35
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District March 20, 2014 Prepared by Gomez Research Residential Wood Burning, Lawn Care, and Commuting Survey 2014 Research Findings
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
March 20, 2014
Prepared by Gomez Research
1
Residential Wood Burning, Lawn Care, and
Commuting Survey 2014
Research Findings
Presentation Overview:
• Purpose of Research
• Methodology
• Findings
• Residential Wood Burning
• Residential Lawn Care
• Commuting Patterns
• General Beliefs and Awareness
2 Gomez Research
Provide data for estimating residential emissions and informing future outreach strategies
3 Gomez Research
Wood-Burning
Frequency
Use of gas-
powered lawn
equipment
Personal
Commuting
Behavior
Purpose of the Research:
• 1,000 telephone surveys with owners and renters of single family homes in the San Joaquin Valley
• Margin of error +/-3 % at the 95% confidence level
• Stratified random sample/RDD Dialing
• Landline and cell phone interviews
• English and Spanish
• Conducted January 3 to January 19, 2014
4 Gomez Research
Methodology:
• To complement the survey research, 40 telephone interviews were conducted with community stakeholders regarding perceptions of the District and air quality policies
• Interviewees included:
• Citizen Advisory Committee Members
• Members of the District’s Environmental Justice Advisory Group
• Commercial Lawn/Garden representatives
• Drive Cleaner program representatives
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Board Members
5 Gomez Research
Qualitative Component:
Council of Accountable Physician Practices Communications Workgroup
Friday, February 29, 2008
6
Residential Wood Burning
Presence of Wood-Burning Devices
7 Gomez Research
Nearly one-third (32 percent) of all residents surveyed reported having a wood-burning device in their home.
No Wood-Burning Device, 68%
Pellet Stove, 3%
Wood Stove, 4%
Wood-Burning Fireplace, 25%
Figure 1: Residents with a Wood-Burning Fireplace, Wood Stove or Pellet Stove Respondents Overall (n=1,000)
No Wood-Burning Device Pellet Stove Wood Stove Wood-Burning Fireplace
Use of Wood-Burning Devices
8 Gomez Research
More than half of all residents with a wood-burning fireplace or stove reported that they do not use their devices (59 percent), up from 49 percent in 2010.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Not at all
Less than once a week
Once a week
Several days a week
Nearly everyday
59%
17%
8%
7%
8%
Figure 2: How Often Residents use their Fireplace/Stove in the Winter Months, Among Respondents Who Use Their Wood-Burning Device (n=330)
Use of Wood-Burning Devices
9 Gomez Research
Nearly two-thirds of residents (65 percent) burn their devices for four hours or less. Respondents who reported using their devices weekly reported burning fires longer each time.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
24 hours a day
7-13 hours
5-6 hours
3-4 hours
1-2 hours
10%
7%
15%
42%
24%
Figure 3: Number of Hours Residents Reported Burning a Fire, Once Started Among Respondents Who Use Wood-Burning Devices (n=133)
Type of Fuel Burned
10 Gomez Research
Nearly three-fourths of residents surveyed (71 percent) burn seasoned firewood, followed by a third (32 percent) who use manufactured logs, such as Duraflame and 13 percent who use pellets.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Other (specify)
Trash, magazines, newspapers, other householdmaterials
Pellets
Partially dried wood that has some moisture
Manufactured logs, such as Duraflame
Seasoned firewood, split and dried
1%
11%
13%
22%
32%
71%
Figure 4: Type of Fuel Burned Among Respondents Who Use Wood-Burning Devices (n=133)
Regional Differences in Wood Burning
11 Gomez Research
Residents in the Northern Region, including San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Merced Counties, were more likely to own wood-burning devices compared to other residents.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
South (n=325)
Central (n=305)
North (n=368)
28%
28%
37%
Figure 5: Proportion of Residents with Wood-Burning Devices Respondents Overall, by Region
Awareness of Check Before You Burn
12 Gomez Research
The Check Before You Burn Program continues to be widely recognized by residents.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Not Sure/Refused
No
Yes
4%
12%
83%
2%
18%
80%
Figure 6: Awareness of the Check Before You Burn Program Respondents Overall, 2010 and 2014
2014 (n=133)
2010 (n=640)
Impact of the Check Before You Burn Program
13 Gomez Research
More than three-fourths (78 percent) of residents with wood-burning devices who had heard of the Check Before You Burn Program reported that they had reduced their wood-burning as a result.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Don’t Know
Maybe
No
Yes
1%
5%
16%
78%
Figure 7: Residents Who Reported Reducing Wood-Burning In Response to the Check Before You Burn Program
Respondents Aware of the Program (n=110)
Awareness of the Burn Cleaner Rebate Program
14 Gomez Research
Less than a quarter of all residents surveyed (17 percent) reported that they had heard of the Burn Cleaner Program, suggesting that more outreach is needed.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Not Sure/Refused
No
Yes
1%
82%
17%
Figure 8: Residents Aware of the Burn Cleaner Program Respondents Overall (n=1,000)
Interest in the Burn Cleaner Rebate Program
15 Gomez Research
Just under one-third of residents (29 percent) reported that they would be willing to switch devices if they could use it on some No-Burn days.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Don’t Know/Refused
I already have a clean-burning device
No
Yes
8%
5%
58%
29%
Figure 9: Residents Willing to Replace Their Traditional Fireplace/Stove Respondents with Wood-Burning Devices (n=330)
16
Interest in the Burn Cleaner Rebate Program
• A total of 12 percent of all residents with traditional wood- burning devices reported that they would be willing to make the purchase if given a 15 percent discount.
• Findings suggest that approximately 24 percent of residents with wood-burning devices would participate in the program if the rebate were increased to 50 percent (combined totals for residents who would participate at 15, 25, and 50 percent levels.)
Gomez Research
Beliefs about Wood Smoke
17 Gomez Research
More than half of all residents surveyed (55 percent) reported that they believe wood smoke is a significant source of air pollution in their neighborhoods.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Don’t Know/Refused
No
Yes, probably
Yes, definitely
5%
41%
20%
35%
Figure 10: Residents Who Believe Wood Smoke is a Significant Source of Air Pollution Respondents Overall (n=1,000)
Council of Accountable Physician Practices Communications Workgroup
Friday, February 29, 2008
18
Residential Lawn Program
Use of Professional Lawn Care Services
19
The majority of San Joaquin Valley residents (61 percent) tend to their own lawns
rather than hire a service.
Gomez Research
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Don’t know/Refused
Don’t have a lawn/Don’t care for it
A lawn serivice does all the yard work
I or others in the household do some of the yard workand a lawn service does the rest
I or others living in the household do all the yard work
2%
8%
25%
3%
61%
Figure 11: Proportion of Residents Who Use a Lawn Care Service Respondents Overall (n=1.000)
Use of Gas-Powered Lawn Equipment
20
Nearly three-fourths of residents (73 percent) who care for their own lawns and
gardens use gas-powered equipment, most frequently walk-behind lawn mowers (84
percent), lawn edgers (39 percent), string trimmers (38 percent), and leaf blowers (35
percent).
Gomez Research
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Don’t know/Refused
No
Yes
2%
25%
73%
Figure 12: Proportion of Residents Using Gas-Powered Lawn or Garden Equipment Respondents Who Care for their Own Lawns (n=639)
Use of Gas-Powered Lawn Equipment
21 Gomez Research
Frequency of Professional Lawn Services
22
Most residents (54 percent) use a service four times a month during the summer,
followed by 22 percent who use a service every other week.
Gomez Research
Frequency of Professional Lawn Services
23
Approximately half (46 percent) of residents who use a lawn service reported that
their lawn service comes as frequently during the winter months.
Gomez Research
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%Yes, 46%
No, 51%
Don’t know, 3%
Figure 15: "Does the Lawn Service Come as Often During Winter?" Among Respondents Who Use a Lawn Service (n=291)
Interest in Eco-Friendly Lawn Services
24
Residents were asked if they would consider switching to a lawn care service that
used cleaner equipment . A total of 41 percent of respondents reported that they
would switch if it cost less or the same as their current service but another 41
percent said they would not consider switching regardless of cost.
Gomez Research
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Don’t know/Refused
Would not consider
Costs more than current service
Costs same as current service
Costs less than current service
15%
41%
2%
16%
25%
Figure 16: Would Consider Switching to Lawn Service with Cleaner Equipment Respondents Who Use a Lawn Care Service (n=291)
Clean Green Yard Machines Rebate Program
25
Eighty-four percent of all residents surveyed reported that they were not aware of
the Clean Green Yard Machines Rebate Program.
Gomez Research
Don’t know, 1% Yes, 15%
No, 84%
Figure 17: Residents Aware of the Clean Green Yard Machines Rebate Program Respondents Overall (n=1,000)
26
Demographic Differences
• Spanish speakers were much less likely than English
speakers to report that they had heard of the Rebate
Program (5 percent of Spanish speakers compared to 18
of English speakers).
• In addition, Spanish-speaking residents were more likely
to care for their own lawns. More than two-thirds of
Spanish speakers (69 percent) reported that they or
others in their household do all the yard work, compared
to 58 percent among English speakers, a statistically
significant difference.
Gomez Research
Council of Accountable Physician Practices Communications Workgroup
Friday, February 29, 2008
27
Commuting Patterns
Current Commuting Patterns
28
Half of the residents surveyed reported that they drive alone to work, followed by 30
percent who do not work outside of the home.
Gomez Research
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Don’t Know/Refused
Work at home one or more days a week
Use public transportation
Walk or bike
Drive in carpool or vanpool
Don’t work outside the home
Drive alone
1%
2%
2%
3%
12%
30%
50%
Figure 18: How Residents Travel to Work Respondents Overall (n=1,000)
Interest in Employer Incentive Programs
29
Approximately half of commuters surveyed reported that they would consider
carpooling if their employer provided a more flexible work schedule, financial
incentives, assistance with coordinating carpool partners, or free parking.
Gomez Research
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
My employerprovided a more
flexible workschedule
My employerprovided a
financial incentive
I could getassistance with
finding a carpoolpartner in myneighborhood
My employerprovided freedesignated
carpool parking
My employerprovided on-site
food serviceand/or lunch
51% 49%
45% 43% 40%
Figure 19: Conditions Under Which Residents Would Consider Carpooling Among Respondents Who Drive Alone (n=452)
How Students Travel to School
30
Among residents with school-age children nearly half reported that they drive their
children to school. One-quarter of all students walk or bike to school.
Gomez Research
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Don’t Know/Refused
My children are home schooled
Carpool with other students
Take public transportation
Drive themselves
Take the school bus
Walk or bike
Someone in household drives them
0%
1%
1%
2%
4%
21%
24%
46%
Figure 20: How Children are Transported to School Among Respondents with School-Age Children (n=381)
Reasons Students Do Not Walk or Bike
31
The primary reasons for not allowing children to walk or bike to school were
distance and concerns about safety.
Gomez Research
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Refused to answer
Not enough time in the schedule
No sidewalk in my neighborhood
Concerned about safety
Too far
3%
7%
2%
43%
44%
Figure 21: Reasons Residents Do not Allow Their Children to Walk to School Among Respondents Whose Children Do Not Walk or Bike (n=281)
Beliefs about Car Idling at Schools
32
More than two-thirds (69 percent) of residents with school-age children agreed that
idling cars are a significant source of air pollution.
Gomez Research
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Don’t know/Refused
No
Yes
7%
25%
69%
Figure 22: Awareness of Idling as a Source of Air Pollution Among Respondents with School-Age Children (n=381)
Council of Accountable Physician Practices Communications Workgroup
Friday, February 29, 2008
33
General Beliefs and Awareness
Perceptions of Local Air Quality
34
Most residents believe the air quality in the San Joaquin Valley has improved or
stayed the same compared to three years ago (similar to results from 2010).
Gomez Research
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Much Worse
Somewhat Worse
About the Same
Somewhat Better
Much Better
13%
20%
51%
11%
4%
14%
15%
50%
9%
4%
Figure 23: Public Perception of Local Air Quality Respondents Overall, 2010 and 2014 (n=1,000)
2014
2010
Perceptions of the Air Pollution Control District
35
More than two-thirds (68 percent) of all residents familiar with the agency reported
that they had a “very favorable” or “somewhat favorable” view of the District.
Gomez Research
