Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

S 602MBS

Authors

S 602MBS

Tagged with:

Publication PDFs

Database

This is the content currently stored in the post and postmeta tables.

View live version

object(Timber\Post)#3742 (44) { ["ImageClass"]=> string(12) "Timber\Image" ["PostClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Post" ["TermClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Term" ["object_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["custom"]=> array(5) { ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(12) "S_602MBS.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "273743" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(94696) "PPIC Statewide Survey: Special Survey on Californians and the Environment Mark Baldassare Senior Fellow and Survey Director June 2002 Public Policy Institute of California Preface The PPIC Statewide Survey is an ongoing series of public opinion surveys designed to provide policymakers, the media, and the general public with objective, advocacy-free information on the opinions and policy preferences of residents throughout the state of California. Begun in April 1998, the surveys have generated a database that includes the responses of over 52,000 Californians. This survey on Californians and the environment—a collaborative effort of the Public Policy Institute of California and The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The James Irvine Foundation, and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation—is a special edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey. This is the third in a series of eight surveys—two per year for four years—launched in May 2001. The intent of the surveys is to inform policymakers, encourage discussion, and raise public awareness about the growth, land use, and environmental issues facing the state. The current survey focuses in particular on public perceptions, individual actions, and policy preferences regarding environmental issues. This special edition presents the responses of 2,029 adult residents throughout the state. It examines in detail the public’s views on local, regional, statewide, and national issues related to the environment. Some of the questions are repeated from a PPIC Statewide Survey on Californians and the environment that was conducted in June 2000. More specifically, we examine the following issues: • The public’s perceptions of environmental conditions in California, including opinions about progress in solving environmental problems and whether or not environmental conditions will improve; identification of the most important environmental issue; and perceptions of specific environmental problems in the state and in the region where the respondent lives. • The personal connections of Californians toward the environment, such as their environment-related consumer choices, leisure activities, and household practices; their degree of knowledge and involvement with local environmental issues; their awareness of economic inequities and “environmental justice” issues; and their interests in environmental news and donations to environmental causes. • Specific policy preferences, such as general support for environmental laws and regulations and attitudes toward federal, state, and local policies regarding global climate change, oil drilling off the California coast, building new dams and reservoirs, requiring all automakers to further reduce greenhouse gases, increasing the use of renewable energy, and open space purchases. • Governance issues, including confidence in the government to solve environmental problems; ratings of federal and state elected officials for their overall performance in office and their handling of environmental issues; satisfaction with the state government’s efforts to protect the environment; support for maintaining the state’s current level of environmental spending given the current deficit; the importance of environmental issues in the November election; and support for a state water bond initiative on the November ballot. • Variations in environmental perceptions, individual actions, and policy preferences across the four major regions of the state (Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles area, and Other Southern California), between Latinos and non-Hispanic whites, and across age and the socioeconomic and political spectrum. Copies of this report or other PPIC Statewide Surveys may be ordered by e-mail (order@ppic.org) or phone (415-291-4400). The reports are also posted on the publications page of the PPIC web site (www.ppic.org). -i- Contents Preface Press Release Environmental Conditions Environmental Connections Environmental Policy Governance Issues Survey Methodology Survey Questions and Results Survey Advisory Committee i v 1 7 13 19 25 27 33 - iii - Press Release SPECIAL SURVEY ON CALIFORNIANS AND THE ENVIRONMENT PESSIMISM ABOUT STATE’S ENVIRONMENTAL PROSPECTS GENERATES RESOLVE, NOT APATHY Californians Willing to Make Major Lifestyle Changes to Improve Environment; Most Believe Environmental Justice Concerns Are Real SAN FRANCISCO, California, June 27, 2002 — Despite a budget crisis and deep doubts that environmental progress can be achieved, Californians remain steadfast in their concern about the state’s environment and their commitment to improving it, according to a new survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) and the Hewlett, Irvine, and Packard Foundations. Residents have little faith that government can solve environmental problems, but most residents are willing to make significant personal sacrifices to improve California’s air, water, and land. The survey of 2,029 Californians finds that most residents believe little progress has been made in solving environmental problems over the past twenty years, and they are pessimistic about improvement in the future. Seventy-eight percent believe there has been only some (58%) or hardly any (20%) progress since the early 1980s, and 79 percent have only some (51%) or hardly any (28%) optimism that environmental problems will be under control 20 years from now. While 72 percent of residents say they are currently somewhat (49%) or very (23%) satisfied with the quality of the environment in their region of the state, over half (51%) say it is getting worse; only 27 percent believe it is improving. Little Faith in Government Pessimism about the state’s environmental future is consistent with Californians’ well-known distrust of government: Half of state residents say they have at least some confidence in government to understand and solve today’s environmental problems, but only 9 percent say they have a great deal of confidence and almost half (49%) have little or none. Although residents say they trust state government (32%) more than county (20%), federal (19%), or city (16%) government to deal with environmental problems, a majority (51%) say that the state is not doing enough. Californians also give President George W. Bush and Governor Gray Davis low marks on environmental performance. Only 39 percent of Californians say they approve of the way the president is handling environmental issues; only 35 percent approve of the governor’s environmental performance. Despite their cynicism about the role of government, most voters (88%) say that the candidates’ positions on environmental issues will be very (39%) or somewhat (49%) important in determining their vote for governor in November. Currently, 43 percent say that Democrat Davis would do a better job of handling environmental issues in California; 31 percent give Republican challenger Bill Simon the nod. “Californians today feel profound concern about the environment, but they have little faith that government can resolve serious problems like air pollution,” says PPIC Statewide Survey director Mark Baldassare. “They are willing to take personal responsibility to a large degree, which is remarkable given the state’s anemic economic circumstances.” -v- Press Release Air Pollution Top Issue; Public Willing To Make Tradeoffs To Help Environment Air pollution (34%) is the most important environmental issue facing the state today according to residents, followed distantly by growth and development (13%), water, ocean, and beach pollution (12%), and the water supply (9%). While air pollution is the top issue in every region, Central Valley residents are more likely than residents of other regions to mention it. A majority of all Californians see specific regional concerns as at least somewhat of a problem, from ocean and beach pollution along the coast (84%), to growth and air pollution damaging the Sierra mountains (76%), to the loss of farmlands due to urban sprawl in the Central Valley (70%). Southern California residents are far more likely to view pollution along the coast as a big problem, while Central Valley residents are more likely to say that the loss of farmlands is a big problem. A majority of residents of every region except the Central Valley see traffic congestion as a big problem in their area. Given their broad concerns, state residents are willing to make a variety of economic and lifestyle tradeoffs in order to see environmental improvements: • Economy: Sixty-four percent of Californians say stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the tradeoff, but 31 percent believe such restrictions cost too many jobs and hurt the economy. • Lifestyle: Fifty-three percent of state residents say they will have to make major lifestyle changes to solve today’s environmental problems. Eighty percent recycle regularly and over half (52%) buy organic foods at least some of the time. Despite their love of the outdoors, 55 percent believe that open space should mostly be designated as protected land for natural habitat preservation, rather than developed for recreational use (38%). • Energy: Sixty-five percent of Californians — compared to 52 percent of Americans — say the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of limiting energy production and supplies. And 85 percent favor a state policy that requires doubling the use of renewable energy over the next decade. • Energy/Oil Drilling: Fifty-nine percent say policymakers should not allow more oil drilling off the California coast, even if this means higher gasoline prices for California drivers. “The state is at a critical juncture in terms of our awareness of environmental challenges and our willingness to do something about them,” says Richard Schlosberg, President and CEO of The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. “It is encouraging that Californians accept that they are both part of the problem and a key part of the solution.” Environmental Inequities a Reality for Low-Income, Minority Communities Californians are clear about where they stand in the debate over environmental justice: Most believe there are environmental inequities between more and less affluent communities in the state. A majority of residents (58%) agree that compared to wealthier neighborhoods, lower-income and minority neighborhoods have more than their fair share of toxic waste and polluting facilities. And 64 percent of Californians also say that poorer communities have less than their fair share of well-maintained parks and recreational facilities. Latinos are far more likely than non-Hispanic whites (72% to 60%) to say that poorer communities do not receive their fair share of parks and recreational facilities. More Key Findings • Water Pollution and Supply (pages 4, 18, 24) Most Californians view the pollution of water sources by urban and agricultural runoff (80%) and by toxic substances such as MTBE (74%) as at least somewhat of a problem. Residents are divided about ways to help California meet its future water needs: 47 percent favor building dams and reservoirs, while 45 percent - vi - Press Release prefer conservation. Fifty-nine percent of voters today say they would support the $3.44 billion water bond measure on the November ballot. • Bottled vs. Tap Water (page 7) Only 24 percent of Californians say they drink straight tap water; 35 percent drink it filtered and 39 percent prefer bottled water. Latinos are far more likely than non-Hispanic whites (55% to 30%) to drink bottled water and Los Angeles residents drink bottled water more than residents of other regions. • SUV Ownership (page 7) Consistent with national rates, 23 percent of Californians say they own or lease a sport utility vehicle. Families with children and those at higher income levels are more likely to own an SUV. • Global Warming (page 16) A solid majority of Californians (62%) believe that there is enough evidence that global climate change is real and that some action is warranted. Eighty-one percent favor a state law requiring all automakers to further reduce emission and greenhouse gases from new cars in the state by 2009. • Growth Controls (pages 17 and 18) Fewer Californians today (49%) than in May 2001 (51%) would vote for a local initiative to slow down the pace of growth in their community, even if it meant having less economic activity. A solid majority (58%) favor using taxpayer money to buy undeveloped land to keep it free of development. • Overall Approval Ratings for Bush, Davis (pages 20 and 21) Sixty-five percent of Californians say they approve of the way President Bush is handling his job, down from 76 percent in February, but still far higher than his environmental rating. Support for the president among Democrats and independents has dropped substantially. Governor Davis’ approval ratings have fallen as well: Thirty-nine percent say they approve of the way he is handling his job, compared to 51 percent in February. A significant number of Democrats (41%) say they disapprove of his performance. About the Survey The Californians and the Environment survey is a special edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey. It is the third in a four-year, multisurvey series on growth, land use, and the environment, produced in collaboration with The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The James Irvine Foundation, and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. The purpose of this series is to inform policymakers, encourage discussion, and raise public awareness about the critical growth, development, and environmental challenges facing the state. Findings of the current survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,029 California adult residents interviewed from May 28 to June 4, 2002. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish. The sampling error for the total sample is +/- 2%. For more information on survey methodology, see page 25. Dr. Mark Baldassare is a senior fellow at PPIC, where he holds the Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair in Public Policy. He is founder and director of the PPIC Statewide Survey, which he has conducted since 1998. PPIC is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to improving public policy through objective, nonpartisan research on the economic, social, and political issues that affect Californians. The Institute was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or state and federal legislation nor does it endorse or support any political parties or candidates for public office. This report will appear on PPIC’s website (www. ppic.org) on June 27. See graphics next page. ### - vii - Top four environmental issues in California today Percent All Adults 40 34% 30 20 13% 12% 9% 10 0 Air pollution Growth Water pollution Water supply “What kind of water do you drink in your home?" Percent All Adults Straight tap water 24% Other (vol.) 2% Bottled water 39% Filtered tap water 35% Approval Ratings Percent All Adults “Approve” 80 65% Overall Environment 60 39% 40 35% 39% 20 0 Davis Bush Oil Drilling off the California coast Percent All Adults Should not allow more oil drilling Should allow more oil drilling Don't know 5% 36% 59% “Low income and minority neighborhoods have more than their fair share of toxic waste and polluting facilities.” Percent All Adults Don't know/ Other answer 12% Disagree 30% Agree 58% “Regardless of your choice for governor, which of these candidates would do a better job of handling environmental issues?” Percent All Voters Davis Simon Other Don't know 22% 43% 4% 31% Environmental Conditions Overall Environmental Conditions Most Californians do not believe there has been much progress in solving environmental problems in the state over the past twenty years, and they do not hold out much hope for significant improvement over the next two decades. Only one in six residents say there has been a great deal of progress in dealing with the state’s environmental problems over the past 20 years. Eight in ten believe there has been only some (58%) or hardly any (20%) progress since the early 1980s. This fairly pessimistic view about environmental progress in California is similar across regions of the state, as well as across age, education, and income groups. Latinos (16%) and non-Hispanic whites (21%), and Republicans (28%), Democrats (18%), and independents (13%) are all unlikely to believe that California has made a great deal of environmental progress in the past 20 years. Only 18 percent of Californians express a great deal of optimism that the state’s environmental problems will be well under control 20 years from now. More than half (51%) have only some optimism, and three in 10 Californians express hardly any optimism that the state’s environmental problems will be under control. Latinos are only somewhat more likely than non-Hispanic whites (23% to 16%) to express a lot of optimism about environmental problem solving. Optimism about future environmental conditions does not vary by education, income, or partisan affiliation. "How much progress do you think has been made in dealing with environmental problems in California– including problems related to air, water, and land–over the past 20 years?" Great deal Only some Hardly any Don’t know All Adults 18% 58 20 4 Central Valley 17% 56 24 3 Region SF Bay Area 22% 57 16 5 Los Angeles 15% 57 24 4 Other Southern California 19% 60 18 3 Latino 16% 60 21 3 Great deal Only some Hardly any Don’t know "How much optimism do you have that we will have environmental problems in California well under control 20 years from now?" All Adults 18% 51 28 3 Central Valley 18% 48 30 4 Region SF Bay Area 20% 48 29 3 Los Angeles 18% 55 25 2 Other Southern California 18% 51 30 1 Latino 23% 52 23 2 -1- Environmental Conditions Most Important Environmental Issue When asked to identify the most important environmental issue facing the state, nine in 10 Californians were able to identify a specific problem. Californians are most likely to name air pollution (34%) as the top environmental concern, followed by growth, development, and sprawl (13%), water pollution (12%), water supply (9%), traffic congestion (5%), and pollution in general (5%). Other problems are mentioned less often, including energy, toxic waste, and wildlife protection. Californians’ assessments of the state’s most important environmental issue are little changed from June 2000. Compared to two years ago, residents today are just as likely to name air pollution (34% to 33%), growth, development, and sprawl (13% in both surveys), water quality (12% to 9%), and traffic congestion (5% to 6%) as the most important environmental issue. Residents in every major region of the state name air pollution as the state’s most important environmental issue, with Central Valley residents (41%) the most likely to express concern about this problem. Those living in the coastal regions of the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles are more likely than residents of other regions to mention growth and development and traffic congestion as the biggest environmental issues confronting the state. Non-Hispanic whites, Latinos, and other racial and ethnic groups all rank air pollution as the most important problem, and air pollution is the top environmental concern across every demographic and partisan group. "What do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today?" Air pollution Growth, development, sprawl Water, ocean, and beach pollution Water supply Traffic congestion Pollution in general Energy Toxic waste and land contamination Protecting wildlife Landfills and garbage Loss of farmlands and agriculture Lack of parks and recreation Other answer (specify) Don’t know All Adults 34% 13 12 9 5 5 2 1 1 1 1 1 8 7 Central Valley 41% 9 10 9 3 5 1 0 1 1 1 0 11 8 Region SF Bay Area 31% 14 11 9 8 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 6 Los Angeles 34% 16 9 6 6 6 1 0 1 1 0 1 10 9 Other Southern California 35% 12 12 11 4 5 2 1 2 1 0 0 8 7 Latino 34% 8 13 5 4 9 1 2 1 1 0 1 10 11 -2- Environmental Conditions Environmental Problems in the State Many Californians express concern about environmental problems related to specific regions of the state. More than eight in ten residents say that ocean and beach pollution along the California coast is at least somewhat of a problem, three in four are similarly concerned about the effects of growth and air pollution on forests in the Sierra mountains, and seven in ten residents are at least somewhat concerned about urban sprawl taking over farmlands in the Central Valley. Half say that ocean and beach pollution (50%) is a big problem, and about four in 10 view damage to the Sierras (42%) and the loss of Central Valley farmland (36%) as big problems. Since June 2000, there have been no major changes in how Californians perceive any of these specific issues. Residents living in Los Angeles (65%) and other Southern California areas (60%) are most likely to view ocean and beach pollution as a big problem. Central Valley (44%) and San Francisco Bay Area (37%) residents are more likely than others to say that urban sprawl taking over Central Valley farmlands is a big problem. Los Angeles residents (51%) are more likely than those in other regions to think that urban growth and air pollution damaging forests in the Sierras is a big problem. Latinos are more likely than non-Hispanic whites to say ocean and beach pollution (54% to 49%) and damage to the Sierras (52% to 39%) are big problems. Democrats are much more likely than Republicans and somewhat more likely than independents to say that damage to the Sierras (49% to 26% to 43%) and the loss of Central Valley farmlands (43% to 31% to 35%) are big problems. Democrats (54%) and independents (54%) are both more likely than Republicans (42%) to view ocean and beach pollution along the coast as a big problem. "How much of a problem is __________ in California today?" Region Ocean and beach pollution along the California coast Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don’t know Urban growth and air pollution damaging forests in the Sierra mountains Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don’t know Urban sprawl taking over farmlands in the Central Valley Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don’t know All Adults Central Valley 50% 34 10 6 32% 38 14 16 42% 34 13 11 38% 32 19 11 36% 34 16 14 44% 33 16 7 SF Bay Area Los Angeles 34% 45 16 5 65% 28 5 2 36% 40 15 9 51% 32 7 10 37% 35 18 10 33% 35 14 18 Other Southern California Latino 60% 28 6 6 54% 29 9 8 38% 36 13 13 52% 24 14 10 32% 33 17 18 37% 34 16 13 - 3 - June 2002 Environmental Conditions When questioned about three specific statewide environmental problems, three in four California residents indicated that urban and agricultural runoff polluting lakes, rivers and streams; soil and groundwater toxic contamination; and suburban development harming wildlife and endangered species was each at least somewhat of problem. Four in 10 believe that urban and agricultural runoff pollution and land and water contamination by toxics are big problems. Compared to our June 2000 survey, residents today are marginally less likely to think that pollution from urban and agricultural runoff (47% to 43%), the toxic contamination of soil and groundwater (48% to 41%), and development harming wildlife habitats (39% to 36%) are big problems. In the current survey, Los Angeles residents (50%) are the most likely to say that water pollution from urban and agricultural runoff is a big problem; and together with San Francisco Bay Area residents, they are the most likely to say that toxic contamination is a big problem. Central Valley residents are the most likely to think that suburban development harming wildlife is not a problem (32%). Latinos are more likely than non-Hispanic whites to rate pollution from urban and agricultural runoff (52% to 41%), soil and groundwater contamination (49% to 39%), and development harming wildlife habitats (42% to 34%) as big problems. Republicans are less likely than Democrats and independents to see water pollution from urban and agricultural runoff (32% to 49% to 45%), groundwater and soil contamination (37% to 45% to 43%), and development harming wildlife habitats (23% to 40% to 39%) as big problems. "How much of a problem is __________ in California today?" Region Urban and agricultural runoff polluting lakes, rivers, and streams Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don’t know MTBE and other toxic substances contaminating soil and groundwater Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don’t know Suburban development harming wildlife habitats and endangered species Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don’t know All Adults 43% 37 12 8 41% 33 10 16 36% 38 21 5 Central Valley 37% 36 18 9 38% 32 13 17 30% 34 32 4 SF Bay Area Los Angeles 39% 45 8 8 50% 32 9 9 45% 31 11 13 45% 30 6 19 34% 45 18 3 41% 38 15 6 Other Southern California Latino 43% 35 14 8 52% 30 13 5 36% 36 10 18 49% 28 10 13 35% 35 25 5 42% 32 20 6 -4- Environmental Conditions Regional Environmental Problems Californians send mixed signals when asked to evaluate their regional environments. While three in four are satisfied with the current state of the environment in their regions, more than half say that the quality of their environment is getting worse. This apparent disconnect reflects the fact that fewer than one in four residents is very satisfied with the air, water, and land quality in his or her region. Most Californians are only somewhat satisfied with the environment, and most of these residents believe that the quality of their regional environment is getting worse. Compared to residents in the state’s other major regions, Los Angeles residents are the least satisfied with the quality of their air, water, and land: Thirty-six percent are somewhat or very dissatisfied with their regional environment. Across the state, Latinos (23%) and non-Hispanic whites (24%) are equally satisfied with regional environmental quality, but Latinos have a notably more optimistic view about their environment improving (35% to 25%). "Overall, how satisfied are you with the quality of the environment in your region– including the air, water, and land?" Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Don’t know All Adults 23% 49 20 7 1 Central Valley 22% 48 23 6 1 Region SF Bay Area 24% 55 17 4 0 Los Angeles 15% 48 23 13 1 Other Southern California 25% 49 19 6 1 Latino 23% 47 21 8 1 "Would you say the quality of the environment in your region is getting better or is it getting worse?" Better Worse Same (volunteered) Don’t know All Adults 27% 51 17 5 Central Valley 23% 57 17 3 Region SF Bay Area 28% 50 17 5 Los Angeles 28% 49 17 6 Other Southern California 27% 53 15 5 Latino 35% 46 16 3 Over the past two years, Californians have become increasingly likely to think that traffic congestion (44% to 61%) and air pollution (28% to 34%) are big problems in their region. Three in 10 residents continue to rate growth and development as a big problem. Residents were asked about the pollution of drinking water for the first time, and nearly one in four rates this as a big problem. San Francisco Bay Area (72%) and Los Angeles (73%) residents are more likely than others to say that traffic congestion is a big problem where they live. Los Angeles (47%) and Central Valley (39%) residents are the most likely to say that air pollution is a big problem in their region. Latinos are somewhat more likely than non-Hispanic whites to say that air pollution (38% to 32%) and the pollution of drinking water (29% to 20%) are big problems. Republicans are less likely than Democrats or independents to perceive air pollution as a big problem (25% to 37% to 37%). - 5 - June 2002 Environmental Conditions "How much of a problem is __________ in your region today?" Percentage seeing the issue as a big problem: Traffic congestion Air pollution Population growth and development Pollution of drinking water . All Adults 2000 44% 28 27 -- 2001 60% 30 29 -- 2002 61% 34 30 23 "How much of a problem is __________ in your region today?" Region Traffic congestion on freeways and major roads Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don’t know Air pollution Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don’t know Population growth and development Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don’t know Pollution of drinking water Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don’t know All Adults Central Valley 61% 24 14 1 34% 38 27 1 30% 37 31 2 23% 31 42 4 36% 33 30 1 39% 33 27 1 24% 35 39 2 25% 32 40 3 SF Bay Area Los Angeles 72% 22 6 0 27% 47 26 0 30% 45 23 2 17% 31 47 5 73% 18 8 1 47% 35 17 1 31% 37 29 3 30% 32 34 4 Other Southern California Latino 62% 26 12 0 30% 37 32 1 34% 35 30 1 21% 30 45 4 59% 22 19 0 38% 34 27 1 29% 34 35 2 29% 31 37 3 -6- Environmental Connections Consumer Choices In California today, 76 percent of all residents do not drink unfiltered tap water in their homes. Across all of the state’s major regions, residents overwhelmingly prefer bottled and filtered water to straight tap water, a preference that is higher in Los Angeles (80%) and other Southern California areas (77%) than in the San Francisco Bay Area (70%) or Central Valley (64%). Of those who say that pollution of drinking water is a big problem in their region, only 13 percent drink water straight from the tap, compared to 21 percent who see it as somewhat of a problem, and 34 percent who do not see the pollution of drinking water as a problem. Younger residents are much more likely to drink bottled water at home compared to residents 55 and older. Latinos (55%) overwhelmingly prefer bottled water to all other types of water, while nonHispanic whites are more evenly divided among the three choices. The college educated and residents with household incomes of $80,000 or higher are more likely to drink filtered water, while residents with lower incomes and less education are more likely to drink bottled water. Nearly one in four Californians (23%) own or lease a sport utility vehicle (SUV). This number is consistent with national findings by Newsweek in 2001. Residents 55 and older (14%) are much less likely than younger residents (24%) to have an SUV. Residents who have household incomes of $80,000 or higher (38%) are more likely than those with lower incomes (18%) to own such a vehicle. People with children at home (30%) are much more likely than those without children in the home (18%) to drive an SUV. Other Southern California residents (28%) are the most likely to own an SUV. Republicans (30%) are more likely to have an SUV than either Democrats (23%) or independents (20%). SUV ownership is unrelated to education or race and ethnicity. "What kind of water do you typically drink in your home?" Straight tap water Filtered tap water Bottled water Other (volunteered) All Central Adults Valley 24% 33% 35 33 39 31 23 Region Race/Ethnicity SF Bay Area 27% Los Angeles 18% Other Southern California 22% Non-Hispanic White Latino 30% 13% 38 32 38 37 31 32 48 39 30 55 32 1 3 1 "Do you personally own or lease an SUV (sport utility vehicle)?" Income Kids at Home All $40,000 Adults <$40K -79,999 $80K+ Yes No Latino Yes 23% 13% 23% 38% 30% 18% 24% No 77 87 77 62 70 82 76 -7- Environmental Connections Personal Activities and Practices Californians are living up to their active image by spending time out-and-about in the Golden State. Forty percent of Californians regularly spend time at local parks, recreation areas, or beaches, and another 41 percent do so on a less frequent basis. Two in three Californians say they at least sometimes visit a national park or other scenic destination, and almost one-quarter do so regularly. Nineteen percent of residents say that they regularly hike and bike on unpaved trails, and an additional 27 percent sometimes engage in these activities. There are only modest regional differences in participation in any of these activities. By contrast, residents’ income and education are highly related to the amount of time they spend pursuing these leisure activities. Residents who make less than $40,000 annually and those who have not attended college are much less likely than others to spend time on these activities. Having children in the house seems to provide some incentive for activity; residents with children in the home are more likely than those without children at home to spend time hiking and biking (51% to 43%) and visiting local parks and beaches (89% to 75%). "How often do you …?" Region All Adults Spend your leisure time at local parks, recreation areas, or beaches Regularly Sometimes Hardly ever Never 40% 41 13 6 Take a trip to a national park or other scenic destination Regularly Sometimes Hardly ever Never 23% 42 25 10 Go on day trips that involve hiking or mountain biking on unpaved trails Regularly Sometimes Hardly ever Never 19% 27 24 30 Central Valley 34% 43 17 6 27% 42 21 10 15% 26 26 33 SF Bay Area Los Angeles 42% 41 11 6 39% 42 12 7 26% 40 27 7 20% 44 25 11 21% 28 23 28 18% 27 25 30 Other Southern California Latino 41% 38 14 7 44% 40 10 6 23% 41 26 10 22% 41 25 12 19% 25 25 31 16% 28 26 30 -8- Environmental Connections Californians’ familiarity with environmental issues in their cities or communities carries, at least partly, into environmentally friendly practices. Eighty percent of Californians regularly recycle their newspapers, aluminum cans, and glass; and two in 10 regularly buy organic and pesticide-free foods or carpool on a regular basis. San Francisco Bay Area residents’ commitment to recycling has not wavered since June 2000, when 90 percent of Bay Area residents indicated that they recycled regularly. Traffic congestion in the state has perhaps had one positive environmental effect: Fewer residents say that they never carpool now (47%) than in June 2000 (52%). The percentage of residents who never carpool has declined in traffic-snarled Los Angeles (50% to 44%) and other areas of Southern California (51% to 44%). Today, residents purchase organic and pesticide-free foods somewhat less regularly. In the “Other Southern California” area, for example, there has been a nine-point drop (57% to 48%) in the percentage of people who regularly or sometimes buy organic foods. There are some interesting differences between Latinos and non-Hispanic whites: NonHispanic whites are more likely than Latinos to say they regularly recycle (84% to 74%), while Latinos are more likely than non-Hispanic whites to say they carpool regularly (26% to 17%). Both groups are equally likely to buy organic and pesticide-free foods. Recycling tends to increase among those with higher education and income, while carpooling declines with these socioeconomic factors. People ages 55 and older (88%) are the most likely to regularly recycle, and those under 35 are the most likely to carpool on a regular basis (29%). Recycle newspapers, aluminum cans, or glass Regularly Sometimes Hardly ever Never Buy organic and pesticide-free foods Regularly Sometimes Hardly ever Never Carpool with others Regularly Sometimes Hardly ever Never "How often do you …?" Region All Adults Central Valley SF Bay Area Los Angeles 80% 10 4 6 76% 12 5 7 89% 7 2 2 79% 8 5 8 20% 32 22 26 19% 24 22 35 21% 35 21 23 20% 34 20 26 19% 18 16 47 21% 13 13 53 16% 20 16 48 20% 20 16 44 Other Southern California Latino 75% 13 5 7 74% 14 5 7 18% 30 25 27 20% 30 23 27 20% 18 18 44 26% 19 17 38 - 9 - June 2002 Environmental Connections Knowledge and Involvement While 68 percent of Californians say they are at least somewhat knowledgeable about the environmental issues facing their communities, only 21 percent say they have a lot of knowledge. Far fewer are personally involved in local environmental issues. Local environmental knowledge is highly related to education: Residents who have college or postgraduate degrees (27%) are more likely than residents with either some college (19%) or a high school education or less (14%) to say that they have a lot of knowledge about environmental issues. As income increases, so does the percentage of residents who say they have at least some knowledge about these issues: Sixty percent of those with household incomes under $40,000, 69 percent of those with incomes between $40,000 and $80,000, and 79 percent of those with incomes $80,000 and higher know at least something about environmental issues in their city or community. NonHispanic whites (76%) are much more likely than Latinos (56%) to say that they have at least some knowledge of these issues. Knowledge about the local environment also increases with age and length of time living at current residence. Three in 10 residents have been personally involved at least sometimes in environmental issues in their city or community, although only 7 percent have been involved a lot. Forty percent of nonHispanic whites indicate that they are at least somewhat involved in environmental issues in their communities, compared to 29 percent of Latinos. Involvement increases with age, education, and income and is higher among those who are registered to vote (40%) than those who are not (20%). There are no significant differences in involvement across region or party affiliation. "How much do you personally know about specific environmental issues in your city or community?" A lot Some Very little Nothing/Don’t know All Adults 21% 47 26 6 Income <$40K 16% 44 32 8 $40,00079,999 22% 47 25 6 Race/Ethnicity $80K+ 25% Non-Hispanic White 24% Latino 15% 54 52 41 19 20 32 24 12 "How often have you been personally involved in environmental issues in your city or community by taking steps such as attending public meetings, signing petitions, or writing letters to local officials?" A lot Sometimes Hardly ever Never All Adults 7% 29 25 39 Income <$40K 7% 24 22 47 $40,00079,999 6% 29 24 41 Race/Ethnicity $80K+ 8% Non-Hispanic White 8% Latino 5% 34 32 24 30 26 23 28 34 48 - 10 - Environmental Connections Environmental Justice There is a growing debate among environmental advocates and policymakers about potential environmental inequities in low-income and minority communities. The broad label “environmental justice” has been applied to this ongoing discussion; the term encompasses both negative conditions such as polluting activities and positive conditions such as parks and recreational facilities. Much of the current debate focuses on the quantification of environmental conditions as well as on quality. Although public opinion is implicated at each turn, it is rarely studied. In California, roughly six in 10 residents agree with the statement that low-income and minority neighborhoods are unfairly burdened with toxic waste and other polluting facilities. Notably, there are no differences across income groups on this question. Moreover, non-Hispanic whites (58%) are just as likely as Latinos (61%) to agree that lower-income and minority neighborhoods have more than their fair share of polluting facilities. Residents who say that they are involved with environmental issues in their communities and those who are less satisfied with the quality of the environment in their region are more likely to agree with the statement that lower-income and minority neighborhoods have more than their fair share of toxic waste and other polluting facilities. Republicans (39%) are much more likely than Democrats (21%) and independents (29%) to disagree with this statement. Almost two-thirds (64%) of residents agree with the statement that lower-income and minority neighborhoods have less than their fair share of well-maintained parks and recreational facilities. On this question, Latinos (72%) are more likely than non-Hispanic whites (60%) to agree that lowincome and minority neighborhoods are not getting their fair share. Once again, however, there are no differences across income or education groups. Residents ages 18 to 34 (70%) are much more likely than those ages 55 and older (54%) to agree that the distribution of these facilities is problematic. Republicans (52%) are much less likely than Democrats (71%) and independents (68%) to see an inequitable division. "Do you agree or disagree with this statement …?" Some people say that when it comes to where toxic waste and polluting facilities are located in the state, lower-income and minority neighborhoods have more than their fair share compared to other neighborhoods Agree Disagree Don’t know/Other answer All Adults Income $40,000<$40K 79,999 Race/Ethnicity Non-Hispanic $80K+ White Latino 58% 30 12 61% 28 11 59% 29 12 56% 31 13 58% 28 14 61% 31 8 Some people say that lower-income and minority neighborhoods have less than their fair share of wellmaintained parks and recreational facilities compared to other neighborhoods Agree Disagree Don’t know/Other answer 64% 29 7 65% 29 6 65% 28 7 64% 30 6 60% 31 9 72% 24 4 - 11 - June 2002 Environmental Connections Environmental News and Interest Almost six in 10 Californians say they follow news about the state’s environmental issues closely, with 12 percent saying they follow this news very closely. There are few regional differences, but Los Angeles residents (9%) are somewhat less likely than those elsewhere to say that they follow news very closely. Older, better educated, and wealthier residents tend to keep a closer eye on environmental issues in the state. Residents who follow news stories about air, land, and water protection at least fairly closely are more engaged when it comes to environmental issues than residents who follow the news less closely. For example, those who closely watch the news are much more likely to be involved in their city or community on environmental issues (48% to 18%) and to say that they have at least some knowledge of the environmental issues facing their communities (82% to 50%). They are also more likely (67% to 54%) to believe that their health and well-being are seriously threatened by today’s environmental problems. "How closely do you follow news about the state’s environmental issues– such as air, land, and water protection?" Very closely Fairly closely Not too closely Not at all closely All Adults 12% 46 33 9 Central Valley 13% 46 31 10 Region SF Bay Area 13% 43 36 8 Los Angeles 9% 50 33 8 Other Southern California 14% 43 34 9 Latino 14% 44 31 11 Money for Environmental Causes Although many residents express a strong interest in the environment, only 37 percent have donated to environmental groups, causes, or issues in the past year, and only 7 percent have donated a lot. Comparing residents who make donations to those who do not, the donors tend to be more involved in their communities’ environmental issues (53% to 25%), know a lot about environmental issues (30% to 15%), and view their health and well-being as seriously threatened by today’s environmental problems (69% to 56%). Non-Hispanic whites are more likely than Latinos to have made a donation (39% to 30%). Donations increase along with education and income. Compared to those who donate a little, residents who donate a lot are much more likely to say that they have been involved a lot in their communities on these issues (27% to 9%). "Have you donated money to any environmental groups, causes, or issues in the past year? (if yes, Have you donated a lot or a little?)" Yes, a lot Yes, a little No All Adults 7% 30 63 Central Valley 5% 28 67 Region SF Bay Area 11% 34 55 Los Angeles 5% 34 61 Other Southern California 6% 26 68 Latino 5% 25 70 - 12 - Environmental Policy Environmental Protection: Economic and Lifestyle Implications Despite the continuing economic doldrums, 64 percent of Californians believe that stricter environmental laws are worth potential costs to the economy. This degree of commitment is up somewhat from February 2002 (59%) and June 2000 (57%). In fact, it represents a return to the preeconomic downturn level of 64 percent in January 2000. Although Californians from all regions, political parties, and all age, education, and income groups support stricter environmental laws, degree of support differs across regions and political and demographic groups. For example, Central Valley residents (54%) are much less likely than residents of the state’s other major regions to say that stricter environmental laws are worth the costs for jobs and the economy. Republicans (50%) are less likely than Democrats (72%), independents (67%), or those not registered to vote (66%) to opt for the environmental side of this trade-off. Support for stricter laws also decreases with age but increases with education and is unrelated to household income. "Does the first statement or the second statement come closer to your views ...?" Stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost Stricter environmental laws and regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy Don’t know All Adults 64% 31 5 Central Valley 54% 38 8 Region SF Bay Area Los Angeles 70% 69% Other Southern California 62% Latino 62% 26 26 34 33 4 5 45 When asked how much they will have to change their lifestyles to solve today’s environmental problems, a slim majority of Californians (53%) believe that they will have to make major changes. Forty-four percent think that solving the problems will require them to make few or no changes. Democrats (60%) are more likely than Republicans (45%) to say that major lifestyle changes will be required of them. There are no significant differences among age, income, educational, or regional groups in perceived need for change. Party Registration People like me will have to make major lifestyle changes to solve today’s environmental problems People like me will have to make few or no lifestyle changes to solve today’s environmental problems Don’t know/Other answer All Not Adults Democrat Republican Independents Registered Latino 53% 60% 45% 56% 51% 57% 44 38 52 42 46 40 32 3 2 33 - 13 - Environmental Policy Environmental Protection and Energy Supplies It would appear that the energy crisis has not fundamentally affected Californians' policy preferences: 65 percent believe that protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of limiting the amount of energy supplies—such as oil, gas, and coal—the U.S. produces. Only 29 percent of Californians would give development of U.S. energy supplies priority even if the environment suffers to some extent. A recent Gallup survey found American public opinion less widely divided on this trade-off: In March 2002, 52 percent of theGallup sample gave priority to protecting the environment, while 40 percent gave priority to developing energy supplies. "Does the first statement or the second statement come closer to your views ...?" All Adults U.S.* Protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of limiting the amount of energy supplies–such as oil, gas, and coal–which the U.S. produces 52% Development of U.S. energy supplies such as oil, gas, and coal should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent 40 Don’t know/Other answer 8 California 65% 29 6 *Gallup, March 2002 Support for environmental protection varies greatly across the state’s major regions and among partisan groups. It is highest in Los Angeles (71%) and lowest in the Central Valley (55%). It is higher among Democrats (71%), independents (67%), and people not registered to vote (67%) than among Republicans (51%). Latinos (71%) are more likely than non-Hispanic whites (63%) to view environmental protection as worth the supply risks. Support for environmental protection decreases with age, increases modestly with education, and is unrelated to income. Protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of limiting the amount of energy supplies–such as oil, gas, and coal– which the U.S. produces Development of U.S. energy supplies such as oil, gas, and coal should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent Don’t know/Other answer All Adults 65% 29 6 Central Valley 55% 39 6 Region SF Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern California Latino 66% 71% 61% 71% 27 24 33 23 7 5 66 - 14 - Environmental Policy State Energy Policy Californians’ general sentiments about environmental protection are reflected in their opinions on specific environmental issues confronting their state. Opposition to more offshore oil drilling in the state is high, and a large majority favor doubling the state’s use of renewable energy. In our survey, 59 percent opposed new oil drilling off the state’s coast, even if it meant higher gasoline prices. This opposition is up from June 2000, when 54 percent opposed new drilling. As in June 2000, opposition to new drilling is higher in the San Francisco Bay Area (69%) and Los Angeles (64%) and lower in other Southern California areas (53%) and the Central Valley (48%). Democrats (69%), independents (62%), and those not registered to vote (61%) also continue to be more opposed than Republicans (43%) to new drilling. Opposition to new offshore drilling increases with education but is unrelated to income or age. "Does the first statement or the second statement come closer to your views ...?" Policymakers should not allow more oil drilling off the California coast even if this means higher gasoline prices for California drivers Policymakers should allow more oil drilling off the California coast if this means lower gasoline prices for California drivers Don’t know All Adults 59% 36 5 Central Valley 48% 46 6 Region SF Bay Area Los Angeles 69% 64% Other Southern California Latino 53% 57% 26 32 41 38 5 4 65 Californians express overwhelming support (85%) for a state policy requiring that renewable energy account for 20 percent of all state power in the next 10 years. Support for this measure is high across the state and among all partisan and socioeconomic groups. Even among those who think that the development of U.S. energy supplies should take priority over potential environmental harm, only 21 percent are opposed to this renewable energy policy. "Do you favor or oppose a state policy that requires doubling the use of renewable energy– such as wind, geothermal, and solar power– in the next 10 years from 10 percent of all California power today to 20 percent?" Party Registration Favor Oppose Don’t know All Adults 85% 12 3 Democrat 88% 8 4 Not Republican Independents Registered 82% 85% 83% 14 13 13 4 24 Latino 81% 16 3 - 15 - June 2002 Environmental Policy Global Warming How seriously do Californians take the threat of global warning? A solid majority (62%) believe there is enough evidence that global climate change is real and that at least some action must be taken. This breaks down into 25 percent who see global climate change as an established, serious problem that requires immediate action and 37 percent who say that there is ample evidence that global warming is real and that some action is needed. Twenty-seven percent of Californians believe that more research is needed before acting, and 7 percent feel that concern about global climate change is unwarranted. These findings are similar to those of June 2000. Democrats (70%) and independents (68%) are much more likely than Republicans (47%) to believe there is enough evidence of global climate change to require at least some action. San Francisco Bay Area residents (70%) are the most likely to think at least some action is needed, and Central Valley residents are the least likely (53%). Californians under age 55 (66%) are more likely than those 55 and older (51%) to think that at least some action on global warming is needed. Support for action on global warming also increases with education and income. "From what you know about global climate change or global warming, which of the following four statements comes closest to your opinion …?" Party Registration Change is serious, need immediate action Enough evidence, need some action Need more research before acting Concern is unwarranted Don't know/Other answer All Adults 25% 37 27 7 4 Democrat 32% 38 23 3 4 Republican 12% 35 37 13 3 Independents 29% 39 23 8 1 Not Registered 28% 36 26 5 5 Latino 27% 38 27 4 4 A large majority of Californians (81%) support a state law that would mandate further reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2009. Public support for tougher emission standards varies by party affiliation and region but remains at or above 70 percent for all demographic subgroups. Although opposition is highest among those who do not see the need for at least some action on global warming, a sizeable majority (67%) of this group still favor legislating lower emissions. Owners of S.U.V.s also overwhelmingly support this measure (77%). "Do you favor or oppose a state law requiring all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars in California by 2009?" Global Warming Favor Oppose Don’t know All Adults 81% 16 3 Change is Real/ Action is Necessary 90% 9 1 More Research Needed/ Concern is Unwarranted 67% 29 4 Own/Lease S.U.V. 77% 23 0 Latino 82% 15 3 - 16 - Environmental Policy Open Space and Land Development The high concern that Californians have about growth and development issues carries over into what they want done with the remaining open space in their regions. Overall, a majority (55%) believe that open space in their region should be designated as protected land for the preservation of species and natural habitats, as opposed to being developed for parks, sports, and recreational use (38%). Support for designating open space as protected land varies widely across the state and among Californians from different socioeconomic groups. Majorities of residents in the San Francisco Bay Area (60%), Los Angeles (56%), and other Southern California areas (55%) want to protect open space as open space, but Central Valley residents are evenly split between protection (45%) and development (45%). Democrats (61%) and independents (59%) are more likely than Republicans (49%) to want to see the land protected. "Does the first statement or the second statement come closer to your views ...?" Open space in my region should mostly be designated as protected land for the preservation of species and natural habitats Open space in my region should mostly be developed for parks, sports, and recreation use Don’t know All Adults 55% 38 7 Central Valley 45% 45 10 Region SF Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern California Latino 60% 56% 55% 53% 32 39 40 42 8 5 55 Californians’ commitment to open space extends to their spending priorities: 58 percent say they would favor using taxpayer money to buy undeveloped land to keep it free from commercial and residential development. However, support for this use is higher among Democrats (66%), independents (61%), and those not registered to vote (60%) than among Republicans (47%). Support increases with income and education and decreases with age. In June 2000, 57 percent of Californians supported the idea of using public funds to slow the pace of development. "Do you favor or oppose using taxpayer money to buy undeveloped land to keep it free from commercial and residential development?" Party Registration Favor Oppose Don’t know All Adults 58% 37 5 Democrat 66% 30 4 Republican 47% 48 5 Independents 61% 35 4 Not Registered 60% 36 4 Latino 58% 37 5 - 17 - June 2002 Environmental Policy Californians are more divided on a hypothetical local growth-control initiative: 49 percent say they would vote yes on a local initiative to slow down the pace of growth in their cities or communities, even if it meant having less economic growth; 44 percent say that they would vote no. Californians are more evenly divided on this issue today than they have been in any of the three previous Statewide Surveys in which it was raised. This shift results primarily from decreased support for a local growth initiative in the San Francisco Bay Area since the earlier surveys. Today, support for the slow growth initiative in the Bay Area (49%) mirrors support elsewhere in the state (49%). Previously, Bay Area residents were far more likely than Californians elsewhere to say that they would vote yes on this initiative. "If an election were held today, would you vote yes or no on a local initiative to slow down the pace of development in your city or community, even if it meant having less economic growth?" Yes No Don’t know June 2000 58% 37 5 All Adults May 2001 Nov 2001 51% 55% 41 38 87 June 2002 49% 44 7 Water Supply Californians are evenly split on how to help the state meet its future water needs: 47 percent think the better approach is building new dams and reservoirs; 45 percent prefer encouraging conservation through pricing and reallocating some existing water supply from agriculture to urban areas. Residents of the Central Valley (58%) are more supportive of building new dams and reservoirs than residents of "Other Southern California" areas (49%), and much more supportive than residents of Los Angeles (43%) and the San Francisco Bay Area (39%). Democrats (49%), independents (47%), and those not registered to vote (49%) are much more in favor than Republicans (33%) of conservation and reallocation. In fact, a majority of Republicans (58%) favor new dams and reservoirs. Political conservatives (57%) are also much more likely than moderates (48%) and liberals (35%) to prefer dams and reservoirs. Support for dams and reservoirs over conservation and reallocation decreases with education, increases with income, and is unrelated to age. "Regarding ways to help California meet its future water needs, do you favor …?" Region All Adults Encouraging conservation through pricing and reallocating some of the existing water supply from agriculture to urban areas Building new dams and reservoirs Don’t know 45% 47 8 Central Valley 36% 58 6 SF Bay Area 51% 39 10 Los Angeles Other Southern California Latino 48% 43% 45% 43 49 49 9 86 - 18 - Governance Trust in Government Californians’ notorious distrust of government extends to the environmental arena: While half of Californians say they have at least some confidence that government can understand and solve environmental problems, only 9 percent say they have a great deal of confidence in government’s ability to do so. Half of the state’s residents have very little or not much confidence that government can understand and solve the problems. Independents (33%) are more likely than either Democrats (21%) or Republicans (22%) to express not much confidence. There are no major differences in trust in government’s ability across regions or between Latinos and non-Hispanic whites. However, residents ages 18 to 34 (53%) and 35 to 54 (52%) are more likely than those age 55 and older (44%) to have at least some confidence in government ability to handle environmental issues. When asked about the level of government they trusted most to deal with environmental problems, Californians chose state government (32%) more than county (20%), federal (19%), or city (16%) government. Central Valley (25%) and San Francisco Bay Area (23%) residents are more likely to say they trust counties than are residents in Los Angeles and other Southern California areas (16% each). There are no significant differences between Latinos and non-Hispanic whites on this dimension of trust in government. As for partisan differences, independent voters (42%) put more faith in the abilities of local governments (i.e., cities and counties) to understand and solve environmental problems than do Republicans (38%) or Democrats (32%). "How much confidence do you have in the ability of government to understand and solve the kinds of environmental problems that we have today?" A great deal Some Very little Not much Don’t know All Adults 9% 41 26 23 1 Central Valley 10% 39 26 23 2 Region SF Bay Area 7% 40 29 23 1 Los Angeles 10% 42 23 25 0 Other Southern California 10% 42 28 19 1 Latino 13% 40 29 17 1 "Which level of government do you trust the most to deal with environmental problems?" State government County government Federal government City government None (volunteered) Don’t know All Adults 32% 20 19 16 10 3 Central Valley 31% 25 19 13 9 3 Region SF Bay Area 30% 23 16 15 10 6 Los Angeles 33% 16 21 18 9 3 Other Southern California 34% 16 19 17 10 4 Latino 32% 17 23 16 9 3 - 19 - Governance President’s Ratings Although a relatively high 65 percent of Californians approve of President Bush’s performance in office, statewide support for the president is down sharply from February 2002 (76%). This is the president’s lowest approval rating since before the attacks on September 11th, but it is still higher than his approval rating in May 2001 (57%). These California results are in contrast with a national survey by Gallup in May, which showed the president’s support at 77 percent, down only slightly since early February. Not all Californians have become less positive about the president’s job performance. Republicans are almost as supportive now (90%) as they were in February (95%). It is Democrats (47% vs. 60%) and independents (59% vs. 71%) whose support has declined the most since the February 2002 survey. The president’s approval ratings today are similar for registered and unregistered Californians. Sixty-four percent of Latinos and 68 percent of non-Hispanic whites approve of Bush’s job performance. College graduates (57%) are substantially less approving of the president than are those with a high school diploma or less (74%). When it comes to the environment, 39 percent approve and 44 percent disapprove of the way Bush is handling this issue. Opinions of the president’s environmental record have a partisan cast: Two-thirds of the president’s fellow Republicans approve of his environmental performance, while two-thirds of Democrats and nearly half of independents disapprove. Approval of Bush is lower on environment issues for all partisan groups compared to his overall support: It is 25 points lower for Democrats (22% vs. 47%), 24 points lower for Republicans (66% vs. 90%), and 22 points lower for independents (37% vs. 59%). Latinos and non-Hispanic whites offer identical assessments of Bush’s environmental record: forty percent in each group approve. Higher education leads to lower levels of support: Those without any college are more approving (50%) than those with a college degree (31%). Party Registration Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as president? Approve Disapprove Don’t know Do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Bush is handling environmental issues in the U.S.? Approve Disapprove Don’t know All Adults 65% 30 5 39% 44 17 Democrat 47% 47 6 22% 65 13 Not Republican Independents Registered Latino 90% 7 3 59% 35 6 69% 25 6 64% 30 6 66% 19 15 37% 48 15 39% 37 24 40% 43 17 - 20 - Governance Governor’s Ratings While 39 percent of Californians approve of Governor Davis’s performance in office, 52 percent disapprove. The governor’s overall approval rating is lower than in February 2002 (51%) or one year ago in May 2001 (46%) or any other time since September 2000 when this question was first asked. Half of the governor’s fellow Democrats approve of his performance in office, compared to one in five Republicans and one in three independents. Latinos are among the governor’s strongest supporters—48 percent approve of how he is handling his job, compared to only 33 percent of nonHispanic whites. The governor’s approval ratings decline as Californians' age, education, and income increase. Davis’s approval ratings on the environment closely match his overall ratings: Thirty-five percent approve of the way he is handling environmental issues, and 47 percent disapprove. The governor’s approval ratings on environmental issues have not changed since June 2000 (36%), but disapproval has risen over time (28% to 47%) as the proportion with no opinion has declined (36% to 18%). A plurality of Democrats (43%) approve of the governor’s performance on environmental issues, compared to 21 percent of Republicans and 33 percent of independents. Davis’s overall approval ratings and his environmental approval ratings are fairly close among Democrats (50% to 43%), Republicans (19% to 21%), and independents (34% to 33%). Fewer Latinos approve of the governor’s handling of environmental issues (41%) compared to their approval of his performance overall (48%). Still, Latinos are more likely to approve of Davis on environmental issues than are non-Hispanic whites (41% to 31%). Support for the governor’s efforts on environmental issues tends to decline as age, education, and income increase. Party Registration Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Gray Davis is handling his job as governor of California? Approve Disapprove Don’t know Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Davis is handling environmental issues in California? Approve Disapprove Don’t know All Adults 39% 52 9 35% 47 18 Democrat 50% 41 9 43% 40 17 Not Republican Independents Registered Latino 19% 76 5 34% 57 9 47% 36 17 48% 43 9 21% 63 16 33% 51 16 41% 36 23 41% 46 13 - 21 - June 2002 Governance Political Importance of Environmental Issues Nine in 10 California registered voters (88%) say that the candidates’ environmental positions will be at least somewhat important in determining their vote for governor this fall, and 39 percent rate environmental issues as very important. Nearly half of Democrats (47%) say the candidates’ stances on the environment will be a very important consideration in whom they vote for, compared to 27 percent of Republicans and 39 percent of independents. Latino registered voters (48%) are more likely than non-Hispanic white registered voters (36%) to say the issue will be very important. Registered voters in Los Angeles (44%) are more likely than their counterparts in the rest of the state (37%) to say that environmental issues will be very important when it comes to deciding their vote. While Californians are more likely to disapprove than approve of the governor’s performance on environmental issues, registered voters choose Davis rather than Republican challenger Bill Simon (43% to 31%) when asked which candidate for governor would do a better job handling the state’s environmental issues. On this question, partisan differences are sharp: Sixty-four percent of Democrats support Davis over Simon and 59 percent of Republicans support Simon over Davis. Independent voters favor Davis (41% to 25%). Latinos are more likely than non-Hispanic white voters to favor Davis over Simon on environmental issues (50% to 40%). Registered voters who say environmental issues will be very important to their vote for governor favor Davis over Simon in handling environmental issues (51% to 25%), as do those who say environmental issues will be only somewhat important (42% to 32%). Those who approve of the governor’s performance on environmental issues think Davis would do a better job than Simon on the environment (73% to 11%), and those who disapprove of Davis’s performance on the environment tend to think that Simon would do a better job (48% to 24%). "In thinking about the governor’s election this year, how important are the candidates’ positions on environmental issues in determining your vote?" Very important Somewhat important Not important Don’t know All Registered Voters 39% 49 11 1 Party Registration Democrat 47% 45 6 2 Republican 27% 53 19 1 Latino Independents Voters 39% 48% 50 44 10 6 12 "Regardless of your choice for governor, which of these candidates would do a better job of handling environmental issues in California?" Gray Davis Bill Simon Other answer (volunteered) Don’t know All Registered Voters 43% 31 4 22 Party Registration Democrat 64% 14 4 18 Republican 17% 59 4 20 Latino Independents Voters 41% 50% 25 25 53 29 22 - 22 - Governance State Government A majority of Californians (51%) say that the state government is not doing enough to protect the environment, 38 percent feel the state is doing just enough, and 7 percent think the state is doing more than enough. These numbers are relatively unchanged from June 2000 when 50 percent of Californians said the state government was not doing enough, 37 percent said just enough, and 9 percent said it was doing more than enough to protect the environment. Democrats (56%) and independents (54%) are more likely than Republicans (44%) to think that the state government is not doing enough to protect California’s environment. Latinos and nonHispanic whites do not differ substantially on this issue. The perception that the state government is not doing enough when it comes to environmental protection increases with education. Perhaps reflecting this general desire for more state government action in this policy arena, Californians are willing to fund environmental programs even if it draws money from other state programs. Forced to make a trade-off in light of the large state budget deficit, 54 percent say full funding of environmental programs should continue even if it means less money for other programs, and 35 percent feel that funding for environmental programs should be reduced. Democrats (61%) and independents (57%) tend to take the pro-environmental position on government spending, while Republicans (45%) are nearly evenly split on this spending issue. Once again, Latinos and nonHispanic whites offer similar opinions. Support for environmental programs is higher among 18 to 34 year olds (58%) and 35 to 54 year olds (56%) than it is among those 55 and older (46%). "Do you think the state government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to protect the environment in California?" Party Registration More than enough Just enough Not enough Don’t know All Adults 7% 38 51 4 Democrat 4% 36 56 4 Not Republican Independents Registered 13% 7% 6% 39 34 42 44 54 46 4 56 Latino 7% 41 49 3 "The state is facing an estimated $23 billion deficit next year, and program cuts are needed in order to balance the state budget. Should the state …" Party Registration Continue to fund environment programs at current levels even if it means fewer funds are available for other state programs Reduce funding for environment programs, so that more funds are available for other state programs Other answer (volunteered, specify) Don’t know All Adults Democrat 54% 61% 35 29 43 77 Not Republican Independents Registered Latino 45% 57% 53% 51% 44 31 36 39 5 3 32 6 9 88 - 23 - June 2002 Governance Water Bond Initiative A water bond initiative on the state ballot this fall would authorize $3.44 billion in state bonds to pay for a wide range of water projects, some of which involve environmental protection. Asked about the measure, a solid majority of voters (59%) expect to vote yes. Two-thirds of Democrats (67%) and six in 10 independents (60%) support the water bond measure, while Republican opinion (48%) is more evenly divided. Solid majorities of registered Latinos (59%) and non-Hispanic whites (57%) support this initiative. Registered voters in the San Francisco Bay Area (64%) and Los Angeles (61%) are most likely to back the initiative, followed by those in other Southern California areas (58%) and the Central Valley (53%). Support for the initiative declines with age and rises with education, but no other demographic subgroup is more likely to oppose than to support this water bond As might be expected, a desire to maintain environmental programs in the face of budget cuts goes hand-in-hand with a yes vote on the water bond: Seventy percent of registered voters who want to keep environmental funding at its current levels support the water bond, compared to 46 percent of those who prefer reducing the state’s environmental funding. Two-thirds of voters who feel the state is not doing enough to protect the environment indicate they will vote for the bond, compared to 56 percent of those who feel just enough is being done. Finally, 71 percent of those voters who say environmental issues will be very important to their gubernatorial vote say they will vote yes on this initiative, compared to 58 percent of those who feel such issues are somewhat important, and only 29 percent of those who feel that environmental issues are not important to their gubernatorial choice. "A proposition on the November 2002 ballot would authorize $3.44 billion in state bonds to fund a variety of water projects, including: increasing urban agricultural efficiency; reducing dependence on Colorado River water; protecting coastal wetlands; and improving the security for state, local, and regional water systems. Fiscal impacts include state costs to repay the 25-year bonds with payments of $227 million per year. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this proposition?"* Yes No Don’t know All Registered Voters 59% 29 12 Party Registration Democrat 67% 23 10 Republican 48% 39 13 Independents 60% 27 13 Latino Voters 59% 31 10 Yes No Don’t know Central Valley 53% 36 11 Registered Voters by Region SF Bay Area 64% 23 13 Los Angeles 61% 28 11 Other Southern California 58% 30 12 * This question text is a slightly abbreviated version of the Initiative Statute language listed at the California Secretary of State’s Office. - 24 - Survey Methodology The PPIC Statewide Survey is directed by Mark Baldassare, a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, with assistance in research and writing from Jon Cohen, survey research manager, and Lisa Cole and Eric McGhee, survey research associates. The survey was conducted in collaboration with The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The James Irvine Foundation, and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation and benefited from discussions with staff at the foundations; however, the survey methods, questions, and content of the report were solely determined by Mark Baldassare. The findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,029 California adult residents interviewed from May 28 to June 4, 2002. Interviewing took place on weekend days and weekday nights, using a computer-generated random sample of telephone numbers, ensuring that both listed and unlisted telephone numbers were called. All telephone exchanges in California were eligible for calling. Telephone numbers in the survey sample were called up to six times to increase the likelihood of reaching eligible households. Once a household was reached, an adult respondent (18 or older) was randomly chosen for interviewing by using the “last birthday method” to avoid biases in age and gender. Each interview took an average of 20 minutes to complete. Interviewing was conducted in English or Spanish. Casa Hispana translated the survey into Spanish. We used recent U.S. Census and state figures to compare the demographic characteristics of the survey sample with characteristics of California’s adult population. The survey sample was closely comparable to the census and state figures. The survey data in this report were statistically weighted to account for any demographic differences. The sampling error for the total sample of 2,029 adults is +/- 2 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that 95 times out of 100, the results will be within 2 percentage points of what they would be if all adults in California were interviewed. The sampling error for subgroups is larger. Sampling error is just one type of error to which surveys are subject. Results may also be affected by factors such as question wording, question order, and survey timing. Throughout the report, we refer to four geographic regions. “Central Valley” includes Butte, Colusa, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo, and Yuba Counties. “SF Bay Area” includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. “Los Angeles” refers to Los Angeles County, and “Other Southern California” includes the mostly suburban regions of Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties. These four regions were chosen for analysis because they are the major population centers of the state, accounting for approximately 90 percent of the state population; moreover, the growth of the Central Valley and “Other Southern California” regions have given them increasing political significance. We present specific results for Latinos because they account for about 28 percent of the state’s adult population and constitute one of the fastest growing voter groups. The sample sizes for the African American and Asian subgroups are not large enough for separate statistical analysis. We do contrast the opinions of registered Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The “independents” category includes those who are registered to vote as “decline to state” and those who are registered with minor political parties. In some cases, we compare PPIC Statewide Survey responses to responses recorded in national surveys conducted by Gallup in March and May 2002, Newsweek in November 2001, Hart and Teeter 1999, Pew Research Center 1999, and Gallup/CNN/USA Today in June 1998. We used earlier PPIC Statewide Surveys to analyze trends over time in California, including our June 2000 “Special Survey on Californians and the Environment.” - 25 - PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY: SPECIAL SURVEY ON THE ENVIRONMENT MAY 28 – JUNE 4, 2002 2,029 CALIFORNIA ADULT RESIDENTS; ENGLISH AND SPANISH MARGIN OF ERROR +/- 2% AT 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL FOR TOTAL SAMPLE 1. Which of the following best describes the city or community where you now live—a large city, a suburb near a large city, a medium-to-small-sized city, a small town not near a city, or a rural area? 25% large city 25 suburb near a large city 30 medium-to-small-sized city 13 small town not near a city 7 rural area 2. Overall, how would you rate your city or community as a place to live? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, or poor? 33% excellent 43 good 20 fair 4 poor 3. In the past few years, do you think the population of your city or community has been growing rapidly, growing slowly, staying about the same, or declining? 57% growing rapidly 21 growing slowly 17 staying about the same 1 declining 4 don't know 4. If an election were held today, would you vote yes or no on a local initiative to slow down the pace of development in your city or community, even if it meant having less economic growth? 49% yes 44 no 7 don't know 5. Some people have thought a lot about environmental issues—such as air, water, and land protection—in their city or community, and others have not. How much do you personally know about specific environmental issues in your city or community—a lot, some, very little, or nothing? 21% a lot 47 some 26 very little 6 nothing 6. How often have you been personally involved in environmental issues in your city or community by taking steps such as attending public meetings, signing petitions, or writing letters to local officials—a lot, sometimes, hardly ever, or never? 7% a lot 29 sometimes 25 hardly ever 39 never Next, we are interested in your opinions about the region or broader geographic area of California that you live in. I am going to read you a list of problems other people have told us about. For each one, please tell me if you think it is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem in your region. (rotate questions 7 to 10). 7. How about air pollution? 34% big problem 38 somewhat of a problem 27 not a problem 1 don’t know 8. How about traffic congestion on freeways and major roads? 61% big problem 24 somewhat of a problem 14 not a problem 1 don’t know 9. How about population growth and development? 30% big problem 37 somewhat of a problem 31 not a problem 2 don’t know 10. How about pollution of drinking water? 23% big problem 31 somewhat of a problem 42 not a problem 4 don't know - 27 - 11. Overall, how satisfied are you with the quality of the environment in your region— including the air, water, and land? Would you say you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied? 23% very satisfied 49 somewhat satisfied 20 somewhat dissatisfied 7 very dissatisfied 1 don't know 12. Would you say the quality of the environment in your region— including the air, water, and land— is getting better or is it getting worse? 27% better 51 worse 17 same (volunteered) 5 don't know 13. Next, turning to the state as a whole, what do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today? (code, don’t read) 34% air pollution 13 too much growth, overpopulation 12 water pollution of rivers, lakes, streams 9 water supply, reservoirs 5 pollution in general 5 traffic congestion 2 energy 1 toxic wastes, contamination of the land 1 protecting wildlife, endangered species 1 landfills, garbage, sewage, waste 1 loss of farmlands, agriculture 1 loss of parks, recreation 8 other (specify) 7 don't know Please tell me if each of the following is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem in California today (rotate questions 14 to 19). 14. How about ocean and beach pollution along the California coast? 50% big problem 34 somewhat of a problem 10 not a problem 6 don't know 15. How about urban sprawl taking over farmlands in the Central Valley? 36% big problem 34 somewhat of a problem 16 not a problem 14 don't know 16. How about urban growth and air pollution damaging the forests in the Sierra Mountains? 42% big problem 34 somewhat of a problem 13 not a problem 11 don't know 17. How about urban and agricultural runoff polluting lakes, rivers, and streams? 43% big problem 37 somewhat of a problem 12 not a problem 8 don't know 18. How about MTBE and other toxic substances contaminating soil and groundwater? 41% big problem 33 somewhat of a problem 10 not a problem 16 don't know 19. How about suburban development harming wildlife habitats and endangered species? 36% big problem 38 somewhat of a problem 21 not a problem 5 don't know 20. Overall, how much progress do you think has been made in dealing with environmental problems in California—including problems related to air, water, and land—over the past 20 years? Would you say there has been a great deal of progress, only some progress, or hardly any progress at all? 18% great deal 58 only some 20 hardly any 4 don't know 21. How much optimism do you have that we will have environmental problems in California well under control 20 years from now— a great deal, only some, or hardly any optimism at all? 18% great deal 51 only some 28 hardly any 3 don't know 22. And overall, how serious a threat to your own health and well-being are environmental problems in California today—very serious, somewhat serious, or not too serious? 19% very serious 42 somewhat serious 38 not too serious 1 don't know - 28 - Please tell me if the first statement or the second statement in the following questions comes closer to your views—even if neither is exactly right. (rotate questions and response pairs for questions 23 to 27) 23. (1) Stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost; (2) Stricter environmental laws and regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy. 64% worth the cost 31 hurt the economy 5 don't know 24. (1) People like me will have to make major lifestyle changes to solve today’s environmental problems; (2) People like me will have to make few or no lifestyle changes to solve today’s environmental problems. 53% major life style changes are needed 44 few or no lifestyle changes are needed 3 don't know 25. (1) Open space in my region should mostly be designated as protected land for the preservation of species and natural habitats; (2) Open space in my region should mostly be developed for parks, sports, and recreational use. 55% protected land 38 recreational use 7 don't know 26. (1) Policymakers should not allow more oil drilling off the California coast, even if this means higher gas prices for California drivers; (2) Policymakers should allow more oil drilling off the California coast if this means lower gasoline prices for California drivers; 59% no more drilling 36 more drilling 5 don't know 27. (1) Protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of limiting the amount of energy supplies—such as oil, gas, and coal—which the U.S. produces; (2) Development of U.S. energy supplies—such as oil, gas, and coal—should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent. 65% protection of the environment 29 development of U.S. energy supplies 6 don't know/ other answer 28. Regarding ways to help California meet its future water needs, do you favor (rotate) (1) building new dams and reservoirs; or (2) encouraging conservation through pricing and reallocating some of the existing water supply from agriculture to urban areas. 47% building new dams and reservoirs 45 encouraging conservation 8 don't know I am going to read you some specific environmental proposals. For each one, please say if you favor or oppose the proposal. (rotate questions 29 to 31). 29. Do you favor or oppose a state law requiring all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars in California by 2009? 81% favor 16 oppose 3 don't know 30. Do you favor or oppose a state policy that requires doubling the use of renewable energy—such as wind, geothermal, and solar power— in the next 10 years from 10 percent of all California power today to 20 percent? 85% favor 12 oppose 3 don't know 31. Do you favor or oppose using taxpayer money to buy undeveloped land to keep it free from commercial and residential development? 58% favor 37 oppose 5 don't know 32. On another topic, from what you know about global climate change or global warming, which of the following four statements comes closest to your opinion? 25% Global climate change has been established as a serious problem, and immediate action is necessary 37 There is enough evidence that climate change is taking place, and some action should be taken 27 We don’t know enough about global climate change, and more research is necessary before we take any actions 7 Concern about global climate change is unwarranted 4 don't know/ other answer - 29 - June 2002 33. How much confidence do you have in the ability of government to understand and solve the kinds of environmental problems that we have today— a great deal, some, very little, or not much? 9% a great deal 41 some 26 very little 23 not much 1 don't know 34. Which level of government do you trust the most to deal with environmental problems (rotate response categories)? 32% state government 20 county government 19 federal government 16 city government 10 none (volunteered) 3 don't know 35. On another topic, overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as president? 65% approve 30 disapprove 5 don't know 36. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Bush is handling environmental issues in the United States? 39% approve 44 disapprove 17 don't know 37. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Gray Davis is handling his job as governor of California? 39% approve 52 disapprove 9 don't know 38. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Davis is handling environmental issues in California? 35% approve 47 disapprove 18 don't know 39. Overall, do you think the state government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to protect the environment in California? 7% more than enough 38 just enough 51 not enough 4 don't know 40. The state is facing an estimated 23 billion dollar deficit next year, and program cuts are needed to balance the state budget. Should the state (rotate) (1) continue to fund environment programs at current levels even if it means fewer funds are available for other state programs, or (2) reduce funding for environment programs, so that more funds are available for other state programs? 54% continue to fund at current levels 35 reduce funding for environmental programs 4 other answer (volunteered, specify) 7 don't know [Questions 41-43 responses from registered voters.] 41. On another topic, a proposition on the November 2002 ballot would authorize $3.44 billion in state bonds to fund a variety of water projects, including increasing urban agricultural efficiency; reducing dependence on Colorado River water; protecting coastal wetlands; and improving the security for state, local, and regional water systems. Fiscal impacts include state costs to repay the 25-year bonds with payments of $227 million per year. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this proposition? 59% yes 29 no 12 don't know 42. In thinking about the governor’s election this year, how important are the candidates’ positions on environmental issues in determining your vote— very important, somewhat important, or not important? 39% very important 49 somewhat important 11 not important 1 don't know 43. Regardless of your choice for governor, which of these candidates would do a better job handling environmental issues in California (rotate) (1) Gray Davis, the Democrat, or (2) Bill Simon, the Republican? 43% Gray Davis 31 Bill Simon 4 other answer (volunteered) 22 don't know 44. On another topic, some people say that when it comes to where toxic waste and polluting facilities are located in the state, lower-income and minority neighborhoods have more than their fair share compared to other neighborhoods. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? 58% agree 30 disagree 12 don't know - 30 - 45. Some people say that lower-income and minority neighborhoods have less than their fair share of well-maintained parks and recreational facilities compared to other neighborhoods. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? 64% agree 29 disagree 7 don't know On another topic, please tell us if you regularly, sometimes, hardly ever, or never spend time doing each of the following (rotate questions 46 to 48). 46 How often do you spend your leisure time at local public parks, recreation areas, or beaches? 40% regularly 41 sometimes 13 hardly ever 6 never 47. How often do you take a trip to a national park or other scenic destination? 23% regularly 42 sometimes 25 hardly ever 10 never 48. How often do you go on day trips that involve hiking or mountain biking on unpaved trails? 19% regularly 27 sometimes 24 hardly ever 30 never 49. We have a few questions about you and your household. What kind of water do you typically drink in your home – straight tap water, tap water that has been filtered, or bottled water? 24% straight tap water 35 filtered tap water 39 bottled water 2 other (volunteered, specify) And for the following questions, please tell us if you regularly, sometimes, hardly ever, or never do each of the following activities (rotate questions 50 to 52). 50. How often do you recycle newspapers, aluminum cans, or glass? 80% regularly 10 sometimes 4 hardly ever 6 never 51. How often do you carpool with others? 19% regularly 18 sometimes 16 hardly ever 47 never 52. How often do you buy organic and pesticide-free foods? 20% regularly 32 sometimes 22 hardly ever 26 never 53. On another topic, have you donated money to any environmental groups, causes, or issues in the past year? (if yes, Have you donated a lot or a little?) 7% yes, a lot 30 yes, a little 63 no 54. How closely do you follow news about the state’s environmental issues— such as air, land, and water protection— very closely, fairly closely, not too closely, or not at all closely? 12% very closely 46 fairly closely 33 not too closely 9 not at all closely 55. On another topic, some people are registered to vote and others are not. Are you absolutely certain that you are registered to vote? (if yes: Are you registered as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or as an independent?) 35% yes, Democrat 26 yes, Republican 18 yes, independent 21 no 56. Would you consider yourself to be politically very liberal, somewhat liberal, middle-of-the-road, somewhat conservative, or very conservative? 12% very liberal 22 somewhat liberal 32 middle-of-the-road 25 somewhat conservative 9 very conservative [57-60: Demographic questions] 61. Do you personally own or lease an SUV (sport utility vehicle)? 23% yes 77 no [62-66: Demographic questions] - 31 - June 2002 PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY Advisory Committee Mary Bitterman President The James Irvine Foundation Angela Blackwell President Policy Link Paul Brest President The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Mollyann Brodie Vice President Kaiser Family Foundation Bruce E. Cain Director Institute of Governmental Studies University of California, Berkeley Matt Fong Chairman Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Advisory Committee William Hauck President California Business Roundtable Sherry Bebitch Jeffe Senior Scholar School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Monica Lozano President and Chief Operating Officer La Opinión Donna Lucas President NCG Porter Novelli Max Neiman Director Center for Social and Behavioral Research University of California, Riverside Dan Rosenheim News Director KPIX-TV Richard Schlosberg President and CEO The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Carol Stogsdill President Stogsdill Consulting Cathy Taylor Vice President and Editorial Commentary Director Orange County Register Raymond L. Watson Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center - 33 -" } ["___content":protected]=> string(102) "

S 602MBS

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(125) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/ppic-statewide-survey-special-survey-on-californians-and-the-environment-june-2002/s_602mbs/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(8167) ["ID"]=> int(8167) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:35:25" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(3299) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(8) "S 602MBS" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(8) "s_602mbs" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(12) "S_602MBS.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "273743" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(94696) "PPIC Statewide Survey: Special Survey on Californians and the Environment Mark Baldassare Senior Fellow and Survey Director June 2002 Public Policy Institute of California Preface The PPIC Statewide Survey is an ongoing series of public opinion surveys designed to provide policymakers, the media, and the general public with objective, advocacy-free information on the opinions and policy preferences of residents throughout the state of California. Begun in April 1998, the surveys have generated a database that includes the responses of over 52,000 Californians. This survey on Californians and the environment—a collaborative effort of the Public Policy Institute of California and The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The James Irvine Foundation, and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation—is a special edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey. This is the third in a series of eight surveys—two per year for four years—launched in May 2001. The intent of the surveys is to inform policymakers, encourage discussion, and raise public awareness about the growth, land use, and environmental issues facing the state. The current survey focuses in particular on public perceptions, individual actions, and policy preferences regarding environmental issues. This special edition presents the responses of 2,029 adult residents throughout the state. It examines in detail the public’s views on local, regional, statewide, and national issues related to the environment. Some of the questions are repeated from a PPIC Statewide Survey on Californians and the environment that was conducted in June 2000. More specifically, we examine the following issues: • The public’s perceptions of environmental conditions in California, including opinions about progress in solving environmental problems and whether or not environmental conditions will improve; identification of the most important environmental issue; and perceptions of specific environmental problems in the state and in the region where the respondent lives. • The personal connections of Californians toward the environment, such as their environment-related consumer choices, leisure activities, and household practices; their degree of knowledge and involvement with local environmental issues; their awareness of economic inequities and “environmental justice” issues; and their interests in environmental news and donations to environmental causes. • Specific policy preferences, such as general support for environmental laws and regulations and attitudes toward federal, state, and local policies regarding global climate change, oil drilling off the California coast, building new dams and reservoirs, requiring all automakers to further reduce greenhouse gases, increasing the use of renewable energy, and open space purchases. • Governance issues, including confidence in the government to solve environmental problems; ratings of federal and state elected officials for their overall performance in office and their handling of environmental issues; satisfaction with the state government’s efforts to protect the environment; support for maintaining the state’s current level of environmental spending given the current deficit; the importance of environmental issues in the November election; and support for a state water bond initiative on the November ballot. • Variations in environmental perceptions, individual actions, and policy preferences across the four major regions of the state (Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles area, and Other Southern California), between Latinos and non-Hispanic whites, and across age and the socioeconomic and political spectrum. Copies of this report or other PPIC Statewide Surveys may be ordered by e-mail (order@ppic.org) or phone (415-291-4400). The reports are also posted on the publications page of the PPIC web site (www.ppic.org). -i- Contents Preface Press Release Environmental Conditions Environmental Connections Environmental Policy Governance Issues Survey Methodology Survey Questions and Results Survey Advisory Committee i v 1 7 13 19 25 27 33 - iii - Press Release SPECIAL SURVEY ON CALIFORNIANS AND THE ENVIRONMENT PESSIMISM ABOUT STATE’S ENVIRONMENTAL PROSPECTS GENERATES RESOLVE, NOT APATHY Californians Willing to Make Major Lifestyle Changes to Improve Environment; Most Believe Environmental Justice Concerns Are Real SAN FRANCISCO, California, June 27, 2002 — Despite a budget crisis and deep doubts that environmental progress can be achieved, Californians remain steadfast in their concern about the state’s environment and their commitment to improving it, according to a new survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) and the Hewlett, Irvine, and Packard Foundations. Residents have little faith that government can solve environmental problems, but most residents are willing to make significant personal sacrifices to improve California’s air, water, and land. The survey of 2,029 Californians finds that most residents believe little progress has been made in solving environmental problems over the past twenty years, and they are pessimistic about improvement in the future. Seventy-eight percent believe there has been only some (58%) or hardly any (20%) progress since the early 1980s, and 79 percent have only some (51%) or hardly any (28%) optimism that environmental problems will be under control 20 years from now. While 72 percent of residents say they are currently somewhat (49%) or very (23%) satisfied with the quality of the environment in their region of the state, over half (51%) say it is getting worse; only 27 percent believe it is improving. Little Faith in Government Pessimism about the state’s environmental future is consistent with Californians’ well-known distrust of government: Half of state residents say they have at least some confidence in government to understand and solve today’s environmental problems, but only 9 percent say they have a great deal of confidence and almost half (49%) have little or none. Although residents say they trust state government (32%) more than county (20%), federal (19%), or city (16%) government to deal with environmental problems, a majority (51%) say that the state is not doing enough. Californians also give President George W. Bush and Governor Gray Davis low marks on environmental performance. Only 39 percent of Californians say they approve of the way the president is handling environmental issues; only 35 percent approve of the governor’s environmental performance. Despite their cynicism about the role of government, most voters (88%) say that the candidates’ positions on environmental issues will be very (39%) or somewhat (49%) important in determining their vote for governor in November. Currently, 43 percent say that Democrat Davis would do a better job of handling environmental issues in California; 31 percent give Republican challenger Bill Simon the nod. “Californians today feel profound concern about the environment, but they have little faith that government can resolve serious problems like air pollution,” says PPIC Statewide Survey director Mark Baldassare. “They are willing to take personal responsibility to a large degree, which is remarkable given the state’s anemic economic circumstances.” -v- Press Release Air Pollution Top Issue; Public Willing To Make Tradeoffs To Help Environment Air pollution (34%) is the most important environmental issue facing the state today according to residents, followed distantly by growth and development (13%), water, ocean, and beach pollution (12%), and the water supply (9%). While air pollution is the top issue in every region, Central Valley residents are more likely than residents of other regions to mention it. A majority of all Californians see specific regional concerns as at least somewhat of a problem, from ocean and beach pollution along the coast (84%), to growth and air pollution damaging the Sierra mountains (76%), to the loss of farmlands due to urban sprawl in the Central Valley (70%). Southern California residents are far more likely to view pollution along the coast as a big problem, while Central Valley residents are more likely to say that the loss of farmlands is a big problem. A majority of residents of every region except the Central Valley see traffic congestion as a big problem in their area. Given their broad concerns, state residents are willing to make a variety of economic and lifestyle tradeoffs in order to see environmental improvements: • Economy: Sixty-four percent of Californians say stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the tradeoff, but 31 percent believe such restrictions cost too many jobs and hurt the economy. • Lifestyle: Fifty-three percent of state residents say they will have to make major lifestyle changes to solve today’s environmental problems. Eighty percent recycle regularly and over half (52%) buy organic foods at least some of the time. Despite their love of the outdoors, 55 percent believe that open space should mostly be designated as protected land for natural habitat preservation, rather than developed for recreational use (38%). • Energy: Sixty-five percent of Californians — compared to 52 percent of Americans — say the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of limiting energy production and supplies. And 85 percent favor a state policy that requires doubling the use of renewable energy over the next decade. • Energy/Oil Drilling: Fifty-nine percent say policymakers should not allow more oil drilling off the California coast, even if this means higher gasoline prices for California drivers. “The state is at a critical juncture in terms of our awareness of environmental challenges and our willingness to do something about them,” says Richard Schlosberg, President and CEO of The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. “It is encouraging that Californians accept that they are both part of the problem and a key part of the solution.” Environmental Inequities a Reality for Low-Income, Minority Communities Californians are clear about where they stand in the debate over environmental justice: Most believe there are environmental inequities between more and less affluent communities in the state. A majority of residents (58%) agree that compared to wealthier neighborhoods, lower-income and minority neighborhoods have more than their fair share of toxic waste and polluting facilities. And 64 percent of Californians also say that poorer communities have less than their fair share of well-maintained parks and recreational facilities. Latinos are far more likely than non-Hispanic whites (72% to 60%) to say that poorer communities do not receive their fair share of parks and recreational facilities. More Key Findings • Water Pollution and Supply (pages 4, 18, 24) Most Californians view the pollution of water sources by urban and agricultural runoff (80%) and by toxic substances such as MTBE (74%) as at least somewhat of a problem. Residents are divided about ways to help California meet its future water needs: 47 percent favor building dams and reservoirs, while 45 percent - vi - Press Release prefer conservation. Fifty-nine percent of voters today say they would support the $3.44 billion water bond measure on the November ballot. • Bottled vs. Tap Water (page 7) Only 24 percent of Californians say they drink straight tap water; 35 percent drink it filtered and 39 percent prefer bottled water. Latinos are far more likely than non-Hispanic whites (55% to 30%) to drink bottled water and Los Angeles residents drink bottled water more than residents of other regions. • SUV Ownership (page 7) Consistent with national rates, 23 percent of Californians say they own or lease a sport utility vehicle. Families with children and those at higher income levels are more likely to own an SUV. • Global Warming (page 16) A solid majority of Californians (62%) believe that there is enough evidence that global climate change is real and that some action is warranted. Eighty-one percent favor a state law requiring all automakers to further reduce emission and greenhouse gases from new cars in the state by 2009. • Growth Controls (pages 17 and 18) Fewer Californians today (49%) than in May 2001 (51%) would vote for a local initiative to slow down the pace of growth in their community, even if it meant having less economic activity. A solid majority (58%) favor using taxpayer money to buy undeveloped land to keep it free of development. • Overall Approval Ratings for Bush, Davis (pages 20 and 21) Sixty-five percent of Californians say they approve of the way President Bush is handling his job, down from 76 percent in February, but still far higher than his environmental rating. Support for the president among Democrats and independents has dropped substantially. Governor Davis’ approval ratings have fallen as well: Thirty-nine percent say they approve of the way he is handling his job, compared to 51 percent in February. A significant number of Democrats (41%) say they disapprove of his performance. About the Survey The Californians and the Environment survey is a special edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey. It is the third in a four-year, multisurvey series on growth, land use, and the environment, produced in collaboration with The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The James Irvine Foundation, and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. The purpose of this series is to inform policymakers, encourage discussion, and raise public awareness about the critical growth, development, and environmental challenges facing the state. Findings of the current survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,029 California adult residents interviewed from May 28 to June 4, 2002. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish. The sampling error for the total sample is +/- 2%. For more information on survey methodology, see page 25. Dr. Mark Baldassare is a senior fellow at PPIC, where he holds the Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair in Public Policy. He is founder and director of the PPIC Statewide Survey, which he has conducted since 1998. PPIC is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to improving public policy through objective, nonpartisan research on the economic, social, and political issues that affect Californians. The Institute was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or state and federal legislation nor does it endorse or support any political parties or candidates for public office. This report will appear on PPIC’s website (www. ppic.org) on June 27. See graphics next page. ### - vii - Top four environmental issues in California today Percent All Adults 40 34% 30 20 13% 12% 9% 10 0 Air pollution Growth Water pollution Water supply “What kind of water do you drink in your home?" Percent All Adults Straight tap water 24% Other (vol.) 2% Bottled water 39% Filtered tap water 35% Approval Ratings Percent All Adults “Approve” 80 65% Overall Environment 60 39% 40 35% 39% 20 0 Davis Bush Oil Drilling off the California coast Percent All Adults Should not allow more oil drilling Should allow more oil drilling Don't know 5% 36% 59% “Low income and minority neighborhoods have more than their fair share of toxic waste and polluting facilities.” Percent All Adults Don't know/ Other answer 12% Disagree 30% Agree 58% “Regardless of your choice for governor, which of these candidates would do a better job of handling environmental issues?” Percent All Voters Davis Simon Other Don't know 22% 43% 4% 31% Environmental Conditions Overall Environmental Conditions Most Californians do not believe there has been much progress in solving environmental problems in the state over the past twenty years, and they do not hold out much hope for significant improvement over the next two decades. Only one in six residents say there has been a great deal of progress in dealing with the state’s environmental problems over the past 20 years. Eight in ten believe there has been only some (58%) or hardly any (20%) progress since the early 1980s. This fairly pessimistic view about environmental progress in California is similar across regions of the state, as well as across age, education, and income groups. Latinos (16%) and non-Hispanic whites (21%), and Republicans (28%), Democrats (18%), and independents (13%) are all unlikely to believe that California has made a great deal of environmental progress in the past 20 years. Only 18 percent of Californians express a great deal of optimism that the state’s environmental problems will be well under control 20 years from now. More than half (51%) have only some optimism, and three in 10 Californians express hardly any optimism that the state’s environmental problems will be under control. Latinos are only somewhat more likely than non-Hispanic whites (23% to 16%) to express a lot of optimism about environmental problem solving. Optimism about future environmental conditions does not vary by education, income, or partisan affiliation. "How much progress do you think has been made in dealing with environmental problems in California– including problems related to air, water, and land–over the past 20 years?" Great deal Only some Hardly any Don’t know All Adults 18% 58 20 4 Central Valley 17% 56 24 3 Region SF Bay Area 22% 57 16 5 Los Angeles 15% 57 24 4 Other Southern California 19% 60 18 3 Latino 16% 60 21 3 Great deal Only some Hardly any Don’t know "How much optimism do you have that we will have environmental problems in California well under control 20 years from now?" All Adults 18% 51 28 3 Central Valley 18% 48 30 4 Region SF Bay Area 20% 48 29 3 Los Angeles 18% 55 25 2 Other Southern California 18% 51 30 1 Latino 23% 52 23 2 -1- Environmental Conditions Most Important Environmental Issue When asked to identify the most important environmental issue facing the state, nine in 10 Californians were able to identify a specific problem. Californians are most likely to name air pollution (34%) as the top environmental concern, followed by growth, development, and sprawl (13%), water pollution (12%), water supply (9%), traffic congestion (5%), and pollution in general (5%). Other problems are mentioned less often, including energy, toxic waste, and wildlife protection. Californians’ assessments of the state’s most important environmental issue are little changed from June 2000. Compared to two years ago, residents today are just as likely to name air pollution (34% to 33%), growth, development, and sprawl (13% in both surveys), water quality (12% to 9%), and traffic congestion (5% to 6%) as the most important environmental issue. Residents in every major region of the state name air pollution as the state’s most important environmental issue, with Central Valley residents (41%) the most likely to express concern about this problem. Those living in the coastal regions of the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles are more likely than residents of other regions to mention growth and development and traffic congestion as the biggest environmental issues confronting the state. Non-Hispanic whites, Latinos, and other racial and ethnic groups all rank air pollution as the most important problem, and air pollution is the top environmental concern across every demographic and partisan group. "What do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today?" Air pollution Growth, development, sprawl Water, ocean, and beach pollution Water supply Traffic congestion Pollution in general Energy Toxic waste and land contamination Protecting wildlife Landfills and garbage Loss of farmlands and agriculture Lack of parks and recreation Other answer (specify) Don’t know All Adults 34% 13 12 9 5 5 2 1 1 1 1 1 8 7 Central Valley 41% 9 10 9 3 5 1 0 1 1 1 0 11 8 Region SF Bay Area 31% 14 11 9 8 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 6 Los Angeles 34% 16 9 6 6 6 1 0 1 1 0 1 10 9 Other Southern California 35% 12 12 11 4 5 2 1 2 1 0 0 8 7 Latino 34% 8 13 5 4 9 1 2 1 1 0 1 10 11 -2- Environmental Conditions Environmental Problems in the State Many Californians express concern about environmental problems related to specific regions of the state. More than eight in ten residents say that ocean and beach pollution along the California coast is at least somewhat of a problem, three in four are similarly concerned about the effects of growth and air pollution on forests in the Sierra mountains, and seven in ten residents are at least somewhat concerned about urban sprawl taking over farmlands in the Central Valley. Half say that ocean and beach pollution (50%) is a big problem, and about four in 10 view damage to the Sierras (42%) and the loss of Central Valley farmland (36%) as big problems. Since June 2000, there have been no major changes in how Californians perceive any of these specific issues. Residents living in Los Angeles (65%) and other Southern California areas (60%) are most likely to view ocean and beach pollution as a big problem. Central Valley (44%) and San Francisco Bay Area (37%) residents are more likely than others to say that urban sprawl taking over Central Valley farmlands is a big problem. Los Angeles residents (51%) are more likely than those in other regions to think that urban growth and air pollution damaging forests in the Sierras is a big problem. Latinos are more likely than non-Hispanic whites to say ocean and beach pollution (54% to 49%) and damage to the Sierras (52% to 39%) are big problems. Democrats are much more likely than Republicans and somewhat more likely than independents to say that damage to the Sierras (49% to 26% to 43%) and the loss of Central Valley farmlands (43% to 31% to 35%) are big problems. Democrats (54%) and independents (54%) are both more likely than Republicans (42%) to view ocean and beach pollution along the coast as a big problem. "How much of a problem is __________ in California today?" Region Ocean and beach pollution along the California coast Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don’t know Urban growth and air pollution damaging forests in the Sierra mountains Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don’t know Urban sprawl taking over farmlands in the Central Valley Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don’t know All Adults Central Valley 50% 34 10 6 32% 38 14 16 42% 34 13 11 38% 32 19 11 36% 34 16 14 44% 33 16 7 SF Bay Area Los Angeles 34% 45 16 5 65% 28 5 2 36% 40 15 9 51% 32 7 10 37% 35 18 10 33% 35 14 18 Other Southern California Latino 60% 28 6 6 54% 29 9 8 38% 36 13 13 52% 24 14 10 32% 33 17 18 37% 34 16 13 - 3 - June 2002 Environmental Conditions When questioned about three specific statewide environmental problems, three in four California residents indicated that urban and agricultural runoff polluting lakes, rivers and streams; soil and groundwater toxic contamination; and suburban development harming wildlife and endangered species was each at least somewhat of problem. Four in 10 believe that urban and agricultural runoff pollution and land and water contamination by toxics are big problems. Compared to our June 2000 survey, residents today are marginally less likely to think that pollution from urban and agricultural runoff (47% to 43%), the toxic contamination of soil and groundwater (48% to 41%), and development harming wildlife habitats (39% to 36%) are big problems. In the current survey, Los Angeles residents (50%) are the most likely to say that water pollution from urban and agricultural runoff is a big problem; and together with San Francisco Bay Area residents, they are the most likely to say that toxic contamination is a big problem. Central Valley residents are the most likely to think that suburban development harming wildlife is not a problem (32%). Latinos are more likely than non-Hispanic whites to rate pollution from urban and agricultural runoff (52% to 41%), soil and groundwater contamination (49% to 39%), and development harming wildlife habitats (42% to 34%) as big problems. Republicans are less likely than Democrats and independents to see water pollution from urban and agricultural runoff (32% to 49% to 45%), groundwater and soil contamination (37% to 45% to 43%), and development harming wildlife habitats (23% to 40% to 39%) as big problems. "How much of a problem is __________ in California today?" Region Urban and agricultural runoff polluting lakes, rivers, and streams Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don’t know MTBE and other toxic substances contaminating soil and groundwater Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don’t know Suburban development harming wildlife habitats and endangered species Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don’t know All Adults 43% 37 12 8 41% 33 10 16 36% 38 21 5 Central Valley 37% 36 18 9 38% 32 13 17 30% 34 32 4 SF Bay Area Los Angeles 39% 45 8 8 50% 32 9 9 45% 31 11 13 45% 30 6 19 34% 45 18 3 41% 38 15 6 Other Southern California Latino 43% 35 14 8 52% 30 13 5 36% 36 10 18 49% 28 10 13 35% 35 25 5 42% 32 20 6 -4- Environmental Conditions Regional Environmental Problems Californians send mixed signals when asked to evaluate their regional environments. While three in four are satisfied with the current state of the environment in their regions, more than half say that the quality of their environment is getting worse. This apparent disconnect reflects the fact that fewer than one in four residents is very satisfied with the air, water, and land quality in his or her region. Most Californians are only somewhat satisfied with the environment, and most of these residents believe that the quality of their regional environment is getting worse. Compared to residents in the state’s other major regions, Los Angeles residents are the least satisfied with the quality of their air, water, and land: Thirty-six percent are somewhat or very dissatisfied with their regional environment. Across the state, Latinos (23%) and non-Hispanic whites (24%) are equally satisfied with regional environmental quality, but Latinos have a notably more optimistic view about their environment improving (35% to 25%). "Overall, how satisfied are you with the quality of the environment in your region– including the air, water, and land?" Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Don’t know All Adults 23% 49 20 7 1 Central Valley 22% 48 23 6 1 Region SF Bay Area 24% 55 17 4 0 Los Angeles 15% 48 23 13 1 Other Southern California 25% 49 19 6 1 Latino 23% 47 21 8 1 "Would you say the quality of the environment in your region is getting better or is it getting worse?" Better Worse Same (volunteered) Don’t know All Adults 27% 51 17 5 Central Valley 23% 57 17 3 Region SF Bay Area 28% 50 17 5 Los Angeles 28% 49 17 6 Other Southern California 27% 53 15 5 Latino 35% 46 16 3 Over the past two years, Californians have become increasingly likely to think that traffic congestion (44% to 61%) and air pollution (28% to 34%) are big problems in their region. Three in 10 residents continue to rate growth and development as a big problem. Residents were asked about the pollution of drinking water for the first time, and nearly one in four rates this as a big problem. San Francisco Bay Area (72%) and Los Angeles (73%) residents are more likely than others to say that traffic congestion is a big problem where they live. Los Angeles (47%) and Central Valley (39%) residents are the most likely to say that air pollution is a big problem in their region. Latinos are somewhat more likely than non-Hispanic whites to say that air pollution (38% to 32%) and the pollution of drinking water (29% to 20%) are big problems. Republicans are less likely than Democrats or independents to perceive air pollution as a big problem (25% to 37% to 37%). - 5 - June 2002 Environmental Conditions "How much of a problem is __________ in your region today?" Percentage seeing the issue as a big problem: Traffic congestion Air pollution Population growth and development Pollution of drinking water . All Adults 2000 44% 28 27 -- 2001 60% 30 29 -- 2002 61% 34 30 23 "How much of a problem is __________ in your region today?" Region Traffic congestion on freeways and major roads Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don’t know Air pollution Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don’t know Population growth and development Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don’t know Pollution of drinking water Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don’t know All Adults Central Valley 61% 24 14 1 34% 38 27 1 30% 37 31 2 23% 31 42 4 36% 33 30 1 39% 33 27 1 24% 35 39 2 25% 32 40 3 SF Bay Area Los Angeles 72% 22 6 0 27% 47 26 0 30% 45 23 2 17% 31 47 5 73% 18 8 1 47% 35 17 1 31% 37 29 3 30% 32 34 4 Other Southern California Latino 62% 26 12 0 30% 37 32 1 34% 35 30 1 21% 30 45 4 59% 22 19 0 38% 34 27 1 29% 34 35 2 29% 31 37 3 -6- Environmental Connections Consumer Choices In California today, 76 percent of all residents do not drink unfiltered tap water in their homes. Across all of the state’s major regions, residents overwhelmingly prefer bottled and filtered water to straight tap water, a preference that is higher in Los Angeles (80%) and other Southern California areas (77%) than in the San Francisco Bay Area (70%) or Central Valley (64%). Of those who say that pollution of drinking water is a big problem in their region, only 13 percent drink water straight from the tap, compared to 21 percent who see it as somewhat of a problem, and 34 percent who do not see the pollution of drinking water as a problem. Younger residents are much more likely to drink bottled water at home compared to residents 55 and older. Latinos (55%) overwhelmingly prefer bottled water to all other types of water, while nonHispanic whites are more evenly divided among the three choices. The college educated and residents with household incomes of $80,000 or higher are more likely to drink filtered water, while residents with lower incomes and less education are more likely to drink bottled water. Nearly one in four Californians (23%) own or lease a sport utility vehicle (SUV). This number is consistent with national findings by Newsweek in 2001. Residents 55 and older (14%) are much less likely than younger residents (24%) to have an SUV. Residents who have household incomes of $80,000 or higher (38%) are more likely than those with lower incomes (18%) to own such a vehicle. People with children at home (30%) are much more likely than those without children in the home (18%) to drive an SUV. Other Southern California residents (28%) are the most likely to own an SUV. Republicans (30%) are more likely to have an SUV than either Democrats (23%) or independents (20%). SUV ownership is unrelated to education or race and ethnicity. "What kind of water do you typically drink in your home?" Straight tap water Filtered tap water Bottled water Other (volunteered) All Central Adults Valley 24% 33% 35 33 39 31 23 Region Race/Ethnicity SF Bay Area 27% Los Angeles 18% Other Southern California 22% Non-Hispanic White Latino 30% 13% 38 32 38 37 31 32 48 39 30 55 32 1 3 1 "Do you personally own or lease an SUV (sport utility vehicle)?" Income Kids at Home All $40,000 Adults <$40K -79,999 $80K+ Yes No Latino Yes 23% 13% 23% 38% 30% 18% 24% No 77 87 77 62 70 82 76 -7- Environmental Connections Personal Activities and Practices Californians are living up to their active image by spending time out-and-about in the Golden State. Forty percent of Californians regularly spend time at local parks, recreation areas, or beaches, and another 41 percent do so on a less frequent basis. Two in three Californians say they at least sometimes visit a national park or other scenic destination, and almost one-quarter do so regularly. Nineteen percent of residents say that they regularly hike and bike on unpaved trails, and an additional 27 percent sometimes engage in these activities. There are only modest regional differences in participation in any of these activities. By contrast, residents’ income and education are highly related to the amount of time they spend pursuing these leisure activities. Residents who make less than $40,000 annually and those who have not attended college are much less likely than others to spend time on these activities. Having children in the house seems to provide some incentive for activity; residents with children in the home are more likely than those without children at home to spend time hiking and biking (51% to 43%) and visiting local parks and beaches (89% to 75%). "How often do you …?" Region All Adults Spend your leisure time at local parks, recreation areas, or beaches Regularly Sometimes Hardly ever Never 40% 41 13 6 Take a trip to a national park or other scenic destination Regularly Sometimes Hardly ever Never 23% 42 25 10 Go on day trips that involve hiking or mountain biking on unpaved trails Regularly Sometimes Hardly ever Never 19% 27 24 30 Central Valley 34% 43 17 6 27% 42 21 10 15% 26 26 33 SF Bay Area Los Angeles 42% 41 11 6 39% 42 12 7 26% 40 27 7 20% 44 25 11 21% 28 23 28 18% 27 25 30 Other Southern California Latino 41% 38 14 7 44% 40 10 6 23% 41 26 10 22% 41 25 12 19% 25 25 31 16% 28 26 30 -8- Environmental Connections Californians’ familiarity with environmental issues in their cities or communities carries, at least partly, into environmentally friendly practices. Eighty percent of Californians regularly recycle their newspapers, aluminum cans, and glass; and two in 10 regularly buy organic and pesticide-free foods or carpool on a regular basis. San Francisco Bay Area residents’ commitment to recycling has not wavered since June 2000, when 90 percent of Bay Area residents indicated that they recycled regularly. Traffic congestion in the state has perhaps had one positive environmental effect: Fewer residents say that they never carpool now (47%) than in June 2000 (52%). The percentage of residents who never carpool has declined in traffic-snarled Los Angeles (50% to 44%) and other areas of Southern California (51% to 44%). Today, residents purchase organic and pesticide-free foods somewhat less regularly. In the “Other Southern California” area, for example, there has been a nine-point drop (57% to 48%) in the percentage of people who regularly or sometimes buy organic foods. There are some interesting differences between Latinos and non-Hispanic whites: NonHispanic whites are more likely than Latinos to say they regularly recycle (84% to 74%), while Latinos are more likely than non-Hispanic whites to say they carpool regularly (26% to 17%). Both groups are equally likely to buy organic and pesticide-free foods. Recycling tends to increase among those with higher education and income, while carpooling declines with these socioeconomic factors. People ages 55 and older (88%) are the most likely to regularly recycle, and those under 35 are the most likely to carpool on a regular basis (29%). Recycle newspapers, aluminum cans, or glass Regularly Sometimes Hardly ever Never Buy organic and pesticide-free foods Regularly Sometimes Hardly ever Never Carpool with others Regularly Sometimes Hardly ever Never "How often do you …?" Region All Adults Central Valley SF Bay Area Los Angeles 80% 10 4 6 76% 12 5 7 89% 7 2 2 79% 8 5 8 20% 32 22 26 19% 24 22 35 21% 35 21 23 20% 34 20 26 19% 18 16 47 21% 13 13 53 16% 20 16 48 20% 20 16 44 Other Southern California Latino 75% 13 5 7 74% 14 5 7 18% 30 25 27 20% 30 23 27 20% 18 18 44 26% 19 17 38 - 9 - June 2002 Environmental Connections Knowledge and Involvement While 68 percent of Californians say they are at least somewhat knowledgeable about the environmental issues facing their communities, only 21 percent say they have a lot of knowledge. Far fewer are personally involved in local environmental issues. Local environmental knowledge is highly related to education: Residents who have college or postgraduate degrees (27%) are more likely than residents with either some college (19%) or a high school education or less (14%) to say that they have a lot of knowledge about environmental issues. As income increases, so does the percentage of residents who say they have at least some knowledge about these issues: Sixty percent of those with household incomes under $40,000, 69 percent of those with incomes between $40,000 and $80,000, and 79 percent of those with incomes $80,000 and higher know at least something about environmental issues in their city or community. NonHispanic whites (76%) are much more likely than Latinos (56%) to say that they have at least some knowledge of these issues. Knowledge about the local environment also increases with age and length of time living at current residence. Three in 10 residents have been personally involved at least sometimes in environmental issues in their city or community, although only 7 percent have been involved a lot. Forty percent of nonHispanic whites indicate that they are at least somewhat involved in environmental issues in their communities, compared to 29 percent of Latinos. Involvement increases with age, education, and income and is higher among those who are registered to vote (40%) than those who are not (20%). There are no significant differences in involvement across region or party affiliation. "How much do you personally know about specific environmental issues in your city or community?" A lot Some Very little Nothing/Don’t know All Adults 21% 47 26 6 Income <$40K 16% 44 32 8 $40,00079,999 22% 47 25 6 Race/Ethnicity $80K+ 25% Non-Hispanic White 24% Latino 15% 54 52 41 19 20 32 24 12 "How often have you been personally involved in environmental issues in your city or community by taking steps such as attending public meetings, signing petitions, or writing letters to local officials?" A lot Sometimes Hardly ever Never All Adults 7% 29 25 39 Income <$40K 7% 24 22 47 $40,00079,999 6% 29 24 41 Race/Ethnicity $80K+ 8% Non-Hispanic White 8% Latino 5% 34 32 24 30 26 23 28 34 48 - 10 - Environmental Connections Environmental Justice There is a growing debate among environmental advocates and policymakers about potential environmental inequities in low-income and minority communities. The broad label “environmental justice” has been applied to this ongoing discussion; the term encompasses both negative conditions such as polluting activities and positive conditions such as parks and recreational facilities. Much of the current debate focuses on the quantification of environmental conditions as well as on quality. Although public opinion is implicated at each turn, it is rarely studied. In California, roughly six in 10 residents agree with the statement that low-income and minority neighborhoods are unfairly burdened with toxic waste and other polluting facilities. Notably, there are no differences across income groups on this question. Moreover, non-Hispanic whites (58%) are just as likely as Latinos (61%) to agree that lower-income and minority neighborhoods have more than their fair share of polluting facilities. Residents who say that they are involved with environmental issues in their communities and those who are less satisfied with the quality of the environment in their region are more likely to agree with the statement that lower-income and minority neighborhoods have more than their fair share of toxic waste and other polluting facilities. Republicans (39%) are much more likely than Democrats (21%) and independents (29%) to disagree with this statement. Almost two-thirds (64%) of residents agree with the statement that lower-income and minority neighborhoods have less than their fair share of well-maintained parks and recreational facilities. On this question, Latinos (72%) are more likely than non-Hispanic whites (60%) to agree that lowincome and minority neighborhoods are not getting their fair share. Once again, however, there are no differences across income or education groups. Residents ages 18 to 34 (70%) are much more likely than those ages 55 and older (54%) to agree that the distribution of these facilities is problematic. Republicans (52%) are much less likely than Democrats (71%) and independents (68%) to see an inequitable division. "Do you agree or disagree with this statement …?" Some people say that when it comes to where toxic waste and polluting facilities are located in the state, lower-income and minority neighborhoods have more than their fair share compared to other neighborhoods Agree Disagree Don’t know/Other answer All Adults Income $40,000<$40K 79,999 Race/Ethnicity Non-Hispanic $80K+ White Latino 58% 30 12 61% 28 11 59% 29 12 56% 31 13 58% 28 14 61% 31 8 Some people say that lower-income and minority neighborhoods have less than their fair share of wellmaintained parks and recreational facilities compared to other neighborhoods Agree Disagree Don’t know/Other answer 64% 29 7 65% 29 6 65% 28 7 64% 30 6 60% 31 9 72% 24 4 - 11 - June 2002 Environmental Connections Environmental News and Interest Almost six in 10 Californians say they follow news about the state’s environmental issues closely, with 12 percent saying they follow this news very closely. There are few regional differences, but Los Angeles residents (9%) are somewhat less likely than those elsewhere to say that they follow news very closely. Older, better educated, and wealthier residents tend to keep a closer eye on environmental issues in the state. Residents who follow news stories about air, land, and water protection at least fairly closely are more engaged when it comes to environmental issues than residents who follow the news less closely. For example, those who closely watch the news are much more likely to be involved in their city or community on environmental issues (48% to 18%) and to say that they have at least some knowledge of the environmental issues facing their communities (82% to 50%). They are also more likely (67% to 54%) to believe that their health and well-being are seriously threatened by today’s environmental problems. "How closely do you follow news about the state’s environmental issues– such as air, land, and water protection?" Very closely Fairly closely Not too closely Not at all closely All Adults 12% 46 33 9 Central Valley 13% 46 31 10 Region SF Bay Area 13% 43 36 8 Los Angeles 9% 50 33 8 Other Southern California 14% 43 34 9 Latino 14% 44 31 11 Money for Environmental Causes Although many residents express a strong interest in the environment, only 37 percent have donated to environmental groups, causes, or issues in the past year, and only 7 percent have donated a lot. Comparing residents who make donations to those who do not, the donors tend to be more involved in their communities’ environmental issues (53% to 25%), know a lot about environmental issues (30% to 15%), and view their health and well-being as seriously threatened by today’s environmental problems (69% to 56%). Non-Hispanic whites are more likely than Latinos to have made a donation (39% to 30%). Donations increase along with education and income. Compared to those who donate a little, residents who donate a lot are much more likely to say that they have been involved a lot in their communities on these issues (27% to 9%). "Have you donated money to any environmental groups, causes, or issues in the past year? (if yes, Have you donated a lot or a little?)" Yes, a lot Yes, a little No All Adults 7% 30 63 Central Valley 5% 28 67 Region SF Bay Area 11% 34 55 Los Angeles 5% 34 61 Other Southern California 6% 26 68 Latino 5% 25 70 - 12 - Environmental Policy Environmental Protection: Economic and Lifestyle Implications Despite the continuing economic doldrums, 64 percent of Californians believe that stricter environmental laws are worth potential costs to the economy. This degree of commitment is up somewhat from February 2002 (59%) and June 2000 (57%). In fact, it represents a return to the preeconomic downturn level of 64 percent in January 2000. Although Californians from all regions, political parties, and all age, education, and income groups support stricter environmental laws, degree of support differs across regions and political and demographic groups. For example, Central Valley residents (54%) are much less likely than residents of the state’s other major regions to say that stricter environmental laws are worth the costs for jobs and the economy. Republicans (50%) are less likely than Democrats (72%), independents (67%), or those not registered to vote (66%) to opt for the environmental side of this trade-off. Support for stricter laws also decreases with age but increases with education and is unrelated to household income. "Does the first statement or the second statement come closer to your views ...?" Stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost Stricter environmental laws and regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy Don’t know All Adults 64% 31 5 Central Valley 54% 38 8 Region SF Bay Area Los Angeles 70% 69% Other Southern California 62% Latino 62% 26 26 34 33 4 5 45 When asked how much they will have to change their lifestyles to solve today’s environmental problems, a slim majority of Californians (53%) believe that they will have to make major changes. Forty-four percent think that solving the problems will require them to make few or no changes. Democrats (60%) are more likely than Republicans (45%) to say that major lifestyle changes will be required of them. There are no significant differences among age, income, educational, or regional groups in perceived need for change. Party Registration People like me will have to make major lifestyle changes to solve today’s environmental problems People like me will have to make few or no lifestyle changes to solve today’s environmental problems Don’t know/Other answer All Not Adults Democrat Republican Independents Registered Latino 53% 60% 45% 56% 51% 57% 44 38 52 42 46 40 32 3 2 33 - 13 - Environmental Policy Environmental Protection and Energy Supplies It would appear that the energy crisis has not fundamentally affected Californians' policy preferences: 65 percent believe that protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of limiting the amount of energy supplies—such as oil, gas, and coal—the U.S. produces. Only 29 percent of Californians would give development of U.S. energy supplies priority even if the environment suffers to some extent. A recent Gallup survey found American public opinion less widely divided on this trade-off: In March 2002, 52 percent of theGallup sample gave priority to protecting the environment, while 40 percent gave priority to developing energy supplies. "Does the first statement or the second statement come closer to your views ...?" All Adults U.S.* Protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of limiting the amount of energy supplies–such as oil, gas, and coal–which the U.S. produces 52% Development of U.S. energy supplies such as oil, gas, and coal should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent 40 Don’t know/Other answer 8 California 65% 29 6 *Gallup, March 2002 Support for environmental protection varies greatly across the state’s major regions and among partisan groups. It is highest in Los Angeles (71%) and lowest in the Central Valley (55%). It is higher among Democrats (71%), independents (67%), and people not registered to vote (67%) than among Republicans (51%). Latinos (71%) are more likely than non-Hispanic whites (63%) to view environmental protection as worth the supply risks. Support for environmental protection decreases with age, increases modestly with education, and is unrelated to income. Protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of limiting the amount of energy supplies–such as oil, gas, and coal– which the U.S. produces Development of U.S. energy supplies such as oil, gas, and coal should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent Don’t know/Other answer All Adults 65% 29 6 Central Valley 55% 39 6 Region SF Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern California Latino 66% 71% 61% 71% 27 24 33 23 7 5 66 - 14 - Environmental Policy State Energy Policy Californians’ general sentiments about environmental protection are reflected in their opinions on specific environmental issues confronting their state. Opposition to more offshore oil drilling in the state is high, and a large majority favor doubling the state’s use of renewable energy. In our survey, 59 percent opposed new oil drilling off the state’s coast, even if it meant higher gasoline prices. This opposition is up from June 2000, when 54 percent opposed new drilling. As in June 2000, opposition to new drilling is higher in the San Francisco Bay Area (69%) and Los Angeles (64%) and lower in other Southern California areas (53%) and the Central Valley (48%). Democrats (69%), independents (62%), and those not registered to vote (61%) also continue to be more opposed than Republicans (43%) to new drilling. Opposition to new offshore drilling increases with education but is unrelated to income or age. "Does the first statement or the second statement come closer to your views ...?" Policymakers should not allow more oil drilling off the California coast even if this means higher gasoline prices for California drivers Policymakers should allow more oil drilling off the California coast if this means lower gasoline prices for California drivers Don’t know All Adults 59% 36 5 Central Valley 48% 46 6 Region SF Bay Area Los Angeles 69% 64% Other Southern California Latino 53% 57% 26 32 41 38 5 4 65 Californians express overwhelming support (85%) for a state policy requiring that renewable energy account for 20 percent of all state power in the next 10 years. Support for this measure is high across the state and among all partisan and socioeconomic groups. Even among those who think that the development of U.S. energy supplies should take priority over potential environmental harm, only 21 percent are opposed to this renewable energy policy. "Do you favor or oppose a state policy that requires doubling the use of renewable energy– such as wind, geothermal, and solar power– in the next 10 years from 10 percent of all California power today to 20 percent?" Party Registration Favor Oppose Don’t know All Adults 85% 12 3 Democrat 88% 8 4 Not Republican Independents Registered 82% 85% 83% 14 13 13 4 24 Latino 81% 16 3 - 15 - June 2002 Environmental Policy Global Warming How seriously do Californians take the threat of global warning? A solid majority (62%) believe there is enough evidence that global climate change is real and that at least some action must be taken. This breaks down into 25 percent who see global climate change as an established, serious problem that requires immediate action and 37 percent who say that there is ample evidence that global warming is real and that some action is needed. Twenty-seven percent of Californians believe that more research is needed before acting, and 7 percent feel that concern about global climate change is unwarranted. These findings are similar to those of June 2000. Democrats (70%) and independents (68%) are much more likely than Republicans (47%) to believe there is enough evidence of global climate change to require at least some action. San Francisco Bay Area residents (70%) are the most likely to think at least some action is needed, and Central Valley residents are the least likely (53%). Californians under age 55 (66%) are more likely than those 55 and older (51%) to think that at least some action on global warming is needed. Support for action on global warming also increases with education and income. "From what you know about global climate change or global warming, which of the following four statements comes closest to your opinion …?" Party Registration Change is serious, need immediate action Enough evidence, need some action Need more research before acting Concern is unwarranted Don't know/Other answer All Adults 25% 37 27 7 4 Democrat 32% 38 23 3 4 Republican 12% 35 37 13 3 Independents 29% 39 23 8 1 Not Registered 28% 36 26 5 5 Latino 27% 38 27 4 4 A large majority of Californians (81%) support a state law that would mandate further reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2009. Public support for tougher emission standards varies by party affiliation and region but remains at or above 70 percent for all demographic subgroups. Although opposition is highest among those who do not see the need for at least some action on global warming, a sizeable majority (67%) of this group still favor legislating lower emissions. Owners of S.U.V.s also overwhelmingly support this measure (77%). "Do you favor or oppose a state law requiring all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars in California by 2009?" Global Warming Favor Oppose Don’t know All Adults 81% 16 3 Change is Real/ Action is Necessary 90% 9 1 More Research Needed/ Concern is Unwarranted 67% 29 4 Own/Lease S.U.V. 77% 23 0 Latino 82% 15 3 - 16 - Environmental Policy Open Space and Land Development The high concern that Californians have about growth and development issues carries over into what they want done with the remaining open space in their regions. Overall, a majority (55%) believe that open space in their region should be designated as protected land for the preservation of species and natural habitats, as opposed to being developed for parks, sports, and recreational use (38%). Support for designating open space as protected land varies widely across the state and among Californians from different socioeconomic groups. Majorities of residents in the San Francisco Bay Area (60%), Los Angeles (56%), and other Southern California areas (55%) want to protect open space as open space, but Central Valley residents are evenly split between protection (45%) and development (45%). Democrats (61%) and independents (59%) are more likely than Republicans (49%) to want to see the land protected. "Does the first statement or the second statement come closer to your views ...?" Open space in my region should mostly be designated as protected land for the preservation of species and natural habitats Open space in my region should mostly be developed for parks, sports, and recreation use Don’t know All Adults 55% 38 7 Central Valley 45% 45 10 Region SF Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern California Latino 60% 56% 55% 53% 32 39 40 42 8 5 55 Californians’ commitment to open space extends to their spending priorities: 58 percent say they would favor using taxpayer money to buy undeveloped land to keep it free from commercial and residential development. However, support for this use is higher among Democrats (66%), independents (61%), and those not registered to vote (60%) than among Republicans (47%). Support increases with income and education and decreases with age. In June 2000, 57 percent of Californians supported the idea of using public funds to slow the pace of development. "Do you favor or oppose using taxpayer money to buy undeveloped land to keep it free from commercial and residential development?" Party Registration Favor Oppose Don’t know All Adults 58% 37 5 Democrat 66% 30 4 Republican 47% 48 5 Independents 61% 35 4 Not Registered 60% 36 4 Latino 58% 37 5 - 17 - June 2002 Environmental Policy Californians are more divided on a hypothetical local growth-control initiative: 49 percent say they would vote yes on a local initiative to slow down the pace of growth in their cities or communities, even if it meant having less economic growth; 44 percent say that they would vote no. Californians are more evenly divided on this issue today than they have been in any of the three previous Statewide Surveys in which it was raised. This shift results primarily from decreased support for a local growth initiative in the San Francisco Bay Area since the earlier surveys. Today, support for the slow growth initiative in the Bay Area (49%) mirrors support elsewhere in the state (49%). Previously, Bay Area residents were far more likely than Californians elsewhere to say that they would vote yes on this initiative. "If an election were held today, would you vote yes or no on a local initiative to slow down the pace of development in your city or community, even if it meant having less economic growth?" Yes No Don’t know June 2000 58% 37 5 All Adults May 2001 Nov 2001 51% 55% 41 38 87 June 2002 49% 44 7 Water Supply Californians are evenly split on how to help the state meet its future water needs: 47 percent think the better approach is building new dams and reservoirs; 45 percent prefer encouraging conservation through pricing and reallocating some existing water supply from agriculture to urban areas. Residents of the Central Valley (58%) are more supportive of building new dams and reservoirs than residents of "Other Southern California" areas (49%), and much more supportive than residents of Los Angeles (43%) and the San Francisco Bay Area (39%). Democrats (49%), independents (47%), and those not registered to vote (49%) are much more in favor than Republicans (33%) of conservation and reallocation. In fact, a majority of Republicans (58%) favor new dams and reservoirs. Political conservatives (57%) are also much more likely than moderates (48%) and liberals (35%) to prefer dams and reservoirs. Support for dams and reservoirs over conservation and reallocation decreases with education, increases with income, and is unrelated to age. "Regarding ways to help California meet its future water needs, do you favor …?" Region All Adults Encouraging conservation through pricing and reallocating some of the existing water supply from agriculture to urban areas Building new dams and reservoirs Don’t know 45% 47 8 Central Valley 36% 58 6 SF Bay Area 51% 39 10 Los Angeles Other Southern California Latino 48% 43% 45% 43 49 49 9 86 - 18 - Governance Trust in Government Californians’ notorious distrust of government extends to the environmental arena: While half of Californians say they have at least some confidence that government can understand and solve environmental problems, only 9 percent say they have a great deal of confidence in government’s ability to do so. Half of the state’s residents have very little or not much confidence that government can understand and solve the problems. Independents (33%) are more likely than either Democrats (21%) or Republicans (22%) to express not much confidence. There are no major differences in trust in government’s ability across regions or between Latinos and non-Hispanic whites. However, residents ages 18 to 34 (53%) and 35 to 54 (52%) are more likely than those age 55 and older (44%) to have at least some confidence in government ability to handle environmental issues. When asked about the level of government they trusted most to deal with environmental problems, Californians chose state government (32%) more than county (20%), federal (19%), or city (16%) government. Central Valley (25%) and San Francisco Bay Area (23%) residents are more likely to say they trust counties than are residents in Los Angeles and other Southern California areas (16% each). There are no significant differences between Latinos and non-Hispanic whites on this dimension of trust in government. As for partisan differences, independent voters (42%) put more faith in the abilities of local governments (i.e., cities and counties) to understand and solve environmental problems than do Republicans (38%) or Democrats (32%). "How much confidence do you have in the ability of government to understand and solve the kinds of environmental problems that we have today?" A great deal Some Very little Not much Don’t know All Adults 9% 41 26 23 1 Central Valley 10% 39 26 23 2 Region SF Bay Area 7% 40 29 23 1 Los Angeles 10% 42 23 25 0 Other Southern California 10% 42 28 19 1 Latino 13% 40 29 17 1 "Which level of government do you trust the most to deal with environmental problems?" State government County government Federal government City government None (volunteered) Don’t know All Adults 32% 20 19 16 10 3 Central Valley 31% 25 19 13 9 3 Region SF Bay Area 30% 23 16 15 10 6 Los Angeles 33% 16 21 18 9 3 Other Southern California 34% 16 19 17 10 4 Latino 32% 17 23 16 9 3 - 19 - Governance President’s Ratings Although a relatively high 65 percent of Californians approve of President Bush’s performance in office, statewide support for the president is down sharply from February 2002 (76%). This is the president’s lowest approval rating since before the attacks on September 11th, but it is still higher than his approval rating in May 2001 (57%). These California results are in contrast with a national survey by Gallup in May, which showed the president’s support at 77 percent, down only slightly since early February. Not all Californians have become less positive about the president’s job performance. Republicans are almost as supportive now (90%) as they were in February (95%). It is Democrats (47% vs. 60%) and independents (59% vs. 71%) whose support has declined the most since the February 2002 survey. The president’s approval ratings today are similar for registered and unregistered Californians. Sixty-four percent of Latinos and 68 percent of non-Hispanic whites approve of Bush’s job performance. College graduates (57%) are substantially less approving of the president than are those with a high school diploma or less (74%). When it comes to the environment, 39 percent approve and 44 percent disapprove of the way Bush is handling this issue. Opinions of the president’s environmental record have a partisan cast: Two-thirds of the president’s fellow Republicans approve of his environmental performance, while two-thirds of Democrats and nearly half of independents disapprove. Approval of Bush is lower on environment issues for all partisan groups compared to his overall support: It is 25 points lower for Democrats (22% vs. 47%), 24 points lower for Republicans (66% vs. 90%), and 22 points lower for independents (37% vs. 59%). Latinos and non-Hispanic whites offer identical assessments of Bush’s environmental record: forty percent in each group approve. Higher education leads to lower levels of support: Those without any college are more approving (50%) than those with a college degree (31%). Party Registration Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as president? Approve Disapprove Don’t know Do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Bush is handling environmental issues in the U.S.? Approve Disapprove Don’t know All Adults 65% 30 5 39% 44 17 Democrat 47% 47 6 22% 65 13 Not Republican Independents Registered Latino 90% 7 3 59% 35 6 69% 25 6 64% 30 6 66% 19 15 37% 48 15 39% 37 24 40% 43 17 - 20 - Governance Governor’s Ratings While 39 percent of Californians approve of Governor Davis’s performance in office, 52 percent disapprove. The governor’s overall approval rating is lower than in February 2002 (51%) or one year ago in May 2001 (46%) or any other time since September 2000 when this question was first asked. Half of the governor’s fellow Democrats approve of his performance in office, compared to one in five Republicans and one in three independents. Latinos are among the governor’s strongest supporters—48 percent approve of how he is handling his job, compared to only 33 percent of nonHispanic whites. The governor’s approval ratings decline as Californians' age, education, and income increase. Davis’s approval ratings on the environment closely match his overall ratings: Thirty-five percent approve of the way he is handling environmental issues, and 47 percent disapprove. The governor’s approval ratings on environmental issues have not changed since June 2000 (36%), but disapproval has risen over time (28% to 47%) as the proportion with no opinion has declined (36% to 18%). A plurality of Democrats (43%) approve of the governor’s performance on environmental issues, compared to 21 percent of Republicans and 33 percent of independents. Davis’s overall approval ratings and his environmental approval ratings are fairly close among Democrats (50% to 43%), Republicans (19% to 21%), and independents (34% to 33%). Fewer Latinos approve of the governor’s handling of environmental issues (41%) compared to their approval of his performance overall (48%). Still, Latinos are more likely to approve of Davis on environmental issues than are non-Hispanic whites (41% to 31%). Support for the governor’s efforts on environmental issues tends to decline as age, education, and income increase. Party Registration Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Gray Davis is handling his job as governor of California? Approve Disapprove Don’t know Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Davis is handling environmental issues in California? Approve Disapprove Don’t know All Adults 39% 52 9 35% 47 18 Democrat 50% 41 9 43% 40 17 Not Republican Independents Registered Latino 19% 76 5 34% 57 9 47% 36 17 48% 43 9 21% 63 16 33% 51 16 41% 36 23 41% 46 13 - 21 - June 2002 Governance Political Importance of Environmental Issues Nine in 10 California registered voters (88%) say that the candidates’ environmental positions will be at least somewhat important in determining their vote for governor this fall, and 39 percent rate environmental issues as very important. Nearly half of Democrats (47%) say the candidates’ stances on the environment will be a very important consideration in whom they vote for, compared to 27 percent of Republicans and 39 percent of independents. Latino registered voters (48%) are more likely than non-Hispanic white registered voters (36%) to say the issue will be very important. Registered voters in Los Angeles (44%) are more likely than their counterparts in the rest of the state (37%) to say that environmental issues will be very important when it comes to deciding their vote. While Californians are more likely to disapprove than approve of the governor’s performance on environmental issues, registered voters choose Davis rather than Republican challenger Bill Simon (43% to 31%) when asked which candidate for governor would do a better job handling the state’s environmental issues. On this question, partisan differences are sharp: Sixty-four percent of Democrats support Davis over Simon and 59 percent of Republicans support Simon over Davis. Independent voters favor Davis (41% to 25%). Latinos are more likely than non-Hispanic white voters to favor Davis over Simon on environmental issues (50% to 40%). Registered voters who say environmental issues will be very important to their vote for governor favor Davis over Simon in handling environmental issues (51% to 25%), as do those who say environmental issues will be only somewhat important (42% to 32%). Those who approve of the governor’s performance on environmental issues think Davis would do a better job than Simon on the environment (73% to 11%), and those who disapprove of Davis’s performance on the environment tend to think that Simon would do a better job (48% to 24%). "In thinking about the governor’s election this year, how important are the candidates’ positions on environmental issues in determining your vote?" Very important Somewhat important Not important Don’t know All Registered Voters 39% 49 11 1 Party Registration Democrat 47% 45 6 2 Republican 27% 53 19 1 Latino Independents Voters 39% 48% 50 44 10 6 12 "Regardless of your choice for governor, which of these candidates would do a better job of handling environmental issues in California?" Gray Davis Bill Simon Other answer (volunteered) Don’t know All Registered Voters 43% 31 4 22 Party Registration Democrat 64% 14 4 18 Republican 17% 59 4 20 Latino Independents Voters 41% 50% 25 25 53 29 22 - 22 - Governance State Government A majority of Californians (51%) say that the state government is not doing enough to protect the environment, 38 percent feel the state is doing just enough, and 7 percent think the state is doing more than enough. These numbers are relatively unchanged from June 2000 when 50 percent of Californians said the state government was not doing enough, 37 percent said just enough, and 9 percent said it was doing more than enough to protect the environment. Democrats (56%) and independents (54%) are more likely than Republicans (44%) to think that the state government is not doing enough to protect California’s environment. Latinos and nonHispanic whites do not differ substantially on this issue. The perception that the state government is not doing enough when it comes to environmental protection increases with education. Perhaps reflecting this general desire for more state government action in this policy arena, Californians are willing to fund environmental programs even if it draws money from other state programs. Forced to make a trade-off in light of the large state budget deficit, 54 percent say full funding of environmental programs should continue even if it means less money for other programs, and 35 percent feel that funding for environmental programs should be reduced. Democrats (61%) and independents (57%) tend to take the pro-environmental position on government spending, while Republicans (45%) are nearly evenly split on this spending issue. Once again, Latinos and nonHispanic whites offer similar opinions. Support for environmental programs is higher among 18 to 34 year olds (58%) and 35 to 54 year olds (56%) than it is among those 55 and older (46%). "Do you think the state government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to protect the environment in California?" Party Registration More than enough Just enough Not enough Don’t know All Adults 7% 38 51 4 Democrat 4% 36 56 4 Not Republican Independents Registered 13% 7% 6% 39 34 42 44 54 46 4 56 Latino 7% 41 49 3 "The state is facing an estimated $23 billion deficit next year, and program cuts are needed in order to balance the state budget. Should the state …" Party Registration Continue to fund environment programs at current levels even if it means fewer funds are available for other state programs Reduce funding for environment programs, so that more funds are available for other state programs Other answer (volunteered, specify) Don’t know All Adults Democrat 54% 61% 35 29 43 77 Not Republican Independents Registered Latino 45% 57% 53% 51% 44 31 36 39 5 3 32 6 9 88 - 23 - June 2002 Governance Water Bond Initiative A water bond initiative on the state ballot this fall would authorize $3.44 billion in state bonds to pay for a wide range of water projects, some of which involve environmental protection. Asked about the measure, a solid majority of voters (59%) expect to vote yes. Two-thirds of Democrats (67%) and six in 10 independents (60%) support the water bond measure, while Republican opinion (48%) is more evenly divided. Solid majorities of registered Latinos (59%) and non-Hispanic whites (57%) support this initiative. Registered voters in the San Francisco Bay Area (64%) and Los Angeles (61%) are most likely to back the initiative, followed by those in other Southern California areas (58%) and the Central Valley (53%). Support for the initiative declines with age and rises with education, but no other demographic subgroup is more likely to oppose than to support this water bond As might be expected, a desire to maintain environmental programs in the face of budget cuts goes hand-in-hand with a yes vote on the water bond: Seventy percent of registered voters who want to keep environmental funding at its current levels support the water bond, compared to 46 percent of those who prefer reducing the state’s environmental funding. Two-thirds of voters who feel the state is not doing enough to protect the environment indicate they will vote for the bond, compared to 56 percent of those who feel just enough is being done. Finally, 71 percent of those voters who say environmental issues will be very important to their gubernatorial vote say they will vote yes on this initiative, compared to 58 percent of those who feel such issues are somewhat important, and only 29 percent of those who feel that environmental issues are not important to their gubernatorial choice. "A proposition on the November 2002 ballot would authorize $3.44 billion in state bonds to fund a variety of water projects, including: increasing urban agricultural efficiency; reducing dependence on Colorado River water; protecting coastal wetlands; and improving the security for state, local, and regional water systems. Fiscal impacts include state costs to repay the 25-year bonds with payments of $227 million per year. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this proposition?"* Yes No Don’t know All Registered Voters 59% 29 12 Party Registration Democrat 67% 23 10 Republican 48% 39 13 Independents 60% 27 13 Latino Voters 59% 31 10 Yes No Don’t know Central Valley 53% 36 11 Registered Voters by Region SF Bay Area 64% 23 13 Los Angeles 61% 28 11 Other Southern California 58% 30 12 * This question text is a slightly abbreviated version of the Initiative Statute language listed at the California Secretary of State’s Office. - 24 - Survey Methodology The PPIC Statewide Survey is directed by Mark Baldassare, a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, with assistance in research and writing from Jon Cohen, survey research manager, and Lisa Cole and Eric McGhee, survey research associates. The survey was conducted in collaboration with The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The James Irvine Foundation, and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation and benefited from discussions with staff at the foundations; however, the survey methods, questions, and content of the report were solely determined by Mark Baldassare. The findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,029 California adult residents interviewed from May 28 to June 4, 2002. Interviewing took place on weekend days and weekday nights, using a computer-generated random sample of telephone numbers, ensuring that both listed and unlisted telephone numbers were called. All telephone exchanges in California were eligible for calling. Telephone numbers in the survey sample were called up to six times to increase the likelihood of reaching eligible households. Once a household was reached, an adult respondent (18 or older) was randomly chosen for interviewing by using the “last birthday method” to avoid biases in age and gender. Each interview took an average of 20 minutes to complete. Interviewing was conducted in English or Spanish. Casa Hispana translated the survey into Spanish. We used recent U.S. Census and state figures to compare the demographic characteristics of the survey sample with characteristics of California’s adult population. The survey sample was closely comparable to the census and state figures. The survey data in this report were statistically weighted to account for any demographic differences. The sampling error for the total sample of 2,029 adults is +/- 2 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that 95 times out of 100, the results will be within 2 percentage points of what they would be if all adults in California were interviewed. The sampling error for subgroups is larger. Sampling error is just one type of error to which surveys are subject. Results may also be affected by factors such as question wording, question order, and survey timing. Throughout the report, we refer to four geographic regions. “Central Valley” includes Butte, Colusa, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo, and Yuba Counties. “SF Bay Area” includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. “Los Angeles” refers to Los Angeles County, and “Other Southern California” includes the mostly suburban regions of Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties. These four regions were chosen for analysis because they are the major population centers of the state, accounting for approximately 90 percent of the state population; moreover, the growth of the Central Valley and “Other Southern California” regions have given them increasing political significance. We present specific results for Latinos because they account for about 28 percent of the state’s adult population and constitute one of the fastest growing voter groups. The sample sizes for the African American and Asian subgroups are not large enough for separate statistical analysis. We do contrast the opinions of registered Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The “independents” category includes those who are registered to vote as “decline to state” and those who are registered with minor political parties. In some cases, we compare PPIC Statewide Survey responses to responses recorded in national surveys conducted by Gallup in March and May 2002, Newsweek in November 2001, Hart and Teeter 1999, Pew Research Center 1999, and Gallup/CNN/USA Today in June 1998. We used earlier PPIC Statewide Surveys to analyze trends over time in California, including our June 2000 “Special Survey on Californians and the Environment.” - 25 - PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY: SPECIAL SURVEY ON THE ENVIRONMENT MAY 28 – JUNE 4, 2002 2,029 CALIFORNIA ADULT RESIDENTS; ENGLISH AND SPANISH MARGIN OF ERROR +/- 2% AT 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL FOR TOTAL SAMPLE 1. Which of the following best describes the city or community where you now live—a large city, a suburb near a large city, a medium-to-small-sized city, a small town not near a city, or a rural area? 25% large city 25 suburb near a large city 30 medium-to-small-sized city 13 small town not near a city 7 rural area 2. Overall, how would you rate your city or community as a place to live? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, or poor? 33% excellent 43 good 20 fair 4 poor 3. In the past few years, do you think the population of your city or community has been growing rapidly, growing slowly, staying about the same, or declining? 57% growing rapidly 21 growing slowly 17 staying about the same 1 declining 4 don't know 4. If an election were held today, would you vote yes or no on a local initiative to slow down the pace of development in your city or community, even if it meant having less economic growth? 49% yes 44 no 7 don't know 5. Some people have thought a lot about environmental issues—such as air, water, and land protection—in their city or community, and others have not. How much do you personally know about specific environmental issues in your city or community—a lot, some, very little, or nothing? 21% a lot 47 some 26 very little 6 nothing 6. How often have you been personally involved in environmental issues in your city or community by taking steps such as attending public meetings, signing petitions, or writing letters to local officials—a lot, sometimes, hardly ever, or never? 7% a lot 29 sometimes 25 hardly ever 39 never Next, we are interested in your opinions about the region or broader geographic area of California that you live in. I am going to read you a list of problems other people have told us about. For each one, please tell me if you think it is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem in your region. (rotate questions 7 to 10). 7. How about air pollution? 34% big problem 38 somewhat of a problem 27 not a problem 1 don’t know 8. How about traffic congestion on freeways and major roads? 61% big problem 24 somewhat of a problem 14 not a problem 1 don’t know 9. How about population growth and development? 30% big problem 37 somewhat of a problem 31 not a problem 2 don’t know 10. How about pollution of drinking water? 23% big problem 31 somewhat of a problem 42 not a problem 4 don't know - 27 - 11. Overall, how satisfied are you with the quality of the environment in your region— including the air, water, and land? Would you say you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied? 23% very satisfied 49 somewhat satisfied 20 somewhat dissatisfied 7 very dissatisfied 1 don't know 12. Would you say the quality of the environment in your region— including the air, water, and land— is getting better or is it getting worse? 27% better 51 worse 17 same (volunteered) 5 don't know 13. Next, turning to the state as a whole, what do you think is the most important environmental issue facing California today? (code, don’t read) 34% air pollution 13 too much growth, overpopulation 12 water pollution of rivers, lakes, streams 9 water supply, reservoirs 5 pollution in general 5 traffic congestion 2 energy 1 toxic wastes, contamination of the land 1 protecting wildlife, endangered species 1 landfills, garbage, sewage, waste 1 loss of farmlands, agriculture 1 loss of parks, recreation 8 other (specify) 7 don't know Please tell me if each of the following is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem in California today (rotate questions 14 to 19). 14. How about ocean and beach pollution along the California coast? 50% big problem 34 somewhat of a problem 10 not a problem 6 don't know 15. How about urban sprawl taking over farmlands in the Central Valley? 36% big problem 34 somewhat of a problem 16 not a problem 14 don't know 16. How about urban growth and air pollution damaging the forests in the Sierra Mountains? 42% big problem 34 somewhat of a problem 13 not a problem 11 don't know 17. How about urban and agricultural runoff polluting lakes, rivers, and streams? 43% big problem 37 somewhat of a problem 12 not a problem 8 don't know 18. How about MTBE and other toxic substances contaminating soil and groundwater? 41% big problem 33 somewhat of a problem 10 not a problem 16 don't know 19. How about suburban development harming wildlife habitats and endangered species? 36% big problem 38 somewhat of a problem 21 not a problem 5 don't know 20. Overall, how much progress do you think has been made in dealing with environmental problems in California—including problems related to air, water, and land—over the past 20 years? Would you say there has been a great deal of progress, only some progress, or hardly any progress at all? 18% great deal 58 only some 20 hardly any 4 don't know 21. How much optimism do you have that we will have environmental problems in California well under control 20 years from now— a great deal, only some, or hardly any optimism at all? 18% great deal 51 only some 28 hardly any 3 don't know 22. And overall, how serious a threat to your own health and well-being are environmental problems in California today—very serious, somewhat serious, or not too serious? 19% very serious 42 somewhat serious 38 not too serious 1 don't know - 28 - Please tell me if the first statement or the second statement in the following questions comes closer to your views—even if neither is exactly right. (rotate questions and response pairs for questions 23 to 27) 23. (1) Stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost; (2) Stricter environmental laws and regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy. 64% worth the cost 31 hurt the economy 5 don't know 24. (1) People like me will have to make major lifestyle changes to solve today’s environmental problems; (2) People like me will have to make few or no lifestyle changes to solve today’s environmental problems. 53% major life style changes are needed 44 few or no lifestyle changes are needed 3 don't know 25. (1) Open space in my region should mostly be designated as protected land for the preservation of species and natural habitats; (2) Open space in my region should mostly be developed for parks, sports, and recreational use. 55% protected land 38 recreational use 7 don't know 26. (1) Policymakers should not allow more oil drilling off the California coast, even if this means higher gas prices for California drivers; (2) Policymakers should allow more oil drilling off the California coast if this means lower gasoline prices for California drivers; 59% no more drilling 36 more drilling 5 don't know 27. (1) Protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of limiting the amount of energy supplies—such as oil, gas, and coal—which the U.S. produces; (2) Development of U.S. energy supplies—such as oil, gas, and coal—should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent. 65% protection of the environment 29 development of U.S. energy supplies 6 don't know/ other answer 28. Regarding ways to help California meet its future water needs, do you favor (rotate) (1) building new dams and reservoirs; or (2) encouraging conservation through pricing and reallocating some of the existing water supply from agriculture to urban areas. 47% building new dams and reservoirs 45 encouraging conservation 8 don't know I am going to read you some specific environmental proposals. For each one, please say if you favor or oppose the proposal. (rotate questions 29 to 31). 29. Do you favor or oppose a state law requiring all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars in California by 2009? 81% favor 16 oppose 3 don't know 30. Do you favor or oppose a state policy that requires doubling the use of renewable energy—such as wind, geothermal, and solar power— in the next 10 years from 10 percent of all California power today to 20 percent? 85% favor 12 oppose 3 don't know 31. Do you favor or oppose using taxpayer money to buy undeveloped land to keep it free from commercial and residential development? 58% favor 37 oppose 5 don't know 32. On another topic, from what you know about global climate change or global warming, which of the following four statements comes closest to your opinion? 25% Global climate change has been established as a serious problem, and immediate action is necessary 37 There is enough evidence that climate change is taking place, and some action should be taken 27 We don’t know enough about global climate change, and more research is necessary before we take any actions 7 Concern about global climate change is unwarranted 4 don't know/ other answer - 29 - June 2002 33. How much confidence do you have in the ability of government to understand and solve the kinds of environmental problems that we have today— a great deal, some, very little, or not much? 9% a great deal 41 some 26 very little 23 not much 1 don't know 34. Which level of government do you trust the most to deal with environmental problems (rotate response categories)? 32% state government 20 county government 19 federal government 16 city government 10 none (volunteered) 3 don't know 35. On another topic, overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as president? 65% approve 30 disapprove 5 don't know 36. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Bush is handling environmental issues in the United States? 39% approve 44 disapprove 17 don't know 37. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Gray Davis is handling his job as governor of California? 39% approve 52 disapprove 9 don't know 38. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Davis is handling environmental issues in California? 35% approve 47 disapprove 18 don't know 39. Overall, do you think the state government is doing more than enough, just enough, or not enough to protect the environment in California? 7% more than enough 38 just enough 51 not enough 4 don't know 40. The state is facing an estimated 23 billion dollar deficit next year, and program cuts are needed to balance the state budget. Should the state (rotate) (1) continue to fund environment programs at current levels even if it means fewer funds are available for other state programs, or (2) reduce funding for environment programs, so that more funds are available for other state programs? 54% continue to fund at current levels 35 reduce funding for environmental programs 4 other answer (volunteered, specify) 7 don't know [Questions 41-43 responses from registered voters.] 41. On another topic, a proposition on the November 2002 ballot would authorize $3.44 billion in state bonds to fund a variety of water projects, including increasing urban agricultural efficiency; reducing dependence on Colorado River water; protecting coastal wetlands; and improving the security for state, local, and regional water systems. Fiscal impacts include state costs to repay the 25-year bonds with payments of $227 million per year. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this proposition? 59% yes 29 no 12 don't know 42. In thinking about the governor’s election this year, how important are the candidates’ positions on environmental issues in determining your vote— very important, somewhat important, or not important? 39% very important 49 somewhat important 11 not important 1 don't know 43. Regardless of your choice for governor, which of these candidates would do a better job handling environmental issues in California (rotate) (1) Gray Davis, the Democrat, or (2) Bill Simon, the Republican? 43% Gray Davis 31 Bill Simon 4 other answer (volunteered) 22 don't know 44. On another topic, some people say that when it comes to where toxic waste and polluting facilities are located in the state, lower-income and minority neighborhoods have more than their fair share compared to other neighborhoods. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? 58% agree 30 disagree 12 don't know - 30 - 45. Some people say that lower-income and minority neighborhoods have less than their fair share of well-maintained parks and recreational facilities compared to other neighborhoods. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? 64% agree 29 disagree 7 don't know On another topic, please tell us if you regularly, sometimes, hardly ever, or never spend time doing each of the following (rotate questions 46 to 48). 46 How often do you spend your leisure time at local public parks, recreation areas, or beaches? 40% regularly 41 sometimes 13 hardly ever 6 never 47. How often do you take a trip to a national park or other scenic destination? 23% regularly 42 sometimes 25 hardly ever 10 never 48. How often do you go on day trips that involve hiking or mountain biking on unpaved trails? 19% regularly 27 sometimes 24 hardly ever 30 never 49. We have a few questions about you and your household. What kind of water do you typically drink in your home – straight tap water, tap water that has been filtered, or bottled water? 24% straight tap water 35 filtered tap water 39 bottled water 2 other (volunteered, specify) And for the following questions, please tell us if you regularly, sometimes, hardly ever, or never do each of the following activities (rotate questions 50 to 52). 50. How often do you recycle newspapers, aluminum cans, or glass? 80% regularly 10 sometimes 4 hardly ever 6 never 51. How often do you carpool with others? 19% regularly 18 sometimes 16 hardly ever 47 never 52. How often do you buy organic and pesticide-free foods? 20% regularly 32 sometimes 22 hardly ever 26 never 53. On another topic, have you donated money to any environmental groups, causes, or issues in the past year? (if yes, Have you donated a lot or a little?) 7% yes, a lot 30 yes, a little 63 no 54. How closely do you follow news about the state’s environmental issues— such as air, land, and water protection— very closely, fairly closely, not too closely, or not at all closely? 12% very closely 46 fairly closely 33 not too closely 9 not at all closely 55. On another topic, some people are registered to vote and others are not. Are you absolutely certain that you are registered to vote? (if yes: Are you registered as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or as an independent?) 35% yes, Democrat 26 yes, Republican 18 yes, independent 21 no 56. Would you consider yourself to be politically very liberal, somewhat liberal, middle-of-the-road, somewhat conservative, or very conservative? 12% very liberal 22 somewhat liberal 32 middle-of-the-road 25 somewhat conservative 9 very conservative [57-60: Demographic questions] 61. Do you personally own or lease an SUV (sport utility vehicle)? 23% yes 77 no [62-66: Demographic questions] - 31 - June 2002 PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY Advisory Committee Mary Bitterman President The James Irvine Foundation Angela Blackwell President Policy Link Paul Brest President The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Mollyann Brodie Vice President Kaiser Family Foundation Bruce E. Cain Director Institute of Governmental Studies University of California, Berkeley Matt Fong Chairman Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Advisory Committee William Hauck President California Business Roundtable Sherry Bebitch Jeffe Senior Scholar School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Monica Lozano President and Chief Operating Officer La Opinión Donna Lucas President NCG Porter Novelli Max Neiman Director Center for Social and Behavioral Research University of California, Riverside Dan Rosenheim News Director KPIX-TV Richard Schlosberg President and CEO The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Carol Stogsdill President Stogsdill Consulting Cathy Taylor Vice President and Editorial Commentary Director Orange County Register Raymond L. Watson Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center - 33 -" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:35:25" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(8) "s_602mbs" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:35:25" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:35:25" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(50) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/S_602MBS.pdf" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_mime_type"]=> string(15) "application/pdf" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" ["status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["attachment_authors"]=> bool(false) }