Environmental Values
Center Surveys Members & Concerned Citizens
To substantiate our positions on current issues and to improve our understanding of the opinions and priorities
of the coastal public and Center members, we occasionally ask questions using formal surveys. From August
through November of 2002, as opportunities arose, we solicited responses to a one-page questionnaire
asking eight questions. Following is a summary of these responses.
It must be noted that the individuals who completed the survey were already concerned about environmental
issues due to their participation in a variety of meetings and events where the forms were provided.
Thus, the survey is not necessarily representative of the general public. Even so, we believe it reveals
some important insights about the perceptions and priorities held by a significant segment of the coastal
Georgia citizenry. This is particularly noteworthy in that other surveys indicate that such environmentally
aware respondents are more politically active than average, therefore more likely to express their concerns
about public issues by voting and in communicating with elected officials.
1. What is the single most important environmental issue that our (coastal) region faces?
- Water quality & supply
- Land development
- Toxic waste sites
- Air quality
- Decline in fish &
wildlife
Water quality and water supply was by far the issue of greatest concern - nearly half of those surveyed
thought this was the greatest challenge to the region. Second place was given to land development,
which about one-fifth of the respondents felt was most important.
2. Do you think current air and water standards should be strengthened, left the same or weakened?
By an overwhelming majority (nearly 83%) people thought that regulations need to be strengthened.
Several commented that existing standards must be better enforced. This is in sharp contrast with
several recent actions taken at the federal level that have reversed the trend toward stronger safeguards.
3. Do you think, compared with other states, Georgia's environmental record is about average, better than
average, or below average?
Only 13% of survey respondents said that Georgia's environmental record is better than average. Some
45% thought the state was about average, and over 30% said Georgia was below average or unacceptable.
4. Do you think, compared with other areas of Georgia, the coast's environmental record is about average,
better than average, or below average?
This region's environment fared better than the state's according to the opinions of those surveyed,
but the majority thought the coast's environmental record was no better than average (30% about average,
almost 25% below average, some 21% above average). This result may seem to contradict appearances,
when comparing Georgia's coastline with those of other states. But keep in mind, those responding
are more familiar with environmental quality and enforcement issues than many members of the general
public. And further, historically Georgia's coast has been less exposed to the pressures of urbanization
than many other coastal states, such as Florida, New Jersey, and California. Finally, environmental
quality is a mix of many factors, some of which are not obvious to the casual observer. For instance,
rapid decline of the blue crab in Georgia (associated with numerous factors, including water quality)
belies the apparently pristine condition of our coast suggested by serene marsh vistas.
5. Do you think more state funding should go towards developing energy and water conservation, acquiring
greenspace, and supporting conservation technologies?
Almost two thirds of survey respondents strongly agreed with this proposal (around 64%), and another 25%
agreed with it. Combined, over 88% of people surveyed thought that more state funds should be allocated
to the above environmental programs. This contrasts greatly with current state budgeted trends -
which have brought a reduction in funding for such items, except for greenspace, which is supported
by special funding sources not affected by state tax revenues. To get needed funds appropriated, a
significant educational effort
must be made to convince elected officials that it is in the public interest.
6. Do you think that polluters should pay for cleaning up their contamination and other harm,
like related public health problems?
There was no more strident response than the strong agreement with this principle (71%).
And adding those who simply agreed with it accounts for over 90% of the survey population.
While concurrence with this proposition may seem obvious, there is an active proposal in Washington
(with a good chance to pass in Congress) that would eliminate the "polluter pays" requirement from the
EPA "Superfund" program (under which most toxically contaminated sites are cleaned up). Here again,
to succeed in getting policy that reflects our views, we must aggressively collaborate with like-minded
organizations throughout the country to win support of elected officials.
7. Do you think that the coastal economy depends on a clean and healthy environment?
Again, over 90% agreed with the statement linking the economy to our environment (55% strongly so).
Yet, public policy, as demonstrated by permitting decisions and environmental conditions, is in
troubling contradiction to this overwhelming opinion. We continue to witness the use of water,
release of pollutants (in air and water alike), and development of land that is being permitted by
state and local government in the name of economic development without adequate assessment of
consequences. And too few permitting decisions include any serious analysis of the impacts on
existing nature-based business - such as tourism, commercial and recreational fishing, and seafood
processing. As a result, not only are officials taking unjustifiable risks with our environment,
but they are imposing unexamined threats on existing jobs while trying to create new employment
through development projects.
8. Do you think that some coastal businesses are being hurt by environmental problems?
Consistent with their other opinions, people responding to the survey were overwhelmingly concerned
about harm being imposed on our existing businesses by declining environmental quality. Some 90%
expressed agreement, over half having strong agreement, with the premise. Analysis outlined in the
previous paragraph suggests that the challenge ahead will require more compelling documentation of
these threats to win support for stronger environmental safeguards having economic benefits as well.
Conclusions
(1) We need to continue measuring and interpreting public opinion, and providing documentation of their
implications. Whenever possible, we should expand the numbers and demographic groups being sampled to
compile increasingly compelling and convincing data to support responsible positions on environmental
policy.
(2) When opinions differ sharply with current trends, conditions, and practices, these contradictions
must be given priority treatment. Consistent with these priorities, we should build strong,
well-substantiated arguments for reforming policies, and present them to the public, local, state,
and federal elected officials, and develop media campaigns in collaboration with other groups.
(3) Survey methods should be refined and targeted to measure and improve our ability to educate the
public and to learn more about how opinions are formed and their influence over behavior. For
instance, studies show that some individuals who express strong concern about the environment do
not make decisions as consumers, workers, and voters that are consistent with these priorities.
What Do You Think?
- Would you like to share your opinions about any of the questions raised in our survey?
If so, we encourage you to call, e-mail, or write us.
- If you would like to assist in administering this survey to your group or in your community,
please let us know.
- We also welcome your remarks suggesting how we might improve or expand the survey or our
analysis of it.
- The Center is always interested in the public's ideas and opinions - about the issues as
well as our work on them. With your help, we can bring positive change to coastal Georgia!
|
 |
