INFORMATION TO USERS The m ost advanced technology has been used to photo­ graph and reproduce th is m anuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films th e original text directly from the copy submitted. Thus, some dissertation copies are in typew riter face, while others may be from a computer printer. In the unlikely event th a t the author did not send UMI a complete m anuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyrighted m aterial had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize m aterials (e.g., m aps, draw ings, charts) are re ­ produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand com er and continuing from left to right in equal sections w ith sm all overlaps. Each oversize page is available as one exposure on a standard 35 mm slide or as a 17" x 23" black and white photographic print for an additional charge. Photographs included in the original m anuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. 35 mm slides or 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI Accessing the World’s Information since 1938 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA O rder N u m b er 8807111 A n investigation in to processes co n trib u tin g to v o lu n tary exposure of M ichigan anglers to co n tam inated w aterw ays an d contam in ated fish Rodabaugh, Gary Lee, Ph.D. Michigan State University, 1987 Copyright © 1987 by R odabaugh, Gary Lee. A ll rights reserved. UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Aibor, MI 48106 PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V . 1. Glossy photographs or pages_____ 2. Colored illustrations, paper or print______ 3. Photographs with dark background_____ 4. Illustrations are poor copy______ 5. Pages with black marks, not original copy 6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of p ag e______ 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages 8. Print exceeds margin requirements______ 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine_______ i/ i / 10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print______ 11. Page(s)___________ lacking when material received, and not available from school or author. 12. Page(s) 13. Two pages numbered 14. Curling and wrinkled pages__ 15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed as received 16. Other_________________________________________________ seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows. . Text follows. UMI AN INVESTIGATION INTO PROCESSES CONTRIBUTING TO VOLUNTARY EXPOSURE OF MICHIGAN ANGLERS TO CONTAMINATED WATERWAYS AND CONTAMINATED FISH By Gary Lee Rodabaugh A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Fisheries and Wildlife 1987 Copyright by GARY LEE RODABAUGH 1987 ABSTRACT AN INVESTIGATION INTO PROCESSES CONTRIBUTING TO VOLUNTARY EXPOSURE OF MICHIGAN ANGLERS TO CONTAMINATED WATERWAYS AND CONTAMINATED FISH By Gary Lee Rodabaugh Water pollution has become a topic of critical concern in Michigan since the late I960’s. This concern has resulted in an advisory against the consumption of contaminated fish species from specific Michigan waterways. This research involved the development of a questionnaire that measured a wide variety of beliefs, attitudes, risk perceptions, and behaviors relating the the consumption of those fish. The study population consisted of a random sample of 400 households that were located within one mile of the North and South Branches of the Shiawassee River, in Shiawassee County, Michigan. The South Branch is highly contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and consumption of fish from this branch has been advised against since 1978. The North Branch, while visually identical, does not contain measurable levels of industrial contaminants. This study has shown that the information regarding water quality and the risks associated with environmental contamination has reached specific groups of anglers. While it has reached those anglers residing near contaminated waters, it would appear that the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has had little to do with the spread of that knowledge. Anglers residing near contaminated waters, although having lower educational levels and lower SES, are securing the information on their own. The information they do receive from MDNR is perceived as of low credibility by this group who exhibits a high degree of specific knowledge about local and statewide water quality. Anglers who reside near waters that are not contaminated have greater knowledge of general water quality, perceive the MDNR as credible, have higher levels of education and SES, yet continue to fish on contaminated waters and eat the fish they catch. These individuals may best be reached with increased educational programs, due to the high credibility placed on information from MDNR. An anglers willingness to fish on contaminated waters and consume the catch was found to increase with increasing education and SES. Additionally, anglers who perceive the MDNR as a credible source of information were less likely to eat the contaminated fish they caught. Those anglers that lived near contaminated waters were more aware of local water quality and less likely to fish on contaminated waters than their counterparts residing near non-contaminated waters. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables vi List of Figures x Introduction 1 Research Propositions 7 Literature Review 21 Methods and Materials 51 Results 107 Proposition 1 112 Proposition 2 116 Proposition 3 129 Proposition 4 146 Proposition 5 178 Proposition 6 193 Additional Results 221 Discussion 240 Summary 246 Appendix A - Comments From Participants in the Appendix B - The Questionnaire 259 Appendix C - Risk Ratings 277 Appendix D - University Committee on Research Involving 278 Human Subjects Approval Form Appendix E - Correct Answers for Water Quality Questions Study 25 2 280 Appendix F - Risk of Death From Eating Contaminated Fish From Lakes Superior and Michigan 282 Appendix G - Zero Order Correlations Block 283 List of References 292 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1 - Great Lakes Airborne Organic Deposition 22 Table 2 - Risk Estimation, 26 Lay People vs Experts Table 3 - Carcinogenic Potency of Compounds in Great Lakes Fish 28 Table 4 - Comparison of Carcinogenic Hazards 29 Table 5 - Missing data 98 Table 6 - Characterization of respondents. 108 Table 7 - Mean values for variables in the study (n=125). 110 Table 8 - Zero order correlations of demographics vs area of residence (n=125). 113 Table 9 - Significant multivariate regression correlations between demographics and area of residence. 114 Table 10 - Zero order correlations of value priorities vs area of residence (n=125). 117 Table 11 - Significant multivariate regression correlations between area of residence and value priorities. 118 Table 12 - Zero order correlations of value priorities vs demographics (n=125). 120 Table 13 - Significant multivariate regression correlations between value priorities and demographics. 123 Table 14 - Multivariate regression correlations forcing demographics on significant "value priority vs area of residence" relationships. 127 Table 15 - Zero order correlations of beliefs vs area of residence (n=125). 130 Table 16 - Significant multivariate regression correlations between beliefs and area of residence. 131 vi Table 17 - Zero order correlations of beliefs vs demographics (n = 125). 133 Table 18 - Significant multivariate regression correlations between beliefs and demographics ED and SES. 134 Table 19 - Significant multivariate regression correlations between beliefs and AGE. 137 Table 20 - Significant multivariate regression correlations between beliefs and gender. 139 Table 21 - Multivariate regression correlations forcing demographics on significant "beliefs vs area of residence" relationships. 144 Table 22 - Zero order correlations of attitudes vs value priorities (n=125). 147 Table 23 - Significant multivariate regression correlations for source credibility and environmental importance attitudes vs health value priority. 149 Table 24 - Significant multivariate regression correlations for attitudes vs economic and recreationalism value priorities. 151 Table 25 - Zero o ier correlations of attitudes vs beliefs (n = 1 25 ,. 155 Table 26 - Significant multivariate regression correlations for beliefs vs source credibility and environmental importance attitudes. 156 Table 27 - Significant multivariate regression correlations for beliefs vs alienation and macho attitudes. 160 Table 28 - Zero order correlations of attitudes vs area of residence (n=125). 162 Table 29 - Significant multivariate regression correlations for area of residence vs attitudes. 163 Table 30 - Zero order correlations of attitudes vs demographics (n=125). 165 Table 31 - Significant multivariate regression correlations for demographics vs attitudes. 166 Table 32 - Significant multivariate regression correlations for demographics vs alienation and macho attitudes. 168 vii Table 33 - Significant multivariate regression correlations for attitudes vs value priorities and beliefs, subsequently forcing area of residence and demographics. 175 Table 34 - Zero order correlations of behavioral intent vs attitudes (n=125). 179 Table 35 - Zero order correlations of behavioral intent vs beliefs (n=125). 181 Table 36 - Significant multivariate regression correlations for behavioral intent vs beliefs. 182 Table 37 - Zero order correlations of behavioral intent vs value priorities (n=125). 184 Table 38 - Zero order correlation of behavioral intent vs area of residence (n=125). 184 Table 39 - Significant multivariate regression correlations for behavioral intent vs area of residence. 185 Table 40 - Zero order correlations of behavioral intent vs demographics I .tin -ti • ' jTfrti If l> » , i• iI *!<> »«;*« • !* '| f 1 » !‘J - Y . r - b * ri I -iC ; L I **\ I i f I D {•••! »• » «1i roiriravir^* L ;s T : ' T V ---m rid i;: f - J *'J " j • R V K *— Ht 1 i }J 1— l.i„ -L:i_r?! Figure 2 - Study area. ~ H \ 't - * *“ ■■*"■■■! j r M j {* *! I Page 53 POPULATION AND SUB-POPULATIONS - The two mile wide boundaries contain a population of approximately 1000 households on the contaminated South Branch, and approximately 1200 households on the non-contaminated North Branch. These approximations were obtained by counting the buildings on the map and verified by using approximations from county plat maps. For comparative purposes these two groups of households in contaminated and non-contaminated areas of the watershed were designated as sub-populations to determine the influence of proximity to contaminated water on perception of risk, environmental knowledge, problem awareness, recreational use of contaminated waters, and consumption of fish from those waters. The major reasons for selecting this proximity population are as follows; 1. Every household is located within one mile of the Shiawassee River. This served as a partial control to limit the effect of distance from the river on behaviors, attitudes, and other characteristics of the subjects. 2. Approximately 80% of the population is within 2 miles of a non-contaminated body of water which also served as partial control. In addition, approximately 97% of the population is within 4 miles of a non-contaminated body of water. 3. Though the South Branch is contaminated,it has received national attention as one of the best Page 54 smallmouth bass rivers in Michigan (Outdoor L i f e . 1977) and therefore needed to be studied to determine the effectiveness of the consumption advisory which was not mentioned in the article. 4. Because of the proximity of all households to bodies of water, a high percentage of anglers were expected in the population. QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT Figures 3 and 4 represent a hypothetical decision making process involved in consumption of fish. At each decision point a set of values and/or beliefs must come into play. These decision points are the critical areas described by this investigation. In essence, these decision processes are an exercise in risk assessment that must be made by each angler based on his own knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, background and values. A survey was designed to question respondents on the processes involved in this risk assessment, and to measure the effectiveness of current fish consumption warnings. The survey also assessed the beliefs, attitudes and knowledge scores of any angler in the household. It is not the purpose of this study to design an instrument to measure environmental awareness. It is, in fact, a study designed to utilize available instruments already published in an attempt to better clarify a problem Page 55 FIGURE 4 Y ES LOCAL WATERS? FIGURE 4 NO YES CONTAMINATED .WATERS? FIGURE 4 NO YES RETAIN CATCH? FIGURE 4 RELEASE Y ES DISPOSAL] FIGURE 4 FISH CONSUMED YES YES FIGURE 4 SPECIAL PREPARATION NO FISH CONSUMED FIGURE 4 FIGURE 3 - Hypothetical anglers decision path when considering the consuaption of fish caught. Page 56 Perception of contamination problem Value Priorities Attitude System ED Attitude AGE ZONE SBX Beliefs SES WQ1, WQ2| RSKE RSKO NEN NES NEGL AWEX ETWC SC Al A2 MCH1 MCH2 EIMP Behavioral Intent PREC Behavior PCON TOEX REDC INTERVENING VARIABLES ACRONYM INDEX DESCRIPTION DEMOGRAPHICS: ED AGE SEX SES VALUE : VPH PRIORITIES VPE VPR VPF VPT VPS BELIEFS : WQ1 WQ2 RSKE RSKO NEN NES NEGL AWEX ETWC ATTITUDE : SC Al A2 MCH1 MCH2 EIMP BEHAVIORAL : PREC INTENT BEHAVIOR : PCON TOEX REDC Education Age in years Gender Socio-economic status Value Priority - Health Value Priority -Economics Value Priority -Reoreation Value Priority -Freedom of will Value Priority -Traditionalism Value Priority -Socialization Water Quality - Literature scale Water Quality - Situational scale Risk of eating contaminated fish Overall risk of contaminated waters Nature and Extent of N. Shiawassee contamination Nature and Extent of S. Shiawassee contamination Nature and Extent of Great Lakes contamination Awareness of the extent of contamination Exposure to consumption advisory Source Credibility Alienation - Literature scale Alienation - Situational scale Macho attitude - Literature scale Macho attitude - Situational scale Environmental Importance Precautionary attitude Participation on contaminated waters Total exposure via consumption of contam. fish Attempts to reduce contamination Figure 4 - Hypothetical angler decision process, the model. Page 57 area. The questionnaire involves not only specific scales developed by the other authors, but also involves questions specific to the area under study. Questions include types that test the recognition of quotes from the warning published on the back of the fishing license booklet (Figure 1). Also administered were questions that relate to specific contaminated waterways such as the Shiawassee River and the Great Lakes. These attempt to differentiate the opinions of anglers to see if they are more willing to eat Great Lakes fish (which are under much the same warning) than those fish caught in local waters. We will also examine the credibility attributed to the governmental agencies involved in the distribution of the information by the respondents. QUESTION DESIGN - The questions have been designed to measure various attributes of the above mentioned variables. Data were collected through the design of questions based on the following areas of investigation: Page 58 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS The questions on the following page (Figure 5) were developed by Spaulding (1968) in a report issued by the Rhode Island Water Resources Center. Spaulding used this information as a method of classification of respondents into three socioeconomic groups in a "Social Status Index." It was recognized that requesting specific SES information can often result in negative attitudes toward the questionnaire (Young, 1966). For this reason, SES and demographic questions were placed on the last page of the questionnaire to.minimize negative attitude toward the surv e y. Use of this series of questions not only gave a usable Socioeconomic Status value, but also, with the addition of questions to reflect age and gender, gave the values needed for the demographic section of the attitude diagram. Many studies have reported education to be a strong indicator of support for environmental issues and perceptions about environmental quality (Spaulding, 1968). Most of the authors argue that well educated groups have little concern with the problems of economic survival and have more free time to devote to issues that are not fundamental aspects of human existence. Morrison et al. (1972) also point out that "the rise of the mass environmental movement of the past decade was largely based on some emerging consensus that pollution — THIS PAGE REQUESTS INFORMATION THAT WILL AID US IN OUR RESEARCH. AGAIN, ALL INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM TH IS QUESTIONNAIRE IS TOTALLY CONFIDENTIAL. 135. Y ou r Forrnnl S ch ool T r a in in g . P le n se c ir c lo th e h ig h e s t g r a d e co m p leted . n. b. c. d. e. 136. n. 2 bc. d. e. f. 2 3 4 5 G 7 8 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 U n d er $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 - 2 9 ,9 9 9 $ 3 0 ,0 0 0 - 3 9 ,9 9 9 $ 4 0 ,0 0 0 - 4 9 ,9 9 9 $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 - 5 9 ,9 9 9 $ 6 0 ,0 0 0 o r more Incom e: I’lc n se c h e e k th e Incom e rn n go w hich in d ic n te s th e totid incom e Tor nil yn u r fnmily m em bers d u r in g 1983. n. I). c. d. o. f. 138. I 1 1 1 1 H o u se V alu e; How m uch w ould th e h o u se in w h ich y o u arc liv in g s e ll Tor nt t h e p r e se n t time? _ 137. G rnde S ch ool H igh Sch ool C o lleg e G rndunte S tu d y O th e r $0 - 9 .9 9 9 $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 - 14.999 $ 1 5 ,0 0 0 - 19.999 $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 - 2 4 ,9 9 9 $ 2 5 ,0 0 0 - 2 9 ,9 9 9 $ 3 0 ,0 0 0 - 3 4 .0 9 9 g. It. i. j. k. I. $ 4 0 ,0 0 0 $ 4 5 ,0 9 0 $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 $ 5 5 ,0 0 0 $170,000 $ 0 5 ,0 0 0 • 44.9 9 9 - 4 9 .9 9 9 ■ 5 4 ,9 9 9 - 5 9 .9 9 9 • 0 4 .9 9 9 nr more O ccu p n lion o f H ou seh old llen il: I’lcn so w rite in th e ty p o o f work d o n e b y th e bend o f th e h o u seh o ld to en rn n liv in g , l i e a s s p e c if ic ns p o s s ib le . _______________ If th e p erso n rillin g o u t t h is (|u e s tio n n ir e is not th e hend o f th e h o u se h o ld , p lc u sc in d ica te y o u r o ccu p n lio n h e r e : _______ _______ ____ _ 139. YOUR A G E ? __________ 140. MALE OR FEMALE (CIRCLE ONE) Figure 5 - Demographic questions. Page 60 a utilitarian issue -- was an important national problem." One change was made in the final version of questionnaire. In order to reflect the changes in "average" SES values due to inflation since 1972, the ranges described in the original index were doubled in the cases of income and house value. Gender was measured as mal e s1 and female=0 to create a dummy variable situation for statistical analysis. SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS (SES) - Socio-economic status (SES) was calculated with information obtained in the Frame of Reference questions (Figure 5). The index was described by Spaulding (1968) in a report issued by the Rhode Island Water Resources Center. Spaulding used education, income, profession, and house value as a basis for classification of respondents into three socio-economic groups. There were some modifications made to the original index that make it more appropriate to the 1980's. First, all monetary ranges were doubled to allow for the effects of almost 20 years of inflated incomes and property values. Secondly, the education measurement was removed and analyzed separately. Finally, each of the three remaining categories was multiplied by a correction factor so that each would account for 12 points in the final 36 point scale. The resulting total was then divided by 36 points to ease data management. Page 61 Educational level was assigned a score of 1 (1 - 8 years), 2 (9 - 14 years) or 3 (15 or more years). was assigned a score of 1 (Less than $20,000), Income 2 ($20,000 - $40,000), or 3 (Greater than $40,000). Profession or occupation was assigned values of 1 (retired, service personnel, labor, operations, students, unemployed, and farmers), 2 (craftsmen, sales, clerical, teachers, and blue collar), or 3 (professionals, managers, or white collar), and multiplied by 4 to produce a possible score of 12. House value was assigned a score of 1 to 6 with increasing value receiving higher scores. This number was then multiplied by 2 to produce a possible score of 12. Income was assigned a progressively increasing score of 1 to 12 with increasing income. An individual respondents SES was based on the summation of the score in the 3 categories divided by the number of possible points (36). Although this treatment of SES is not identical to Spauldings' work, the weighting of each portion so that it contributes an equal portion to the total is felt to be in line with the original concept of the measure. Page 62 AREA OF RESIDENCE An anglers* area of residence was categorized as either living in within 1 mile of a contaminated body of water, or not residing with 1 mile of contaminated waters. Values of "0" were assigned to contaminated zone anglers and values of "1" were assigned to non-contaminated zone anglers, thus creating a dummy variable for analysis. VALUE PRIORITIES - VPH. VPE. VPR. VPF. VPT. VPS Six key value priorities were selected, based on their potential effect on individual participation on contaminated waters (PCON) and the individual’s total level of exposure to contaminants based on the consumption of contaminated fish (TOEX). Respondents were asked to divide 100 points among the six value priorities described in Figure 6. The value assigned by the angler to each variable was used for statistical analysis. BELIEF SYSTEM TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE (WQ1, W Q 2 ) - Spaulding (1968) developed an instrument for the Rhode Island Water Resources Center in which an 8-item surface water quality scale was Mo s t p e o p l e feel that some reasons for en jo y in g ou t- o f - doors a c t iv it ie s are MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHERS. TO HELP US FIND OUT WHAT YOU FEEL IS MOST IMPORTANT., IMAGINE THAT YOU HAVE 100 POINTS TO DIVIDE AMONG THE 6 CATEGORIES LISTED BELOW. FOR EXAMPLE, IF "FREEDOM OF WILL" IS VERY IMPORTANT TO YOUR ENJOYMENT OF THE OUT-OF-DOORS, YOU MAY WANT TO GIVE MOST OF THE 100 POINTS TO THAT CATEGORY AND DIVIDE THE REMAINING POINTS AMONG THE OTHER 5 CATEGORIES. PLEASE PLACE THE POINTS IN THE BLANK PROVIDED AT THE LEFT OF EACH CATEGORY. 92. _____ HEALTH - O UTDO OR A C T IV IT IE S IMPROVE OR MAINTAIN MY HEALTH AND /O R MY FAMILIES H E A L T H . 93. _____ ECONOMICS - O UTDOOR A C T IV IT IE S O FFER A RELATIVELY INEXPENSIVE FORM OF R E C R E A T IO N . 94. R EC R E A T IO N A L EXPERIENCE - O UTDOOR A C T IV IT IE S PROVID E MUCH S A T IS F A C T IO N AND ENJOYMENT. 95. _____ FREEDOM O F WILL - I GET A S A T IS F Y IN G SENSE O F FREEDOM FROM OUTDOOR A C T IV IT IE S WHICH ALLOW ME TO DO WHAT I WANT T O . WHEN I WANT T O . 96. _____ TRA D ITION ALISM - I HAVE ALWAYS ENJOYED OUTDOOR A C T IV IT IE S . 97. _____ SO CIA L IZ A T IO N - I P A R T IC IP A T E IN OUTDOOR A C T IV IT IE S BECAUSE MY FR IEND S DO. TOTAL 100 PO IN T S Figure 6 - Value priorities questions. Page 64 included. Spaulding. Items 16-23 are the total scale as presented by Items 24, and 27-32 were designed and included to reflect the level of knowledge about water quality in the immediate area of residence, knowledge of pathways of contaminants into fish, and knowledge of health effects. The index value is constructed by judging the responses for a respondent to be "right" if they show agreement with a "true" statement, disagreement with a "false" statement, or uncertainty with respect to a "questionable" statement about surface waters. Other responses were regarded as "wrong." "Right" answers were regarded as reflecting accuracy of conceptualization about surface water quality, while "wrong" answers were regarded as reflecting inaccurate conceptualization. The index was calculated by assigning a score of 1 to each correct response and a score of 0 for each incorrect response (Appendix E ) . The scores for individual items were added and then divided by 8 for the WQ1 scale (Water Quality 1 - literature scale, Figure 7) and divided by 7 for the WQ2 scale (Water Quality 2 - Situation Specific scale, Figure 8). PERCEIVED RISK (RSKE, RSKO) - This scale was developed to determine anglers’ attitudes and beliefs concerning the risk of eating (RSKE, Figure 9) contaminated fish, and their concerns about overall risk (RSKO, Figure 10) of pollution and environmental contamination. The items in Page 65 1 c A 4 5) S T xjrnzowHco R O N G L Y U N C D I FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS, CIRCLE THE ONE NUMBER ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PAGE TO INDICATE WHICH ANSWER IS M OST NEARLY ACCURATE FOR YOU. D I E S S A G R E E A G R E E R T A I N A G R E E A G R E E 2 3 4 5 16. Surface w a ter usually falls on the earth a long distance from the place it is eventually used. 2 3 4 5 17. As it is found in streams, ponds, and reservoirs, surface water is suitable for human use. 2 3 4 5 18. The supply of surface water exhausted. will probably never be 2 3 4 5 19. Human 2 3 4 5 20. The capacity of nature, in any given situation, purify polluted surface water is unlimited. 4 5 21. Most surface water falls on down to low ones. 2 3 beings cannot pollute surface water, to very high places and runs 2 3 4 5 22. Human beings have no influence or control over surface water in streams, ponds, and reservoirs. 2 3 4 5 23. Human beings have influence and control over surface water from the time it falls until the time it is used. Figure 7 - Water quality literature scale questions (WQ1). Page 66 1 2 S T R 0 N G L Y 3 A G R E E A G R E E U N C E R T A I N 1 2 3 4 5 S T R O N G L Y FOR EACH O F THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS, CIRCLE THE ONE NUMBER ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PAGE TO INDICATE WHICH ANSWER IS MOST NEARLY ACCURATE FOR YOU. D I S A G R E E D I S A G R E E 4 5 24. Chemicals that get into the surface water can get into the fish in those waters. * 1 2 3 4 5 27. Eating fish from water that contains chemicals will not affect m y health. 1 2 3 4 5 28. 1 2 3 4 5 29. There are no chemicals in any of the waterways within one mile of my home. 1 2 3 4 5 30. Some chemicals stay in the water for a long time. 1 2 3 4 5 31. A c h e m ically c o n taminated waterway will look dirty. 1 2 3 4 5 32. Most water pollution comes from industry. It is safe to eat fish from all the streams, reservoirs within one mile of my home. Figure 8 - Water quality situation specific scale (WQ2). ponds, and Page 67 SECTION IV. F o r g u e s t i o n s 55 - 64 b e l o w , p l e a s e c i r c l e t h e n u m b e r o n t h e s c a l e t h a t b e s t REPRESENTS YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT THE RISKS OF EATING FISH THAT CONTAIN POSSIBLY DANGEROUS LEVELS OF CHEMICALS. 5 5 . Do p e o p le ta k e th e r is k o f e a tin g co n tam in ated fish v o lu n ta r ily ? I f som e o f th e r is k s a rc v o lu n ta r ily ta k e n an d som e o r e n o t , m ark an a p p ro p ria te sp o t to w a rd s th e c e n te r o f th e s c a le . RISK TAKEN VOLUNTARILY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 RISK TAKEN INVOLUNTARILY 56. T o w hat e x te n t i s th e risk o f d e a th im m ediate - o r is d e a th lik e ly to o c c u r at som e la te r tim e? EFFECT IMMEDIATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EFFECT DELAYED 57. T o what e x te n t a r e th e r is k s k n ow n p r e c is e ly b y t h e p e r s o n s who c a t fish w ith p o s s ib ly d a n g e r o u s le v e ls o f ch em icals? RISK LEVEL KNOWN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 RISK LEVEL NOT PRECISELY KNOWN 58. T o w hat e x te n t n re t h e r is k s o f e a tin g t h e s e co n tam in ated fish kn ow n to sc ie n c e ? RISK LEVEL KNOWN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IIISK LEVEL NOT PRECISELY KNOWN 59. If y o u w ere to eat con ln m in n tcd f i s h , t o w hat e x te n t can y o u , b y p erso n a l sk ill or d ilig e n c e , avoid h ealth p roblem s? PERSONAL RISK CAN NOT BE CONTROLLED 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PERSONAL RISK CAN BE CONTROLLED 60. I s t h e r is k o f e a tin g con tam in ated fish new and n o v e l o r old an d fam iliar? NEW AND NOVEL 61. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 OLD AND FAMILIAR Is th is a r is k thnt k ills p eo p le o n e at a tim e (c h r o n ic r is k ) o r a risk th n t k ills la r g e n u m b ers o f p e o p le all at o n c e (c a ta s tr o p h ic r is k )? CHRONIC RISK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CATASTROPHIC RISK 6 2 . Is t h is n r is k thnt p eo p le h a v e lea rn ed to liv e w ith an d en n th in k ab ou t rea so n a b ly ca lm ly , o r i s it o n e th at p e o p le h a v e a g r e a t d rea d fo r - on th e le v e l o f a g u t rea ctio n ? COMMON RISK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DREADED RISK 6 3 . When e a tin g con tam in ated fish r e s u lt s in a m ishap o r i ll n e s s , how lik e ly is it thnt th e c o n se q u e n c e will b e fatal? CERTAIN NOT TO BE FATAL 6 4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CERTAIN TO BE FATAL What n re th e c h a n c e s th n t d ccn sion n lly e a tin g fish ( 2 - 4 tim es ea ch m onth ) from w a ters k n ow n to co n ta in in d u s tr ia l ch em ical con tam in ation w ill c a u s e a n o tic e a b le h ealth problem ? NO NOTICEABLE HEALTH PROBLEM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DEFINITE NOTICEABLE HEALTH PROBLEM Figure 9 - Risk of eating contaminated fish questions (RSKE). Page 68 Fo r q u e s t i o n s 65 - 74 b e l o w , p l e a s e c i r c l e t h e n u m b e r o n t h e s c a l e t h a t BEST REPRESENTS YOUR FEELIN6S ABOUT THE HEALTH RISKS OF THE POLLUTION OF MICHIGAN WATERWAYS. 65. Do p e o p le fn c e th e r is k o f w n tor p o llu tio n v o lu n ta r ily ? I f som e o f th e r is k s n re v o h in tn rily ta k e n an d som e a re n o t . mark t h e a p p r o p r ia te sp o t to w a r d s t h e c e n t e r o f t h e s c a le . RISK TAKEN VOLUNTARILY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 RISK TAKEN INVOLUNTARILY 66. T o whnt e x te n t i s th e r is k o f d e a th im m ediate - o r is d e a th lik e ly to o c c u r a t som e la te r tim e? EFFECT IMMEDIATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EFFECT DELAYED 6 7 . To whnt e x te n t a r e t h e r is k s k n ow n p r e c is e ly b y t h e p e r s o n s who a r c e x p o se d to w a ter p ollu tion ? RISK LEVEL KNOWN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 RISK LEVEL NOT PRECISELY KNOWN 68. T o whnt’ e x t e n t a re th e r is k s o f w a ter p ollu tion k n ow n to s c ie n c e ? RISK LEVEL KNOWN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 RISK LEVEL NOT PRECISELY KNOWN 6 9 . I f y o u a r c e x p o s e d to th e r is k o f w a ter p o llu tio n , to what e x t e n t ca n y o u . b y p crso n n l sk ill o r d ilig e n c e , a void h ea lth p rob lem s? PERSONAL RISK CAN NOT BE CONTROLLED 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PERSONAL RISK CAN HE CONTROLLED 7 0 . I s t h e risk o f w a ter p o llu tio n new and n ovel o r old and fam iliar? NEW AND NOVEL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 OLD AND FAMILIAR 7 1 . Is t h is a r is k thnt k ills p eo p le o n e at a time (c h r o n ic r is k ) or a risk th n t k ills Inrge n u m b ers o f p e o p le all at o n c e (c a ta s tr o p h ic r is k ) ? CHRONIC RISK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CATASTROPHIC RISK 7 2 . I s t h is a r is k thn t p e o p le h a v e le a r n e d to liv e w ith and ca n thin k about rea so n a b ly c a lm ly , o r is it o n e th a t p e o p le h a v e g r e a t d read for - on t h e le v e l o f n g u t rea ctio n ? COMMON RISK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DREAD RISK 73. When e x p o s u r e to w n tcr p o llu tio n r e s u lts in n m ishap o r i l l n e s s , how lik e ly is it Hint t h e c o n s e q u e n c e will b e fatal? CERTAIN NOT TO BE FATAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CERTAIN TO BE FATAL 7 4 . Whnt n re th e c h a n c e s thn t y o u r e x p o s u r e to w n tcr p o llu tio n in M ichigan will c a u s e n o tic e a b le h ealth p rob lem s for y o u o r y o u r fam ily? NO NOTICEABLE HEALTH PROBLEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DEFINITE NOTICEABLE HEALTH PROBLEMS Figure 10 - Risk of exposure to overall pollution (RSKO). Page 69 this section were developed by Slovic et al.(1980) to establish the risk profiles of 30 different technologies and activities as perceived by several groups of lay persons and professionals. Appendix C shows examples of how these risk profiles were drawn for two energy related items. In this study, the perceived risk profiles were compared between those persons residing within one mile of contaminated waters, and those within one mile of non-contaminated waters. From this, we should be able to detect any differences in the perceived risk based on proximity of residence to contaminated waterways. Slovic et al.. (1980) note that "across all 30 items, rating of dread and of the severity of consequences were found to be closely related to the lay p e r so n ’s perception of risk." Although the instrument is not designed to produce a single score for risk perception (rather a risk profile), S l o v i c ’s statement may justify the use of the sum of rating of dread and severity of consequences to produce a single value. An alternative method, used here, was to reverse the scoring values for the word pairs "Not Controllable - Controllable" and "New - Old" (Appendix C) to produce a scale that would show nuclear energy to have a consistently high value when nine parameters were added. Slovic et. a l . , (1980), also remark that "examination of risk profiles based on mean ratings for the nine characteristics proved helpful in understanding the risk Page 70 judgements of lay people. Nuclear power, for example, had the dubious distinction of scoring at or near the extreme on all of the characteristics associated with high risk. Its risks were seen as involuntary, delayed, unknown, uncontrollable, unfamiliar, potentially catastrophic, dreaded, and severe (certainly fatal)." Slovic also referred to the profile of nuclear energy as "spectacular and unique." Thus, by holding nuclear energy as a high item on the scale, it was possible to form an additive index based on the method in the preceding paragraph. This additive score was then divided by the additive score (58.39) of Slovics* Nuclear Energy Profile (also with reverse scoring) thus creating a single ratio score for risk. This 0.0-1.0 score offered ease of graphing and statistical manipulation without altering the data. The accuracy of this scale may have been improved if each respondent had also completed the original Slovic instrument and the resultant score used as a divisor. However, it was felt that the instrument was already painfully long and an additional 10 items would be burdensome. AWARENESS OF NATURE AND EXTENT OF PROBLEM (AWEX, NEN, NES, NEGL) - York (1970) developed a 24 item semantic differential scale for determination of three factors of water quality. Factor 1 contained 13 word pairs relating to the Aesthetic-Healthy nature of a river near Atlanta, Page 71 Georgia. Through factor analysis, York determined that the five pairs listed on the scale used here exhibited the highest correlations between perceived and actual water quality. The au th o r ’s estimated reliability for the selected items were F R A GR AN T :F O U L = .84, D I R T Y :C L E AN = .72, FRESH:STALE=.76, HEALTHY:UNHEALTHY=.83, MUDDY:CLEAR=.69. This short scale, presented for three bodies of water, is designed to reflect the awareness of water quality problems in the area of residence as well as the larger aspect of Great Lakes water quality. The three scales are designated as NEN (Nature & Extent North branch), NES (Nature & Extent South branch), and NEGL (Nature and Extent Great Lakes, Figure 11). R e spondents’ scores on all three water bodies were used to indicate whether proximity to the contaminated waterways was correlated with levels of awareness, perceived risk, and other variables under study. Each item in Figure 11 is scored 1 - 7 , with pristine water qualities scoring high and pollution qualities scoring lower. An additional scale was developed to determine the respondents’ AWareness of the EXtent (AWEX, Figure 12) of contaminated waterways in Michigan. This scale consisted of a list of all Michigan waters that were included in the consumption advisory as contaminated. Respondents were asked to identify waters that they believed might contain possibly hazardous levels of industrial chemicals. Twentythree contaminated waters were listed along with one non- Page 72 BELOW ARE THREE SUBJECTS WITH FIVE PAIRS OF WORDS LISTED BELOW EACH. PLEASE CIRCLE THE NUMBER THAT BEST DESCRIBES YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT THE SUBJECT. FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU WERE ASKED YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT SALMON SNAGGING, AND YOU THOUGHT THAT SNAGGING WAS NEITHER GOOD NOR BAD, YOU WOULD MARK THE MIDDLE OF THE SCALE (SEE BELOW). EXAMPLE: GOOD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 BAD SUBJECT 1. North branch of the Shiawassee River (Fenton to Byron). 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. FRAGRANT DIRTY FRESH HEALTHY MUDDY 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4' 5 4 ’5 4 5 4 5 4 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 FOUL CLEAN STALE UNHEALTHY CLEAR SUBJECT 2. South Branch of the Shiawassee River (Howell to Corunna) 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. FRAGRANT DIRTY FRESH HEALTHY MUDDY 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 FOUL CLEAN STALE UNHEALTHY CLEAR SUBJECT 3. The Great Lakes (H u ron, Michigan, Superior, Erie). 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. FRAGRANT DIRTY FRESH HEALTHY MUDDY 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 FOUL CLEAN STALE UNHEALTHY CLEAR Figure 11 - Nature and extent of specific waterway contamination (NEN, NES, N E G L ) . Page 73 100. Please place a check mark next to any of the waters listed below that you think may contain potentially dangerous levels of industrial chemicals. Shiawassee River (N. Branch, Fenton to Holly) Shiawassee River (S. Branch, Howell to Corunna) Deer Lake Carp River Carp Creek (Marquette County) Tittabawassee River (Downstream from Dow Dam) Saginaw River Pine River (Downstream from St. Louis) Chippewa River (Downstream from mouth of Pine River) Raisin River (Downstream from Monroe Dam) Portage Creek (Downstream from Milham Park) Cass River (Downstream from Bridgeport) Grand River (Clinton County) Lake Macatawa Hersey River (Near Reed City) St. Joseph River (Downstream from Berrien Springs Dam) Kalamazoo River (Downstream from Kalamazoo) Lake Michigan Lake Superior Lake Huron Lake St. Clair Detroit River St. Clair River Lake Erie Figure 12 - Awareness of extent of contamination in Michigan (AWEX). Page 74 contaminated water, the North Branch of the Shiawassee River. Scoring of this scale was done by summation of the number of check marks (not including the North Branch) and dividing by the total number of contaminated waters (23). This resulted in a ratio score ranging from 0 to 1.0 that was used for correlational analysis in this project. The population’s knowledge, or lack of knowledge, was identified by calculating the percentage of the population that recognized contaminated waters. EXPOSURE TO WARNING AGAINST CONSUMPTION (ETWC) - This scale presented two specific questions about whether the angler had seen the warnings on any Michigan waters or in any book, paper, pamphlet, etc. The scale was scored as NO=0, UNCERTAIN=1, and YES=2. These scores were added and divided by 18, which was the total possible for questions 133 and 134 (Figure 13). ATTITUDE MEASURES SOURCE CREDIBILITY (SC) - York (1971) developed a three part instrument to rate several aspects of credibility. In the full instrument Section I rates "authoritativeness", Section II rates "character", and Section III functions as an overall rating of credibility. This semantic Page 75 Be l o w a r e t h r e e s i g n s t h a t y o u m i g h t s e e o n t h e p o n d . Pl e a s e a n s w e r t h e q u e s t i o n o n t h e l e f t b y c l o s e s t to how you f e e l a b o u t e a c h s i g n . Answer t h e s i g n s . Yo u w i l l h a v e t h r e e c i r c l e s f o r e a c h Do n o t e a t a n y f i s h fixtm t h e s e w aters. s h o r e o f a r i v e r , l a k e , or c i r c l i n g t h e a n s w e r t h a t is e a c h q u e s t i o n f o r e a c h of question. Do n o t e a t c a r p , tr o u t, c a t f i s h , s u c k e r s o r m u sk ellu n p e from th ese w a ters. C h i l d r e n , a n d wom en who a rc pre p n a n t. nursing, o r expect to b ea r c h ild r e n , sh o u ld 11 0 ! eat f i s h f ivtn t h e s e w a t e r s . All o t h e r s s h o u l d n o t ea t m ore than o n e meal p e r w e e k . 130. I f th is s ig n w e r e p lncod on y o u r fn v o r itc f is h in g n ren . w ould y o u s t ill fis h th e re? YES NO UNCERTAIN YES NO UNCERTAIN YES NO UNCERTAIN 1 ■ ■ 131. If y o u d e c id e d to k eep fish in g t h e r e , w ould y o u e a t t h e fish from th is w ater? YES NO UNCERTAIN YES NO UNCERTAIN YES NO UNCERTAIN I ■ ■ 132. Would y o u allow y o u r fam ily to e a t fish from t h is area? YES NO UNCERTAIN YES NO UNCERTAIN YES NO UNCERTAIN 1 ■ | 133. H ave you s e e n th is w a r n in g . o r a sim ilar w a r n in g , b e fo r e o n n n y M ichigan w ater? YES NO UNCERTAIN YES NO UNCERTAIN YES NO UNCERTAIN 1 ■ | 134. Iln ve y o u se e n th is t y p e o f w a rn in g in p rin t b efo re? (n o w sp n p c r , b o o k le t, b o o k , e t c .) YES NO UNCERTAIN YES NO UNCERTAIN YES NO UNCERTAIN I ■ ■ Figure 13 - Exposure to consumption advisory (Questions 133 and 134 only) questions (ETWC) Figure 20 - Precautionary behavioral intent questions (PREC). (Questions 130 thru 132) Page 76 differential scale was found to have high item discriminability (r=.66-.86) and a "high" level of reliability. Scoring is accomplished by summing the individual item ratings to yield a total scale score. For this study, only sections I & II were used. This allows for a shorter scale by eliminating the "character" rating which tends to apply more to individuals than to the institutions we are investigating (Figure 14), thus creating a single number value used in correlation studies. ALIENATION (Al, A 2 ) - As described by Nettler (1964), alienation is characteristic of an individual "who has been estranged from, made unfriendly toward, his society and the culture it carries". The 8-item scale used here is a combination of 2 scales developed by Nettler. In his instrument, four separate alienation scales were developed and validated both individually and as a combined scale of alienation. The author states that "questions representing shorthand expressions of these alienated sentiments (disdain for mass culture, politics, religion, and "familism") yield reliable, valid, and unidimensional scales when scored on a two category basis." N e t tl er ’s Scale 1 (Mass Culture Alienation, items 1-4) and N e t t l e r ’s Scale 2 (Alienation Toward Familism, items 5- 8) were selected and combined to form the additive scale (numbers 8-15) used here. Page 77 FOR THE WORD P A I R S BELOW, C I R C L E THE NUMBER WHICH B E S T R E P R E S E N T S HOW YOU F E EL ABOUT THE I NFORMATI ON YOU GET FROM THE MI CHI GAN DEPARTMENT O F NATURAL R ES O U RC E S . FOR EXAMPLE, I F YOU T H I N K THAT THE DNR I S N E I T H E R Q U A L I F I E D OR U N Q U A L I F I E D , YOU WOULD C I R C L E NUMBER 4 AT THE MI DDLE OF THE S C A L E . 1 . RELIABLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNRELIABLE 2. INFORMED 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNINFORMED 3. U NQ U A L I F I E D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q UALIFIED 4. INTELLIGENT 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 UNI NT EL L BGE NT 5. VALUABLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 WORTHLESS 6. INEXPERT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EXP ERT 7. BELIEVABLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NOT B E L I E V A B L E F igure 14 - Source c re d ib ility q u estio n s (SC ). . Page 78 Items were scored as follows disagree = 0 agree = 1 yes = 1 no = 0 married = 0 single = 1 Higher scores on this scale indicate respectively higher levels of alienation. Reported reproducibility coefficients ranged from .87 to .94 (Figure 15). Again a situational scale (A2, Figure 16), dealing with alienation attitudes, was constructed using specific questions, concerning contaminated waters/fish and based on the concepts described in the literature scale (Al, Figure 15). Both indices were used for correlational analysis. MACHO (MCH1, M C H 2 ) - The Power and "Toughness" scale was developed by Adorno et. al.. (1950) as part of the California F Scale of Authoritarianism. The F Scale consists of subscales that tap nine central "personality trends." The Power and "Toughness" subscale attempts to reflect "preoccupation with dominance-submission, strong-weak, leader-follower dimensions; identification with power figures; overemphasis upon conventional attributes of the ego; and exaggerated assertion of strength and toughness." The original 7-item scale has been shortened to a 5- item version. The two items that were omitted referred to P L E A S E C I R C L E THE WORD AT T HE L E F T OF EACH Q U E S T I O N T HA T , B E S T ANSWERS THE Q U E S T I O N . YES/NO 8. YES/NO 9. Do n a t i o n a l s p e c t a t o r i n t e r e s t you? 10. "Our p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n agree or d isag ree? YES/NO 11. Do y o u YES/NO 12. A re you i n t e r e s t e d a t the rig h t age?) MARRIED/SINGLE 13. For y o u r s e l f , assu m in g you c o u ld c a r r y o u t y o u r d e c is io n to do th in g s o v e r a g a in , do you th in k a s i n g le l i f e o r m a r r ie d l i f e w o u ld be m ore s a t i s f a c t o r y ? DISAGR EE/AG REE 14. " I f p e o p le r e a l l y a d m i tt e d th e t r u t h , th e y w ould a g r e e t h a t c h i l d r e n a r e more o f t e n a n u is a n c e than a p le a s u re t o t h e i r p a r e n t s . " Do y o u a g r e e o r d i s a g r e e ? 15. Do y o u t h i n k m o s t m a r r i e d (fru s tra te d or m iserable) DISAGREE/AGREE YES/NO F igure 15 - Do y o u A lien atio n read en jo y R e a d e r's I N YOUR O P I N I O N , D igest? sp o rts (fo o tb a ll, is in p retty sorry b aseb all, e tc .) sh ap e." Do y o u TV? lite ra tu re in scale having ch ild ren ? p eople liv es? q u estio n s lead (A l). (Or w ould trap p ed you be Page 80 1 2 s T R O N G L Y 3 4 5 S T R O N G L Y U N D C I I E S R A T .G A R FOR EACH O F T HE FOLLOWING S T A T E ME N T S , C I R C L E THE ONE NUMBER ON THE L E F T S I D E O F THE PAGE TO I N D I C A T E WHICH ANSWER I S MOST NEARLY ACCURATE FOR YOU. D A G R E E A G R E I E E N E S A G R E E 1 2 3 4 5 51. I w ould l i k e i t b e t t e r i f I f i s h e d i n my f a v o r i t e s p o t . 1 2 3 4 5 52. I f t h e r e w a s a r i v e r r u n n i n g t h r o u g h my p r o p e r t y , w ould n o t l e t o t h e r p e o p le f i s h t h e r e . 1 2 3 4 5 53. I 54. F ish in g in an a re a w ith l o t s o f p eo p le e n jo y ab le th an fis h in g by m y self. F igure 16 - A lien atio n w ould rath er situ atio n NOT t a k e sp ecific was th e my f a m i l y qu estio n s only fish in g (A 2). is person w ith more who me. I Page 81 "pre-war Germany" and "plots in secret places." Although it is likely that these were important items at the time the scale was developed, with World War II immediately past and the Cold War in progress they are considered no more than a source of "noise" in the scale today. Since the authors report reliabilities ranging from .81 to .97, with an average reliability of .90 for the scale, removal of the two items should not significantly affect the scale. Unfortunately, time constraints did not allow pilot studies of the modified scale. One additional modification has been made to the original scale. The scale, as developed by Adorno, did not offer a neutral response of "neither agree or disagree." This forced either a positive or negative response, which may have biased the instrument by underestimation of respondents who are actually of neutral opinion. the neutral response, By adding the scale is now on the more commonly accepted 5-point format used elsewhere. The MACHO scales are referred to as MCH1 (literature scale, Figure 17 and MCH2 (situation specific scale, Figure 18). Items 35, 36, and 38 were reverse scored. In the situational macho scale, the items were added and divided by 5 to produce the number analyzed in this research. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPORTANCE (EIMP) - Lounsbury (1979) developed a current outlook survey containing 6 scales. Items 39-41,44-45 represent the scale for Outdoor T R O N G L Y A G R E E 1 N G L Y U N C E R A G T R A E . I E N 2 D I S A G R E E 3 4 FOR EACH O F THE FOLLOWING S T A T E ME N T S , C I R C L E THE ONE NUMBER ON THE L E F T S I D E OF THE PAGE TO I N D I C A T E WHICH ANSWER I S MOST NEARLY ACCURATE FOR YOU. D I S A G R E E 5 25. No w e a k n e s s enough w ill or d iffic u lty pow er. 26. What t h e y o u th n e e d s m o st i s s t r i c t d e t e r m i n a t i o n , an d t h e w i l l t o w ork fam ily and co u n try . 33. P eople can be d iv id e d weak an d th e s t r o n g . into can hold us back if we h a v e d i c i p l i n e , rugged and f ig h t fo r tw o d i s t i n c t classes; the 1 2 3 4 5 42. An 1 2 3 4 5 43. What t h i s c o u n t r y n e e d s m o s t, m ore t h a n la w s and p o l i t i c a l p ro g r a m s , i s a few c o u r a g e o u s , t i r e l e s s , d e v o t e d l e a d e r s i n whom t h e p e o p l e c a n p u t t h e i r f a i t h . F igure 17 - Maoho in su lt lite ra tu re to our scale honor (MCH1). should alw ays be punished. Page 83 5 s T R OZO93H01 o N G L Y *i r U N . C D I FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING S T A T E ME N T S , C I R C L E THE ONE NUMBER ON THE L E F T S I D E OF THE PAGE TO I N D I C A T E WHICH ANSWER I S MOST NEARLY ACCURATE FOR YOU. D I E S S A G R E E A G R E E R T A I N A G R E E A G R E E 4 5 1 2 3 34. I w ould w hether 1 2 3 4 5 35. P eople obey they a l l signs or reg u latio n s m a d e s e n s e t o me o r n o t . who w o r r y about chem icals in on fish are in ferio r. 1 2 3 4 5 36. I f I w ere to go f i s h i n g w ith f r i e n d s d e c i d e w h e n a n d w h e r e we w o u l d g o . 1 2 3 4 5 3 7 . I f a c o n s e r v a t i o n o f f i c e r o r o t h e r o f f i c i a l t o l d me t h a t f i s h w ere n o t s a f e to e a t , th e n I w o u ld n 't e a t them . 3 4 5 3 8 . A p e r s o n who k n o w i n g l y f i s h e s i n w a t e r t h a t c o n t a i n s i n d u s t r i a l c h e m i c a ls i s more macho th a n o t h e r s . 1 2 F igure 18 - Macho s i t u a t i o n sp ecific scale q uestion s or a w aterw ay (MCH2). fam ily, I w ould Page 84 Recreation and is taken directly from his survey. Item 47 is taken from the Environmental Action scale and items 46,48,49, and 50 were taken from the Environmental Concern scale. The original Environmental Concern scale consists of 15 items which are scored and used against a reference scale to determine where the respondent would rate in relation to the "standardization" group. Lounsbury originally used a 6 point scale, which has been modified to a 5 point scale to allow for a neutral opinion to be expressed. Items are scored from 1-5 points, with higher values assigned to environmentally favorable responses. Items 39-41,44,46,47,49,50 are scored 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and items 45 and 48 are scored 5 (strongly disagree) to 1 (strongly agree). A simple summation of the item scores divided by the total number of points possible (50) produces an index where higher scores indicate a greater degree of importance of the environment (Figure 19). BEHAVIORAL INTENT PRECAUTIONARY ATTITUDE (PREC) - An additional scale was constructed by the researcher (Figure 20). The PRECAUTIONARY ATTITUDE (PREC) scale was designed to determJLne if anglers would indicate a willingness to participate on contaminated waters or consume fish from Page 85 1 2 3 4 5 s T R A G R E O N G L Y FOR EACH O F T HE FOLLOWING S T A T E ME N T S , C I R C L E THE ONE NUMBER ON THE L E F T S I D E OF THE PAGE TO I N D I C A T E WHICH ANSWER I S MOST NEARLY ACCURATE FOR YOU. A G R E E U N D C I S E R A T G A . R I E N E D I S A G R E E 2 3 4 5 39. I 2 3 4 5 40. I could spend hours n ear lis te n in g to w ild life . 2 3 4 5 41. I 2 3 4 5 44. F ish in g 2 3 4 5 45. I 2 3 4 5 46. I am w o r r i e d a b o u t f u t u r e in a c le a n env iro n m en t. 2 3 4 5 47. We n e e d i n t e n s i v e e d u c a t i o n a l p r o g r a m s t o i n f o r m p u b lic o f e n v iro n m en tal problem s and s o lu tio n s . 2 3 4 5 00 S T R O N G L Y 2 3 4 5 49. I w ould be w i l l i n g p o llu tio n problem s our so ciety . 2 3 4 5 50. I f m ankind i s g o in g to s u r v iv e p o llu tio n m ust be sto p p ed . F igure 19 - I en jo y w ish have find E nvironm ental tak in g I could is w alks. spend more a forest tim e stream w atching and o u t-o f-d o o rs. fun. more it long fun easy doing to im portance liv e things indoors c h ild re n 's w ith than o u t-o f-d o o rs. chances of liv in g the p o llu tio n . to p ay more t a x e s i f i t m ean t t h a t co u ld be s ig n if i c a n tl y reduced in soale at q u estio n s a ll, environm ental (BIM P). Page 86 ? fiRE THREE SIGNS THAT YOU MIGHT SEE ON THE SHORE OF A RIVER, LAKE, OR P l e a s e a n s w e r t h e q u e s t i o n o n t h e l e f t b y c i r c l i n g t h e a n s w e r t h a t is CLOSEST TO HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT EACH SIGN. ANSWER EACH QUESTION FOR EACH OF THE SIGNS. YOU WILL HAVE THREE CIRCLES FOR EACH QUESTION. pond. Do n o t e a t a n y f i s h fi-om t h e s e w aters. Do n o t e a t c a r p . tr o u t, c a t f i s h , s u c k e r s o r m u s k e l t u n p e fro m th ese w a ters. C h i l d r e n , a n d wom en wh o a r c p r e / w a n t , nurslnfj, o r e x p e c t to b e a r c h i l d r e n , s h o u l d n ot ca t f i s h f i v m t h e s e w a t e r s . All o t h e r s s h o u l d n o t eat m ore th an o n e meal p e r w e e k . / 130. I f th is s ig n w ere p ln ccd on y o u r fa v o r ite f is h in g n reh . w ould y o u s t ill fish th e re? YES NO UNCERTAIN YES NO UNCERTAIN YES NO UNCERTAIN 131. If y o u d e c id e d to k e e p fis h in g t h e r e , would y o u ent th e fish from tills w nter? YES NO lINCF.ItTAIN YES NO UNCERTAIN YES NO UNCERTAIN 132. Would you nllow y o u r fnmily to ent fish from t h is nrcn? YES NO UNCERTAIN YES NO UNCERTAIN YES NO UNCERTAIN 133. H ave you s e e n th is w a r n in g . o r n sim ilar w n r n ln g , b e fo r e on nny M ichigan w ater? YES NO UNCERTAIN YES NO UNCERTAIN YES NO UNCERTAIN 134. H ave you sc o n th is ty p o o f w a rn in g In p rin t b efo re? ( n e w s p a p e r , b o o k le t, b o o k . e t c .) YES NO UNCERTAIN YES NO UNCERTAIN YES NO UNCERTAIN F ig u re 13 - E xposure to consum ption a d v is o ry ( Q u e s t i o n s 133 an d 134 o n ly ) F ig u re 20 - P recau tio n ary b eh av io ral ( Q u e s t io n s 130 t h r u 132) in te n t q u estio n s q u estio n s (ETW C). (PR EC). Page 87 contaminated waters if they had observed consumption advisory signs on the waterway. Each angler was asked to answer YES, NO, or UNCERTAIN to questions relating to quotes from the consumption advisory (Questions 130-132, Figure 20). The questions were scored YES = 0, UNCERTAIN:: 1, and NO =2. The scores were summed and divided by the total possible score (18) to produce a ratio score. BEHAVIORS PARTICIPATION ON CONTAMINATED WATERS (PCON) - PCON (participation on contaminated waters) is an index bas^d on anglers reports on their actual participation on contaminated waters in the past 12 months (Figure 21). Each angler was asked to report whether they had fished in any of the 23 contaminated waters listed on the license booklet (question 99) and how many times they had fished each waterway. PCON in itself does not present a hazard to the angler, it simply reflects the a n gl er s’ willingness to participate on select contaminated waters. Nor does it reflect the a n gl er s’ knowledge of whether or not the water is contaminated. These quantities were measured with indices described earlier. The reported angling activity on each contaminated Page 88 99. H a v e y o u f i s h e d i n a n y o f t h e w a t e r s l i s t e d b e l o w i n t h e l a s t 12 m o n t h s ? I f y o u r a n s w e r i s "NO", p l e a s e m ark t h e b o x on t h e l e f t . I f y o u r a n s w e r i s " Y E S " , m a r k t h e " Y E S " b o x AND p l e a s e i n d i c a t e t h e n u m b e r o f t i m e s y o u f i s h e d t h e r e i n t h e l a s t 12 m o n t h s . NO YES NUMBER OF ! iTIMES? • • I I ! ! ! ! ! ! i ! i i ! i 1 i i ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! { ! ! i ! ! i ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ', ! ! S h i a w a s s e e R i v e r (N. B r a n c h , F e n t o n t o H o l l y ) D eer Lake C arp R iv er C arp C reek (M a rq u e tte C ounty) T i t ta b a w a s s e e R iv e r (D ow nstream f r o m Dow D a m) Saginaw R iv e r P in e R iv e r (D ow nstream from S t . L ouis) C hippew a R i v e r (D ow nstream from m outh o f P in e R iv e r ) R a i s i n R i v e r ( D o w n s t r e a m f r o m M o n r o e Dam) P o r t a g e C re e k (D o w n stream from M ilham P a rk ) C a ss R iv e r (D ow nstream from B r id g e p o r t) G rand R iv e r ( C li n to n C ounty) Lake M acatawa H ersey R iv e r (N ear Reed C ity ) S t . J o s e p h R i v e r ( D o w n s t r e a m f r o m B e r r i e n S p r i n g s D a m) K alam azoo R iv e r (D ow nstream from K alam azoo) Lake M ichigan Lake S u p e rio r Lake Huron Lake S t. C l a i r D e tro it R iv er S t. C la ir R iver Lake E rie Figure 21 - Participation on contaminated waters questions (PCON). Page 89 waterway was summed to establish an overall level of participation on contaminated water in terms of fishing events. The accuracy of this measure would likely have been improved if the angler had reported the number of hours spent on each fishing trip to contaminated waters. It was felt that the anglers were unlikely to be able to accurately determine hours on contaminated versus non­ contaminated waters over a 12 month period. TOTAL EXPOSURE (TOEX) - Anglers in the research area were asked to report the number of meals of fish consumed from contaminated waters (Figure 22). In each question, target species designated in the consumption advisory were listed to narrow the response to specific species in specific waterways with known elevated levels of contaminants. The reported meals of fish consumed were added and used as an index reflective of TOtal Exposure to contamination from consumption of contaminated fish. ATTEMPTS TO REDUCE CONTAMINATION (REDC) - One key aspect of exposure to contamination from fish consumption is various methods used to REDuce Contamination through special cleaning and preparation activities (Figure 23). Six preparation methods were listed, each of which is known to reduce levels of contaminants in fish. Anglers were asked to check the different methods that they use. Their Page 90 101. Itnve you oaten ANV fish from the follow ing w aters In th e pnst 12 months? NO OO TO 102. S h iaw assee R iver ( S . B ran ch . Howell to Corunna) YES ABOUT HOW MANY MEA1.S OF FISII HAVE YOU AND YOUR FAMI1.Y EATEN FROM THESE WATERS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS? 102. Have you eaten CARP from any o f th e follow ing w aters in the pnst 12 months? N O ------- GO TO 103. YES T ABOUT IIOW MANY MEALS OF CARP HAVE YOU AND YOUR FAMILY EATEN FROM THESE WATERS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS? 103. D eer l.nke Carp R iver Carp C reek (M arquette C ounty) T ittnb aw assce R iver (Downstream from Uow Dam) Saginaw R iver Pine R iver (Downstream from S t. Louis) Chippewa R iver (Downstream from mntilli o f Pine) R aisin Itlver (Downstrcnm from Monroe Dam) Portngc Creek (Downstream from Milham Park) C ass lliv c r (Downstream from B rid gep ort) Grand R iver (C linton C ou n ty) Lake Mncntnwn S t . Joseph R iver (N cnr B errien S p rin gs) Knlamazoo R iver (Downstream from Kalamazoo) Lake Michigan Lake Erie Saginaw Bay Have you eaten BULLHEADS OH CATFISH from any o f th e following w aters in the past 12 months? NO GO TO 104. YES Ilerscy R iver (N ea r llecd C ity) l.nke Michigan Lake Eric Saginaw Hay ABOUT IIOW MANY MEALS OF CATFISH HAVE YOU AND YOUR FAMILY EATEN FROM THESE WATERS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS? 104. Have you eaten SUCKERS from the Kalamazoo lliv c r (Downstream from Kalamazoo) in the pnst 12 months?" NO GO TO 105. YES ABOUT IIOW MANY MEALS OF SUCKERS HAVE YOU AND YOUR FAMILY EATEN FROM THE KALAMAZOO RIVER IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS? F igure 22 - T otal exposure to contam inated fis h con tam in ation v ia q u e s t i o n s (TOEX). consum ption of Page 91 105. Have you enten any TROUT from any o f th e follow ing w aters In th e pnst 12 months? NO GO TO 108. YES ■“ I ABOUT IIOW MANY MEAI.S OF TROUT HAVE YOU AND YOUR FAMII.Y EATEN FROM THESE WATERS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS? 106. Have you eaten any MUSKEI.I.UNGE (MUSKY) from any o f th e follow ing w aters in the pnst 12 months? NO GO TO 107. YES — ^ ABOUT HOW MANY MEAI.S OF MUSKY HAVE YOU AND YOUR FAMII.Y EATEN FROM THESE WATERS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS? 107. Ilorsoy R iver (N ear Reed C ity) l.nke Michigan l . nke Huron I.ake Superior (l.n k e trout on ly) l.nke Huron l.akc S t. Clair l.nke Erie S t. Clnlr R iver Detroit R iver Have you eaten SALMON from l.nke Michigan o r l.nke Huron (n r snlmon m igration stream s ru n n ing Into l.nke kilchlgnn o r I.ake Huron) in the pnst 12 months? NO GO TO 108. YES - - - ABOUT HOW MANY MEAI.S OF SAI.MON HAVE YOU AND YOUR FAMII.Y EATEN FROM I.AKE MICHIGAN OR I.AKE HURON IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS? 108. Have you eaten WIIITEFISII from l.nke Michigan w aters In th e pnst 12 months? NO GO TO 109. YES - - - ABOUT HOW MANY MEAI.S OF WIIITEFISII HAVE YOU AND YOUII FAMII.Y EATEN FROM I.AKE MICHIGAN IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS? F igure 22 - C ontinued. Page 92 L I S T E D BELOW ARE S EVERAL METHODS USED WHEN G E T T I N G F I S H READY TO COOK. P L E A S E PUT A CHECK I N THE S P A C E NEXT TO THE METHODS YOU USUALLY U S E . MARK AS MANY AS APPLY. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. I DON’ T EAT F I S H . S K I N THE F I S H BEF ORE COOKI NG . SCALE THE F I S H BUT LEAVE THE S K I N ON. REMOVE BELLY F L A P . FILLET FISH . OTHER ( p l e a B e e x p l a i n ) L I S T E D BELOW ARE SEVERAL COOKI NG METHODS FOR F I S H . P L E A S E PUT A CHECK I N THE SP ACE NEXT TO THE METHODS YOU USUALLY USE WHEN COOKING YOUR C AT C H. MARK AS MANY AS A P P L Y . 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. F igure I DON’ T EAT F I S H . B R O I L ON RACK. COOK THE F I S H WHOLE ( H E AD , DEEP FRY. POACHED. EAT RAW. OTHER ( p l e a s e e x p l a i n ) . 23 - A ttem pts to reduoe q u e s t i o n s (REDC). TAIL, AND A L L ) . con tam inan ts v ia special p rep aratio n m ethods Page 93 responses were summed and divided by six to produce a 0 1.0 scale, with 0 indicating no attempts to reduce contaminants, contaminants. and 1.0 indicating maximum efforts to reduce Three additional preparation methods not known to reduce contaminants were included as controls (#111, 117, 120). Page 94 ADMINISTRATION OF QUESTIONNAIRE A survey was designed to question respondents on the processes involved in risk assessment) and to measure the effectiveness of current fish consumption warnings (Appendix B). The survey also assessed the beliefs, attitudes and knowledge scores of any angler in the household. A computer program was used to generate a 400 unit random sample of residences from the population of approximately 2500 households. The questionnaire was then distributed by driving the roads within the population boundaries previously stated and stopping at houses in the order designated in the generated random number table. This survey was hand delivered to 348 households in the population. The use of hand delivery has been found to increase the rate of return of a self-administered questionnaire (Finifter, 1983). A brief introductory screening interview was conducted when the questionnaire was delivered. Any angler over 16 years of age was allowed to complete the questionnaire. An angler was considered to be any person who fishes more than twice in a 12 month period and is over 16 years of age. there were no anglers in the household, the contact person (if over 16 years of age) was asked to fill out the questionnaire and return it. Because of the implications associated with use of minor subjects, If 16 was selected as Page 95 the minimum participation age. Every fifth household was given two questionnaires and asked to have both adults fill out the questionnaire separately and return it. It was hoped that this would insure a larger percentage of women participants. However, most households refused two questionnaires because it was perceived as an excessive burden on their time. The initial contact was also used to inform subjects that if they decided not to participate in the study, they should leave the questionnaire blank and mail it back to the researcher. The questionnaire code number was then removed from the follow-up list and the respondent was classified as "refused to participate." The moment the questionnaires were received by the researcher, those who completed the questionnaires were classified "participant" or "non-participant," the code numbers were taken off the follow-up list, and the cover removed and destroyed. Each questionnaire received a sequential number as received that identified the origin of the questionnaire, thus allowing segregation of responses. The rear cover of each questionnaire was coded with a 1, 2, or 3 to indicate whether it came from the contaminated subpopulation (1), the confluence subpopulation (2), or the non-contaminated subpopulation (3) . The questionnaire was designed in such a way that, upon completion, it could be sealed and sent pre-addressed and Page 96 pre-paid to the researcher’s post office box in Byron. A concentrated follow-up was undertaken to secure a maximum return of the completed questionnaires. Two efforts were made beyond the initial contact to ask participants to complete the questionnaire and return it. Replacement questionnaires were supplied with each contact. The first follow-up was again by hand delivery of a second questionnaire two weeks after the initial contact. This was supplemented by a mailing (by certified mail with return receipt card) two weeks later as a final contact. After this last follow-up, no other efforts were made to increase response levels by further contact. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS One hundred eighty-nine (189) usable questionnaires were returned during the course of the study. Of the 189 respondents, 125 (66.1%) were anglers. Of the 189 respondents, 91 were from the non-contaminated zone, 69 (75.8%) of whom were anglers. The contaminated zone accounted for 98 respondents with 56 (57.1%) anglers. Each questionnaire was then transcribed to a score sheet which reduced the questionnaire to a single card and recoded each response to the appropriate numerical score. The individual score cards were entered in the Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet program on an IBM-XT PC that calculated Page 97 the group means by residence area. These group means were used to replace any missing data for individual respondents. The spreadsheet was used to calculate the 31 indices and values used in this study. These indices were entered on a DEC (Digital Electronics Corporation) mainframe computer for analysis with the SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) program. MISSING DATA - Anderson et a l . (1983) [See Rossi 1983, p g . 415], in a review of missing data literature, describes two broad strategies for handling missing data: and (b) estimation. (a) deletion, Ideally, all questionnaires should have been completed with no missing data. However, 36% of the questionnaires contained at least one blank. Of 1430 missing responses (4.85% of all responses), came from question numbers 75-89 (Table 5). 594 (41.54%) This may have been due to the respondents hesitance to voice an opinion concerning waters they had inadequate information about. In fact, respondents often indicated that they were unaware of or unfamiliar with those bodies of water mentioned in questions that they did not respond to. Since it would have resulted in a loss of 36% of the questionnaires, deletion was not considered a viable method of handling the problem of missing data. Estimation of missing data followed by substitution of that estimate for the missing data was selected as the most Page 98 TABLE 5 - Missing d a t a . POPULATION BLANKS # OF % BLANK #75-89 _________________________ ENTRIES________________BLANKS % OF TOTAL BLANKS Non-Contam. Zone 757 14,105 5.37 347 46 Contaminated 673 Zone 15,345 4.39 247 36.7 4.86 594 41.5 TOTAL 1430 29,450 In general, missing data (responses to individual items on the questionnaire) was not a problem. Only 4.86% of the total number of items were left blank. Many of these were the result of respondents skipping several pages while completing the questionnaire. Also, the majority of the missing data were due to the respondents unwillingness to complete items # 75 - 89. This group of questions accounted for 41.5% of the missing data. Page 99 viable alternative. Next, the method of substitution was selected. Many methods of estimation and substitution required a prior knowledge of the relationships before calculating estimated values. That is to say, the exact relationship of non­ missing data cases are calculated by R-square, ANOVA, or similar regression technique. The result is then used to estimate the value to be substituted for the missing data. Such an a priori predictive criterion was not available with this data set. This calculated data point would, of course, fall exactly on the calculated regression line, creating an increased bias in subsequent analysis for linearity. To avoid this bias, the "method of unweighted means" (Yates, 1933) as modified by Ford (1976) was selected. The logic behind this method is that in a normallydistributed population, the sample mean provides an optimal estimate of the most probable value - that is, the value we could expect to occur on the average before an observation is made. Thus each of the two subpopulations produced a different mean value for each question. It is important to note that only very rarely were all items in a scale left blank. More commonly, a single item in the multi-item scale was inadvertently missed and required substitution of the group mean. Therefore, very little effect should be attributed to the substitution of the group mean. Page 100 For those items with score values of 0, 1, and 2, the median value was substituted. In general, missing values were not a problem in the study. As can be seen in Table 5, the percent of missing values was quite low throughout the study. STATISTICAL SELECTION - Two methods of statistical analysis were selected for examination of the data -Pearson’s r and regression B-square. A significance level of 0.05 was selected for this analysis. Pearson’s r was selected as a correlation statistic to measure the strength of relationships between interval data. Since most of the measurements were established as interval data, Pearsons r is an appropriate statistic. In order to justify the use of Pears o n’s r, several assumptions must be made in advance. These assumptions include: 1) Linearity - although the data will have variability, it should not exhibit an obvious curvilinearity, 2) Symmetrical distributions - data should be distributed symmetrically, but may not be linear, 3) Unimodal distribution - data should not have multiple peaks in the distribution, 4) Comparable distributions - the data distribution of x and y must be comparable, i.e. have the same general shape of distribution, and 5) Continuous measurement - data should reflect a continuous scale of measurement rather than a categorical scale such as gender or, political party. Page 101 Pearson’s r does not imply a causal relationship. Quite simply, it reflects that there is some type of reliable, predictable relationship between the variables. In an attempt to clarify relationships further, partial correlations were run. analysis, In partial correlation the linear effect of the control variables are removed from the analysis. Thus the new correlation values may allow inference as to whether the initial correlation was an actual reflection of the relationship or was an artifact (spurious correlation) contingent on the control variable. This same technique allows determination of masking variables by holding them constant and observing whether or not the correlation increases. An additional statistic, R SQUARE, was calculated to determine the amount of variance in the dependent variable that is explained by the variance in the independent variable. Multiple regression is a general statistical tool that allows analysis of a dependent variable in relation to a set of independent variables. When used as a descriptive tool, it allows us to find the best linear prediction, evaluate its accuracy, control for confounding factors, and attempt to find structural relationships. Although r square can be calculated from Pear so n’s r, it is a correlational relationship based on the magnitude of one variable changing as the magnitude of the second variable changes without a clearly dependent/independent variable being established (Zar 1974, pg. 198-199). Since Page 102 definite dependent and independent variables are being studied, the standardized regression coefficient BETA is used to determine the amount of variance in the dependent variable accounted for by the variance in the independent variable. (Zar 1974, pg. 199) The model was analyzed in a stepwise fashion, first utilizing area of residence (ZONE) as a dependant variable and demographics as independent variables. Next, value priorities and beliefs are used as dependant variables, regressed against area of residence and demographics as separate zero order calculations. At this point, significant zero order regressions between ZONE and value priorities or beliefs are run, forcing demographics into the equation after ZONE has accounted for all of the variance possible. This process of calculating zero order correlations for all variables preceding the dependant variable, then performing a stepwise multivariate regression with significant variables immediately preceding the dependent variables and forcing all other prior variables, throughout the m o d e l . is used Page 103 STATISTICAL VALIDITY Finifter (1983) discussed a set method of controlling variance in a research situation. The method, called the Maxi-Mini-Con principle, presented three ways to deal with variance. These were; 1) Maximization of experimental (systematic) variance, 2) Minimization of error variance, and 3) Control of extraneous variance. MAXIMIZATION OF SYSTEMATIC VARIANCE - The object of maximization is to make sure that the research is set up with as wide a difference between the variables as possible: in this case, two populations that reside near very opposite water quality situations. The systematic variance in this investigation is maximized by using a random sample that makes up approximately 20% of the two sub-populations. There exists a clear experimental variance between the sub-populations on the basis of proximity to contaminated water supplies. MINIMIZING ERROR VARIANCE - Error variance is minimized by the following; 1. Selecting population segments with minimal differences in individuals. Each of the sub­ populations consist of a semi-rural group of residents within commuting distance of large employment centers (Flint, Lansing, Howell, Page 104 O w o s s o ). 2. By selecting a population that includes all residents that live within one mile of the river, the possible effects of distance from a fishable waterway are minimized. Many anglers may tend to fish close to home to minimize expense and time spent traveling. While some anglers obviously invest travel time in an effort to "get away from it all", it seems unlikely that more than a minority can afford to do this every time the decision is made to go fishing. CONTROL OF EXTRANEOUS VARIANCE - Extraneous variance is that variance that originates internally or externally in a research situation that is not designed into the experiment and interferes with the determination of causal relationships. It can be minimized by 1) elimination of the variable (not a good choice), 2) randomization of treatments, groups, populations, or respondent selections, or 3) rank ordering individuals based on a selected criteria and alternately placing sequential individuals into different groups. In this project, extraneous variance was minimized by randomly selecting participants for the study and by including key variables in the investigational design. All variables in the study may be held constant for partial Page 105 correlational studies thus minimizing extraneous variance. Questions were designed to reflect the following variables in each household; 1. sex 2. age 3. annual income 4. education 5. awareness of contamination 6. waterways being fished 7. waterways being avoided 8. species and amounts of fish consumed 9. awareness of chemicals involved and their effects INTERNAL VALIDITY - Internal validity seeks to answer the question, "Does, in fact, the experimental treatment/design make a difference in this specific experimental instance?" Internal validity can be compromised by 13 errors associated with experimental design: history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, regression selection, mortality interaction of selection and maturation, casual time order, diffusion or imitation of treatment compensation, compensatory rivalry, and demoralization. Response bias from non-respondents and the survey instrument itself may play a part in compromising internal validity. This is the first time the instrument has been used and although the face validity is acceptable, total Page 106 internal validity has not been verified. By selection of a proximal population, theoretically comprising a homogeneous representation of the population, and use of a single sampling event, it is hoped that internal validity problems have been minimized. EXTERNAL VALIDITY - External validity refers to the generalizability of the research in question. The research area described for this study is a limited one. As such, relationships found here may not be generalizable to the state level. Anglers in this study appear to represent a wide variety of socioeconomic groups and social attitudes. It is expected that this study will give insight into factors important in human behavior in other areas related to voluntary exposure to contaminating materials. RESULTS Three hundred forty eight (348) questionnaires were distributed to the study population. One hundred eighty-nine (189) individuals responded with usable questionnaires. Of the respondents, ninety-one (91) reside in the non­ contaminated zone of the study. Sixty nine (69=75.8%) of the respondents in the non-contaminated zone were anglers. Forty one (41) of the anglers in this zone had fished an average of 6.68 times (Range = 1 - 4 0 times) on contaminated waters in the preceding year and had consumed an average of 10.1 meals of contaminated fish (Range = 1 -42 meals) in the same time period (Table 6)• Ninety eight residents of the contaminated zone responded with usable questionnaires, with fifty six (56 = 57.1%) of the respondents reporting that they had fished at least twice in the previous 12 months. Forty one (41) of the contaminated zone anglers had fished contaminated waters an average of 9.02 times per year (Range = 1 - 3 0 times) and had consumed an average of 7.92 meals of contaminated fish in the same time period (Range = 1 - 4 2 meals). Although the original target group for this research was the individual who resided near contaminated water, fished that water and consumed his/her catch, only four (4) Page 107 Page 108 Table 6 - Characterization of respondents. Number of respondents (Total) Number residing in contaminated zone Number of anglers in contaminated zone Number of respondents in non-contaminated zone 189 91 69 98 Number of anglers in non-contaminated zone 56 Number of anglers residing in contaminated zone that fished on contaminated waters 41 Number of anglers rsdiding in the non-contaminated zone that fished on contaminated waters 41 Page 109 individuals were found to meet that criteria. However, a significant number of the anglers did participate on contaminated waters found in other areas of Michigan and consumed the contaminated fish they caught. What began as a local study developed into a study of the state-wide fishing, activities of a local population in relation to contaminated waters. Table 7 presents the mean values for the indices studied. FORMAT STATEMENT The balance of this study will be presented as a sequential presentation of the propositions stated earlier in the research paper, with a stepwise investigation of the model. Page 110 Table 7 - Mean values for variables in the study (n=125). Variable Mean DEMOGRAPHICS ED 13 .54 AGE 40 .40 SEX 1 .14 SES .75 Std.dev. 2.60 14.38 .34 .13 CO CO • AREA OF RESIDENCE ZONE .52 Description Educational level Age in years Gender Socioeconomic status Area of residence VALUE PRIORITIES 20 .92 VPH 14.44 12 .56 VPE 9.53 VPR 27 .48 15.34 VPF 19 .98 14.75 VPT 13 .59 11.13 VPS 5 .26 7.30 Health related value priority Economic related value priority Recreation related value priority Freedom of will value priority Traditionalism value priority Socialization value priority BELIEFS WQ1 WQ2 RSKE RSKO NEN NES NEGL AWEX ETWC .68 .72 .69 .68 .49 .69 .47 .28 .66 .17 .18 .10 .10 . 14 .13 . 13 .22 .18 General water quality knowledge Situation specific WQ knowledge Risk of eating contam. fish Risk of overall pollution Knowledge of N. Shiawassee WQ Knowledge of S. Shiawassee WQ Knowledge of Great Lakes WQ Knowledge of Michigan water quality Exposure to consumption advisory ATTITUDES SC A1 A2 MCH1 MCH2 EIMP .72 .34 .56 .66 .46 .78 . 14 . 14 .12 .12 .09 .07 Source credibility of MDNR General alienation Situation specific alienation General Macho Situation specific Macho Environmental importance BEHAVIORAL INTENT PREC .86 .15 BEHAVIORS PCON 5 .15 5 .92 TOEX REDC .42 9.32 8.54 .18 Precautionary behavioral intent Participation on contaminated waters Total consumption of contam. fish Efforts to reduce contam. via special preparation methods Page 111 Perception of contamination problem Value Priorities D E M 0 Attitude System ED Attitude AGE G R SEX A P SES Behavioral In.tent II RSKE RSKO NEN NES NEGL AWEX ETWC I C S MCH1 MCII2 EIMP PREC Behavior IPCON ITOEX REDC INTERVENING VARIABLES ACRONYM INDEX DESCRIPTION DEMOGRAPHICS: ED AGE SEX SES VALUE : VPH PRIORITIES VPE VPR VPF VPT VPS BELIEFS : WQ1 WQ2 RSKE RSKO NEN NES NEGL AWEX ETWC ATTITUDE : SC A1 A2 MCH1 MCII2 EIMP BEHAVIORAL : PREC INTENT BEHAVIOR : PCON TOEX REDC Education Age in years Gender Socio-economic status Value Priority - Health Value Priority -Economics Value Priority -Recreation Value Priority -Freedom of will Value Priority -Traditionalism Value Priority -Socialization Water Quality - Literature soale Water Quality - Situational scale Risk of eating contaminated fish Overall risk of contaminated waters Nature and Extent of N. ShiawaBsee contamination Nature and Extent of S. Shiawassee contamination Nature and Extent of Great Lakes contamination Awareness of the extent of contamination Exposure to consumption advisory Source Credibility Alienation - Literature scale Alienation - Situational soale Macho attitude - Literature scale Macho attitude - Situational scale Environmental Importance Precautionary attitude Participation on contaminated waters Total exposure via consumption of contam. fish Attempts to reduce contamination •Hypothetical Decision Stage Model Page 112 PROPOSITION 1 - ANGLERS ’ AREA OF RESIDENCE WILL BE PREDICTED BY DEMOGRAPHICS. The zero order correlation matrix for anglers' area of residence (Zone) vs demographic variables is presented in Table 8. HYPOTHESIS 1.1 A n g l er s’ area of residence will be predicted by educational levels and socioeconomic status, with persons living farther from contaminated waters likely to have higher education and socioeconomic status. The study population can be divided into two groups based on area of residence in relation to contaminated waters. Anglers living within one mile of contaminated waters were scored as "0" and anglers not within one mile of contaminated waters were scored "1" in a dummy variable format. Zero order correlations indicate that anglers with higher levels of education (ED, r=.195, P=.015) and higher socioeconomic status (SES, r=.200, P=.013) are more likely to reside in areas not considered to be contaminated. The standardized multivariate regression coefficients (Beta) were calculated (Table 9) for all demographic variables with a stepwise regression that allows the variable accounting for the most variance to be entered into the Page 113 Table 8 - Zero order correlations of demographics vs area of residence (n=125). ED ZONE Variable AGE .195 P=.015 Mean DEMOGRAPHICS ED 13.54 AGE 40.40 SEX 1.14 SES .75 -.097 P = .141 Std.dev. 2.60 14.38 .34 .13 AREA OF RESIDENCE ZONE .52 .66 SEX -.028 P = .374 SES .200 P = .013 Description Educational level Age in years Gender Socioeconomic status Area of residence Page 114 Table 9 - Significant multivariate regression correlations between denographios and area of residence. Dependent variable = ZONE Indep. Variable BETA F Sig. F Adj.Rsq. SES .200 5.13 .025 .032 Variable Mean Std.dev. Description DEMOGRAPHICS SES .75 .13 Socioeconomic status AREA OF RESIDENCE ZONE .52 .66 Area of residence Page 115 equation first. Subsequent variables entered must compete for the remaining variance. Socioeconomic status (SES) was found to be positively predictive (Beta = .2002) of area of residence (ZONE) indicating that higher SES anglers have a propensity to live, in proximity to non-contaminated waters. This non­ contaminated area does consist of higher SES individuals and represents a more middle class suburban setting as opposed to the contaminated zone area which is more rural in nature. Education was unable to account for sufficient variance (Beta = .130) to enter the regression equation at the P<.05 significance level subsequent to the entry of socioeconomic s t at us . HI.2 Anglers' area of residence will not be predicted by age or gender. There was no prior evidence that this study population should vary significantly in age or gender in any way that would be dependent upon area of residence. Area of residence was not found to be predicted by angler age or gender. Page 116 PROPOSITION 2 - ANGLER VALUE PRIORITIES WILL BE PREDICTED BY AREA OF RESIDENCE AND DEMOGRAPHICS. The zero order correlation matrix for angler value priorities vs area of residence is presented in Table 10. Zero order correlations for value priorities vs demographics is presented in Table 12. HYPOTHESIS 2.1 Value priorities will not be correlated with area of residence. Zero order correlations indicate that anglers residing nearer non-contaminated waters placed lower value on health related value priority (VPH, r=-.218, P=.007) and higher value on the recreational (VPR, r=.032, P=.032) aspect of outdoor activities. Earlier results (Hl.l) suggest that non­ contaminated zone anglers are of higher education and socioeconomic status. These anglers may be expected to place increased value the recreational aspect of the environment, and less value on the economic aspect of the environment (VPE, r=-.1366, P=.064). However, H2.21 suggests that there is no correlation between VPH and demographic factors. This is indicative that there are other unmeasured variables accounting for the relationship. As can be seen in Table 11, only health related value priority (VPH) was found to be predicted (Beta = -.2175) by Page 117 Table 10 - Zero order correlations of value priorities vs area of residence (n=125). VPH ZONE -.218 P = .007 Variable Mean VPS -.137 P = .064 Std.dev. VPR VPF VPT VPS .166 P=.032 .036 P=.344 .060 P = .254 .056 P = .267 Description AREA OF RESIDENCE ZONE .52 .66 A rea o f r e s id e n c e VALUE PRIORITIES VPH 20.92 14.44 VPE 12.56 9.53 VPR 27.48 15.34 VPF 19.98 14.75 VPT 13.59 11.13 VPS 5.26 7.30 Health related value priority Economic related value priority Recreation related value priority Freedom of will value priority Traditionalism value priority Socialization value priority Page 118 Table 11 - Significant Multivariate regression correlations between area of residence and value priorities. Dependent variable = VPH Indep. Variable BETA ZONE Variable -.218 Mean Std.dev. AREA OF RESIDENCE ZONE .52 .66 VALUE PRIORITIES VPH 20.92 14.44 F Sig. F Adj.Rsq. 6.11 .015 .040 Description Area of residence Health related value priority Page 119 area of residence (ZONE) when analyzed with multivariate regression. The economic value priority (VPE) was unable to enter the regression equation at the P<.05 level. This suggests that anglers residing in the contaminated zone held health related value priority higher than did non-, contaminated zone anglers. HYPOTHESIS 2.2 Value priorities will be predicted by angler demographic factors. H2.21 Health related value priority will be positively predicted by education, gender and socioeconomic status, and negatively correlated with age. Zero order correlations (Table 12) produced no significant relationships between health related value priority and any of the demographic factors. The direction of the zero order correlations for education and SES, while not significant, was in the negative direction. Female anglers and anglers with higher levels of education and socioeconomic status higher value were expected to place a on health. The results did not show this relationship in the study population. Older anglers were expected to be less concerned with health related factors in relation to outdoor activities. No Page 120 Table 12 - Zero order correlations of value priorities vs demographics (n=125). VPE VPR VPF -.024 P=.395 .051 P=.283 .184 Ps .020 .036 P=.345 -.195 P = .015 -.158 P=.039 AGE .023 P = .400 .079 P=.192 -.048 P = .297 -.029 P = .374 .086 P = .171 -.122 P = .087 SEX .092 P = .154 -.168 P = .030 .104 P=.124 -.039 P=.335 -.015 P = .436 -.034 P=.353 SES -.023 P = .398 -.082 P=.182 .128 P = .077 -.049 Pr.295 -.059 P = .257 .076 P = .199 VPH ED Variable Mean DEMOGRAPHICS ED 13.54 AGE 40.40 SEX 1.14 SES .75 Std.dev. 2.60 14.38 .34 .13 VALUE PRIORITIES VPH 20.92 14.44 VPE 12.56 9.53 VPR 27.48 15.34 VPF 19.98 14.75 VPT 13.59 11.13 VPS . 5.26 7.30 VPT VPS Description Educational level Age in years Gender Socioeconomic status Health related value priority Economic related value priority Recreation related value priority Freedom of will value priority Traditionalism value priority Socialization value priority Page 121 significant relationships were shown to exist between age of anglers and the value placed on health in relation to outdoor activities. H2.22 Economic related value priority will be negatively predicted by education, socioeconomic status, age, and gender. Anglers in this population were expected to place less importance on the economic cost involved in outdoor activities with increasing education and SES. Lower educated and lower SES anglers were expected to have a greater need to use the environment as a source of low cost recreation. As angler age increased, it was anticipated that they would be more economically stable and less dependent upon the environment as a source of low cost recreation. Female anglers were expected to place less significant value on the economic value of the environment. Zero order correlations (Table 12) produced only one significant correlation. That correlation was with gender (SEX, r=-.168, P=.030) and indicates that females are less concerned with the economic aspect of outdoor activities. Page 122 H2.23 Recreation related value priority will be positively correlated with education, age, g e n de r, and socioeconomic stat us . The zero order correlations were only significant for education (r=.184, P=.020). A high value was placed on the recreational satisfaction and enjoyment of outdoor activities. Recreational value priority (VPR) was found to be positively predicted (Table 13) by a n g le r s’ educational level (Beta = .1839) indicating that anglers with higher educational levels are more likely to enjoy the satisfaction of outdoor activities. Angler age, gender, and socioeconomic status were not found to be predictive of priorities placed on recreational value priority factors in the zero order matrix and had insufficient B e t a ’s to enter the regression equation after education had accounted for it s’ portion of the variance. H2.24 Freedom of will and traditionalism related value priorities will be positively predicted by age but negatively predicted by education, socioeconomic status, and gender. The zero order correlation matrix (Table 12) exhibits only one significant correlation, traditionalism value priority (VPT) was negatively correlated (Table 13) with Page 123 Table 13 - Significant aultivariate regression correlations between value priorities and demographics. Dependent variable = VPR Indep. Variable BETA F Sig. F Adj.Rsq. ED .184 4.30 .040 .026 F Sig. F Adj.Rsq. 4.84 .030 .030 Dependent variable = VPT Indep. Variable BETA ED Variable -.195 Mean DEMOGRAPHICS ED 13.54 Std.dev. 2.60 VALUE PRIORITIES VPR 27.48 15.34 VPT 13.59 11.13 Description Educational level Recreation related value priority Traditionalism value priority Page 124 education (ED, r=-.194, P=.015). The educational level of anglers in the study population was found to be negatively predictive (Beta = -.1945) of value priorities relating to traditionalism (VPT). This correlation supports the proposition that better educated anglers will be less tradition oriented in their use of the environment. Angler age, gender and SES were not found to be predictive of freedom of will (VPF) or traditionalism (VPT) value priorities, and did not have sufficient B e t a ’s to enter the equation after education. H2.25 Socialization related value priority will be positively predicted by education, age, socioeconomic status, and by gender. Higher educated, higher SES, and older anglers were expected to value the socialization aspect of environmental use. Female anglers were expected to value the socialization phase of environmental use less than males. Zero order correlations (Table 12) found a negative correlation between education and VPS (r=-.1508, P=.039), with higher educated anglers placing less value on the socialization aspect of the outdoors. No demographic B e t a ’s were strong enough to enter the stepwise multivariate regression equation used in this study. Page 125 HYPOTHESIS 2.3 If value priorities are predicted by area of residence, value priorities will not be predicted exclusively by area of residence. The significant relationships between value priorities . and area of residence were subjected to stepwise regression analysis with demographic factors forced into the equation after area of residence (ZONE) had initially accounted for as much variance as possible (Table 14). Since health related value priority (VPH) was the only variable to exhibit a relationship with zone, it was the only variable for which the stepwise regression was performed. Forcing demographic factors into the equation after area of residence (ZONE) produced no further correlation. When considering the model to this point (Figure 24), we find that socioeconomic status (SES) is positively predictive of area of residence (ZONE) which is subsequently negatively predictive of health related value priority (VPH). Education, while not predictive of zone, was found to be negatively predictive of an ang le rs ’ traditionalism (VPT) in relation to the environment, a ngle rs ’ recreational environment. and positively predictive of an (VPR) value priority for the Page 126 200 SES -.218 ZONE VPH -.195 ED VPT .184 VPR Figure 24 - Singificant correlations between demographics, area of residence, and value priorities. Page 127 Table 14 - Multivariate regression correlations forcing denographics on significant "value priority vs area of residence" relationships. Dependent variable = VPH Indep. Variable BETA ZONE Variable -.218 Mean Std.dev. AREA OF RESIDENCE ZONE .52 .66 VALUB PRIORITIES VPH 20.92 14.44 F Sig. F Adj.Rsq. 6.11 .015 .040 Description Area of residence Health related value priority Page 128 Perception of contamination problem Value Priorities Attitude System ED AGE Attitude ZONE SBX Beliefs SES W Q 1 , WQ2 RSKB RSKO NEN NES NEGL AWEX ETWC SC A1 A2 MCH1 MCII2 EIMP Behavioral Intent PREC Behavior PCON TOEX REDC I INTERVENING VARIABLES ACRONYM INDEX DESCRIPTION demographics: value : PRIORITIES BELIEFS : ATTITUDE : ED AGE SEX SES VPH VPE VPR VPF VPT VPS WQ1 WQ2 RSKE RSKO NEN NES NEGL AWEX ETWC SC A1 A2 MCII1 MCII2 EIMP PREC BEHAVIORAL : INTENT BEHAVIOR : PCON TOEX REDC Education Age in years Gender Socio-economic status Value Priority - Health Value Priority -Economics Value Priority -Recreation Value Priority -Freedom of will Value Priority -Traditionalism Value Priority -Socialization Water Q u a l i t y - Literature scale Water Quality - Situational scale Risk of eating contaminated fish Overall risk of contaminated waters Nature and Extent of N. Shiawassee contamination Nature and Extent of S. Shiawassee contamination Nature and Extent of Great Lakes contamination Awareness of the extent of contamination Exposure to consumption advisory Source Credibility Alienation - Literature scale Alienation - Situational scale Macho attitude - Literature soale Macho attitude - Situational scale Environmental Importance Precautionary attitude Participation on contaminated waters Total exposure via consumption of contam. fish Attempts to reduce contamination •Hypothetical Decision Stage Model Page 129 PROPOSITION 3 - BELIEFS WILL BE PREDICTED BY DEMOGRAPHICS BUT NOT BY AREA OF RESIDENCE. Zero order correlation matrix of beliefs vs demographic is presented in Table 17. Beliefs vs area of residence are presented in Table 15. HYPOTHESIS 3.1 Beliefs will not be predicted by area of residence. Zero order correlations indicate that situational water quality knowledge (WQ2, r=-.463, P=.000) and angler knowledge of Great Lakes water quality (NEGL, r=-.1613, P=.036) are negatively predicted (Table 15) by area of residence (ZONE). Since anglers residing in the contaminated zone were scored as "0" in a dummy variable situation, it is apparent that this group of anglers is more knowledgeable about situation specific water quality and has a greater knowledge of the water quality associated with the Great Lakes. Area of angler residence (ZONE) was found to predict strongly (Table .16) the situational water quality knowledge scale (WQ2) in this population (Beta = -.463), when subjected to a stepwise multivariate regression analysis. Knowledge of Great Lakes water quality did not produce a significant Beta when analyzed with multivariate stepwise regression. No other belief factors were found to be predicted by area of residence. Page 130 Table 15 - Zero order correlations of beliefs vs area of residence <- ui u i P I I K UJ CC. ID 5 in ui < o ; u i n oa «D Z •— t «C =5 2 3 t O SECTION III. Fo r e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s / c i r c l e t h e o n e NUMBER ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PAGE TO INDICATE WHICH ANSWER IS MOST NEARLY ACCURATE FOR YOU. CO 5 1 6 . S u r f a c e w a t e r u s u a lly f a lls o n t h e e a r th a lo n g d is t a n c e from th e p la c e it is e v e n t u a lly u s e d . 2 3 2 3 5 1 8 . T h e s u p p l y o f s u r f a c e w a t e r will p r o b a b ly n e v e r b e e x h a u s t e d . 2 3 S 19. H um an b e i n g s c a n n o t p o llu te s u r f a c e w a te r . 2 3 5 2 0 . T h e c a p a c it y o f n a t u r e , in a n y g iv e n s i t u a t i o n , t o p u r ify p o llu te d s u r f a c e w a te r i s u n lim ite d . 2 3 5 2 1 . M ost s u r f a c e w a t e r f a lls on v e r y h ig h p la c e s a n d r u n s d ow n to low o n e s . 2 3 5 2 2 . H um an b e in g s h a v e n o in f lu e n c e or c o n tr o l o v e r s u r f u c e w u te r in s t r e a m s , p o n d s , a n d r e s e r v o ir s . 2 3 S 2 3 . H um an b e i n g s h a v e I n f lu e n c e a n d c o n tr o l o v e r s u r f a c e w a te r from t h e tim e it f a lls u n til t h e tim e it i s u s e d . 2. 3 s 2 4 . C h e m ic a ls th o t g e t in t o t h e s u r f a c e w a te r c a n g e t in to t h e f is h in th o se w a te r s. 2 3, i 5 2 5 . N o w e a k n e s s o r d i f f i c u l t y c a n h o ld u s b a ck i f w e h a v e e n o u g h w ill p o w e r . 2 3 s 2 6 . What t h e y o u th n e e d s m ost is s t r ic t d i c ip l in e . r u g g e d d e te r m in a tio n , a n d t h e w ill to w o r k a n d f ig h t fo r fam ily a n d c o u n t r y . 2 3 s 2 7 . E a t in g f is h from w a t e r th a t c o n t a in s c h e m ic a ls w ill n o t a f fe c t m y h e a lt h . 2 3 5 2 8 . It Is s a f e t o e a t f is h from all t h e s t r e a m s , p o n d s , an d r e s e r v o ir s w ith in o n e m ile o r m y h om e. 2 3 5 2 9 . T h e r e a r e n o c h e m ic a ls in a n y o f t h e w a te r w a y s w ith in o n e m ile o f my h o m e . 2 3 3 0 . Som e c h e m ic a ls s t a y in t h e w a te r f o r a lo n g tim e . 2 3 2 3 2 3 5 5 5 5 2 3 1 7 . A s it i s fo u n d in s t r e a m s , p o n d s , an d r e s e r v o i r s , s u r f a c e w a te r i s s u it a b le fo r h u m an u s e . 3 1 . A c h e m ic a lly c o n ta m in a te d w a te r w a y w ill lo o k d i r t y . 3 2 . M ost w a t e r p o llu tio n co m e s from in d u s t r y . 33. P e o p le c o n b e d iv id e d in t o tw o d is t in c t c l a s s e s : t h e w eak an d th e stro n g . • 34. I w ou ld o b e y all s i g n s o r r e g u lo t io n s on a w a te r w a y w h e t h e r t h e y m ade s e n s e t o m e o r n o t . Page 264 u i U I K (9 < V> U I U I ce o z — U I < UI (9 Z o ct tc I19 to btr uj u a o < v> ID K Z o 2 3 S 3 5 . P e o p le w h o w o r r y a b o u t c h e m ic a ls In f i s h a r e in f e r io r . 2 3 s 3 6. I f I w e r e t o g o f is h in g w ith f r ie n d s o r f a m ily , 1 w ou ld d e c id e w h e n a n d w h e r e w e w o u ld g o . 2 3 s 3 7 . I f a c o n s e r v a t i o n o f f i c e r o r o t h e r o f f ic ia l to ld m e t h a t f is h w e r e n o t s a f e t o e a t , t h e n I w o u ld n 't e a t t h e m . 2 3 5 3 8 . A p e r s o n w h o k n o w in g ly f i s h e s in w a t e r t h a t c o n t a in s in d u s t r ia l c h e m ic a ls i s m ore m a ch o t h a n o t h e r s . 2 3 s 3 9 . I e n jo y t a k i n g lo n g w a lk s . 2 3 5 4 0 . I c o u ld s p e n d h o u r s n e a r a f o r e s t str e a m w a t c h in g a n d li s t e n in g t o w ild lif e . 2 3 5 4 1 . I w ish I c o u ld s p e n d m ore tim e o u t - o f - d o o r s . 2 3 5 4 2 . A n in s u l t t o o u r h o n o r s h o u ld a lw a y s b e p u n is h e d . 2 3 S 4 3 . What t h i s c o u n t r y n e e d s m o s t , m ore th a n la w s a n d p o litic a l p r o g r a m s , i s a few c o u r a g e o u s , t i r e l e s s , d e v o t e d le a d e r s in whom t h e p e o p le c a n p u t t h e ir f a it h . 2 3 ' 5 2 3 S 4 5 . 1 h a v e m ore f u n d o in g t h i n g s in d o o r s t h a n o u t - o f - d o o r s . 2 3 5 4 6 . I am w o r r ie d a b o u t f u t u r e c h i ld r e n ' s c h a n c e s o f l iv in g in a c le n n e n v ir o n m e n t . 2 3 5 4 7 . We n e e d i n t e n s i v e e d u c a tio n a l p r o g r a m s to in fo r m t h e p u b lic o f e n v ir o n m e n ta l p r o b le m s an d s o lu t i o n s . 2 3 5 4 8 . I fin d it e a s y t o liv e w ith p o llu t io n . 2 3 5 49. I w o u ld b e w illin g to p a y m ore t a x e s i f it m ean t th a t p o llu tio n p r o b le m s c o u ld b e s ig n if ic a n t ly r e d u c e d in o u r s o c i e t y . 2 3 5 SO. I f m a n k in d i s g o in g t o s u r v i v e at a l l . e n v ir o n m e n ta l p o llu tio n m ust b e sto p p e d . 2 3 5 51 2 3 S 5 2 . If t h e r e w a s e r iv e r r u n n in g t h r o u g h my p r o p e r t y . I w ou ld n ot le t o t h e r p e o p le fis h t h e r e . 2 3 5 S3. I w o u ld r a t h e r NO T ta k e m y fam ily f i s h i n g w ith m e. 2 3 5 54. F is h in g In a n a r e a w ith lo t s o f p e o p le i s m ore e n jo y a b le thn n f i s h i n g b y m y s e lf . 4 4 . F is h in g i s f u n . I w o u ld l ik e It b e t t e r i f I w a s t h e o n ly p e r s o n w h o fis h e d in m y f a v o r it e s p o t . Page 265 SECTION IV. For puestions 55 - 64 b e l o w , please circle the number on the scale that best REPRESENTS YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT THE RISKS OF EATING FISH THAT CONTAIN POSSIBLY DANGEROUS LEVELS OF CHEMICALS. 5 5 . D o p e o p le t a k e ' t h e rin k o f e a t in g c o n ta m in a te d f is h v o lu n ta r ily ? I f som e o f t h e r i s k s a r e v o lu n t a r ily t a k e n a n d so m e a r e n o t , m ark an a p p r o p r ia te s p o t t o w a r d s t h e c e n t e r o f t iic s c a le . R ISK TAK EN VO LUN TARILY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 RISK TA K E N IN VOLUNTARILY 5 6 . T o w h a t e x t e n t i s t h e r is k o f d e a t h im m ed ia te - o r i s d e a t h lik e ly t o o c c u r at som e la t e r tim e? EF FE C T IMMEDIATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EFFE C T DELAYED 5 7 . T o w h a t e x t e n t a r e t h e r i s k s k n o w n p r e c i s e ly b y t h e p e r s o n s w h o e a t f is h w ith p o s s ib ly d a n g e r o u s l e v e l s .of c h e m ic a ls? RISK LEVEL KNOWN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 RISK LEVEL NOT PRECISELY KNOWN 5 8 . T o w h a t e x t e n t a r e t h e r i s k s o f e a t in g t h e s e co n ta m in a te d f is h k n o w n t o s c ie n c e ? RISK LEVEL KNOWN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 RISK LEVEL NOT PRECISELY KNOWN 5 9 . If y o u w e r e t o ea t c o n ta m in a te d f i s h , t o w h a t e x t e n t c a n y o u . b y p e r s o n a l s k ill or d i l i g e n c e , a v o id h e a lth p r o b le m s? PER SO N A L RISK CAN NOT BE CO NTROLLED 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PER SO N A L RISK CAN BE CONTROLLED 6 0 . I s t h e r is k o f e a t in g c o n ta m in a te d f i s h new a n d n o v e l o r o ld a n d fam ilior? NEW A ND NOVEL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 OLD AND FAMILIAR 6 1 . Is t h i s a r is k th a t k ills p e o p le o n e at a tim e ( c h r o n ic r i s k ) o r a r is k th n t k ills l a r g e n u m b e r s o f p e o p le oil ot o n c e ( c a t a s t r o p h i c r is k ) ? CH RO NIC R ISK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 C A T A S T R O P H IC RISK 6 2 . Is t h i s a r is k th a t p e o p le h a v e le a r n e d to liv e w ith an d c a n t h in k a b o u t r e a s o n a b ly c a lm ly , o r i s it o n e th a t p e o p le h a v e a g r e a t d r e a d f o r - o n t h e l e v e l o f a g u t r e a c tio n ? COMMON RISK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DRE A D ED RISK 6 3 . W hen e a t in g c o n ta m in a te d f i s h r e s u l t s in a m ish a p o r i l l n e s s , h ow lik e ly is it th a t t h e c o n s e q u e n c e w ill b e fa ta l? C E R TA IN NOT T O BE F A T A L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 C E R T A IN TO BE FA TAL 6 4 . Whnt a r e t h e c h a n c e s th a t o c c a s io n a lly e a t in g f is h ( 2 - 4 tim es e a c h m o n th ) from w a te r s k n o w n t o c o n ta in in d u s t r ia l c h e m ic a l c o n ta m in a tio n w ill c a u s e a n o tic e a b le h e a lth p ro b lem ? NO N O TICEA BLE HEALTH PROBLEM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 D E F IN IT E NOTICEABLE HEALTH PROBLEM Page 266 For questions 6 5 - 7k below, please circle the HUMBER on the scale that BEST REPRESENTS YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT THE HEALTH RISKS OF THE POLLUTION OF MICHIGAN WATERWAYS. 6 5 . D o p e o p le f a c e t h e r is k o f w a te r p o llu tio n v o lu n ta r ily ? I f so m e o f t h e r i s k s a r e v o lu n ta r ily t a k e n a n d so m e a r c n o t , m ark t h e a p p r o p r ia te s p o t to w a r d s t h e c e n t e r o f t h e s c a le . R ISK TAKEN V O LUN TARILY 1 2 6 6 . T o w h a t e x t e n t i s t h e r is k o f la t e r tim e? EFFE C T IMMEDIATE 3 4 56 7RISK TAK EN IN VO LUNTARILY d e a t h im m ed ia te - o r i s d e a t h 1 2 3 4 5 6 lik e l y t o o c c u r a t som e 7 E FFE C T DELAYED 6 7 . T o w h at e x t e n t a r e t h e r iB k s k n o w n p r e c i s e l y b y t h e p e r s o n s w h o a r e e x p o s e d to w a te r p o llu tio n ? RISK LEVEL KNOIVN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 RISK LEVEL NOT PRECISELY KNOWN 6 6 . T o w h at e x t e n t a r e t h e r i s k s o f w a t e r p o llu tio n k n o w n to s c i e n c e ? RISK LEVEL KNOWN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 RISK LEVEL NOT PRECISELY KNOWN 6 9 . I f y o u a r e e x p o s e d to t h e r is k o f w a t e r p o llu t io n , to w h n t e x t e n t c a n y o u . b y p e r s o n a l s k i l l o r d i li g e n c e , a v o id h e a lt h p r o b le m s? P E R SO N A L RISK CAN NO T B E CO NTROLLED 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 P E R SO N A L RISK CAN BK CO NTR OLLED 7 0 . I s t h e r is k o f w a te r p o llu tio n n ew an d n o v e l o r o ld an d fam iliar? NEW A ND NOVEL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 1 . I s t h is a r is k th a t k ills p e o p le o n e at a tim e ( c h r o n ic r i s k ) n u m b e r s o f p e o p le e ll at o n c e ( c a t a s t r o p h ic r is k ) ? CH RO NIC RISK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 O LD A N D FAMILIAR o r a r is k th a t k ills ln rp e C A T A S T R O P H IC RISK 7 2 . I s t h i s a r is k th a t p e o p le h a v e le a r n e d t o liv e w ith a n d c a n th in k a b o u t r e a s o n a b ly c a lm ly , o r i s i t o n e t h a t p e o p le h a v e g r e o t d r e a d f o r - o n t h e l e v e l o f a g u t r e a c tio n ? COMMON RISK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 D R E A D R ISK 7 3 . W hen e x p o s u r e t o w a te r p o llu tio n r e s u l t s in a m ish a p o r i l l n e s s , h ow lik e ly i s it th at t h e c o n s e q u e n c e w ill b e fa ta l? C E R T A IN NOT TO BE F A T A L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 C E R T A IN TO BE FA TAL 7 4 . What a r e t h e c h a n c e s th a t y o u r e x p o s u r e to w a te r p o llu tio n in M ich ig a n w ill c a u s e n o tic e a b le h e a lth p r o b le m s f o r y o u o r y o u r fa m ily ? NO NO TICEABLE HEALTH PROBLEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 D E F IN IT E NOTICEABLE HEALTH PROBLEMS Page 267 SECTION V. B e l o w a r e t h r e e SUBJECTS WITH F IV E P A IR S OF WORDS L IST E D BELOW EACH. PLEASE CIRCLE THE NUMBER THAT BEST DESCRIBES YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT THE SU BJE C T. FOR EXAMPLE/ IF YOU WERE ASKED YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT SALMON SNAGGING, AND YOU THOUGHT THAT SNAGGING WAS NEITHER GOOD NOR B A D , YOU WOULD MARK THE MIDDLE OF THE SCALE (S E E BELOW ). EXAMPLE: GOOD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 BAD S U B JE C T 1 . N o r th b r a n c h o f t h e S h ia w a s s e e R iv e r ( F e n t o n t o B y r o n ) . 7 5. 76. 77. 78. 79. FRAGRANT D IR TY FRESH HEALTHY MUDDY 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 FOUL CLEAN STA L E UNHEALTHY CLEAR SU B JE C T 2 . S o u th b r a n c h o f t h e S h ia w a s s e e R iv e r (H o w ell to C o r u n n a ) . 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. FRA G R A N T D IR TY F P E SH H EALTHY MUDDY 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 FOUL CLEAN STALE UNHEALTHY CLEAR S U B JE C T 3 . T h e G rea t L a k e s ( H u r o n , M ic h ig a n . S u p e r i o r , E r ie ) . 85. 8G. 87. 88. 89. FR A G R A N T D IR T Y FRESH HEALTHY MUDDY 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 G 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 FOUL CLEAN ST A L E UNHEALTHY CLEAR SECTION VI. B elo w ONE a r e two p a i r s o f st a t em en t t h a t you s t a t e m e n t s . For e a ch p a i r y o u a r e a s k e d m o st a g r ee w it h . C ir c l e th e l e t t e r or a to B c ir c l e the in fr o n t o f THE STATEMENT YOU CHOOSE. 9 0. I f I h ad to c h o o s e . I w o u ld r a t h e r : A . A C C E PT A 101 PAY IN C R EA SE FROM MY COMPANY BECAUSE THE COMPANY HAD RED UCED IT S SPE N D IN G FOR POLLUTION CO NTROL AND FOR ENV IRO NM ENTAL P R O T E C T IO N . B . KEEP MY P R E SE N T WAGES AND HAVE THE COMPANY SPEND 10* MORF. FOR PO LLUTIO N C O NTR O L A ND ENVIRONM ENTAL P R O T E C T IO N . 9 1 . I f 1 h od t o c h o o s e . I w o u ld r a t h e r : A . A C C E PT A 10 1 PAY IN C R EA SE FROM MY COMPANY BE C A U SE TH E COMPANY HAD D R O PPE D SOME O F MY HEALTH AND MEDICAL B E N E F IT S . B . KEEP MY P R E SE N T WAGES AND HAVE THE COMPANY IMPROVE MY HEALTH A ND MEDICAL B E N E F IT S . ' Page 268 Mo s t p e o p l e f e e l t h a t some r e a s o n s f o r e n j o y i n g o u t - o f - do or s a c t i v i t i e s are MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHERS. To HELP US FIND OUT WHAT YOU FEEL IS MOST IMPORTANT,/ IMAGINE THAT YOU HAVE 100 POINTS TO DIVIDE AMONG THE 6 CATEGORIES LISTED BELOW. FOR EXAMPLE, IF "FREEDOM OF WILL" IS VERY IMPORTANT TO YOUR ENJOYMENT OF THE OUT-OF-DOORS, YOU MAY WANT TO GIVE MOST OF THE 100 POINTS TO THAT CATEGORY AND DIVIDE THE REMAINING POINTS AMONG THE OTHER 5 CATEGORIES. PLEASE PLACE THE POINTS IN THE B U N K PROVIDED AT THE LEFT OF EACH CATEGORY. 9 2 . ______ HEALTH - O U TDO O R A C T IV IT IE S IMPROVE OR M AINTAIN MY HEALTH A N D /O R MY FAM ILIES H EALTH . 93. ECONOM ICS - O fT D O O n A C T IV IT IE S OFFER A RELATIVELY IN EX PEN SIV E FORM O F R E C R E A T IO N . • 9 4 . ______ R EC REATIO NAL EXPERIENC E - O UTDO O R A C T IV IT IE S PROVIDE MUCH S A T IS F A C T IO N AND ENJO YM ENT. 9 5 . ______ FREEDOM O F WILL - 1 GET A S A T IS F Y IN G S E N SE O F FREEDOM FROM OUTDOOR A C T IV IT IE S WHICH ALLOW ME T O DO WHAT I K ANT T O . WHEN 1 WANT T O . 9 6 . ______ TR A D IT IO N A L ISM - I HAVE ALWAYS ENJO YED O UTDOO R A C T IV IT IE S . 9 7 . ______ SO C IA L IZ A TIO N - I P A R T IC IP A T E IN O UTDO O R A C T IV IT IE S B E C A U S E MY F R IE N D S D O . TO T A L 100 P O IN T S 9 8 . D ID YOU CO FISH IN G TWO TIMES OR MORE IN TH E L A ST 12 MONTHS? ________ Y E S ................PLEA SE CO NTINUE IVITII Q U E ST IO N 99. ________ N O -------------- P L E A S E S K I P TO Q U E S T I O N 130 A N D COMPLETE THE Q U E S T I O N N A I R E . Have you fished in any o f th e w ate rs listed below in th e last 12 months? If y o u r answ er is "NO", please mark th e box on th e left. If y o u r an sw er is "YES", mark th e "YES" box AND please indicate th e n u m b e r of times you fished th e r e in th e last 12 months. NO YES NUMBER OF TIMES? Shiawassee River (N. B r a n c h , Fenton to B yron) Shiawassee River (S . B ra n c h . Howell to C orunna) D eer Lake C arp River C arp C reek (M arquette C ounty) T ittabaw assee River (Downstream from Dow Dam) Saginaw River Pine River (Downstream from S t. Louis) Chippewa R iver (Downstream from mouth o f Pine River) Raisin River (Downstream from Monroe Dam) Portag e Creek (Downstream from Milhnm P ark) Cass R iver (Downstream from B rid g e p o rt) G ran d River (Clinton County) Lake Macotawa H ersey River (N ear Reed City) S t. Joseph River (Downstream from B e rrie n S pring s Dam) Kalamazoo River (Downstream from Kalamazoo) Lake Michigan I.ake Su perior Lake Huron Lake S t . Clair Detroit River S t . Clnir River Lake Erie Page 270 100. Please place a check m ark n ext to any o f t h e w aters listed below th a t you th in k may contain potentially d a n g e ro u s levels of in d u s tria l chemicals. _______ Shiawassee R iver (N . B r a n c h . Fenton to B yron) • _______ Shiawassee R iv er ( S . B r a n c h , Howell to Corunna) _______ D eer Lake _______ C a rp River _______ C a rp C reek (M arquette C ou nty) _______ T ittebaw assee River (Downstream from Dow Dam) _______ Saginaw River _______ Pine River (Downstream from S t . Louis) _______ Chippewa R iv e r (Downstream from mouth of Pine River) _______ Raisin R iv er (Downstream from Monroe Dam) _______Portage C reek (Downstreum from Milham Pork) _______ Cass River (Downstream from B rid g e p o rt) _______Orond River (Clinton County) _______ Lake Mncntawn _______ Hersey River (N ear Reed City) _______ St. Joseph River (Downstream from B errien S p rin g s Dam) _______ Kalamuzoo R iver (Downstream from Knlnmazoo) _______Lake Michigan Lake S u p e rio r _______ Loke Huron _______Lake St. Clnir _______Detroit River _______S t. Clnir River Lake Erie Page 271 101. H o v e y o u e a t e n ANY f ls h from t h e fo llo w in g w a t e r s in t h e p a s t 12 m o n th s? NO CO TO 1 0 2 . S h ia w a s s e e R iv e r ( S . B r a n c h . H ow ell to C o r u n n n ) Y ES A B O U T HOW MANY MEAI.S O F FISH HAVE YOU AND YOUR FAMILY EATEN FROM TH ESE WATERS IN TH E P A S T 12 MONTHS? 1 02. H a v e y o u e a t e n CA R P from a n y o f t h e fo llo w in g w a t e r s in t h e p a s t 12 m o n th s? NO GO TO 103. YES — A B O U T HOW MANY MEALS OF C A R P HAVE YOU AND YOUR FAMILY EATEN FROM TH E SE WATERS IN TH E P A S T 12 MONTHS? 103. D e e r L ak e — C nrp R iv e r C arp C r e e k (M n r q u e tte C o u n ty ) T it t o b a iv n s s e e R iv e r (D o w n str e a m from Dow Dorn) S a g in a w R iv e r P in e R iv e r (D o w n str e a m from S t . L o u is ) C h ip p e w a R iv e r (D o w n str e a m from m ou th o f P in e ) R a isin R iv e r (D o w n str e a m from M on roe Dam ) P o r ta g e C r e e k (D o w n str e a m from Milham T u rk ) C a s s R iv e r (D o w n str e a m from B r id g e p o r t ) G ra n d R iv e r ( C lin t o n C o u n ty ) L ak e M acatnwa S t . J o s e p h R iv e r ( N e a r B e r r ie n S p r in g s ) K alam azoo R iv e r (D o w n str e a m from K ulum nzoo) L ok c M ich ig a n L ake E rie S a g in a w B u y H ave y o u e a t e n BU L LH E A D S OR C A T FISH from a n y o f t h e fo llo w in g w a te r s in t h e p u st 12 m o n th s? NO GO TO YES — v 104. H e r s e y R iv e r (N c u r R eed C it y ) L ak e M ich ig a n L ake E r ic S a g in a w B o v T A BO U T HOW MANY MEAI.S OF C A T F ISH HAVE YOU AND YOUR FAMILY EATEN FROM TH ESE WATERS IN TH E P A S T 12 M O NTHS?__________ 10 4 . H nve y o u e a t e n SU C K ER S t h e p a s t 12 m o n th s? NO from t h e K alam azoo R iv e r (D o w n str e a m from K alam azoo) in GO TO 105. YES — «y A BO UT HOW MANY MEAI.S OF SU C K ER S HAVE YOU AND YOUR FAMILY EATEN FROM THE KALAMAZOO RIVER IN THE P A ST 12 MONTHS? Page 272 105. H o v e y o u e a t e n a n y T H O U T from a n y o f t h e fo llo w in g w a t e r s i n t h e p a s t 12 m o n th s? NO GO TO 106. H e r s e y R iv e r ( N e a r R e e d C it y ) L ak e M ich ig a n L a k e H u ron L a k e S u p e r io r ( L a k e t r o u t o n ly ) YES— ^ A B O U T HOW MANY MEALS OT T R O U T HAVE YOU A ND YOUR FAMILY EATEN FROM TH E SE WATERS IN T H E .P A S T 12 M ONTHS? 106. H a v e y o u e a te n a n y M USKEI.I.UNGE (M U S K Y ) from a n y o f t h e fo llo w in g w a te r s in t h e p a s t 12 m o n th s? NO GO TO 1 0 7 . L ak e H u ron L ak e S t . C la ir L ak e E rie S t . C la ir R iv e r D e tr o it R iv e r YES A B O U T HOW MANY MEALS OF MUSKY HAVE YOU A N D YOUR FAMILY EATEN FROM TH E SE WATERS IN TH E TA ST 12 M O NTHS? 107. H a v e y o u e a te n SALMON from L a k e M ich ig a n o r L ak e H u ro n ( o r sa lm o n m ig ra tio n s tr e a m s r u n n in g in to L ak e M ich ig a n o r L ak e H u r o n ) in t h e p a s t 12 m o n th s? NO C.O TO 108. Y E S - - - ABO UT HOW MANY MEAI.S O F SALMON HAVE YOU A ND YOUlt FAMILY EATEN FROM LAKE MICHIGAN OR I.AKE-IIURON IN THE P A ST 12 MONTHS? 10 8 . H a v e y o u e a te n WH1TEFISH from L ak e M ich ig a n w a t e r s in t h e p a s t 12 m o n th s? NO GO TO 109. Y E S - - - ABO UT HOW MANY MEALS O F W IIITEFISH HAVE YOU A N D YOUR FAMILY EATEN FROM LAKE MICHIGAN IN THE PA ST 12 M O NTHS? L i s t e d b e l o w a r e s e v e r a l m e t h o d s u s e d w hen g e t t i n g f i s h r e a d y t o c o o k . P l e a s e PUT A CHECK IN THE SPACE NEXT TO THE METHODS YOU USUALLY U S E . JlARK AS MAIIY AS APPL Y . 109. I DON’T EAT FISH 110. SKIN THE FISII B E FO R E C O O K IN G . 11 1 . SCALE THE FISH B U T LEAVE TH E SK IN ON 112. REMOVE BELLY FLAP 113. FILLET FISH 1 14. OTHER ( p l e a s e e x p l a i n ) ___________ ______ Page 273 L i s t e d below a r e s e v e r a l c o o k i n g m e th o d s f o r f i s h . P l e a s e p u t a c h e c k i n t h e SPACE NEXT TO THE METHODS YOU USUALLY USE WHEN COOKING YOUR CATCH. MARK AS MANY AS APPLY,. 1 1 5. I D O N’T EAT FISH 116. B R O IL ON RACK 1 17. COOK THE F ISH WHOLE (H E A D . T A I L . A N D ALL ) 118. DEEP FRY 119. POACHED 120. EAT RAW 121. O THER ( p l e a s e e x p l a i n ) ______________________________ 1 22. O n t h e o v e r a g e , w h e n I f is h I k e e p : (CH ECK O N E ) 01 OF TH E FISH 11 T O 20V. OF THE FISH 20% TO 407. OF THE FISH 407. TO 60% OF THE FISH 60% TO 807. OF TH E FISH 80% TO 100% OF THE FISH 1 23. O f t h e f is h I k e e p . I p e r s o n a lly e a t : (CH ECK ONF.) 0% O F THE FISH 1% TO 207. OF THE FISH 207. TO 40% OF TH E FISH ~ 407. TO 60% OF THE r iS H 607. TO 80'.. OF THE FISH 807. TO 100% OF THE FISH 124. When I k e e p f i s h , m y s p o u s e u s u a lly e n t s : (C H E C K O N E) ; 125. THE SAME NUMBER OF MEALS O r FISH T H A T I D O . MORE MEALS OF FISH THAN I D O . FEWER MEALS OF FISH THAN I D O . W hen I k e e p f i s h , m y c h ild r e n u s u n lly e a t : (CH ECK O N E ) THE SAME NUM BER O F MEALS OF FISH T H A T I D O . MORE MEALS OF FISH THAN I D O . FEWER MEALS OF FISH THAN I D O . 126. In t h e la st 5 y e a r s , h ow m a n y tim e s h a v e y o u : A . PU R C H A SE D A FISH IN G LICENSE? D . HAD YOUR S P O U SE P U R C H A SE A S E P A R A T E FISH ING LICENSE? C . PUT YOUR S P O U SE ON YOUR FISH IN G LICENSE? D . READ THF. BOOKLET TH A T COMES WITH THE FISH ING LICENSE? 127. A B O U T HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU GONE FISH ING IN TH E P A S T 12 MONTHS? 128. ON THE A V E R A G E . HOW MANY FISH DO YOU CATCH EACH TIME YOU GO FISH IN G ? 12 9 . ON THE A V E R A G E . HOW MANY H O URS DO YOU SPE N D ON TH E WATER EACH TIME YOU GO FISH IN G ? Page 274 Be l o w a r e t h r e e s i g n s t h a t y o u m i g h t see o n t h e p o n d . Pl e a s e a n s w e r t h e q u e s t i o n o n t h e l e f t b y CLOSEST TO HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT EACH SIGN. ANSWER THE SIGHS. YOU WILL HAVE THREE CIRCLES FOR EACH shore of circling a r i v e r , l a k e , or t h e a n s w e r t h a t is EACH QUESTION FOR EACH OF QUESTION. e a t carp, trout, catf i s h , s u c k e r s Do not eat any fish f r o m t h e s e Do n o t w a ters. o r m u s k e llu n g e from th ese w a te rs. C h i l d r e n , and women who a r e p r e g n a n t . nuralnp, or e x p e c t t o bear children, s h o u l d n o t e a t f i s h from these waters. All o th e r s sh o u ld n ot eat m ore t h a n o n e m ea l p e r w e e k . 1 3 0 . I f t h is s ig n w e r e p la c e d on y o u r f a v o r ite f is h in g a r e a , w o u ld y o u s t i ll f is h t h e r e ? YES NO UNCE R TA IN Y ES NO U N C E R TA IN YES NO U N C E R TA IN 131. I f y o u d e c id e d t o k e e p fis h in ft t h e r e , w o u ld y o u eBt t h e f is h from t h is w a ter? YES NO U N C E R TA IN Y ES NO U N C E R T A IN YES NO U N C E R TA IN 13 2 . W ould y o u allow y o u r fam ily t o e a t f is h from t h i s a re a ? YES NO U N C E R TA IN YES NO U N C E R TA IN YES NO UNCE R TA IN 133. H a v e y o u s e e n t h i s w a r n in g . o r a sim ila r w a r n in g , b e f o r e o n a n y M ich igan w a te r ? YES NO U N C E R TA IN YES NO U N C E R TA IN YES NO U N C E R TA IN 13 4 . H n ve y o u s e e n t h i s t y p e o f w a r n in g in p rin t b e fo r e ? ( n e w s p a p e r , b o o k le t , b o o k . e t c .) YES NO UNCE R TA IN Y ES NO U N C E R TA IN YES NO U N C ERTAIN Page 275 T H IS PAGE R EQ U E STS INFORM ATION T H A T WILL AID U S IN OUR R E SE A R C H . A G A IN , ALL INFORM ATION O B T A IN E D FROM T H IS Q U EST IO N N A IR E IS TO TALLY CO NFIDENTIAL 13S . Y o u r Form a) S c h o o l T r a in in g . P le n s e c ir c l e t h e h ig h e s t g r a d e c o m p le te d . n. b. c. d. e. 136. G rade School H ig h S c h o o l C o lle g e G r a d u a te S tu d y O th e r 4 4 4 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 U n d e r $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 ■ 2 9 ,9 9 9 S 3 0 .0 0 0 - 3 9 ,9 9 9 $ 4 0 ,0 0 0 • 4 9 .9 9 9 $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 - 5 9 .9 9 9 $ 6 0 ,0 0 0 o r m ore In co m e: P le n s e c h e c k t h e In com e r a n g e w h ich in d ic a t e s t h e t o ta l in co m e fo r all y o u r fum ily m em b ers d u r in g 1963. a. b. c. d. c. f. 138. 3 3 3 3 H o u se V a lu e ; How m u ch w o u ld t h e h o u s e In w h ic h y o u o r e li v i n g s e ll fo r at t h e p r e s e n t time'.' o. b. c. d. e. f. 137. 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 $0 • 9 .9 9 9 $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 • 1 4 .9 9 9 $ 1 5 ,0 0 0 • 1 9 .9 9 9 $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 • 2 4 .9 9 9 $ 2 5 ,0 0 0 ■ 2 9 .9 9 9 $ 3 0 ,0 0 0 - 3 4 .9 9 9 g. h. i. J. k. I. $ 4 0 ,0 0 0 $ 4 5 ,0 0 0 $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 $ 5 5 ,0 0 0 $ 6 0 ,0 0 0 $ 6 5 .0 0 0 ■ 4 4 .9 9 9 ■ 4 9 .9 9 9 ■ 5 4 .9 9 9 ■ 5 9 .9 9 9 ■ 6 4 ,9 9 9 o r m ore O c c u p a tio n o f H o u se h o ld H ea d ; D e n s e w r it e i n t h e t y p e o f w o rk d o n e b y t h e h ea d o f t h e h o u s e h o ld t o e a r n a l i v i n g . B e a s s p e c i f i c a s p o s s i b l e . ________________________ I f t h e p e r s o n fillin g o u t t h i s q u e s t io n a ir e i s not t h e h ea d o f t h e h o u s e h o ld , p le a s e in d ic a te y o u r o c c u p a t io n h e r e : _________ ______ _____________________________ 139. YOUR AGE? 14 0 . MALE OR FEMALE (C IR C L E O N E ) Page 276 Please feel free to write any comments you may have on this back cover. We are interested In your opinions. TO RETURN QUESTIONAIRE, PEEL OFF BACKING ON REAR FLAP, FOLD FLAP OVER FRONT COVER, STICK, AND MAIL. APPENDIX C Risk Ratings. Page 277 I APPENDIX C M e a n R a tin g I n v o lu n ta ry V o lu n ta r y N u c le a r . P o w e r "f C hrom e D read Com mon C e r t a in N ot F ata l C a ta s tr o p h ic X-Rays C e rta in ly F a ta l Not K n o w n To Exposed D ela y ed Not K n o w n To S cien ce C o n tro lla b le K n o w n To E x p o s e d Im m ed iate K n o w n Trf S c i e n c e Not C o n t ro lla b le Old N ew M e a n R a tin g 2 I 3 4 I I 5 6 I I I n v o lu n ta ry V o lu n ta r y C a ta s tr o p h ic C h r o n ic Common E lectric P o w e r C e rta in ly F a ta l C e r t a i n Not F atal K n o w n To E x p o s e d Im m ed iate K n o w n To S c i e n c e Not C o n tro lla b le D read > N u c le a r LPower Not K n o w n To Exposed D e la y e d No: K n o w n To S cien ce C o n tro lla b le N ew From Slovic et al (1980). Rated characteristics of risk for nuclear power and related technologies. (NOTE. Items "Not Controllable - Controllable" and "New - Old" were reverse scored for this research.) APPENDIX D University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects Approval Form. Page 278 August 27, 1964 Dr. H. Bredeck 238 Administration Building Michigan State University East Lansing, Mi 48824-1046 Dr. Bredeck: Per our conversation on 8-24-84: I 1. The code number on the questionaire is used for followup contact on the household. 2. First followup contact will be two weeks after initial contact. 3. Second followup contact will be one week after first followup. No further contacts will be attempted. 4. Households will be identified by random selection of residence locations, i.e. 1st, 3rd, 7th, etc. household on block. Family names will not be known at any point in the research. 5. If subject does not want to participate, he will be advised to simply send it back blank. This subject will then be listed as having responded with a "refusal to participate." 6. Only the head anglers first name will be written on the question­ aire. The last name will never be known by the researcher. The cover of the questionaire, containing the first name and code number will be destroyed upon receipt of the questionaire by the researcher. 7. The followup contact list will be destroyed immediately after the second followup. 8. Individual respondents are not identifiable by name, address, code number, or location once the questionaire has been returned. After second followup and the destruction of the followup list, no member of the sample population is identifiable in any manner. I hope that this response contains the information needed to exempt this research project. Please feel free to contact me at any time. Home: PO Box 112 Byron, Mi 48418 (313) 266-5584 Gary Rodabaugh Sr. Environmental Specialist Chev. Flint Mfg. Flint, Mi 48555 (313) 766-4914 Page 279 M I C H I G A N STATE U N I V E R S I T Y UNIVERSITY COMMITTEI- ON RESEARCH INVOLVING EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN • 4R824 HUMAN SUBJECTS (UCKIIIS) 2SS ADMINISTRATION BUILDING (51') 5tt-2IM> August 31, 1981» Mr. Gary Rodabaugh P.O. Box 112 Byron, Michigan 1|81»18 Dear Mr. Rodabaugh: Subject: Proposal Entitled, "A Study to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Fish Consumption Warnings on the Behavior of Anglers ___________on Contaminated Waterways11__________________________________ I am pleased to advise that I concur with your evaluation that this project is exempt from full UCRIHS review, and approval is herewith granted for conduct of the project. You are reminded that UCRIHS approval Is valid for one calendar year. If you plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions for obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval prior to August 31. 1985. Any changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by the UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notified promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work. Thank you for bringing this project to my attention. help, please do not hesitate to let me know. Si neerely Henry E. Bredeck Chairman, UCRIHS HEB/jms cc: Peyton M SU u an A ffir m o tiv t A ction/E qual O pportunity Institution If I can be of any future APPENDIX E Correct answers for Water Quality questions. Page 280 1 2 3 4 s T R 0 N G L Y 5 S T R O N G L Y FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING S T A T E M E NT S , C I R C L E THE ONE NUMBER ON THF. L E F T S I D E OF THE PAGE TO I N D I C A T E WHICH ANSWER I S MOST NEARLY ACCURATE FOR YOU. E U N C E R T A I N D I S A G R E E D I S A G R E F. m □ 3 4 5 16. S u r f a c e w a t e r u s u a l l y f a l l s on t h e e a r t h a lo n g d istan ce from th e p la c e i t i s e v e n t u a l l y u s e d . i 2 □ 17. As i t i s found in s tre a m s , ponds, and r e s e r v o i r s , s u r f a c e w a te r i s s u i t a b l e f o r human u s e . i 2 3 Ba 18. The su p p ly exhaus te d . i 2 3 □ □ 19. Human b e i n g s i 2 3 01 a 20. The c a p a c i t y o f p u rify p o llu ted i 2 3 B □ 21. M ost down i 2 3 B a 22. Human b e i n g s h a v e n o i n f l u e n c e o r c o n t r o l w a te r in stre a m s, ponds, and r e s e r v o ir s . B a 3 4 23. Human b e i n g s h a v e i n f l u e n c e a n d c o n t r o l w a te r from th e tim e i t f a l l s u n t i l t h e A G R E E A G R E a B 5 of surface cannot w ater n atu re, surface su rfa c e w ater t o low o n e s . never be in any g iven s i t u a t i o n , w ater is u n lim ite d . to p o llu te falls on w ill probably surface very v ater. high places over - Answers scored as correct. runs surface over surface tim e i t is u sed . FIGURE 9 - WATER QUALITY LITERATURE SCALE QUESTIONS q and (WQ1 ) Page 281 1 2 3 4 5 S T R 0 N G L Y s T R O N G L Y A G R E E A G R E E U N C E R T A I N Q □ 3 D I S A G R E E D I S A C R E E 4 5 FOR EACH O F THE FOLLOWING S T A T E M E N T S , C I R C L E THE ONE NUMBER ON THE L E F T S I D E OF THE PAGE TO I N D I C A T E WHICH ANSWER I S MOST NEARLY ACCURATE FOR YOU. • 24. C hem icals th a t g e t in to th e th e f i s h in th o se w a te rs . * * * 3 a □ 27. E ating affect © © 3 VV 28. I t is safe reserv o irs e OD 3 V* 29. T here a r e no c h e m ic a ls o n e m i l e o f my h o m e . in 30. Some the © 3 4 5 f i s h from w a t e r my h e a l t h . to eat w ith in ch em icals l 2 3 m a 31. A ch em ically i 2 3 aa 32. Most FIGURE 10 _ w ater w ater can get * 2 i surface th at * co n tain s chem icals f i s h from a l l th e s t r e a m s , o n e m i l e o f my h o m e . stay in contam inated p o llu tio n comes any w ill not ponds, and of th e w aterw ays w ater for a w aterw ay from into w ill long look w ith in tim e. d irty . in d u stry . WATER QUALITY SITUATIONAL QUESTIONS (W02) O - Answers scored as correct in all zones. V - Answers scored as correct in the contaminated zone only. O - Answers scored as correct in the non-contaminated zone only. APPENDIX F Risk of death from eating contaminated fish from Lakes Superior and Michigan. Page 282 RISK OF DEATH FROM EATING CONTAMINATED FISH FROM LAKES SUPERIOR AND MICHIGAN Lake Superior 1 cancer/1000 anglers/lifetime = .001 cancers/lifetime assume 75 year lifetime =.001 / 75 = .000013 cancers/yr assume 50% fatality from cancer = .0000066 death/year X 12% calculated exposure for study population = 1.6 X 10“6 death risk/year Lake Michigan 3 cancers/100 anglers/lifetime =.03 cancers/lifetime assume 75 year lifetime. = .03 / 75 = .0004 assume 50% mortality = .0002 death/year X 12% calculated exposure for study population = 2.4 X 10~5 death risk/year Bro et al (1987) estimates the number of additional cancers expected in Great Lakes anglers who consume one meal of Great Lakes fish per week for their entire lifetime. From that we have assumed a 75 year lifespan and that one half of the cancers developed will be fatal. Additionally/ our subjects were found to consume aproximately 12% of the amount of fish per year projected by Bro, therefore the calculations are corrected accordingly. APPENDIX G Zero order correlations block. Page 283 rv « r m n , 4 . nm *4 • id yi‘5h' O sTJUTTTJ im * **»/< N n i •P *4 • N N O j m *4 »V. y WII&-V • • A / ? '1 H tO M **/‘ 7 , . •tr^- 3 v-/v »» v >«tf.H O« t* f9 i> m M O .ifN U r--*«n ir-««oi4mn sm m ininm ( I4 Nn• MN41 «* A4 NN• K O* Or4*0 M • III M-Q. Im O. wm . Mm MO t f4MO *4 t *4*4 • 1«no r-lf>M. fvo: • ■0mnu N4 4 h-Q. mM . O a m o o o m o . a O m N 9>i»n’ 4)MN •j-tnaj *mioip 4100 -C D 104 ) oiom N * 4 '; - 4 f Q m4 • o>mo* r rvtntn fs, M O . I * \N « OO A nI nO *O \*£4V mM O W lM l> ilf*- isir-J-v «C M M '43 • O j O C MO* 4 *4 t lf| iA«r',«# • _ v* n m * .:* —a*:'** IT M O «iO »m j> IMMM r.M M m M a CD •M tnm ♦N O .•82'S *4#M • 4 f* » M nj n«f „ M 4-:hnm 4 I 'AM • CO*mN r s jin in j *m O H • W f t 4 , 4) 4) M M . m • in n « ,< < A 4 N -. * 4•:*'.0 o o o O NV (HHCH I *» oT » n4m4 io f»m4i «io * m nm O(Mon MM %r N O N 4 N O h i h or4* I 'U ' « *m 40 ' W'4H1 4 4 0 m r>P- O m -o a^Birjo m m S P S S - X RELEASE 2 . 2 FOR I d N ,«VS F E R R I S STATE COLLEGE I3M 3 0 3 3 2 9 J UL 8 7 16:31:05 P E A R S O N - :-:ril475 VPR 4 ■- 1 4231 .,;iPa . 0 5 0 • C O R R E L A T I O N wai A1 SC > '- '- . 0 1 3 9 1 125) Pa . 4 3 9 ■ -.0 3 4 4 "1 125) Pa . 3 5 2 - C O E F F I C I E N T S WQ2 t ';^ H C H 1 y .iv . ' *iS U ' . 0 2 9 3 “ . ’• - . 0 2 2 ? ’ • - .2 0 ? 9 1 125) .1 I ! s r . r T 2§) Pa . 0 1 2 Pa . 3 7 3 . Pa . 4 0 3 .0065 -.0 4 5 4 page N V S /S ? EIM P . MCH2 RSKE :—.1215_ r -.1 i i Ra , 'NEN -liiaflL ' v- L16.4C . ( 1251 Pa .3 6 9 c .0 6 3 ii ,w.«vm? t i iz s i P» . 3 6 9 ( P* 0659 ahex b -v ’/i U5» 1251 .0 1 6 .1251 •so T v * ;; ^ i i ^ i;^ ^ ; p a . . 3 6 8 _ ;^ il» a . 1 3 5 . ^ P a ^ . 3 0 6 . ^ P a . . 0 2 9 * '! TO EX . Q _ ' ... RECC -.0 5 1 2 T25T *285 '; - .0 < > 3 1 3 IZ 5 3 p a .6 8 6 -.0 3 6 0 I 1251 P a .3 4 5 FCPT ' -.0 6 6 1 —. 0 8 0 1 --------------------------- f — 1 2 5 7 -------- 1-----1251Pa .2 3 2 P a .1 8 7 ' - - ’- . 0 1 1 5 ' T 1 7 5 7 * Pa .6 6 9 P» . . -.0 7 1 4 I 125 J Pa .2 1 6 , i ♦***? Pa .0 3 3 -.1 2 2 5 fhpv 1251 Pa .0 8 7 * I - pa -.0 5 4 9 1251 1257- .1 6 3 5 Hfrl ' < -.0 0 8 6 1251 .0 7 3 I l ” fi z b | " - ^ > r ' J1 m 2 5 -f - p a > 0 .1 7 .1 1 5 ’.'j'u ,»^Jvi-nTT'- .4 6 3 Pa .4 9 4 .0 7 5 6 .0 t4 8 I .1 6 4 5 I 'li$ m iP a .4 1 3 1257 pa .0 2 3 Pa r i25i ’ - - - .lB t2 Pa .0 1 3 -.7107 ,— f 1251 , P a . ; . l l l 2} ,'.P a . 0491 1251 .2 9 3 '.v. ■ :'r; - - . T Pa -Ojas -j _( .Q 27& 1251 .4 1 9 >'v^ - P ft Pa i P 6q ’ T s f r 1251 .3 9 6 + . —. 0 6 9 6 T1 2 5 l i p -■$?*. . 2 2 0 V ' - c L ^ 1 ~ V ;• . *1* 1251 .2 1 3 p a .3 3 0 ^ at .0 5 9 1 -.3 9 0 2 I IZ 5 T Pa .0 0 0 .1 5 5 1 .3 5 5 -.0 5 3 7 *C 1 2 5 1 Pa .2 7 8 IV ■ OM5'1251 ,.^1 -1251 ^,1 .llsf 1 m U i i- s. I izgf ,•&>» *164 '. 2 5 6 ■. C S l \ V - : P * . 0 4 7 Vi'-* p a . . 2 0 7 > ^ T * a ■. 0 2 0 ?5.-V $ .0 8 8 3 -"T iP a . . - .4 3 5 j ^ - f a ( "1 2 * 1 Pa .0 1 4 -i • *.'*•■' »• k : m9*}7 1 — 1251 • 7 V 1 2 5 1 ' '•'<'?’ .0 3 3 2118 0123 -V O T 5 6 - T*, . 0 3 3 9 ' • -_ --. Q. 0C C46CCL ^ ,- . n 9 6«l I I2 5 T 7T1251 I 1251 I 11251 251 P a .2 0 1 P a .3 6 5 P a . 64 8 2 : p a ..11 64 7 T^T 25T Pa .0 8 3 i i25i Pa 466 7 - ■- - . 1 2 6 8 " ' > r £25* .1 0 6 p a .^ 2 0 1 .0112 uzsa ~ .n 7 5 3 .0 6 3 6 12S l . ^ ^ l ■ > 1 2 5 l > / l 1251 -'t 7.125 ) “i 7 " t n I 2 51 • S i* -2x251 ‘ l25» ::^ v P p , . 6 6 6 .^ f i .l > a . 1 0 8 ; v ; --pa: . . 1 8 2 r .-r7 P * .> € 0 2 y - ^ P a | . 0 7 4 > A P a ' ;> 3 I 5 . , : ^ ; P * \ 2 0 0 . - .0 0 1 5 . - '. 7 7 9 0 -**99?V T I7 5 T T- r S l ----- < 1 2 5 1 Pa I 1251 P» . 6 3 3 -> — . 2 2 3 6 I 1251 p a .0 0 6 -.0 2 9 6 ■- 0260 »C 4 1? -.Z001 .0 5 9 3 ; --0 4 5 ? ■■■ : .0 3 4 9 0169 .*• P -.0 1 6 4 251 .4 2 8 Pa -.0 5 7 1 -.0 5 8 5 F F lC - te M / -.0 2 1 5 0345 12 5 7 — ----- 1-----1 2 5 1 4 0 6 % Pa .3 5 1 0 0 8 1 '" 1251 -.1 6 3 1 lC A S e 5 1 - / - t » r A t t E 0 S I S ! .3 7 2 5 -.1 1 4 7 I -1 2 5 1 .f h l S P a - . 2 l l '* * ; 'P . . 1 0 l 0284 - ■ .1 8 6 0 I 1251 Pa .0 1 9 ? - -.0 2 5 2 I S P R IN T Ell I F ' - .2 3 0 8 1 1251 , p a '» 0 0 5 • ■■»;.fK - 66 5 r~I25T • v 'P * —-rf.-i-. . C 01 -.0 4 5 7 ^ i ■'& P - - . 1 3 5 4 ___ - _ . , 0 Pa 1251 306 ■ .0 9 7 1 ( '1 2 5 1 P a . 1 4 1 ;f s = .0 4 3 S .3 6 6 A -C O E F FIC IE N T T ANNU t EE ~CCMPITTE0 E* " f t, <• Page 284 kQ ................ T --^ T 7 6 ' L 1I5? P* . 0 0 1 I 1251 P> . 2 2 3 Illl fl7 fBfi- w V&l § f i f i S! o f C iG c FCa B .ffio F "VSI M 3063 P E A R S O N w C O R R E L A T I O N : ; ~ * r n W . J C CEFP ICIEM / - tCASgSI / ^ * 8 t' V ! l " t 3 . e i n p ; v - i i t R s n E . ^ : , o : * s i c o :**,3^wci ii(:^ r g r v c l i t e r i ; !> i T t W 'c f i ../i'» 1S~PR1N»ED'1P JTTUE^lCIKHrTANNPT HE CCNPUTEB1 I - TAILcO S IG Q ' ; P g l* E E 1 c S C O E F F I C I E N T S m ” U PAGE MVS / SP E i@ l® L 3 S E S W •V-.' •:-: -:t•-r< ■ ^ m m m Page 285 .*•- m A* CE eg f • f - •’ ' • ■ - * ^ - v , •-‘t • :•** 1 cR a ; .:• •y v \; £ Ci 7 t|0 " T» (L X — .AJ' 2 9 J UL 3 7 lo:Sl:C5 S P S 3 -X RELEASE 2 . 2 FC3 Id .* PVS FER k IS STATE CCLLEG c I3M 3 0 3 3 P E A R S O N £ > 11 F* . 2 6 6 ‘. \ P a il_______ !_____________ L # ! .. .0 0 3 :;;P a C O R R E L A T I O N .0 0 8 : . P a .3 3 5 : ^ .- .P a . 0 5 0 ••'■ , ^ a U 9 F t H ? Pa .3 0 3 -.0 7 9 3 C O E F F I C I E N T S P a .1 4 4 y*WSI ** »V. .P*« *6 33 ..-‘S ^ PS ** ? • 2 W 1^ ^ P * ^ 3 0 i ; l ^ j P * ; j . I 8 0 i- i ^ P ? r ; . 3 5 2 » l --V- A2 pa c e 9VS/SP V.-'. P a ', . ; .4 3 6 - «la7a n -.P * . * 1 1 6 Pa .3 0 7 . Pa -0lftS .3 4 9 Pa .3 4 8 x . C 1251 -.v v t yT; P * a ^ Z B / r V . f a .. . 0 8 5 ; i i * : P a I Pa 1251 l ;■ •..! al53| -> lM 5 - r 'P C H 2 .1 2 3 1 ~l 17251Pa .0 7 5 1— 1 2 5 1 « ______ p a . 0 0 1 7L0- P ? J . 0 1 6 --•V— ■*'•-<•*=“ 5V#* V.-.1 2 0 0 328 ~Pl—a . 0.1251 358 I pa E1E P .1 7 9 5 fn ' ; — ■•7' — .” 1 " 1 2 5 1 “ 7 " I 12s i ■■■■«.->r .-L-7 7 - P » . 0 2 3 ^ , . P a * 0 0 5 I*71. f rsk e {. :iii V7 *-A' - iM'1 . ' NEN ' : ' NES 77 . J-.’ ,JJ - ~- ~. 4. 45 51i 4 t— 125] Pa .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 C '« '• ; ; ? # P * . • m ..V ^ ^ VPH — . ~ ‘ VP 6 S P *5 l i t S~1 " f l^ l .3 9 7 ^ ^ P a ^ 2 1 r ~ T' - «* 1«2 5»> ' ; ^ v /P * ,0 8 8 . . .3 2 5 3 i 125) PvO O O l 125) P a .1 .0 5 0 ;. :!!! iP a 1.i02453) DO 73 ’ ^ .0 3 1 6 r i2 5 j P—a . 3 6 3 .1 6 4 8 P a . 033 TV- I . 1 6 4 0 i “P * . 0 3 4 tlsT - .0 0 0 5 ' -.0 7 4 0 125) P « - .2 2 3 .4 3 0 ‘.'7,.P a . 2 0 3 .0 9 2 2 > ^ . 0 6 4 3 -.rW 'i- . 0 8 4 3 1 -.0 3 7 9 ^ .0 0 7 7 -.0 5 7 5 ' Im M I— T25T------- 1 1 2 5 1 * VJ i , '* l 2 5 l ----------T 1 2 5 ) ---------r ~ T 2 j { ---------r ^ l l t ) -------- r 12 5 ) Pa .1 5 3 . p a .2 3 8 -P a .1 7 5 P a .3 3 7 pa .4 6 6 Pa .2 8 1 P a .4 8 3 ■ ' • . 0 6 4 3 ' >’- . 0 9 5 2 ‘ a. \V>* *■' O H IO . I 125) P a .1 8 2 .0683. .0 4 6 2 1251 .3 0 2 - __r tC r t E i ) ■ '- - . 0 1 . 9 8 I 12 5) P a .4 1 3 : c-Pa . 2 0 1 '."I- *00401251 .4 8 2 *09 4 8 125) •1 4 7 -.1 2 0 9 v 1 -h 4 A O r i l s ? ---------------P a .2 7 2 .1 6 4 8 .0 9 2 2 1 .0 C 0 0 -.0 9 5 2 -.3 4 4 2 -.3 0 2 7 i1 2o 5 i1 V . 7i l— - U £ ) -. ^7 ; 0I ! '1' 12 25 51-1 7' ■■,,-) 1 2 5 1 —, jI , - 1 . -112255)! , , ~“ l1 1] 2 5 ) 5 3 a ^ . P a , v - ^^ jTr '.f ^e js. ^fpaa _ . 1 ,4 .5 1; - i 4.S P5a .«0000 00 - ;.. Px. * 033 „ P p aa . a. 115,3 > ;, pP a a ., 0 0 0 . —. 0 C 0 5 1 — T2STPa .4 9 8 02-56 > 1251 ‘< - P a . 4 2 9 .0 0 3 5 . ( 125) Pa .4 8 4 I 125) P a .1 8 4 P a ^ . 2 0 6 ^ - A; 7 P » 7. 4 5 1 * f ,.,P a 1 .2 1 6 P » -.4 9 8 » .P ? jl2li)3L3_ u ' •'•••>- •: 0499 iisi^ji izsi Pa .2 9 0 . '- . C 2 6 6 I 125) Pa .3 8 4 .0 1 6 1 t 425) P a .4 2 9 i .n>i— ...» 125) ',' 4-1 ,1251 ,~~t ^zsr— j 125) 1 . ' - ‘ - n n a ? -•'■ ■ .0 7 3 9 . .0 0 - 4 0 . 0 4 .1 6 - - - .0 5 3 2 .1 2 5 ) . ^ 6 , > ^ ^ , ? 1 5 3 7 ^ 7 ^ . 0. 09900 ._t^> ^ . . 2 0 6 ^ ^ ^ ^ ’ . 4 8 3 .. ^ i P a ' ' ; i 3 1 1 ^ 9 * ^ 4 2 7 8 •?!!? ,.t •;1 2 5 ) ; a 4 5 « V.J^ -.P * * 1 3 1 . ^ > a i‘‘ ^- -. .1177 00 00 r i2 5 i P a . 0• 02 29 9 ■1 4 9 T I 0 3 0 1 " : 'y ' . i 546_ i. ;s!S >. !I?i ? - .3 8 3 5 1 i2 5 T P a .0 0 0 - NECL ' • .3 2 5 3 1 .0 0 0 0 ------------------1 ‘ 1 2 5 ) ----------------------1-------- 0 1 Pa .0 0 0 pa . — I'd .0 9 1 *ii|f — I *lSj?- =;i~*iBI c• !I »— Cl* i. llU y - L 1” )— “ > 3 5 1 ..£ j.P * . . 1 3 3 0 Q |t t ^ ^ o = a l 7 5 ~ 6 - ! . ^ ? . ! : . 0 2 7 6 .-.I.V ’ . 0 3 3 1 1251 "I 1251 1251 ( 1251 P= .0 2 5 •4 8 4 .3 8 0 P a .3 4 1 r ls T v ^ ~ '- ^ . ? 6 7 a c& ^ F ^ ,,1 riifr^jsj r V ;P a i . 0 2 4 ^ ^ ^ . . 0 1 2 . ^ p a 1132 -.1 2 5 1 X * r* .'- 125) ► *rPa‘..029,d£*».;.I0»,t i r j y I , . . . 71 F K ira a "^S ?? - PTr»B Ir * ilf 1 2 5 )f a .0 0 7 P a .0 6 5 i f a ' ?=gg 125) .3 0 3 1251 .. - .r o a i 1 2 5 1 ’i - - * J j Z 5 1 -SXAijA , t 3 5 ,;% > • , > 4 8 6 i& S S >7 1« =.0414 -.0 0 2 4 PCH1 P a .0 0 1 -0 9 9 9 =.0465 ■-•■'—. - .>g0 3 0 5 I 1251 P a .3 6 3 .0 2 2 5 Pa c u tn -iu b N T cannot -.1 3 9 7 ~C~ I P a ,. C 0 661l 12 . ccnp u t e d .1 7 3 6 125) c l V 0 2 3 J J irj)* • - •**'1?T*’ ' -OHO 6 - '— ( 125) Pa .1 3 6 » 125) .3 9 6 037? 125) .3 6 1 .. */» 0 7 A3 125) .3 7 7 -.0 7 6 4 -.0 9 3 9 P a .3 4 . 3 984 I 125) p a .1 3 6 '.242 -- .0 7 3 6 125) .1 9 2 .0 4 9 4 . - ~ 125) • .2 9 2 Tt ‘ i12l l5)r *0133125) .4 8 5 _ J = a 0 8 8 fll I 125) pa .1 6 5 be , ■K-P » ; 7’ , 125) , ' C Page 287 fOfcMMil >* 0» N M IO M U U ITTs ijatiBan JS&i «*v*v * « * ® v £■ h- r\+* • « m h 0. N O J Q N PI r M | . G t SJ>S'3 «4i m o Q NO •: ^ f f M m (Q wifi m mN m a h • m m *j m»* MM if4 tnw« HM>t r»fMM » r pHtOtO r>m NN • ooh>o C N nm VN H •'OH • .a . * ^/*0 n« t& -A -* * * MI9 . ACM SUM ISI M O < fM ■*£?, nTNO in Iri f f*l O N i ^ r , p> O CMAW,-In I -0 PIN f « . ink >m ( h tlH tOIN-H o A »m ftfiS 2 IN|Q>H S A N *n ANN H 1 ^ :0 NNN 044 • m AlA M«T 4 • ft AAO A* MIN • Q OIN «IN* H- MO nc Hn>4 1C i rA »;>.© iH IO + OnO* A i IN *h 0<«• AO O ' 'O 0A O t£\ 0140 4IAN ©<4** pH H • 1 .0 I .a«1■*>\ *.: s pjfeV-’ *.5if S'- ") 29 J'JL 67 1 6 : 5 1 : C5 SPSi-X RElEaS:. 2.2 rZR I2r "VS FER. .IS STATE COLLEGE - - - - - - - - NES STUC CM ZONE - P E A R S O N NEGL _ - «C 959_ ~1— 1 2 5 1“ P» .4 3 8 - .0 6 3 4 1 I2 5 T P i .2 4 1 850 1 — TZ 5V P i .0 1 8 -.1 1 0 7 - . 1613 P i .1 1 0 P i .0 3 6 Pi -.0141 "I 125T" IC O E PP I C I E N T / I CASE 5 ) / Pi i25i .1 4 4 4 m -.2 ■CC7 l - TA IL EO S iU I " MVS/ SP R R E L A T I C N VPH - .0 4 4 3 1251 .3 1 2 .1 1 9 6 I 1 2 5 IP i .0 9 2 PAGE ISM 3 C j 3 VPE I Pi I 1251 P= . 1 9 9 T ~ Pi «Hiit .0 6 4 <4 ft? pi . M m- pi . 1 6 6 .0 3 3 ; VPF VPR 1251 .0 1 4 VPT _ = .1 2 7 8 _ I 1251 P i .0 7 8 . 1 0 5 1_ 1251 Pi .122 .i D 44£_ ( 125) P i .3 1 1 _.Q 5_97_ I 125) P i .2 5 4 ,0 5 6 0 < 125) p i .2 6 7 I Pi -.0' 12 HF .1 8 8 T Pi T .01251 362. .3 4 4 VPS ,1 3 9 3 _ 1251 .0 1 7 ( 1251 P= . 0 2 0 1 Pi P■I . 0-----32 l C O E F F I C I E N T S PR1HI EU I I - * C U h F U C I E N r ' CANNUf PC ON I Pi .1 3 3 3 125) .0 1 7 _t »1222 I Pi 125) .0 8 7 AfcEX ITi. TOEX . 145£_ I 125) P i .0 5 3 I Pi .0 0 1 7 . 125) .4 9 2 o 0774 ^ fl.9 .7 1 . ■ « 125) I 125* P i . 1 4 1 tl £ , P i . 4 0 0 - —* 1 4 1 ? t Pi 125) .0 5 8 I 125) P i .3 2 6 I Pi 1251 .4 4 6 -> e t CCHPUl b ff 71 th£ a;-.* 2 A rAAv.-, - ..■>>;.v . •• •• r /.■- i. y: 'A;-‘-v •*T-.a>. • ‘ ^>7 :v ' i -.i - •,;■’-2 • 'zj ■ J 25 JUL 67 1 6 :6 1 :0 5 S P S S - X F6 L 6A S:: 2 . 2 FCR I 2 P FEU* I S S T a Tc COLLEGE PVS P E A R S O N C O R R E L A T I O N 0123 - . 0 0 8 6 __ P iT 5 1 - . 0571 f 1251 - .0 5 8 5 .3 1 7 0 - . 016* - .o zi; .0 0 9 1 *25 Pa .* 2 8 P* . 2 8 5 - .0 3 6 0 I— T251 • CSCl .0 3 7 5 I— T251 1757 05*5 •1647 - .0 7 1 * -.0 0 7 3 PCHl ? -V ■ i-. . ' ■ PCH2 •• / ■ - .8 1 W I 1251 pa .* 1 3 - —_ . RSK0 .0 * 9 1 (I:5i .3 9 0 ^ .0 5 9 1 I rZ5l Pa .2 5 6 .0 2 7 6 « 0 7 3 fl Pa . 0 * 2 • ' .0 7 2 5 ( 1251 Pa .2 1 1 P a .0 1 1 C&60 Pa . 3 0 5 □13(1 1257 Pa . 2 0 5 1^.860 1251 C668 ( 1251 Pa . 2 2 9 j .0 7 0 6 1251 •?» P » *631 - .n c n % 1691 . I 1 C 3 I _<>—• l v U 3 I 4 . - '. - . P a - . 3 7 1 A; P ..Pa . 0 9 2 D C P a . 3 2 V ■f><} P a . 1 0 1 e. : P a . 3 9 0 •.: -yPaa . 2 2* 1 * 1 PPaa . 3 9 8 ' ’ . 0 5 9 ? - . 0 5 7 0 t 115* — — -- ..0 0 3(1001 1 ' - . 005 * 3 ___ ; —« 1 R 6 6 : . I 1251 I 1251 j 1251 I 1251 I 1251 I I Pa .2 5 6 Pa .2 6 * Pa . 0 0 5 Pa . 0 6 6 P a .1 8 7 Pa . .019 1' _ ' »• ’ '____ n tt: -.1 1 * 7 i Tj Kj t t I ’t ji,^ a « 0 0 0 -,.*. . Ps.ayf. 1 6 *>•«-y$78 / . 0 3 37 ' I U 5I p a .3 5 5 CO62 U&C 5;&7T7rgw-^ r ^ m ? ^ 0893 v i ™ • 06CZ • 0 0 5 i?'' P_a . 1 3 * Pa .0 3 3 Pa . 0 2 2 i "lx i i ’“u v.p* - 1 1 5 ’ P * . 0 2 3 .2 5 8 1251 .01*8 1081 ^ V EIPP 1757 ZONE = .0 5 0 2 P» . C 3 5 .0 7 5 6 -.0 0 1 5 1251 ETWC Pa . * 0 6 P* . 0 3 * i—rzn Pa .*68 1901 1757 Pa . 0 1 7 rzn I— 1251 I ZZ57 pa .0 3 3 •1 3 0 7 1257 C O E F F I C I E N T S PREC -.0112 0661 125 PAGE .5 9VS/SP FHPT fc pt - .0 5 1 2 I8M 3003 22 3 6 I 125) P a .0 0 6 •*'_ -.0 * 5 3 i t g f - - T r *811? 0*60 =*£A3S , .10 86 CC63 r^i25i p a .2 0 5 L P a ■a* S * -.0 1 3 8 068* pa .* 7 2 .0 1 9 6 .0 8 * * 0007 -.1 7 0 9 0789 - .0 * * 5 - .2 0 9 0 -rir'an i x ' l S H : - . 0 67 * p a .1 8 5 . . __ . r2 5 _ Pa .3 6 0 .0 * 3 0 . - .0 * 0 5 - . 02*1 1757 I 1757 Pa . 2 8 3 1---- 1757 p a .2 8 5 .0 2 2 9 - • 0919 ^caaja I 1251 Pa . 2 * 1 - .0 2 3 Y y —'J— ■-" '■ ‘.J.-* ’ '— r2si icoeppictcNT cirswi I Pa .1 0 3 TAT LEO r 1 - TA1LEC I 1757 p a .0 3 0 1956 I 1251 Pa . 0 1 * J5 IS H K im JU 1 F A LUbH-IClbNT~CANNOT"E7 CCMPUTED - .1 6 5 3 ^- <- - .1 3 6 6 I 1251 Pa . 0 6 * . Page 290 POtMMTt•*01 g’f ais»flira iT g iin rT ^ ^ iiio -iirr^ t i t tit a = O < O . sa a i 3r q LLfc_t SMR ANWIO *4•i?;C Mram f v#*(r •atncA m O K n<0 Hvt« ON «‘.OM • mQ:- r l* N r|CMO MNP) H • 0*4 • Nri*4 QH • »o 0 o ir*o '9C>0m*p*)O Mfi* n •fNPt P)MP) M M « • 0 -4 • 0*4r • 0-4 o«o .imp) *4fM# 0*4 • « a » o> *n «v>o> •*tnai *4fML> HH I 0*4 • i M**P» d«n r »*9* in** cotnr* 0109* '000 •cnncn . M>»no* #rvj*M innjfM M N O H • 0*4• 0*49hHHo• «ONN mrjM 4»: o **0 4 0 0 9 f*fM*4 04« Or*• A9* rvmjfn n u » I * ■&V-. • 4Q> M•iJUU (») tt| J -I IH t U oC1 /1 M **® u4 fM N mn * n# OUSfM • #mm Oam# UH • H • /- O 040 f -N\n O <*lo 0 —4 • nn» •.« s i*4 4i ,m iJm KsO- O * 9 *4 N 0 ' «rf D0Q n DM . €0 O ** 4 tfS N N • 4 N O o 04® |\4. t*IA4 □ MO >• O MO © CO a •'» V IU. d)U o% J *)« 9*0 V.Jf'V*. h P..*iKL£5 BJj iXX.Li >.mt 2 ? J UL c 7 16:51:05 S P S j - X RELEASE 2 . 2 PCS 1 = 1* »VS FERi s I S S T a TE COLLEGE I 3M 3 0 5 3 P E A R rr REOC ETbC CM ZONE • 1209 I - 1251Pa .0 9 0 FCPY .0 2 3 5 I pa 1251- .3 9 7 —. 0 5 1 9 -I T25T Pa .2 8 3 1-1251- •0 8 5 9 “I 1257P* .1 7 2 ~l -.0 7 9 6 P a .1 8 9 .r25T 1311~ P * .0 7 2 S C N C O R R E L A T I O N FHP Y EO .0 7 0 3 T251P= . 2 1 3 Pa AGE .1 0 3 5 T .0 1 9 6 1251 1— . .1 9 5 1 I 125 f P a .0 1 5 Pa ( .2 1 3 1257- Pa .2 9 8 -.0 1 6 0 T25T .9 3 0 p:* .0 7 2 C 1257" .0 6 1 9 -H5r .1 2 5 .0 9 9 1 “ I— 1 2 5 7 Pa .1 3 6 ~T F AGE MVS/ SP Pa .1 9 1 11 C O E F F I C I E N T S SEX SES -.0 8 7 3 •P 9 3 6 _ 125) .3 1 5 1 ---- 1251“ Pa .1 6 6 .1 6 8 3 "1— 1257 . 02329 329 — 1— 12TT P » . 0 3 0 ... : P= . 3 6 0 Pa .3 7 9 ' i r t r n - Pa .0 1 3 ETWC PREC P* .1 1 2 Pa . Tr * m b I Pa . I S 3 ; - . P a '—- 2 0 9 5 f l 2 5 ) Pa .0 1 1 GN 1086 t Pa 125) .1 1 9 -X..OOQCI - 01 I 1 2 5 ) ............ -0 9 1 9 ( 125) Pa .1 5 9 Pa . jlCL2C_ 1251 .9 9 7 ® ^ -.1 0 l? 9 ' ( 125) P a .1 1 9 ZONE .0 X 2 0 I 125) Pa .9 9 7 1 t 0) ^ ■' I I :■» I COCf f I C IE N T / - IC A SE Sl >s'. T IS PRINTED:iF-*-nJEFFIClENT CANNOr nTTCMPUTEIT l - TA lLE U 51G I ; m m .......... .2 1 1 1 >1 s - •"Vi'-* "• ■ 3) i; a* r • •• v .. 3) 'V" 2-_.s 3) 3) *-0 3) W W & : »3) ?JD' +)*> 'V : : . ' .■:-••■ .-•■-• ;" • - ■.; - - - ■;, .•■ ■ ~ •: • r • »■ . - ■ :: ■>* ••• ~ ■■y.-r Page 291 3) LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES ADORNO, T.W., FRENKEL-BRUNSWIK, E., LEVEINSON, D.J., AND SANFORD, R.N., 1950 "The Authoritarianism Personality", New York: Harper & Brothers, pp. 222-279. AGAR, MICHAEL H., 1980 "The Professional Stranger; An Informal Introduction to Ethnography", Academic Press, Inc. A J Z E N , I., AND FISHBEIN, M., 1980 "Understanding Attitude and Predicting Social Behavior", Prentice-Hall. ALEXANDER, ROBERT M., 1971 "Social Aspects of Environmental Pollution", Agricultural Sciences Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, First Quarter, 1971. BELSON, WILLIAM A., 1981 "The Design and Understanding of Survey Questions", Gower Publishing Co., Ltd., Aldershot, Hants., England. BISHOP, D.W., AND R .A . WITT, 1970 "Sources of Behavioral Variance During Leisure T i m e " , Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 16, pp. 352-360. BOTTS, LEE. 1983 "Toxic Fallout: The Invisible Great Lakes Problem", Great Lakes Waste & Pollution Review Magazine, Vol. 1, No. 2, June 1983, pp. 7-10. BRO, KENNITH M., SONZOGNI, WILLIAM C . t AND HANSON, MARK E., 1987 "Compairing Health Risks Of Chemical Contaminants In The Great Lakes", In Press, Envirnomental Management BURTON, IAN; ROBERT KATES AND GILBERT WHITE, 1978 "The Environment as Hazard", New York; Oxford University Press. Page 292 Page 293 BUTTEL, F.H., AND W.L. FLINN, 1976 "Environmental Politics: The Structuring of Partisan and Ideological Cleavages in Mass Environmental Attitudes." Sociological Quarterly 17:477-490. BUTTEL, FREDERICK H . t ET AL., 1975 "Dimensions and Hierarchy in the Perception of Environmental Problems". CONSUMER DYNAMICS INC., 1980 "Conclusions on the Effects of Decisionmaking Behavior on the Use of Information", Rockville, Maryland, Consumer Dynamics, Inc., Report to the U.S. Dept, of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration. CUTTER (CARIS), SUSAN, 1981 "Community Concern for Pollution - Social and Environmental Inluences", Environment and Behavior, Vol. 3, No. 1, Jan. 1981, pp. 105-124. DABELKO, DAVID D., 1981 "Political Aspects of Environmental Quality", Environment and Behavior, Vol. 13, No. 2, March 1981, 225-238. DRABEK, T., and J. STEPHENSON III (1971), "When Disaster Strikes", Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1,2 pp. 187203 . DULANY, D.E., 1968 "Awareness, Rules and Propositional Control: A Confrontation with S-R Behavior Theory" in D. Horton and T. Dixon (e d s ), Verbal Behavior Theory, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeH a l l , 1968, pp. 340-387. DUNLAP, R.E., AND K.D. VAN L IE R E , 1978 "Environmental Concern: A Bibliography of Empirical Studies and Brief Appraisal of the Literature", Public Administration Series Bibliography No. 44. Monticello, Illinois; Vance Bibliographies. EDELSTEIN, MICHAEL R., 1985 "Social Impacts_and social Change: Some Initial thoughts on the Emergence of a Toxic Victims Movement", Impact Assessment Bull e ti n. Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 7-17. EDVARDSSON, BO, ( ) "Psychology of Environmental Problems: A Summary in Four R e p o r t s ." EISENREICH, S.F.; LOONEY, BRIAN B.; THORNTON, J.D., 1981 "Airborne Organic Contaminants in the Great Lakes Ecosystem", Environ. Sci. and Tech., 1981, 15, pp. 30-38. Page 294 ELLIOT, JOHN G . , 1968 "Farmers Perceptions of Innovations as Related to Selfconcept and Adoption", Ph.D Thesis, East Lansing, Michigan State University. FISHBEIN, M., 1967 "Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement", Wiley, 1967. New York, FISHBEIN, M., AND A J A Z E N , I., 1975 "Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior; an Introduction to Theory and Research", Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Mass. FISCHHOFF, B., SLOVIC, P., LICHTENSTEIN, S., 1979 "Weighing the Risks; Which Risks Are Acceptable", Environment, Vol. 21, No. 4, May 1979. GOLDSTEIN, M . , AND E.E. DAVIS, 1972 "Race and Belief: A Further Analysis of the Social Determinants of Behavioral Intentions", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 22, 346-355. GREEN, J.A., 1972 "Attitudinal and Situational Determinants of Intended Behavior Toward B l ac ks ", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 22, 13-17. GROTE, PHIL, AND BRYAN, HOBSON, 1972 "Environmental Sociology and Man's Perception of Environmental Issues". HEWITT, K., AND IAN BURTON, 1971 "The Hazardousness of a Place", Toronto: Toronto Press. University of HOHENEMSER, C., KATES, R.W., SLOVIC, P., 1983 "The Nature of Technological Hazard", Science, Volume 220, pp. 378-384. HORNBACK, K.E., 1974 "Orbits of Opinion: The Role of Age in the Environmental Movement's Attentive Public", Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of 1Sociology, Michigan State University. HOWARD, R.A, et a l ., 1978 "The Value of Life and Nuclear Design.” , in D. Okrent and E. Cramer (eds), Probabilistic Analysis of Nuclear Reactor Safety, American Nuclear Society Publications, LaGrange Park, 111., 1978, IV, 2-1 to IV 2-9. Page 295 HUTTON, JANICE, AND DENNIS M I L E T I , 1979 "Analysis of Adoption and Implimentation of Community Land Use Regulations for Floodplains", San Francisco: Woodward Clyde. JACOBS, PHILIP, 1979 "Analyzing Environmental Health Hazards", Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 13, No. 5, May 1979. JANIS, I.L., AND C.I. HOVI LA N D, 1959 "An Overview of Persuasibility Research", in C.I. Hoviland and I.L. Janis (e d s ) Personality and Persuasibility, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959, pp. 1-26. JANOFF-BULMAN and FREIZE I.H. eds. (1983) "Reaction to Victimization." Journal of Social Issues. 198a, 39(2). KATES, ROBERT, 19 70 "Human Adjustment to Earthquake Hazard", pp. 7-31 in Committee on the Alaska Earthquakes of the National Research Council (eds) The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964, Washington D.C.; National Academy of Sciences. KATES, ROBERT W., 1978 "Risk Assessment of Environmental Hazard", SCOPE 8 (Scientific Committee of Problems of the Environment), Wiley & Sons Publishers, 1978, p p . 1-9. KEUNREUTHER, HOWARD, 1978 "Disaster Insurance Protection; York: John Wiley and Sons. John Public Policy Lessons", LEEDY, PAUL D., 1980 "Practical Research Planning and D e s i g n " , Publishing Company, Inc. New MacMillan LOUNSBURY, J., ( ) "Current Outlook Survey", Psychology Department, Michigan State University. MALKIS, A., AND H.G. GRASMICK, 1977 "Support for the Ideology of the Environmental Movement: Tests of Alternative Hypothesis", Western Sociological Review, 8:25-47. MASLOW, A.H., 1970 "Motivation and Personality", Press. 2nd ed. New York: Viking MCEVOY, J., Ill, 1972 "The American Concern with the Environment", pp. 214-236 in W.R. Burch, Jr., N.H. Cheek, Jr., and L. Taylor (eds), Social Behavior, Natural Resources, and the Environment, New York, Harper and Row. Page 296 MILETTI, DENNIS S., 1980 "Human Adjustment to the Risk of Environmental Extremes", Sociology and Social Research, Vol. 64, No. 3, pp. 327-347. MILETTI, DENNIS S., 1975 "Natural Hazard Warning Systems in the United States", Boulder: Institute of Behavioral Science, Monograph 13. MILETI, D.S., T.E. D R A B E K , and J.E. HAAS, 1975 "Human Systems in Extreme Environments: A Sociological Perspective", Boulder: Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado. MILETTI, DENNIS S., JANICE HUTTON AND JOHN SORENSEN, 1980 "Earthquake Prediction Response and Options for Public Policy", University of Colorado, Institute of Behavioral S c i en ce . MOORE, GARY T., and GO L L E D G E , REGINALD G., ( ), "Environmental Knowing: Concepts and Theories", Environmental Knowing ( ), pp.3-20. MORRISON, D.E., D.E. HORNBACK, AND W.K. WARNER, 1972 "The Environmental Movement: Some Preliminart Observations and Predictions", pp. 259-279 in W.R. Cheek, Jr., and Taylor (eds), Social Behavior, Natural Resources and the Environment. New York: Harper and Row. MOSTELLER, FREDERICK, 1981 "Innovation and Evaluation", Science, 211:881-886. MURDOCK, S.H., A N D E . C . SCHRINER, 1977 "Social and Economic Determinants of the Level of Support for Environmental Protection and Economic Growth in a Rural Population", Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, Madison, Wisconsin. NETTLER, G W Y N N , 19 57 "A Measure of Alienation", Dec. 1957, pp. 973-937. American Sociological Review, NETTLER, GWYNN, 1964 "Scales of Alienated Attitude", 22, (unpublished). OLSHAVSKY, RICHARD W., 1980 "Time and the Rate of Adoption of Innovations", Consumer Research, 6:425-428. Journal of PASSINO, E.M., AND J.W. LOUNSBURY, 1976 "Sex Differences in Opposition to and Support for Construction of a Proposed Nuclear Power Pl a n t " , pp. 180-184 in L.M. Ward, S. Coren, A. Gruft and J. B. Collins (eds), The Behavioral Basis of Design, Book 1. Stroudsburg, Pa.: D o w d e n , Hutchinson and Ross. Pag e 297 REARDON, KATHLEEN KELLEY, 1981 "Persuasion: Theory and Context", Beverly Hills, Sage. California, RODABAUGH, GARY LEE, 1981 "Competitive Uptake of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Select Aquatic Organisms", Unpublished Masters Thesis, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, Michigan. SAARINEN, T.F., 1979 "The Relation of Hazard Awareness to Adoption of Approved Mitigation Measures", Natural Hazards Research and Applications Center IBS6. Boulder: University of Colorado. SANDELL, R.G., 1968 "Effects of Attitudinal and Situational Factors on Reported Choice Behavior", Journal of Marketing Research, 1968, 5, 405-408. SCHMIDT, WAYNE, 1981 "Are Your Fish Safe To Eat?" Michigan Out-Of-Doors, 1981, pp. 36. Sept. SCHUMAN, HOWARD; AND PRESSER, STANLEY, 1981 "Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys", Academic Press, Inc. SCHWING, RICHARD C., AND ALBERS, WALTER A. JR., 1980 "Societal Risk Assesments; How Safe is Safe Enough?", Plenum Press, New York. SHIP P EE , G., J. BURROUGHS, and S. WAKEFIELD, 1980 "Dissonance Theory Revisited: Perception of Environmental Hazards in Residential Areas", Environment and Behavior, Vol. 12, No. 1, March 1980, pp. 33-51. SIMMS, JOHN H., and BAUMANN, DUANE W., 1983 "Educational Programs and Human Response to Natural Hazards", Environment and Behavior, Vol. 15, No. 2, March 1983, p p . 165189. SLOVIC, PAUL; HOWARD KUNREUTHER, AND GILBERT WHITE, 1974 "Decision Processes, Rationality, and Adjustment to Natural Hazards: Local, National, Global", New York: Oxford University Press. SLOVIC P., B. FISCHOFF, and S. LICHTENSTEIN, 1980 "Perceived Risk", in R.C. Schwing and W.A. Alberts, Jr. (eds.), Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough?", New York - Plenum. SLOVIC, P., FISCHHOFF B., AND LICHTENSTEIN, S., 1980 "Rating the Risks", Societal Risk Assessment, How Safe is Safe Enough? Page 298 SORENSON, JOHN; AND GILBERT WHITE, 1980 "Natural Hazards: A Cross-Cultural Perspective", In I. Altman, A. Papaport, and J. Wohwill (eds) Human Behavior and the Environment, New York: Plenum Press. SPAULDING, IRVING A . , 1968 "Social Status Variations in Attitudes and Conceptualization Pertaining to Water Pollution and Supply", Rhode Island Water Resources Center (Project No. OWRR A-032-RI). STAR, 1969 "Social Benefits vs Technological Risk", SCIENCE, Vol. 165. SUDMAN, SEYMOUR, 1976 "Quantitative Studies in Social Relations", Academic Press, Inc. TREMBLAY, K.R. JR., AND R.E. DUNLAP, 1978 "Rural-Urban Residence and Concern with Environmental Quality: A Replication and Extension", Rural Society 43: 47491 . VAN LIERE, KENT D., AND DUNLAP, RILEY E., 1980 "The Social Bases of Environmental Concern: A Review of Hypotheses, Explanations and Empirical Evidence." Public Opinion Quarterly, 1980, pp. 180-197. WARWICK, DONALD P., AND LININGER, CHARLES A., 1975 "The Sample Survey: Theory and Practice", McGraw-Hill, Inc. WHITE, GILBERT F., 1974 "Natural Hazards: Local, National, Global", New York, Oxford University Press. WHITE, GILBERT F . , AND J. EUGENE HAAS, 1975 "Assessment of Research on Natural Hazards", Cambridge: MIT Press. YORK, C.M., AND HILL D.W., 1970 "Meaning Attributed to a Natural Resource: Use of the Semantic Differential Technique", (working paper), Georgia Institute of Technology. YOUNG, PAULINE V,, 1966 "Scientific Social Surveys and Research", Prentice-Hall, Inc. ,1981 "Major Issues Facing Biomedical Innovation", in Edward B. Roberts et a l . (eds) Biomedical Innovation, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press. Page 299 ,1980 First Annual Progress Report of the Office of Marine Pollution Assessment, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: The Cycling of Toxic Organic Substances in the Great Lakes Ecosystem, 1980, cooperative program between the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory and the University of Michigan. ,1976 Interviewer’s Manual for Social Research, 1976, Survey Research Center, Institute University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. , 1980 Innovation and Social Process, New York, Pergamon Press. ,1983 From Communication 870, Persuasion and Attitude Change, Michigan State University (1983).