Winter 1996 (v8n1)
Max D. Larsen and Patricia L. Colsher
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1995
This survey of a nationally representative sample of 1,250 persons was conducted via telephone interviews during December 1994 and January 1995. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the public perception of environmental issues such as pollution, food safety and water supply as well as to determine the level of recognition of the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), now called the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The survey was conducted by The Gallup Organization.
According to the results of this survey, issues of water quality and supply and air pollution were the foremost concerns for respondents when considering natural resource issues and problems in their own state and community. Community concerns also included landfill and toxic waste disposal issues, while statewide concerns included forestry, pesticide and other chemical use, and soil quality. It was interesting to note that respondents generally regarded the environmental condition of the entire world and the U.S. to be worse than that of their own community. In rating the environmental condition on a scale of 1 to 10, where "10" was "excellent" and "1" was "very polluted," the most frequent rating for the world and the U.S. was "5." The most frequent rating for participants' own communities was "7." Almost a quarter of respondents reported that there were no natural resource problems in their own community.
Participants were also asked to consider the level of environmental caretaking by different industries and groups. These groups were rated on a scale of 1 to 10 with "1" meaning "serious polluter" and "10" meaning "excellent caretaker of the environment." Of the ten groups named by the interviewer, "agriculture in general" and "individual farmers" were rated the highest. "Individual farmers" had an average rating of 6.7; "agriculture in general" averaged 6.3. However, "large corporate farms run by companies" were rated 5.4-similar to the mean rating scores of other industries such as construction, lawn services, timber, and high-tech industries.
Survey participants did, however, register concern regarding the impact of agriculture on the environment. Approximately half of the respondents disagreed with statements that suggested that current levels of agricultural pesticides and fertilizers in our food and water supply are safe. While a quarter of respondents agreed with these statements, the last quarter were undecided.
Some government regulation of agricultural natural resources seems to be acceptable and expected by most respondents. When questioned on the appropriateness of different strategies that the federal government might use to handle natural resource problems, options such as voluntary incentive programs, withholding benefits, and imposing penalties were all seen as appropriate by at least half of the respondents. The only option deemed inappropriate by over half the respondents was the reduction or elimination of government involvement in agriculture such that "whatever happened would be allowed to happen."
Further acceptance of environmental protection by the government could be seen in the responses to questions regarding laws protecting threatened and endangered species and agricultural wetlands. About 40 percent of respondents felt that protection for both endangered species and wetlands did not go far enough, while 38 percent felt these protection laws were about right. About 15 percent thought wetlands protection went too far, and 24 percent thought endangered species laws went too far. Clearly, a majority of this sample did not feel that these environmental protections are too stringent. Even when faced with the issue of federal spending on resource conservation, over half of the respondents wanted to increase the spending (either a little or a lot); only 16 percent wanted to decrease spending.
In many of the survey responses, it was evident that the older respondents were less likely to regard environmental problems as seriously as the younger respondents. It is therefore not surprising that the younger respondents were more supportive of increased spending on conservation and were more likely to expect more government regulation of natural resources in the future.
This survey found that half of all respondents had heard of what was then called SCS. However, 80 percent of the farmers and ranchers surveyed were familiar with SCS. Although only 3 percent (43 persons) of the survey participants had received services from SCS, the majority of them were satisfied with the services they had received.
For more information write to: Conservation Technology Information Center, 1220 Potter Dr., Room 170, West Lafayette, IN 47906-1383; (317) 494-9555.
(CI-SUST.109)
Contributed by Bev Ransom
[ Back | Search | Feedback ]