I. Purpose

            The survey is an important step in the Boundary Air Quality Committee's goal to engage, to inform and to listen to the public.   Data will provide a baseline assessment on public attitudes and behavior over time. Similar questions can then be asked in the future in order to evaluate changes.   The survey will guide the committee's recommendations to local governments for bylaw implementation. The committee will also make recommendations for volunteer guidelines for individuals and organizations.    Moreover, data will provide demonstrated support as the committee seeks funding for the long-term work that would bring improvements in the monitoring and analysis of the air shed.

II. Methodology

            Thirteen questions, or agreement statements, were adapted from previous public surveys conducted on air quality in BC and Canada.   Rather than open-ended questions, respondents were asked to rate their agreement with key statements between the numbers 1, which equaled strong disagreement, and 4, strong agreement.   Respondents were also given the choice to rate each statement as a DK, Don't Know, if they had no opinion on the statement.   Respondents were also given the opportunity to write additional comments.    

            The survey was mailed to 3100 households in November and December 2006 within the municipality and the surrounding regional district as part of the regular city newsletter. Copies were available at the counter of city hall.   Moreover, copies were made and distributed throughout the community by individuals and groups.   There was no attempt to identify respondents other than through postal area codes.

            Over a period of three weeks more than 360 surveys were collected and tabulated.   The Community Engagement Team of the BAQC hand scored the surveys on tally sheets and recorded many of the comments directly into computers.   Almost half of the surveys submitted had written comments.   The tally sheets were then combined and typed into an Excel spreadsheet organized by area codes and questions.   The resulting averages for the entire population as well as for each area code were the basis for the following general observations.

III. Observations

            The survey found five areas of strong agreement within the entire population.   Almost all respondents agreed that the issue of air quality was very important (3.78 /4).   They also agreed that poor air quality affected their health and that of their family (3.51 /4).   Respondents also identified industry as being most responsible for the poor air quality (3.45 /4).   They then identified the burning of yard wastes as having the greatest impact on local air quality (3.11 /4).   Respondents also agreed that municipal bylaws restricting outside burning have helped to improve air quality (3.05 /4)

            Besides the five areas of strong agreement, there were three areas that rated general agreement.   Respondents indicated that the BAQC played an important role in the improvement of air quality (2.89 /4).   Respondents also indicated that it was important to curtail emission-producing activities on a poor air quality day (2.87 /4). Respondents indicated that some sort of restriction on old wood stoves would also be helpful (2.55 /4).

            Although there was not strong agreement between all respondents, there were two other areas of general concern for emissions.   Vehicle emissions can be a real problem in specific neighborhoods (2.51 /4).   To a lesser degree wood smoke was also identified as a problem source of emissions in specific neighborhoods (2.25 /4).

            When the responses are examined by area code there are different opinions between urban and rural. Not surprisingly, the importance of wood heat to the family home varied from urban to rural areas. Responses ranged from low importance in 1H0 (1.97 /4) and in 1H2 (1.92 /4) to high importance in 1H1 (3.67 /4) and in 1H8 (3.4 /4). Another area of difference between area codes was over the effectiveness of outside burning bylaws. Rural area code 1H9 rated them relatively ineffective (2.20 /4) while urban 1H0 rated them effective (3.13 /4).   Disagreement about what to do about old wood stoves was also apparent between area codes. Generally urban areas favored a bylaw response (2.58 /4) while rural areas did not (1.78 /4). Yard burning was also identified as more of a problem in urban areas (3.25 /4) than in rural areas (2.30 /4)

            The survey also asked respondents to identify the most effective media to communicate air advisories.   Although it is technically the easiest way to publish the information, the Internet was rated the least effective (1.91 /4). Newspaper (2.57 /4) and radio (2.58 /4) were identified as the most effective way to transmit the information.

IV. The Survey Questions and Total Results