significant relationship between expected citizen actions and type of forest use Gneasured bywthe most important forest use, Q76) (Table 4.52). Respondents who reported photography (3.6), gathering fuelwood (3.4), archery deer hunting (3.3), hiking (3.3), other (3.3) and looking for wildlife (3.2) as their most important forest use also reported a high level of expected involvement. Those indicating berrypicking/mushroom hunting (2.2), no use (2.3) and trail- bike riding (2.5) had a low number of expected actions. Research Question 3 What is the type of public participation preferred by selected Michigan publics for this type of resource management decisiondmaking as in— dicated by: B. the reported history of past participation? One measure of the past history of citizen action is the number of reported types of activities participated in during the past five years (Appendix E, Q6). The higher the number, the more involved the respondent has been. This assumes that respondents reporting higher level actions, e.g., starting a petition, will also have taken lower level actions, e.g., reading materials on the subject, and report them. However, this measure does not include the number of times a respondent may have participated in a single type of activity, i.e., it does not distinguish between the respondent who signed one petition during the past five years and the respondent who signed ten petitions. 8.0 8.0 C .2 i; 7.0 I; < ‘6' 3 O ‘L 8.0 o b O D E E 5.0 4.0 Figure 4.4 136 9.02 8.60 012 a 4 5 67-10 Number 0t intended Citizen Actione Relationship of respondent's number of intended citizen actions to a hypothetical forest application proposal and the number of forest activities the respondent had engaged in during the past two years (F 8 17.634; df - 7; p < 0.000). 137 Table 4.52 Number of intended citizen actions for a hypothetical forest application proposal analyzed by the respondent's most important forest activity (a = 0.05) Number of Intended Citizen Actions Respondent's Most _ Important Forest Use X SD N (F = 3.103; df = 17; p < 0.000) None Listed 2.3 1.9 174 Fishing 2.6 1.9 151 Swimming/Boating/Canoeing 2.7 1.5 85 Firearm Deer Hunting 2.8 1.7 149 Archery Deer Hunting 3.3 1.9 29 Small Game Hunting 2.7 1.9 44 Scenic Driving 2.6 1.7 216 Snowmobiling 2.6 1.4 11 Trailbike Riding 2.5 2.1 2 Berrypicking/Mushroom Hunting 2.2 1.6 79 Hiking 3.3 1.8 71 Camping 2.8 1.6 168 Gathering Fuelwood 3.4 2.4 53 Looking for Wildlife 3.2 2.1 107 Photography 3.6 1.7 20 Picnicking 2.8 1.3 32 Cross-country Skiing 3.1 2.0 58 Other 3.3 2.0 23 Overall 2 7 1.8 1474 138 There was no significant relationship between past participation and county residence. The public officials sample had significantly higher past action scores than the general public and members of en— vironmental-outdoor type organizations had higher participation scores than nondmembers (Table 4.53). Past Actions and Demographic Variables: There was no signifi- cant differnece on reported history of past participation between male and female or rural and urban residence. Past participation significantly increased with income and education levels and was highest for professional and manager/proprietor occupations and lowest for retirees (Table 4.53). Younger respondents reported a higher past participation history than older respondents (Appendix D, Table 11). Past Actions, Attitude, Involvement and E/E Values: Those opposed to forest application had a significantly lower history of past actions than those undecided (1.49 vs 1.81) (F=3.095; df=2; p< 0.046). As expected, those planning to be involved had significantly higher past action scores (1.83) than those not planning to be involved (1.24) (F=9.878; df=2; p<0.000). However, it is interesting that the undecided group (1.81) is similar to those planning to be involved. Those in the high environmental value (E/E) group had a significantly higher mean past action score than the other E/E value groups (Table 4.54). Preservationist Group and Public Participation: There was no significant difference on the planned level of actions between the preservationist group and the remaining sample (Xzs-3.342; df==3; 139 Table 4.53 Reported history of past participation (Q 6) analyzed by significant demographic variables (a = 0.05) Significant Number of Past Participation Activities Demographic - Variables X SD N General Public vs. Public Officials (F = 6.567; df = l; p < 0.011) General Public 1. 7 2.1 14 75 Public Officials 2.2 2.7 116 Number of Memberships (F = 21.769; df = 2; p < 0.000) None 1.5 1.9 1063 One 2.1 2.2 267 Two or more 2.5 2.6 145 Education level (F = 54.521; df = 4; p < 0.000) Less than high school 0.6 1.4 229 High school graduate 1.2 1.7 481 Some college or post H.S. training 1.9 2.1 558 College graduate 2.8 2.3 156 College beyond B.S. 3.0 2.6 128 Income (F = 17.667; df = 5; p < 0.000) Less than $8,000 1.0 l 5 217 $8,000 — $15,999 1.4 2.0 349 $16,000 - $23,999 1.9 2.1 340 $24,000 - $31,999 2.0 2.1 256 $32,000 - $39,999 2.8 2.7 80 $40,000 or more 2.7 2 4 101 Occupation (F = 11.540; df = 8; p < 0.000) Semi-skilled 1.6 1.9 112 Sales/clerical 2.0 1.9 130 Skilled 1.4 1.9 231 Farmer 1.3 2.0 54 Manager/Preprietor 2.5 2.4 100 Professional 2.5 2.3 216 Homemaker 1.4 2.1 267 Unemployed 1.5 1.8 34 Retired 1.1 1.7 232 140 p110.343). Although the preservation group expected to take a signi- ficantly higher number of future actions (Table 4.55) their past history of actions was not significantly different from the remaining sample (F= 2.589; df= 1; p< 0.109). In terms of public participation, there is little difference between the preservationist group and the remaining sample. Research Question 3 What is the type of public participation preferred by selected Michigan publics for this type of resource management decision-making as in- dicated by: C. the public's perception of their own effectiveness through public participation? The influence score was used to measure the public's perception of their own effectiveness through public participation. There was no significant difference in influence scores among counties or be- tween members and non-members of environmental-outdoor type organiza- tions. The public officials perceived greater effectiveness (F-I11.083; df- 1; p< 0.001). There were no significant relationships between influence score and sex, education level, income, occupation, urban- rural residence and age. Those expecting to be involved perceived significantly more in— fluence than those not planning to be involved (Table 4.56). Those planning to take higher level actions perceived significantly more influence than those only planning to take lower level actions. Those more skeptical of MDNR perceived themselves as less effective through public participation, i.e., the greater their trust the more influence 141 Table 4.54 Past citizen actions score analyzed by E/E (economic-environmental) groups (a = 0.05) Number of Past Citizen Actions E/E Group x SD N (F = 25.462; df = 3; p < 0.000) Economical 1.4 1.8 219 Neutral 0.9 1.7 244 Low Environmental 1.6 2.0 599 High Environmental 2.3 2.3 413 Table 4.55 Comparison of the preservationist and non- preservationist groups on the number of citizen actions respondents intend to take (a = 0.05) Number of Intended Citizen Actions Groups X SD N (F = 5.110; df = 1; p < 0.024) Preservationist Non-preservationist 7 110 .1 1343 Nb.) NN 142 Table 4.56 Perceived influence score analyzed by intended involvement, E/E (economic-environmental) groups, intended actions and skepticism scale Perceived Influence Score X .95 C.I. SD N *Involvement (F = 5.294; df = 2; p < 0.005) Involved 7.96 + 0.22 2.35 438 Not Involved 8.46 f 0.25 2.32 321 Undecided 8.03 t 0.17 2.16 630 E/E Groups (F = 0.626; df = 3; p < 0.599) Economical 8.26 + 0.32 2.39 214 Neutral 8.21 f 0.31 2.33 219 Low Environmental 8.05 t 0.18 2.23 579 High Environmental 8.08 f 0.21 2.19 403 *Action Groups (F = 8.742; df = 3; p < 0.000) No Action 8.74 t 0.43 2.49 131 Low Action 8.30 f 0.17 2.15 599 Medium Action 7.87 t 0.19 2.27 569 High Action 7.65 f 0.41 2.21 116 *Skepticism Score (F = 6.433; df = 8; p < 0.000) -4 (High Skepticism) 8.95 t 0.62 2.43 61 -3 9.20 t 0.57 2.13 56 -2 8.43 f 0.44 2.42 118 -1 8.63 + 0.41 2.52 146 0 8.14 i 0.30 2.27 217 l 7.96 E 0.31 2.28 208 2 8.06 + 0.29 2.21 228 3 7.64 i 0.21 1.97 337 4 (Low Skepticism) 7.59 1" 0.54 1.72 49 * u = 0.05 143 they felt they had. There was no significant relationship between influence score and E/E value groups. Research Question 4 What theoretical relationships may be inferred among values, beliefs and behavioral intentions concerning sludge disposal technologies? A model was developed to predict attitude towards forest appli- cation (Figure 4.5). Behavior is hypothesized to be a function of attitude towards forest application, preference for disposal methods and one's attitude towards the source of the sludge plus additional intervening variables. These attitudes can be predicted by an under- standing of the value priorities, beliefs and the frame of reference. The importance of these varialbes were tested by a linear stepwise multiple regression model. Stepwise Multiple Regression: Multiple regression is based on the following set of assumptions: 1. The sample is drawn at random, 2. Each array of Y for a given combination of X's follows the normal distribution. 3. The regression of Y and X's is linear. 4. All the Y arrays have the same variance. The sample was drawn at random and since the sample size was large, the assumption of normal distribution was relaxed. The homogeneity of variance assumption and the linearity assumption were verified through the direct examination of residuals. This examination of the residuals indicated relative freedom.from abnormalities. Only 50 (4.5%) two standard deviation outliers were found. The data was also examined for multicollinearity. Each inde— pendent variable was regressed on all the other independent variables. 144 .oammw cowunowmnnn umouom n cw newsm:0wunaou Hofi>ncoo can .ooouwuun .wwfiaoo .m:~n> mo Hence womoooum m.< ohawwm gees-1:83 .0 is e99...“ .0 e930» n< ...... L . 2382.35.11 geese“. .< 213.682.: 1. J ensue-e... .eeeoex— ~< .... ... 83.8... 2.3. All“ .111... r . . c9323 amen; meat»: 809-3036.: hump-On- ..uO SOS-.2 833003.- ?! Egan-50.... §u_-< 9.33.. u0 .030! 0.3.." a; Ice-€8.08... celebs...- aeeelaeeu 38.18: ...-33‘: g3 .0 00.09. .3..- “1 .r eeueaeiea 1o emeu 33......3 gags. anon. n 336.3233 145 There is high multicollinearity if any of the R2 from these equations is near 1.0. The largest of these R2 serves as an indicator of the amount of multicollinearity which exists. The largest R2 was for the degree of preservationist value variable, 0.33. Multicollinearity is not a problem for the multiple regression model reported here. Stepwise multiple regression was chosen to give a summary per- spective into the relationships between the independent variables and the dependent variables. Listwise deletion of missing values was used which produced a final N of 1118. Dgpendent Variable: The dependent variable, attitude towards forest application, was developed from the attitude question which includes behavioral intention and the relative preference for forest application over the three other alternatives as follows: Opposed-Involved. .............. . ........... ...-2 Opposed-Not Involved..........................—1 UndeCidedOOI...00..........OOOOOOOOCOOOOOOQOOO 0 Favor-Not Involved ... ................... .....+1 Favor-Involved...... ..... ............. ..... ...+2 PLUS Forest Application Is First Choice............+3 Forest Application is Second Choice ........ ...+2 Forest Application is Third Choice ..... .......+l It is hypothesized that those who report that they will get involved are more opposed or favorable than those who will not get involved. Also, someone can favor forest application but prefer another method and thus, overall be less favorable than someone who both favors forest application and picks forest application as their first choice of diSposal methods. This coding gives a scale ranging from -2 (very Opposed) to +5 (very favorable) (Table 4.57). 146 Table 4.57. Frequency distribution of the dependent variable, atti- tude towards forest application of sewage sludge, among the general public. 1 Absolute Relative ._ Attitude Score Fpgquency Freguency X SD -2 (very Opposed) 121 8.2 1.31 1.95 -1 168 11.4 0 275 18.6 +1 240 16.3 +2 216 14.6 +3 223 15.1 +4 158 10.7 +5 (very favorable) __24_ .__5;Q Total 1475 99.9 1Attitude Score was a summation of the attitude question which in- cludes behavioral intention and relative preference for forest application. Independent Variables: Those variables which were discussed earlier in this chapter are briefly redefined here. New variables are defined in more detail. Beliefs 1. Relative Forest Impact is an evaluation of beliefs about the impacts of forest application in relation to the alternative sludge disposal methods. 2. Technical Knowledgg was derived from 12 items scored as plus one for correct answers and zero for wrong or "don't know" responses. 3. Benefits/Harm Assessment is a rating of nine categories that may be impacted by forest application, referred to as the "effects score" earlier in this chapter. 147 4. Degree of Skepticism was developed from three items: (1) skepticism of MDNR programs, (2) trust in local and state agencies to properly manage a forest application site and (3) perceived ac- curacy of MDNR as an information source. Value Priorities 5. Health is a measure of the amount of concern for human health the respondent had compared to three other categories (economic, en- vironmental quality and aesthetics) concerning forest application. 6. E/E Index is a measure based on trade-offs between economic and environmental values and was develOped from the E/E value scores and the economic and environmental priority value points as follows: E/E Score + (- economic value priority points/100) + (environmental value priority points/100) E/E index has a potential range of -18 (very high economic value orientation) to +18 (very high environmental value orientation). 7. Preservationist Value is measured by the question (017)-- "Regardless of whether or not any bad effects result, it is wrong for society to dump sludge in the forest." It ranges from +1 (strongly agree) to +5 (strongly disagree). Attitude 8. Source of Sludgg was considered an attitude in the model because both components, belief and evaluation of that belief, were measured. The belief was one of the knowledge items and the evalu- ation component was measured by the question (Q20)--"If sludge is going to be applied to state forest near me, it should pp£_be brought in from other parts of Michigan." This variable ranges from +1 (strongly agree) to +5 (strongly disagree). This variable as an attitude 148 (looking at the relationship of both components) will be discussed later in this section. Frame of Reference 9. Recreation Activities are measured by the number of types of activities done on state forest lands in the past two years. This variable ranges from zero to 17. 10. Demogrpphic Variables included sex, education, income, urban- rural residence, age, membership in environmental—outdoor type organizations and previous knowledge of the concept of land applica- tion of sludge. Results of Stepwise Multiple Regression: The variables reported here are only those variables which were sig- nificant when entered or removed from the equation (Table 4.58). Relative forest impact was the best predictor of attitude towards forest application, accounting for almost 31 percent of the variance in attitude. Thus, one's assessment of the impacts of forest appli- cation in relation to other sludge disposal methods was the best predictor of attitude towards forest application. The preservationist value was the second most important component for predicting attitude towards forest application, accounting for an additional 13 percent of the variance. From this variable a group was identified as having a strong preservationist value because they would oppose forest application regardless of whether any bad effects result. Only those who strongly agreed it was wrong for society to dump sludge in forest areas were placed in this group because they had higher E/E scores (more environmental). While 10.8 percent of 149 .co«ue:ue ecu :« con: one: eeeno mHH.H 11 use: en: eunv now-eds no couuoaev eeuaunuq e 00.Hma ~00.0 eem.0 030.0 00.n ne0.01 xom 00.nea ~00.0 Ncm.0 ~H0.0 He.0 mn0.01 mouue>uuu< couunouuom m~.~0~ ~00.0 oem.0 w~0.0 00.m 040.01 nuaeom He.cma 000.0 0mm.0 nH0.0 0H.0 em0.01 xenon m\u ~0.HH~ m00.0 emm.0 «00.0 0m.w 000.0 owusam we ouuaom nm.me~ 0n0.0 owm.0 000.0 Hm.~m 0~H.0 anneauaoxm «0 acumen No.0au 0m0.0 aam.0 000.0 00.Hm moa.01 ucoanmonn< aun=\nu«uocom 00.nmm «m0.0 n~e.0 000.0 Nu.mm HHN.0 owvoasoox aeuaceuoe No.0me mmH.0 aee.0 000.0 00.~0 ~0A.0 02Hm> unaccuun>uomoum mo nonwoo on.~oe 00m.0 00m.0 000.0 0H.m- 00m.0 uumosu unouom o>wueaem m Haeue>o emcezu chosen a m we u:a¢> m euem eeunewue> euesvm a ecceouuqeuum vouqvuevceum «owooam owmamm mo :ofiunUflaanm umouom mounsou opsufiuun mo acauoaooum "scammouwmm oaaauaoz omflsumum .wm.e canoe 150 the sample stated that they strongly agreed that it was wrong to dump sludge in the forest, only 7.6 percent stated that they were also opposed to forest application. Therefore, only the 7.6 percent were considered to represent the strongest preservationist group. The preservationist group had a mean E/E value of 4.0 which was sig- nificantly greater than the rest of the sample, 2.6 (F==20.4l7; df==l; p< 0.000). Technical knowledge and benefit/harm assessment together accounted for an additional seven percent of the variance (Table 4.58). Tech- nical knowledge scores were quite low, due mainly to a lack of know- ledge rather than inaccurate beliefs. Beliefs about forest appli- cation were not as important as beliefs about the alternatives because some people believed that forest application was relatively safe but were Opposed to it because they believed other methods were safer. Still others who rated forest application as harmful were favorable towards it because they believed that other methods were even worse (Table 4.21). Value priorities were very consistent among the general public. Human health was the strongest value concern which all groups used to evaluate the beliefs about the alternatives (relative forest impact), i.e., the method believed to be the safest for human health was pre— ferred. However, there was no agreement on.which method was the safest for human health. On the average, 72.2 percent of the re— spondents preferred the method they believed to have the least threat to health. Only 39.8 percent preferred the method they believed was the cheapest. Few (3.3%) preferred the method they believed had the greatest threat to human health. Yet, 20.1 percent would pick a 151 method as first choice even if they believed it was the most expen— sive method. Environmental quality was the second most important value for most groups (Appendix E, Q47). In other words, disposal methods considered equally safe to humans would be compared on their threat to the environment. The cost of the sludge disposal method was of little concern to most of the public when health and the environment were at stake. The variables, E/E index and health together accounted for only an additional 0.6 percent of the total variance for predicting attitude (Table 4.58). The degree of skepticism was significantly related to attitude towards forest application. Those skeptical of the Michigan DNR were more Opposed to forest application than those not skeptical. It is possible that due to the lack of knowledge of forest application, some respondents used this variable to evaluate forest application. In other words, some with no knowledge about forest application may have evaluated it as bad if the DNR has anything to do with it. The attitude concerning source of sludge was analyzed by plotting the belief component on the Y-axis and the Xraxis (Figure 4.6). This produces four quadrants, labeled as follows: A. Sludge won't come from southern Michigan cities (correct belief) Source of sludge doesn't matter (positive evaluation) B. Sludge won't come from southern Michigan cities (correct belief) Source of sludge should be local (negative evaluation) C. Sludge would come from southern Michigan cities (incorrect belief) Source of sludge should be:;local (negative evalu- ation) 152 IELIEF T 2 Sludge won't come from southern Michigan cities. southern Michigan cities. Source of sludge should Source of sludge doesn't be local. matter. Sludge won't come from B A EVALUATION .L : fi‘ — -2 «if-1F 1 2 + AV OPPOSED unecoen on C D 1 .-1 Sludge would come from Sludge would come from southern Michigan cities. southern Michigan cities. Source ot sludge should Source oi sludge doesn't be local. matter. '4 Figure 4.6 Sludge source belief and evaluation components held by those apposed, favorable, and undecided about forest application of sludge (with 95% Confidence Intervals). 153 D. Sludge would come from southern Michigan cities (incorrect belief) Source of sludge doesn't matter (positive evaluation) The means and a 95 percent confidence interval for those opposed, favorable and undecided are plotted in Figure 4.6. All three groups fell in quadrant C. There was a significant relationship between the evaluation component of the source of sludge and attitude towards forest application (F= 63.845; df=- 2; p< 0.000), but no significant relationship between the belief component of the source of sludge and attitude towards forest application (F= 1.557; df- 2; p< 0.211). This indicates all three groups generally perceived the sludge would not be local, but differed in the extent to which they evaluated non- local sludge as undesirable. This clearly shows that this affective (evaluation) component of the attitude carries more weight. A second analysis of the source of sludge looked at the number of respondents in each quadrant: Number Percent A 23 1.6 B 225 15.3 C 410 27.8 D 103 7.0 Most (n==714, 48.4%) gave a "don't know" response for either the belief or evaluation component and therefore could not be plotted. Most of the "don't know" was due to the lack of knowledge (43.6%) rather than a lack of opinion (11.3%) (Appendix E, Q20, 23). This analysis clearly shows that a large percent of the public (27.8%) feels that sludge should be local, yet believes that it won't be. Recreation activities were significantly related to attitude to- wards forest application (Table 4.58). Opposition to forest application 154 increased as the numbercfiiforest recreation activities participated in increased. Other than £25: demographic variables were not important for predicting attitude. Males were slightly more favorable towards application and females more undecided. In summary, two variables, relative forest impact and degree of ,preservationist value, were able to predict 44 percent of the variance in attitude towards forest application of sludge (Table 4.58). Eight additional variables contributed an additional ten percent increasing the total R square to 54 percent. Chapter 5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Estimate of Non-Response Bias Age was the only demographic variable for which there was a significant difference between respondents and non-respondents. Non- respondents tended to be younger. Many of the variables showed that non-respondents were more likely to have no opinion or less extreme opinions than the respondents. This is consistent with much of the research which shows that non- respondents tend to have a lower level of interest in the subject of the survey (Filion, 1975; Kanuk and Berenson, 1975; and Suchman, 1962) and thus are less likely to have an opinion. Filion (1975 and 1976) suggests that follow-up mailings can be used to estimate non-response bias, on the assumption that follow-ups probe deeper into the core of non—respondents. For this survey, those with.a greater history of citizen participation were also most likely to respond quickly (Table 4.7). From this it can be hypothe- sized that non-respondents have a lower history of citizen actions and are less likely to become involved in a sludge issue. Although non-respondents were not asked why they did not return the mailed questionnaire, many gave a reason. Many of the general public did not return the mailed questionnaire due to a misunder— standing of the nature of surveys. Many felt that since they did not know'many of the answers their response.would be meaningless. 155 156 This problem may have been kept to a minimum.by the comments in both cover letters which described the need for everyone to respond. For many of the public officials the chief reason for not re- turning the mailed survey was lack of time. Many said that they are often swamped with surveys and are often selective in which ones they fill out. Also, non-respondent public officials rated the sludge disposal problem as less important. A shortened version of the original survey instrument as a followbup may have worked well for the non- respondent public officials. The State of the Issue At present, the public is largely undecided (45%) about forest application of sewage sludge with the remainder about equally di- vided between opposed and favorable (Table 4.8.). The attitude scale (which includes attitude, sludge disposal preference and involvement components) shows few people with extreme opinions (strongly opposed or strongly favorable) (Table 4.57). Thus, forest application is an emerging issue. In summary, forest application appears to be an important issue for which the value priorities are relatively clear but the belief systems are inadequate. The respondents' evaluation of the alter— natives was the best predictor of attitude towards forest application. Evidence suggests that respondents evaluated the methods of sludge disposal on very little knowledge, but based on well defined and consistent value priorities. Human health was the over-riding value concern for all groups by which the beliefs about the alternatives 157 were evaluated, i.e., the method believed to be the safest for human health was preferred. However, there was no agreement on which method was the safest for human health. At this stage there is potential for polarization of the issue and caution must be exercised to ensure that this does not occur because an education program will be more effective if publics are not committed to belief systems. At present, an education program need only deal with developing an accurate belief structure in the public. Implications for Education and Public Involvement Technical Knowledgg: The Lower Peninsula sample, public officials, members, males, rural residents and farmers and skilled occupations had significantly higher knowledge scores than the Upper Peninsula sample, general public, non-members, females, urban residents and homemakers and sales/clerical occupations; respectively. There were no significant relationships between knowledge score and education, income or age. Evidence suggests that one's attitude influenced responses to some of the knowledge items. Respondents opposed to forest appli- cation of sludge picked responses that incriminated forest application. The opposite was true for those who were favorable, while there was no significant difference on neutral itens. Since there were more items which when incorrect incriminated sludge application, higher knowledge scores simply reflect a more favorable attitude rather than true knowledge. However, the technological knowledge score is still valuable because it shows that as expected, overall technological 158 knowledge is very low for the general public. Much of the low know— ledge among the public can be explained by lack of knowledge rather than inaccurate knowledge. At present, forest application of sludge is an issue for which there is little value conflict but many belief conflicts. The public definitely is most concerned about human health. However, the public lacks the knowledge by which to evaluate the various sludge disposal methods on this priority. The education program will have to deal. less with inaccurate beliefs than with a lack of information. One important aSpect is that an effort must be made to make sure forest application does not become a polarized issue. If this should happen the public will be forced to form attitudes based on very little know~ ledge and in the process develop belief systems to support their attitudes. An education program becomes much more difficult once the issue becomes polarized. Alternative Sludge Disposal Technolpgies: Preference for type of sludge disposal technology was highly related to attitude towards forest application (Table 4.15). Those preferring incineration or burying in landfills were more opposed to a proposal to apply sludge in a nearby state forest than those who preferred agricultural or forest application. Incineration and landfills are an "out-of—sight" disposal method and some people may prefer these methods for this reason. Overall, the general public ranked incineration as the best method based on three categories (threat to human health, threat to environmental quality and economic cost). Forest application was 159 ranked second, followed by burying in landfills with agricultural application being last. Beliefs about the alternative methods were the best predictor of attitude towards forest application. This in- formation points to the importance of an education program addressing all alternative disposal technologies rather than only forest appli- cation. According to research by Ramsey and Rickson (1977), giving in- formation to increase knowledge about an issue tends to lead to moderate rather than extreme positions, i.e., new information tends to cause people with extreme positions to take a more moderate position. New information will broaden belief systems making evaluation more complex and difficult, thus attitudes tend to become more moderate. However, it must be remembered, as pointed out by Lewin and Grabble (1960), that the possession of correct knowledge does not always rectify false perceptions. Degree of Skepticism: The public's degree of skepticism of a sponsoring agency may have significant impact on the acceptance of the agency's programs. This may be especially true in situations where the public lacks the information to objectively evaluate the issue, and thus relies on his/her trust in the sponsoring agency. And indeed, those opposed to forest application were significantly more skeptical of the Michigan DNR and state and local agencies than those in favor with those undecided in the middle. Implications are that any program or policy designed to improve the image of the DNR will not only help in this case, but have a very wide impact. It is especially interesting to note that the DNR's credibility problan 160 does not appear to be in the area of accuracy of information. They were rated relatively high in terms of the perceived accuracy of their information by the general public, however, a relatively high pro- portion of the general public were skeptical of management problems prOposed by the DNR. This suggests that the problem lies in the area of implementing programs and may be due to a low level of public involvement. This is one area that should be further explored by the DNR. Many researchers have expressed the importance of public participation (see Chapter 2). Missaukee county, males, rural residents, lower education levels and skilled laborers had a significantly higher degree of skepticism compared to Grand Tranverse county, females, urban residents, higher education levels and umemployed reSpondents, respectively. There was no significant difference on skepticism scores between the Lower and Upper Peninsula samples, public officials and general public, members and non-members and among income levels. E/E Score: The E/E score is a measure of the degree of economic- environmental value orientation. Most of the respondents fell in the low environmental value area of the continuum. Few pe0ple fell in the economic area. Those favorable towards forest application had lower environ- mental values than those opposed with those undecided in between. Forest application was viewed as an economic solution to sludge dis- posal and as a threat to the environment by a large percentage of the public. 161 Upper Peninsula residents, public officials, higher education levels, older people and retired, farmer and manager/proprietor occupations had lower E/E scores, i.e., were less environmentally orientated than the Lower Peninsula sample, general public, lower education levels, younger people and skilled, sales/clerical and pro- fessional occupations; reSpectively. There was no significant re- lationships between E/E scores and sex, income or urban-rural re- sidence. Dunlap et al. (1973) surveyed college students to determine their concern for the environment when faced with economic trade-offs. One item in Dunlap et al.'s scale , "Industries should be forced to shut down if they refuse to meet government pollution standards," was included in this research as part of the economic/environmental (E/E) score. Only 13 percent of Dunlaps et al.'s sample disagreed with the statement; 81 percent agreed and 6 percent were undecided. This survey of a general public found that 19 percent disagreed, 70 percent agreed, and 11 percent were undecided on this item. Although the general public was slightly more economically oriented than Dunlap et al.'s college sample, the results are relatively similar and shows that environmental concerns are prevalent in a broad seg- ment of the public. The degree of preservationist value was the second most important variable in predicting attitude. A strong preservationist value was identified in 7.6 percent of the sample. This group is opposed to forest application perhaps because they are Opposed to all human intrusion on nature. While this group may seem like an obstacle to any sludge disposal program, it was found that there were no 162 significant differences in the amount or type of actions they would take. 11 balanced approach identifying impacts of alternative sludge diSposal solutions may generate a more supportive, rational response from this group. Value Priorities: Health, by far, was the most important value priority for all groups. Environmental quality was second for the general public with economics and aesthetics about equal and third. All value priorities were relatively similar for all groups with economic and environmental values varying the most. The human health, environmental and economic values were found to be important, not so much in predicting attitude towards forest application but because they were the values by which beliefs were evaluated. Human health was the most important value--the sludge disposal method which was believed to be safest for health was usually the method of first choice. An education program must not over- look this importance. Any omdssion of the health risks may be viewed as a whitewash, especially by the skeptical group. As perceptions of risk change the value priorities may change. For example if the public perceives less threat to human health, concern about other values will increase. Source of Sludgg: The public's belief about where the sludge for a forest application would come from and their evaluation of local vs non-local sludge were analyzed. How the public evaluated the use of non-local sludge was the only significant component in predicting attitude towards forest application. A very large percentage (73%) of the public feels that sludge must be local if it is to be used 164 for nearby forest application. This may change if the public were to evaluate sewage sludge as a more valuable resource. At present, it is considered uneconomical to truck sludge from a long distance. As long as sludge is local and this is made clear to the public this is not likely to become a serious issue. Target Groups: Overall, demographic variables were not a large predictor of attitude and many were interrelated, such as sex with occupation and occupation with age. Thus, there is no special demo- graphic group that warrants a special educational effort. Although there was no significant relationship between individual counties and atittude, the Upper Peninsula group was more opposed, undecided and less favorable than the Lower Peninsula group. However, this 'difference was small and does not seem to warrant any different edu- cational strategy for the two geographical regions. Menbers of environmental-outdoor type organizations were more favorable and less undecided about forest application than nondmembers (Table 4.10). However, attitudes were similar among types of organi- zations. An assessment to determine the acceptability of forest application in a community that relied on input from members of environmental-outdoor type organizations would likely over-estimate public acceptance. Those opposed to forest application reported the highest number of forest activities and those undecided the least (Table 4.37). However, there was no difference among the top most important types of forest uses on attitude. Forest recreationists must be considered an important group and information about how forest application 165 affects recreation must be included in an education program so that it can be evaluated by the public. Studies should be done to document the impact on various types of activities. Opposition will be strongest among those who believe they are going to lose something valuable (Zaltman and Duncan, 1977). Public Officials vs General Public: The separate sample of public officials were significantly more favorable towards forest appli- cation than the general public (Table 4.8). Thus, caution must be' exercized when introducing a forest application program because public officials may not represent the public's Opinion. Public officials were also significantly more economically ori- entated than the general public. This difference in value priorities could lead to problems when these values are in conflict. Public officials may opt for a cheaper solution to problems while the general public is willing to pay for increased safety. O'Riordan (1971) found that public officials would not consider a solution to solve a wastewater issue that involved increased taxes because they assumed that the public would be opposed. However, it was discovered that the public was more interested in solving the environmental aspect and was willing to endure higher taxes. This further emphasizes the need to assess public opinion and to provide for public parti- cipation. Suggested I&E Guidelines: Since the public expressed an interest in learning more about sludge disposal problems, responded well to the lengthy survey questionnaire, and over two/thirds felt sludge disposal was a significant problem, it appears an educational program 166 would be well received. The following must be accomplished by an I & E program: 1. The public's beliefs about alternative disposal methods have the largest influence on their attitude towards forest appli- cation. Therefore, the issue should not be acceptance or rejection of forest application but a consideration of which of the four sludge disposal methods is most acceptable. The public's concerns about sludge diSposal must be adequately answered. Objective coverage should be given all disposal methods without bias. The public's satisfaction with a disposal method will depend on how accurately the alternatives were evaluated. Inaccurate or misleading information not only can jeopardize rational decision making, but can greatly damage an agency's credibility. According to Zaltman and Duncan (1977) an important variable for planned change is relative advantage. The advantages of all alternatives must be made known for the innovation to be adopted. The advantages of forest application will probably not be readily apparent to most of the target group. This may be the reason that recreationists were more opposed. They may believe that forest application may limit their recreation but perceive little or no benefit. Such benefits must be clearly defined. Another important variable is the perceived need for change (Zaltman and Duncan, 1977). Although over two/thirds of the respondents felt that sludge disposal was a significant problem for many Michigan cities it is uncertain how they view the local 167 sludge disposal problem. An I & E program.must first help the public perceive there is a local disposal problem and thus a need for change. Interest must be stimulated without polarizing the issue. The I & E campaign must begin well in advance of proposing a specific sludge disposal method. This will encourage the public to ob- jectively consider the information and minimize influence by hastily formed attitudes. An I & E program must deal with the health, environmental, eco- nomic, aesthetic and recreational impacts of sludge disposal methods. In addition, it must be clearly established that the source of sludge will be local. Probably the main resistance to the concept of applying sewage sludge to land as a fertilizer is a psychological reason (Bealer, et al., 1982). The association of raw sewage with sewage sludge prevents people from seeing any possible value in sewage sludge. People have learned that raw sewage must be disposed of properly to prevent certain human diseases and it may be difficult to get them to look at sewage sludge in a different light. One strategy to overcome this resistance is to stress the difference between raw sewage and sludge early in the program. Another method of reducing the negative factors associated with the word "sludge" is to reduce its prominence in the campaign. This was done when the project was introduced in Montmorency County. The project was titled "ForeSt Fertilization Project," thereby removing "sludge from prominence. 10. 168 Information should be linked with a source perceived to be credible. University sources received the highest accuracy rating and the Michigan Department of Public Health and the Michigan Depart- ment of Agriculture received the second highest rating. Local government officials received the second from the lowest score and industrial sources the lowest, thus it would be unadvisable to use such sources for this type of issue. Information should be disseminated via news media. Newspapers were identified as the most preferred source of information for this type of issue. For those interested in more detail, pamphlets could be available. Pamphlets also received a high rating for likelihood of use. Visual media (TV, slides or films) should not be overlooked especially in terms of showing demonstration sites. Viewing a site, via TV or slides, may dispell the belief that a forest application site is a barren waste land. The forest application demonstration site in Montmorency County represents a valuable opportunity for I & E. For some peOple, just knowing that the technology has been tested and studied may reduce many appre- hensions about the concept. ReSpondents with previous awareness about the concept of land application were significantly more favorable towards forest application. A major effort of the I & E program should involve workshops at appropriate stages to inform news media personnel. Every attempt should be made to keep the news media aware of all as- pects of the proposal and the public involvement program. 169 11. Public hearings and workshops would not be used by a large segment of the public. However, those with a strong interest expressed a higher likelihood Of use, therefore they should be available for those with a strong desire for more information. Public Involvement: The general public overwhelmingly feels that citizens should be involved in natural resource decisions but were about equally Split between the type Of involvement: (1) experts first obtaining the views Of the affected citizens and then proceeding tO do the planning and make the final decisions and (2) experts doing the early planning and providing the alternatives from which citizens can select. Thus a satisfactory public involvement model would be to first obtain the opinions Of affected citizens and then provide alternatives from which citizens can choose the one they prefer. Wandersman (1979) has evidence that participation resulted in greater user staisfaction than 'no participation'. For those Opposed tO a hypothetical forest application proposal, twice as many reported they would get involved compared to those favorable. Heberlein (1976) reported this as a typical problem with public hearings, which tend to attract those people Opposed giving the impression that the majority of the public is Opposed. Few (8%) people reported that they planned to take high level actions such as starting a petition or organizing a meeting or action group. A large percentage reported that they would only read material, talk about it or simply sign petitions and a nearly equal group reported they would take a medium level action such as attend meetings, contact Officials or join a group. However, it takes very few leaders 170 to start an effective Opposition campaign and the potential is great for the forest application issue to reach the disruptive stage for the following reasons: (1) the public has a high concern about management Of natural resource issues (2) there is a lack Of knowledge about sludge disposal (3) the public has strongly defined value priorities (4) there is a psychological association Of sludge with raw sewage and (5) there is a high degree Of skepticism about the MDNR. These problems are compounded if an inadequate public involve- ment model is used. One's past history is an indicator Of the type Of action a person is likely tO take in the future. Only about half Of the reSpondents reporting they would take a given type Of action reported a history of taking that type Of action during the past five years. This is consistent with Campbell (cited in Wicker, 1969) who suggested that the same attitude mediates both verbal and overt behavioral reSponses, but the way the attitude is manifested depends upon certain situational pressures. The situational threshold for reporting an intended behavior may be less than actually participating in that particular citizen action. Thus, actual involvement is expected tO be less than reported intended involvement. Public Officials, members Of environmental-outdoor type organi— zations, higher education levels, higher income levels and professional occupations are more likely to become involved in sludge disposal issues. Therefore, Opinions from these groups Of citizens will be over represented. TO Obtain a more representative citizen input, public involvenent models must make a special effort to involve the general public, non—members, lower education levels, lower income levels and retired people; respectively. 171 One variable that might influence one's active involvement in natural resource management decisions is the degree Of influence one feels one has. Those reporting they planned tO become involved did feel they had more influence than those not expecting to become involved. This indicates that a public involvement model should also be teaching citizens how to be involved. This would increase the amount Of influence citizens feel they have in natural resource management decisions. There were few differences among demographic groups tested indicating that all groups should be targeted with this type Of effort. The public rated local public Officials as poor sources Of in— formation. However, the public perceived significantly greater in- fluence on local governments than state or federal agencies. It is recommended that public Officials not be used as sources Of information but should assume less visible roles in public participation models. Implications for Future Research The analysis Of public attitudes toward forest application Of sewage sludge was based on Fishbein's (1963) attitude theory. According to Fishbein's theory, attitude towards forest application will be a summation Of beliefs about forest application and evalu- ations Of those beliefs. The model proposed in this research looked at the contribution of knowledge, expected impact Of forest appli- cation, evaluation Of alternative disposal methods, attitude towards source Of sludge, more central value priorities and demographic variables in predicting attitude (Figure 4.5). This research model deviated from Fishbein's attitude model by measuring a summative 172 evaluation rather than an evaluation Of each specific belief measured. However, the prOposed model attempted tO measure the components Of atti- tudes expected to be critical in the dynamics Of attitude formation and necessary for developing education and management strategies. Two measures Of respondents' evaluation Of forest application were used in this model. One looked at respondents' rating Of expected impact Of forest application in nine categories. An important over- sight was made by not having the respondents evaluate the importance Of each category. For example, a respondent may have rated forest application as beneficial overall but as harmful in an important cate- gory, such as wildlife, and therefore be Opposed to forest application. The other measure Of forest application was in relation tO the alternative sludge disposal methods in terms Of health, environmental and economic attributes. This measure was by far the most important predictor Of attitude towards forest application. This finding shows the importance Of I & E addressing all methods Of sludge disposal and not just forest application. The role Of specific beliefs in attitude formation is variable. Certainly, some belief system about an attribute must exist in order to form an evaluation hence an attitude. However, the researcher must approximate the structure Of such a belief system in designing a model (and survey instrument) as done here. One belief system in- cluded in the model as a potential attitude component involved beliefs concerning the technical aspects Of forest application. Findings indicated the general public possessed only fragments Of a technical belief system concerning forest application. Further, there was 173 evidence that for many respondents, technical beliefs (i.e., responses to knowledge items) were more a result of an initial attitude towards forest application than a contributing cause of attitude. In other words, respondents answered each knowledge item to be consistent with an existing attitude about forest application. This tendency for an attitude to influence develOpment of a consistent supporting belief system is illustrated in Figure 4.5. The tendency for respondents to answer belief items in terms of pre-existing attitudes imposes a difficult task for attempts to sort out components Of attitude formation. Means of designing belief items must be found so that the extent to which belief systems are precursors or results of attitudes can be determined; i.e.,are beliefs being eval- uated, or being used to evaluate? In the present research, only the accidental inclusion Of items which could be termed "neutral" enabled the researcher to suspect the artificial relationships between knowledge (beliefs) and attitudes. However, it may not be sufficient, or even possible, to express all needed knowledge items in neutral language so the respondent is not cued as to the consistent answer. This limi- tation of belief measures, and the need to determine respondent's evalution Of beliefs must be attended to in future research. The literature on attitude-knowledge relationships is very in- consistent. The above discussion may explain some of this inconsistency and is related to Heberlein's (1976) proposal that this inconsis- tency is due to the mismatch Of attitude and knowledge measurements. Although in this research specific knowledge and attitudes were measured, the appropriate specific knowledge may not have been anti- cipated and included. Further, the overall lack Of knowledge may have precluded any strong attitude-knowledge relationship and may have 174 been responsible for attitude influencing responses to knowledge items. Attitude: The dependent variable, attitude towards forest appli- cation, included sludge disposal preference and intended involvement in a hypothetical forest application prOposal. Expected involvement was considered to indicate a stronger attitude (Wicker, 1969). Future studies should further explore the relationship of the number and type Of intended actions and attitudes toward an Object. Behavior: Since the reported number Of intended citizen actions was related to attitude but less associated with the reported number of past actions, it is suspected that the measure of the number of intended citizen actions more closely reflects attitude towards forest application than future behavior towards a forest application issue. Weigel and Newman (1976) stated that attitude measures should focus on the respondent's beliefs and feelings about engaging in particular behaviors, rather than on the respondent's beliefs and feelings about particular Objects, to increase attitude-behavior con— gruence. Expanding the attitude systems to include attitudes toward the use of citizen actions may be more predictive of behavior. Future research should be conducted to explore this relationship. Summary of Major Findings This survey of Michigan residents has demonstrated the impor- tance of public assessment as a part of natural resource planning and policy making. The results clearly showed the importance of pro- viding information about alternative sludge disposal methods to influence attitudes towards forest application. The survey also 175 showed that respondents had high concerns about human health and en- vironmental quality and therefore information about economic advan- tages alone would be insufficient. Public involvement was also shown to be an important component in acceptance of forest application. Had these and other findings been known prior to the attempted intro- duction of forest application in Kalkaska County the public confron— tation may have been averted. Other specific findings are summarized below. 7 The high response rate to the survey questionnaire indicates a high interest in the topic. Overall, the general public was mainly undecided (45.1%) about forest application, while 29.9 percent were opposed and 25.0 percent favorable. The Lower Peninsula, public Officials, members Of environmental- Outdoor type organizations, higher education levels, Older people, farmers and retired peOple were more favorable towards forest application of sludge than Upper Peninsula, general public, non- members, lower education levels, younger people, and semi-skilled and skilled labors; respectively. - Incineration (32.5%) was the most preferred sludge disposal method of the general public followed by forest application (22.8%) burying in landfills (19.6%) and agricultural application (16.9%) with 8.3 percent having no opinion. ‘ ° Knowledge scores were probably influenced by attitudes. Those favorable had higher knowledge scores due to survey design. Overall, the general public had low knowledge scores due mostly to lack of knowledge rather than inaccurate information. 176 ° Forest application was perceived to be harmful for seven Of nine items. "Forest growth" and "long term environmental quality" were the two items perceived to be impacted beneficially. "Surface water quality" received the most harmful rating. ° Those Opposed were more skeptical of the MDNR and local and state agencies than those in favor. Those undecided were about mid-point of the two groups. - Almost three/fourths Of the public stated that if sludge is to be used in a forest application nearby, it should be from a local source. - Overall, the general public had an environmental value orien- tation. The following groups were identified: economic (14.8%), neutral (16.5%), low environmental (40.6%) and high environmental (28.0%). ° Those opposed to forest application had higher E/E scores (more environmentally orientated) than those who favored forest application. ° The Upper Peninsula residents, general public, higher education levels, younger people and professional, sales/clerical and skilled occupations were more environmentally oriented than other groups. ° The value priorities were well defined. Human health was the most important value by which sludge disposal technologies were judged. Environmental quality was second for most groups. ° A strong preservationist value was identified in 7.6 percent of the sample. This group had a strong environmental orientation and reported they would be Opposed to forest application regardless of whether or not any harmful effects result. 177 Newspapers would be the most often used source of information followed by TV/radio and pamphlets and brochures for this type of information. ° University sources were perceived as the most accurate source of information, followed by state agencies. Local government Offi- cials and industrial sources were perceived as least accurate. ° Those with a previous knowledge of the concept of land appli- cation were more favorable than those who had never heard of the concept before the survey. . A greater percent of those opposed planned to get involved (71.1%) while more of those in favor would not get involved (58.0%). - Public officials, members Of environmental-outdoor type or- ganizations, males, rural residents, younger people and skilled and professional occcupations reported that they would be more likely to become involved than other groups. ‘ Of those respondents who reported that they would take an action only about half had a history Of taking that action in the past five years. ° An I & E program designed to influence attitudes about forest application must present comparative information on all the sludge disposal technologies since one's beliefs about the alternatives were the best predictor Of one's attitude towards forest application. LIST OF REFERENCES Abelson, R. 1972. Are attitudes necessary? .12.B° King and E. McGinnies (eds.), Attitudes,pConflict and Social Change. New York: Academic Press. Adler, J. 1982. How fragile is the ocean. National Wildlife. .20(3): 20-22. Arbuthnot, J. 1977. The roles and attitudinal and personality variable in the prediction of environmental behavior and knowledge. Environment and Behavior, 2(2): 217-232. Arnstein, S. R. 1969. "A ladder of citizen participation." American Institute of Planners, 3;: 217. Bealer, R. C.; K. E. Martin and D. M. Crider. 1982. Sociological aspects of sitipg facilities for solid wastes disposal. The Institute for Research on Land and Water Resources, The Pennsylvania State University, A.E. and R.S. #158. Beaulieu, L. J. and K. A. Carter. 1979. Facilitating citizen input in the community needs assessment process. Rural Develope ment Research and Education,_3(3): 20-22. Bitton, G.; B. L. Damron; G. T. Edds and J. M. Davidson. 1980. Sludge-~Health risks of land application, Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Mich. Borchardt, J. A.; W. J. Redman; G. E. Jones; R. T. Sprague. 1981. Sludge and its ultimate diaposal. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor. Brochway, D. G. 1979. "Evaluation of northern pine plantation as diSposal sites for municipal and industrial sludge." Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Bulkley, J. W. 1981. Cadmium effects on mycorrhiaze: a research on sludge. 13 J. A. Borchardt, W. J. Redman, G. E. Jones, and R. T. Sprague (eds.). Sludge and its ultimate disposal. Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 178 179 Burris-Bammel, L. L. 1978. Information's effect on attitude: A longitudinal study. J. of Environmental Education, 2(4): 41-50. Campa, H. III. 1983. "Nutritional response of wildlife forages to municipal sludge application." M.S. Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich. Chmiel, K. M. and R. M. Harrison. 1981. Lead content of small mammals at a roadside site in relation to the pathways of exposal. Sci. Total Environ. 11: 145-154. Cohen, M. R. 1973. Environmental information versus environmental attitudes. J. of Environmental Education, 5(2): 5-8. Davidhizar, J. 1981. Sludge for crops a working idea. Natural Resources Register, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Nov. 1(3): 32. Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Dressler, R. L., and G. W. Wood. 1976. Deer habitat response to irrigation with municipal wastewater. J. Wildl. Manage. 30: 639-644. Dunlap, R. E.; R. P. Gale, and B. M. Rutherford. 1973. Concern for environmental rights among college students. American J. of Economics and Sociology, 32: 45-60. Dunlap, R. E., and D. A. Dillman. 1976. Decline in public support for environmental protection: Evidence from a 1970-1974 panel study. Rural Sociology .41: 382-390. Dunlap, R. E., and K. D. VanLiere. 1978. The new environmental paradigm: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. J. Environmental Education, 2: 10-19. Erickson, D. L. 1980. Public involvement in resource agency decision- making. J. of Soil and Water Conservation, Sept. Oct. 224- 229. Festinger, L. 1957. A theogy of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, University Press. . 1964. Conflict,_decision and dissonance. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Filion, F. L. 1975. Estimating bias due to nonresponse in mail surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly,_32: 482-492. . 1976. Exploring and correcting for non-response bias using follow-up of nonrespondents. Pacific Sociological Review, 19(3): 401—408. 180 Fishbein, M. 1963. An investigation of the relationships between beliefs about an object and attitude toward that object. Human Relations, lo: 233—239. Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Haas, J. E.: K. S. Boggs and E. J. Bonner. 1972. Science, techno- logy, and the public: The case of the planned weather modi- fication. .io Burch, Jr., W. R., N. H. Cheek, Jr. and L. Taylor (eds.). Social behavior, natural resources, and the environment. Harper & Row, Publishers, New York. Hahn, E. P., J. M. Penkala, and F. Tourine. 1977. The use of sewage sludge as a fertilizer on outer—coastal plain soils. Trans. Northwest Fish and Wildl. Conf., 34: 33-39. Heberlein, T. A. 1973. Social psychological assumptions of user attitude surveys: The case of the wildernism scale. J. of Leisure Research, 5: 18—33. . 1975. Principles ofppublic involvement: A primer for park service planners and managers. ‘Madison: Department of Rural Sociology, University of Wisconsin. . 1976. Some Observations on alternative mechanisms for public involvement: The hearing, public opinion poll, work— shop and quasi-experiment. Natural Resources Journal, 16: 197-212. . 1980. Environmental Attitudes. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin, Dept. of Rural Sociology. Hornback, K. E. 1977. Overcoming Obstacles to agency and public in— volvement: A program and its methods. 12_ K. Finsterbusch and C. P. Wolf (eds.), Methodology of social impact assess- ment. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg, Penn. Institute of Water Research. 1982. Sludge application effective on agricultural land. Water Impacts, Michigan State University, 3(3): 1-2. Jackbs, L. W. 1981. Agricultural application of sewage sludge. '12 J. A. Borchardt, W. J. Redman, G. E. Jones, and R. T. Sprague (eds.), Sludge and its ultimate dieposal. Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science. Kanuk, L. and C. Berenson. 1975. Mail surveys and response rates: A literature review. .L.Of'Marketing Research, 12(Nov): 440-453. Kiester, C. A.; B. E. Collins, and N. Miller. 1969. Attitude change: A critical analysis of theoretical approachs. (John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. 181 Koenig, D. J. 1975. Additional research on environmental activism. Environment and Behavior, 1(4): 472—485. Lagerstrom, T. R. 1983. "Comparison of citizen reaction to a proposed sludge demonstration project in two Michigan counties." M.S. Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Langenau, E. E. and R. B. Peyton. 1982. "Policy implications of human dimensions research for wildlife information and educa- tion programs." Paper presented at the Thirty-Ninth Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference. Lepp, N. W. and G. T. Eardley. 1978. Growth and trace metal content of European sycamore seedling grown in soil amended with sewage sludge. J. Environ. Qual. 3: 413-416. Lewin, K. and P. Grabbe. 1962. Principles of reeducation. .12 Bennis, W. G.; K. D. Benne and R. Chin (eds.). The Planning of Change. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. Linsky, A. S. 1975. Stimulating response to mailed questionnaires: A review. Public Opinion Quarterly, 39: 82-101. Loehr, R. C., W. J. Jewell, J. D. Novak, W. W. Clarkson, and G. S. Friedman. 1979. Land application of wastes, Volume 1. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold CO. Loehr, R. C. 1981. Environmental impacts of sludge disposal. .33 J. A. Borchardt, W. J. Redman, G. E. Jones, and R. T. Sprague (eds.), Sludge and its ultimate disposal. Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science. Lounsbury, J. and L. G. Tornatzky. 1977. A scale for assessing attitudes toward environmental quality. Social Psychology, 101: 299-305. Maloney, M. and M. Ward. 1973. "Ecology: Let's hear it from the people; an objective scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge." American Psychologist, 28i7): McCombs, M. E. and D. L. Shaw. 1972. The agenda setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 39: 176-187. Miles, J. C. 1978. The study of values in environmental education. J. of Environmental Education,_2(2): 5-17. Miller, S. M. and M. Rein. 1969. Participation, poverty, and administration. Public Administration Review, 29(1): 15-31. O'Riordan, T. 1971. Public opinion and environmental quality: A reappraisal. Environment and Behavior, 3(2): 191—214. 182 Parr, J. F.; P. B. Marsh, and J. M. Kla. 1983. Land treatment of hazardous wastes. Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey. Peattie, L. 1968. Reflections on advocacy planning. J. of the American Institute of Planners, 34: 80-88. Pettus, A. 1976. Environmental education and environmental atti— tudes. J. of Environmental Education, 8(1): 48-51. Pierce, J. C. 1979. Water resource preservation: Personal values and public support. Environment and Behavior, 11: 147-161. Ramsey, C. E. and R. E. Rickson. 1977. Environmental knowledge and attitudes. J. Of Environmental Education,_§(l): 10—18. Reynolds, D. T. and D. W. Cole. 1981. ’"Sludge application to forest- land--A viable alternative." io 4th Annual Madison Conference of Applied Research and Practice on Municipal and Industrial Waste (Sept. 28-30), Dept. of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Madison. ROkeach, M. 1973. The nature of human values. New York: Free Press. Rosener, J. B. 1978. Matching method to purpose: The challenge of planning citizen-participation activities, io S. Langton. Citizen participation in America. Lexington Books, D. C. Heath and Co., Lexington, Mass. Sagmuller, C. J. 1965. "Mixed oak, red pine, and old field plant responses to irrigation with municipal sewage effluent." M.S. Thesis. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Penn. Sommers, L. E. and D. W. Nelson. 1981. "Nitrogen as a limiting factor in land application of sewage sludges." ipl4th Annual Madison Conference of Applied Research and Practice on Municipal and Industrial Waste (Sept. 28-30), Dept. of Engineering and Applied Science, University Of Wisconsin, Madison. Sopper, W. E. and L. T. Kardos (eds.). 1973. Reoycling treated muni- cipal wastewater and sludge throogh forest and cropland. Pennsylvania State University Press. Sopper, W. E. (Dr.). 1977. "Municipal wastewater and sludge recycling on forest land and disturbed land." Symp. Proc. at Philadelphia, Penn., March 21-23, Pennsylvania State University Press. Stamm, K. R. and J. E. Bowes. 1972. Communication during an environ- mental decision. J. of Environmental Education, 3K3): 49-55. 183 Suchman, E. A. 1962. An analysis of 'bias' in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 26(Spring): 102-111. Toland, G. D. Jr.; L. W. Libby, and L. J. Connor. 1981. "The utili- zation of municipal sewage sludge on Michigan private farm- lands" io 4th Annual Madison Conference of Applied Research and Practice on Municipal and Industrial Waste (Sept. 28- 30), Dept. of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Torrey, S. 1979. Sludge disposal by landspreadiog»techniqoes. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Data Co. Trembley, K. R. Jr., and R. E. Dunlap. 1978. Rural-urban residence and concern with environmental quality: A replication and extension. Rural Sociology,_£3: 474-491. ' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. "Ocean disposal of barge-delivered liquid and solid wastes from U.S. coastal cities," Solid Waste Management Office, Publ. SW—19c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. "Criteria for classi- fication of solid waste diSposal facilities and practices; final, interim final, and prOposed regulations," Fed. Reg. 44: 53438-53468. Wandersman, A. 1979. User participation: A study of types Of parti- cipation, effects, mediators, and individual differences. Environment and Behavior, ll(2): 185-208. Warren, R. 1963. The community_in America. Chicago, Rand McNally. Weigel, R. H. and L. S. Newman. 1976. Increasing attitude-behavior correspondence by broadening the scope Of the behavior measure. J. Of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(6): 793-802. Weigel, R. H., and J. Weigel. 1978. Environmental concern: The develOpment of a measure. Environment and Behavior. 10:3-15. Wengert, N. 1971. Public participation in water planning: A critique of theory, doctrine and practice, Water Resources Planning, 1(1): 26-32. Wicker, A. W. 1969. Attitudes vs. action: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objectives. J. Of Social Issues, 25(4): 41-78. Wilkinson, P. 1976. Public participation in environmental management: A case study. Natural Resources J., lé(Jan.): 117-135. Willeke, G. E. 1977. Identifying publics in social impact assessment. i2. K. Finsterbush and C. P. Wolf. Methodology of social impact assessment. Dowden, Hutchinsen, and Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. 184 Wood, C. W. and D. W. Simpson. 1973. The effect of spray irrigation of treated sewage effluent on wildlife. Trans. N. E. Fish. and Wildl. Conf., 29: 84—90. Woodyard, D. K. 1982. "Response of wildlife to land application of sewage sludge." M.S. Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Young, R. A. 1980. The relationship between information levels and environmental approval: The wilderness issue. J. of Environ- mental Education,_ll(3): 25-30. Zaltman, G. and R. Duncan. 1977. Strategies for planned chaoge. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Zzsoski, R. J., S. G. Archie, W. C. Swain and J. D. Stednick. 1977. "The impact Of sewage sludge on Douglas-fir stands near Port Gamble, Washington." Report to Municipality of MetrOpolitan Seattle, Netro-Seattle, WA. APPENDIX A Complete Survey Instrument 1855 MICHIGAN PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY ON NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT A PROJECT OF: Michigan State University Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Resources Building East Lansing, MI 48824 186 DIRECTIONS FOR FILLING OUT TNE OUEOTIONNAINE ePiease answer all questions as best you can. 0 It is important that the person to when this questionnaire is addressed fills it out. This will ensure representativeness. e 00 not write your name on the questionnaire. 0 Return the questionnaire using the addressed, pre-psld return envelope provided. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION! 187 MICHIGAN PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY ON NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT I. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN NATURAL RESOURCE DECISIONS 1. Do you feel that citizens should be involved in natural resource decisions? [3 YES [:1 no LU U 3 3 5‘5 5 5 a 2‘, Please cimlg the hunter at the left which best § a z 5 answers each question. 22:; "‘ "‘ 2 How much influence do u feel you can have on I g E "‘ the natural resource p anning and policy of... § a. :3 2 l 2 3 4 2. ...local government agencies (e.g., county comissioners)? 1 2 3 4 3. ...state government agencies (e.g.. Department of Natural Resources)? 1 2 3 4 4. ...federal government agencies (e.g.. U.S. Forest Service)? 1853 THE SLUDGE DISPOSAL PROBLEM IN MICHIGAN Sludge is the name given to material which has been separated from the dissolved parts of sewage and digested by bacteria. By the end of its treatment process, sludge is considerably different from the original sewage. However, properly disposing of the huge quantities of sludge is creating serious problems in some areas. To dis se of sludge. it may be burned. buried or sprayed on agricultura or‘ forest lands. At this point Iu§3§_A3£_uQ_£LAfl§,to apply sludge to state forest lands. The idea is in the experimental stage and the economics and . safety of applying sludge to forest land is being studied by Michigan State University researchers at a small experimental demonstration site in Montmorency County. ‘ 5. Below is a list of possible citizen action activities. Please check (I) ggy_which you feel you would do yourself to show your support or your opposition to a proposal to apply sludge to an area of state forest in your own or an adjacent county. [3 A. PROBABLY TAKE NO ACTION [:1 B. READ MATERIALS ON THE SUBJECT [:] C. TALK ABOUT IT WITH FRIENDS. RELATIVES OR NEIGHBORS [:3 D. CONTACT OFFICIALS OR NEWSPAPERS BY LETTERS. PHONE. OR VISIT [j E. ATTENO PEETINOs. PUBLIC HEARINGS. on HORKSNDPS D r. ORGANIZE A IEETING [j G. SIGN A PETITION [j N. START A PETITION [:l I. DONATE HONEY TO A GROUP WORKING FOR DR AGAINST THE ISSUE OmammmmmmP [j x. ORGANIZE AN ACTION GROUP D L. OTHER. SPECIFY 6. Please indicate by letter. any of the above activities (other than A) you have participated in during the past five years for agy_issue. D 189 Please check (I) the one statement which best describes the level of involvement that you would prefer to have if a sludge disposal problem were identified in your area. Keep in mind that two key gecisions would have to be made - hgg_and where sludge will be sposed. A. I FEEL THAT THE PLANNING AND DECISION-MAKING SHOULD BE LEFT TOTALLY TO THE EXPERTS. [:1 B. EXPERTS SHOULD FIRST OBTAIN THE VIEWS OF THE AFFECTED CITIZENS D AND THEN PROCEED TO DO THE PLANNING AND MAKE THE FINAL DECISION. C. EXPERTS SHOULD ONLY DO THE EARLY PLANNING AND PROVIDE THE ALTERNATIVES FRONFHHICH CITIZENS CAN SELECT. [:J D. CITIZENS SHOULD CONTROL THE ENTIRE PLANNING AND DECISION- MAKING PROCESS AND USE EXPERTS ONLY AS CONSULTANTS AND TO IMPLEMENT THEIR FINAL PLAN. II. voun OPINIONS 33 The following series of questions is intended to u, g obtain your knowledge and opinions'about sewage sludge a 3‘, application to forest lands. and other environmenta 2 g 2; concerns. 5 5 g 3 Please read each statement carefully and circle the g u ._ a, 3 number at the left of each statementwhicfi Best 2 '5; g: 7;, 2 indicates how strongly you agree or disagree with the {7, 3 8 8 5; statement. 1 2 3 4 5 8. Sludge disposal is a significant problem for many cities in Michigan. 1 2 3 4 5 9. Toxic chemical problems associated with forest application of sludge can be avoided with proper management techniques. 1 2 3 4 5 10. Clay soils would be the best type if sludge is to be applied to land. 1 2 3 4 5 11. Forest areas to which sludge has been applied should be fenced in to protect the public. _ 1 2 3 4 5 12. Municipal sludge composition can vary greatly from one conmunity to another. 1 2 3 4 5 13. Odor problems will persist for a year or more after one application of sludge to a forest area. 1 2 3 4 5 14. If it is properly managed. sludge can be applied to land without causing water pollution. Continued on next page 190 "' STRONGLY AGREE N AGREE H N “" - DON 'T KNON ‘F DISAGREE w .5 ‘” STRONGLY DISAGREE m 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. An application of sludge to a forest site would spoil the aesthetics (beauty) of the area for several years. I would be skeptical of most management pro- grams proposed by the Michigan DNR. Regardless of whether or not any bad effects result. it is wrong for society to dump sludge in the forest. Sludges contain the essential plant nutrients: nitrogen. phosphorus. and potassium. Most of the toxic components in sludge are removed by the wastewater treatment plant. If sludge is going to be applied to state forests near me. t should ggt_be brought in from other parts of Michigan.- The application of sludge to forest lands would pose no great threat of disease to the public. Agricultural land application of sludge could meet g%1_of the nitrogen fertilizer needs of the U. . Most sludge which would be applied to northern agricultural and forest lands would come from large Michigan cities such as Detroit. Lansing, or Grand Rapids, etc. Industries should be forced to shut down if they refuse to meet government pollution standards. Although environmental considerations are important. the environmental considerations should ggt_stand in the way of progress and economic growth. If pollution control standards are shown to be inflationary they should be relaxed in favor of the economy. Society has a responsibility to dispose of its wastes in the safest possible way regardless of the costs. 191 3 what would you expect to be the overall E a: effect of applying non-industrial sludge to m i .5 E g state forest lands for each of the following 5 S < S < § items. (Please circle, your response to m E E E z I— each item.) I):- |"z" H a: E - ... ... o .. ... g > m z 3: > I 2 3 4 5 6 28. Forest Growth 1 2 3 4 5 6 29. Surface Hater Quality 1 2 3 4 5 6 30. Ground Hater Quality 1 2 3 4 5 6 31. Public Health 1 2 3 4 5 6 32. Hildlife Habitat l 2 3 4 5 6 33. Recreation 1 2 3 4 5 6 34. Adjacent Property Values 1 2 3 4 5 6 35. wildlife Species I 2 3 4 5 6 36. Long Term Environmental Quality 37. Do you feel that a program to apply sludge to a forest site would be properly managed by local and state agencies? [3 YES [:1 ND Below are four possible methods of non-industrial sewage sludge disposal. BURY IN LANDFILLS INCINERATION (BURNING) APPLICATION TO AGRICULTURAL LAND APPLICATION TO FOREST LANDS . NO OPINION From the methodslisted above. fill in the letter of the 9_T_T_e_ method which you believe will have... ?’ MOO“ 38. __ the lea—st threat to human health. 39. __ the greatest threat to human health. 40. the Last threat to environmntal quality. 41. the greatest threat to environmental quality. 42. the least economic cost (cheapest method). 43. the greatest economic cost (most expensive method). 5 192 Please rank the four methods of non-industrial sludge disposal according to your overall preference (Fill in the appropriate letter). 44. 45. 46. _ first choice A. BURY IN LANDFILLS 8 INCINERATION (BURNING) C. APPLICATION TO AGRICULTURAL LANO O APPLICATION TO FOREST LANO second choice third choice III. Youn cowcenws 47. 48. To Show how much consideration you feel should be given to each category in making sludge-management decisions (such as how and where it will be disposed). diyige 100 points among the four ' The higher the number of points given to the category, the more importance you feel it should have compared to the other categories. Remember that the total is to equal 100. __ HUMAN HEALTH ECONOMICS (COSTS) _ ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND NILDLIFE _ AESTHETICS (BEAUTY) OF THE AREA TOTAL -100 what concerns do you have about applying sludge to State forest lands that you would want satisfactorily answered by research before the practice becomes adopted as a sludge disposal method in Michigan? 193 IV. YOUR ATTITUDE 49. DECIDE] V. 51. Please check (V) the ggg_statement which best describes what you would do if a proposal was made to apply sludge in an area of state forest lands near you. A. I UOULD BE OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSAL. AND I NOULD GET INVOLVED. B. I NOULD BE OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSAL. OUT I NOULD N91, GET INVOLVED. C. I WOULD FAVOR THE PROPOSAL. AND I HOULD GET INVOLVED. D. I UOULO FAVOR THE PROPOSAL. BUT I VOULO N_01 OET INVOLVED. E. UNDECIDED. YOUR INFORMATION SOURCES Had you ever heard or read about the concept of applying sludge to either agricultural or forest land before receiving this survey? [3 YES D NO If yes. please indicate source(s) Are you interested in learning more about the problems caused by sludge disposal. and some alternative solutions to the problems? [j YES [:1 NO 194 ... V“! Lu 0- g In 5 3 § 5 #5 Please indicate how accurate you feel 8 3 < 3 g information from the following sources 2 < 3 2 8 § would be by circling the appropriate nunber m 5 ... < E on the left. >- a; I- § a: IL § a E .I 2 ° :1 3 8 :‘A' ‘i‘ 2 I 2 3 4 5 6 52. University Sources 1 2 3 4 5 6 53. Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) l 2 3 4 5 6 54. Michigan Department of Public Health 1 2 3 4 5 6 56. Environmental Organizations (e. 9.. Audubon. Sierra Club. etc.) , '1 2 3 4 5 6 56. Michigan United Conservation Club (MUCC) 1 2 3 4 5 6 57. Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1 2 3 4 5 6 58. A Sporting Organization (e.g.. Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited) 1 2 3 4 5 6 59. Michigan Department of Agriculture 1 2 3 4 5 6 60. Industrial Sources 1 2 3 4 5 6 61. Local Government Officials I 2 3‘ 4 5 6 62. TV/Radio I 2 3 4 6 6 63. Newspapers 1 2 3 4 6 6 64. Magazines 1955 DEFINITELY USE PROBABLY USE NOT LIKELY USE How likely are you to use each of the fellowing sources to seek more infOrmation if you become interested in knowing more about a local natural resource problem that is going to affect you? Please circle your response to each item. ...‘p—aHHQ—OHH HH NNNNNNN NN “w“““““SELDOMUSE as a: as as as an as was» bhch 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. Newspapers Magazine or Journal TV/Radio A Friend or Relative Pamphlets and Brochures Attending Public Hearings Attending Local Norkshops. Seminars or Special Lectures Contacting a University or Government Agency Adult Education Classes Library VI. Youn use or STATE means 75. [Z] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] Please check (I) all the types of activities you have done on state forest lands in the past_t!o years. 1. 2. FISHING SHIMMING AND/OR BOATING/CANOEING FIREARM OEER HUNTING ARCHERY OEER HUNTING SMALL GAME HUNTING SCENIC DRIVING ' SNOHMOOILING TRAILBIKE RIOING OTHER. SPECIFY [I] 9. BERRYPICKING AND/OR MUSHROOM HUNTING [j] 10. HIKING [I] II. CAMPING [:1 12. GATHERING FUELHOOO [j 13. LOOKING FOR VILOLIFE [I] 14. PHOTOGRAPHY [I] Is. PICNICKING C] 16. CROSS-COUNTRY SKIING Of the uses listed above. which ggg is the most important to you. Fill in the box with the appropriate item number. 1965 VII. PERSONAL INFORMATION 77. What is your sex and age? D MALE YEARS OF AGE D FEMALE 78. which is the highest level of formal education that you have completed? D A. LESS THAN A HIGH SCHOOL GRAOUATE D a. COMPLETEO HIGH SCHOOL (12th grade) D C. SOME COLLEGE OR POST-HIGH SCHOOL TRAINING D D. COMPLETEO COLLEGE D E. COLLEGE BEYOND A BACHELOR'S OEGREE 79. How would you classify your primary occu ation? (Please check the ggg response which best applies.T—P+ D A. SEMI-SKILLED HORRER OR APPRENTICE CRAFTSMAN D a. SALESHORKER OR CLERICAL/OFFICE NORKER D C. SKILLED VORRER. CRAFTSMAN. OR FOREMAN D 0. FARMER D E. MANAGER OR PROPRIETOR D F. PROFESSIONAL D G. HOMEMAKER D H. UNEMPLOYEO D I. RETIREO D J. OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) 80. Nhat is your approximate gross family income from all sources before taxes in 1981? [:I A. Less than $8,000 D 0. $8,000 - $15,999 D C. $16,000 - $23,999 D D. 324.000 - $31,999 D E $32,000 - $39,999 [3 F. $40,000 or more 81. In what county do you live? ID 82. B3. . on DDDDDDDDDDDDDDU 5. 197 In what city is your postal address located? Do you live within a city or village limit7-. . D YES D NO Do you currently hold any political office at any level of government? D YES D NO If yes. please specify Please check (I) any of the following organizations in which you hold a membership presently. AUDUBON SIERRA CLUB LEAGUE OF HOMEN VOTERS GARDEN CLUB MICHIGAN UNITED CONSERVATION CLUB NATIONAL NILDLIFE FEDERATION TROUT UNLIMITED STEELHEADERS ASSOCIATION RUFFED GROUSE SOCIETY . DUCKS UNLIMITED 11. A MICHIGAN TRAPPER'S ASSOCIATION 12. AN ORV CLUB (SNOHMOBILE. 4-NHEEL DRIVE. CYCLE. ETC.) 13. BOATING CLUB . 14. NESTERN OR EASTERN MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION COUNCIL IS. LOCAL LANDONNER ASSOCIATION ..o O DONGmcth 00 on... ...-a 0 Please Specify any other organization of which you are a member and which may be concerned with environmental or natural resource problems: 11 199 Thank you very much for your time and participation in this study. Your responses will help our research effort which will benefit the citizens of Michigan. The space below is provided for any additional information. comments or suggestions that you would like to make. Thank you again. PRINTED on 100% RECYCLED PAPER 12 APPENDIX B Survey Mailings 200 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ' 48824 NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING (517) 355-4477 July 6. 1982 Dear Michigan Citizen: You have been selected as part of a small sample of Michigan residents who are being asked to participate in a Michigan State University study. Specifically. we are seeking your opinions about a natural resource problem that faces Michigan today and about how you prefer to be involved in solving this and other natural resource problems. The results of this study will be used to make recommendations to state and local resource management agencies. In order for the results to truly repre- sent the Opinions of the Michigan public. it is important that you complete and return your questionnaire. Your cooperation is critical to our study even if you are unfamiliar or unconcerned at the present time about this particular natural resource issue. You may be assured of complete confidentiality. The questionnaire has an identification number for mailing purposes only. This is to allow us to check your name off the mailing list when your questionnaire is returned. Your name will never be placed on the questionnaire. If you have any questions about the survey. 1 will be happy to answer them; please write or call. If you choose to call. please dial (5l7) 355-4477 and ask for Larry Gigliotti. We know that your time is very valuable and we would like to express our thanks for your cooperation on this project. Sincerely. m... as. R. Ben Peyton Project Director N3 U I: am MIMI“ Action/Equal Opporcum'ly ImuI'MI'oII 201 JuIy I3. 1982 Last week a questionnaire seeking your opinion about natural resource planning was mailed to you. If you have already com leted and returned it to us. please accept our sincere than s. If not. please do so today. The survey has been sent to only a small. but representative. sample of residents in your county. Thus. it is extremely important that YOUR [1535 are also included in this study if the results are to accurately represent the opinions of your county. ' If by some chance you did not receive the questionnaire. or if it got misplaced. please call me now. (517-355-4477) and I will get another one in the mail to you today. fl 4... 4.5.: . en eyton Project Director 202 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT or FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE EAST LANSING . memo“. . .332. NATURAL Resounces BUILDING m7) ass-«77 July 27, l982 Dear Michigan Resident: About three weeks ago I wrote to you seeking your opinion about natural resource management decisions. As of today we have not received your completed questionnaire. We are encouraged by the number of questionnaires already returned. but we need your response to be able to accurately describe the opinions of Michigan residents. This is because our past experiences suggest that those of you who have not yet sent in your questionnaire may hold quite different opinions from those that have already responded. The issue we cover in the questionnaire. application of sludge to state and forest lands. is a relatively new problem for Michigan. This study is an attempt to consider the views of citizens in the initial planning stages for not only sludge disposal. but for other natural resource problems in Michigan as well. The usefulness of our survey results depends on how accurately we are able to describe what the people of Michigan think. In the event that your questionnaire has been misplaced. a replacement is enclosed. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. Sincerely. W. i}... £27k R. Ben Peyton Project Director usu a on W Adios/Equal mom-a, human. APPENDIX C Telephone Survey Instrument Used to Determine Non-Response Bias 203 Interviewer Name ID # Phone # Address Call Record: Hello. Is this the residence? (IF "NO". The number I was calling is and it was for ). (first and last name) (IF WRONG NUMBER, TERMINATE WITH. 3.6.: I am sorry to have bothered you.) (IF "YES".) I would like to speak to This is , at Michigan State University. (interviewer's name) I am calling from E. Lansing. We are doing a follow-up study of people who did not respond to our mailed survey on Natural Resource Management. Did you receive a letter from Dr. Peyton last week which explained that we would be calling? (IF "NO", ADD: I'm sorry the letter didn't reach you in time.) (check if No) 204 .NH Ammmq coauoosmm mu0mx03 mHomomo moxsmmmfiz mocfiaocoz ouumsvumz amcmamoq mmum>mu9 vmmuo moauaaoo Amo.c n av mmamamw xuasoo mm>mm mnu mo comm no“ mHm>mA coaumuzvm mo somwumaaoo N manna xfivcmmg< 211 m.mm o.ooH H.ooa o.ooH H.ooH m.ss o.ool eases o.e o.e ~.s s.m s.m N.a s.ma wage no ooo.osw o.N m.s e.m N.s N.o m.m m.N mam.mmm u ooo.~mm o.sa m.NH o.~H o.mN m.w~ N.¢H N.om maa.anw u ooo.s~w 0.0N N.NN o.m~ w.n~ N.n~ N.NN N.mN mms.m~w u coo.cam H.0N H.0N m.Nm s.m~ ~.mH m.m~ N.o~ aam.msm I ooo.mw e.NN m.m~ o.s~ H.¢N N.OH s.ma m.a ooo.mm amen mama Aooo.o v a mom a we “NON.mN a NNV N N N N N N N mNa>aa aaouaH whomxmz mHomomo moxammmflz mmmaaoamz muomsvumz smcmamma mmum>mua vamuu mofiumsou Amo.o u 5v moaaamm huaaoo cm>mm mnu mo 50mm How mam>mq mEouaH mo comammmaou m manna xNeaaaaa y [as ’lll I‘ll 212 o.ooa o.ooa H.OON o.ooa o.ooH o.ooH H.ooN N.o0H o.ooa qana e88 Aooo.o v a “as u we “mam.NHN u NNV N N N N Reason N N taxes N aouaaaaoaa N N Naonuaao aaNNNNm mmufiumm mm>oamfimaa Imao: H~d0fimmmmoum \nmwmmmz noehmm vaHfixm \moamm -Eam Amo.o n 5v macaumasuoo mnu mo numm How mmamfimm %uasoo cm>mm mnu mo nomaumaaoo s manna xaeamaaa 213 Appendix Table 5 Comparison of Mean Education1 for Each of the Seven County Samples (a = 0.005) Education¥(years) County it 0.95 C.I. SD N (F = 12.951; df = 6; p < 0.000) Grand Traverse 13.8 f0.4 2.6 192 Leelanau 13.8 +0.3 2 4 230 Marquette 13.7 f0.4 2.5 198 Menominee 12.9 f0.3 2.4 206 Missaukee 12.4 t0.3 2.5 207 Osceola 12.6 :0.3 2.4 199 Wexford 12.7 t0.3 2 4 220 1Recorded as follows: Less than a high school graduate 9 yrs. Completed high school 12 yrs. Some college or post-high school training 14 yrs. Completed college 16 yrs. College beyond a bachelor's degree 18 yrs. 214 Appendix Table 6 Comparison of Mean Income1 for Each of the Seven County Samples (a 0.05) Income ($) County 'i 0.95 C.I. so N (F = 10.621; df = 6; p < 0.000) Grand Traverse 23,800 i 1,800 12,200 179 Leelanau 20,500 t 1,600 11,400 208 Marquette 23,000 i 1,600 10,900 187 Menominee 18,000 : 1,400 9,900 194 Missaukee 16,700 i 1,400 10,000 192 Osceola 19,000 i 1,500 10,600 184 Wexford 19,400 t 1,500 10,900 199 1Recorded as follows: Less than $8,000 $ 6,000 $8,000 - $15,999 $12,000 $16,000 - $23,999 $20,000 $24,000 - $31,999 $28,000 $32,000 - $39,999 $36,000 $40,000 or more $45,000 215 Appendix Table 7 Comparison of Mean Age for Each of the Seven County Samples (a = 0.05) Age (years) >