UNIVERSITY OF
ILLINOIS LIBRARY
AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
/ v-
Environmental
Decision Making:
The Role of Community Leaders
J. C. VAN ES AND A. J. SOFRANKO
Bulletin 756
Agricultural Experiment Station
College of Agriculture
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
This bulletin is one of six publications growing out of a
four-and-a-half-year study of nitrogen as an environmental
quality factor. The study, including publication costs, was
supported principally by a grant from the Rockefeller Foun-
dation. This phase of the study was also supported by the
Water Resources Center of the University of Illinois at Ur-
bana-Champaign. Staff assistance was provided by the Agri-
cultural Experiment Station.
In addition to this bulletin, one other has been published:
"Nitrates, Nitrites, and Health," Bulletin 750. Other bulletins
in preparation for the series deal with nitrogen in wells and
groundwater, management of nitrogen for crop production,
and the economic consequences of alternative strategies in
the control of nitrogen. A book on nitrogen in relation to
food, environment, and energy is also being prepared as part
of the series.
J. C. van Es and A. J. Sofranko are associate professors
of rural sociology in the Department of Agricultural Eco-
nomics, College of Agriculture, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
Urbana, Illinois September, 1977
Publications in the bulletin series report the results of investigations made
or sponsored by the Experiment Station. The Illinois Agricultural Experi-
ment Station provides equal opportunities in programs and employment.
Mayors' Views on Environmental Quality 4
Community Leaders' Perceptions of Environmental Quality 11
Why Some Communities Mobilize 17
An Overlooked Environmental Issue: Community Water Systems 24
Findings and Conclusions 37
I
n the early 1970's the quality of the environment became a prominent
national issue. The media routinely devoted time and space to environ-
mental problems. Thousands of voluntary organizations emerged to pro-
mote a cleaner environment, and new federal and state agencies were
created. Changes began to occur. Opinion polls and surveys reflected
increased sensitivity to the environment and widespread public support
for improvement. Local, state, and federal governments developed regu-
lations, created enforcement agencies, and began to enforce existing reg-
ulations. In addition, many traditional governmental functions took on
an environmental character. In one way or another environmentalism
affected all levels of government and all segments of society.
Communities and Environmental Quality
During this time, attention has focused primarily on federal and
state legislation, municipal, industrial, and agricultural pollution, and
consumer behavior. Meanwhile, we seem to have overlooked the fact
that communities are the units where environmental problems most often
arise and where attempts are made to bring about change (McGranahnm
et al., 1975). Communities, however, play a significant role in this
matter, and local governments must be willing and able to improve the
environment before many changes can be made. Therefore, no con-
sideration of environmental quality is complete without taking into
account the involvement of local governments, on whom responsibility
for improving the environment frequently rests.
With this in mind we decided to center our research at the commu-
nity level. This report contains results of that research in Illinois com-
munities. Most studies relating to environmental matters have dealt with
technical issues — causes, alternative abatement strategies, costs vs. bene-
fits. This study focuses on how communities have responded to environ-
mental issues and on the roles of elected and nonelected leaders. First,
we took a broad look at environmental quality as a new social concern
at the local level. We tried to find out how community leaders see a par-
ticular issue in relation to the actual conditions and why communities
mobilize. We also asked where these leaders rank environmental issues
in relation to other community problems. We then focused on commu-
nity water supply and distribution systems, a service that has functioned
for years within the organizational structure of most local governments.
Water supply is not one of the new environmental issues, but it is a
core community service closely related to the quality of the environment.
2 BULLETIN NO. 756
Response to environmental issues has been uneven. In many cities
and towns, even while environmental crises occurred, residents and pub-
lic officials did not seem to care. Local governments have often been
unwilling or unable to enforce legislation or comply with state and fed-
eral standards. On the other hand, in many cities and towns scores of
citizens are now scrutinizing the use of resources, and they are forming
groups to promote a better environment. Many communities have passed
ordinances that complement state and federal directives, while others
have set more exacting standards than those passed at higher levels of
government.
Relatively few attempts have been made at the community level to
systematically measure or assess mobilization and response to environ-
mental issues. Why, for example, do some communities take part in new
programs, enact and enforce new policies, or in general respond more
quickly than others to new programs and issues (van Es and Rexroat,
1976) ? Community research has shown that these questions cannot be
adequately answered by looking at how individuals respond to issues.
The importance of the community as a unit of analysis can readily be
seen in some of the research findings on public housing, urban renewal,
suburban annexation, community conflict, and fluoridation (Sofranko
and Bridgeland, 1972). These findings illustrate the importance of com-
munitywide differences for predicting and understanding differential
policy formation, decision-making patterns, and degrees of response to
issues.
The "logic of inaction" is also an important part of the picture. Com-
munities are asked to protect the environment, but at the same time many
are skeptical about their ability to provide even the more basic services.
Inaction on questions of environmental quality may be entirely rational
from the community's point of view for several major reasons:
- Pollution control may depress economic activity, unduly burden
local taxpayers, siphon funds from more pressing community projects,
and in the end benefit only a small segment of the population.
- Watchdogging the quality of the environment, which is essentially
a problem of social control, is frequently a new responsibility placed on
organizational structures intended for other purposes (Caldwell, 1970).
The decision-making routines developed by local governments and the
community priorities established over the years may not easily accom-
modate new social issues, including environmental quality.
- Residents may not press for environmental improvements because
they rank other community concerns higher than the quality of the envi-
ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING — 3
ronment. Citizens may not feel that this is a responsibility appropriate to
government, or they may not even perceive the seriousness of environ-
mental conditions.
— Frequently environmental goals are vaguely denned, there is dis-
agreement over the causes of problems, and the benefits of an improved
environment may be hard to quantify.
These are some of the contextual dimensions of the problem of envi-
ronmental quality, which must be investigated within the larger frame-
work of the differing capabilities, resources, and concerns of each com-
munity. The problem is further complicated by the fact that communities
are changing, some more rapidly and in different ways than others.
American communities in general are becoming less autonomous than
formerly with regard to basic decisions affecting the community. People
are now less likely to identify with the community where they live, and
the service area boundaries of local institutions may not coincide with
the geographical community (Warren, 1972). Some communities are
growing, some are declining. Surrounding communities are changing,
and some have become parts of larger urban units. Consequently, an
understanding of response to an issue must take into account the dy-
namics of local communities and the changes taking place in them as
well as in their social, political, and economic milieu.
Research Problems
There are formidable obstacles involved in doing research on com-
munity response to environmental issues. In addition to conceptual and
methodological problems, many factors must be considered: pressures
on communities from higher levels of government, rising environmental
aspirations of residents, limited legal authority and financial resources,
competing priorities, and the attitudes of public officials and community
leaders. For a complete understanding of community response it is
essential to have a firm grasp of the context in which an issue emerges.
Detailed case studies of particular cities and towns have been done
and have considerable merit insofar as they provide a rather complete
understanding of the various factors affecting an issue. But while they
may offer significant insights into a specific problem, they are of limited
value for making generalizations. Comparative community studies over-
come this limitation but present other problems. The most critical is the
difficulty of developing measures against which to assess a sample of
communities. Communities, for example, may mobilize in response to
air pollution, but the form of mobilization may vary considerably from
4 — BULLETIN NO. 756
one community to another. Use of any single measure misses this im-
portant point. In a large comparative study it is extremely difficult to
devise measures applicable to all communities.
It is also difficult to be precise about the meaning of "environmental
quality." As our research findings demonstrate, the term is often used
in a vague and all-inclusive way. In this study, however, "environmental
quality" closely parallels the way the term is used in the Illinois En-
vironmental Protection Act (House Bill 3788), that is, it refers to air,
water, and other resource pollution; public water supply; solid waste
disposal; and noise.
In 1972 we surveyed all Illinois incorporated municipalities with pop-
ulations between 10,000 and 50,000 to obtain data on some broad aspects
of environmental quality. The findings from the 124 communities studied
are presented in the first three sections of this report. In a larger study
in 1974 we used a 50-percent sample of all Illinois incorporated munici-
palities with populations between 1,000 and 50,000 for our analysis of
water systems. The section on community water systems is based on data
for 228 communities that had municipal water systems.
Gathering information about a community presents many difficulties.
Perhaps the most serious is trying to decide who speaks for the commu-
nity. For this study we selected key informants on the basis of their
recognized leadership position — mayors, public works directors, repre-
sentatives of chambers of commerce or similar organizations, public
health personnel, newspaper editors or reporters, environmentalists, and
water-system operators. Although community leaders do not necessarily
reflect the range of opinions or attitudes found in a community, they
usually represent a majority position in terms of public attitudes. By
virtue of their position, community leaders were often the only people
who had the information we needed.
MAYORS' VIEWS ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Local governments are in a good position to improve the quality of
the environment, first, because the community political system is a major
agency of social control. Elected officials have the power to make and
enforce a fairly wide range of regulations, including those related to the
environment. Second, local governments are responsible for administer-
ing the delivery of certain types of services to residents. Because main-
taining or improving the quality of the environment is in many ways a
ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING — 5
community service, public officials are responsible, in theory at least,
for delivering services of an environmental nature. How, then, do Illi-
nois mayors perceive environmental matters in their communities, and
what strategies do they consider most effective for making necessary
changes ?
Study Design
Between May and July, 1972, we interviewed community leaders in
124 middle-sized Illinois towns in an attempt to determine how con-
cerned these leaders were about environmental improvement. Mayors
were asked general questions about their views on the issue of environ-
mental quality at the local level. Their responses were rated with respect
to how they denned environmental quality; how serious they perceived
environmental conditions to be; where they ranked environmental prob-
lems in relation to other problems their communities were facing; what
sort of balance they saw between attracting or keeping industry and
strict enforcement of environmental standards; and what obstacles they
felt their communities faced in environmental improvement.
Findings
DEFINITION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
One of the features of the environmental movement is the wide range
of situations and activities included under the umbrella of "environ-
mental quality." Although a broad definition certainly allows the flexi-
bility to embrace new issues, it is at times a liability because almost
anything from installing new chimes in the old courthouse clock to
constructing an expressway can be slipped in under the guise of envi-
ronmental quality. Mayors, too, seemed to have difficulty sorting out
what does and does not fall under this umbrella. Many mayors (37 per-
cent), for example, included school improvement, and still more (65
percent) included provision of recreational facilities along with more
frequently identified problems such as control of industrial and sewage
discharges (Table 1). On the other hand, about a fourth of the mayors
felt that sign regulation was not an environmental matter even though
advocates of visual improvement put it in this category. A large per-
centage of the mayors indicated that the other items listed in Table 1
fell within the scope of environmental quality. Interestingly, many of
these have been administered or regulated by communities for years, but
only recently are being viewed in environmental terms.
6 — BULLETIN NO. 756
Table 1. — Items That Mayors Considered Falling Within Scope of "Environ-
mental Quality"
Falls within scope of
environmental quality
Yes No
pet. pet.
Open burning 94 . 4 4.8
Improved schools 37.1 58.9
Sewage discharge and treatment 99 . 2 .8
Refuse collection 98 . 4 1.6
Land zoning/rezoning 78.2 19.4
Recreation facilities 65 . 3 33 . 9
Attractive-looking streets and businesses 84 . 7 14 . 5
Planting of trees and shrubs 94 . 4 5.6
Industrial and commercial discharge into air and water. . . 98.4 .8
Run-down property 91.9 7.3
Use of pesticides and herbicides 87.9 11.3
Maintaining purity of local bodies of water 99. 2 0
Noise 91.1 6.5
Sign regulation 73 . 4 26.6
Adequate water supply 91.9 7.3
Note : "Don't know" responses account for the difference between row per-
centage totals and 100 percent.
The mayors were questioned about the seriousness of several local
environmental conditions such as the adequacy and quality of the water
supply. They were asked to rate each of five problem areas, which are
similar to those specified in the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
of 1970, on a 5-point scale, with 1 representing "no problem" and 5 a
"very serious problem." The average ratings were as follows:
Air pollution 1.8
Visual pollution 2.0
Noise level 2.1
Sewage disposal 2.2
Pollution and adequacy of water supply 1 .4
As indicated, most of the mayors interviewed did not see these specific
problems as being particularly serious. Sewage disposal, with a rank of
2.2, was considered the most serious, while water pollution and adequacy
(1.4) were seen as the least serious.
Only about a third of the mayors felt that the actual quality of the
environment explained the degree of concern found in Illinois commu-
nities. Most mayors (93 percent) felt that people's expectations for a
cleaner environment accounted for heightened concern, at least to some
extent. Nearly three- fourths (73 percent) also believed that heightened
ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING — 7
concern was generated by a small vocal segment of the population. When
asked to indicate the single most important reason for increased public
concern, half of the mayors pointed to growing aspirations; a fourth felt
that deterioration in the environment was responsible; and the remaining
fourth attributed it to highly vocal individuals or groups in the com-
munity.
COMMUNITY PRIORITIES
In an attempt to find out where environmental quality fits into the
overall order of problems facing Illinois communities, we presented a
list of eleven typical community problem areas to the mayors. They were
asked to indicate how serious each of the problems had been during the
year preceding the study. Table 2 is a summary of their responses. It is
striking that only a small percentage of the mayors felt there were "very
serious" problems of any sort in their communities. Perhaps there simply
were no major problems. On the other hand, perhaps the mayors felt
that admitting the community had very serious problems would reflect
negatively on their administration. As indicated by their responses, 32.3
percent considered local environmental problems to be serious, and 5.6
percent considered them very serious. Environmental quality was un-
doubtedly regarded as one of the more serious issues, ranking in impor-
tance \vith economic issues and the need for public improvements, ser-
vices, and utilities. As noted before, however, the mayors' definitions of
environmental quality were so general that it was difficult to get a clear
idea of what was or was not a real environmental problem.
Table 2. — Seriousness of Community Problems as Perceived by Mayors
Seriousness of problem
Community problem
problem
Minor
Serious
Very
serious
Industrial and economic development. .
Education
pet.
... 43.5
53 2
pet.
33.9
21.0
28.2
32.3
36.3
24.2
40.3
29.8
21.8
43.5
30.6
pet.
20.2
19.4
32.3
29.8
22.6
4.0
12.1
16.2
29.8
8.1
17.8
pet.
2.4
3.2
5.6
4.0
3.2
1.6
4.0
0
3.2
0
2.4
Environmental quality
. . 33.9
Economic and financial issues
. . 33 1
Zoning and rezoning
. 36.3
Minority group problems
. 69.4
Recreational and cultural activities. . . .
... 41.2
Social improvement and welfare . .
.S3 2
Public improvements, services, and utilities 44 . 4
Law and order . . . 484
Housing and building
. 48 4
Note: "Don't know" responses account for the difference between row per-
centage totals and 100 percent.
8 — BULLETIN NO. 756
A somewhat different picture emerges when we look at other indica-
tors of importance. If salient community issues are defined as those
eliciting public participation in government and precipitating debate
among public officials, we see that finances and zoning were the central
issues. Our research shows that 37 percent of the mayors said zoning
or rezoning issues, which of course are related to some extent to envi-
ronmental quality, brought more residents to city council meetings than
any other issue. A fourth also said that zoning caused the most debate
among city council members. Financial issues were second in importance.
Only 8 percent of the mayors felt that environmental quality — in this
case specified as air, noise, and water problems — prompted the greatest
number of citizens to attend council meetings. Less than 5 percent felt
that environmental matters occasioned the most debate among council
members.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Occasionally, strict enforcement of environmental quality standards
or the imposition of new standards leads to plant closings or relocation.
But even more often industry may use the threat of closing as a lever
to relax or inhibit enforcement of regulations. Such threats are especially
effective in single-industry towns and towns where a large portion of the
labor force is employed in local industries.
What were the mayors' views of the relationship between environ-
mental quality and industrial development? A great many mayors (81.5
percent) suspected that new industry and businesses preferred to locate
in a clean environment. However, slightly more than half (52 percent)
felt that industry and businesses would be more attracted to neighboring
towns that had less strict enforcement of environmental quality standards
than their own communities. Somewhat fewer mayors (30 percent) felt
that less strict enforcement in neighboring towns would make it difficult
for their communities to keep industry. Differential enforcement, of
course, can result when a community is too aggressive about enforcing
standards as well as when a nearby community is too lax. The implica-
tion seems to be that a clean environment with minimal enforcement of
regulations is the ideal.
OBSTACLES TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT
Obstacles vary from town to town, but many communities face simi-
lar hindrances to improving the environment. Although the range of
obstacles is large, we developed a list of eleven common types and then
asked the mayors which were applicable to their communities. Results of
ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING — 9
Table 3. — Obstacles to Local Environmental Improvement as Perceived by
Mayors
Response
Obstacle
Yes No
pet. pet.
Reluctance of local industry to regulate itself 26. 6 71.8
Community's inability to control pollution from nearby com-
munities 61.3 38.7
Unwillingness of individuals to change established habits 54.8 45.2
Limits on community's power to set standards and enforce
regulations 41.9 58 . 1
Indifference of government officials to environmental problems 17.7 81 .5
Difficulty in determining just what real environmental problems
and solutions are 51.6 45.2
Insufficient state and federal funds for undertaking improve-
ments 76.6 20.2
Insufficient local funds for undertaking improvements 78. 2 21.0
Reluctance of local commercial establishments to comply with
local and state regulations 27.4 72.6
Unwillingness of residents to pay additional money needed to
improve conditions 66. 1 29. 1
Unwillingness of local industry to pay the additional money
needed to improve conditions 48 4 47.6
Note: "Don't know" responses account for the difference between row per-
centage totals and 100 percent.
their responses are presented in Table 3. As one might expect, the
mayors overwhelmingly rejected indifference on the part of public offi-
cials. Instead, they cited as major drawbacks the lack of adequate fund-
ing, the inability of the community to control pollution from nearby
towns, and the unwillingness of individuals to change their habits or
make additional financial expenditures. Local industry and commercial
establishments were much less frequently cited. Not even half the mayors
indicated that industry and businesses were reluctant or unwilling to co-
operate with efforts to upgrade the quality of the environment.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STRATEGIES
How are obstacles to improvement to be dealt with? Almost three-
fourths of the mayors felt that taxing violators and passing laws would
be the two most effective means of improvement (Table 4). Although
mayors considered the lack of funding a major obstacle, they expressed
considerable doubt that increased governmental expenditures would get
the job done. Appealing to the consciences of both the business commu-
nity and residents was seen as the least effective strategy. Voluntary
10 — BULLETIN NO. 756
Table 4. — Mayors' Perceptions of Effectiveness of Strategies for Environ-
mental Protection and Improvement
Effectiveness of strategies
Strategy
Considered
most effec-
Verv Some" Notat Pon>t Total tive of four
* w J «-haf all Irniiiir • »»••»• .
all
know
strategies
pet. pet.
Appealing to conscience of
business and public 16 9 58 1
pet. pet. pet. pet.
22 6 24 100 0 87
Increasing governmental ex-
penditures 42 . 7 45 2
8.1 40 100 0 19.1
Prohibiting certain detri-
mental practices by law. .77.4 18.6
Taxing violators to make it
unprofitable to pollute 74.2 16.1
Total
2.4 1.6 100.0 36.9
7.3 2.4 100.0 35.3
100 0
compliance was viewed quite dimly as a means for improving the quality
of the environment.
Summary
The mayors' definitions of environmental quality were broad enough
to encompass many of the services and activities with which their com-
munities had traditionally been concerned. By and large, the Illinois
mayors did not consider environmental problems to be very serious, but
neither did they admit that their communities had any other very serious
problems. Concern about the environment, the mayors felt, was due
principally to heightened aspirations and to small vocal segments of the
population campaigning for a cleaner environment.
The mayors expressed concern about the relationship between indus-
try and the community. They believed that economic activity is drawn
to environmentally attractive communities but also to communities with
less strictly enforced standards. The mayors felt that differential en-
forcement of standards might make it difficult for some communities to
attract new businesses and industry.
Inadequate funding, pollution from neighboring towns, and the re-
luctance of individuals to change their habits and preferences were cited
as the major obstacles to environmental improvement in Illinois commu-
nities. Legal prohibitions and polluter taxation were viewed as the most
effective means for dealing with pollution. Appealing to the conscience
of business and residents was seen as the least effective strategy.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING — 11
COMMUNITY LEADERS' PERCEPTIONS
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Starting with the assumption that mobilization takes place from the
top down — from community leaders, to other decision makers, and
finally to the public — we tried to establish in this phase of our research
the extent to which leaders agreed among themselves about the nature
and seriousness of certain environmental problems. We then tried to
determine how accurately their perceptions mirrored actual conditions.
This section summarizes the attitudes and views of those community
leaders who, we believe, were in a position to exert influence and make
decisions that could improve local environmental conditions.
The way community leaders feel about the quality of the environ-
ment is clearly not the sole determinant of the level of quality that might
be realized, nor are their actions determined only by their attitudes and
perceptions. But one important line of research now recognizes that
the feelings and the perceptions expressed by community leaders often
provide clues for interpreting their behavior and for understanding
decisions and policy changes that influence the direction in which com-
munities move. Previous social science research offers some evidence
that community leaders act as a stimulus to other decision makers and,
in turn, the public (Rosenthal and Grain, 1966; Sharkansky, 1970; Kuo,
1973). Forces for change frequently reside in community decision-
making organizations such as city governments, political organizations,
and businessmen's associations (Warren, 1971:169-179). In addition,
Herskowitz (1973:783) argues that communities "are often best able to
define the ecological dangers and affect the most equitable solutions in
terms of a balance between local environmental protection and the reali-
ties of municipal economics." Caponera (1972) believes that community
leaders, especially those attached to community decision-making organi-
zations, are in positions to shape public opinion, mobilize public support,
and enforce local ordinances and policy decisions.
Another dominant research trend has focused on the orientations of
professionals and experts working on environmental problems. S< inn-
researchers feel that there are often major differences between the solu-
tions preferred by the public and the standards set by professionals or
lobbied for by environmentalists. Public compliance, these researchers
argue, would not be forthcoming unless technical solutions reflected pub-
lic awareness, concerns, and needs. Along these lines, Craik (1970)
suggests that there is a great need for research on the way professional
12 BULLETIN NO. 756
environmental decision makers (architects, urban designers, conserva-
tionists, transportation planners) perceive the environment, and espe-
cially the extent to which their perceptions, interpretations, and evalua-
tions differ from those of clients and the public.
In this study we assumed a modicum of agreement among community
leaders and other influentials, and some congruence between their per-
ceptions of environmental conditions and the actual, measurable condi-
tions. To determine the extent of agreement we surveyed community
leaders, all of whom were extensively involved in local activities. Using
one particular issue, air quality, we then measured the degree of corre-
spondence between how these leaders viewed the quality of the air and
the actual quality on measures of air particulates and sulfur dioxide.
Study Design
We interviewed the mayor, a public works and a public health offi-
cial, a representative of the chamber of commerce or similar association,
a newspaper editor or reporter, and an environmentalist in each of 124
Illinois communities with populations between 10,000 and 50,000. An
environmentalist is denned in this study as a citizen who is actively con-
cerned with community environmental issues. There is some research
precedent for selecting respondents in these key positions (Grain et al.,
1969; Crenson, 1971; Abt Associates, 1971). We wanted people familiar
with the environmental concerns of the public and with community prob-
lems in general. These informants, we felt, should at the very least be in
a position to affect, implement, and enforce decisions, or be capable of
gauging and mobilizing public awareness of environmental issues. Ideally
they would be able to do all of these things. A more detailed rationale
for selecting each respondent is presented by Bridgeland (1973).
Names of the informants, with the exception of the environmental-
ists, were obtained from national and Illinois directories of organizations
and officials. Most environmentalists were chosen from lists of "environ-
mentally concerned citizens" compiled by a University of Illinois organi-
zation, Students for Environmental Concerns. The remainder were taken
from lists of other environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, the
Izaak Walton League, and the Audubon Society.
Findings
PERCEIVED SERIOUSNESS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Community leaders were asked to rate the seriousness of air, noise,
and visual pollution in their town. We gave them examples of each prob-
ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING 13
Table 5. — Ser/ousness of Env/ronmenfo/ Problems
as Perceived by Community Leaders
Pollution problem*
Air
Visual
Noise
Mayor
. 1.8
2.1
2.1
Public works
1.9
2 1
2 2
Chamber of commerce
2 0
2 2
2.4
Public health
. . . 2.1
2.2
2.1
Kditor
. . . 2.4
2.4
2.5
Knvironmentalist
. 3.3
2 8
2.8
* 5-point scale ; 1 = no problem, 5 = very serious
problem.
lem and rated their responses on a 5-point scale, with 1 representing "no
problem" and 5 a "very serious problem."
The findings, which are based on the average item score for each set
of community leaders, show that they tended to view all three environ-
mental conditions as relatively minor problems (Table 5). Although
there were differences among informants, the ratings for all three issues
fell more to the lower, or "no problem," end of the scale. Moreover, the
rank that leaders assigned to one problem correlated highly with the rank
they assigned to the other two problems. When the heads of public
works departments, for example, indicated that air pollution was not
serious, they also said there was not much of a problem with visual and
noise pollution. With regard to all three issues, the perceptions of the
mayors were counterpoised by those of the environmentalists. This per-
haps demonstrates the basis for some of the controversies that have
arisen in the past between municipal officials and environmentalists in
Illinois communities.
White (1966) suggests that one of the key factors in the formation
of attitudes toward the environment is the individual's perception of his
role. In certain roles, people develop or inherit customary ways of de-
fining significant parts of the environment. In our study the mayors, in
the role of community defenders, obviously played down the seriousness
of environmental conditions. On the other hand, the environmentalists,
in the role of advocates for a cleaner environment, stressed the serious-
ness of the problems.
These broad conclusions, though, belie the rather minimal disagree-
ment that, as our findings suggest, actually existed (Table 5). On two of
the issues, visual and noise pollution, for example, there was only a .)
difference (5-point scale.) between the mayors and the environmentalists.
14 BULLETIN NO. 756
On the question of air quality the difference was somewhat greater, 1.5
points. These differences are not as great as recent publicity might lead
one to expect. When we look at how leaders ranked community priori-
ties and strategies for change (data not shown) and what items they
believed to fall under the umbrella of "environmental quality," we again
detect only minor disagreement between leaders and environmentalists.
Their rankings of community priorities and preferred strategies for
change are practically identical. Clearly, environmentalists viewed en-
vironmental problems, and in fact all community problems, as more
serious than did the mayors. However, given the range of responses
possible on the 5-point scale used, neither group can easily be charac-
terized as "extremist." There was not much evidence that they were
unreasonably maximizing or minimizing the seriousness of environmen-
tal problems. Perhaps they realized that exaggerated claims about the
quality of the environment would be counterproductive in the long run.
AGREEMENT AND DISAGREEMENT
By examining the correlations among the six groups of community
leaders, we can see in more detail the extent of agreement and disagree-
Table 6. — Inter-Respondent Correlations on Perceived Seriousness of En-
vironmental Conditions
Respondent
M Public 1
works I
Dublic Chamber „,. „ .
lealth of com. Edltor Envir'
Mayor
Air pollution
Public works
.41*
Public health
.. .18 .12
Chamber of commerce . .
.. 36* .15
.23*
Editor
.. .19 .13
.19 .34*
Environmentalist
.. .21 .18
.18 .19 .04
Mayor
Noise pollution
.
Public works
.26*
Public health
.. .25* .11
Chamber of commerce. . . .
.. .23* .15
.35*
Editor .
.. .21 .33*
.25* .31*
Environmentalist
.. .19 .24*
.18 .16 .14
Mayor
Visual pollution
Public works
.23*
Public health
.. .20 .24*
Chamber of commerce. . . .
.. .25* .20
.29*
Editor
.. .13 .20
.12 .06
Environmentalist
.. .11 .26*
.23* .24* .18
* Significant at the .01 level.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING 15
ment (Table 6). Although there are some statistically significant levels
of agreement, the correlations are generally low. This certainly does not
seem to argue that there is a strong base for unified action on a particu-
lar environmental issue. The data also indicate which community leaders
generally agree most closely with other leaders. Among those responsible
for maintaining the image of the community — mayors, public works
officials, and chamber of commerce representatives — the correlations
are significant on all three environmental issues, indicating a fair amount
of agreement.
On no issue are the correlations between the mayors' and the envi-
ronmentalists' perceptions significant. In fact, on the issues of air quality
and noise level the environmentalists' perceptions do not seem to agree
with those of most of the other respondents. Editors of newspapers show
little agreement with either mayors or environmentalists. At best, there
is moderate agreement among some community leaders on some envi-
ronmental issues.
PERCEPTIONS OF AIR QUALITY AND ACTUAL AIR QUALITY
There is contradictory research evidence on the correspondence be-
tween perceived air pollution and actual air quality. Boldt et al. (1972)
present evidence that most respondents (two-thirds) from Canadian
communities felt there was no air pollution problem, even when they
were faced with objective, contradictory evidence. Murch (1971:102)
reasons that individuals are generally "reluctant to acknowledge serious
defects in one's own immediate surroundings." Swan (1970), however,
arguing that it is easier to identify air pollution than other types of en-
vironmental pollution, demonstrates a correlation between seriousness of
the problems and perceived seriousness. Similarly, De Groot (1967:680)
suggests that "awareness of air pollution is realistically oriented."
We obtained measures of actual air quality from the Illinois Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, which has collected air quality data from
individual businesses and emission points throughout the state. For this
research, emissions from individual plants and businesses were aggre-
gated to obtain two community-level measures of air quality: a visual
index, suspended air particulates, measured in terms of average pounds
of particulates per hour per year; and an olfactory index, the level of
sulfur dioxide, measured in average pounds of sulfur dioxide per hour
per year. There are obvious problems with using most data of this sort,
for example, coverage of emissions may be incomplete; prevailing winds
may obviate the effect of pollution on residents; and pollution may be
restricted to a particular section of the community. However, in view r>f
16 BULLETIN NO. 756
Table 7 . — Corre/af/ons Befween Community Lead-
ers' Perceptions of Air Pollution and
Two Measures of Actual Air Quality
_ . , Air quality measure
Air particulates
Sulfur dioxide
Mayor
09
10
Public health
13
.17*
Public works
19*
.15
Chamber of commerce
- 03
02
Editor
-.01
-.06
Environmentalist
06
.19*
* Significant at the .05 level.
the scarcity of reliable air quality data, we decided to use these measures
and note the possible shortcomings.
The data show very minimal correspondence between community
leaders' perceptions of air quality and either of the two measures of
actual air quality (Table 7). On the air particulate measure, which we
would expect to be the most discernible type of air pollution, the only
significant correlation was that of the public works official. On the sulfur
dioxide measure there were significant correlations for only the environ-
mentalists and public health officials. In all cases the correlation between
perceptions and actual air quality were quite low. These findings suggest
that either there is little relationship between actual conditions and per-
ceptions, or that aggregating air pollution measures at the community
level obscures the correspondence one may find between perceptions and
actual conditions in those areas of communities where pollution is acute.
At this point these alternative explanations can only be suggested because
the data are not available in a form that permits this assessment.
Summary and Discussion
Effective community action on environmental quality issues presup-
poses, first, the existence of some feeling that environmental conditions
constitute a problem for the community, and, second, at least minimal
agreement among potential influential actors about the seriousness of the
problem. A correspondence between perceptions and actual conditions
appears to be a less important prerequisite for community action. Air
quality may objectively be at a level detrimental to the health or well-
being of individuals, but a failure to perceive it as such may result in
inaction. On the other hand, even though objective evidence of air pollu-
ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING 17
tion is lacking, perceived seriousness may have a high potential for
mobilizing the community.
Our results show that community leaders tended to view air, noise,
and visual pollution as relatively minor problems. In addition, if leaders
felt that one type of condition was a minor problem, they were likely to
feel that other problems were also minor. At best, there was only mod-
erate agreement among community leaders on some environmental issues.
Those whose roles consisted, in part at least, of presenting a favorable
image of the community and local government were more likely to have
similar perceptions and to minimize environmental problems. With re-
gard to actual conditions, we found little support for the argument that
air quality is readily perceived or that awareness of air pollution is re-
alistically oriented. The findings generally do not bode well for unified
efforts to improve environmental conditions at the local governmental
level.
WHY SOME COMMUNITIES MOBILIZE
Environmentalism has evoked a wide variety of responses during the
past several years. Some communities have shown little or no interest
in particular environmental issues; other communities have mobilized
swiftly. In some towns ad hoc groups were formed to lobby locally for
change, and cultural activities with an environmental motif have been
promoted. Clean-up campaigns and recycling drives were initiated and
ordinance violations reported. While mobilization to improve the quality
of the environment can take many forms, we have concentrated in the
overall study on the extent to which community leaders and the public
were aware of environmental issues, how involved they were in efforts to
remedy undesirable conditions, and how willing leaders were to commit
resources to environmental protection and improvement.
In this particular phase of our study we investigated possible ex-
planations for the differences in public response to environmental quality
in Illinois communities. Two dominant explanations have emerged to
account for the rate at which towns mobilize around both environmental
and nonenvironmental issues. The first explanation emphasizes the struc-
ture of the community: the sociodemographic, organizational, and cul-
tural features of the resident population. The second focuses on issue-
specific factors such as the centrality of an issue for the community, the
seriousness of a particular problem, and the occurrence of a precipitating
event or incident that sensitizes the public.
18 BULLETIN NO. 756
Research on community structure — sometimes referred to as com-
munity composition, attributes, or characteristics — makes use of the
fact that communities are different from one another internally in some
respects. According to advocates of this approach to the study of mobili-
zation, these differences are important for predicting and understanding
community action. There is considerable research support for the validity
of this approach, but we will cite only two examples. Grain et al. (1969)
looked extensively at community characteristics to understand why fluo-
ridation referenda passed without controversy in some communities but
not in others. Aiken (1970) studied community structure in an attempt
to explain why some towns and cities responded more quickly than
others to the issues of poverty, public housing, and urban renewal.
Less attention has been given to the role of issue-specific factors in
explaining community response. Rossi (1969), however, argues that
one can hardly understand community mobilization without focusing on
specific aspects of the issue itself. Researchers also need to look at how
central a particular issue or event is in the daily lives of community resi-
dents. For example, Crenson (1971) made an attempt to show that
mobilization over air quality is a function more of the issue than of
community characteristics: cities mobilize when the air is not clean and,
conversely, neglect the air pollution issue when the air is clean.
During the past few years Illinois communities have experienced
environmental incidents or minor crises that have had the effect of
mobilizing local populations. These incidents or crises ranged from pro-
posed changes in zoning or water use, to major alterations of the land-
scape, to discharge of pollutants into the air or water. The incidents
have been numerous and widespread. The Illinois Air Sampling Network
Report (Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 1974) indicates that
in 1973 alone there were numerous pollution incidents in Illinois. A
quick breakdown shows that about 17 incidents were related to air qual-
ity, 260 to water quality, 168 to the adequacy of public water supplies,
and 15 to land pollution. Throughout the state these incidents produced
property damage, livestock and fish kills, evacuation of households, in-
terruptions in water supply, and in some cases hospitalization.
Study Design
Although the community structure approach and the issue-specific
approach overlap somewhat, they have usually been examined indepen-
dently. In our research in 124 middle-sized Illinois communities we have
tried to shed some light on the relative importance of both perspectives.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING — 19
We focused on community mobilization around the environmental qual-
ity issue, and attempted to determine if mobilization can be understood
better against the backdrop of community characteristics or issue-specific
factors. We used two sets of independent variables: (1) community
characteristics measured by secondary data, and (2) issue-specific vari-
ables based on data collected from the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency and from key informants in each of the communities studied.
Our selection of community characteristics was guided largely by
characteristics used in previous research that attempted to explain com-
munity response to new programs and issues. We chose the following
variables and indicators:
Socioeconomic status, a composite index constructed from standardized
scores on three measures:
Income level: percent of families in community with annual incomes
over $9,000
Occupational level: percent of community labor force comprised of
"professional, technical, and kindred," "managers and administra-
tors," "sales, clerical, and kindred"
Educational level: percent of population in the community with a
college education
Ethnic composition: percent of population of foreign stock
Organizational density: number of community organizations and associa-
tions per 10,000
Community integration:
Level of poverty: percent of families below poverty line, i.e., less than
$3,000 annual income (1970)
Level of unemployment: percent of labor force unemployed (1970)
Population change: percent of change in population (1950 to 1970)
Age composition: percent of population under 17 years of age
At one time or another all of these variables have been incorporated
into theories explaining community response. We also included two is-
sue-specific variables and indicators related to environmental conditions
in the communities studied :
Air quality:
Suspended air particulates: average pounds per hour per year
Levels of sulfur dioxide: average pounds per hour per year
Environmental incident: the presence or absence of an incident related to
environmental quality
Data for the two measures of actual air quality were obtained from
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency for the 124 sample com-
munities. The first measure, suspended particulates, is generally referred
20 BULLETIN NO. 756
to as soot or dust that enters the atmosphere from coal-burning and
industrial processes, quarrying operations, road construction, farming
operations, and so forth. The second, sulfur dioxide, is an olfactory
measure of air quality.
It is often quite difficult to determine accurately whether an environ-
mental incident has occurred in or near a community. To establish the
occurrence of an incident we relied heavily on questionnaire data ob-
tained from the key community informants — mayors, public works and
public health officials, representatives of chambers of commerce or simi-
lar organizations, newspaper editors or reporters, and environmentalists.
Details about the questionnaire and interview are contained in Bridge-
land and Sofranko (1975). Two criteria had to be met: there had to be
some consensus among the informants regarding a particular incident,
and the incident had to have received some publicity in the community.
Community mobilization is an elusive concept for which there are
no adequate objective indicators that apply across all communities. De-
spite the general feeling that some communities have been more pro-
gressive, modern, or forward-looking than others, finding a way to mea-
sure community mobilization has proved to be most difficult. Although
mobilization in an issue-area such as environmental quality may take
many forms, we focused on the extent to which residents engaged in
public displays of concern or participated in ad hoc protests and citizens'
groups formed specifically to effect change in the community.
Community mobilization, then, will refer to the extent to which com-
munities in the study were characterized by public awareness of the
environmental quality issue, public involvement in efforts to improve
the environment either through various expressions of concern or
through attempts to change particular aspects of the environment, and
public commitment of resources to improve the level of environmental
quality in the community. In this study, to determine the level of com-
munity mobilization, we asked key informants questions that tapped
some of the dimensions of community involvement in environmental
issues. These questions were as follows:
1 . Mayor, environmental activist — Have community residents at-
tended city council meetings to urge local government to take account
of environmental quality criteria?
2. Public works official — Have you or your office received any com-
plaints from community residents concerning violations of ordinances
pertaining to environmental quality ?
ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING 21
3. Newspaper editor — Have you received any letters to the editor,
comments, or opinions expressing concern for the quality of the envi-
ronment in the community ?
4. Environmental activist, chamber of commerce representative —
Has there been any pressure on local businesses or industry to modify
their buying, processing, or disposal practices in order to contribute to
a cleaner environment?
5. Chamber of commerce representative — Have you or your office
received any complaints about local merchants who were felt to be pol-
luting or violating pollution standards ?
6. Newspaper editor — Have you received requests from environ-
mentally concerned groups or individuals to provide coverage of (for)
environmental activities or issues ?
7. Public health official, public works official — Have you or your
office received any complaints from community residents claiming that
environmental conditions in the community have been contributing to
health problems?
8. Environmental activist, newspaper editor — Do residents in this
community participate in environmentally-related organizations and ac-
tivities more than they participate in other community organizations and
activities ?
9. Mayor — Are residents of your community more concerned with
environmental quality than they are with other community issues?
A "yes" response to each question was assigned a 1; a "no" response
was assigned a 0. The sum across the nine questions represents the level
of mobilization in each community. On the basis of this measure, com-
munity mobilization ranged from almost no environmental activity (1.5)
to a great deal of activity (8.0) .
Findings
The community characteristics variables do not seem to be any more
closely related to the level of mobilization than do the issue-specific vari-
ables, as the zero-order correlations in Table 8 indicate. Although the
correlations are generally low, they are in the direction we anticipated.
In addition, we tried to identify which particular factors among the
two sets of independent variables best explained the degree of commu-
nity mobilization. For this purpose we used a stepwise multiple regres-
sion technique that permits choosing independent variables to provide
the best prediction with the smallest number of variables. The technique
22 BULLETIN NO. 756
Table 8. — Expected and Actual Relationship of Community Structure and
Issue-Specific Variables to Level of Mobilization
Relationship to level of mobilization*
Variable Expected Zero-order
direction correlation
Community structure
Socioeconomic status + .14
Ethnic composition — .00
Organizational density + .12
Community integration
Poverty level - - . 08
Unemployment — — . 07
Population change — — .12
Age composition + .00
Issue-specific
Air quality
Suspended particulates -(- .12
Sulfur dioxide -j- .08
Presence/absence of environmental incident + .25
a With N = 124, an r value of .17 is required for significance at the .05 level.
constructs a prediction equation by adding one variable at a time, select-
ing first the best predictor variable. Then in each successive step, the
variable that provides the best prediction in conjunction with variables
already in the equation is added.
The results presented in Table 9 indicate that all of the independent
variables together explain relatively little (14 percent) of the variation
in the levels of mobilization found among the 124 communities studied.
Moreover, a single issue-specific variable, the presence of an environ-
mental incident, accounts for a large portion (6 percent) of that varia-
tion. This seems to support our assumption that dramatic episodes (sud-
den pollution of water supplies, sewage problems, zoning abuses, and
the like) trigger citizen concern and activity. The occurrence of an inci-
dent was the most important variable explaining mobilization. Lack of
association between mobilization and the two measures of air quality in
our study replicates other researchers' failure to find a significant corre-
lation between mobilization and actual air quality (Crenson, 1971).
Others have argued that organizational density and the socioeconomic
character of the community are important structural variables that ex-
plain community behaviors. Morrison et a/. (1972), for example, con-
tend that support for the environmental movement comes largely from
voluntary organizations, which are often the first groups within the
ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING — 23
Table 9. — Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis of
Determinants of Community Mobilization
Dependent variable and Change
steps (independent variables) ^ m D2a Beta
Community mobilization
Add steps:
1
Incident
25*
06
?S
?
Socioeconomic status
28*
02
16
3.
4
Organizational density. . .
Population change
. .31*
34
.02
.02
.21
1?
S
Sulfur dioxide. . .
35
01
08
6
Age composition . .
36
01
10
7
Poverty .
36
00
11
8
Unemployment
37
00
07
Q
Air particulates
37
00
OS
10
Ethnic composition
. .37
.00
03
(R2 = .14)
* Significant at the .05 level.
a R2 for each set of variables alone and community
mobilization = .07.
community to respond to environmental issues. In addition, towns with
higher socioeconomic status populations are more likely to react to envi-
ronmental problems because they have the resources, experience, and
knowledge to grasp the dimensions of an issue and make change. There
is some minimal support in our findings for these contentions.
We cannot conclude from our data, however, that either the com-
munity characteristics variables or the issue-specific variables assume
primacy in explaining mobilization. In a separate analysis of the two
sets of variables (not reported here), each set independently explained
7 percent of the variance in the level of mobilization. Nor can we con-
clude that both sets of variables together adequately explain why a com-
munity mobilizes. The findings seem to suggest, instead, that there may
be different routes to community mobilization. In other words, mobiliza-
tion can occur under different sets of conditions, one of which relates
to structural characteristics of the community (organizational density,
socioeconomic status) and another which relates to an issue-specific con-
dition (whether or not an environmental incident has occurred).
The findings raise an additional question about whether communities
with certain structural features tend to have more environmental inci-
dents than communities with somewhat different structural character-
istics. As far as we can determine, none of the variables used in this
study sheds any light on the cause of incidents. None of the community
24 BULLETIN NO. 756
structure variables correlates higher than .11 with the incident variable.
Correlations between the air quality variables and the incident variable
were also low.
On the basis of our data we must reject the explanation that envi-
ronmental conditions are worse in higher socioeconomic status commu-
nities or in those with a relatively high density of organizations. On the
contrary, our findings indicate that the higher the income, occupational,
and educational levels of the residents, the better the air is, yet mobiliza-
tion is also higher. This relationship is not surprising because, as we
have shown, it does not necessarily follow that people will see condi-
tions as they actually are and act accordingly.
Summary and Discussion
The findings provide little support for arguing for the primacy of
either community structure or issue-specific variables in explaining com-
munity mobilization. Still, the importance of the incident variable sug-
gests that more research is needed in this area. From the study data it
is not clear whether incidents produce mobilization or a mobilized citi-
zenry generates incidents. Without a longitudinal study it is difficult to
conclude that an incident preceded mobilization in every community.
If environmental incidents are important to mobilization, we ought to
examine the conditions related to the emergence of such incidents, for
example, why incidents occur in some communities but not in others;
the role of the media in calling attention to a problem; the militancy,
strength, and credibility of environmental groups in the community and
their influence on the emergence of incidents; the salience of competing
community issues; the types of incidents that are most apt to precipitate
response, lead to higher levels of mobilization, get media coverage, gen-
erate ad hoc groups, and make the agenda of city council meetings. These
questions raised by our study need additional research.
AN OVERLOOKED ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE:
COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS
The preceding sections have examined newly-defined problem areas
of environmental quality, such as air, visual, and noise pollution. In this
section we will look at an environmental matter with which local govern-
ments have had long-standing experience, namely, providing water ser-
vices. Too frequently the research on environmental quality has focused
ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING — 25
on new governmental functions, innovative responses, and mobilization
over emerging concerns. The environmental implications of routine gov-
ernmental services and functions have usually been neglected. But even
before environmental quality became a national concern, many aspects
of the environment have historically fallen under the jurisdiction of local
governments. To make some assessment of the future of environmental
quality, we examined not only how communities mobilize in response to
new public concerns, but also how they perform in environmental areas
within their purview. In our judgment, the ability of a community to
provide high-quality water service is just as important to the quality of
the environment at the local level as the community's assumption of new
responsibilities in this area.
Most Illinois residents expect to have high-quality water for home
or industrial use whenever they so desire. Providing water is probably
one of the least controversial of the public services, a remarkable state
of affairs in a time of continuing crises in the provision of other local
services. This can be explained, in general, by the fact that in recent
decades Illinois has usually had ample quantities of high-quality water.
Also, the technology of water production and distribution is relatively
simple and well known, although not necessarily inexpensive.
There are, however, indications that all is not well with drinking
water supplies, contrary to the views expressed by Illinois mayors in our
1972 study (page 6). The large number of water-related incidents re-
ported in the 1973 sample (page 18) and the need to restrict water use
in some Illinois communities during the 1976 drought suggest that the
provision of water may become an increasingly important issue. The
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency reports that nearly 19 percent
of the municipal water systems in Illinois had failed to meet a state dead-
line for chlorinating their water. About 20 percent of the systems did not
have properly certified operating officers, as required by a 1974 Illinois
law (Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 1976). Elsewhere in the
United States, Frey et al. (1975) note that in medium-sized cities of
the Northeastern States many system failures could have been avoided
by monitoring the impact of population growth on delivery systems.
While Illinois water systems rarely experience profound crises, we
had good reason to believe that there are significant variations in the
efficiency and quality of the fiscal management of water services (Afifi
and Bassie, 1969). In this phase of our research we had two objectives.
First, we wanted to determine how communities have incorporated and
routinized water services. Second, we wanted to analyze the different
ways in which communities provide this service. More specifically, our
26 BULLETIN NO. 756
intention was to investigate whether the differences in decision making
and planning can be traced systematically to characteristics of the com-
munity or to those of the water system.
Study Design
To obtain a stratified sample, Illinois towns and cities with 1970
populations of 1,000 to 50,000 were ranked according to size and every
second municipality selected. Interview schedules were constructed after
conferring with several water-system experts. The research staff then
traveled to a number of communities for extensive interviews with vari-
ous local officials such as water-system operators, mayors, planners, and
waterworks engineers to refine the questionnaire.
During the summer of 1974 questionnaires were mailed to all of the
mayors in the original sample and 284 were interviewed. Eight of the
communities were excluded from the study because they were part of
large metropolitan water systems. Water-system operators were inter-
viewed in the remaining 276 communities; 21 refused to cooperate, 4
could not be contacted, and 23 indicated that their systems were not
municipally owned. The final sample for this study consisted of 228
communities having municipally owned and operated water systems.
CLASSIFICATION OF MUNICIPALITIES
During the last few decades there have been notable changes in the
functioning and structure of American communities. The contrast be-
tween urban and rural communities is becoming less pronounced as
smaller communities expand services and activities. In addition, the
population growth of communities surrounding center cities has been
phenomenal. Warner and Dajani (1975) note that while more than half
of all nonmetropolitan communities grew to some extent during the last
decade, the most rapid growth occurred in communities close to metro-
politan areas, especially those forming a part of a larger entity. Between
1950 and 1970 in Illinois, those incorporated communities with popula-
tions of 1,000 to 50,000 that lie outside the Standard Metropolitan Sta-
tistical Areas (SMSA) gained slightly more than 200,000 residents.
Within S MSA's, however, cities and towns of this size gained more than
1.5 million residents during the same period.
The influence exerted by the center city of a metropolitan system
over other population centers is important in the analysis of communi-
ties. These metropolitan centers affect the economic activities as well as
the social organization and community activities of the surrounding com-
ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING — 27
munities (Berry and Horton, 1970; Fuguitt, 1971). Metropolitan domi-
nance, however, declines with distance, and the outlying municipalities
become more autonomous (Rice and Beegle, 1972).
In order to take this relationship into account in our study, we classi-
fied the location of each municipality in relation to center cities of differ-
ent sizes. Calling our variable "Metro," we divided the municipalities
into three categories:
Metro 1 — rural communities located outside the immediate sphere of a
metropolitan center.
Metro 2 — communities within 25 miles of the medium-sized SMSA's
of Bloomington, Champaign, Decatur, Peoria, Rockford, Rock Island,
and Springfield, Illinois; Evansville and Terre Haute, Indiana; and
Dubuque, Iowa.
Metro 3 — communities located within a 50-mile radius of the large
Illinois SMSA's of Chicago and East St. Louis.
Roseman (1975) supplies empirical support for this division, noting
that growing small towns around Chicago are situated as far as 50
miles from the center city. Similar growth has occurred around medium-
sized SMSA's, except that in this case the towns are between 20 and 30
miles from these centers. The use of the Metro variable has enabled us
to determine whether a community's location within the field of urban
dominance has had any impact on its decision making.
WATER-SYSTEM AND COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS
To determine the relationships among the characteristics of water
systems, the quality of water services, and the characteristics of munici-
palities, we chose five variables related to water-system decision making
and planning: size of the water system; type of water use; and plant
personnel characteristics, which included the ratio of full- to part-time
employees, the proportion of college-educated employees, and the level of
employee certification.
Size of water system. On the basis of 1973 figures, the number of
gallons produced by systems in the bottom 25 percent varied from less
than 1 million to 43 million gallons. Systems in the top 25 percent pro-
duced more than 900 million gallons per year. Two measures were com-
puted to provide additional information. The first was obtained from the
average amount of water produced in a 24-hour period divided by
the utility's daily rated capacity. In about 25 percent of the systems,
the average amount of water used per day was nearly the same as the
daily rated capacity. In almost 6 percent, the average daily production
28 BULLETIN NO. 756
equaled or exceeded the daily rated capacity. The second measure was
obtained by dividing the maximum amount of water produced in a 24-
hour period by the system's daily rated capacity. The majority of the 228
systems had been able to meet maximum demands. However, in 25 per-
cent of the systems, maximum use almost equaled the utility's rated
capacity, while in close to 20 percent of the systems, use exceeded the
rated capacity, in some instances by as much as three or four times.
Type of water use. Industry and residents are the two major types
of users. Compared with residential use, industrial consumption almost
always involves relatively few users and large quantities of water. Resi-
dential use predominated in 80 percent of the systems. In certain munici-
palities, however, as much as 70 to 75 percent of the water was used by
industry and commercial enterprises. These users are frequently in a
position to insist that the water system deal with them in an economically
rational and efficient way.
Plant personnel characteristics. Personnel characteristics that might
affect the ability of a system to meet more technologically complex de-
mands are: the ratio of full- to part-time employees, the percentage of
college-educated employees, and the level of Illinois certification. We
wanted to see if full-time employees would have a more professional
orientation and perhaps be more involved with their work than part-time
employees. We assumed that employees certified at the higher levels (A
the highest, D the lowest) would have a greater sense of professionalism
than those at the lowest level. With this information we hoped to test
whether the presence of more highly qualified workers is reflected in the
operation of the system.
The levels of certification and education of water-system employees
were as follows:
Certification
No certified personnel 4 percent
Level of those certified
D (lowest) 4 percent
C 26 percent
B 21 percent
A (highest) 45 percent
Education
High school graduate or less 30 percent
Some college 53 percent
College graduate 17 percent
ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING — 29
With regard to the full- or part-time status of personnel, we found
that in close to 12 percent of the systems fewer than half of the em-
ployees, and in some cases none, worked full-time with the water system.
In nearly 35 percent of the systems more than half, but not all, of the
employees were full-time. Finally, in 53 percent of the systems all of
the employees worked full-time.
Community characteristics. In the section "Why Some Communi-
ties Mobilize," we discussed community characteristics variables related
to mobilization. In this phase of our research we chose five similar vari-
ables that could affect the decision-making- and planning process: popu-
lation size; rate of population growth (1960 to 1970); per capita munic-
ipal expenditures (1970); median house value, used as an indicator of
the level of community economic well-being; and the form of govern-
ment, particularly whether or not there is a city manager. It has been
argued that city governments with managers are more strongly oriented
than those with mayors toward businesslike efficiency and professional-
ism in municipal affairs.
Findings
DECISION MAKING
Frequently the relationship between the mayor, as head of the com-
munity government, and the water system is ambiguous. On the one
hand, the local government is responsible for decisions about the water
system, which means that the mayor must be well informed about the
day-to-day operations of the system. On the other hand, the municipal
government must coordinate a variety of other services and reconcile
the numerous demands for available resources.
One important aspect of water-system decision making is how much
the mayor knows about the water system. He has many competing de-
mands upon his time, but in order to effectively oversee the operation of
the water system, he must be well informed. We designed a simple scale
to determine how knowledgeable mayors were about basic aspects of the
water system. It should be pointed out that the accuracy of their knowl-
edge was not measured, but only their admitted lack of information. The
mayors were asked six questions :
1 . Does the water system have a written plan ?
2. Is the water tested for nitrogen ?
3. Is the water tested for iron ?
4. Is the water tested for coliform bacilli ?
30 BULLETIN NO. 756
5. Is there a set of procedures to follow for severe low water pres-
sure?
6. What procedure is followed in the event of low pressure?
Two-thirds of the mayors were knowledgeable in all six areas. An-
other 14 percent were uninformed in only one area. Slightly under 20
percent did not know the answers to two or more of the questions.
Groups influencing decision making. To find out what forces have
a bearing on the decision-making process, mayors were asked which of
four groups was the most important in influencing the water-rate
schedule and major capital expenditures. The four groups were: the
municipal government; the public, made up of residential users and
citizens' groups; special interest groups such as large-volume users,
community development corporations and chambers of commerce, or
large real estate developers; and outside forces such as bond holders or
financial underwriters for bonds, water boards, commissions, and the
like.
Over half of the mayors rated municipal governments as the most
influential group in determining water rates and capital expenditures.
Outside groups and the public were each considered the most important
by close to one-fifth of the mayors, while the influence of special interest
groups was considered very minor. These findings confirm the impres-
sion that although municipal governments are primarily responsible for
managerial decisions affecting water systems, frequently they have to
contend with other interests when making such decisions.
Control of decision making. Who has administrative control over
the water system and hence who makes decisions about it? To answer
this question we constructed a set of indices to find out which people are
responsible for making certain types of decisions. For example, in a
decentralized system a plant operator may have full responsibility for
purchasing chemicals and authorizing repairs. In a highly centralized
system, however, authorization may have to come from the city council.
The designated decision makers were divided into four categories: local
government officials such as the mayor, manager, city council, alderman,
and city clerk; water-system management, including the superintendent,
water commission, water chairman, treasurer of the water board, and
trustees; local government employees such as the purchasing agent and
director of management services; and the water-system employees,
namely, the plant operator, department comptroller, manager, engineer,
foreman, bookkeeper, and so forth.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING — 31
Mayors were asked the following question: "What is the title of the
person or group who has the authority for the following items: pur-
chasing materials; contracting for system services; capital expenditures;
and collecting revenue, billing, or suggesting rate changes?" There was
considerable uniformity among the municipalities. Local government
officials usually made decisions about capital expenditures (87 percent)
and revenue collection (66 percent), but water management personnel
more often made decisions about contracting for system services (65
percent) and purchasing materials (71 percent). In addition, we asked
the title of the person or group who determined the water-rate schedule
and approved trunk lines. In more than 80 percent of the municipalities,
government officials were in charge of these decisions. In the remaining
20 percent the decisions were made by persons directly associated with
the water system.
The six items related to decision making provide an index of politi-
cal control. In about 20 percent of the communities, decision making was
almost completely centralized in the municipal government. Another 20
percent had little or no centralization, decisions being made by water
management. The remaining 60 percent of the communities fell in the
middle range, with the municipal government making three or four of
the six decisions.
Community characteristics and control. We suspected that the
degree of political control over the water system would be related to
certain characteristics of the community. We expected to find that larger
water systems, especially those in large communities, would have more
autonomy than smaller systems in making their own decisions. This
seemed likely because of increased administrative differentiation and the
availability of expertise within a larger community.
Only in Metro 1 (rural) communities were several of the commu-
nity characteristics variables related to the level of political control over
the water system (Table 10, section A). As expected, in those towns
with relatively small populations, less expensive housing, and so forth,
the degree of political control was significantly greater statistically than
in larger communities. The degree of political control over decision
making decreased as the community grew in population size, was wealth-
ier, and had a more "rational" style of government, as indicated by the
presence of a city manager. In both Metro 2 and Metro 3 (suburban)
communities, however, these relationships did not appear to pertain,
with the exception of the population size variable in Metro 3 communi-
ties (suburbs of Chicago and East St. Louis). The relationship between
32 BULLETIN NO. 756
Table 10. — Relationships Between Selected Characteristics and Factors
Influencing Water Systems, 228 Illinois Communities
Rural Med. -sized- Large-city
town city suburb suburb
(Metro 1) (Metro 2) (Metro 3)
A. Political control over decisions
coefficient of correlation
Water-system characteristics
Number of gallons used, 1973 30* .01 .07
Percent of water for industrial use, 1973 ... — . 08 .09 .15*
Ratio of full-time to total employees 00 .07 .13
Ratio of college-trained to total employees — . 13 .14 — .02
Certification of water-system employees. . . — .07 — . 18 — . 17*
Community characteristics
Population size - . 30* .05 - . 16*
Population change, 1960-1970 -.13 -.12 .03
Municipal expenditures, 1970 — . 19* .01 .07
Median housing value, 1970 -.23* -.05 -.01
Presence of city manager — . 15 — . 02 — . 06
B. Water-system planning
Water-system characteristics
Number of gallons used, 1973 02 -.11 .03
Percent of water for industrial use, 1973 06 .25* -.01
Ratio of full-time to total employees 15 * .02 .04
Ratio of college-trained to total employees — . 13 .07 — .01
Certification of water-system employees. .. .08 .16 .09
Community characteristics
Population size 17* .29* .38*
Population change, 1960-1970 08 -.21 .13
Municipal expenditures, 1970 02 .24* .09
Median housing value, 1970 -.10 -.04 .25
Presence of city manager 27* .15 .21*
C. Low-pressure procedures
Water-system characteristics
Number of gallons used, 1973 07 .20* .05
Percent of water for industrial use, 1973 03 .20* —.17*
Ratio of full-time to total employees -.07 --.07 .14*
Ratio of college-trained to total employees .20* .09 .05
Certification of water-system employees ... —.02 —.16 .05
Community characteristics
Population size 11 .21* .20*
Population change, 1960-1970 -.06 .21* .10
Municipal expenditures, 1970 -.03 .22 .00
Median housing value, 1970 -.14* .26* .15*
Presence of city manager 08 .10 .11
D. Mayors' financial information
Water-system characteristics
Number of gallons used, 1973 04 .05 —.15*
Percent of water for industrial use, 1973 25 * .12 — . 14*
Ratio of full-time to total employees -.07 .01 .20*
Ratio of college-trained to total employees .21* — .20* . 18
Certification of water-system employees ...—.11 .02 .13
Community characteristics
Population size 20* .04 .02
Population change, 1960-1970 17* -.23* -.15*
Municipal expenditures, 1970 09 —.10 .11
Median housing value, 1970 29* -.30* .13
Presence of city manager 22* .09 .15*
* Significant at the .10 level.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING — 33
control over decision making and community characteristics apparently
operated for the relatively autonomous rural municipalities but not for
the suburban communities. It is probably a reflection of the dependent
position of the suburban community within the metropolitan system that
community characteristics had practically no relationship to the level of
political control.
Water-system characteristics and control. We expected that as the
size of water systems and the expertise of its employees increased, the
level of the government's decision-making control over the system would
decrease. This relationship did not exist (Table 10, section A). Few of
the relationships are statistically significant, and two of those are in a
direction opposite to what was expected.
PUNNING
There is a growing belief that planning is necessary to maintain and
improve the quality of community water systems. But what does "plan-
ning" mean ? In relation to water systems, planning refers to the attempt
to anticipate future needs in an organized and ongoing manner, in con-
trast to decision making that is a response to change only in day-to-day
and crisis situations. Underlying our research is the assumption that
citizens will be served best by an efficiently and rationally operated water
system. To be able to deal rationally with long-term needs and crisis
situations implies that officials have had the foresight to develop a formal
plan. Rational operation also means that the mayor must be familiar with
financial matters such as cost information, the allocation of funds, and
the share of the budget devoted to capital expansion of the water system.
We therefore ranked each community on the basis of the degree of for-
mal planning, preparedness to deal with low-pressure emergencies, and
the mayor's knowledge of financial arrangements involving the water
system.
Formal planning. The adequacy of long-term planning can vary
considerably among communities. To obtain a measure of the degree of
planning, we asked the mayors several questions related to the following
indicators: the existence of a formal plan, the scope of the plan, when
it was drawn up, and when the plan was updated. The results were com-
piled into an index with values from zero (a complete lack of planning)
to 4 (a high degree of planning). Of the 228 communities, 45 percent
had no formal plan, about 20 percent were at various stages of develop-
ing plans, and only 35 percent had up-to-date, written plans of a broad
scope.
We also examined the relationship of planning to water-system and
34 — BULLETIN NO. 756
community characteristics. The data in Table 10, section B indicate that
the existence of a plan is systematically related to the size of the commu-
nity and to the presence of a city manager. Planning was not signifi-
cantly related to the rate of population growth, which gives reason for
concern. Rapid population growth apparently has not provided an im-
petus to planning for future needs. The amount of planning was unre-
lated to any of the water-system characteristics variables.
Low water pressure. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
reports that the most frequent water-supply emergency is a drop in
pressure, often caused by a break in the distribution system, mechanical
failure, or unusually high use at some point in the system. Pressure
drops can result in contaminated matter being drawn into the system.
To measure the system's degree of planning for such emergencies, we
asked the mayors and water-system operators the following questions:
(1) Has a set of procedures been devised for use if a low-pressure prob-
lem develops? (2) If the water operator is out of town, is someone
designated to carry out these procedures? (3) Are the procedures writ-
ten down? A scale was formed by assigning one point for each affirma-
tive response.
Over 27 percent of the communities had no procedures for dealing
with low-pressure emergencies. About 2 percent had procedures, but
they were not written down and no one was designated to carry them
out in case the operator was absent. Over 36 percent had procedures, and
either had them formally specified or had an alternate delegated to carry
them out. Almost 35 percent of the communities indicated that they had
complete procedures to deal with low-pressure emergencies.
We then compared the existence of procedures to water-system and
community characteristics. With a few exceptions, preparedness for
this emergency was unrelated to water-system characteristics (Table 10,
section C). Varying relationships were found in the different types of
municipalities. Preparedness for low-pressure emergencies was, how-
ever, related to community characteristics, especially in the suburbs of
medium-sized metropolitan centers (Metro 2). In these communities
the existence of plans to handle a low-pressure situation was also asso-
ciated with the size of the water system and the percentage of the water
used for industrial purposes. In the suburbs of the large cities (Metro
3), contrary to our expectations, the more water used for industrial
purposes, the less prepared the water system was for emergencies.
Financial information. To deal rationally with estimated future
needs of the water system, decision makers need to be informed about
ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING — 35
the system's finances. Questions were directed to the mayors, who were
asked if the following were available: detailed cost information on the
water system; data on how much of the water-system revenue was allo-
cated to interest paid on bonds or long-term loans, to payments into the
general municipal fund, and to operating, maintenance, and administra-
tive expenses, including wages; and how much the waterworks had spent
on capital additions for the water facility during the previous four years.
A financial index was constructed by assigning one point for each
affirmative response.
About half of the 228 mayors had information on four or five of the
items. Nearly 14 percent could respond to three of the items. Close to 20
percent had information on only two of the items. Some 11 percent of
the mayors were sure of only one aspect of the system's finances, and
over 2 percent did not have any of this information.
The index of financial information for the rural towns (Metro 1)
was related positively to most of the community characteristics; munic-
ipal expenditures was the exception (Table 10, section D). Among
Metro 1 communities, the index related significantly to just two water-
system characteristics, namely, industrial use and college-trained em-
ployees. Among the suburbs of the large metropolitan centers (Metro
3), financial knowledge of the mayors was related to system characteris-
tics in the following way: positively to full-time employees and nega-
tively to both the number of gallons used and the percentage of water in
industrial use. The mayors' financial knowledge of the Metro 3 water
systems was related significantly to only two community characteristics,
namely population change and the presence of a city manager. Financial
information in suburban communities of medium-sized centers (Metro
2) was related negatively to median housing values, population change,
and the ratio of employees with some college education, but was unre-
lated to any of the other variables in a statistically significant way.
Summary and Discussion
Our analytic model was based on the premise that communities differ
from one another in a way that is systematic and predictable. Although
there were considerable differences among communities, the findings
indicate that for the most part there was no consistent pattern of rela-
tionships between our dependent and independent variables, that is, be-
tween decision making and planning on the one hand and water-system
and community characteristics on the other. In addition, we found no
systematic differences among the Metro 1, 2, and 3 subsamples, which
36 — BULLETIN NO. 756
were classified according to the degree of metropolitan dominance. Ap-
parently the differences in decision making and planning among the
water systems cannot be predicted from the particular set of independent
variables used in the model.
Perhaps different and better measures of the dependent and inde-
pendent variables would have resulted in better predictions. There is,
however, another explanation why the water systems were not appropri-
ately analyzed by the model used. Most water systems have been in op-
eration for a long time. Frequently the technology is well known and
simple enough that low-skilled personnel can operate the system in a
routine fashion. In general, Illinois water systems seem to suffer from
"benign neglect." Only occasionally, that is, when a crisis occurs, is
attention given to financial and technical details. We initially assumed
that local governments actively pursue improved water-system perfor-
mance, but the apparently casual rather than active concern of many
systems, contrary to our assumption, would certainly explain why our
analytic model had little utility. For a more complete discussion of this
point, see pages 40 and 41.
Illinois water systems have been able to operate with reasonable
efficiency because few obvious problems have arisen so far. Water has
generally been of good quality and in adequate supply. However, the
water systems do not appear to be in a position to respond well to
changing circumstances. Many water operators have too little education
to be prepared for the increasingly more complex demands that may be
made of them and their systems by both their immediate superiors and
outside regulatory agencies. Communication between the mayor and the
water operator are inadequate for sharing information about the water
system. Almost 45 percent of the communities have no formal planning,
while another 20 percent are only now in the process of developing a
plan. Many systems apparently do not see the need for long-range plan-
ning. On the contrary, they appear to be run on the assumption that they
need little attention and that changes will occur gradually.
Changes in water quality, supply, or demand have, for the most part,
been gradual in the past. However, th^eurrent concern with improved
water quality standards will probably leaid to demands for rapid changes
in community water systems. Our research leads us to believe that many
municipal water systems are not organized to respond effectively to such
demands.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING — 37
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
This study has focused on how Illinois communities as communities
have responded to environmental issues rather than on what has been
done at the individual, state, or federal level. How, for example, has
environmentalism taken hold among elected and nonelected community
leaders? Why have some communities been more concerned and active
than others? How has environmental quality meshed with other com-
munity concerns? How responsive are long-established municipal ser-
vices such as water supply systems apt to be to future environmental
problems and needs ?
In the past much of the social science research has centered on the
historical and social context of the environmental movement, the percep-
tions and attitudes of individuals, and the impact of changes undertaken
by large cities and industry to curb pollution. Small governmental units
and their role in environmental change have been almost totally ne-
glected. Although many researchers have indicated that action by com-
munities is important and suggested that change would ultimately take
place at the local level, few have systematically evaluated how the envi-
ronmental issue has been viewed by community leaders or how commu-
nities have responded to the issue.
In contrast, we took the position that if protection and improvement
of the environment are primarily community concerns, then the attitudes
and perceptions of those who have the opportunity to exert influence
and make decisions within communities must be studied. We also decided
to examine the operation of municipal governments in order to assess
their role in environmental improvement or degradation. Although not
the only determinants of the level of quality, the attitudes of community
leaders often provide clues to their behavior, to understanding decisions
and changes in policy, and to the direction in which communities move
and the rationale underlying choices they routinely make.
The first part of our study on leaders' perceptions of environmental
problems and why communities mobilize was based on information
gathered in 1972 from 124 sample communities in Illinois. Data for the
second part on Illinois municipal water systems was collected in 1974
from 228 sample communities. We interviewed mayors, public works
directors, representatives of chambers of commerce or similar or-
ganizations, public health personnel, newspaper editors or reporters,
environmental activitists, and water-system operators.
38 BULLETIN NO. 756
Summary of Findings
COMMUNITY LEADERS AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
1. Mayors used fairly broad definitions of "environmental quality,"
frequently including activities that have traditionally been functions
of community government.
2. Mayors viewed environmental problems in their communities as
minor. In the context of other community problems the environment
receded even further in importance.
3. Mayors believed that public concern about the environment at the
local level was a consequence of heightened environmental aspirations
rather than of actual environmental conditions.
4. In general, mayors felt that strict local enforcement of environ-
mental regulations would hurt their communities economically without
improving the environment appreciably. At the same time, they felt that
legal prohibitions and economic disincentives, universally applied and
enforced, would be the most effective ways to improve the environment
in the long run.
5. Community leaders as a whole viewed environmental conditions
in their communities as relatively minor problems. The widest differ-
ences in perception were between the environmentalists and the mayors.
6. Individual community leaders' perceptions across different dimen-
sions of the environmental quality issue were highly consistent. If a par-
ticular type of leader viewed one aspect of environmental quality as good,
he or she tended to view other aspects as good also.
7. There was little evidence to suggest that community leaders real-
istically perceived the actual quality of the air; the correlation between
perceived air quality and actual air quality was quite low.
COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS AND MOBILIZATION
Broad community attributes such as composition of the population,
location, size, and political organization have generally been felt to ex-
plain, first, the level of performance and, second, the rapidity with which
communities respond to issues and concerns. Using these attributes in
portions of this study did not provide an adequate explanation for why
communities mobilize around environmental concerns. When we com-
bined these variables with issue-specific variables, however, we found
the following:
1. The single most important explanation for why citizens mobilize
seemed to be whether or not an environmental incident had occurred in
or near the community.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING 39
2. There was no evidence that particular types of communities ex-
perience either higher levels of mobilization or more environmental inci-
dents than others.
3. There was some evidence that citizens in communities with rela-
tively clean environments were more environmentally active than people
living where pollution was greater.
COMMUNITY AND WATER-SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
In the case of water systems we looked at various aspects of the
system in relation to community attributes, variables directly measuring
characteristics of the water system, and the location of the community
with respect to the metropolitan system. We found the following:
1. Frequently, water systems in Illinois communities were poorly
managed. All of the measures dealing with the managerial, technical, and
financial aspects of the water system indicate that in many communities
only minimal attention was given to the operation of the water system.
Many water systems appeared unprepared to deal with increased de-
mands that might be placed upon them when higher water quality stan-
dards are imposed or when unexpected events affect their supply or dis-
tribution system.
2. The degree of water system planning was more often related to
community characteristics than to water system characteristics. These
relationships, however, were usually weak and often not consistent be-
tween communities that had different relationships to metropolitan cen-
ters. Thus, for example, our findings for rural communities were at
times the opposite of those for the suburbs of medium-sized metropolitan
centers.
3. Financial management practices were related to both water-system
characteristics and community attributes in the suburbs of large metro-
politan centers, and also to a considerable extent in the rural communi-
ties. In the suburbs of medium-sized central cities the relationships were
few, and frequently were the reverse of those found among the other
two types of communities.
4. The quality of the technical administration of the water system
appeared positively related to the size and to the economic resources of
the community.
Conclusions
To determine some of the general causes of environmental mobiliza-
tion and performance we did a comparative study of communities. While
40 — BULLETIN NO. 756
case studies may give more specific explanations for any one community,
generalizing about similar communities from case study findings is usu-
ally risky. Our research has demonstrated the shortcomings of a commu-
nity structure model for understanding response to local environmental
quality issues. The failure of this approach appears to be due at least
in part to problems of measurement and conceptualization. It is ex-
tremely difficult to adequately measure elusive concepts such as com-
munity mobilization because of the problems encountered in defining
environmental concepts precisely, devising sensitive indicators, and ob-
taining data. For some issue-areas such as urban renewal or poverty,
the receipt of funds, enforcement of regulations, and the like may be
valid single indicators of mobilization. For environmental quality, how-
ever, there appear to be no adequate single or even multiple, objective
indicators that apply to all communities and issues. Although not irrele-
vant, the more obvious kinds of indicators such as budget expenditures,
ordinance enactment and enforcement, and local governmental efforts
to modify environmentally unsound practices do not suffice as single
measures or permit easy comparisons among communities.
Other structural measures that explain mobilization might be useful
for improving or expanding our analysis, or we might use different
methods to obtain community data. Using the key-informant approach
showed promise for allowing us to do this. How well this approach com-
pares with alternative approaches remains to be seen. New and better
measures of the dependent and independent variables might, of course,
result in better predictions.
At this time we are willing to suggest that local environmental quality
performance is not appropriately analyzed by the model used because
this model was based on the assumption that municipal governments
actively pursue environmental improvement. Most of the activities of
local government are, however, routine in nature, and innovative activi-
ties are relatively rare. When action seems called for, local government
policy usually consists of making minor shifts in emphasis from one
program to another. The evidence from our research indicates that com-
munity leaders have no widespread perception of truly serious environ-
mental problems at the local level and therefore see no need for taking
on new responsibilities. Even the environmentalists, who were more
concerned than most informants, did not seem particularly alarmed. The
water systems are probably a good illustration of this low-keyed stance.
Even though the water systems were apparently not very well managed
at the time of the research, few Illinois communities had experienced
ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING 41
serious problems with either the quality or quantity of their water over
the last several decades. Although many communities may not be well
prepared for possibly rapid changes in the future, their systems have
performed well enough in the past.
Given this state of events, it can be argued that local communities
have not seen much reason to aggressively pursue environmental im-
provement. Competition from more pressing problems or from more
lucrative pursuits involving funding have probably taken precedence
over environmental quality issues. The fact that a dramatic environ-
mental incident is usually needed to mobilize a community gives credence
to this interpretation.
Thus the findings lead us to question a basic premise of our analytic
model, and consequently we have reason to seriously doubt the useful-
ness of the community structure model. Unfortunately the data we used
are not adequate to let us decide with finality whether the model is in-
appropriate or whether we did not obtain adequate measurements of the
variables in the model. Future research should continue to emphasize
the quality of measurement, but at the same time it should undertake the
arduous task of developing competing analytic models for explaining
local community action or inaction on environmental quality.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abt Associates, Inc. 1971. Factors affecting pollution referenda. Washington: En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Office.
Afifi, H. H. H., and V. L. Bassie. 1969. Water pricing theory and practice in Illi-
nois. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Univ. of Illinois Bull. 39.
Aiken, M. 1970. The distribution of community power : Structural bases and social
consequences. Pages 487-525 in M. Aiken and P. E. Mott, eds., The structure
of community power. New York : Random House.
Berry, B. J., and F. E. Horton. 1970. Geographic perspectives on urban systems.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ. : Prentice-Hall.
Boldt, E. D., J. S. Frideres, and J. J. Stephens. 1973. Perception of pollution and
willingness to act. Alternatives 4(Summer) :31-36.
Bridgeland, W. 1973. Community structure, environmental issue-specificity and the
level of citizen mobilization for environmental quality. Unpublished Ph.D.
diss., Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Bridgeland, W., and A. J. Sofranko. 1975. Community structure and issue-specific
influences : Community mobilization over environmental quality. Urb. Aff . Q.
11:186-214.
. Two assessments of environmental quality : Officials and activists.
Environ, and Behav. (in press)
42 — BULLETIN NO. 756
Caldwell, L. K. 1970. Environment : A challenge to modern society. New York :
The Natural History Press.
Caponera, D. A. 1972. Towards a new methodological approach to environmental
law. Natur. Resources J. 12:133-152,
Craik, K. H. 1970. The environmental dispositions of environmental decision
makers. Ann. Amer. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 389 :87-94.
Grain, R., E. Katz, and D. Rosenthal. 1969. The politics of community conflict:
The fluoridation decision. Indianapolis : Bobbs-Merrill.
Crenson, M. A. 1971. The un-politics of air pollution. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
Press.
De Groot, I. 1967. Trends in public attitudes toward air pollution. J. Air Poll.
Contr. Assoc. 17 :679-681.
Frey, J. C., H. B. Gamble, and O. H. Sauerlender. 1975. Economics of water
supply, planning and management. University Park : Pennsylvania State Uni-
versity Institute for Research on Land and Water Resources.
Fuguitt, G. V. 1971. The places left behind : Population trends and policy for rural
America. Rur. Sociol. 36 :449-470.
Goldstein, W. 1972. The political metaphors of environmental control. Alternatives
2(Summer) :11-17.
Herskowitz, R. M. 1973. Local environmental protection : Problems and limitations.
Environ. Aff. 2 : 783-802.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Illinois air sampling network
report. Springfield, Illinois.
. 1976. Statewide press release, issued December 29, 1975, for re-
lease January 2, 1976.
Kronus, C. L. Mobilization of voluntary organizations by a social movement : The
case of environmental quality. Sociol. Q. (in press)
Kronus, C. L., and J. C. van Es. 1976. The practice of environmental quality be-
havior: Residential, life cycle, and attitudinal effects. J. Environ. Educ.
8(Fall) : 19-25.
Kuo, W. H. 1973. Mayoral influence in urban policy making. Amer. J. Sociol. 79:
620-638.
McGranaham, D., E. A. Wilkening, J. Hutchison, and C. Geisler. 1975. The use
of leader ratings to assess community services and characteristics in the
Kickapoo Valley. Madison : University of Wisconsin Institute for Environ-
mental Studies.
Morrison, D. E., K. E. Hornback, and W. K. Warner. 1972. The environmental
movement : Some preliminary observations and predictions. Pages 259-279 in
W. R. Burch, Jr., N. H. Cheek, Jr., and L. Taylor, eds., Social behavior,
natural resources and the environment. New York: Harper and Row.
Murch, A. W. 1971. Public concern for environmental pollution. Publ. Opin. Q.
35:100-106.
Pampel, F. J., Jr. 1974. The social basis of environmental protection: Innovative-
ness among Illinois farmers. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Univ. of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
Pampel, F. J., Jr., and J. C. van Es. 1977. Environmental quality and issues of
adoption research. Rur. Sociol. 42:57-71.
Rice, R.. and J. A. Beegle. 1972. Differential fertility in a metropolitan society.
West Virginia University, Rural Sociological Society Monograph No. 1.
Morgantown : West Virginia Univ. Press.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING 43
Roseman, C. C. 1975. Population redistribution in the United States and in Illinois.
111. Busin. Rev. 32 :6-8.
Rosenthal, D. B., and R. L. Grain. 1966. Executive leadership and community inno-
vation : The fluoridation experience. Urb. Aff. Q. 1 :39-57.
Rossi, P. 1969. Some issues in the comparative study of community violence. Pages
44-46 in R. Conant and M. Levin, eds., Themis House workshop on research
problems in community violence. New York : Praeger.
Sharkansky. I. 1970. Routines of politics. New York: Van Nostrand.
Sof ranko, A. J. 1974. The computer and the county agent. J. Ext. 12(Winter) :
29-37.
Sofranko, A. J., and W. Bridgeland. 1972. A community structure approach to data
collection and recommendations for use of data banks. J. Community Develop.
Soc. 3:110-28.
— . 1973. Illinois mayors and the environment. J. Environ. Educ.
5 (Winter) :43-48.
— . 1975. Agreement and disagreement on environmental issues among
community leaders. Cornell J. Soc. Relat. 10:151-162.
Swan, J. A. 1970. Response to air pollution. Environ, and Behav. 2:127-152.
van Es, J. C., and C, Kronus. 1972 .Environmental quality as viewed by farm and
city residents. 111. Res. 14(3) :8-9.
van Es, J. C., R. H. Orr, and R. J. Quigley. 1975. A comparison of decision making
and administrative organization for municipal water supplies in medium-sized
and small Illinois communities. Water Resources Center Research Report No.
106. Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
van Es, J. C., and F. J. Pampel, Jr. 1976. Environmental quality control on the
farm: Different extension strategies are needed. J. Ext. 6(May/June) :10-15.
van Es, J. C., and R. J. Quigley. 1976. Local water systems are frequently neglected.
Small Town 7(2) :4-6.
— . 1976. Planning in small- and medium-size Illinois municipal water
systems. 111. Agr. Econ. 16(1) :17-23.
van Es, J. C., and C. A. Rexroat. 1976. A comparative analysis of grantsmanship
among smaller municipalities. Unpublished paper presented at the Rural So-
ciological Society Meetings.
Warner, D., and J. S. Dajani. 1975. Water and sewer development in rural Amer-
ica. Lexington, Mass. : Lexington Books.
Warren, R. L. 1971. Truth, love and social change. Chicago : Rand McNally.
— . 1972. The community in America. Chicago : Rand McNally.
White, G. F. 1966. Formation and role of public attitudes. Pages 105-127 m H. Jar-
ret, ed., Environmental quality in a growing economy. Baltimore : Johns Hop-
kins Press.
Williams, J., B. Root, and A. J. Sofranko. 1976. Development of rural Illinois
communities. 111. Res. 18(3) :6-7.
Williams, J., A. J. Sofranko, and B. Root. 1977. Change agents and industrial de-
velopment in small towns: Will social action have any impact? J. Community
Develop. Soc. 8(1) : 19-29.
4M— 9-77— 38334— sw
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11