HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurvey report
Kittitas County Air Quality Survey
A Study of Community Beliefs, Behaviors & Attitudes
September 2014
Page 2│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables and Figures………………………………………………….. 3
Introduction……………………………………………………………………… 4
Background & Objectives………………………………………………….. 4-6
Methods…………………………………………………………………………… 7
Results………………………………………………………………………………. 7-19
Demographic Characteristfcs…………………………………………. 8
Beliefs & Attitudes Regarding Air Quality……………………….. 9
General Knowledge of Air Quality Related Items……………. 10
Profile of Air Quality Related Behaviors…………………………. 13
Outdoor Burning Practices……………………………………….. 13
Indoor Burning Practices………………………………………….. 14
Educatfon and Outreach………………………………………………… 18
Motfvatfon for Cleaner Burning Practfces………………………. 19
Discussion…………………………………………………………………………. 20
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………… 21
Appendices……………………………………………………………………….. 22-43
A. Kittitas County Air Quality Committee ………………………. 22
B. Questfonnaire with Data……………………………………………. 23-41
C. Survey Distributfon & Collectfon Map……………………….. 42
D. Additfonal Data Sources…………………………………………….. 43
This study was compiled by Amy Fuller, Assessment Coordinator, Kittitas County Public Health Department
and funded by the Washington State Department of Ecology, Air Quality Division.
Kittitas County Air Quality Survey
A Study of Community Beliefs, Behaviors & Attitudes
Page 3│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES
FIGURE 1: Kittitas County Topography…………………………………………………………………. 4
FIGURE 2: Unhealthy Air Days for Kittitas County………………………………………………… 5
FIGURE 3: KCPHD Logic Model for Assessment……………………………………………………. 6
FIGURE 4: Community Survey Likert Scale Results……………………………………………….. 9
FIGURE 5: Residents’ Understanding of PM2.5…………………………………………………….. 10
FIGURE 6: Residents’ Ability to Check Air Quality Conditfons……………………………….. 11
FIGURE 7: How Residents Hear About Burn Bans…………………………………………………. 11
FIGURE 8: Community Understanding of What’s Legal to Burn in Outdoor 12
FIGURE 9: Community Understanding of the Importance of “Seasoned” Wood….. 12
FIGURE 10: Frequency of Outdoor Burning by Season…………………………………………. 13
FIGURE 11: Frequency & Type of Outdoor Burning Practfces by Season………………. 13
FIGURE 12: Frequency of Indoor Burning by Season……………………………………………. 14
FIGURE 13: Solid Fuel as Primary or Secondary Heat Source……………………………….. 14
FIGURE 14: Types of Indoor Burning Practfces……………………………………………………… 15
FIGURE 15: Uncertffied Wood Stoves…………………………………………………………………… 16
FIGURE 16: Sources of Firewood for Kittitas County Residents…………………………….. 16
FIGURE 17: Residentfal Wood “Seasoning” Practfces…………………………………………... 17
FIGURE 18: Profile of Indoor Wood Burners………………………………………………………… 18
FIGURE 19: Motfvatfon for Engaging in Cleaner Burning Practfces……………………….. 19
TABLE 1: Community Survey Demographic Results………………………………………………. 8
Kittitas County Air Quality Survey
A Study of Community Beliefs, Behaviors & Attitudes
Page 4│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Introduction
The Washington State Department of Ecology Air Quality Division commissioned the Kittitas County
Public Health Department (KCPHD) to conduct a county wide survey of Kittitas County residents. The
purpose of the survey was to assess attitudes and beliefs around the issue of air quality in Kittitas
County as well as to estfmate the impact of community burning behaviors on fine partfculate matter
pollutfon. Fine partfculate matter (PM2.5) is an air pollutant that is a concern for people's health
when levels in air are high. This report provides the results and analysis of the data collected from
this survey. The informatfon contained in this report will be used to inform the creatfon of an
educatfon and outreach campaign for cleaner burning practfces in Kittitas County.
Background & Objectives
Located in the center of Washington State, Kittitas County is a rural area that lies along the eastern
slopes of the Cascade Mountain Range. The county’s 2,297 square miles stretches from the top of
Snoqualmie Pass down to its eastern border along the Columbia River. The Yakima River and
Interstate 90 also run through the middle of the county. The unique geography of the Kittitas valley
creates optfmal conditfons for long periods of high pressure during the winter months that result in
lengthy air inversions. This is especially concerning during high heatfng season, when any smoke
emitted into the lower atmosphere becomes trapped untfl changing conditfons allow for the cleaner
air to pass through, exposing residents to unhealthy air often for weeks at a tfme.
FIGURE 1: Kittitas County Topography
Page 5│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
During the winter high heatfng season, air quality readings from the Washington State Department
of Ecology (DOE) monitoring statfon in Ellensburg reports one of the highest levels of PM2.5 air
pollutfon in the state.1 According to Washington State Department of Health, Kittitas County also
reports a significantly higher mortality rate for influenza and pneumonia as compared to the rest of
the state2. While we have yet to determine the cause of this, the statfstfc draws concern regarding
respiratory impacts related to poor air quality. In additfon, partfculate matter pollutfon created by
large area wildfires has increased over the past four years, adding to community health risks
associated with ongoing PM2.5 pollutfon.
For the past several years, Ellensburg’s number of days with unhealthy fine partfcle pollutfon levels
has risen, indicatfng a dangerous trend. Even without the contributfons from wildfires, the numbers
contfnue to rise, invitfng a closer look at what is contributfng to this steady increase in PM2.5 (see
Figure 2). According to the Environmental Protectfon Agency’s Natfonal Ambient Air Quality
Standards Review, Kittitas County is a high-risk community that is in danger of violatfng the federal
air quality standards4. If this trend contfnues, it is likely that Kittitas County could become an area of
“non-attainment”, invitfng costly and demanding federal interventfons. As it currently stands, the
combined impact on health and the environment is already costfng the community money. In a 2009
report, Ecology created a model for estfmatfng health and economic impacts of fine partfcle
pollutfon in Washington5. Ecology’s model estfmates that the costs (direct and indirect) associated
with fine partfcle pollutfon in Kittitas County exceed $1 million each year (2009 dollars).
FIGURE 2: Unhealthy Air Days for Kittitas County3
It should be
noted that
the last bar
is partial
year data,
nine months
instead of
twelve.
Page 6│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
In 2012, a steering committee of key community partners was gathered to identffy and prioritfze
issues affectfng the health of the local community. Issues were identffied based on data from the
2012 Kittitas County Community Health Assessment. Poor air quality was identffied as an area of
concern, however, a lack of financial resources prevented the issue from becoming an immediate
priority. Ecology recognized the need for support and partnered with KCPHD to implement an air
quality project. The project would begin with a county wide assessment and conclude with an
educatfon and outreach campaign to minimize the impact of improper burning behaviors. The
primary objectfves of this assessment were to collect community informatfon and determine the
following:
Beliefs and attitudes regarding air quality
General knowledge level regarding air quality in Kittitas County
General knowledge around clean burning practfces
Inventory of residentfal wood burning appliances and indoor burning practfces
Prevalence of outdoor burning behaviors that contribute to PM2.5
Effectfve avenues for educatfon and outreach
FIGURE 3: KCPHD Logic Model for Assessment
Page 7│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Methods
The KCPHD Assessment Coordinator designed the community survey questfons with assistance and
feedback from Ecology and the Kittitas County Air Quality Committee (see Appendix A). The
Assessment Coordinator also referenced similar studies done in the Pacific Northwest to inform the
type and placement of questfons:
Britfsh Columbia Woodstove inventory and Behavior Analysis
(Envirochem Services, 2012)
Inventory of Wood-burning Appliance Use in Britfsh Columbia: Report of Findings
(Mustel Group, Market Research, 2012)
Department of Environmental Quality Residentfal Wood Combustfon Survey: Results Report
(PSU Survey Research Lab, 2009)
Wood Smoke Awareness & Behavior: Survey of Wood Burning Households in Washington State
(Elway Research, Inc., 2010)
The final survey consisted of 25 questfons. The questfons were primarily multfple choice with the
exceptfon of one Likert scale with six items. Survey takers were also given the optfon to write in
answers that were not provided in the multfple choice questfons. Recent census data estfmates the
current populatfon of Kittitas County at 42,100 residents6. In order to achieve results with a 95%
confidence level, a sample size of 381 individuals was needed. A mixed approach was used for survey
distributfon and collectfon in order to maximize responses and achieve this number. The survey was
put into two formats: electronic and paper (see Appendix B). The primary mode of collectfon was
sent out through an electronic survey via Survey Monkey™. Emails were sent out to eight different
community listservs. Fliers and handouts with the survey link were distributed to 22 local businesses
and agencies. In order to reach those individuals without computers, paper surveys were placed
along with survey collectfon boxes at strategic locatfons around the county. A total of fifteen boxes
were placed in fourteen different community outreach locatfons (see Appendix C). Collectfon boxes
were emptfed each week untfl the survey was closed. Paper surveys were also sent by mail to
residents identffied as having received woodstoves through a free woodstove exchange program.
These surveys included self-addressed envelopes with paid postage to allow respondents to send in
the completed survey free of charge. Paper surveys, once collected, were entered into Survey
Monkey™ in order to better analyze the data. It is also important to note that both the electronic
survey and paper survey partfcipants were given the opportunity to enter into a drawing for $25.00
gift certfficates to local businesses as an incentfve. The survey was conducted for a tfme period of six
weeks from the dates of June 1st to July 18th, 2014.
Results
At the close of the survey, a total of 613 surveys were collected. Of the 613 returned surveys, 89
(16%) were paper surveys. A filter was then applied to the Survey Monkey™ data in order to elimi-
nate incomplete surveys as well as those completed by residents outside Kittitas County. In the end,
the final survey sample size was 561 residents. The results of this sampling has a confidence level of
99% with a confidence interval of ±5.41%. In laymen’s terms, if all of Kittitas County’s 42,100
residents had completed the survey, there is a 99% chance that those results would be within ±5.41%
of the results of this survey. We can have confidence that the informatfon contained in this survey
results report is a fair representatfon of our county populatfon.
Page 8│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
TABLE 1: Community Survey Demographic Results
Demographic Characteristics
For the most part, the demographic characteristfcs of survey respondents corresponded with the
overall county demographic makeup as reported by the 2013 census estfmates. Percentage of
responses from the major populatfon centers (Upper and Lower County) corresponded closely with
the populatfon profile despite an underrepresentatfon of the Kittitas County males. The various age
groups were broadly represented; however, there were not many responses from the 15 to 24 year
old subset of the populatfon. The percentage of residents in the 15 to 24 year age range tends to be
higher because of the large college student populatfon. The Hispanic populatfon was also slightly
underrepresented in the survey results. This is something to take into consideratfon for future survey
efforts. It is also significant to note that homeowners represented much a much bigger percentage of
responses than renters.
Kittitas County Demographics Population* Survey**
County Populatfon Seats
Upper County: Cle Elum, South Cle Elum, Roslyn, Ronald and Easton 20% 21%
Lower County: Vantage, Kittitas, Ellensburg and Thorp 80% 79%
Gender
Male 50% 26%
Female 50% 74%
Age
15-24 years 26% 4%
25-34 12% 16%
35-54 23% 42%
55-64 12% 26%
65 and over 13% 12%
Race/Ethnicity
African American/Black 1% 0%
Asian/Pacific Islander 3% 1%
Caucasian/White 90% 89%
Hispanic/Latfno 8% 2%
Natfve American/Alaskan Natfve 1% 1%
Multfple 2% 3%
Housing
Homeowners 58% 76%
Renters 42% 23%
Resides within city limits/urban areas 54% 52%
Resides outside of city limits/rural areas 46% 48%
*Based on 2013 Census estimate. **Percentages are rounded.
Page 9│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Beliefs & Attitudes Regarding Air Quality
The first objectfve for this survey was to examine community perceptfons around the issue of air
quality and causes of air pollutfon in Kittitas County. A Likert scale was used to organize partfcipant
responses (see Figure 1). Overall, approximately half (47%) of respondents feel that poor air quality is
a significant environmental issue in Kittitas County. One fifth (20%) of the community does not know
if it is a significant environmental issue while the remaining 32% don’t think that it is a problem. Over
half of Kittitas County residents (54%) believe that poor air quality occurs mostly during wildfire
season. One third (31%) of residents do not agree with this, with the remainder (10%) reportfng they
aren’t sure. Roughly half of the county feels that wood stoves and fireplaces (56%), agricultural
burning (50%) and diesel fuel/highway traffic (56%) are major contributors to poor air quality. The
remainder of resident responses are split fairly evenly between those that aren’t sure if they
contribute and those that feel that they don’t contribute at all. County responses were also fairly
divided on whether or not government should increase enforcement efforts. Forty percent feel that
they should, 28% don’t know and 32% feel that they should not.
FIGURE 4: Community Survey Likert Scale Results
Page 10│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
General Knowledge of Air Quality Related Items
The secondary objectfve of this survey was to determine some baselines for the general knowledge
level of Kittitas County residents regarding PM2.5 pollutfon, current levels of air quality and clean
burning practfces. This informatfon will assist in educatfon program design because it allows for the
identfficatfon of gaps in the community’s understanding of the air quality issue. It will help to narrow
down which topics the educatfonal materials will focus on and what messages need to be clearer or
better communicated to the public. This data also assists with outreach by identffying the most
frequently utflized sources of public informatfon regarding air quality.
Understanding of PM 2.5
Over half of Kittitas County survey respondents (55%) do not understand the meaning of the air
quality related phrase “PM 2.5” with an additfonal 39% reportfng that they understand somewhat.
The remaining 7% percent of respondents claim to understand the concept well enough to explain it
to others.
Sources of Air Quality Information
Almost half of Kittitas County respondents reported that they don’t know how to check current air
quality conditfons. The most popular ways to get informatfon on burn bans is the local newspaper
and word of mouth. Radio and internet are closely tfed for the second most popular sources of infor-
matfon. Respondents were given the optfon to write in an “other” category. Write-in answers were
evaluated for significant trends and included in the chart.
FIGURE 5: Residents’ Understanding of PM2.5
Page 11│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
FIGURE 6: Residents’ Ability to Check Air Quality Conditions
FIGURE 7: How Residents Hear About Burn Bans
*Write-in answers
Page 12│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Knowledge of Clean Burning Practices
Kittitas County residents are able to identffy a majority of the items that are legal to burn outdoors,
however, there seems to be some knowledge gap around the legality of cardboard and lumber. A
large majority of the community has some understanding of what it means to “season” wood (88%).
Half of those individuals understand the concept well enough to explain it to others.
FIGURE 8: Community Understanding of what’s Legal to Burn in an Outdoor Fire
FIGURE 9: Community Understanding of the Importance of “Seasoned” Wood
*Items that are legal to burn
Page 13│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Profile of Air Quality Related Behaviors
This sectfon of the report gives an overview of indoor and outdoor residentfal burning practfces that
contribute to PM2.5 in Kittitas County.
Outdoor Burning Practices
The highest rates for all outdoor burning behaviors are in Spring (38%) and Summer (32%), however,
there are significant amounts done in the Fall as well (22%). The winter has the lowest rates for all
residentfal outdoor burning behaviors. The most common type of outdoor burning practfce is
recreatfonal in nature (BBQ, fire pits, etc.) and appears to be the most consistent outdoor burning
behavior in all four seasons. The rates of recreatfonal burning remain relatfvely constant throughout
Spring, Summer and Fall with 46-52% of residents engaging in this behavior. This practfce reduces
down to 28% of residents in the Winter. Yard debris is second most common outdoor burning
practfce, with the highest rates of burning being in the Spring and Fall.
FIGURE 10: Frequency of Outdoor Burning by Season
FIGURE 11: Frequency & Type of Outdoor Burning Practices by Season
Page 14│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Indoor Burning Practices
The majority of indoor burning takes place in the winter months (December –February) and is
almost exclusively for the purpose of home heatfng. Approximately 40% of residents engage in
burning some type of solid fuel indoors, primarily wood. Nineteen percent of residents report burn-
ing solid fuel as a primary source of heat in additfon to 24% who report burning solid fuel as a sec-
ondary source of heat.
FIGURE 12: Frequency of Indoor Burning by Season
FIGURE 13: Solid Fuel as Primary or Secondary Heat Source
Page 15│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Solid Fuel Burning Appliances
Forty percent of the Kittitas County households surveyed reported having have some type of solid
fuel burning appliance in use during various tfmes of the year. One third of those respondents
reported having a secondary fuel burning appliance as a supplemental heat source to their primary,
which means these individuals have more than one appliance on site. Almost 90% of indoor solid
fuel burners report using firewood and 18% report using pellets. Less than 5% percent use
alternatfve materials such as presto logs. These percentages do not represent exclusive fuel use. The total
percentages of fuel type usage is greater than 100% because the survey allowed for single respondents to
report using multfple types of solid fuel.
FIGURE 14: Types of Indoor Burning Practices
Page 16│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Uncertified Wood Stoves
At the tfme of the survey, 8% of all survey respondents report that their wood stoves are uncertffied
or manufactured before 1995. Looking solely at the 18% of survey takers who reported having free
standing wood stoves, the percentage of potentfally uncertffied stoves is 27% with an additfonal 18%
who are unsure of their stove’s certfficatfon status. This does not include those who reported having
a wood stove with a pellet insert.
Sources of Wood
Residents’ primary sources for firewood are individual sellers, obtaining a permit to cut firewood,
and clearing trees from their own property. Respondents that report burning in a fireplace or wood
stove differ in their sources only in that they buy less from stores and more from individual sellers.
FIGURE 15: Uncertified Wood Stoves
FIGURE 16: Sources of Firewood for Kittitas County Residents
*Write-in answers
Page 17│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Seasoning Practices
Residents’ primary way to ensure they are burning dry wood is to keep track of the wood’s age and
use their senses to determine moisture content Residents who heat with wood indoors primarily use
the clean burning practfce of aging the wood (“seasoning” it) to ensure a dry wood supply.
FIGURE 17: Residential Wood “Seasoning” Practices
*Write-in answers
Page 18│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Education & Outreach
The primary audience of an educatfon and outreach program would be individuals that engage in
burning large amounts of solid fuel that may not be aware of current air quality issues or how their
behaviors may contribute to pollutfon. Sixty percent of indoor wood burners surveyed report using a
wood stove and 47% report having a fireplace. Almost all of the individuals who burn in a woodstove
or a fireplace as a primary or secondary heat source report understanding the importance of
“seasoning” wood. However, very few report understanding partfculate matter pollutfon. Less than
half (41%) of these individuals feel that poor air quality is a significant environmental issue. Looking
solely at the respondents who burn wood as a heat source, 52% report having a certffied stove
which leaves 48% who are unsure if their equipment is manufactured before 1995 or uncertffied.
These individuals may benefit from educatfon regarding how to get the most effectfve burn from
heatfng equipment or how to access programs that allow for free or discounted equipment
upgrades. According to survey results, 63% of the individual who report heatfng with wood live
outside the city limits. More of these individuals report living in lower county (62%) , however, a
significant amount reside in upper county as well (38%). When designing outreach programs, it will
be important to factor in equal distributfon in both upper and lower Kittitas County.
FIGURE 18: Profile of Indoor Wood Burners
Page 19│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Motivation for Cleaner Burning Practices
Both the general populatfon and indoor wood burners responded that financial incentfves or free
equipment would assist them in engaging in cleaner burning practfces. Almost as many respondents felt
that easy access to educatfonal materials would encourage cleaner burning practfces as well. A much
smaller percentage of the general populatfon felt that stricter fines or penaltfes would be effectfve
motfvatfon for enhancing cleaner burning practfces. The responses of the indoor wood burners aligned
with the overall general survey populatfon.
FIGURE 19: Motivation for Engaging in Cleaner Burning Practices
*Write-in answers
Page 20│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Discussion
This survey set out to determine the community attitudes surrounding poor air quality in Kittitas
County and to inventory the burning practfces that contribute to PM2.5 air pollutfon. The results
show that the community is divided on whether or not poor air quality is a significant environmental
issue here in Kittitas County. However, survey results indicate that most residents are not clear on
what PM2.5 pollutfon is, how they can monitor it for themselves , or which of their behaviors
contribute to it. A large portfon of the community appears to feel strongly that there should be
incentfves and educatfonal materials available to encourage cleaner burning practfces. These
findings indicate that there is an emergent need for outreach and educatfon regarding the current
status of air quality in Kittitas County as well as the impact burning practfces can have on PM2.5 air
pollutfon.
Our findings regarding wood burning emissions are similar to other studies conducted in the region
with some notable exceptfons. In 2007, The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) conducted a
wood burning emissions inventory survey of King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish countfes.7 Ecology
compared the Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish county survey data from this report with the Kittitas
County survey results. The data shows Kittitas County households burning solid fuel as a primary
heat source 22% more than Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish county residents. A statewide wood
burning survey conducted in 2010 by the Northwest Air Quality Communicators (NAQC) reported
that 25% of Washington state households have a wood burning appliance (fireplace, insert, wood or
pellet stove).8 Our survey results show approximately 40% of Kittitas County households are burning
solid fuel in a wood burning appliance, which is higher than the statewide average. In terms of
attitudes of frequent wood burners, the NAQC study found that “frequent wood burners see the
situatfon differently from air quality professionals. The large majority did not perceive an air quality
problem at all and they did not connect their wood burning to air quality or health threats”. It would
appear that the attitudes of Kittitas County residents follow this statewide trend as well. While our
findings provide an overview of wood burning appliance use, it would be helpful to do a more
specific inventory to verify our high numbers of indoor solid fuel burning. We would also need to
look more closely at fuel usage and get specific amounts for a more comprehensive emissions
inventory that can be compared with additfonal regional studies. It would also be helpful to gather
more informatfon about motfvatfon for compliance behaviors specifically related to clean burning
practfces in additfon to seasoning wood and legal outdoor burning. Further exploratfon should be
done to determine if those reportfng certffied equipment really understand what being “certffied”
means and if those who reported not knowing can clarify their answers.
The survey process encountered some limitatfons that should be addressed to improve future data
gathering. Our survey was translated into Spanish but due to a limited distributfon tfmeline, we were
not able to get the desired percentage of responses from the Hispanic community. Responses from
the male sector of our community were also incongruent with populatfon demographics. Female
responses outnumbered male three to one. This higher rate of response from females is consistent
Page 21│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
with recent research on gender differences in response to paper and web surveys.9 When distributfng
surveys, we asked for one respondent per household, however, we did not provide a way to verify
this. In additfon, there was an error made while transposing questfon number thirteen into the
electronic survey. The error was not caught untfl after survey distributfon. The questfon asks
respondents to identffy their sources for the majority of the wood they burn. The paper survey gave
them to the optfon to “check all that apply” while the electronic version only allowed them to choose
one source. Many of the individuals who took the electronic survey corrected for this by writfng in
multfple sources into the “other” answer field. These answers were later evaluated and added into
the original survey data to correct for the glitch. This questfon should be revisited in future surveys in
order to verify findings. The questfons regarding motfvatfon and cleaner burning practfces did not
specify what “cleaner burning practfces” are. We also did not clearly define what was meant by
“equipment” or “financial” incentfves. It would be helpful to specify the exact clean burning practfces
that people are engaging in to identffy strengths and deficits in community practfces other than the
few mentfoned in this survey (certffied equipment, legal outdoor burns, “seasoning” wood). The
individuals who are frequent solid fuel burners appear to be engaging in cleaner burning practfces
than the average individual and therefore may be able to provide helpful feedback designing
educatfon and outreach campaigns for the general public who may not be aware of the clean burning
practfces they could utflize. We need to verify that this is actually the case, and if it is, determine how
we can use that already present knowledge to inform public educatfon and outreach. Key informant
interviews and focus groups would be an effectfve way to access this informatfon.
Conclusion
The findings of this study show that Kittitas County residents are engaging in many types of burning
behaviors that contribute to PM2.5 air pollutfon. The amount of solid fuels being burned appear to be
larger than other areas of the state, and if this is verified, it may mean the county’s emission levels
are contributfng more to PM2.5 pollutfon than previously thought. The lack of general knowledge
regarding partfculate matter pollutfon in Kittitas County points to a strong need for outreach and
educatfon in this area. An outreach and educatfon campaign focused on clean burning practfces
should be designed with feedback from individuals who burn solid fuel as a primary or secondary
heat source. The focus of community educatfon programs should be on helping people to connect
their behaviors with clean air outcomes. Pairing educatfon with financial incentfves would be the
most effectfve way to disperse informatfon. There is stfll not enough informatfon to determine the
largest contributors to poor air quality in Kittitas Valley. While the survey was comprehensive, further
research needs to be done to verify findings and to inform future clean air projects.
Page 22│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Appendix A: Kittitas County Air Quality Advisory Committee
Name Organization Represented E-mail Contact Information
Holly Myers Environmental Health Program Manager,
Kittitas County Public Health Department
holly.myers@co.kittitas.wa.us
Patti Johnson Kittitas County Solid Waste Patti.johnson@co.kittitas.wa.us
Andrew Lyons Weatherizatfon & Energy Manager,
Hopesource
alyons@hopesource.us
Brenda Larsen
Josh Hink
Kittitas County Fire Marshall
Deputy Fire Marshall
brenda.larsen@co.kittitas.wa.us
josh.hink@co.kittitas.wa.us
Susan Billings AQ Sectfon Supervisor-Ecology Sbil461@ecy.wa.gov
Anne M Johansen,
PhD
Professor, Analytfcal/Environmental Chemistry
Director of Environmental Studies Program
Director of Chemical Analysis Laboratory
Department of Chemistry, Central Washington
University
johansea@cwu.edu
Jim Allen Director Cardiopulmonary Services,
Kittitas Valley Healthcare
jallen@kvhealthcare.org
Mark Larson, MD Local Clinician,
Kittitas Valley Healthcare
Health Officer,
Kittitas County Public Health Department
mark.larson@co.kittitas.wa.us
Greg Armstrong Armstrong Home Heatfng sales@armstrongsstovespa.com
Art Stoltman Windermere Real Estate arts@windermere.com
Matt Eberlein Department of Natural Resources
Washington State
Matt.eberlein@dnr.wa.gov
Rich Elliott
Joe Seemiller
Mayor, City of Ellensburg
Kittitas Valley Fire & Rescue
Kittitas Valley Fire & Rescue
elliottr@kvfr.org
seemillerj@kvfr.org
Debbie DeSoer City of Ellensburg Public Library
(Site of Air Monitoring Statfon)
desoerd@ci.ellensburg.wa.us
Page 23│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Appendix B: Questionnaire & Data
PAPER SURVEY COVER SHEET
Page 24│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Appendix B: Questionnaire & Data
PAGE ONE
Page 25│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Appendix B: Questionnaire & Data
PAGE TWO
Page 26│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Appendix B: Questionnaire & Data
PAGE THREE
Page 27│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Appendix B: Questionnaire & Data
PAGE FOUR
Page 28│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Appendix B: Questionnaire & Data
Community Survey: Air Quality. Question #1
How well do you understand the air quality related phrases “PM2.5” or “fine particulate matter” ?
Answer Options Response Per-
cent Response Count
I don't know what these phrases mean. 30.1% 166
I've heard of them, but I don’t understand. 24.5% 135
I understand somewhat. 38.8% 214
I understand them well and can explain these concepts to oth-
ers. 6.5% 36
answered question 551
skipped question 10
Community Survey: Air Quality. Question #2
How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements:
Answer Options Strongly
Agree Agree I don’t
know Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Response
Count
Poor air quality in Kittitas County is a
significant environmental issue. 92 171 113 144 34 554
Poor air quality in Kittitas County oc-
curs mostly during wildfire season. 73 225 58 174 24 554
Wood stoves and fireplaces are a
major contributor to poor air quality. 89 219 102 117 26 553
Agricultural burning is a major contrib-
utor to poor air quality. 72 202 146 114 20 554
Diesel fuel/highway traffic is a major
contributor to poor air quality. 76 232 135 92 16 551
The government should put more ef-
fort into enforcing burning rules. 83 137 153 127 50 550
answered question 560
skipped question 1
Community Survey: Air Quality. Question #3
Do you know how to check current air quality conditions in Kittitas County?
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
Yes 33.6% 187
No 45.9% 255
Sort of 20.5% 114
answered question 556
skipped question 5
Page 29│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Appendix B: Questionnaire & Data
Community Survey: Air Quality. Question #4
How do you hear about burn bans in Kittitas County? (Check all that apply)
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
Word of mouth (friends, neighbors, etc.) 44.6% 250
Newspaper 49.7% 279
Radio 31.9% 179
Internet 29.4% 165
TV 19.8% 111
Social Media (facebook, twitter, etc.) 15.5% 87
I don't hear about them. 10.3% 58
I don't know 0.4% 2
Other (please specify) 14.4% 81
answered question 561
skipped question 0
“Other” Responses Organized into Categories
“Uncategorized” items are write -in answers that were not applicable to the question and therefore did not
warrant categorization.
Page 30│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Appendix B: Questionnaire & Data
Community Survey: Air Quality. Question #5
What type of OUTDOOR burning do you do at your residence in the SPRING (March-May)? Check all
that apply:
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
Recreation/camp fire/ BBQ 45.5% 254
Ditch burning 12.4% 69
Yard debris (weeds, branches, etc.) 30.3% 169
Land clearing 3.0% 17
Garbage or trash 2.0% 11
Field burning 3.8% 21
Ceremonial reasons 1.1% 6
None 40.7% 227
Other (please specify) 3.0% 17
answered question 558
skipped question 3
Question #5 “Other” Responses Organized into Categories
Page 31│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Appendix B: Questionnaire & Data
Community Survey: Air Quality. Question #6
What type of OUTDOOR burning do you do at your residence in the SUMMER (June-August)? Check all
that apply:
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
Recreation/camp fire/ BBQ 51.8% 285
Ditch burning 2.0% 11
Yard debris (weeds, branches, etc.) 11.5% 63
Land clearing 1.3% 7
Garbage or trash 1.1% 6
Field burning 0.9% 5
Ceremonial reasons 1.3% 7
None 44.2% 243
Other (please specify) 3.1% 17
answered question 550
skipped question 11
Question #6 “Other” Responses Organized into Categories
Page 32│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Appendix B: Questionnaire & Data
Community Survey: Air Quality. Question #7
What type of OUTDOOR burning do you do at your residence in the FALL (September -November)?
Check all that apply:
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
Recreation/camp fire/ BBQ 48.7% 271
Ditch burning 3.1% 17
Yard debris (weeds, branches, etc.) 23.7% 132
Land clearing 1.8% 10
Garbage or trash 1.8% 10
Field burning 1.1% 6
Ceremonial reasons 0.9% 5
None 40.8% 227
Other (please specify) 2.5% 14
answered question 557
skipped question 4
Question #7 “Other” Responses Organized into Categories
Page 33│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Appendix B: Questionnaire & Data
Community Survey: Air Quality. Question #8
What type of OUTDOOR burning do you do at your residence in the WINTER (December-February)?
Check all that apply:
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
Recreation/camp fire/ BBQ 28.0% 156
Ditch burning 0.0% 0
Yard debris (weeds, branches, etc.) 7.7% 43
Land clearing 0.5% 3
Garbage or trash 1.8% 10
Field burning 0.0% 0
Ceremonial reasons 1.1% 6
None 65.4% 364
Other (please specify) 3.2% 18
answered question 557
skipped question 4
Question #8 “Other” Responses Organized into Categories
Community Survey: Air Quality. Question #9
When do you do the most outdoor burning? (check all that apply)
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
Spring 37.9% 212
Summer 32.4% 181
Fall 22.0% 123
Winter 7.0% 39
I don't do any outdoor burning. 33.5% 187
answered question 559
skipped question 2
Page 34│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Appendix B: Questionnaire & Data
Community Survey: Air Quality. Question #10
Can you identify which of the following items are LEGAL to burn in an outdoor fire? (check all that apply)
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
Anything in a burn barrel 4.4% 23
Asphalt 1.3% 7
Cardboard 41.3% 217
Construction debris 5.5% 29
Dead animals 2.9% 15
Demolition Debris 1.7% 9
Garbage 6.3% 33
Logs 80.8% 425
Metals 1.5% 8
Grass 47.7% 251
Leaves 69.0% 363
Lumber 35.9% 189
Paint 1.7% 9
Paper 47.1% 248
Pesticide containers 1.5% 8
Petroleum Products 1.5% 8
Plastics 2.1% 11
Shrubberies 49.8% 262
Tires 2.1% 11
Trees 58.6% 308
Yard waste 60.8% 320
answered question 526
skipped question 35
Community Survey: Air Quality. Question #11
Do you understand why it is important to burn dry, “seasoned” wood?
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
Not really, and what does “seasoned” mean? 11.8% 66
I understand somewhat. 39.8% 222
I understand why it’s important and can explain it to others. 48.4% 270
answered question 558
skipped question 3
Page 35│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Appendix B: Questionnaire & Data
Community Survey: Air Quality. Question #12
How do you determine how much moisture is in your wood supply? (check all that apply)
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
I use a moisture meter. 1.3% 7
My senses (touch, sight, smell). 34.0% 188
I keep track of the wood’s age. 32.9% 182
I don’t check this. 18.8% 104
I don’t ever burn wood. 28.9% 160
Other (please specify) 4.5% 25
answered question 553
skipped question 8
Question #12 “Other” Responses Organized into Categories
Page 36│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Appendix B: Questionnaire & Data
Community Survey: Air Quality. Question #13
Where do you get the majority of the wood you burn indoors or outdoors?
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
Buy from the store (bundles of wood, presto logs, duraflame logs) 9.1% 51
Buy from a individual seller (neighbor, roadside stand, etc.) 19.2% 107
Salvage it from lumber piles/construction debris 3.0% 17
Obtain a firewood cutting permit 12.2% 68
I don't burn wood 36.9% 206
Other (please specify) 19.5% 109
answered question 558
skipped question 3
Question #13 “Other” Responses Organized into Categories
Page 37│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Appendix B: Questionnaire & Data
Community Survey: Air Quality. Question #14
What would encourage you to engage in cleaner burning practices? (check all that apply)
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
Free equipment/incentives 53.0% 271
Easy to access educational materials 44.8% 229
Stricter fines/penalties 20.9% 107
Other (please specify) 20.9% 107
answered question 511
skipped question 50
Question #14 “Other” Responses Organized into Categories
Page 38│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Appendix B: Questionnaire & Data
Community Survey: Air Quality. Question #16
Are any of the items above your primary heat source?
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
Yes 18.6% 101
No 81.4% 442
answered question 543
skipped question 18
Community Survey: Air Quality. Question #15
What type of indoor burning do you do at your residence? (check all that apply)
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
Wood Fireplace (open hearth) 4.3% 24
Wood Fireplace (wood insert) 8.5% 47
Wood Fireplace (zero clearance wood) 0.4% 2
Wood Fireplace (pellet insert) 2.9% 16
Free standing stove (wood) 17.8% 99
Free standing stove (pellet) 3.4% 19
I don't do any indoor burning 61.1% 339
Other (please specify) 6.1% 34
answered question 555
skipped question 6
Question #15 “Other” Responses Organized into Categories
Page 39│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Appendix B: Questionnaire & Data
Community Survey: Air Quality. Question #18
When do you do the most indoor burning? (check all that apply)
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
Spring 1.1% 6
Summer 0.2% 1
Fall 1.3% 7
Winter 34.9% 192
I don't do any indoor burning. 62.5% 344
answered question 550
skipped question 11
Community Survey: Air Quality. Question #19
Is your wood stove uncertified and/or manufactured before 1995?
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
Yes (If “YES”, HopeSource may be able to help you replace your
wood stove. Call 509-925-1448 for more information. Restrictions
do apply (wood needs to be your primary heat source, depends
where you live in the County, cost of replacement, etc.)
8.0% 44
No 19.9% 110
I don't know 8.3% 46
I don't have a wood stove 63.8% 352
answered question 552
skipped question 9
Community Survey: Air Quality. Question #17
Are any of the items above your secondary heat source?
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
Yes 23.6% 125
No 76.4% 404
answered question 529
skipped question 32
Page 40│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Appendix B: Questionnaire & Data
Community Survey: Air Quality. Question #22
What is your race/ethnicity?
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
African American/Black 0.0% 0
Asian/Pacific Islander 1.1% 6
Caucasian/White 88.5% 478
Hispanic/Latino 1.5% 8
Native American/Alaskan Native 0.9% 5
Multiple Ethnicity 3.1% 17
Other (please specify) 4.8% 26
answered question 540
skipped question 21
Community Survey: Air Quality. Question #21
What is your gender?
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
Male 26.5% 143
Female 73.5% 397
answered question 540
skipped question 21
Community Survey: Air Quality. Question #20
Which category below includes your age?
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
19 and under 0.4% 2
20-24 3.2% 18
25-29 6.8% 38
30-34 9.1% 51
35-39 9.1% 51
40-44 9.5% 53
45-49 11.1% 62
50-54 12.3% 69
55-59 14.3% 80
60-64 11.8% 66
65-69 6.8% 38
70-74 3.2% 18
75-79 1.4% 8
80 and up 0.9% 5
answered question 559
skipped question 2
Page 41│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Appendix B: Questionnaire & Data
Community Survey: Air Quality. Question #24
Do you live in or out of the city limits?
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
In 51.4% 287
Out 47.7% 266
Other (please specify) 0.9% 5
answered question 558
skipped question 3
Community Survey: Air Quality. Question #25
Do you rent or own your residence?
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
Rent 23.2% 129
Own 75.8% 422
Other (please specify) 1.1% 6
answered question 557
skipped question 4
Community Survey: Air Quality. Question #23
What is your zip code?
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
98950 (Vantage) 0.4% 2
98934( Kittitas) 3.8% 21
98926 (Ellensburg) 73.7% 412
98946 (Thorp) 1.4% 8
98943 (South Cle Elum) 1.8% 10
98922 (Cle Elum) 11.4% 64
98941 (Roslyn) 3.8% 21
98940 (Ronald) 2.5% 14
98925 (Easton) 1.3% 7
Other (please specify) 0.0% 0
answered question 559
skipped question 2
Page 42│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Appendix C: Map of Survey Distribution & Collection
Page 43│Kittitas County Air Quality Survey│9/30/2014
Appendix D: Additional Data Sources
Source
1 Washington State Department of Ecology: Air Quality. Real Time Air Monitoring Data. Available at:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/enviwa/. Accessed August 12th, 2014.
2 Washington State Department of Health: Center for Health Statfstfcs. Death Certificate Data,
1990–2010, August 2011.
3 Graph courtesy of Sue Billings, Washington State Department of Ecology, Air Quality Division.
4 Washington State Department of Health. Health of Washington State:
Outdoor (Ambient) Air Quality. Updated January 2014. Available at:
http://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/5500/EH -AQ2014.pdf Accessed August 13,2014.
5 Washington State Department of Ecology: Air Quality Program. Health Effects and Economic Impacts of
Fine Particle Pollution in Washington. Publicatfon number:09-02-021. December 15,2009.
6 U.S Census Bureau: American Fact Finder. American Community Survey Five year estfmate. Available at
factiinder2.census.gov Accessed August 19,2014.
7 Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. Indoor Wood-burning Emission Inventory Survey of King, Kitsap, Pierce and
Snohomish Counties: Report of Results. Natfonal Research Center, Inc. November 2007.
8 Northwest Air Quality Communicators: Washington Sub Group. Wood Smoke Awareness & Behavior
Survey Of Wood Burning Households in Washington State. Elway Research, Inc. July 2010.
9 Sax, Gilmartfn, and Bryant. "Assessing Response Rates and Non-response Bias in Web and Paper Surveys.”
Research in Higher Educatfon Vol. 44, no. 4 (2003): 409-31.
507 N. Nanum St. Ste. 102
Ellensburg, WA 98926
509-962-7515
communityassessment@co.kittitas.wa.us
www.co.kittitas.wa.us/health/
For more information or extra copies of this report, please contact the Kittitas County Public Health
Department at communityassessment@co.kittitas.wa.us, (509) 962-7515, or by mail at 507 N. Nanum
St. Suite 102, Ellensburg, WA 98926.
To view this report online visit http://www.co.kittitas.wa.us/health/assessment.asp.