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

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)
Executive Summary
Final In-Tab Sample and Telephone Survey Tracking Comparisons – This telephone
tracking survey study, conducted on behalf of the Pima County Department of
Environmental Quality (PDEQ), includes 504 interviews conducted among randomlyselected men and women age 16 or older who live in Pima County. As we have done is
previous years, all survey respondents were further randomized by interviewing “the
male or female in your household who is 16 or older and most recently celebrated a
birthday.” There was only one interview conducted per household. A Spanish-language
version of the final questionnaire design was prepared and made available to survey
respondents who requested it.
The surveys were completed in early June 2013 and distributed on the basis of
geographic population density in Pima County – with specific steps taken to ensure a
proportionate number of interviews in each of four zip code-defined survey “regions”
(Northwest, Central, South and East) based on recent population estimates. Once again,
the 2013 in-tab sample is highly representative of projected demographic patterns and on
target with geographic sampling quotas.
The sample size for the 2013 survey (N=504) is larger than the 2011 (N=403) and 2008
(N=402) projects, but similar to the studies conducted between 2004 and 2007 (N=500503).
Where possible and relevant, data from this project is tracked and compared with prior
“Clean Air” Campaign surveys. New to the current study, respondents were also asked a
series of questions designed to collect baseline data regarding storm water
perceptions/knowledge and hazardous waste issues.
Awareness of the Pima County “Clean Air” Program – Overall, 43% are familiar with
the Pima County “Clean Air” Program. This is significantly lower than the level of
awareness 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 37% of those who perceive a
“minor” problem. Geographically, awareness is somewhat lower only in the Northwest
zips (39% versus 42%-47% elsewhere).
Awareness of Various “Clean Air” Events or Activities – Among the seven individual
event/activities tracked from the 2011 study, awareness 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.

-2One-half or more are familiar with three “Clean Air” events:
 “Earth Day Festival and Parade” (66% awareness, down just slightly from 68% in
2011. Awareness is similar regardless of geography.)
 “Bike to Work Day” (54% awareness, down slightly from 57% in 2011. East
residents [62% versus 50%-56% elsewhere] 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].)
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 indicate elevated awareness.)
 “Green Living Fair” (27% awareness, down from 32% in 2011. Awareness tends to
be higher among South zip residents.)
 “Bike to the Zoo Day” (22% awareness, up from 20% in 2011. Familiarity is highest
in the Central zips.)
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.”
“Clean Air” Campaign Event Participation and Actions Taken – 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. 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, nonWhites and households impacted by a breathing-related medical condition.
Opinion of Activities/Events – 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

-3driving 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.
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.” The three most frequent “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 those 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. Instead, 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 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.
Among the two of ten who have done “nothing” to reduce air pollution, what reasons are
offered? Two-thirds 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%, unchanged since 2007.)
 Not convenient to take action (7%, down from 12%.)
 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.)

-4School Materials Recall Among School Age Children – 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 and Hispanics are especially apt to say they have
young children living in their household.
Among these households with school age children, four of ten households 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). Recall is highest among respondents who perceive that Tucson has a
progressively more severe air quality problem.
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 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.)
 Television news reports (35% most effective, down just slightly from 37% in 2011.
Most effective in the Central zips, as well as among 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.

-5Air Pollution Statement Evaluations – The following is a summary of agreement/
disagreement with ten statements related to air pollution awareness, topics and
knowledge:
PDEQ/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 – 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.)
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]. 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.)
 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.)
 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]. Those who perceive a progressively more serious air
quality problem in Tucson are most apt to agree.)
 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

-6relatively few differences based on area of residence. Respondents who perceive a
progressively more serious air quality problem are more apt to agree.)
 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 are most apt agree.)
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 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.)
 Walking to work or school (9%, up from 3%-5% in previous years. East or Central
zip residents 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].)
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%).
Perceived Seriousness of Air Quality Problem in Tucson Area – Among the total
sample, 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.
The perception of a “minor” problem is relatively consistent across geography (slightly
higher in the Central zips).

-7Importance 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. 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.
Work Commuting Behavior – Among the 2013 in-tab sample, 27% 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). Another 11% work part-time, up from 8% in 2011. Those who work parttime 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. 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%).
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 10hour 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.
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).
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. 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. Overall,

-812% 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.
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.
Use of Alternative Work/School Commute Modes – The following is a summary of the
use of alternative modes for commute travel:
 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].)
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%)

-9or 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.
Miles Traveled to Work or School – Compared to 2011, work or school commute
distances tend to be shorter. 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.
Telecommuting – Unchanged since 2011, 19% of workers employed outside the home
report that they telecommute. 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. 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%).
“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.
Daily Commuter Miles Saved Through Alternate Modes – Based on the combination
of results related to modes of commuter travel and distances traveled with employment
estimates (Source: Department of Commerce), we estimate that the reduction of singleoccupant 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. 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%).

-10-

Baseline Storm Water Perceptions and Practices
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, 44%
indicate that (to the best of their knowledge) the storm water that flows into storm drains
ends up in a river or wash. This includes one-half of Central and East region residents.
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.)
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.
Low Impact Development Practices Implemented/Installed – 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).
Others have implemented or installed the following low impact development practices:
 Landscaped depressions that collect storm water (16% implementation. Northwest
or East region residents 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.)
 Natural areas protected from clearing and grading (12% implementation,
regardless of geography.)
 Water harvesting, using rain barrels or cisterns (12% implementation. These tend
to be Northwest zip residents.)
 A trench that is filled with gravel to collect storm water (11% implementation.
Usage is elevated in the East zips.)
 Porous pavements or bricks (10% implementation – more often East residents.)
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.

-11Perceived 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).
Rating of Various Contributors to Storm Water Pollution Problem in the Tucson
Area – Using the same “1-to-9” scale, 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 and non-Whites 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.”)
 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. More apt to think that construction site materials
contribute to storm water pollution are women 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, 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].)

-12Four 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).
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.
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.)
 Auto parts store (46% usage. Similar usage across geography.)
 Put in the garbage (30% usage. These are more apt to be Northwest or Central
residents.)
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.
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).
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.
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 and the newest
(for less than two years) Pima County denizens.
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.

-13Final Air Quality Observations
Compared to 2011, significantly fewer indicate general awareness of the Pima County
“Clean Air” Program (from 52% to 43%). At the same time, fully nine of ten are familiar
with at least one “Clean Air” event (up from 88% in 2011). As we have found in past
years, there continues to be a significant difference in key attitudes and behaviors related
to air quality – including Air Quality Event Awareness, PDEQ and Sun Rideshare
Awareness, PDEQ Activity Understanding, Steps Taken to Reduce Air Pollution and Air
Quality Perceptions – among those aware of the Program and those unaware (43% and
52%, respectively). Once again, this relationship remains readily apparent, as
summarized in the comparative displays below (including a comparison, where possible,
to 2011 findings).
“Clean Air” Program
Some key differences:
Difference
Aware
Unaware
(43%)
(52%)
Air Quality Event Awareness
Earth Day Festival & Parade
2013
+25%
74%
59%
2011
+31%
77%
59%
Bike to Work Day
2013
2011

+71%
+73%

70%
71%

41%
41%

Bike Fest
2013
2011

+60%
+51%

61%
62%

38%
41%

Walk and Roll to School Day
2013
2011

+92%
+79%

50%
43%

26%
24%

Green Living Fair
2013
2011

+124%
+115%

38%
43%

17%
20%

Bike to the Zoo Day
2013
2011

+100%
+108%

32%
27%

16%
13%

Pedal the Pueblo
2013

+162%

21%

8%

+13%
+75%

18%
21%

16%
12%

 Participation in a “Clean Air” event
2013
2011

 On average, and highly consistent with 2011 findings, there is an 81% higher
awareness and/or participation in “Clean Air” events or programs among those
familiar with the “Clean Air” Program.

-14Some key differences:
PDEQ and Sun Rideshare Awareness
 Aware of PDEQ
2013
2011
 Aware of Sun Rideshare services
2013
2011

Difference

“Clean Air” Program
Aware Unaware
(43%)
(52%)

+71%
+70%

82%
85%

48%
50%

+88%
+54%

60%
57%

32%
37%

 On average, there is an 80% greater awareness of PDEQ and Sun Rideshare
services among those aware of the “Clean Air” Program – up from 62% in 2011.
PDEQ Activity Understanding
 Understand air pollution advisory meaning
2013
2011
 Aware of Tucson air pollution advisories
2013
2011
 Aware that majority of air pollution comes
from motor vehicle use
2013
2011
 Seen or heard TV/radio commercials
regarding clean air or air pollution
2013
2011
 Noticed a reduction in the amount of dust
generated at construction sites/other places
2013
2011

+12%
+2%

94%
88%

84%
86%

+49%
+49%

91%
88%

61%
59%

+6%
+1%

84%
79%

79%
78%

+55%
+30%

82%
83%

53%
64%

+62%
+37%

47%
52%

29%
38%

 On average, there is a 37% higher understanding of PDEQ activities among
those aware of the “Clean Air” Program. This is up from 24% in 2011.
Steps Taken to Reduce Air Pollution (Unaided)
 Driven less/Reduced Driving
2013
+18%
 Carpool more/Less solo driving
2013
+39%

40%

34%

32%

23%

 There is a 29% greater likelihood of taking specific steps to reduce air pollution
among those aware of the “Clean Air” Program. In addition, 26% of those
unaware of the “Clean Air” Program have done “nothing” to reduce air
pollution (versus only 15% of those aware).

-15Some key differences:

Difference

Air Quality Perceptions
 Perceive that Tucson area has a “moderate”
or “major” air quality problem
2013
+12%
2011
+9%

“Clean Air” Program
Aware Unaware
(43%)
(52%)

76%
76%

68%
70%

 There is a 12% greater perception of air quality problems in the Tucson area
among those aware of the “Clean Air” Program (up from 9% in 2011).
Once again, these findings and tracking results suggest that the Pima County
“Clean Air” Program clearly increases awareness, belief and actions related to
improving air quality. As a result, targeting those unaware of the program continues to
be a key recommendation of this study. What is the “target” profile of Pima County
residents unfamiliar with the “Clean Air” Program? Northwest area residents, men, 16 to
35 year-olds, non-Whites and 2-to-10 year Pima County residents. Consequently,
additional promotional, communication and awareness-building efforts should be
targeted towards these groups – particularly men. For what reasons? Men are among
those most likely to indicate a change in behavior as a result of their participation in
“Clean Air” Program activities. In fact, among all participants in a “Clean Air” event,
fully three of four change their daily behaviors to help improve air quality.
Without question, this study also highlights the increased benefit of greater promotional,
marketing, branding and advertising efforts – to the extent possible – in order to expand
awareness of the “Clean Air” Program (as well as specific events), especially to reach the
sub-groups identified above.
Tire Inflation Education Campaign – Among households with at least one vehicle
owned or leased in their household, 59% say (on an aided basis) they check tire pressure
at least monthly. These tend to be men (69% versus 52% of women) and those with
household incomes of at least $25,000 – with fewer differences based on geography, age
or self-perceived ethnicity. Significantly, those aware of the Pima County “Clean Air”
Program are 18% more likely to check their tire pressure at least monthly (66% versus
56% of those unaware). This is also true among multi-vehicle (3+) households.
While 59% check their tire pressure at least monthly, just 7% say it is an action they take
(on an unaided basis) to reduce air pollution. This difference suggests a lack of
understanding between maintaining proper tire pressure and reducing air pollution.
Consequently, the upcoming Education Campaign might highlight the air pollutionreducing benefits of keeping tires properly inflated – with efforts targeted towards key
audiences.

-16Storm Water Education Targeting Recommendations
Based on the findings of this study, we offer the following targeting recommendations for
education-related campaigns related to storm water/storm drain pollution issues and
improper household hazardous waste disposal:
 Citizens who think that Tucson does not have a storm water pollution problem
(16% of total sample). These tend to be:






Northwest residents
Men
66 or older
Higher income households ($40,000+)
The most formally educated.

 Dispose of hazardous household waste by putting in the garbage (30% of total
sample). These tend to be:





Northwest or Central residents
36 to 45 year-olds
Newer (<5 years) Pima County residents
Non-Whites

 Dispose of hazardous household waste by pouring down the sink or drain (11%
of sample). These tend to be:
 East residents
 Low income households
 The newest (<2 years) Pima County residents
 Unaware of whom to contact if witness to dumping of trash or chemicals into
storm drain (35% of total sample). These tend to be:





Central residents
16 to 35 year-olds
Hispanics
6+ year Pima County residents