Public Perceptions, Attitudes and A National Survey Values ... · ﬁ nalised questionnaire. Survey interviews were conducted by telephone. Milliard Brown IMS undertook the sampling

A National SurveyPublic Perceptions, Attitudes and Values on the Environment

AGENCY STATUS

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is an independent public body established in July 1993 under the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992. Its sponsor in Government is the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

The EPA is managed by a full time Executive Board consisting of a Director General and four Directors. Independence is assured through the selection procedures for the Director General and Directors and the freedom, as provided in the legislation, to act on its own initiative. The assignment, under the legislation, of direct responsibility for a wide range of functions underpins this independence. Under legislation, it is a specific offence to attempt to influence the Agency, or anyone acting on its behalf, in an improper manner.

The Agency is assisted by an Advisory Committee of twelve members, appointed by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

RESPONSIBILITIES

The EPA has a wide range of statutory duties and powers under the Environmental Protection Act. In addition, the capacity of the EPA in relation to enforcement has been enhanced by powers contained in the Protection of the Environment Act 2003. The main responsibilities of the EPA include the following:

■ licensing large/complex industrial and other processes with significant polluting potential;

■ monitoring environmental quality, including the establishment of databases to which the public have access;

■ publishing periodic reports on the state of the environment;

■ promoting environmentally sound practices;

■ promoting and co-ordinating environmental research;

■ licensing all significant waste disposal and recovery activities, including landfills, and the preparation of a national hazardous waste management plan;

■ implementing a system of permitting for the control of VOC emissions resulting from the storage of significant quantities of petrol at terminals;

■ implementing and enforcing the GMO Regulations for the contained and deliberate release of GMOs into the environment;

■ preparing and implementing a national hydrometric programme;

■ drafting a National Allocation Plan for greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading; the establishment of a National Competent Authority for the issuing of trading permits and allowances to those covered by the scheme; the monitoring, overseeing and verification of emissions from participating companies; and the establishment of a National Emissions Trading Registry;

and, under the Office of Environmental Enforcement, established in 2003 and dedicated to the implementation and enforcement of environmental legislation in Ireland:

■ improving overall compliance with environmental protection legislation in Ireland;

■ raising awareness about the importance of enforcement of environmental protection legislation in Ireland;

■ enforcing IPPC licences and Waste licences issued by the EPA;

■ auditing and reporting on the performance of local authorities in the discharge of their environmental protection functions, including:

■ enforcement in respect of breaches of waste permits,

■ taking action in relation to illegal dumping,

■ implementation of waste collection permits, and

■ enforcement of producer responsibility initiatives (for example, in the area of packaging waste);

■ taking action against local authorities that are not discharging their environmental protection functions in an adequate manner;

■ prosecuting, or assisting local authorities to prosecute, significant breaches of environmental protection legislation, in a timely manner; and

■ assisting local authorities to improve their environmental protection performance on a case by case basis, through the establishment of an enforcement network to promote information exchange and best practice, and by the provision of appropriate guidance.

Environmental Protection Agency

Public Perceptions, Attitudes and Values on the Environment - A National Survey

Strategic Policy Research Unit

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYAn Ghníomhaireacht um Chaomhnú Comhsaoil

PO Box 3000, Johnstown Castle, Co. Wexford, Ireland

Telephone: +353 53 916 0600 Fax: +353 53 916 0699

Email: [email protected] Website: www.epa.ie

Lo Call 1890 33 55 99

© Environmental Protection Agency 2006

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the material contained in this

publication, complete accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Neither the Environmental Protection

Agency nor the author accepts any responsibility whatsoever for loss or damage occasioned,

or claimed to have been occasioned, in part or in full as a consequence of any person acting or

refraining from acting, as a result of a matter contained in this publication. All or part of this

publication may be reproduced without further permission, provided the source is acknowledged.

Public Perceptions, Attitudes and Values on the Environment - A National Survey

Published by the Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland

ISBN: 1-84095-187-7 04/06/300

Price: €10

Public Perceptions, Attitudes and Values on the Environment A National Survey 3

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 4

Research Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 4

Key Findings ............................................................................................................................................... 5

2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 6

3. General Environmental Awareness .............................................................................................. 7

Hazardous Waste ...................................................................................................................................... 8

4. Householders’ Waste Management Practices ........................................................................ 9

Household Waste Management Activities .................................................................................... 9

Summary .....................................................................................................................................................11

5. Drinking Water - Householders’ Perspective .......................................................................13

Drinking Water Customers .................................................................................................................13

Quality of Service ...................................................................................................................................14

The Water that Households drink ...................................................................................................15

Drinking Water Monitoring ................................................................................................................17

Summary .....................................................................................................................................................17

6. Water Quality in Recreational Water Bodies .......................................................................18

Amenity Use of Water Bodies ..........................................................................................................18

Public’s Rating of Water Quality at Local Sites .......................................................................18

Summary .....................................................................................................................................................19

7. The Value of a clean Environment .............................................................................................20

Methodology .............................................................................................................................................20

Environmental Protection Services ................................................................................................20

Level of Concern - Illegal Waste Activity ...................................................................................21

Demand for Greater Environmental Enforcement ...................................................................22

Who Should Pay? ....................................................................................................................................22

The Value of a Clean Environment .................................................................................................23

Summary .....................................................................................................................................................24

Contents


1. Introduction

This work was commissioned by the EPA to investigate a range of environmental matters in

relation to the household sector. Both new information on household waste management

practices and information on householders’ experiences with environment-related services were

collected for the purpose of improving our understanding of householders experiences and

attitudes and also to better inform public policy.

The purpose of this survey research project included

n To collect information on public attitudes to the environment

n To value aspects of environmental protection

n To provide information on experiences with drinking water

n To provide information on household waste management practices

The research focuses on providing new information across a range of environmental issues

related to EPA work. The research focused on the household sector and provides a better

understanding of the household sector’s practices and attitudes to environment related issues,

information that can inform the development of environmental policy.

Research Methodology

The research project was undertaken with the assistance of a consultant survey research

company, Milliard Brown IMS, to help in the preparation of the questionnaire and administer

the survey. Data analysis and reporting were undertaken within the EPA.

The research strategy was to address a range of topics (e.g. littering, attitudes, waste management

practices, drinking water, etc) but given the budget constraints and surveying guidelines it was

not feasible to undertake in-depth research on each of the topics addressed. Accordingly, while

the analysis provides new insights it also raises many unresolved questions.


Key Findings

n Almost half of Irish adults consider waste management the most important environmental

issue facing Ireland today.

n One-in-ten adults admitted to burning their household waste, while 15% believe backyard

burning of household waste is acceptable.

n 1% of adults admitted to illegally dumping their household waste.

n Many householders are dissatisfi ed with the quality of their drinking water supply

encountering problems with taste, odour, discolouration, and contamination, often on a

continuous basis.

n Only half of households drink tap water without any further fi ltration/purifi cation system.

One fi fth of households rely on bottled water within their homes.

n Just 5% of adults rely on either the EPA or local authorities for information on the quality

of surface waters. The majority of people primarily assess surface water quality by visual

inspection.

n The adult population strongly favours increasing the level of environmental protection

through recruitment of additional enforcement staff, viewing additional expenditures on

enforcement in the range €235-320 million worthwhile and value for money.

The remainder of this report provides more detailed information on these key fi ndings plus

information on a range of other issues examined in the survey.


2. Methodology

The relevant information was collected by a survey of the adult population, which was

conducted in May-June 2005. Professional survey/market research company Milliard Brown IMS

administered the survey on behalf of the EPA. Milliard Brown IMS also contributed to the

questionnaire design and conducted two short pilot surveys to assist in the development of the

fi nalised questionnaire.

Survey interviews were conducted by telephone. Milliard Brown IMS undertook the sampling

for the survey and used a random digit dialling procedure and a survey quota system on key

characteristics (region, gender, age and social class) to ensure a representative sample of the

adult population was surveyed. In total 1,500 adults were interviewed from an initial effective

total sample of almost 5,500 telephone numbers giving a response rate of just over 27%. All

age and gender categories are well represented in the interviewed sample though females and

older age cohorts are slightly overrepresented compared to the census statistics.

Table 2.1: Survey Statistics

No. %

Effective Total Sample 5,495 100%

Refusal on Principal 1,978 36%

Refusal - Busy, etc 1,818 33%

Terminated interview 50 9%

Barriers to conducting interview (e.g. age, language) 149 2.7%

Successful 1,500 27.3%

Table 2.2: Adults Surveyed in comparison to actual adult population

Age (Years) Survey Sample (%) Census 2002 (%)

18-24 10 18.0

25-64 73 67.1

65+ 17 14.8

Total 100 100

Gender

Male 42 49.1

Female 58 50.9


3. General Environmental Awareness

To gauge the level of public concern for the different environmental problems that we face today

respondents were initially asked what they believed was the most important environmental issue

facing Ireland today. The responses are represented in the fi gure below. What is most striking

is that the majority of adults, 56%, consider that waste management is the most important

environmental issue facing Ireland today. This high level of concern obviously refl ects the

public's concern from the surge in illegal dumping in recent years, the rising cost of household

waste collection, and diffi culties with planning for waste management infrastructure. Other

pressing environment problems, such as those relating to water and air pollution, do not

generate nearly the same level of public concern.

Other

Air Quality

GlobalWarming

Factory Emissions

Sellafield

Cars/Traffic

Roads

Water Pollution

Agriculture

Planning & Green Spaces

Waste Management

Issues

56%

9%

8%4%

6%2%

3%

4%

6%

1%

1%

Waste, LitterRecyclingIllegal DumpingLandfillsIncinerationBin Charges

Figure 3.1: The most important environmental issued facing Ireland today


Table 3.1: Proportion that deem certain household products as hazardous on disposal

%

Car batteries .......................................................................................................................................................... 98

Appliance batteries ............................................................................................................................................ 89

Varnish ..................................................................................................................................................................... 86

Water based emulsion paint .......................................................................................................................... 47

Cooking oil ............................................................................................................................................................. 63

Bleach ...................................................................................................................................................................... 86

Motor oil from cars ............................................................................................................................................ 96

Weed killer & pesticides .................................................................................................................................. 96

Prescription medicines ..................................................................................................................................... 88

Fridges ...................................................................................................................................................................... 93

Hazardous Waste

Hazardous waste poses a major problem for waste management. Many of the most hazardous

wastes are concentrated at a few sources, which facilitate regulatory management and control.

However, hazardous waste contained within the household waste stream poses special logistical

problems for waste management. The survey was used to gauge the household sector's ability

to identify potentially hazardous wastes within the household and the results indicate that

people are generally very good at identifying wastes that potentially involve special disposal

procedures, or may in fact be hazardous waste.

The survey asked whether respondents deemed the waste from common household items to be

hazardous. Items such as water based emulsion paint is not hazardous and therefore does not

require special disposal, however, many of the items listed above are either hazardous or merit

careful management at disposal, e.g. fridges. It is reassuring that the public is quite profi cient

at identifying items that require special management at disposal.


4. Householders’ Waste Management Practices

The most comprehensive statistics on household waste management come from the EPA’s National

Waste Reports. The latest statistics for 2004 show that the public generates 430kg of household

waste per person, which is unsustainably high. The report also shows that households have

been continually improving their recycling performance. Household waste stream recycling

stood at 4.3% in 1995, had risen to 5.6% by 2001, and stood at 19.5% in 2004. What the

National Waste Database does not report is the proportion of households that engage in good

and bad waste management activities; this chapter sheds some light on this.

Household Waste Management Activities

Though the survey elicited information on interviewees’ personal waste management activities,

because of the collective nature of household waste management activity, the responses refl ect

the entire household’s behaviour.

Recycling:

The survey found that most adults (96%) now recycle, though it does not tell how much people

recycle. However, the fact that nearly all adults undertake some recycling is an important base

upon which to further increase total national household waste recycling rate of 19.5%.

Composting:

Over half of adults say they compost either food or gardening waste. In many cases the

composting only involves garden waste (e.g. grass and hedge clippings); for others it will

include municipal waste composting via ‘brown’ waste collection. These issues aside, that half

of all adults engage in some type of composting activity is a good base upon which to increase

the level of home composting.

Illegal Waste Activities:

Households’ behaviour with respect to illegal waste activities is less than satisfactory. Survey

interviewees were asked whether they engaged in various illegal activities, such as burning

household waste, with the responses interpreted as underestimates of the full extent of the

illegal activity because the statistics represent only people that actually admit engaging in

the illegal activity.

Prior to reporting statistics it is important to put the fi gures in context. Nationally, 23% of

households are not served by a waste collection service and it is estimated that ‘uncollected’

household waste totals some 227,000 tonnes. Not all of these households can be assumed

to dispose of their waste in an unauthorised manner, as some households without service

personally transport waste to landfi lls.


Burning Household Waste:

Backyard burning possibly accounts for the greatest proportion of illegal disposal of household

waste. The EPA survey found that 1-in-10 adults admitted to burning household waste though

the actual fi gure is likely to be higher. Most adults (80%) are aware that backyard burning

has environmental and health risks, with half specifi cally aware that backyard burning is

the greatest source of dioxins in Ireland. Twenty-seven local authorities have indicated that

backyard burning is a signifi cant problem in their functional area.

Backyard burning is a greater problem in less densely populated areas with 15% of rural dwellers

and 11% of village dwellers burning their household rubbish. The problem also exits in urban areas

though to a much lesser extent with approximately 1-in-25 burning their household rubbish.

Two issues that are especially worrying in the context of backyard burning is that 15% of

adults believe backyard burning is an acceptable method of waste disposal; and half of those

that admitted to burning did so in the knowledge of the public health implications due to the

associated release of dioxins. Therefore, while the greater majority accept that backyard burning

is both unacceptable and unsafe, a signifi cant minority still persist in the activity. Public

education and awareness campaigns are unlikely to be suffi cient to improve circumstances

considerably.

Figure 4.1: Backyard burning by dwelling location

0

4

8

12

16

20

RuralVillageTownSurburbiaCity

15%

11%

7%

4%4%


Illegal dumping/fly tipping:

Like backyard burning, fl y tipping is a serious problem. The survey found that 1% of adults

admitted to dumping household waste. As dumping is considered less socially acceptable than

burning it is likely that 1% signifi cantly underestimates the actual number of people engaging

in this activity. Casual observance would also suggest that fl y tipping is a major problem.

Illegal use of street bins:

The dramatic increase in waste collection charges in recent years has been one of the

contributory factors for the increase in illegal waste disposal activities that exist at present.

Disposal of household waste in public waste paper bins is one consequence that, while not

conspicuous, appears now to be relatively common occurrence. About 5% of adults admit to

disposing household waste in business skips or public litter bins.

Hazardous Liquids Disposal:

Another inconspicuous illegal waste activity is the disposal of waste household liquids, such as

oils, paints, or chemicals into sewers and rainwater drains. About 2% of adults admitted to such

activity. The disposal of waste liquids of this nature, some of which are potentially hazardous,

can cause damage to water courses and also impact on the effi cient operation of wastewater

treatment facilities.

Summary

As a nation we have made dramatic improvements in environmentally conscious household

waste disposal. Recycling has increased from very low levels to a current situation where 19.5%

of household waste is recycled and 96% of adults claim to undertake some recycling activities.

Home composting has also increased considerably in recent years.

However, on the negative side the level of household waste generation is high and unsustainable.

At present almost 430kg of household waste is generated per person with just 19.5% recycled.

The rest is either landfi lled or disposed of illegally. A substantial minority of people admit to

illegally disposing their waste and it is unlikely that awareness campaigns will dissuade all of

them from such activities, especially when we know that many of the people burning household

waste are aware of the harmful environmental and health consequences.


Table 4.1: Proportion of adults engaging in various waste management practices

Activity % of adults*

Compost food/garden waste 54

Purchase more environment sensitive products 65

Recycle 96

Dispose Household Waste in skips and public bins 5

Dump waste illegally 1

Dispose Hazardous waste in drains/sewers 2

Burn household rubbish 9

Table 4.2: Attitudes to Backyard Burning

% of adults

Backyard burning acceptable 15

Table 4.3: Perceived Dangers associated with Backyard Burning

% of adults*

Fire risk 47

Human health risk - breathing etc 57

Environment health risk - incl. Dioxins 82

Upset neighbours 2

* Percentages sum to greater than 100 as respondents indicated multiple reasons.


While the EPA report on drinking water quality for 2003 concluded that the quality of drinking

water in Ireland is generally satisfactory with an overall compliance with standards of 96.1%,

the EPA’s survey fi nds that customer satisfaction levels are not so high.

Drinking Water Customers

The distribution of adults by drinking water source (e.g. public, group, private well) interviewed

in the EPA survey broadly matches the actual distribution of drinking water supplies, which

enables us to use the survey results as an indication of drinking water customer satisfaction.

The EPA survey results conveys customer experience and satisfaction with drinking water

supplies whereas EPA reports on drinking water quality relate to compliance with drinking water

standards and not customer satisfaction.

5. Drinking Water - Householders’ Perspective

An estimated 1,700,000 m3 of drinking water is produced per day by public and group water

schemes. The supply of such a large volume of drinking water compliant with the drinking water

standards is a major challenge.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 Not known

Private Well

Group Water Scheme

Local Authority Supply

SurveyEPA’s Drinking Water Report 2003

Figure 5.1: Source of Drinking Water Supply


Quality of Service

In the survey people were asked whether they had experienced problems with their drinking

water supplies in the prior twelve months. Customer satisfaction varied substantially across

supply sources, with the people using private wells being the most satisfi ed.

Public water supplies encountered signifi cant problems with discolouration and sediment, with 30%

(40% for group schemes) claiming that they experience discoloured drinking water supplies. Roughly

15% of households with discoloured drinking water experienced the problem on a continuous basis.

Discolouration and sediment were also the most problematic issues for private well sources.

Problems with taste and odour are also common problems for households with public or group

scheme supplies. Approximately 20% of households experienced a bad odour and 30% a bad taste

from their public or group water supply in the previous 12 months. Almost half of households

with poor tasting drinking water experienced the problem on a continuous basis.

Approximately 8% of households claimed to have had bacterial contamination of their drinking

water in the prior 12 months. The 8% refers to households rather than water supplies with

roughly one quarter of these (i.e. 2%) said that the contamination was continuous.

Most of the problems encountered by households with their drinking water supplies are

manageable. However, a signifi cant minority of customers appear to receive a poor quality

service on a continuous basis. One quarter of all households claim to have experienced bad

tasting drinking water in the previous 12 months, with roughly half of these experiencing

the problem on an on-going basis. Others experienced problems with discolouration, poor

mains pressure, sediment and bacterial contamination on an on-going basis. While occasional

problems are to be expected poor service on regular basis is not satisfactory.

Source

Problem Private Well Group Water Local All Supplies Scheme Authority

Low Mains 8 35 33 29

Discolouration 16 40 30 29

Odour 6 20 18 16

Sediment 13 24 20 19

Hard 40 39 33 34

Bacteria 5 16 7 8

Taste 9 32 28 26

Table 5.1: Proportion of adults experiencing drinking water problems in previous 12 months, by water source (%)


Table 5.2: Frequency of water problem arising during past 12 months, all supplies

% Frequency

Problem Only Isolated Incidents Arose Continuous Incidents Intermittently Problem or Occasionally

Low Mains 24 44 32

Discolouration 35 48 15

Odour 21 50 27

Sediment 27 40 32

Hard Water 7 12 79

Bacteria 36 31 23

Taste 15 37 46

The Water that Households Drink

Twenty-fi ve years ago bottled water was relatively uncommon in Ireland whereas in 2003 the

bottled water market stood at 119 million litres with prospects for continued strong growth.

Some of this bottled water is consumed in the home even though there is a free alternative

available: tap water. The survey was used to establish the extent to which bottled water is

consumed in the home and understand why tap water is avoided.

The survey results indicate that roughly half of adults drink tap water, almost 30% use fi lter and

purifi cation systems on their tap water, while 20% drink bottled water in their homes.

The most common reason why tap water is avoided is because of its taste. A further third

of adults do so for precautionary reasons, whereas 16% suspect that the water is actually

contaminated.

Households’ dissatisfaction with drinking water supplies is refl ected in the fact that they make

very large expenditures to avoid drinking unfi ltered tap water. The survey found that on average

such households spend €182 per annum on fi ltration systems or bottled water. When aggregated

to refl ect the number of households nationwide that spend money on providing drinking water

other than tap water in the home, the total national expenditure is estimated at €76 million

per annum.


Figure 5.2: Source of drinking water consumed within households

Filter / Purification

System

BottledWater

JugFilter

Tap

52%

18%

20%

10%

Figure 5.3: Reasons given for not drinking tap water*

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Discolouration 1%

Chlorine / Flouride 1%

Bacteria 4%

Sediment 7%

Smell 7%

Hardness 7%

Suspicion 7%

Precaution 34%

Taste 37%



Drinking Water Monitoring

One possible reason for the high level of distrust or suspicion of drinking water quality is a

lack of awareness by the public of the extensive drinking water quality monitoring programmes.

Nationwide, only 17% of adults were aware that their drinking water supply was monitored

in the previous 12 months and of those only half were aware of the results of the monitoring

analysis. An increased level of awareness of on-going water quality monitoring may help dispel

the high level of distrust of drinking water supplies, however, quality monitoring does not

specifi cally cover taste or odour.

Summary

In 2003 most drinking water supplies in Ireland were considered satisfactory and compliant

with the drinking water quality standards. However, a signifi cant minority of householders are

unhappy with their drinking water supplies. As a result of normal maintenance of drinking water

supply systems one might expect occasional disruptions to drinking water supplies, resulting

in low mains pressure, or temporary discolouration of supplies, etc. However, the survey results

indicated that for a substantial number of people problems of this nature occur on a regular

basis, which is less than satisfactory. In general there is a relatively high level of distrust of

drinking water supplies, which results in many households using their own resources to provide

alternative water supplies.

Table 5.3: Awareness of drinking water quality monitoring by region

Region Awareness of Knowledge of monitoring(%) monitoring results(%)

Border 23 7

Midland 14 11

West 32 17

Mid-East 16 9

Dublin 6 2

Mid-West 28 16

South-East 25 13

South-West 15 10

All Regions 17 9


6. Water Quality in Recreational Water Bodies

The EPA and Local Authorities undertake an extensive monitoring programme of water quality

in inland rivers and lakes. The assessment for 2001-2003 was that water quality in our rivers is

considered to be generally of satisfactory quality with 69% having an unpolluted status and just

0.6% in a seriously polluted state, whereas 82% of lakes are considered to be of satisfactory

water quality. Monitoring of bathing waters, estuaries, and coastal waters is also undertaken.

This EPA survey establishes the level of public awareness of water quality monitoring programmes

and also the extent to which recreational water users avail of information on water quality.

Amenity Use of Water Bodies

Survey research undertaken by the Marine Institute reported that almost 1.5 million persons

aged 16 years and above engaged in some type of water based leisure activity in the year 2003

representing 49% of the population aged 16 years and above. The EPA’s survey focused on a

wider group; that of adults aged 18 years and above who were either recreational water users

or were knowledgeable about water bodies in their locality. Some 80% of adults fall into this

category.

Public’s Rating of Water Quality at Local Sites

Survey respondents were asked to rate the water quality at locations they were familiar with and

subsequently were asked on what information they based their assessments. This information

provides a crude indication of the public’s perception of water quality and the extent to which

the public relies on scientifi c assessments to inform their views.

Respondents were asked to rank water quality based on a four-point scale from very good

quality with no pollution to very poor quality with serious pollution. Responses are tabulated

below. A majority of adults (67%) believe that waters were at worst only slightly polluted,

though there is no benchmark from which to compare the public’s perception and actual water

quality status.

The survey fi nding of most concern is that the primary information source for the public’s

assessments of water quality may often be inaccurate. The majority of people rely on their

own visual inspections to assess water quality status. If people are to rely solely on visual

inspections they will often draw inaccurate conclusions mistaking turbid water for pollution

and assuming clear water is unpolluted. Just 5% relied directly on EPA or local authority

information, whereas 11% relied on local media reports that are most likely based on offi cial

monitoring reports.


Summary

A large proportion of the population utilise water bodies for recreational purposes. From a

public health and safety perspective it is important that such users are aware of water quality

status. The survey suggests that people rely to a very large extent on visual inspections to

assess water quality, which may in many instances be a poor indicator of quality. Whereas a

small minority rely on information provided by local authorities or the EPA, who actually assess

water quality.

Table 6.1: Survey Respondents’ Rating of Water Quality at best known/used sites

Personal Rating of Water Quality %

Very good quality with no pollution 28

Moderate quality with only slight pollution 39

Poor quality with moderate pollution 19

Very poor quality with serious pollution 11

Don’t Know 3

Total 100

Table 6.2: Source Information for Respondents’ Rating of Water Quality

Reason % of respondents *

Own Visual Inspection 73

Local Knowledge 22

Own Experience - from fi shing/boating etc. 13

Blue Flag Status 13

Local Media Reporting 11

Information from the LA or EPA 5

Other 10



Methodology

The analysis in the chapter is based on a survey of the general adult public, which asked

respondents a series of questions relating to litter, illegal dumping and remediation of illegal

dumpsites.

The questionnaire used a well-established survey methodology to elicit information on

preferences for environmental services, e.g. environment protection, and the extent to which

such services are value for money. The survey questionnaire outlined the full policy context

as well as the implications of respondent’s choices so that responses would provide a realistic

assessment of the public’s preferences for greater environmental enforcement and a cleaner

environment.

Whether related to the environment, public services (health, education, etc), or to private

goods, all must be paid for. In the context of a survey it is easy to say that you want more of a

good or service and that the government should provide it. This fact is refl ected in the survey

when 90% of respondents said that they favoured the recruitment of additional litter wardens.

However, when informed that the recruitment would require additional public expenditure,

support for the proposal fell to 77%, and further fell to 67% when respondents were told that

extra taxes would be needed to fund the recruitment. As this shows, the survey questions were

designed to ensure that respondents understood the full context and implications for both

public expenditure and its impact on their private resources.

Environmental Protection Services

The survey examined three issues: increased litter law enforcement; increased enforcement

to prevent (large-scale) illegal dumping; and remediation of illegal dump sites. To avoid

overburdening respondents with too many questions and scenarios, respondents were

questioned about only two of the three issues, either litter and remediation, or illegal dumping

and remediation. The purpose of the survey analysis was to ascertain:

7. The Value of a Clean Environment

Everybody would like a clean environment. Such a preference shows that the environment has

worth or value, however large or small. This chapter looks at environmental protection, and

in particular assesses the general public’s opinion on a series of environmental enforcement

actions and the extent to which the public believes such enforcement is value for money.


n the public’s awareness of the specifi c environmental problems

n whether the public is satisfi ed with current management of the problem

n the publics’ opinion on increased level of environmental protection

n the extent to which expenditure on increased environmental protection, through enforcement

or remediation, is considered worthwhile and value for money.

n the extent to which views on these three environmental protection proposals differ across

various segments of the population, thus providing a greater understanding of public

opinion.

Three scenarios, all related to illegal waste, were used to gain the broadest understanding of

the public’s attitudes to environmental protection measures. Under all three situations the

public benefi ts from increased environmental protection and improved environmental quality.

One scenario relates to prevention of small-scale environmental pollution - littering. The second

relates to prevention of large-scale environmental pollution - commercial-scale illegal dumping.

The third scenario relates to environmental pollution cleanup - remediation of illegal dumpsites.

The scenarios allow a range of opinions and attitudes related to illegal waste activity to be

examined.

Level of Concern - Illegal Waste Activity

The survey results show that the problem of illegal waste activity is not just a concern of small

group of affected interests but causes serious anxiety to the greater majority of the adult

population.

n 93% agree litter is a widespread problem

n 89% agree that illegal waste activity is major environmental problem

n 86% aware of environmental/health threats posed by illegal dumpsites

One could consider that litter and commercial scale illegal dumping are the two extremes of the

spectrum of illegal waste activities implying that 9-in-10 adults consider illegal waste activity

to be a major and widespread problem in Ireland today.


Up until recently Ireland had a history of not managing its waste in an appropriate environmental

manner. The fact that 86% of adults are now aware that illegal dumpsites threaten both

environmental quality and public health means that there has been a large ground-shift in

attitudes to waste management in a very short period.

Demand for Greater Environmental Enforcement

At least 9-in-10 adults were in favour of greater environmental protection by means of

additional environmental protection staff. The level of support for additional enforcement staff

declined as respondents were informed that the additional staff would require higher public

sector spending, fi nanced through additional taxation. An important result from the survey

is that over two-thirds of adults still favoured increased public expenditure for environmental

protection fi nanced by additional taxation. This is a clear indication that the public would like

to see a greater level of environmental protection.

n 67% willing to pay some extra tax to fund additional litter wardens

n 73% willing to pay extra tax to fund additional environmental protection staff

The public’s concern for maintaining a clean environment is also refl ected by the fact that two-

thirds of adults also indicated that they would voluntarily contribute to the cost of cleaning up

any illegal dumpsites in their county of residence. Though illegal dumpsite cleanup would not

normally be fi nanced in such a manner the fact that people are willing to voluntarily contribute

to ensure such work is completed shows the high level of public concern.

n 65% willing to voluntarily contribute for illegal dumpsite cleanup

Who Should Pay?

The preceding paragraphs mentioned that a majority were willing to contribute to measures

for better environmental protection. There were many opposing views in the survey on how

best to fund better environmental enforcement but there was consensus around a few points in

particular. Approximately 10% of respondents believe that the government should bear the cost

of increased environmental protection measures, though there is no information on whether

such measures should be fi nanced through greater effi ciency in environmental budgets or from

other areas of government spending. In the case of illegal dumpsite cleanup approximately 6%

said that the government should pay from existing resources whereas some 15% of adults felt

that the polluting party should be made pay. As mentioned above, a signifi cant majority are

willing to fund additional environmental protection measures through extra taxation.


The Value of a Clean Environment

The survey examined the idea of the value of a clean environment by examining how worthwhile

or valuable the public considers greater levels of environmental enforcement or illegal dumpsite

remediation. If the public both favours greater environmental protection, and is willing to pay

(e.g. via increased taxes) for that greater level of environmental protection then we can directly

infer that the enforcement actions and the consequent benefi ts (i.e. cleaner environment) are

considered worthwhile and value for money.

When we examined the results from the two survey scenarios on littering and larger scale

illegal dumping we found that, while the public was concerned with both types of illegal waste

activity, large scale illegal dumping was of greater concern. In terms of the value of a clean

environment and value for money we found that on average people were willing to pay for

greater enforcement; €84 per person per year for litter enforcement and €114 for enforcement

of larger scale dumping activity. These fi gures represent how much a clean environment,

achieved through greater enforcement, is worth to the public.

How much a cleaner environment is worth to people obviously varies by personal circumstances.

For example, people in counties of Wicklow, Kildare, and Meath were willing to pay up to €70

more than elsewhere for greater enforcement to prevent illegal dumping, which in part refl ects

the instances of illegal dumpsites in these counties. People with a university education were

willing to pay on average €90 more to ensure greater enforcement. In the case of litter law

enforcement, people that lived in rural areas or towns were willing to pay €25 per person more

compared to people living in the larger cities or suburbs. This may refl ect the better street

cleaning services in urban areas. In general men were willing to pay €25-35 more for greater

enforcement than women. Income obviously is an important factor in whether people can afford

to pay for greater enforcement with people on incomes higher than €45,000 on average willing

to pay, on average, €50 more than others.

A very signifi cant fi nding of the analysis was that the people who believed that their individual

actions could make a real difference to the environment were willing to pay €50-70 for increased

environmental enforcement. Overall in the survey some 83% of respondents believe that their

personal actions could make a real difference.

When these fi gures are summed across the adult population the aggregate willingness to pay is

between €235-319 million. What this estimate represents is how much a clean environment is

worth to the public. This estimate does not imply that the cost of additional enforcement staff

is €235-319 million. From a cost benefi t analysis perspective the cost of increasing the level of

enforcement for waste management activities is likely to be signifi cantly less that the benefi ts

derived from providing such a service.


Summary

The survey shows that the public is very aware of the issue of illegal waste activity in Ireland

today. A survey methodology asking the public what they would be willing to pay to fund

increased levels of environmental enforcement and therefore improve environmental quality

was used to infer whether additional public expenditure on environmental enforcement is

considered worthwhile and value for money. The analysis shows that the anticipated benefi ts

from a greater level of environmental protection are likely to be greater than the cost of

provision of additional enforcement.

Table 7.1: Survey Responses

Description Metric Litter Large Scale Dumping

Illegal Dump Site

Remediation

Agree issue is a widespread problem

% adults 93% 89% 86%

In favour of additional enforcement

% adults 90% 77% NA

Environmental Service discussed in the survey

Additional enforcement, litter wardens

Add itional enforcement

staff - illegal dumping

Illegal dumpsite clean-up

In favour of increased public expenditure on enforcement

% adults 77% 82% NA

In favour of increased public expenditure incorporating additional personal tax to fund increased enforcement

% adults 67% 73% NA

Willing to make voluntary contribution to dumpsite clean up

% adults NA NA 65%

Survey sample size No. 819 681 1500

Average willingness to pay per adult

€ €84 €114 €117

Adult population willingness to pay

€ million €235 €319 €210

STÁDAS NA GNÍOMHAIREACHTA

Is comhlacht poiblí neamhspleách í an Ghníomhaireacht um Chaomhnú Comhshaoil (EPA) a bunaíodh i mí Iúil 1993 faoin Acht fán nGníomhaireacht um Chaomhnú Comhshaoil, 1992. Ó thaobh an Rialtais, is í an Roinn Comhshaoil agus Rialtais Áitiúil a dhéanann urraíocht uirthi.

Déanann Bord Feidhmeach lánaimseartha comhdhéanta d’Ard-Stiúrthóir agus ceathrar Stiúrthóirí bainistíocht ar an EPA. Cinntítear neamhspleáchas trí nósanna imeachta roghnaithe i gcás an Ard-Stiúrthóra agus na Stiúrthóirí agus an tsaoirse, de réir mar a sholáthraítear sa reachtaíocht, gníomhú as a stuaim féin. Tá an sannadh, faoin reachtaíocht, maidir le freagracht dhíreach as réimse leathan feidhmeanna mar bhonn taca ag an neamhspleáchas sin. Faoin reachtaíocht, is cion sainiúil é iarracht a dhéanamh tionchar a imirt ar an Ghníomhaireacht, nó ar aon duine a bhíonn ag gníomhú thar ceann na Gníomhaireachta, ar bhealach míchuí.

Cuidíonn Coiste Comhairleach ar a bhfuil dhá chomhalta déag arna gceapadh ag an Aire Comhshaoil, Oidhreachta agus Rialtais Áitiúil leis an nGníomhaireacht.

FREAGRACHTAÍ

Tá réimse leathan dualgas agus cumhachtaí reachtúla ag an EPA faoin Acht fán nGníomhaireacht um Chaomhnú Comhshaoil. Chomh maith leis sin, tá curtha le hacmhainn an EPA maidir le forfheidhmiú le cumhachtaí san Acht um Chaomhnú an Chomhshaoil 2003. Áirítear orthu seo a leanas príomhfhreagrachtaí an EPA:

■ ceadúnú a dhéanamh ar phróisis thionsclaíocha mhóra/choimpléascacha a bhféadfadh cumas truaillithe suntasach a bheith ag baint leo;

■ monatóireacht ar chaighdeán comhshaoil, lena n-áirítear bunachair shonraí a bhunú ar a mbeidh rochtain ag an bpobal;

■ tuarascálacha tréimhsiúla maidir le staid an chomhshaoil a fhoilsiú;

■ sárchleachtais comhshaoil a chur chun cinn;

■ taighde comhshaoil a chur chun cinn agus a chomhordú;

■ gníomhaíochtaí diúscartha dramhaíola agus aisghabhála suntasacha, lena n-áirítear láithreacha líonta talún a cheadúnú agus plean bainistíochta guaisdramhaíola náisiúnta a ullmhú;

■ córas a chur i bhfeidhm a cheadaíonn rialú astaithe VOC a bhíonn mar thoradh ar scaoileadh GMOanna isteach sa chomhshaol in aon turas;

■ rialacháin GMO a chur i bhfeidhm agus a

fhorfheidhmiú ó thaobh GMOanna a choinneáil agus a scaoileadh amach sa chomhshaol in aon turas;

■ clár hidriméadrach náisiúnta a ullmhú agus a chur i bhfeidhm;

■ dréacht a chur le chéile de Phlean Leithroinnte Náisiúnta do thrádáil liúntas astaithe gáis ceaptha teasa; Údarás Inniúla Náisiúnta a bhunú le ceadanna trádála agus liúntais a eisiúint orthu siúd atá clúdaithe ag an scéim; monatóireacht, léargas, agus fíorú maidir le hastuithe ó chuideachtaí rannpháirteacha; agus Clár Trádála Astuithe Náisiúnta a bhunú;

agus, faoin Oifig Forfheidhmiúcháin Comhshaoil, a bunaíodh i 2003 agus atá tiomanta as reachtaíocht comhshaoil a chur i bhfeidhm agus a fhorfheidhmiú in Éirinn;

■ feabhas a chur ar chomhlíonadh reachtaíocht cosanta comhshaoil in Éirinn;

■ feasacht a ardú maidir leis an tábhacht a bhaineann le forfheidhmiú i gcás reachtaíochta cosanta comhshaoil in Éirinn;

■ ceadúnais IPPC agus ceadúnais Dramhaíola a eisíonn an EPA a fhorfheidhmiú;

■ iniúchadh agus tuairisciú ar fheidhmíocht údarás áitiúil maidir lena bhfeidhmeanna cosanta comhshaoil a chur ar bun, lena n-áirítear:

■ forfheidhmiú maidir le ceadúnais dramhaíola a sháraítear;

■ gníomh maidir le dumpáil mhídhleathach;

■ ceadanna bailithe dramhaíola a chur i bhfeidhm, agus

■ tionscnaimh a bheidh mar fhreagracht ar an táirgeoir a fhorfheidhmiú (mar shampla, sa réimse a bhaineann le dramhaíl pacáiste);

■ gníomh in aghaidh údarás áitiúil nach bhfuil ag comhlíonadh a gcuid feidhmeanna cosanta comhshaoil ar bhealach cuí;

■ an dlí a chur nó cuidiú le húdaráis áitiúla an dlí a chur ó thaobh sháraithe suntasacha reachtaíochta cosanta comhshaoil ar bhealach caoithiúil; agus

■ cuidiú le húdaráis áitiúla a gcuid feidhmíocht cosanta comhshaoil a fheabhsú ar bhonn cás ar chás, trí ghréasán forfheidhmithe a bhunú le malartú eolais a chur chun cinn chomh maith le sárchleachtas, agus trí threoir chuí a sholáthar.

An Ghníomhaireacht um Chaomhnú Comhshaoil

HeadquartersPO Box 3000, Johnstown Castle Estate County Wexford, IrelandBosca Poist 3000, Eastát Chaisleán Bhaile Sheáin Contae Loch Garman, Éire

T: +353 53 916 0600F: +353 53 916 0699

Regional InspectorateMcCumiskey House, RichviewClonskeagh Road, Dublin 14, IrelandCigireacht Réigiúnach, Teach Mhic ChumascaighDea-Radharc, Bóthar Cluain SceachBaile Átha Cliath 14, Éire

T: +353 1 268 0100F: +353 1 268 0199

Regional InspectorateInniscarra, County Cork, IrelandCigireacht Réigiúnach, Inis CaraContae Chorcaí, Éire

T: +353 21 487 5540F: +353 21 487 5545

Regional InspectorateJohn Moore Road, CastlebarCounty Mayo, IrelandCigireacht Réigiúnach, Bóthar Sheán de MórdhaCaisleán an Bharraigh, Contae Mhaigh Eo, Éire

T: +353 94 904 8400F: +353 94 902 1934

Regional InspectorateButts Green, Kilkenny, IrelandCigireacht Réigiúnach, Faiche an BhúitCill Chainnigh, Éire

T: +353 56 772 2329F: +353 56 776 5085

Regional InspectorateThe Glen, Monaghan, IrelandCigireacht Réigiúnach, An GleannMuineachán, Éire

T: +353 47 77600F: +353 47 84987

E: [email protected] W: www.epa.ieLo Call: 1890 33 55 99

Printed on an environmentally friendly paper stock

Documents

Public Perceptions, Attitudes and A National Survey Values ... · ﬁ nalised questionnaire. Survey interviews were conducted by telephone. Milliard Brown IMS undertook the sampling