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

11.0 Personal Action

The battle to reduce air pollution can be fought on many fronts. Governments, industry and individuals can all do their part to help reduce air pollution. It is very challenging to persuade the general population that it is possible for them to take actions in this regard. Before attempting to convince the public to take specific actions, it is helpful to understand Canadians' sense of efficacy in this area, explore why they might feel that individual action is not possible, and identify those actions that they are most willing to undertake to fight air pollution. This chapter presents the results on these key questions.

11.1 Perceived Effectiveness of Individual Action

Nine in ten Canadians agree that individuals can take actions that will effectively reduce air pollution. Among those that feel such actions are not possible, a plurality say that even if individuals took action, it wouldn't make any difference.

Even though they tend to think that government regulation and enforcement is a more effective approach to combat air pollution than voluntary action by individuals, Canadians overwhelmingly endorse the view that individuals can take actions that will effectively reduce air pollution. A majority (55%) strongly agree with this assertion while another one-third (35%) somewhat agree. Only one in ten (10%) somewhat (6%) or strongly disagree (4%) that individuals can take actions that will effectively reduce air pollution.

Canadians who think that air pollution affects the health of Canadians a great deal (62%), the least affluent Canadians (62%), those who reside in communities with between 5,000 and 100,000 people (62%), those very concerned about air quality (60%), those with less than a high school education (60%) and Quebecers (60%) are the most likely to strongly agree that individuals can take actions that will effectively reduce air pollution.

Q.28 Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree that individuals can take actions that will effectively reduce air pollution? (n=1,213)

Among those who do not feel that individuals can take actions that would effectively reduce air pollution, two in ten (21%) say that even if individuals took action, it wouldn't make any difference. Approximately one in ten each feel that reducing air pollution is a government task (13%), that it can't be done at the individual level (13%), there is a lack of accountability/interest from public officials (13%), it is too much trouble (12%), it is not possible to take action (11%), or they don't know what to do (9%). Other reasons cited include that reducing air pollution requires organization or knowledge (7%), other sources of air pollution have more impact (6%), comments about the undue influence of corporations (6%), that reducing air pollution is business's responsibility (6%) and that air pollution is not a problem so no action is necessary (2%). Three percent mention a variety of other reasons, while seven percent offer no response.

Given that only 122 people responded to this question, the observed differences among the various demographic subgroups tend to be indicative rather than statistically significant. However, there are a few differences worth noting.

Canadians with a respiratory illness are almost four times as likely as those without a respiratory illness to argue that reducing air pollution should be a government task (28% vs. 8%). Those who feel that the air pollution in their community has become worse over the last five years are also more likely to offer this explanation as to why individuals can not take action to help reduce air pollution. Furthermore, women (20%) are much more likely than men (8%) to suggest fighting air pollution should be a government task.

Women are also much more likely than men to say that individuals can't take action because they can't avoid doing those things that cause air pollution (19% vs. 6%). Canadians with less than a high school education (30%) are the most likely to offer this argument.

While francophones (21%) are much more likely than anglophones (6%) to report that they don't know what to do to help reduce air pollution, anglophones (16%) are much more likely than francophones (3%) to argue that reducing air pollution can't be done at the individual level.

High school graduates (39%) and the most affluent (37%) are more likely to say that even if they did take actions to help reduce air pollution, it wouldn't make any difference.

The least affluent Canadians (28%) are the most likely to suggest that individual action to fight air pollution is too much trouble.

In the focus group discussions, it was clear that participants believed that individuals wouldn't take action because of convenience and practicality issues. The feeling was that many people would think that changing their current behaviours would cause disruptions in their current routines that they were not willing or at least resistant to make, even if it would help reduce air pollution. Of secondary importance were feelings that individual action was not enough or would result in insignificant change and that taking action to reduce air pollution was something that businesses should be doing as they are the major polluters. Furthermore, a few participants suggested that they did not know what action they could take, or that it was just too much trouble and would take too much time and effort.

“It's not practical to, say, stop driving.”

“People need more self-awareness around how their own actions actually impact the environment.”

“People are inherently lazy.”

“Well let's be honest, you know, it's one thing to say hey, these are great ideas . . . it is really not something that I really think is totally practical.”

“If just us people in this room stop driving for a week, you're not going to make any difference really because ten more people will find a car and drive.”

“Individually, we don't have any power to make a difference.”

“I mean, there certainly are alternative energy sources available, but we are definitely not made aware of them. And they are also only available to people who have money.”

As one participant in Toronto noted, the mentality that sees individual action as being ineffective is something that needs to be challenged to help build momentum for widespread action by the general public.

“The mentality that one person can't make a difference (is the biggest barrier to individual action) . . . people have just said here what we can do to improve things and, on our own, nobody thinks they can improve it. Well, it all starts with one person, right? And if we were all to do that, then it would work. But it's got to start with one; you don't have to have a whole group. One turns into a group, is what I'm trying to say.”

11.2 Actions to Combat Air Pollution

Reducing personal vehicle use and taking alternative methods of transportation such as public transport or carpooling to work, are the most frequently mentioned activities that individuals can do to reduce air pollution.

We asked those respondents who felt that individuals could take actions to effectively reduce air pollution what actions individuals could pursue, and it is clear that altering the use of their personal motor vehicle is the most frequently mentioned top-of-mind solution. Four in ten (42%) spontaneously mention reducing personal vehicle use, while another one-third (34%) mention taking alternative methods of transportation such as public transport or carpooling to work. More than one in ten each suggest that individuals could lobby government for stricter laws (14%) or choose a more fuel-efficient car (11%). Other possible individual actions include recycling/composting or other waste disposal practices (9%), learning more about efficient driving habits (8%), stop smoking (7%), less wood or other burning (6%), using cleaner energy sources or alternative heating (6%), become more educated about the subject or change their mindset (6%), reduce use of solvents, paint thinners (6%), support or join an environme ntal group (5%), limit the use of gas lawn mowers, leaf blowers or snow blowers (3%), use less chemicals or pesticides (3%) and reduce the use of air conditioning (3%). One in ten (12%) provide a variety of other¹⁰ possible actions. Four percent offer no opinion.

Regionally, we find that Atlantic Canadians are more likely to suggest that individuals can reduce their personal vehicle use (50%) and do less burning of wood and other materials (12%) to reduce air pollution. While Quebecers (28%) are more likely than other Canadians to suggest that individuals can choose a more fuel-efficient car, residents of Ontario (41%) are the most likely to say that individuals can take alternative methods of transportation to work to reduce air pollution. Residents of Alberta tend to place a greater emphasis on reducing personal vehicle use (61%) and lobbying the government for stricter laws (25%). British Columbians (51%) also see reducing personal vehicle use as an action that individuals can take to reduce air pollution. Furthermore, British Columbians are relatively more likely to identify burning less wood and other materials (16%) and learning more about efficient driving habits (15%) as possible individual actions that could be pursued.

Anglophones and francophones have many differences of opinion regarding possible actions that individuals can take to reduce air pollution. Anglophones are more likely than francophones to identify the following actions: reducing personal vehicle use (47% vs. 27%), taking alternative methods of transportation to work (38% vs. 24%), lobbying government for stricter laws (17% vs. 5%), stopping smoking (9% vs. 1%) and burning less wood or other materials (8% vs. 1%). Francophones (28%) are five times as likely as anglophones (5%) to argue that individuals can choose a more fuelefficient car to reduce air pollution.

Canadians with respiratory illnesses are more likely than those without such illnesses to suggest that cutting down on driving (reducing personal vehicle use, 46% vs. 41%; taking alternative methods of transportation to work, 42% vs. 32%) and lobbying government for stricter laws (19% vs. 13%) are actions that individuals could pursue. Choosing a more fuel-efficient car is a more popular approach for those Canadians who have not been diagnosed with a respiratory illness than those who have been diagnosed with a respiratory illness (12% vs. 7%).

Reducing personal vehicle use is also more likely to be identified as an activity that individuals could pursue to reduce air pollution by those aged 16 to 29 years (47%) and the most affluent Canadians (47%). Those aged 16 to 29 years (44%), those with a household income between $50,000 and $70,000 (41%), those who feel that air pollution in their community has become worse in recent years (40%), those who reside in communities between 100,000 and one million people (40%) and university students and graduates (39%) place greater emphasis on taking alternative methods of transportation to work. In addition, women (38%) are more likely than men (30%) to identify this individual approach to reducing air pollution.

Canadians with at least some university education (26%), the most affluent (21%) and older Canadians (19%) are more likely to view lobbying the government for stricter laws as a method by which individuals can reduce air pollution.

In general, focus group participants identified similar actions to those mentioned in the quantitative survey. However, keeping in mind the smaller numbers, focus group participants did seem to mention the idea of planting trees or having indoor plants more often than survey respondents.

¹⁰ Each of these "other" possible actions is mentioned by less than three percent of survey respondents. "Other" responses include such things as use environmentally-friendly products, waste disposal, don't support polluting companies, use less energy or electricity, plant trees, and pay higher taxes to support action against air pollution.