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

9.0 Air Quality Index (continued)

9.3 Preferred Format of Air Quality Messages

Four in ten Canadians would prefer that air quality messages be delivered as descriptive air quality information.

Respondents were presented with three possible formats (numerical air quality index, descriptive air quality information and visual air quality information) for air quality messages and asked in what format such messages should be delivered. Canadians tend to prefer descriptive air quality information. A plurality of Canadians (43%) feel that air quality messages should be provided descriptively (e.g., poor, fair, good, etc.). One-quarter (26%) prefer a numerical air quality index, while two in ten (20%) say that air quality messages should be provided in a visual format (e.g., symbols). Smaller proportions favour various combinations of two of these formats (visual and descriptive, 1%; numerical and descriptive, 1%; numerical and visual, 1%). Three percent say that all three of these formats should be used to deliver air quality messages. Similar proportions suggest that the format is irrelevant as they would not use them anyway (3%) or do not offer an opinion (3%).

Descriptive air quality information is a more popular format for air quality messages among residents of Manitoba and Saskatchewan (51%), those who reside in communities with between 100,000 and one million people (51%), Albertans (50%), those with an annual household income between $50,000 and $70,000 (49%) and residents of Ontario (48%). In addition, anglophones (46%) are much more likely than francophones (33%) to prefer descriptive air quality information.

Q.23 In what format should air quality messages be delivered? (n=1,213)
Multiple responses allowed

Francophones (32%) are more likely than anglophones (24%) to prefer a numerical air quality index. Those very familiar with the air quality index (32%), those who feel that the air pollution in their community has become worse (31%), Quebecers (31%), the most affluent Canadians (31%), those with at least some university education (31%) and those between 30 and 44 years of age (31%) are also relatively more likely to think that air quality messages should be delivered as a numerical air quality index.

Atlantic Canadians (29%), less educated Canadians (less than high school, 25%; high school, 28%) and those not very familiar with the air quality index (25%) have a greater preference for visual air quality information.

With regard to the air quality index, focus group participants preferred the use of multiple scales to communicate air quality. A numeric scale has the value of providing the quantification of air quality, while a semantic scale (excellent, good, and so on) is seen to be more descriptive. A number of participants volunteered the use of symbols to describe air quality, given that symbols (a sun for a sunny day, rain clouds to describe rain, and so on) are a common feature in weather reporting. It should be noted that no set of air quality symbols, other than the most rudimentary, emerged from the session and there was an admission that this system would be unworkable for radio.

Participants interested in receiving the air quality index or air quality information, especially those who have health problems or children with health problems, would like to have this information diffused as widely as possible and in readily accessible formats. Many participants associated a possible air quality index with the more familiar UV index. Most participants agreed that a combination of scales (numeric and descriptive) would be the ideal way of presenting an air quality index. As one person commented:

"I think you need both [a descriptive and numeric scale] to be able to reach people. Having both available is probably a better solution than choosing one or the other."

Further, many participants would like to see the attachment of a "consequence"⁷ to this description, similar to that found with the UV index. As the following comment indicates, the attachment of a "consequence" to the air quality index would improve the perceived utility of the scale.

"If it can relate to humans a little more, I mean, the 7 is fine - it's a 7, but if you follow that by saying it will affect people in this way, then it will mean a lot more to me than 7."

Preferred format of air quality messages

	Atlantic	Quebec	Ontario	Man/Sask.	Alberta	BC
Descriptive air quality information	44	32	48	51	50	42
Numerical air quality index	21	31	24	23	26	28
Visual air quality information	29	24	16	13	17	22
Visual and descriptive	-	1	1	1	3	1
Numerical and descriptive	-	*	2	2	-	1
Numerical and visual	-	1	1	-	-	1
All of the above	*	3	4	1	1	3
Makes no difference	-	7	2	*	2	1
dk/na	6	1	3	8	1	3
*Less than one percent
Q.23 In what format should air quality messages be delivered? (n=1,213) Multiple responses allowed

9.4 Reaction to Air Quality Warnings

Three-quarters of Canadians say they or someone in their household would act differently if an air quality warning were issued. The most frequently mentioned reactions to such a warning would be staying indoors, cutting down on the use of personal motor vehicle, and limiting or avoiding strenuous exercise outdoors.

It appears that most Canadians would take action when faced with an air quality warning. Three quarters of Canadians (77%) report that they or someone in their household would be somewhat (39%) or very likely (38%) to do something differently as a result of an air quality warning. Two in ten (21%) say that it is not very (13%) or not at all likely (8%) that they would do something different. Of note, the proportion of Canadians who are very likely (38%) to do something differently when confronted with an air quality warning is almost five times greater than that who are not at all likely (8%) to do something differently.

Canadians appear only slightly less likely to change their behaviour as a result of an air quality warning than they were in October 2000 (77% likely vs. 81%).

Q.24 If an air quality warning was issued how likely would you or someone in your household be to do anything differently as a result? Would that be very, somewhat, not very, or not at all likely? (n=1,213)

Q.24 If an air quality warning was issued how likely would you or someone in your household be to do anything differently as a result? Would that be very, somewhat, not very, or not at all likely? (n=1,213)
For the November 2001 results, "likely" includes those who said "very" or "somewhat likely", while "not likely" includes those who said "not very" or "not at all likely."
For the October 2000 results, "likely" includes those who assigned it a moderate or high likelihood on the 7-point scale used by EKOS; the "not likely" category includes those who assigned it a low likelihood score on the 7-point scale. In general, while the response categories for the two surveys were different, the question wording for the two surveys was virtually identical.

Women appear to be more likely to change their behaviour when faced with an air quality warning than do men. About eight in ten women (82%) say that it is somewhat (40%) or very likely (42%) that they or someone in their household would do something differently as a result of an air quality warning being issued. In comparison, almost three quarters of men (73%) report that something would be done differently (somewhat likely, 39%; very likely, 34%).

Those who feel that air pollution greatly affects the health of Canadians have very strong attitudes and behaviours on various air-related issues. In this instance, these individuals are much more likely than those who feel that air pollution has less of an effect on health to be very likely to react to an air quality warning. Similarly, those who are very concerned about air quality are more likely than those who are less concerned about air quality to say that they or someone in their household would do anything differently as a result of an air quality warning.

Q.24 If an air quality warning was issued how likely would you or someone in your household be to do anything differently as a result? Would that be very, somewhat, not very, or not at all likely? (n=1,213)

Those who are more inclined to say that a change in behaviour in their household is very likely include Canadians who are very familiar with the air quality index (56%), those with a respiratory illness (49%), those who reside in communities with between 5,000 and 100,000 inhabitants (47%), those who strongly agree that individuals can take action to effectively reduce air pollution (46%), francophones (44%) and Quebecers (44%). It is also interesting to note that Canadians who feel that the air pollution in their community has improved are just as likely as those who say that the air pollution has become worse to indicate that a change in behaviour due to an air quality warning is very likely (45% and 43%, respectively).

Canadians who disagree that individuals can take action to effectively reduce air pollution (35% not very or not at all likely), residents of Manitoba and Saskatchewan (28% not very or not at all likely) and those who say that the air pollution in their community has stayed the same over the last five years (27% not very or not at all likely) are more likely to indicate that a change in behaviour is not likely.

In the focus group sessions, those participants who had children with respiratory problems were more likely to act on air quality information than other participants. It is important to note that, even among those with respiratory problems themselves, they would act upon the information after doing their own assessment of the risk posed by air quality. However, as all participants agreed, it is better to have the information than not in these cases.

We asked respondents who suggested that they or someone in their household would be very or somewhat likely to do something different as a result of an air quality warning to describe what would be done differently under such circumstances. The most frequently mentioned reactions to an air quality warning involve staying indoors (34%), cutting down on the use of personal motor vehicle use (15%) and limiting or avoiding strenuous exercise outdoors (13%). Fewer mention that they would avoid the use of any gas-powered equipment (5%), follow suggestions or by-laws (5%), avoid urban areas or cities (4%), use air filters (4%), wear a mask (4%), use public transit (4%) and avoid the use of aerosols or oil-based paints (4%). Three percent say their reaction to an air quality warning would depend on the severity of the situation. Similar proportions suggest that they or someone in their household would close windows or doors (3%), seek more information on air quality (3%), reduce their use of appliances (3%), compl ain to or lobby government and corporations (2%), reduce wood burning (2%), recycle or practice better waste management habits (2%), or they provided general comments about taking preventative measures or changing their habits (2%). Seven percent offer various other⁸ responses to any air quality warning, while three percent would not do anything differently. More than one in ten (13%) have no comment on their household reaction to an air quality warning.

Changes in behaviour in the event of an air quality warning

• Stay indoors 34
• Cut down on the use of personal motor vehicle 15
• Limit or avoid strenuous exercise outdoors 13
• Avoid use of any gas-powered equipment 5
• Follow suggestions/requirements/by-laws 5
• Avoid urban areas/cities 4
• Air filters 4
• Wear mask 4
• Use public transit 4
• Avoid use of aerosols, oil-based paints 4
• Depends on severity of situation 3
• Close window/doors 3
• Seek more information on air quality 3
• Reduce use of appliances 3
• Complain to/lobby government and corporations 2
• Reduce wood burning 2
• Recycle/better waste management 2
• Take preventative measures/change habits 2
• Other 7
• Nothing would be done different/no change 3
• dk/na 13

Q.25 What would be done differently? Anything else?
Subsample: Respondents who/someone in household would be very or somewhat likely to do something different as a result of an air quality warning being issued (n=938)
Multiple responses allowed

Anglophones and francophones provide different patterns of response to being confronted with an air quality warning. While anglophones would be more likely to stay indoors (41% vs. 11%) or limit or avoid strenuous exercise outdoors (16% vs. 6%), francophones are more likely to say that they would cut down on their personal vehicle use (21% vs. 13%), avoid using aerosols or oil-based paints (9% vs. 2%), or would not do anything differently (8% vs. 1%).

While those aged 16 to 29 years (22%) are more likely to cut down on their personal motor vehicle use, those between 30 and 44 (21%) are more likely to limit or avoid strenuous exercise outdoors. The most affluent Canadians (25%) and university graduates (24%) also indicate a greater tendency to limit or avoid strenuous exercise outdoors. In addition, men (18%) are more likely than women (10%) to say that they or someone in their household would make this same change in their behaviour as a result of an air quality warning being issued.

Atlantic Canadians (23%, dk/na) are least likely to identify specific changes in behaviour. Residents of the Prairies (20%, dk/na) are also less likely to identify specific actions they would pursue if an air quality warning was issued. Quebecers (21%) are the most likely to cut down on their personal vehicle use, while residents of Ontario are more likely to stay indoors (49%) and limit or avoid strenuous exercise outdoors (21%).

As in the focus groups, Canadians with respiratory illnesses are much more likely than those without such an illness to suggest that they would stay indoors if an air quality warning was issued (50% vs. 29%). Canadians who are more pessimistic about the air pollution situation in their community are also more likely to stay indoors.

Changes in behaviour in the event of an air quality warning
By language

	Total	English-Speaking	French-Speaking
Stay indoors	34	41	11
Cut down on the use of personal motor vehicle	15	13	21
Limit or avoid strenuous exercise outdoors	13	16	6
Avoid use of aerosols, oil-based paints	4	2	9
Close window/doors	3	4	-
Seek more information on air quality	3	2	6
Nothing would be done different/no change	3	1	8
dk/na	13	14	10
Q.25 What would be done differently? Anything else? Subsample: Respondents who/someone in household would be very or somewhat likely to do something different as a result of an air quality warning being issued (n=938) Multiple responses allowed

---

⁷ For example, the UV index usually provides a "consequence" related to the numerical and descriptive data, such as "unprotected skin will burn in an hour." For the AQI, typical consequences might be "children with breathing problems or the elderly should take it easy when outside today," "avoid going outside if at all possible," or "today would be a good day to get outside and enjoy the fresh air."

⁸ These "other" responses include such things as don't smoke, use air conditioners, use medication and wear sunscreen