Air Pollution - Information Needs and the Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviour of Canadians - Final Report

12.0 Informational Behaviour (continued)

12.4 Information Preferences (continued)

University graduates are more likely to suggest that the human health effects of air pollution (78%) and what individuals can do to reduce air pollution (71%) are very useful types of information. The least educated (67%) are more likely to suggest that a forecast of how long an air pollution episode is expected to last is very useful. The least affluent assign higher levels of usefulness than the other income groups to more than half of the seven types of information we investigated in this survey: the types of pollutants causing poor air quality (70% very useful); what individuals can do to limit personal exposure to air pollution (69% very useful); a forecast of how long an air pollution episode is expected to last (68% very useful); and what governments are doing to address air pollution (60% very useful).

Francophones are more likely than anglophones to suggest that each type of air pollution information is very useful. This difference was most significant for what governments are doing to address air pollution (72% vs. 47%) and the types of pollutants causing poor air quality (78% vs. 59%). Given this finding, it is not surprising to find that Quebecers are the most positive about the various types of information. Residents of Manitoba and Saskatchewan are more likely than others to suggest that the air quality index or level of pollution for that day is not useful information.

Canadians living in large communities are more likely to suggest that what individuals can do to limit personal exposure to air pollution (67%), the air quality index or level of pollution for that day (62%), and what governments are doing to address air pollution (58%) is very useful information.

It is interesting to note that Canadians who feel that the environment has the biggest impact on a person's health (78%) are more likely than those who feel that other factors have the biggest impact to say that information regarding the human health effects of air pollution is very useful.

As concern about air quality and the perceived effects of air pollution on health increases, positive assessments of these types of information also increase. While one-third (34%) of those who are not concerned about air quality feel that it is very useful for them to know the air quality index or level of pollution for that day, this proportion increases to more than six in ten (63%) among those who are very concerned about air quality. Similarly, eight in ten (81%) of those who feel that air pollution has a great deal of effect on health think that the human health effects of air pollution is very useful information, compared to only one-half of those who feel that air pollution has little to no effect on health (51%).

Those who report that air pollution in their community has worsened provide more positive assessments for information concerning the human health effects of air pollution (78% very useful), what individuals can do to reduce air pollution (72% very useful) and the air quality index or level of pollution for that day (68% very useful). Those who feel that air pollution in their community has improved and those who feel that it has worsened assign virtually identical levels of usefulness to information regarding what individuals can do to limit their personal exposure to air pollution (68% very useful vs. 67%), a forecast of how long an air pollution episode is expected to last (67% very useful vs. 68%), and the types of pollutants causing poor air quality (67% very useful vs. 67%).

Those with respiratory illnesses are more likely than those without respiratory illnesses to suggest that each of type of air pollution-related information is very useful. This difference was most notable for information regarding the human health effects of air pollution (80% vs. 70%) and a forecast of how long an air pollution episode is expected to last (72% vs. 59%).

It is worth noting that those who strongly agree that individuals can take actions to effectively reduce air pollution assign higher levels of usefulness for each type of information than those who are less optimistic about the effectiveness of individual action. Not surprisingly, this is most notable with respect to information regarding what individuals can do to limit personal exposure to air pollution and what individuals can do to reduce air pollution.

12.5 Credibility of Information Sources

Environment Canada and Health Canada are seen as the most credible sources of air pollution information, while municipal governments and the Internet are seen as less credible.

Canadians tend to offer positive assessments regarding the credibility of the various information sources we reviewed in this survey. All of the sources, except the Internet and municipal governments, are seen as either somewhat or very credible by more than eight in ten Canadians.

More than nine in te n believe that Environment Canada (69% very credible, 26% somewhat credible) and Health Canada (65% very credible, 28% somewhat credible) are credible sources of information about air pollution. The mainstream media (42% very credible, 48% somewhat credible) and partnerships among governments, health groups and non-governmental organizations (41% very credible, 46% somewhat credible) are also seen as credible sources of information by an overwhelming majority of Canadians. Eight in ten think that their provincial government (33% very credible, 50% somewhat credible) and environmental groups (35% very credible, 45% somewhat credible) are credible sources of information on this subject. Less than two in ten provide negative assessments of the credibility of their provincial government (11% not very credible, 5% not at all credible) and environmental groups (12% not very credible, 7% not at all credible).

Three-quarters (75%) view their municipal governments as a very (26%) or somewhat credible (49%) source of air pollution information. Two in ten (22%) suggest their municipal government is a not very (15%) or not at all credible (7%) source of information. While seven in ten see the Internet (28% very credible, 42% somewhat credible) as a credible source of information, Canadians also tend to provide more negative assessments (12% not very credible, 6% not at all credible) of this medium. In addition, one in ten Canadians (12%) offer no opinion on the credibility of the Internet.

Canadians between 16 and 29 years of age feel more positively about the credibility of the Internet and Health Canada than do older Canadians. Those between 30 and 44 years of age tend to provide more positive assessments of the credibility of Health Canada, the Internet, Environment Canada and their municipal government. Canadians 60 years of age are less flattering regarding the credibility of the Internet.

Francophones are more likely than anglophones to report that each of these information sources is very credible. While francophones (29%) are somewhat more likely than anglophones (25%) to suggest that their municipal government is a very credible source of information about air pollution, they are also more likely to offer negative assessments of the credibility of their municipal government (28% not very or not at all credible vs. 20%).

Those with less than a high school education tend to report higher levels of credibility for the mainstream media, environmental groups and their municipal governments; however, they are less complimentary about the credibility of the Internet. Better educated Canadians are the most positive about the credibility of partnerships among governments, health groups and non-governmental organizations.

Women (45%) are more likely than men (39%) to suggest that the mainstream media (e.g., radio, TV, newspapers, magazines) are a very credible source of information about air pollution.

The most affluent are more likely to say that both Environment Canada (79%) and Health Canada (75%) are very credible sources of information. They also assign a higher overall level of credibility to the Internet (77% somewhat and very credible). Those with an annual household income between $50-70K are more likely than others to view Environment Canada (76% very credible) and partnerships among governments, health groups and non-governmental organizations (52% very credible) as having more credibility. The least affluent provide more positive assessments of the credibility of environmental groups (40% very credible), their provincial governments (38% very credible) and their municipal governments (31% very credible).

Canadians from small communities tend to offer the least positive assessments of the credibility of their municipal governments (28% not very or not at all credible).

It is worth noting that while concern about air quality and the perceived effects of air pollution on health have had a significant impact on opinions and practices in a number of issues relating to air pollution, they do not appear to have as much of an impact on perceptions of credibility of possible information sources. That having been said, those who are very concerned about air quality and those who feel that air pollution has a great deal of effect on health do tend to offer more positive assessments of the credibility of the various information sources.

While the focus group participants had strong reservations about the credibility of air quality information provided by public companies offering related products and services, there was a consensus that information provided by meteorologists, universities, scientists and experts would be credible and respected. With regard to government departments, there was a sense that Environment Canada would enjoy particular respect and credibility when it came to reporting on weather conditions and environmental impacts. Health Canada, while not seen as having any particular expertise when it comes to assessing weather conditions, is seen to be the most credible in assessing the health impacts of air quality. As one participant commented:

“I would probably listen to a message from them (Environment Canada) in a more environmentally friendly way than from Health Canada, for example. Health Canada in terms of the health benefits and pros and cons, that sort of thing, but in terms of the environment, Environment Canada to me would be more credible.”

Health-oriented advocacy groups, such as the Canadian Lung Association or the Heart and Stroke Foundation, were seen to be generally credible, but not as credible as government departments. As for environmental groups, some participants viewed these groups as "too sensational" to be considered reliable information sources. Montreal participants expressed a preference that the air quality index come from a collaborative effort or partnership between governments and NGOs rather than from a single source, since this would increase the perceived reliability of the information. While participants in other locations had a slight preference for a more collaborative approach, they felt that a single credible and objective source could also be an effective sponsor of the air quality index