Survey report - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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.