EVALUATION OF THE 2012-2013
PIMA COUNTY CLEAN AIR CAMPAIGN
AND BASELINE STORM WATER
ISSUE AWARENESS SURVEY
(June, 2013)

Prepared for:
PIMA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Tucson, Arizona

Prepared by:
FMR ASSOCIATES, INC.
Tucson, Arizona

Copyright, FMR Associates, Inc., 2013

EVALUATION OF THE 2012-2013 PIMA COUNTY CLEAN AIR CAMPAIGN
AND BASELINE STORM WATER ISSUE AWARENESS SURVEY
(June, 2013)
Digest of the Contents
Introduction and Goals .................................................................................................. I-1
Details of the Findings .................................................................................................. 1
I.
Profile of Respondents ................................................................................ 1
Table 1.
Type of Interview ......................................................... 1
Table 2.
Racial Background of Respondents ............................. 2
Table 3.
Area of Residence ........................................................ 3
Table 4.
Gender of Respondents ................................................ 4
Table 5.
Age of Respondents ..................................................... 4
Table 6.
Length of Residence in Pima County .......................... 5
Table 7.
Household Member With BreathingRelated Medical Condition ........................................ 6
Table 8.
Number of Motor Vehicles Owned or Leased ............. 7
Table 8a.
Frequency of Checking Tire Pressure on Vehicle
Driven Most Often ..................................................... 8
Table 9.
Education Level of Respondents .................................. 9
Table 10.
Household Income ....................................................... 10
Display 1.
II.

Demographic Profile of Respondents (Among the
Total Sample) ............................................................ 11

Awareness of Information About Air Quality/Pollution ............................. 14
Table 11.
Awareness of the Pima County “Clean Air”
Program ..................................................................... 14
Table 12.
Awareness of Various Clean Air Events or
Activities ................................................................... 16
Table 12a.
Participation of Anyone in Household in a Clean Air
Campaign Event (Among Those Aware of at Least
One Event) ................................................................ 17
Table 12b.
Incidence of Changing Routines/Behaviors to Improve
Air Quality After Participating in Clean Air Events
(Among Those With a Household Member Who
Participated) .............................................................. 18
Table 13.
Opinion of Activities/Events to Encourage Use
of Other Modes of Transportation (Among
Those Aware of at Least One Event) ........................ 19

EVALUATION OF THE 2012-2013 PIMA COUNTY CLEAN AIR CAMPAIGN
AND BASELINE STORM WATER ISSUE AWARENESS SURVEY
(June, 2013)
Digest of the Contents (Cont’d)
Table 14.
Table 14a.
Table 15.
Table 15a.

Table 16.
Table 17.
Table 17a.
Table 18.

III.

Steps Taken to Reduce Air Pollution ........................... 21
Reasons for Not Taking Steps to Reduce Air Pollution
(Among Those Who Have Done “Nothing”) ............ 23
Presence of Children Ages 5-18 in Household ............ 24
Incidence of Children Ages 5-18 Receiving
Information From School About Air Pollution
(Among Households With Children Ages 5-18)....... 25
Most Effective Means of Communicating Air
Quality Alerts on Air Quality Action Days .............. 27
Agreement with Various Statements Regarding
Air Pollution ............................................................... 30
Actions Taken To Drive Less Because of Higher
Gas Prices (Among Those Driving Less) .................. 32
Perceived Seriousness of Air Quality
Problem in Tucson Area............................................. 33

Display 18.

Perceived Seriousness of Air Quality
Problem in Tucson Area............................................. 34

Display 18.

Perceived Seriousness of Air Quality
Problem in Tucson Area (Sum of “Moderate” and
“Major” Responses) .................................................. 35

Table 19.

Importance of Regional Campaign to Encourage
People to Take Actions to Improve Air Quality ........ 36

Work Commuting Behavior ........................................................................ 37
Table 20.
Employment Status ...................................................... 38
Table 21.
Location of Place of Employment (Among Those
Employed) ................................................................. 39
Table 22.
Number of Full-Time Employees at Jobsite
(Among Those Who Work Outside the Home) ........ 40
Table 23.
Incidence of Telecommuting (Among Those Who
Work Outside the Home) .......................................... 41
Table 24.
Frequency of Telecommuting (Among Those
Who Telecommute) .................................................... 42

EVALUATION OF THE 2012-2013 PIMA COUNTY CLEAN AIR CAMPAIGN
AND BASELINE STORM WATER ISSUE AWARENESS SURVEY
(June, 2013)
Digest of the Contents (Cont’d)
Table 25.

Table 26.
Table 27-S.

Table 27-D.

Table 27-T.

Table 27-1.

Table 27a.

Table 27b.
Display 27b.

Size of Work or School Commute Carpool (Among
Those Who Carpool) ................................................. 54

Table 27c.

Miles Traveled to Work or School (Among Those
Working Outside the Home or Going to School ....... 55
Reasons for Driving Alone To and From Work or
School (Among Single-Car Commuters) .................. 57

Table 27d.
IV.

Availability of “Compressed Workweek”
Programs (Among Those Who Work Outside
the Home) .................................................................. 43
Current Work Schedule (Among Those Employed
Full-Time) ................................................................. 44
Summary of Usage of Transportation Methods
for Traveling To and From Work or School
(Among Those Working Outside the Home
or Going to School) ................................................... 46
Detailed Daily Usage and Tracking of Transportation
Methods for Tracking To and From Work or
School (Among Those Working Outside the
Home or Going to School) ........................................ 47
Tracking Summary of Estimated Number of
Daily Commuter Miles Saved Through
Alternative Modes ..................................................... 49
2013 Estimated Number of Daily Commuter Miles
Saved Through Alternative Modes (Among
Employed Persons and Students) .............................. 50
Most Used Mode of Transportation for Work/
School Commute (Among Those Working
Outside the Home or Going to School) ..................... 52
Size of Work or School Commute Carpool (Among
Those Who Carpool) ................................................. 53

Storm Water Perceptions and Practices ...................................................... 58
Table 28.
Perception of Where Storm Water That Flows Into
Tucson Storm Drains Ends Up .................................. 59

EVALUATION OF THE 2012-2013 PIMA COUNTY CLEAN AIR CAMPAIGN
AND BASELINE STORM WATER ISSUE AWARENESS SURVEY
(June, 2013)
Digest of the Contents (Cont’d)
Display 28.

Perception of Where Storm Water That Flows Into
Tucson Storm Drains Ends Up .................................. 59

Table 29.

Low Impact Development Practices Implemented/
Installed at Home or Business ................................... 61

Display 29.

Low Impact Development Practices Implemented/
Installed at Home or Business ................................... 61

Table 30.

Perceived Seriousness of Storm Water Pollution
Problem in Tucson Area............................................ 62
Rating of Various Contributors to Storm Water
Pollution Problem in Tucson Area ............................ 64

Table 31.
Display 31.

Rating of Various Contributors to Storm Water
Pollution Problem in Tucson Area ............................ 65

Table 32.

Methods Used to Dispose of Various Types of
Household Hazardous Waste .................................... 67

Display 32.

Methods Used to Dispose of Various Types of
Household Hazardous Waste .................................... 67

Table 33.

Government Entity to Call If Witness to Someone
Dumping Trash or Chemicals in a Storm Drain ....... 68

Display 33.

Government Entity to Call If Witness to Someone
Dumping Trash or Chemicals in a Storm Drain ....... 69

Appendix
Survey Methodology and Sample Selection ................................................................. A-1
Statistical Reliability .............. ...................................................................................... A-2
Confidence Intervals for a Given %
Significance of Difference Between %
2013 Pima Air Quality/Storm Water Region Definitions ............................................. A-4

EVALUATION OF THE 2012-2013
PIMA COUNTY CLEAN AIR CAMPAIGN AND
BASELINE STORM WATER ISSUE AWARENESS
SURVEY
(June, 2013)
Introduction
and Goals

This Campaign Effectiveness Travel Behavioral Study, conducted
for
the
PIMA
COUNTY
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, was designed to evaluate the
specific effectiveness of the 2012-2013 Clean Air Campaign, as
well as analyze the overall effectiveness of the air quality media
campaign after 23 campaign sessions. New to the current study,
the survey also measured baseline awareness/knowledge related
to storm water and hazardous waste issues.
Areas of Investigation – The tracking survey was implemented
and the results analyzed so as to determine the success of the
Campaign in accomplishing its objectives, including:
1.

Determining current travel behavior (commuting/
telecommuting/compressed work weeks) in Pima County
and measuring changes from previous studies.

2.

Increasing long-range awareness that motor vehicles are the
primary source of air pollution and that effective long-term
solutions to air quality problems will involve reducing
single occupant motor vehicle trips.

3.

Determining the present and potential use of alternate
transportation modes, with specific emphasis on carpooling
and employer encouragement of alternative modes.
Estimating the number of daily commuter miles saved
through alternative modes.

4.

Assessing the awareness and perceptions of air quality
problems in Tucson and what is known about air pollution.
Learning whether children are talking about or bringing
home materials from school about improving air quality.
Determining the actions, if any, taken to help reduce air
pollution.

5.

Measuring the awareness of the Clean Air Program in Pima
County and various clean air special events or activities.

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

I-1

6.

Determining a baseline of awareness related to where storm
water that flows into storm drains ends up. Measuring
perceived seriousness of problem of polluting water
entering storm drains – as well as the degree to which
specific pollutants contribute to the problem of storm water
pollution. Estimating the implementation of low impact
development practices in homes and businesses.

7.

Assessing baseline usage of methods of disposal of items
such as household chemicals, automotive fluids and lawn &
garden chemicals. Determining government entity most
likely to be contacted in the event of witnessing the
dumping of trash or chemicals into a storm drain or wash.

Methodology Overview – To accomplish the goals of this study,
a random sampling of 500 men and women, 16 years of age and
older, in the Pima County area was interviewed by telephone
during early June 2013. The specific procedures used to select
the sample are explained in detail in the Appendix of this report.

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

I-2

Details of the Findings
Profile of Respondents
Interview Language – Consistent with past studies, the vast majority of interviews were
conducted in English (98%). Ten survey respondents (2% overall, unchanged since
2011) requested that their interview be conducted in Spanish by a bilingual interviewer.
All ten Spanish-language interviews were conducted among self-identified Hispanics.
There were four Spanish interviews each in the Central and South zip code zones, with
the remaining two in the Northwest area. (Refer to Table 3 for zip code zone definitions.)
Table 1

Type of Interview

English
Spanish

Question:

05/04 05/05 05/06 05/07 05/08 06/11 06/13
Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
98%
99%
96%
99%
99%
98%
98%
2%
1%
4%
1%
1%
2%
2%
N=500 N=502 N=502 N=503 N=402 N=403 N=504

Would you feel most comfortable if this interview is conducted in Spanish,
English or does it make no difference?

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

1

Self-Identified Ethnicity – Once again, there were sampling quotas with respect to
ethnicity (based on household distributions for Pima County). As indicated in Table 2,
and in line with sampling quotas, the 2013 sample is comprised of 71% Whites, 24%
Hispanics and 6% non-Hispanic minorities (including African-Americans, Native
Americans and Asian/Pacific Islanders). As we have found in past surveys, the highest
percentage of non-Whites live in the South region zip codes (38% – including 35%
Hispanics). Still, there is significant Hispanic representation in the other three zones:
East (15%), Northwest (15%) and Central (25%).
Table 2

Racial Background of Respondents

White
Hispanic
African-American
Native American
Asian, Pacific Islander

Question:

06/01 06/02 06/03 05/04 05/05 05/06 05/07 05/08 06/11 06/13
Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
76%
75%
76%
76%
77%
75%
76%
78%
74%
71%
18%
18%
16%
19%
19%
20%
19%
17%
20%
24%
3%
1%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
2%
3%
2%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
2%
2%
4%
2%
1%
2%
2%
1%
1%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%

This survey is intended to reflect the attitudes of all segments of the population.
To which of the following ethnic groups do you belong?

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

2

Area of Residence – Consistent with past studies, there were geographic sampling
quotas based on population density within Pima County. All respondents were placed in
one of four geographic zones based on their home zip code (as defined below):
Northwest, Central, South or East. In line with the 2013 quotas, there are a few more in
the Central region (30%) than the South (29%) or Northwest (27%) zips. The balance
(14%) are East area residents. As we have found in past years, residents in the East
region are least likely to perceive that Tucson has a “major” air quality problem (7%
versus 22%-35% in the other zip code areas). (Refer to Table 18 for perceptions of air
quality in Tucson.)
Table 3

Area of Residence
06/01
total

Central
85710 85711 85712 85716 85718
85719
South
85321 85614 85622 85629 85634
85641 85701 85706 85707 85708
85713 85714 85735 85736 85746
85756 85757 85341 85601 85633
85639
Northwest
85653 85654 85658 85704 85705
85737 85739 85741 85742 85743
85745 85755 85652 85738
East
85619 85715 85730 85747 85748
85749 85750

06/02
Total

06/03
Total

05/04
Total

05/05
Total

05/06
Total

05/07
Total

05/08
Total

06/11
Total

06/13
Total

n/a

31%

32%

29%

26%

28%

27%

29%

28%

30%

n/a

24%

22%

32%

32%

31%

27%

30%

28%

29%

n/a

29%

25%

25%

28%

25%

29%

26%

28%

27%

n/a

16%
N=508

19%
N=1006

14%
N=500

15%
N=502

16%
N=502

17%
N=503

16%
N=402

16%
N=403

14%
N=504

Air Quality Problem
Major
Moderate
Minor
Central
85710 85711 85712 85716 85718
85719
South
85321 85614 85622 85629 85634
85641 85701 85706 85707 85708
85713 85714 85735 85736 85746
85756 85757 85341 85601 85633
85639
Northwest
85653 85654 85658 85704 85705
85737 85739 85741 85742 85743
85745 85755 85652 85738
East
85619 85715 85730 85747 85748
85749 85750

35%

28%

35%

35%

26%

26%

22%

30%

25%

7%
N=85

17%
N=275

14%
N=121

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

3

Gender – All Pima County residents randomly contacted to participate in this survey
were further randomized within households by conducting the interview with “the male
or female in your household who is 16 or older and most recently celebrated a birthday.”
Also consistent with prior studies, there was only one interview conducted per household.
Similar to recent years, more respondents are women (55%) than men (45%).
Table 4

Men
Women

Question:

Gender of Respondents
06/01 06/02 06/03 05/04 05/05 05/06 05/07 05/08 06/11 06/13
Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
50%
49%
41%
45%
46%
46%
44%
47%
44% 45%
50%
51%
59%
55%
54%
54%
56%
53%
56% 55%

For this survey, we need to speak with the male or female in your household who
is sixteen years old or older and most recently celebrated a birthday. Are you that
person?

Age Category – A slight majority of survey respondents (52%) are 26 to 55 years of age.
This is somewhat younger than the 2011 study (where one-half were 36 to 65). Among
the rest in the 2013 survey, 35% are 56 or older – while the remaining 13% are 16 to 25.
The distribution of 26 to 55 year-olds is highest in the Northwest zips (69% versus 58%59% in the East and Central regions). Those 66+ (21% of the sample) are more apt to
reside in the South zips (42%).
Table 5

16 to 25
26 to 35
36 to 45
46 to 55
56 to 65
66 to 75
76 or over

Question:

Age of Respondents
06/01 06/02 06/03 05/04 05/05 05/06 05/07 05/08 06/11 06/13
Total Total Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total Total
14%
17%
12%
15%
15%
13%
14%
10%
10%
13%
11%
15%
14%
13%
16%
18%
16%
17%
15%
19%
19%
20%
15%
16%
19%
17%
17%
20%
19%
19%
20%
20%
19%
14%
14%
13%
16%
17%
16%
14%
15%
12%
16%
16%
13%
13%
14%
14%
15%
14%
12%
8%
12%
16%
15%
16%
14%
15%
17%
15%
9%
8%
11%
9%
8%
9%
8%
6%
8%
6%

Please stop me when I read the age category you belong to. Are you...

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

4

Length of Residence – As indicated in Table 6, 62% of respondents have lived in Pima
County for 11 or more years. This is down from 73% in 2011, but consistent with 20072008 findings (60%-65%). Long-term (11+ years) residents are more apt to live in the
Northwest or Central zip codes.
Among the rest, 23% are 6-to-10 (14%) or 2-to-5 (9%) year residents – while 6% are
“new” residents (for less than two years). “New” Pima County residents are represented
in each of the zip code regions (with the highest concentration in the East area). The
remaining 8% (more often South zone denizens) are part-year residents.
Table 6

Length of Residence in Pima County

Part year
Less than 2 years
2 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 or more years

Question:
Question:

06/01 06/02 06/03 05/04 05/05 05/06 05/07 05/08 06/11 06/13
Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
6%
4%
5%
6%
9%
5%
6%
2%
3%
8%
6%
7%
n/a
5%
9%
4%
6%
4%
2%
6%
15%
15%
n/a
10%
18%
10%
15%
16%
10%
9%
14%
12%
n/a
10%
14%
11%
13%
12%
12% 14%
57%
57%
n/a
69%
49%
70%
60%
65%
73% 62%

Do you live in Pima County all year or are you a part-year resident?
How many years have you lived in Pima County?

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

5

Household Member With a Breathing-Related Medical Condition – Overall, 37% of
respondents indicate that someone in their household is impacted by a breathing-related
medical condition. This is up from 2011 (33%), but highly consistent with 2007-2008
findings (37% each). Allowing for multiple mentions, 19% indicate that they themselves
(that is the respondent interviewed) have a breathing-related condition – while 28%
report that children (12%) or other household members (16%) are impacted.
There is a nearly equal distribution of households affected by a breathing-related medical
condition across geographic region. Consistent with previous findings, there is a direct
relationship between the incidence of a household being impacted by a breathing-related
medical condition and the perception of a progressively more serious air quality problem
in the Tucson area.
Table 7

Yes
Respondent
Children
Other family
member
No
Don’t know/
Not sure

Question:

Household Member With Breathing-Related Medical Condition
06/01
Total
43%
(13%)
(12%)

06/02
Total
30%
(13%)
(10%)

06/03
Total
n/a
n/a
n/a

05/04
Total
36%
(17%)
(11%)

05/05
Total
34%
(16%)
(11%)

05/06
Total
40%
(16%)
(12%)

05/07
Total
37%
(15%)
(14%)

05/08
Total
37%
(19%)
(11%)

06/11
Total
33%
(14%)
(12%)

06/13
Total
37%
(19%)
(12%)

(18%)
57%

(12%)
70%

n/a
n/a

(16%)
64%

(14%)
65%

(19%)
59%

(19%)
62%

(17%)
62%

(15%)
66%

(16%)
62%

–
n/a

–
n/a

n/a
n/a

0%
N=500

1%
N=502

1%
N=502

1%
N=503

1%
N=402

1%
N=403

1%
N=504

Do you, your children or any other family member suffer from a breathing-related
medical condition – such as asthma, emphysema, lung disease, etc.? If yes, who?

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

6

Number of Motor Vehicles Owned or Leased – Two-thirds of households surveyed
have two or more vehicles owned or leased, down slightly from 70% in 2011. However,
the decline is evident only among two-vehicle households (from 46% to 40%) – while 3+
vehicle households have increased slightly (from 24% to 27%). Another 28% are singlevehicle households (up from 25% in 2011). The balance (6%, consistent with 4%-6% in
recent years) indicate that no one in their household owns or leases a motor vehicle.
Those without any motor vehicle are more apt to live in the Central zips. Central or
South region residents are more apt to have one motor vehicle, while Northwest or East
denizens are more likely to be dual-vehicle households. The incidence of multi-vehicle
(3+) households is lower only in the Central zips (18% versus 28%-34% elsewhere).
Table 8

Number of Motor Vehicles Owned or Leased

No working cars
One
Two
Three or more

Question:

06/01 06/02 06/03 05/04 05/05 05/06 05/07 05/08 06/11 06/13
Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
4%
4%
n/a
7%
3%
2%
4%
6%
5%
6%
30%
30%
n/a
34%
28%
30%
27%
30%
25% 28%
40%
40%
n/a
36%
42%
43%
44%
40%
46% 40%
25%
22%
n/a
23%
27%
24%
26%
24%
24% 27%

How many motor vehicles in working condition are owned or leased by members
of your household?

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

7

Frequency of Checking Tire Pressure on Vehicle Driven Most Often – Six of ten
households with at least one vehicle indicate that they check the tire pressure on the
vehicle that they drive most often at least monthly (59%), including 18% who check it
weekly. One of four check tire pressure 3 to 4 times a year (26%). Just 4% say they
never check their tire pressure. Instead, 5% report checking tire pressure “only as
needed” (3%) or when their car is serviced (2%).
Significantly, the incidence of checking tire pressure weekly is directly related to the
perception of a more serious air quality problem in Tucson – and higher among those
aware of the Pima County Clean Air program (22% versus 16% of those not aware).
South region residents, men and multi-vehicle (3+) households are also more apt to check
tire pressure on a weekly basis. Women are more than twice as likely as men to check
tire pressure 3-to-4 times year (34% versus 16%, respectively).
Table 8a

Frequency of Checking Tire Pressure on Vehicle Driven Most Often

Every week
Every month
3 to 4 times a year
Once a year
Never
Only as needed/Before a trip
Only when car is serviced
Not sure/Don’t know

Question:

06/13
Total
18%
41%
26%
3%
4%
3%
2%
2%
N=472

Thinking about the vehicle you drive most often, would you say that you check
the tire pressure...

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

8

Education Level – Highly consistent with recent surveys, 71% of 2013 respondents have
at least some college level education. This includes 29% who are college graduates (up
slightly from 28% in 2011) and 14% with some graduate level work or an advanced
degree (down from 18%). In line with 2011 findings, the balance (27%) are high
school/trade school graduates (19%) or have less than a high school diploma (8%).
Those with a college degree or higher tend to reside in the Northwest (46%) or East
(52%) zip code areas.
Table 9

Education Level of Respondents

Less than high school
Completed high school/
Trade school
Some college
College graduate
Some graduate work or
graduate degree

Question:

06/01 06/02 06/03 05/04 05/05 05/06 05/07 05/08 06/11 06/13
Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
11% 10%
5% 12%
5% 10%
8%
8%
9%
8%

19%

20%
29%
28%

24%
26%
24%

18%
28%
29%

24%
25%
23%

19%
25%
31%

19%
29%
27%

18%
26%
28%

19%
28%
29%

13%

19%

13%

20%

16%

16%

15%

18%

14%

42%

52%

25%
20%

What was the last grade of school you completed?

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

9

Annual Household Income – As indicated in Table 10, 21% refused to divulge their
broad annual household income category. This is down from 2011 levels (25% refusal
rate), and more in line with 2007-2008 findings (18%-21%). Among those who did
provide an income category, the median annual household income is $47,872. This is
down from $54,713 in 2011 – due, primarily, to an increase in incomes of less than
$25,000 (from 12% in 2011 to 18% now).
Table 10

Household Income

Less than $15,000
$15,000 to $24,999
$25,000 to $39,999
$40,000 or more*
No answer/Refused
* $40,000 to $59,999
$60,000 to $79,999
$80,000 or more

Question:

06/01 06/02 06/03 05/04 05/05 05/06 05/07 05/08 06/11 06/13
Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
9%
10%
9%
13%
8%
7%
5%
8%
5%
9%
14%
15%
14%
14%
10%
12%
8%
9%
7%
9%
19%
18%
22%
18%
18%
12%
15%
16%
15% 16%
44%
41%
53%
32%
48%
49%
50%
49%
47% 46%
15%
16%
2%
23%
16%
20%
21%
18%
25% 21%
20%
11%
13%

19%
10%
12%

23%
13%
17%

14%
9%
9%

19%
10%
19%

20%
11%
18%

16%
12%
22%

19%
12%
18%

13%
12%
22%

15%
10%
21%

As I read the following categories, please tell me into which group your total
annual household income falls. We are not interested in your exact income, just
your household income category...from all sources before taxes.

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

10

Display 1

Demographic Profile of Respondents
(Among the Total Sample)
Type of Interview
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

English

100%
98%

Spanish

2%

Ethnicity
0%

20%

40%

60%

White

80%

100%

71%

Hispanic

24%

African-American

3%

Native American

2%

Asian, Pacific Islander

1%

Area of Residence
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

60%

80%

100%

27%

Northwest
Central

30%

South

29%

East

14%

Sex
0%
Men
Women

20%

40%

45%
55%

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

11

Display 1 (Cont’d) Demographic Profile of Respondents
(Among the Total Sample)
Age
0%

20%

16 to 25

40%

60%

80%

100%

13%

26 to 35

19%

36 to 45

19%

46 to 55

14%

56 to 65

14%

66 to 75

15%

76 or older

6%

Length of Pima County Residence
0%
Part year
Less than 2 years
2 to 5 years

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

8%
6%
9%

6 to 10 years

14%

11 or more years

62%

Household Member With Breathing-Related Medical Condition
0%
Yes
No

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

37%
62%

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

12

Display 1 (Cont’d) Demographic Profile of Respondents
(Among the Total Sample)
Number of Vehicles
0%
No working cars

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

6%

One

28%

Two

40%

Three or more

27%

Education Level
0%
Less than high school

20%

40%

60%

8%

High school graduate

19%

Some college

28%

College graduate

29%

Some graduate work/Grad degree

14%

Household Income
0%

20%

Less than $15,000

9%

$15,000 to $24,999

9%

$25,000 to $39,999

60%

16%

$40,000 to $59,999
$60,000 to $79,999

40%

15%
10%

$80,000 or more

21%

Refused

21%

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

13

Awareness of Information About Air Quality/Pollution
Awareness of the Pima County “Clean Air” Program – Overall, 43% are familiar with
the Pima County “Clean Air” Program. This is significantly lower than we found in 2011
(52%), but is in line with the 2008 survey (46%). Program awareness is consistent
among those who think that Tucson has a “major” (47%) or “moderate” (46%) air quality
problem – compared to just 37% of those who perceive a “minor” problem.
Geographically, awareness is somewhat lower only in the Northwest zips (39% versus
42%-47% elsewhere). Awareness is higher among women (46% versus 40% of men), 36
to 45 year-olds and Whites (46% versus 36% of non-Whites). Program awareness is
marginally higher among the newest (for less than two years) Pima County residents as
compared to the most long-term (11+ years) residents (54% versus 47%, respectively) –
as well as among households with a progressively higher number of vehicles owned or
leased.
Table 11

Yes
No
Don’t know

Yes
No
Don’t know

Question:

Awareness of the Pima County “Clean Air” Program
06/01 06/02
06/03
05/04 05/05 05/06 05/07 05/08 06/11 06/13
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total Total
Total
Total Total
55%
53%
43%
48%
53%
59%
59%
46%
52%
43%
45%
47%
57%
49%
41%
37%
36%
46%
43%
52%
–
–
–
3%
6%
4%
5%
7%
5%
5%
N=598 N=508 N=1006 N=500 N=502 N=502 N=503 N=402 N=403 N=504

Northwest
39%
58%
3%
N=136

Area
Central
South
47%
42%
47%
54%
6%
4%
N=150
N=145

East
44%
49%
7%
N=73

Air Quality Problem
Major
Moderate
Minor
47%
46%
37%
48%
50%
60%
5%
5%
3%
N=85
N=275
N=121

Have you ever heard of or are you aware of the Pima County “Clean Air”
Program?

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

14

Awareness of Various Clean Air Events or Activities – While fewer indicate an
awareness of the Pima County “Clean Air” Program (from 52% to 43% in Table 11), the
familiarity of individual events or activities is generally unchanged to slightly lower.
Fully nine of ten are familiar with at least one program event or activity, up slightly from
88% in 2011. And, across-the-board, awareness of specific events continues to be
significantly higher among respondents familiar with the “Clean Air” Program.
One-half or more are familiar with three events:
 “Earth Day Festival and Parade” (66% awareness, down just slightly from 68% in
2011. Awareness is similar regardless of geography, and elevated among women,
non-Whites and the most formally educated [graduate work or an advanced degree].
Familiarity is directly related to the perceived seriousness of Tucson’s air quality
problem.)
 “Bike to Work Day” (54% awareness, down slightly from 57% in 2011. East
residents [62% versus 50%-56% elsewhere], women, progressively more long-term
residents and those with some college or a 4-year degree are most likely to recall this
event.)
 “Bike Fest” (48% awareness, down from 53% in 2011. Geographically, recall is
lower only in the Northwest zips [40% versus 49%-53% elsewhere]. It is elevated
among those who perceive a “moderate” air quality problem and longer-term [6+
year] residents – with no difference in awareness between men and women.)
Three other events elicit awareness of at least 22%, including:
 “Walk and Roll to School Day” (36% awareness, up from 34% in 2011. East region
residents, women, 36 to 55 year-olds and Hispanics indicate elevated awareness –
with no difference between those who perceive a “major” or “moderate” air quality
problem.)
 “Green Living Fair” (27% awareness, down from 32% in 2011. Awareness tends to
be higher among South zip residents and respondents who think Tucson has a “major”
or “moderate” air quality problem.)
 “Bike to the Zoo Day” (22% awareness, up from 20% in 2011. Familiarity is highest
in the Central zips, as well as among 26 to 35 year-olds, Hispanics and those who
consider Tucson to have a “moderate” or “major” air quality problem.)

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

15

The remaining two “Clean Air” events – “Pedal the Pueblo” (new to the current study
with 13% recall) and “Cyclovia” (11%, down slightly from 13% in 2011) – are familiar
to just over one of ten each. “Pedal the Pueblo” is familiar regardless of geographic area
(slightly higher in the South zips), while Northwest residents are more apt to recall
“Cyclovia.”
Table 12

Awareness of Various Clean Air Events or Activities
06/01
Total

“Earth Day Festival and
Parade”
“Bike to Work Day”
“Bike Fest”
“Walk and Roll to School
Day”*
“Green Living Fair”
“Bike to the Zoo Day”
“Pedal the Pueblo”
“Cyclovia”
None of these

06/02
Total

06/03
Total

05/04
Total

05/05
Total

05/06
Total

05/07
Total

05/08
Total

06/11
Total

06/13
Total

67%
50%
–

68%
45%
–

n/a
n/a
–

71%
53%
–

70%
50%
–

66%
56%
–

74%
55%
–

72%
61%
30%

68%
57%
53%

66%
54%
48%

20%
–
14%
–
–
13%
N=598

19%
–
11%
–
–
12%
N=508

n/a
–
n/a
–
–
n/a
n/a

28%
–
9%
–
–
13%
N=500

29%
–
8%
–
–
11%
N=502

38%
–
5%
–
–
12%
N=502

22%
–
10%
–
–
10%
N=503

33%
–
11%
–
–
7%
N=402

34%
32%
20%
–
13%
12%
N=403

36%
27%
22%
13%
11%
10%
N=504

South

East

Major

65%
50%
53%
34%
35%
19%
16%
7%
11%
N=145

67%
62%
49%
45%
26%
20%
11%
7%
11%
N=73

Area
Northwest
“Earth Day Festival and Parade”
“Bike to Work Day”
“Bike Fest”
“Walk and Roll to School Day”*
“Green Living Fair”
“Bike to the Zoo Day”
“Pedal the Pueblo”
“Cyclovia”
None of these

64%
52%
40%
37%
18%
21%
14%
18%
12%
N=136

Central
68%
56%
51%
35%
28%
27%
11%
11%
8%
N=150

Air Quality Problem
74%
59%
42%
40%
31%
25%
18%
7%
9%
N=85

Moderate
66%
58%
52%
40%
28%
24%
14%
14%
8%
N=275

Minor
63%
46%
44%
29%
21%
17%
7%
7%
12%
N=121

* Was “Walk Our Children to School Day” (6/01-5/06).

Question:

I am now going to read you some events or activities that are used to promote
clean air in the Tucson area. As I read each, simply tell me if you have seen or
heard of the event.

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

16

Participation of Anyone in Household in a “Clean Air” Campaign Event – Among
the nine of ten familiar with at least one “Clean Air” Program campaign event, 17%
report that they (or someone in their household) participated in one or more of these
activities. This is identical to the record participation level recorded in 2011. There is
participation regardless of geography, gender, age or air quality problem perception –
with the highest participation levels among Northwest or East region residents, 36 to 45
year-olds and those who perceive a “major” or “moderate” air quality problem.
Hispanics, 2-to-5 year Pima County residents, the most formally educated respondents
and households impacted by a breathing-related medical condition are also more apt to
have participated in a “Clean Air” campaign event.
Table 12a

Yes
No
Don’t know

Participation of Anyone in Household in a Clean Air Campaign Event
(Among Those Aware of at Least One Event)
06/01 06/02 06/03
Total Total Total
9%
8%
n/a
91%
92%
n/a
–
–
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

Yes
No
Don’t know

Question:

05/04
Total
12%
86%
2%
N=434

05/05
Total
10%
86%
4%
N=447

Area
Northwest Central South
21%
12%
16%
79%
88%
82%
0%
0%
2%
N=120 N=138 N=129

05/06
Total
9%
88%
4%
N=444

East
20%
80%
0%
N=65

05/07
Total
11%
86%
3%
N=455

05/08
Total
10%
88%
2%
N=374

06/11
Total
17%
82%
1%
N=354

06/13
Total
17%
83%
1%
N=452

Air Quality Problem
Major
Moderate
Minor
20%
19%
10%
80%
81%
90%
0%
1%
0%
N=77
N=252
N=107

Did you or anyone in your household attend or participate in any of the clean air
events in the past year?

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

17

Incidence of Changing Routines/Behaviors to Improve Air Quality After
Participation in “Clean Air” Events – Among the record-tying 17% of respondents
who indicate participation in a “Clean Air” event, three of four (76%) report that they
have changed (or are considering actions to change) their daily routines or behaviors to
help improve air quality. Among the total sample, this equates to a record topping 11%
who indicate a behavior change due to their participation in a campaign event – up
progressively from 9% in 2011 and 7% in 2008. Who is most likely to indicate a
willingness to change behaviors? Central or South region residents, non-Whites and
households impacted by a breathing-related medical condition.
Table 12b

Incidence of Changing Routines/Behaviors to Improve
Air Quality After Participating in Clean Air Events
(Among Those With a Household Member Who Participated)
Area

Yes
No
Don’t know

05/07 05/08 06/11 06/13 NorthTotal Total Total Total west Central South East
65% 81% 57% 76%
68%
88% 80% 69%
27% 11% 41% 23%
32%
12% 15% 31%
8%
8%
2%
0%
0%
5%
0%
1%
N=52 N=36 N=61 N=75 N=25
N=17 N=20 N=13

Yes
No
Don’t know

Question:

Air Quality Problem
Major Moderate Minor
87%
77%
64%
13%
21%
36%
0%
2%
0%
N=15
N=47 N=11

After participating in a clean air event, did you or someone in your household
take or consider any actions to change your daily routines or behaviors to help
improve air quality?

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

18

Opinion of Activities/Events to Encourage Use of Other Modes of Transportation –
Equaling the record positive mention in 2011, 85% of those aware of at least one “Clean
Air” campaign event have a favorable opinion of “events that encourage to use other
modes of transportation or work from home instead of driving alone.” This includes 45%
who are “very favorable” of such events – just shy of the record 46% highly favorable
evaluation recorded back in 2008. In the current study, “very favorable” opinions are
consistent across geography (somewhat lower only in the East zips) and highest among
women (54% versus 34% of men), 56 to 65 year-olds, Hispanics, college graduates and
those who perceive that Tucson has progressively more serious air quality problem. Just
one of ten have a negative opinion of activities or events to encourage other modes of
transportation, down from 13% in 2011.
Table 13

Opinion of Activities/Events to

Encourage Use of Other Modes of Transportation
(Among Those Aware of at Least One Event)

Very favorable
Somewhat favorable
Not very favorable
Not at all favorable
Don’t know/No answer

Very favorable
Somewhat favorable
Not very favorable
Not at all favorable
Don’t know/No answer

Question:

06/02
Total
33%
45%
9%
7%
6%
n/a

05/04
Total
31%
50%
9%
5%
6%
N=434

Northwest
46%
40%
1%
6%
8%
N=120

05/05
Total
39%
39%
7%
3%
11%
N=447

05/06
Total
43%
40%
4%
3%
10%
N=444

Area
Central South
45%
48%
40%
35%
7%
7%
5%
4%
3%
6%
N=138 N=129

05/07
Total
45%
39%
5%
3%
8%
N=455

East
40%
49%
9%
2%
0%
N=65

05/08
Total
46%
36%
5%
3%
9%
N=374

06/11
Total
42%
44%
7%
6%
1%
N=354

06/13
Total
45%
40%
6%
4%
5%
N=452

Air Quality Problem
Major
Moderate
Minor
61%
48%
27%
27%
38%
53%
8%
6%
4%
0%
4%
8%
4%
3%
8%
N=77
N=252 N=107

Overall, what is your opinion of these events and activities that encourage people
to use other modes of transportation or work from home instead of driving alone?
Is your opinion of the various Clean Air Campaign events and activities very
favorable, somewhat favorable, not very favorable or not at all favorable?

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

19

Steps Taken to Reduce Air Pollution – Last asked in 2007, respondents in the current
survey were asked to describe (on an unaided basis) “what (if anything) they have been
able to do to reduce air pollution in the Tucson area.” As indicated in Table 14, the “top
3” steps taken include:
 Generally reduced driving (37%, down slightly from 39% in 2007. This is true
regardless of geography [lower only in the Northwest zips], and is most prevalent
among 36 to 55 year-olds, non-Whites and those aware of the Pima County “Clean
Air” Program [40% versus 34% not aware] – as well as residents who perceive a
progressively more serious air quality problem.)
 Carpool/Less driving alone (28%, down from 40% in 2007 [when it was the most
popular step taken]. There are few differences based on geography or age. Instead,
women [36% versus 18% of men], non-Hispanic minorities, respondents aware of the
“Clean Air” Program [32% versus 23% not aware] and those who perceive that
Tucson has a progressively more serious air quality problem are more apt to indicate
carpooling to reduce air pollution.)
 Keep car tuned (12%, down from 28% in 2007. These tend to be Northwest or East
residents, 36 to 45 year-olds and those who perceive a “minor” air quality problem.)
In lesser numbers, others have bought bicycles (8%, up from 5% in 2007), kept their
tires properly inflated (7%, down from 14%), bought a more fuel efficient car (7%,
down from 11%), chosen one day a week not to drive (5%, up slightly from 4%) and/or
planted trees (5%, down from 12%).
Two of ten overall indicate that they have done nothing to reduce air pollution (up from
14% in 2007) – more often South region residents, 56 to 65 year-olds, those who perceive
a “minor” air quality problem and respondents unaware of the “Clean Air” Program.

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

20

Table 14

Steps Taken to Reduce Air Pollution

Generally reduced driving/Driven less
Carpool/Less driving alone
Keep car tuned
Bought bicycles
Keep tires properly inflated
Bought more fuel efficient car
Chosen once a week not to drive
Planted trees
Avoid excessive idling
Bought alternative-fueled car
Adjusted vehicle’s emission control equipment
Using fireplace/Wood stove less
Moved closer to work
Walk/Bike more
Advocated alternative to cars
Using BBQ grill less
Ride the bus
Challenged friends/Co-workers to change
Other
Nothing

06/01
Total

06/02
Total

06/03
Total

23%
15%
14%
5%
–
3%
2%
1%
–
–
5%
2%
1%
6%
–
1%
2%
–
9%
21%
N=598

25%
17%
13%
6%
1%
3%
1%
1%
–
–
4%
6%
0%
8%
–
1%
3%
–
9%
23%
N=508

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
–
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
–
n/a
n/a
n/a

05/04
Total

05/05
Total

05/06
Total

05/07
Total

05/13
Total

31%
28%
25%
6%
4%
6%
5%
4%
3%
–
10%
4%
2%
3%
2%
3%
2%
–
8%
20%
N=500

33%
19%
20%
6%
5%
5%
3%
5%
4%
–
8%
2%
1%
3%
1%
1%
1%
–
8%
29%
N=502

39%
32%
31%
8%
13%
8%
2%
10%
6%
2%
12%
4%
4%
3%
1%
2%
1%
0%
7%
15%
N=502

39%
40%
28%
5%
14%
11%
4%
12%
6%
3%
7%
6%
2%
1%
1%
6%
0%
3%
5%
14%
N=503

37%
28%
12%
8%
7%
7%
5%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
7%
21%
N=504

Area
Generally reduced driving/Driven less
Carpool/Less driving alone
Keep car tuned
Bought bicycles
Keep tires properly inflated
Bought more fuel efficient car
Chosen once a week not to drive
Planted trees
Avoid excessive idling
Bought alternative-fueled car
Adjusted vehicle’s emission control equipment
Using fireplace/Wood stove less
Moved closer to work
Walk/Bike more
Advocated alternative to cars
Using BBQ grill less
Ride the bus
Challenged friends/Co-workers to change
Other
Nothing

Question:

Air Quality Problem

Northwest

Central

South

East

27%
27%
19%
11%
8%
9%
7%
6%
4%
2%
7%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
3%
0%
7%
21%
N=136

39%
29%
5%
7%
9%
5%
7%
7%
3%
4%
3%
4%
3%
3%
2%
3%
1%
1%
7%
15%
N=150

43%
28%
10%
1%
3%
6%
3%
1%
3%
3%
1%
2%
3%
0%
1%
1%
1%
1%
6%
28%
N=145

40%
27%
19%
14%
11%
10%
4%
8%
7%
8%
1%
4%
0%
4%
3%
0%
0%
1%
10%
16%
N=73

Major
54%
39%
11%
6%
9%
8%
6%
12%
6%
6%
4%
5%
2%
0%
6%
4%
0%
2%
5%
16%
N=85

Moderate
38%
28%
12%
8%
9%
6%
6%
4%
2%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
2%
0%
9%
18%
N=275

Minor
24%
19%
16%
7%
3%
9%
3%
4%
6%
4%
2%
2%
2%
2%
0%
2%
0%
0%
7%
27%
N=121

What, if anything, have you been able to do to help reduce air pollution in the
Tucson area?

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

21

Reasons for Not Taking Steps to Reduce Air Pollution – Up from 54% in 2007, nearly
two-thirds of those who say they are doing “nothing” to reduce air pollution (21% of the
2013 total sample) do not offer a specific reason for their lack of action (65%). This is
particularly true among South region residents and Hispanics. Among the rest, the
following is a summary of reasons for doing “nothing” to reduce air pollution:
 Lack of knowledge or education to take action (10% [basically unchanged at 9% in
2007] – more often Northwest or Central residents.)
 Not convenient to take action (7% [down from 12%] – more often Central
residents.)
 Just moved here (5% – as expected these tend to be new [for less than 2 years] or
part year residents.)
 Live too far/Not near anyone else (5% [down from 9%] – exclusively South or
Northwest residents.)

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

22

Table 14a

Reasons for Not Taking Steps to Reduce Air Pollution
(Among Those Who Have Done “Nothing”)

Lack of knowledge/Education/ Don’t know how
Not convenient
Just moved here
Lives too far/Not near anyone/Home is out of the
way/Area/Location/Distance/Too far
Elderly
Don’t go anywhere
Lazy
Nothing/No reason
Don’t know/No answer

06/01 05/04 05/05 05/06 05/07 05/13
Total Total
Total
Total Total Total
n/a
13%
8%
16%
9%
10%
n/a
12%
8%
6% 12%
7%
–
–
–
–
–
5%
n/a
6%
8%
n/a
10%
6%
n/a
4%
4%
n/a
4%
4%
n/a
36%
36%
n/a
10%
14%
n/a N=102 N=144

9%
9%
5%
13%
7%
2%
5%
4%
2%
–
4%
1%
40% 38%
51%
17% 16%
14%
N=77 N=68 N=104

Area

Lack of knowledge/Education/ Don’t know how
Not convenient
Just moved here
Lives too far/Not near anyone/Home is out of the
way/Area/Location/Distance/Too far
Elderly
Don’t go anywhere
Lazy
Nothing/No reason
Don’t know/No answer

Question:

Northwest
Central
17%
14%
7%
18%
7%
0%
7%
0%
0%
3%
34%
24%
N=29

0%
0%
4%
0%
50%
4%
N=22

Air Quality Problem
South
2%
2%
2%

East
8%
0%
17%

Major
14%
0%
0%

7%
5%
2%
0%
63%
12%
N=41

0%
0%
0%
0%
50%
8%
N=12

0%
7%
0%
0%
64%
7%
N=14

Moderate Minor
8%
12%
6%
12%
2%
6%
4%
0%
4%
2%
51%
16%
N=49

9%
3%
0%
0%
46%
12%
N=33

What has prevented you from helping to reduce air pollution?

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

23

Presence of Children 5-18 in Household – One-third indicate that they have children
aged 5 to 18 living in their household. This is up from 27%-30% in the last six studies.
Northwest or East residents, 16 to 45 year-olds and Hispanics are especially apt to say
they have young children living in their household.
Table 15

Presence of Children Ages 5-18 in Household
06/01 06/02
06/03
Total* Total
Total
15%
31%
26%
85%
69%
74%
N=598 N=508 N=1006

Yes
No

05/04
05/05 05/06 05/07 05/08 06/11 06/13
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total Total
29%
28%
30%
30%
30%
27%
33%
71%
72%
70%
70%
70%
73%
67%
N=500 N=502 N=502 N=503 N=402 N=403 N=504
Area

Yes
No

Air Quality Problem

Northwest Central South East Major Moderate Minor
48%
23%
25% 44%
39%
34%
31%
52%
77%
75% 56%
61%
66%
69%
N=136 N=150 N=145 N=73 N=85
N=275 N=121

* Ages 6 to 12.
Question:

Do children 5 to 18 years of age live in your household?

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

24

Incidence of Children Ages 5-18 Receiving Air Pollution Information From School –
Four of ten households with young children (ages 5-18) indicate that these kids have
“talked about or brought home materials from school about improving air quality.” This
is up from 36% in 2011 and 29% in 2008. Significantly, there is little difference in
school material recall based on geography (with a slightly higher mention in the East
zips). It is highest among women, 36 to 45 year-olds, those familiar with the “Clean Air”
Program and respondents who perceive that Tucson has a progressively more severe air
quality problem.
Table 15a

Yes
No
Don’t know

Incidence of Children Ages 5-18 Receiving
Information From School About Air Pollution
(Among Households With Children Ages 5-18)
06/01 06/02 06/03
Total* Total Total
36%
37%
39%
64%
63%
61%
–
–
–
n/a
n/a
n/a

Yes
No
Don’t know

Northwest
41%
50%
9%
N=66

05/04
Total
32%
62%
6%
N=143

05/05
Total
34%
61%
4%
N=139

Area
Central South
35%
39%
53%
61%
12%
0%
N=34 N=36

05/06
Total
36%
59%
5%
N=149

East
47%
38%
16%
N=32

05/07
Total
36%
50%
14%
N=153

05/08
Total
29%
64%
7%
N=119

06/11
Total
36%
59%
6%
N=109

06/13
Total
40%
51%
9%
N=168

Air Quality Problem
Major Moderate
Minor
54%
38%
27%
39%
53%
60%
6%
8%
14%
N=33
N=94
N=37

* Ages 6 to 12.
Question:

Have the children 5 to 18 years old in your home ever talked about or brought
home materials from school about improving air quality – including school
presentations or brochures?

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

25

Most Effective Means of Communicating Air Quality Alerts on Air Quality Action
Days – In line with the 2011 (and allowing for multiple mentions), the most effective
method for communicating information concerning Air Quality Action Days include the
following:
 Television alerts (58% most effective, up from 51% in 2011. Mentioned across
geographic region [somewhat lower only in the Northwest zips], television alerts are
considered especially effective among those 46 or older and households impacted by a
breathing-related medical condition.)
 Radio announcements (41% most effective, down only slightly from 43% in 2011.
Only South region residents consider radio announcements to be less highly effective
– with increased mentions among 26 to 35 year-olds.)
 Television news reports (35% most effective, down just slightly from 37% in 2011.
Most effective in the Central zips, as well as among respondents 56 or older and
households impacted by a medical-related breathing condition.)
 Cell phone/Text messages (21% most effective – reflective of growth since 2008
[8%] and 2011 [19%]. Effective regardless of geography, it is the youngest
respondents [16 to 25] who are most receptive to this means of communication.)
 Internet website postings (16% most effective, basically unchanged since 2011
[17%]. Northwest residents and 16 to 25 year-olds are more apt to indicate that
website postings are more highly effective.)
In line with 2011 findings, 8% report that email is the most effective method of
communicating an air quality alert. These tend to be Northwest zip residents and 16 to
45 year-olds.

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

26

Table 16

Most Effective Means of Communicating
Air Quality Alerts on Air Quality Action Days

Television alerts
Radio announcements
Television news reports
Cell phone/Text messages
Internet website postings
E-mail
None/Can’t think of any

5/08
Total
64%
40%
41%
8%
6%
5%
9%
N=402

6/11
Total
51%
43%
37%
19%
17%
8%
2%
N=403

Television alerts
Radio announcements
Television news reports
Cell phone/Text messages
Internet website postings
E-mail
None/Can’t think of any

Question:

6/13
Total
58%
41%
35%
21%
16%
8%
3%
N=504

Area
Northwest
Central South
46%
59%
63%
44%
40%
35%
29%
43%
37%
24%
19%
23%
21%
15%
12%
11%
7%
7%
3%
4%
3%
N=136 N=150 N=145

East
64%
48%
27%
18%
15%
6%
3%
N=73

Air Quality Problem
Major Moderate Minor
62%
57%
59%
39%
43%
36%
38%
34%
36%
25%
19%
24%
8%
19%
17%
13%
6%
10%
4%
2%
4%
N=85
N=275 N=121

At times, air pollution in the Tucson area increases to levels that affect people
with breathing-related medical conditions. When an Air Quality Action Day
occurs, which of the following methods, or others, would be most effective to
communicate an air quality alert?

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

27

Agreement With Various Statements Regarding Air Pollution – As we have done in
past years, all survey respondents were asked to agree or disagree with ten statements
related to air pollution awareness, topics and knowledge.
PDEQ and Sun Rideshare Awareness –
 You are aware of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (64%
agree, down slightly from the past two surveys [69%-70%]. Awareness is highest in
the South zips and among those 46 or older – with few differences based on air
quality problem perception. Fully 82% familiar with the “Clean Air” Program are
aware of PDEQ [versus 48% of those unaware].)
 You are aware of the services provided by Sun Rideshare (45% agree, down only
slightly from baseline 2011 levels [48%]. Most familiar with Sun Rideshare services
are East region residents, 36 to 55 year-olds, non-Hispanic minorities and those aware
of the “Clean Air” Program [60% versus 32% of respondents unfamiliar].)
Air Pollution/Gas Price Evaluations –
 You are aware that air pollution causes health problems (In line with past studies,
nearly all are in agreement [99%].)
 You understand what an air pollution advisory means (89% agree, up slightly
from 87% in 2011. There are few differences in agreement based on geography
[somewhat lower only in the Northwest zips].)
 You are aware that the majority of our air pollution comes from motor vehicle
use (81% agree, up from 79% in 2011 [the first time this statement was read].
Agreement is consistent across geography [highest in the Central zips]. Women,
progressively younger respondents, non-Whites and those who perceive a “moderate”
air quality problem are most apt to agree with this statement.)
 You are aware of air pollution advisories in Tucson (75% agreement, unchanged
since 2011. Agreement is highest in the Central or East zips and among respondents
who perceive a “moderate” air quality problem – as well as those familiar with the
“Clean Air” Program [91% versus 61% unaware].)
 You have seen or heard commercials on TV or radio regarding clean air or
pollution (68% agreement, down from 74% in 2011. Agreement is lower in only the
Northwest zips, with few differences based on perceived air quality problem. Recall
is highest among respondents 46 or older and those aware of the Pima County “Clean
Air” Program [82% versus 53% unaware].)

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

28

 Because of higher gas prices, you are generally driving less (59% agreement, down
from 62%-64% in recent years. Agreement is consistent regardless of geography
[highest in the South zips]. Women, Hispanics and those who perceive a
progressively more serious air quality problem in Tucson are most apt to agree. A
majority aware [64%] or unaware [54%] of the “Clean Air” Program agree with the
statement.)
 Because you want to reduce air pollution, you are generally driving less (53%
agreement – up from 2011 [48%] and rebounding to 2008 levels [55%]. There are
relatively few differences based on area of residence. Women, 36 to 45 year-olds,
non-Whites and those who perceive a progressively more serious air quality problem
are more apt to agree. Agreement is also higher among respondents aware of the
“Clean Air” Program [57% versus 48% unaware].)
 You have noticed a reduction in the amount of dust generated at construction
sites or at other dust producing activities (38% agree, down from the last two
studies [44%-45%]. East region residents, non-Whites and those aware of the “Clean
Air” Program are most apt agree [47% versus 29% unaware].)

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

29

Table 17

Agreement With Various Statements Regarding Air Pollution
06/03
Total

You are aware that air pollution causes health
problems. (1)
You understand what an air pollution advisory
means. (2)
You are aware that the majority of our air pollution
comes from motor vehicle use.
You are aware of air pollution advisories in
Tucson.
You have seen or heard commercials on TV or
radio regarding clean air or air pollution.
You are aware of the Pima County Department of
Environmental Quality (PDEQ). (3)
Because of higher gas prices, you are generally
driving less
Because you want to reduce air pollution, you are
generally driving less
You are aware of the services provided by Sun
Rideshare.
You have noticed a reduction in the amount of dust
generated at construction sites or at other dust
producing activities.

05/04
Total

05/05
Total

05/06
Total

05/07
Total

06/11
Total

06/13
Total

–

–

–

–

98%

96%

98%

99%

84%

86%

88%

83%

83%

79%

87%

89%

–

–

–

–

–

–

79%

81%

79%

78%

74%

70%

74%

79%

75%

75%

–

–

74%

75%

76%

69%

74%

68%

44%

48%

45%

48%

65%

70%

69%

64%

–

–

–

63%

64%

62%

64%

59%

–

–

–

–

–

55%

48%

53%

–

–

–

–

–

–

48%

45%

–
N=1006

–
N=500

33%
N=502

36%
N=502

42%
N=503

44%
N=402

45%
N=403

38%
N=504

Area

(1)

You are aware that air pollution causes health problems.
You understand what an air pollution advisory means. (2)
You are aware that the majority of our air pollution comes
from motor vehicle use.
You are aware of air pollution advisories in Tucson.
You have seen or heard commercials on TV or radio regarding
clean air or air pollution.
You are aware of the Pima County Department of
Environmental Quality (PDEQ). (3)
Because of higher gas prices, you are generally driving less
Because you want to reduce air pollution, you are generally
driving less
You are aware of the services provided by Sun Rideshare.
You have noticed a reduction in the amount of dust generated
at construction sites or at other dust producing activities.

(1)
(2)
(3)

05/08
Total

Air Quality Problem

Northwest

Central

99%
85%

98%
91%

98%
90%

100%
90%

99%
86%

98%
90%

99%
89%

79%
68%

86%
81%

78%
70%

82%
85%

73%
69%

86%
80%

75%
73%

62%

67%

74%

67%

68%

69%

68%

57%
60%

65%
55%

72%
66%

64%
55%

62%
73%

66%
60%

65%
47%

49%
48%

55%
46%

52%
32%

56%
63%

62%
31%

58%
54%

37%
40%

33%
N=136

31%
N=150

42%
N=145

51%
N=73

27%
N=85

42%
N=275

37%
N=121

South

East

Major

Moderate

Minor

Was “You are aware that airborne dust causes health problems” (5/07-5/08).
Was ““You understand what an air pollution advisory means, issued as part of an Air Quality Action Day” (6/03-5/08).
Was “You are knowledgeable about the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ)” (6/03-5/06).

Question:

As I read the following statements, simply tell me if you agree or disagree.

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

30

Actions Taken to Drive Less Because of Higher Gas Prices – Respondents who are
driving less as a result of higher gas prices (59% of the total sample) are again most apt to
be reducing or combining trips (61%, down from 71% in 2008-2011). Who is most
likely to be reducing or combining trips? Northwest or South residents, women, nonHispanics, high income households and those who think that Tucson has a “major” air
quality problem.
In response to higher gas prices, others are:
 Carpooling/Vanpooling (24%, up from 22% in 2011 and 14% in 2008. These are
most apt to be East region residents and those who perceive a progressively more
severe air quality problem.)
 Walking for short trips or errands (14%, up slightly from 2011 [13%]. These tend
to be Central residents and women.)
 Walking to work or school (9%, up from 3%-5% in previous years. East or Central
zip residents, 16 to 25 year-olds and those who perceive a “moderate” air quality
problem are more apt to be walking to work or school.)
 Riding the bus (9%, up from 4% in 2011. Bus ridership is consistent across
geography [somewhat higher in the Central zips], and elevated among non-Whites.)
In lesser numbers, others are riding a bicycle for short trips or errands (5%, basically
unchanged from 4% in 2011), working a compressed work week (4%, up slightly from
3%), riding a bicycle to work or school (4%, up from 2%) and/or telecommuting (3%,
basically unchanged from 4%).

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

31

Table 17a

Actions Taken to Drive Less Because of Higher Gas Prices
(Among Those Driving Less)

Reducing/Combining trips
Carpooling/Van pooling
Walking for short trips or errands
Walking to work or school
Riding the bus
Riding a bicycle for short trips/
Errands
Compressed work week
Riding a bicycle to work or school
Telecommuting

05/06
Total
77%
21%
16%
3%
2%

05/07
Total
76%
24%
19%
4%
9%

05/08
Total
70%
14%
14%
4%
10%

06/11
Total
71%
22%
13%
5%
4%

06/13
Total
61%
24%
14%
9%
9%

5%
4%
2%
2%
N=318

4%
2%
2%
4%
N=320

10%
2%
3%
4%
N=251

4%
3%
2%
4%
N=258

5%
4%
4%
3%
N=298

Area

Reducing/Combining trips
Carpooling/Van pooling
Walking for short trips or errands
Walking to work or school
Riding the bus
Riding a bicycle for short trips/
Errands
Compressed work week
Riding a bicycle to work or school
Telecommuting

Question:

Air Quality Problem

NorthCentral South
west
65%
54%
66%
24%
22%
20%
15%
21%
12%
6%
13%
4%
6%
11%
10%
5%
7%
5%
0%
N=81

6%
5%
5%
5%
N=82

2%
0%
0%
1%
N=95

East
58%
35%
8%
18%
8%
8%
8%
8%
12%
N=40

Major Moderate Minor
69%
58%
58%
34%
24%
10%
18%
15%
12%
2%
13%
9%
11%
8%
9%
3%
5%
0%
2%
N=62

6%
5%
5%
3%
N=164

5%
4%
5%
5%
N=57

What actions are you taking to drive less?

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

32

Perceived Seriousness of Air Quality Problem in Tucson Area – As indicated in Table
18, 17% think that there is a “serious” air quality problem in the Tucson area. This is
down from 19% in 2011 and 25% in 2008. Instead, more a few more now indicate a
“moderate problem” (from 53% in 2011 to 55% now) – while the percentage who rate air
quality as a “minor problem” is unchanged at 24%.
Central or South region residents, women, non-Whites, lower income households and
those impacted by a breathing-related medical condition are more apt to perceive that air
quality is a “major” issue in Tucson. There are few differences based on “Clean Air”
Program awareness.
Interestingly, those who think Tucson’s storm water pollution problem is progressively
more severe are also more likely to air quality is a “major” concern.
The perception of a “minor” problem is relatively consistent across geography (slightly
higher in the Central zips). Men, the oldest respondents (76+), Whites and those with at
least some graduate level education are most apt to perceive a “minor” air quality
problem.
Table 18

Perceived Seriousness of Air Quality Problem in Tucson Area

Major problem
Moderate problem
Minor problem
Don’t know

Question:

06/01 06/02 05/04 05/05 05/06 05/07 05/08 06/11 06/13
Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
27%
23%
24%
23%
27%
22%
25%
19% 17%
51%
54%
59%
60%
57%
60%
58%
53% 55%
19%
20%
13%
15%
13%
15%
13%
24% 24%
3%
3%
3%
2%
3%
2%
4%
4%
5%

How much of an air quality problem do you think exists in the Tucson area? Do
you think this is a major problem, a moderate problem or a minor problem?

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

33

Display 18

Perceived Seriousness of Air Quality Problem in Tucson Area
(Among the Total Sample)
0%

20%

40%

60%

17%
19%
25%
22%
27%

Major

23%
24%
23%
27%
30%

55%
53%
58%
60%
57%

Moderate

60%
59%
54%
51%
51%
24%
24%

Minor

13%
15%
13%
15%
13%
20%
19%
15%

June 2013
May 2005

June 2011
May 2004

May 2008
June 2002

May 2007
June 2001

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

May 2006
May 2000

34

Display 18
Perceived Seriousness of Air Quality Problem in Tucson Area
Among the Total Sample – Sum of “Moderate” and “Major” Responses
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

June 2013

72%

June 2011

72%

100%

May 2008

83%

May 2007

82%

May 2006

84%

May 2005

83%

May 2004

83%

June 2002

77%

June 2001

78%

May 2000

81%

Major

Moderate

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

35

Importance of Regional Campaign to Encourage People to Take Actions to Improve
Air Quality – Fully 89% of survey respondents believe it is at least “somewhat
important” to have a regional campaign that encourages people to improve air quality.
This is up from 84% in 2011, and more in line with 2006-2008 totals. Nearly one-half
(48%) think that a regional campaign is “very important” (up from 46% in 2011, but
short of the 55% recorded in 2008). Meanwhile, just one of ten in the current study say
that a regional air quality improvement campaign is “not very” or “not at all” important
(down from 15% in 2011).
Once again, the high degree of importance placed on a regional campaign is directly
related to the perception of the air quality problem in Tucson. This year, however, there
are fewer differences in strong importance based on “Clean Air” Program awareness or
incidence of a household medical-related breathing problem. Who places the highest
degree of strong importance on a regional campaign? Women (57% versus 36% of men),
26 to 35 year-olds, Hispanics and lower income households – with no real difference
based on geography.
Those few who place a low degree of importance on a regional campaign tend to be men
and 6-to-10 year Pima County residents.
Table 19

Importance of Regional Campaign to Encourage
People to Take Actions to Improve Air Quality

Very important
Somewhat important
Not very important
Not at all important
Don’t know/No answer

Very important
Somewhat important
Not very important
Not at all important
Don’t know/No answer

Question:

06/02
06/03
05/04 05/05 05/06 05/07 05/08 06/11 06/13
Total
Total
Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
51%
50%
52%
54%
54%
60%
55%
46%
48%
36%
36%
38%
34%
36%
29%
35%
38%
41%
7%
7%
7%
5%
6%
7%
5%
8%
5%
5%
4%
2%
4%
3%
4%
4%
7%
5%
1%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
N=508 N=1006 N=500 N=502 N=502 N=503 N=402 N=403 N=504

Northwest
47%
43%
4%
4%
2%
N=136

Area
Central South
49%
49%
38%
39%
6%
6%
5%
6%
1%
1%
N=150 N=145

East
44%
44%
7%
6%
0%
N=73

Air Quality Problem
Major Moderate Minor
73%
50%
25%
21%
41%
55%
2%
5%
8%
2%
3%
12%
1%
1%
0%
N=85
N=275 N=121

How important do you think it is to have a regional campaign that encourages
people to take actions to improve air quality, such as carpooling, riding the bus,
biking, walking or working at home? Would you say it is very important,
somewhat important, not very important or not at all important?

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

36

Work Commuting Behavior
Employment Status – Allowing for multiple responses, 27% in the 2013 survey indicate
that they are employed on a full-time basis. This is down from 35% in 2011. Full-time
employees are most apt to reside in the Northwest or East zips, and tend to be men (35%
versus 22% of women), 26 to 45 year-olds and those with at least some graduate level
coursework or an advanced degree. Another 11% work part-time, up from 8% in 2011.
Those who work part-time are more likely to be East region residents and younger. One
of ten overall report they are currently unemployed. This is the first “double digit”
unemployment recorded since 2002. Unemployed respondents are more apt to reside in
the Central zips.
Down from 35% in 2008, three of ten in the current study are retired – especially those 66
or older. South area residents are most likely to be retired. Unchanged since 2011, 9%
(regardless of geography) are students. Compared to the last study, more are
homemakers (from 9% to 13%). Homemakers tend to live in the Northwest or East zips.

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

37

Table 20

Employment Status
(Multiple Mentions Allowed)
06/01
Total

Employed full-time
(30 hours or more
each week)
Employed part- time
(Less than 30 hours
each week)
A student
Retired
A homemaker
Currently unemployed

06/02
Total

44%

40%

06/03
Total

05/04
Total

37%

05/05
Total

30%

28%

05/06
Total

34%

35%

05/08
Total

29%

06/11
Total

06/13
Total

35%

27%

12%
10%
10%
9%
9%
11%
11%
12%
8%
11%
8%
14%
6%
13%
15%
11%
10%
9%
9%
9%
29%
26%
33%
32%
33%
32%
31%
34%
35%
31%
8%
8%
7%
12%
13%
12%
10%
12%
9%
13%
6%
10%
7%
8%
6%
4%
4%
8%
6%
10%
N=598 N=508 N=1006 N=500 N=502 N=502 N=503 N=402 N=403 N=504
Area

Employed full-time (30 hours
or more each week)
Employed part-time (Less than
30 hours each week)
A student
Retired
A homemaker
Currently unemployed

Question:

05/07
Total

Air Quality Problem

Northwest

Central

39%

29%

11%

34%

13%

30%

32%

12%
9%
14%
16%
10%
N=136

8%
11%
31%
7%
15%
N=150

8%
9%
53%
12%
10%
N=145

19%
7%
16%
20%
3%
N=73

6%
13%
34%
19%
15%
N=85

10%
8%
28%
14%
12%
N=275

16%
9%
32%
6%
6%
N=121

South

East

Major

Moderate

Minor

Are you one or more of the following...

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

38

Location of Place of Employment – Compared to 2012, slightly fewer employed
respondents employed (on a part or full time basis) work at a home-based business (from
18% to 16% now), either exclusively (from 15% to 12%) or in addition to another
company (from 3% to 4%). Consequently, the percentage employed only outside the
home has increased slightly: from 82% to 84%. Those who exclusively work outside the
home are most apt to reside in the Northwest or East zip codes.
Table 21

Location of Place of Employment
(Among Those Employed)

Home-based business
Another company
Both

06/01 06/02 06/03 05/04 05/05 05/06 05/07 05/08 06/11 06/13
Total
Total Total Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
12%
12% 14%
12%
17%
18%
17%
15%
15%
12%
85%
84%
86%
79%
78%
78%
82%
82%
84%
86%
2%
4%
2%
4%
4%
5%
4%
3%
4%
N=336 N=253
n/a N=195 N=190 N=227 N=233 N=163 N=170 N=193
Area

Home-based business
Another company
Both

Question:

Northwest
6%
90%
4%
N=70

Central
20%
73%
7%
N=56

Air Quality Problem
South
18%
82%
0%
N=28

East
8%
90%
3%
N=39

Major
19%
81%
0%
N=16

Moderate
11%
85%
4%
N=112

Minor
12%
83%
5%
N=59

Do you operate a home-based business or are you an employee of another
company?

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

39

Number of Full-Time Employees at Jobsite – As indicated in Table 22, 46% of those
who work outside the home report that there are more than 100 employees at their
primary place of work. This is down from one-half in the last two surveys. Instead, a
few more now work at medium size jobsites with 50 to 100 employees (16%, up from
12% in 2011). The balance (34%, down slightly from 37%) work at small jobsites.
Northwest or East region residents – as well as men and highly educated respondents –
are more apt to work at large worksites. Workers at small jobsites tend to be Central or
East zip residents and have less formal education.
Table 22

Number of Full-Time Employees at Jobsite
(Among Those Who Work Outside the Home)

More than 100
Less than 100
Between 50 and 100
Less than 50
Don’t know

Question:

06/01
Total
47%
53%
(13%)
(40%)
1%

06/02
Total
53%
47%
(14%)
(33%)
0%

05/04
Total
50%
49%
(12%)
(37%)
1%

05/05
Total
54%
46%
(11%)
(35%)
–

05/06
Total
55%
44%
(12%)
(32%)
1%

05/07
Total
53%
46%
(10%)
(36%)
1%

05/08 06/11
Total Total
50%
50%
48%
49%
(14%) (12%)
(34%) (37%)
2%
1%

06/13
Total
46%
50%
(16%)
(34%)
4%

Would you say that there are more than 100 employees, between 50 and 100
employees or less than 50 employees at your primary place of work?

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

40

Incidence of Telecommuting – Unchanged since 2011, 19% of workers employed
outside the home report that they telecommute (“working from home as an alternative to
going in to your office or place of business during regular business hours”). The
incidence of telecommuting is consistent among workers who live in the Northwest,
Central or East zips – including both small (less than 50 employees) and large (100+
employees) jobsites.
Table 23

Incidence of Telecommuting
(Among Those Who Work Outside the Home)

Yes
No/Employer does not
offer telecommuting/
Don’t know/Not sure

06/01 06/02 06/03 05/04 05/05 05/06 05/07 05/08 06/11 06/13
Total
Total Total Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
7%
5%
6%
8%
8%
4%
14%
9%
19%
19%

93%
95%
N=283 N=223

94%
92%
92%
96%
86%
91%
81%
81%
n/a N=172 N=157 N=185 N=193 N=139 N=144 N=170
Area

Yes
No/Employer does not
offer telecommuting/
Don’t know/Not sure

Question:

Air Quality Problem

Northwest
21%

Central
22%

South
4%

East
22%

Major
15%

Moderate
12%

Minor
35%

79%
N=66

78%
N=45

96%
N=23

78%
N=36

85%
N=13

88%
N=100

65%
N=52

Some employers offer the option of telecommuting – in other words, working
from your home as an alternative to going in to your office or business location
during regular business hours. Do you personally ever telecommute during
regular business hours? This excludes working extra hours at home in your spare
time – such as evenings or weekends.

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

41

Frequency of Telecommuting – Among telecommuters, a majority now indicate that
they do so more than once a week (52%). This is about double the 2011 mention (26%).
Among the rest, 12% telecommute about once a week – while 36% do so 2-3 times a
month (21%) or once a month or less (15%).
Table 24

Frequency of Telecommuting
(Among Those Who Telecommute)

More than once a week
About once a week
2 to 3 times a month
Once a month

Question:

06/01 06/02 05/04 05/05 05/06 05/07 05/08 06/11 06/13
Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
61% 42% 50% 46% 62% 52% 31% 26% 52%
28% 32%
7% 23% 25% 15% 23% 33% 12%
6% 10% 21% 23% 12% 15% 31% 15% 21%
6%
5% 21%
8%
0% 18% 15% 26% 15%
N=18 N=19 N=14 N=13 N=8 N=27 N=13 N=27 N=33

How often do you typically telecommute (or work at home instead of driving to
the office) – excluding working extra hours at home in your spare time?

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

42

Availability of “Compressed Workweek” Programs – In line with the 2011 survey,
one-third of workers employed outside the home have the option of compressed
workweek programs. These tend to be South region residents who work at small (less
than 50 employees) or large (100+ employees) jobsites.
Table 25

Availability of “Compressed Workweek” Programs
(Among Those Who Work Outside the Home)
06/01 06/02 06/03 05/04 05/05 05/06 05/07 05/08 06/11 06/13
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total Total
23%
27%
27%
25%
31%
35%
31%
27%
33%
32%
77%
73%
73%
75%
69%
65%
69%
73%
67%
68%
N=296 N=223 N=456 N=172 N=157 N=185 N=193 N=139 N=144 N=170

Yes
No

Area

Yes
No

Question:

Northwest
32%
68%
N=66

Central
29%
71%
N=45

Air Quality Problem
South
48%
52%
N=23

East
28%
72%
N=36

Major
38%
62%
N=13

Moderate
31%
69%
N=100

Minor
35%
65%
N=52

Does your employer either require or offer any form of “COMPRESSED
WORKWEEK”? For example, working four 10-hour days each week, rather than
five 8-hour days.

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

43

Current Work Schedule – Two-thirds of full-time employees indicate that they work a
“standard” work schedule (8 hour days, five days a week). This is down somewhat from
2011 levels (72%), but consistent with 2008 findings (64%). Among the rest, and similar
to 2011, 9% work 10-hour days, 4 days per week. Fewer work different schedules,
including 80 hours over 9 days with the 10th day off (3%) or 12-hour days 3 or 4 days a
week (2%). However, more now indicate their work schedule varies or have some other
work schedule variation (19%, up from 11% in 2011). Compressed workweek options
are more likely to be utilized at large (100+ workers) jobsites.
Table 26

Current Work Schedule
(Among Those Employed Full-Time)

8 hour day, 5 days a week
10 hour day, 4 days a week
12 hour day, 3 or 4 days a
week
80 hours over 9 days with the
10th day off
Varies/Other

06/01 06/02 06/03 05/04 05/05 05/06 05/07 05/08 06/11
Total
Total Total Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
59%
58% 49%
70%
68%
62%
68%
64%
72%
7%
4%
6%
5%
6%
6%
6%
11%
10%
2%

4%

2%
2%
30%
32%
N=296 N=223

6%

8%

2%

10%

7%

5%

2%

2%
8%
3%
1%
3%
3%
2%
38%
8%
21%
20%
17%
16%
11%
n/a N=129 N=121 N=138 N=146 N=100 N=118

3%
19%
N=125

Area

8 hour day, 5 days a week
10 hour day, 4 days a week
12 hour day, 3 or 4 days a week
80 hours over 9 days with the 10th
day off
Varies/Other

Question:

6%

06/13
Total
67%
9%

Air Quality Problem

Northwest
57%
14%
4%

Central
73%
0%
0%

South
86%
7%
0%

East
70%
13%
0%

Major
44%
33%
11%

Moderate
72%
5%
1%

Minor
58%
11%
0%

2%
24%
N=51

5%
22%
N=37

0%
7%
N=14

4%
13%
N=23

0%
11%
N=9

0%
21%
N=75

11%
20%
N=36

Which of the following most closely describes your current work schedule?

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

44

Daily Usage of Transportation Methods for Traveling To and From Work or School
– Consistent with prior years, survey respondents who work outside the home or go to
school were read a list of different travel methods and asked to indicate the number of
days they use each one to travel to and from work or school. A summary of the data from
this question series (including tracking data) is included in Table 27-S, with detailed daily
usage in Table 27-D.
Eight of ten use single passenger commuting to work or school (79%), down from 84%
in 2011. The average frequency of use is identical to 2011 at 4.5 days. Central zip code
residents are least apt to drive alone 5+ days a week (35% versus 48%-57% in other
regions), as are those who perceive a “major” air quality problem.
Down slightly from 2011 (28%), 26% carpool or vanpool at least one day per week,
with a minor downtick in average frequency (from 4.0 to 3.9 days). South zip code
residents continue to be more apt to carpool/vanpool 5+ days per week (19% versus 10%12% in other areas), with greater carpooling among those who perceive a “major” or
“moderate” air quality problem.
Other commute travel methods measured by this survey include:
 Work at home instead of driving to work (Compared to 2011, more are
telecommuting [from 9% to 15%], with an increase in frequency as well [from 3.3 to
3.5 days]. Residents of the Central zip code are most apt to telecommute [19%],
while just 6% of South area residents do.)
 Walk to work or school (The percentage walking to work or school has decreased
somewhat [from 15% to 12%], with lower average days as well [3.7 days, down from
4.0 in 2011 – but still higher than 3.4 days in 2008]. Only Northwest area residents
are less apt to walk to work or school [8% versus 13%-15% elsewhere].)
 Ride a bike to work or school (A few more are riding bikes to work or school [from
7% to 9%], but are doing so less frequently [from 3.7 days to 2.1 days]. Central zip
code residents are most apt to ride a bike to work or school.)
 Ride the bus to work or school (Bus ridership is up [from 5% to 9%], with an
increase in average days as well [from 3.1 to 3.8]. More apt to take the bus to work or
school are Central or South region residents.)
 Ride a motorcycle to work or school (More are riding a motorcycle to work or
school [from 2% to 5%], with a slight downtick in frequency [from 2.7 days to 2.6].)

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

45

Table 27-S

Summary of Usage of Transportation Methods for Traveling
To and From Work or School
(Among Those Working Outside the Home or Going to School)

Travel Method
Drive alone
Carpool/Vanpool
Walk
Ride a bike
Work at home instead of
driving to work
Take the bus
Ride a motorcycle

Travel Method
Drive alone
Carpool/Vanpool
Walk
Ride a bike
Work at home instead of
driving to work
Take the bus
Ride a motorcycle

Travel Method
Drive alone
Carpool/Vanpool
Walk
Ride a bike
Work at home instead of
driving to work
Take the bus
Ride a motorcycle

2001
2001
2002
2002
2004
2004
Usage*
Average
Usage*
Average
Usage*
Average
(N=302) Frequency (N=260) Frequency (N=172) Frequency
83%
4.8 days
79%
4.6 days
84%
4.4 days
20%
3.9 days
19%
3.5 days
17%
3.9 days
9%
3.3 days
12%
3.3 days
10%
4.1 days
7%
3.6 days
7%
3.6 days
10%
3.6 days
–
8%
3%

–
3.6 days
2.4 days

–
6%
1%

–
3.6 days
2.7 days

7%
4%
3%

2005
2005
2006
2006
2007
Usage*
Average
Usage*
Average
Usage*
(N=210) Frequency (N=219) Frequency (N=229)
77%
4.3 days
81%
4.4 days
78%
24%
3.6 days
24%
4.4 days
30%
15%
3.9 days
9%
3.2 days
14%
13%
3.3 days
6%
2.8 days
9%
8%
8%
3%

3.2 days
4.0 days
2.8 days

6%
6%
3%

3.5 days
3.9 days
4.2 days

2008
Usage*
(N=159)
74%
22%
14%
8%

2008
Average
Frequency
4.7 days
3.9 days
3.4 days
3.5 days

2011
Usage*
(N=171)
84%
28%
15%
7%

2011
Average
Frequency
4.5 days
4.0 days
4.0 days
3.7 days

12%
11%
1%

3.2 days
3.7 days
1.0 days

9%
5%
2%

3.3 days
3.1 days
2.7 days

10%
7%
2%

2.7 days
3.8 days
2.6 days
2007
Average
Frequency
4.1 days
3.4 days
3.6 days
2.8 days
2.7 days
3.8 days
3.6 days

2013
2013
Usage*
Average
(N=205) Frequency
79%
4.5 days
26%
3.9 days
12%
3.7 days
9%
2.1 days
15%
9%
5%

3.5 days
3.8 days
2.6 days

* Percentage who use each mode at least one day/week.

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

46

Table 27-D

Detailed Daily Usage and Tracking of Transportation Methods for
Traveling To and From Work or School
(Among Those Working Outside the Home or Going to School)
Awareness of
“Clean Air”
Program

Area
05/05
Total

05/06
Total

05/07
Total

05/08
Total

06/11
Total

06/13
Total

Northwest Central South

East

Yes

No

Take the bus
Not at all
1-4 days/week
5 days/week
6+ days/week

92%
3%
4%
1%

94%
2%
4%
0%

93%
4%
3%
1%

89%
6%
3%
2%

95%
4%
2%
0%

91%
5%
2%
2%

92%
7%
1%
0%

88%
7%
3%
2%

90%
3%
6%
0%

93%
2%
0%
5%

98%
2%
0%
0%

86%
8%
4%
1%

Ride a motorcycle
Not at all
1-4 days/week
5 days/week
6+ days/week

97%
2%
1%
1%

97%
2%
1%
1%

98%
1%
1%
0%

99%
1%
0%
0%

98%
1%
1%
0%

95%
4%
1%
0%

97%
3%
0%
0%

92%
5%
3%
0%

94%
6%
0%
0%

98%
2%
0%
0%

90%
8%
2%
0%

99%
1%
0%
0%

Ride a bike
Not at all
1-4 days/week
5 days/week
6+ days/week

87%
9%
3%
1%

94%
5%
1%
0%

91%
6%
3%
0%

92%
5%
2%
1%

93%
6%
0%
1%

91%
8%
1%
0%

92%
7%
1%
0%

86% 100%
14%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

90%
7%
2%
0%

96%
4%
0%
0%

86%
12%
2%
0%

Walk
Not at all
1-4 days/week
5 days/week
6+ days/week

85%
7%
4%
4%

91%
6%
2%
1%

86%
11%
0%
4%

86%
9%
3%
2%

85%
9%
1%
4%

88%
7%
3%
1%

92%
8%
0%
0%

86%
7%
3%
3%

87%
6%
6%
0%

85%
7%
7%
0%

92%
6%
2%
0%

85%
9%
4%
2%

Work at home instead of
driving to work
Not at all
1-4 days/week
5 days/week
6+ days/week

92%
5%
1%
2%

94%
4%
1%
1%

90%
8%
1%
0%

88%
8%
2%
1%

91%
5%
3%
1%

85%
9%
4%
1%

85%
10%
3%
3%

81%
10%
8%
0%

94%
6%
0%
0%

85%
10%
5%
0%

92%
2%
4%
2%

79%
15%
5%
0%

N=210 N=219 N=229 N=159 N=171 N=205

N=74

N=59 N=31 N=41 N=86 N=111

-Table 27-D continued on next page-

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

47

Table 27-D (Cont’d)
Awareness of
“Clean Air”
Program

Area
05/05
Total

05/06
Total

05/07
Total

05/08
Total

06/11
Total

06/13
Total

Northwest Central South

East

Yes

No

Drive or ride with people
age 16 or older in a
carpool
Not at all
1 day/week
2 days/week
3 days/week
4 days/week
5 days/week
6+ days/week

76%
4%
3%
6%
2%
6%
3%

76%
2%
3%
2%
5%
7%
6%

70%
4%
7%
4%
6%
9%
0%

78%
2%
3%
2%
3%
11%
1%

72%
2%
4%
3%
5%
12%
2%

74%
1%
4%
4%
5%
10%
2%

82%
0%
1%
0%
7%
7%
3%

66%
3%
10%
8%
0%
12%
0%

58%
0%
3%
6%
13%
19%
0%

83%
0%
2%
2%
2%
5%
5%

78%
0%
2%
0%
9%
9%
1%

69%
2%
6%
7%
2%
11%
3%

Drive alone
Not at all
1 day/week
2 days/week
3 days/week
4 days/week
5 days/week
6+days/week

23%
8%
6%
6%
8%
36%
12%

19%
6%
6%
8%
10%
39%
12%

22%
5%
6%
11%
17%
31%
7%

26%
2%
4%
8%
12%
38%
11%

16%
4%
7%
6%
15%
41%
12%

21%
6%
5%
10%
10%
33%
16%

15%
5%
3%
11%
10%
35%
22%

25%
12%
8%
8%
10%
20%
15%

16%
3%
6%
13%
13%
32%
16%

29%
0%
2%
7%
7%
49%
5%

19%
9%
4%
8%
12%
31%
18%

22%
4%
6%
12%
7%
34%
14%

N=210 N=219 N=229 N=159 N=171 N=205

N=74

Question:

N=59 N=31 N=41 N=86 N=111

During a typical week, how many days do you typically use each of the
following travel methods to get to and from work or school?

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

48

2013 Estimated Number of Daily Commuter Miles Saved Through Alternate Modes
– Tables 27-T and 27-1 reflect the combination of results related to modes of commuter
travel and distances traveled with employment estimates (Source: Department of
Commerce) to provide an estimate of the number of vehicle miles saved daily through the
use of alternative methods of transportation. The specific computations and data sources
are described in the footnotes included with Table 27-1. As shown in Table 27-1’s
column “I” (on the far right), we estimate that the reduction of single-occupant
vehicles commuting through the use of alternative methods of travel saves 3,195,589
vehicle miles per day – or 32% of total miles driven/not driven. As summarized in
the tracking display below, the percentage of miles saved has increased from 25% in
2011 to 32% in 2013 – which is more in line with 2007 and 2008 findings (30%
each).
While the percentage of miles saved through the use of alternate modes has increased to
32%, the actual number of vehicle miles saved daily has increased by just 17% (from
2,739,932 to 3,195,589) – due to a decrease in average single-passenger commuter
distance (from 14.8 miles in 2011 to 11.6 now – a decrease of 22%) and fewer singlepassenger commuters (from 84% to 79%). The 2007 levels of single-passenger
commuting and average commute distance are more in line with the current study, but
with a slightly smaller share of miles saved through alternative mode use (30%).
Table 27-T

Year
2013
2011
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004

Tracking Summary of Estimated Number of Daily
Commuter Miles Saved Through Alternate Modes

Total
% Who
Employed
Single(Non-HomePassenger
Based)/
Commute
Students
1+ Days/Week
449,057
79%
419,555
84%
439,394
74%
437,911
78%
423,986
81%
422,141
77%
429,532*
84%

Average
Single
Occupant
Auto
Commute
Distance
11.6
14.8
11.9
11.4
11.2
13.3
14.9

# of
Commute
# of
Miles Driven/ Vehicle Miles
Not Driven
Saved Daily
9,977,822
3,195,589
10,915,750
2,739,932
9,695,554
2,864,682
9,162,668
2,796,391
9,276,739
2,477,921
9,448,097
2,317,878
11,560,391
2,483,773

% of Miles
Saved
Through
Alternate
Mode Use
32%
25%
30%
30%
27%
25%
21%

* Based on May, 2004 DES estimates to allow for direct year-to-year tracking.

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

49

Table 27-1

2013 Estimated Number of Daily Commuter Miles Saved Through Alternative Modes
(Among Employed Persons and Students)

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

(A)
# of NonHome-Based
Employed
Persons/
Students

(B)
# One-Way
Commute
Trips
Per Week

(D)
(C)
Average
(E)
(G)
Estimated Days/Week
# of
(F)
Estimated #
(H)
(I)
# of OneCommute One-Way Average Commute Miles
Way Trips
Using
Commute Commute
Driven/Not
Vehicle Miles Vehicle Miles
Each Week Any Mode Trips/Day Distance
Driven
Traveled Daily Saved Daily

Travel Mode
Single Occupant (auto)
Motorcycle

(79%) 354,755
( 5%) 22,453

4.51x2=9.02
2.60x2=5.20

3,199,890
116,756

6.3
6.3

507,919 11.6
18,533 14.9

5,891,860
276,142

5,891,860
276,142

Alternative Modes:
Carpool
Bus
Bike
Walk
Telecommute
Compressed workweek

(26%) 116,755
( 9%) 40,415
( 9%) 40,415
(12%) 53,887
(15%) 67,359
( 8%) 35,925

3.92x2=7.84
3.79x2=7.58
2.11x2=4.22
3.71x2=7.42
3.47x2=6.94
0.94x2=1.88

915,359
306,346
170,551
399,842
467,471
67,539

6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3

145,295
48,626
27,072
63,467
74,202
10,720
895,834

1,569,186
374,420
227,405
355,415
1,120,450
162,944
9,977,822

603,533
10,698
-0-0-0-0-

10.8
7.7
8.4
5.6
15.1
15.2

-0-0-

965,653
363,722
227,405
355,415
1,120,450
162,944
3,195,589

(A) # employed persons in Pima County (est. @ 368,400 as of April, 2013 by Arizona Department of Commerce) x % non-home-based employees (88%)(Table 21)
+ # students 16+ (est. 124,865 in 2011 Census Bureau American Community Survey) x % of work/school commuters reported using each mode (Table 27).
(B) Average # of days/week mode used (Table 27) x 2 ways = estimate of average # of 1-way trips made each week per work/school commuter.
(C) (A) x (B)
(D) # of work/school commuters in survey x % using each mode x average # days/week mode used = Total days/week all modes ÷ # of work/school commuters in survey =
average # days/week work/school commuters use any mode.
(E) (C) ÷ (D)
(F) From Table 27c. Reported commute miles ranged from 1 to 60 miles.
(G) (E) x (F)

50

(H) Vehicle miles/day:
Driving alone: Estimated # miles commuted
Bus: # miles/day ÷ average # rides/bus (peak hours) - (estimated at 35)
(I) (G) - (H)

Carpool: # miles/day ÷ average # persons (2.6) in each carpool (Table 27b)
Bike/Walk/Telecommute/Compressed: -0- (no polluting vehicles used)

Most Used Mode of Transportation for Work/School Commute – Two-thirds of
respondents who work outside the home or attend school say that single-passenger
vehicle commuting is their most-used method to commute between home and work or
school. This represents improvement from 70%-71% in the last two surveys. Who is
most likely to drive alone to work or school most often? Northwest residents (73%).
This compares to just 56% of Central residents. Instead, 44% of Central area residents
primarily use an alternative mode.
Carpooling is the most-used commute method of 12% (up from 10% in 2011), more
often Central (15%) or South (13%) area residents. Compared to 2011, twice as many
primarily telecommute (from 4% to 8%), especially respondents in the Northwest (11%)
or East (10%) zip codes. More are also taking the bus most often for their commute
(from 2% to 6%), most often South area residents (10%). Overall, slightly fewer say that
their most used method of commuting is walking (from 8% to 5%). However, among
Central area residents, walking (14%) is nearly as popular as carpooling (15%). Few
commute primarily by riding a bike (from 4% to 1%) or a motorcycle (2%, up from
1%). Motorcyclists tend to be South area residents, while those who primarily ride a bike
are in the East zip codes.

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

51

Table 27a

Most Used Mode of Transportation for Work/School Commute
(Among Those Working Outside the Home or Going to School)

Drive alone
Drive or ride in a carpool
Work at home instead of
driving to work
Take the bus
Walk
Ride a motorcycle
Ride a bike

5/05
Total
64%
14%

5/06
Total
66%
16%

5/07
Total
66%
17%

5/08
Total
70%
11%

2%
3%
3%
6%
4%
8%
7%
6%
4%
6%
2%
6%
7%
4%
5%
4%
8%
5%
1%
3%
2%
–
1%
2%
5%
2%
4%
3%
4%
1%
N=210 N=219 N=229 N=159 N=171 N=205
Area

Drive alone
Drive or ride in a carpool
Work at home instead of
driving to work
Take the bus
Walk
Ride a motorcycle
Ride a bike

Question:

6/11
6/13
Total
Total
71%
66%
10%
12%

Northwest Central South
73%
56% 68%
11%
15% 13%
11%
5%
0%
0%
0%
N=74

Air Quality Problem
East Major Moderate Minor
66%
71%
67%
61%
10%
12%
15%
7%

7%
3% 10%
5% 10%
7%
14%
0%
5%
3%
6%
0%
0%
0%
2%
N=59 N=31 N=41

0%
8%
8%
0%
0%
N=24

6%
4%
5%
2%
1%
N=114

16%
10%
3%
3%
0%
N=61

During a typical week, how many days do you typically use each of the
following travel methods to get to and from work or school? (Record most used
mode based on number of days.)

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

52

Size of Work or School Commute Carpool – As compared to 2011, the percentage who
carpool to work or school in a two-person carpool has dipped slightly (from 40% to
38%), while one-third are in 3+ person carpools (down from 43%). Still, the average
carpool size remains unchanged at 2.6 people. Meanwhile, the percentage who say the
number in their carpool “varies” has increased significantly (from 17% to 30%).
Table 27b

Size of Work or School Commute Carpool
(Among Those Who Carpool)

2 people
3 people
4 people
5 or more people
Varies

Question:

06/01 06/02 06/03 05/04 05/05 05/06 05/07 05/08 06/11 06/13
Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
62% 60%
n/a 68% 74% 44% 38% 57% 40% 38%
19% 21%
n/a 29% 16% 35% 40% 23% 31% 23%
10% 12%
n/a
– 10% 14% 13%
9% 10%
8%
7%
6%
n/a
4%
–
8%
3%
9%
2%
2%
2%
1%
n/a
–
–
–
6%
3% 17% 30%
N=60 N=52
n/a N=28 N=51 N=52 N=68 N=35 N=48 N=53

Including yourself, how many people are typically in your carpool?

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

53

Display 27b

Size of Work or School Commute Carpool
(Among Those Who Carpool)
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

38%
40%
57%
38%
44%

2 people

74%
68%
60%
62%
55%
23%
23%

31%
40%

3 people

35%

16%
29%
21%
19%
22%
8%
10%
9%
13%
14%
10%

4 people

12%
10%
9%
2%
2%
9%
3%
8%

5 or more people

4%
6%
7%
9%

June 2013

June 2011

May 2008

May 2007

May 2006

May 2005

May 2004

June 2002

June 2001

May 2000

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

54

Miles Traveled to Work or School – Compared to 2011, work or school commute
distances tend to be shorter. As indicated in Table 27c, six of ten (61%, up from 55% in
2011) report commutes of 5 miles or less (29%, up from 27%) or 6 to 10 miles (32%, up
from 28%). Another one of ten (up from 6%) report traveling between 11 and 14 miles.
Just 23% travel 15 or more miles (down from 38% in 2011, and nearly identical to 2008).
Who has the longest commutes? Three of ten Northwest (28%) or East (30%) zip code
residents commute 15 miles or more. On the other hand, four of ten Central residents
travel 5 miles or less.
Table 27c

Miles Traveled to Work or School
(Among Those Working Outside the Home or Going to School)

5 miles or less
6 to 10 miles
11 to 14 miles
15 or more miles
Don’t know/Not sure

06/01 06/02 06/03 05/04 05/05 05/06 05/07 05/08 06/11 06/13
Total
Total Total Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
37%
40%
n/a
30%
33%
35%
36%
34%
27%
29%
26%
23%
n/a
21%
20%
24%
25%
26%
28%
32%
9%
9%
n/a
16%
3%
10%
5%
4%
6%
10%
24%
24%
n/a
28%
32%
29%
28%
24%
38%
23%
5%
4%
n/a
5%
12%
4%
6%
11%
2%
5%
N=322 N=269
n/a N=172 N=210 N=219 N=229 N=159 N=169 N=203
Area

5 miles or less
6 to 10 miles
11 to 14 miles
15 or more miles
Don’t know/Not sure

Question:

Northwest
Central South
25%
41%
32%
32%
32%
32%
11%
5%
19%
28%
17%
16%
6%
5%
0%
N=73
N=59 N=31

Air Quality Problem
East
18%
32%
10%
30%
10%
N=40

Major
33%
25%
29%
13%
0%
N=24

Moderate
32%
32%
9%
24%
3%
N=112

Minor
23%
31%
6%
26%
13%
N=61

Approximately how many miles do you travel one-way from your home to the
place where you work or go to school?

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

55

Reasons for Driving Alone To and From Work or School – In line with 2007 findings
(the last time this question was asked), “convenience” remains the top reason that single
occupant vehicle commuters cite for driving alone to and from work or school (33%).
This is particularly true in the East (41%) region. Men and those 45 or younger are also
more apt to cite “convenience” as a primary reason for driving alone, with little
difference based on perceived air quality problem. Also consistent with 2007 findings,
one of four single-occupant vehicle commuters each indicate that they have “irregular
work hours” (25%) and/or have “no one to carpool with” (24%). The most formally
educated respondents are more apt to report irregular work hours, while a lack of people
to carpool with is more common in the East zip codes and among workers at smaller (less
than 50 employees) jobsites.
Overall, 12% of single-occupant vehicle commuters continue to say that they “need their
car for business” (down slightly from 15% in 2007). These are more apt to be East zip
residents, 46 to 55 year-olds and those who perceive a “major” or “moderate” air quality
problem.
About one of ten simply say that they “like to drive alone” (9%, up from 7%) – more
often East area residents and those who perceive a “major” air quality problem. Other
single occupant vehicle commuters cite “personal errands” (unchanged at 7%), “child
drop off” (6%, up from 4% in 2007) and/or “no bus service in the area” (4%, down
from 8%) as reasons for driving along to and from work or school.

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

56

Table 27d

Reasons For Driving Alone To and From Work or School
(Among Single-Car Commuters)

Convenience
Irregular work hours
No one to carpool with
Need car for business
Like to drive alone
Personal errands
Child drop off
No bus service in area
Other

06/01
Total
22%
20%
35%
14%
7%
3%
2%
4%
4%
N=258

06/02 06/03
Total
Total
19%
n/a
27%
n/a
39%
n/a
9%
n/a
4%
n/a
1%
n/a
3%
n/a
4%
n/a
5%
n/a
N=210
n/a

05/04
Total
25%
31%
21%
12%
7%
3%
–
6%
11%
N=145

05/05
Total
32%
18%
27%
6%
5%
7%
4%
11%
8%
N=161

Area

Convenience
Irregular work hours
No one to carpool with
Need car for business
Like to drive alone
Personal errands
Child drop off
No bus service in area
Other

Question:

NorthCentral South
west
35%
27%
27%
29%
25%
31%
21%
20%
19%
13%
7%
12%
6%
9%
8%
11%
9%
0%
11%
2%
0%
3%
9%
0%
3%
4%
11%
N=63
N=44 N=26

05/06
Total
30%
19%
24%
15%
12%
3%
1%
6%
7%
N=177

05/07
Total
32%
23%
24%
15%
7%
7%
4%
8%
6%
N=178

06/13
Total
33%
25%
24%
12%
9%
7%
6%
4%
4%
N=162

Air Quality Problem
East
41%
10%
38%
17%
17%
3%
7%
0%
0%
N=29

Major
33%
19%
19%
14%
19%
14%
0%
0%
0%
N=21

Moderate
35%
29%
27%
16%
4%
7%
7%
2%
6%
N=89

Minor
33%
20%
15%
4%
11%
6%
9%
9%
4%
N=46

What is the main reason you drive alone?

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

57

Storm Water Perceptions and Practices

New to the current study, respondents were asked a series of questions designed to collect
baseline data regarding storm water perceptions/knowledge and hazardous waste issues.
Perception of Where Storm Water That Flows Into Tucson Storm Drains Ends Up –
After being informed that streets in the Tucson area are equipped with storm drains,
respondents were asked (to the best of their knowledge) where the water that flows into
these drains end up.
As indicated in Table 28, and allowing for multiple responses, 44% indicate that the
storm water that flows into storm drains ends up in a river or wash. This includes onehalf of Central and East region residents – with no real difference based on the perceived
seriousness of the storm water pollution problem in Tucson.
In lesser numbers, others think that storm water that flows into storm drains end up in:
 Sewage plants (12% – more often Central or East zip residents.)
 Groundwater (7% – regardless of geography [slightly lower only in the East
region].)
 Water plants (6% – typically Northwest or East region denizens.)
 Canals (4% – with an increased mention in the East area.)
Overall, 35% do not know where storm water ends up. This includes one-half of South
region residents, with few differences based on perceived seriousness of Tucson’s storm
water pollution problem.

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

58

Table 28

Perception of Where Storm Water That
Flows Into Tucson Storm Drains Ends Up

River or wash
Sewage plants
Groundwater
Water plants
Canals
Don’t know/Not sure

Question:

Area
06/13 Northwest Central South East
Total
42%
51%
37% 49%
44%
10%
17%
7% 15%
12%
7%
8%
7%
4%
7%
8%
3%
4% 10%
6%
4%
4%
1% 10%
4%
39%
24%
50% 22%
35%
N=504 N=136 N=150 N=145 N=73

Storm Water
Pollution Problem
Not a
Moderate Serious
Problem Problem Problem
42%
46%
43%
8%
11%
14%
11%
5%
7%
2%
6%
7%
0%
4%
5%
38%
37%
32%
N=80
N=217
N=207

Streets in the Tucson area are equipped with storm drains. To the best of your
knowledge, where does the storm water that flows into these drains end up?

Display 28

Perception of Where Storm Water That
Flows Into Tucson Storm Drains Ends Up

60%
44%
35%

40%

20%

12%

7%

6%

4%

Groundwater

Water plants

Canals

0%
River or wash

Sewage plants

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

Don't know/
Not sure

59

Low Impact Development Practices Implemented/Installed at Home or Business –
The most often implemented low impact development practice at home or work is
landscaping with native plants. Four of ten have landscaped with native plants –
regardless of geography (slightly higher among Central zip residents). High income
households and the most formally educated respondents are most apt to have landscaped
with native plants.
Others have implemented or installed the following low impact development practices:
 Landscaped depressions that collect storm water (16% implementation. Northwest
or East region residents and college graduates or better are more apt to have created
landscaped depressions.)
 Connecting runoff from a roof or paved surface to a basin or to water plants
(14% implementation. Usage is lower only in the South zips and higher among
college graduates or better.)
 Natural areas protected from clearing and grading (12% implementation,
regardless of geography. Women, 46 to 55 year-olds and those with at least some
graduate school level education are more apt to have utilized natural areas.)
 Water harvesting, using rain barrels or cisterns (12% implementation. These tend
to be Northwest zip residents, women and 46 to 75 year-olds.)
 A trench that is filled with gravel to collect storm water (11% implementation.
Usage is elevated in the East zips and among women, 56 to 75 year-olds and the most
formally educated.)
 Porous pavements or bricks (10% implementation. East residents, 66 to 75 yearolds, high income households and the most formally educated respondents are more
likely to have installed porous pavements or bricks.)
One-third overall indicate they have not implemented any low impact development
practices (or are simply not sure). This is the case regardless of geography.

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

60

Table 29

Low Impact Development Practices
Implemented/Installed at Home or Business

Area

Landscaping with native plants
Landscaped depressions that
collect storm water
Connecting runoff from a roof or
paved surface to a basin or to water
plants
Natural areas protected from
clearing and grading
Water harvesting using rain barrels
or cisterns
A trench that is filled with gravel to
collect storm water
Porous pavements or bricks
Other
Not sure/Don’t know

Question:

06/13 Northwest Central
Total
38%
45%
41%

South
40%

Storm Water
Pollution Problem
Not a
Moderate Serious
East Problem Problem Problem
42%
31%
40%
47%

16%

21%

11%

16%

19%

8%

19%

17%

14%

17%

14%

10%

19%

9%

13%

17%

12%

14%

11%

12%

14%

11%

12%

13%

12%

16%

10%

11%

12%

14%

11%

14%

11%
10%
6%
33%
N=504

10%
7%
5%
35%
N=136

8%
8%
9%
33%
N=150

12%
11%
1%
32%
N=145

15%
18%
7%
32%
N=73

6%
2%
5%
46%
N=80

10%
10%
5%
31%
N=217

13%
13%
6%
30%
N=207

Which of the following, if any, has been implemented or installed at your home or
business?

Display 29

Low Impact Development Practices
Implemented/Installed at Home or Business

60%
41%

33%

40%

20%

16%
14%

12%

12%

11%

10%

6%

0%
Landscaping
Landscaped
w/native plants depressions that
collect storm
water

Connecting
runoff from
roof/paved
surface to
basin/to water
plants

Natural areas
Water
Gravel-filled
protected from harvesting using trench to collect
clearing and
rain barrels or
storm water
grading
cisterns

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

Porous
pavements or
bricks

Other

Not sure/Don’t
know

61

Perceived Seriousness of Storm Water Pollution Problem in Tucson Area – Using a
“1-to-9” scale (where “1” means “not a problem” and “9” means “a serious problem”),
fully 84% of respondents indicate that there is a “serious” (41%) or “moderate” (43%)
problem “in the Tucson area with polluting materials entering storm drains.” Just 16%
believe it is “not a problem” – yielding a 5.7 average score on the “1-to-9” rating scale.
The degree of perceived seriousness is highest in the East zips (6.1 versus 5.8 each in the
Central and South regions). Meanwhile, just 31% of Northwest area residents consider
storm water pollution to be a “serious problem” (5.3). Increased perception of a storm
water pollution problem is elevated among women, 16 to 35 year-olds, Hispanics,
progressively more long-term Pima County residents and those with some college
education (but no degree). On the other hand, seven of ten “new” residents (for less than
two years) consider the problem to be “moderate” (4.8).
Those who think that Tucson has a progressively more serious air quality problem are
also more likely to think it has an increasingly more severe storm water pollution
problem.
Table 30

Perceived Seriousness of Storm Water Pollution Problem in Tucson Area
Area

Serious problem (7-9)
Moderate problem (4-6)
Not a problem (1-3)
Average score on 1-9 scale

Question:

06/13 Northwest Central South East
Total
31%
42%
44% 52%
41%
47%
43%
41% 40%
43%
22%
15%
14%
8%
16%
5.3
5.8
5.8
6.1
5.7
N=504 N=136 N=150 N=145 N=73

On a scale of “1-to-9” where “9” means “a serious problem” and “1” means “not
a problem,” how much of a problem do you think there is in the Tucson area with
polluting materials entering storm drains? You can give me any number between
“1” and “9.”

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

62

Rating of Various Contributors to Storm Water Pollution Problem in the Tucson
Area – Using the same “1-to-9” scale, respondents were asked to rate six different
contributors to the storm water pollution problem in the Tucson area. Results are
summarized in Table 31, ranked by average score.
About eight of ten overall rate five of the six factors evaluated to be a “moderate” or
“serious” problem contributing to storm water pollution in the Tucson area, including:
 Automotive fluids such as oil, gasoline and brake fluid (45% rate as “serious,”
79% combined “serious” plus “moderate” problem overall [5.8 average score on the
“1-to-9” scale]. East region residents, 16 to 35 year-olds, non-Whites and those with
progressively less formal education are more apt to perceive automotive fluids to be a
“serious problem.”)
 Chemicals and materials from industrial facilities (40% rate as “serious,” 78%
combined “serious” plus “moderate” problem overall [5.7 average score]. Less of a
perceived problem only in the East zips [5.2 versus 5.6-5.8 elsewhere]. Women, 16 to
25 year-olds, Hispanics and lower income households are more likely to think that
materials from industrial facilities are a “serious problem” contributing to storm water
pollution.)
 Chemicals and materials from construction sites (39% rate as “serious,” 81%
combined “serious” plus “moderate” problem overall [5.6 average score]. Opinions
are similar regardless of geography [slightly higher in the East zips]. More apt to
think that construction site materials contribute to storm water pollution are women,
16 to 25 or 36 to 45 year-olds and non-Whites.)
 Household products such as cleaning fluids, detergents, paints, degreasers and
bleaches (38% rate as “serious,” 77% combined “serious” plus “moderate” problem
overall [5.5 average score]. Perceived seriousness is slightly lower only in the Central
zips [5.4 versus 5.6-5.7 elsewhere]. Women, 16 to 25 or 36 to 45 year-olds,
Hispanics and lower income households are more likely to consider household
products as a “serious” contributor to storm water pollution.)
 Pesticides, fertilizers and debris from lawns and gardens (37% rate as “serious,”
79% combined “serious” plus “moderate” problem overall [5.5 average score].
Geographically, average scores are somewhat lower only in the Northwest region [5.3
versus 5.5-5.6 elsewhere]. Meanwhile, women, 36 to 45 year-olds, Hispanics and
low-income households perceive the greatest problem.)
Four of ten say that animal waste from household pets is “not a problem” with respect
to contributing to the storm water pollution problem in the Tucson area. Among the rest,
only 23% rate animal waste as a “serious problem” (4.4 average score).
Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

63

For all six factors tested, the seriousness of each as a contributor to the storm water
pollution problem is directly related to the overall perceived degree of a storm water
pollution problem in the Tucson area.
Table 31

Rating of Various Contributors to
Storm Water Pollution Problem in Tucson Area

(6/13 N=504)
Automotive fluids such as oil,
gasoline and brake fluid
Chemicals and materials from
industrial facilities
Chemicals and materials from
construction sites
Household products such as
cleaning fluids, detergents, paints,
degreasers and bleaches
Pesticides, fertilizers and debris
from lawns and gardens
Animal waste from household pets

Question:

Serious
Problem
(7-9)

Moderate
Problem
(4-6)

Not a
Problem
(1-3)

Average
Score on
1-9 Scale

45%

34%

21%

5.8

40%

38%

21%

5.7

39%

42%

19%

5.6

38%

39%

23%

5.5

37%
23%

42%
36%

22%
41%

5.5
4.4

Using same “1-to-9” scale – where “9” means “a serious problem” and “1” means
“not a problem” - how much do you think each of the following contributes to the
problem of storm water pollution in the Tucson area? You can give me any
number between “1” and “9.”

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

64

Display 31

Rating of Various Contributors to
Storm Water Pollution Problem in Tucson Area

60%
45%
40%
40%

38%

42%
39%

42%
37%

39%
38%

41%
36%

34%
21%

21%

20%

23%
19%

22%

23%

0%
Automotive fluids
such as oil, gasoline
and brake fluid (Avg
score=5.8)

Chemicals and
materials from
industrial facilities
(Avg score=5.7)

Serious problem (7-9)

Chemicals and
Household products Pesticides, fertilizers
materials from
such as cleaning
and debris from lawns
construction sites (Avg fluids, detergents,
and gardens (Avg
score=5.6)
paints, degreasers and
score=5.5)
bleaches (Avg
score=5.5)

Moderate problem (4-6)

Animal waste from
household pets (Avg
score=4.4)

Not a problem (1-3)

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

65

Methods Used to Dispose of Various Types of Household Hazardous Waste – The
three most utilized methods to dispose of household hazardous waste (including items
such as household chemicals, automotive fluids and lawn & garden chemicals) include:
 Hazardous waste collection site (47% usage, particularly South region denizens, 56
to 75 year-olds, 6-to-10 year Pima County residents and the most formally educated
respondents.)
 Auto parts store (46% usage. Similar usage across geography [slightly higher in the
Northwest zips] or length of residence, and highest among men, 26 to 35 year-olds
and higher income households [especially those with progressively more vehicles
owned or leased].)
 Put in the garbage (30% usage. These are more apt to be Northwest or Central
residents, 36 to 45 year-olds, newer [five years or less] Pima County residents, nonWhites and less formally educated respondents.)
Two of ten each dispose of household hazardous waste by taking it to a service station
(21%) or landfill (19%). South region residents and 56 to 65 year-olds are more apt to
take waste to a service station. Landfill usage is lower only in the East zips (12% versus
19%-21% elsewhere) and generally consistent among 26 to 65 year-olds – with increased
usage among progressively less formally educated respondents.
Another 11% dispose of their household hazardous waste by pouring it down the sink
or drain – more often East area residents, low-income households and the newest (for
less than two years) Pima County residents.
Among those who think that Tucson has a “serious” storm water pollution problem, more
dispose of household hazardous waste at an auto parts store (54%) than hazardous waste
collection site (48%) – followed by the garbage can (37%) or service station (26%).
Landfill usage is higher among those who consider Tucson to have a “moderate” or no
problem with storm water pollution (20%-23% versus 14% among respondents who
perceive a “serious” problem).
Overall, 8% are unsure how they dispose of hazardous household waste, more often the
youngest respondents. One of ten claim to never use these types of products (or finish
them all up when used).

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

66

Table 32

Methods Used to Dispose of Various Types of Household Hazardous Waste

Area
06/13
Total
Hazardous waste
collection site
Auto parts store
Put in the garbage
Service station
Landfill
Pour in the sink or
down the drain
Recycle
Some other method
Don’t use these
products/Use them up
Not sure/Don’t know

Question:

Northwest Central

South

East

Storm Water
Pollution Problem
Not a
Moderate Serious
Problem Problem Problem

47%
46%
30%
21%
19%

42%
50%
32%
15%
21%

45%
44%
35%
22%
21%

54%
44%
25%
27%
19%

44%
47%
27%
19%
12%

41%
44%
30%
20%
20%

47%
40%
23%
17%
23%

48%
54%
37%
26%
14%

11%
1%
2%

12%
2%
2%

14%
1%
1%

3%
2%
1%

18%
0%
4%

9%
1%
0%

12%
2%
1%

11%
1%
3%

11%
3% 11%
5%
10% 10%
N=150 N=145 N=73

9%
6%
N=80

13%
10%
N=217

7%
7%
N=207

15%
10%
10%
8%
N=504 N=136

I am now going to read you a list of different methods that people use to dispose
of items such as household chemicals, automotive fluids and lawn & garden
chemicals. After each, simply tell me if you or someone in your household use
this method to dispose of these items.

Display 32

Methods Used to Dispose of
Various Types of Household Hazardous Waste

60%
47%

46%

40%
30%
21%
20%

19%
10%

11%
0%
Hazardous
waste
collection site

Auto parts
store

Put in the
garbage

Service
station

Landfill

Pour in the
sink or down
the drain

1%

2%

Recycle

Some other
method

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

8%

Don’t use
Not sure/
these
Don’t know
products/Use
them up

67

Government Entity to Call If Witness to Someone Dumping Trash or Chemicals in a
Storm Drain – More than one-third (35%) are not sure who they would call if they
witnessed someone dumping trash or chemicals into a storm drain or wash and wanted to
report it. This is the case regardless of geographic area (particularly in the Central zips),
gender or perception of Tucson’s storm water pollution problem. The youngest
respondents, Hispanics and 6+ year Pima County residents are most apt to be unsure of
who to call.
Among the rest, 28% indicate they would call 911 or the police department to report
illegal dumping. These tend to be East zip residents, 26 to 45 year-olds, the newest (for
less than two years) Pima County denizens and those who perceive that Tucson has a
progressively more serious storm water pollution problem.
In lesser numbers, others would report illegal dumping into a storm drain or wash by
calling city government (8%), county government (7%), the sanitation department
(6%), the water department (5%) or health department (4%). Significantly, just 4%
say they would not report illegal dumping.
Table 33

Government Entity to Call If Witness to Someone
Dumping Trash or Chemicals in a Storm Drain

Area

911/Police department
City government
County government
Sanitation department
Water department
Health department
Would not report
Government agency
Not sure/Don’t know

Question:

06/13 Northwest Central South East
Total
31%
22%
28% 38%
28%
8%
6%
8% 10%
8%
5%
7%
8%
8%
7%
4%
10%
5%
7%
6%
6%
7%
3%
6%
5%
5%
4%
5%
3%
4%
7%
3%
5%
1%
4%
3%
3%
5%
1%
3%
32%
39%
36% 32%
35%
N=504 N=136 N=150 N=145 N=73

Storm Water
Pollution Problem
Not a
Moderate Serious
Problem Problem Problem
25%
28%
30%
1%
9%
9%
5%
9%
6%
10%
6%
6%
5%
3%
8%
4%
2%
7%
9%
5%
2%
1%
5%
2%
38%
33%
36%
N=80
N=217
N=207

If you saw someone dumping trash or chemicals into a storm drain or a wash and
wanted to report them, who would you call to report the incident?

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

68

Display 33 Government Entity to Call If Witness to Someone
Dumping Trash or Chemicals in a Storm Drain
40%
35%
28%

20%

8%

7%

6%

5%

4%

4%

3%

Health
department

Would not
report

Government
agency

0%
911/Police
department

City
government

County
government

Sanitation
department

Water
department

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

Not sure/
Don’t know

69

EVALUATION OF THE 2012-2013
PIMA COUNTY CLEAN AIR CAMPAIGN AND BASELINE
STORM WATER ISSUE AWARENESS SURVEY
(June, 2013)

Appendix
Survey
Methodology
and Sample
Selection

This survey consists of a 504-person, randomly-selected and
statistically-projectable sample of the 16 years and older male and
female target audience in designated Pima County zip code areas.
The interviews were distributed on the basis of geographic
population density in the market – with specific steps taken to
ensure a proportionate number of interviews in each survey
“region.” The sample distribution in each region was developed
using recent population estimate projections. The final in-tab
geographic proportions are reflective of these actual population
estimates.
A similar sampling plan (based on household
distribution) was also developed to ensure the ethnic composition
of the final sample was as close as possible to actual proportions
in Pima County.
All interviews were conducted by telephone, during early June
2013. Respondents included in this survey were selected through
a random sampling procedure that allows equal probability of
selection. This technique ensures that area residents who are not
yet listed in a telephone directory (or choose not to be listed) are
still eligible for selection. Neither the interviewer nor the
interviewee had any knowledge of the study sponsor. All
interviews were conducted and validated by the FMR Field staff.
Where relevant, respondents were asked if they preferred the
interview to be conducted in English or Spanish. A Spanishlanguage version of the questionnaire was developed by FMR
Associates.
A total of 148 non-White respondents were
interviewed in the project, including 121 Hispanics. However,
only 10 respondents (2%) requested that their interview be
conducted in Spanish by a bilingual interviewer. This is
consistent with the 2011 survey (2%). Each telephone interview
lasted approximately 14 minutes.
Cell Phone Only Households – To address “cell phone only”
households (households without a land line that utilize a cell
phone exclusively), FMR interviewers manually dialed randomlygenerated cell phone numbers (based on known cell phone
exchanges) and attempted to interview these households.
Potential respondents reached through manually dialing were
Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

A-1

given three options: to proceed with the interview using their cell
phone provider’s calling plan minute allocations; allow for a callback at a mutually arranged time on a land line; or to call the cell
phone back when minutes are “free” (i.e., weekends, evenings,
etc.).
The statistics in this report are subject to a degree of variation that
is determined by sample (or sub-sample) size. All research data
are subject to a certain amount of variation for this reason. This
does not mean that the figures represented in the various tables
are wrong. It means that each percentage represents a possible
“range” of response. This is because the random sampling
process, as well as human behavior itself, can never be perfect.
For this sample, at N=500 (rounded), the statistical variation is
+4.5% under the most extreme circumstances – with a 95%
confidence level. That is, when the percentages shown in the
tables are near 50% (the most conservative situation), the actual
behavior or attitude may range from 45.5% to 54.5%. The 95%
confidence level means that if the survey were repeated 100
times, in 95 cases the same range of response would result. Those
percentages that occur at either extreme (for example, 10% or
90%) are subject to a smaller degree of statistical fluctuation (in
this case, +2.7%).

Statistical
Reliability

Sub-samples, such as age groups or sex, have a higher degree of
statistical fluctuation due to the smaller number of respondents in
those groupings.
Confidence Intervals for a Given Percent
(at the 95% confidence level)

N
(Base for %)
500
400
300
200
100
50
25

Example:

Reported Percentage
10 or
20 or
90%
80%
2.7%
3.6%
2.9%
3.9%
3.3%
4.5%
4.2%
5.5%
5.9%
7.8%
8.3%
11.1%
11.8%
15.7%

30 or
70%
4.1%
4.5%
5.1%
6.4%
9.0%
12.7%
18.0%

40 or
60%
4.4%
4.8%
5.5%
6.8%
9.6%
13.6%
19.2%

50%
4.5%
4.9%
5.7%
6.9%
9.8%
13.9%
19.6%

If the table shows that 20% of all respondents (when N=500) have a
positive or negative attitude about a question category, the chances are
95 out of 100 that the true value is 20% +3.6 percentage points; that is,
the range of response would be 16.4% to 23.6%.

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

A-2

Significance of Difference Between Percentages
(at the 95% confidence level)
Average of the
Bases of Percentages
Being Compared
400
250
200
150
100
50
25

Example:
(Within Survey)

10 or
90%
4.4%
5.2%
5.9%
6.8%
8.3%
11.7%
16.7%

Reported Percentage
20 or
30 or
40 or
80%
70%
60%
6.5%
7.1%
5.6%
7.1%
8.1%
8.6%
7.8%
8.9%
9.6%
9.1%
10.3%
11.0%
11.0%
12.7%
13.6%
15.7%
18.0%
19.2%
22.2%
25.5%
27.2%

50%
7.2%
8.8%
9.8%
11.3%
13.9%
19.7%
27.7%

If a table indicates that 34% of men have a positive attitude
toward a category of response, and that 25% of women have the
same attitude, the following procedure should be used to
determine if this attitude is due to chance:
The average base is 250 for the reported percentages
(225+279)/2=252. The average of the percentages is 30.0% –
(34+25)/2=29.5%. The difference between the percentages is 9%.
Since 9% is greater than 8.1% (the figure in the table for this base
and this percentage), the chances are 95 out of 100 that the
attitude is significantly different between men and women.

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

A-3

2013 PIMA AIR QUALITY/STORM WATER REGION DEFINITIONS
Northwest:

85653
85654
85658
85704
85705
85737
85739
85741
85742
85743
85745
85755
85652
85738

Central:

85710
85711
85712
85716
85718
85719

South:

85321
85614
85622
85629
85634
85641
85701
85706
85707
85708
85713
85714
85735
85736
85746
85756
85757
85601
85633
85639

East:

85619
85715
85730
85747
85748
85749
85750

Pima Air Quality/Storm Water, June, 2013

A-4