Public Attitudes to Air QualityHeadline Report for Defra by

Dr Michael Turner & Robert Struthers

May 2018

1

Contents

1. About the research

2. How concerned were respondents about air quality?

3. How much did respondents know about air quality issues?

4. What were respondents prepared to do about air quality?

5. What did respondents think about certain air quality

improvement levers?

6. What did respondents want to know about air quality and

from whom?

7. Conclusions

8. Appendix

9. Quality standards

2

1 About the research

3

Aims and Objectives

The overarching aim of the research was to enhance understanding of public behaviours, attitudes to, and knowledge of,

issues surrounding air quality (AQ). There were six specific research questions, which are addressed individually in this

summary report:

1. How concerned are people about AQ?

2. How much do people know about AQ issues?

3. What behaviours are people prepared to take to improve AQ / decrease their exposure?

4. How do people feel about the range of things that are being, or could be done, to improve AQ?

5. What kind of information on AQ do people want to be able to access and from whom?

6. How are people’s behaviours, attitudes to, and knowledge of AQ issues and policy shaped?

Approach & Methodology

The research was conducted in March 2018.

It consisted of a UK wide online survey and seven discussion groups.

The survey was completed by 3,252 people in total: 2,132 interviews reflective of national demographics and a boost

sample of 1,120 interviews from key audiences.

The discussion groups took place in different locations across the UK. A broad spectrum of people participated in the

groups and each group had a different demographic profile.

Additional information on the methodology (including detailed sample breakdowns) can be found in the main body of

the report.

1%        

2%        

3%        

4%        

4%        

5%        

11%        

11%        

12%        

21%        

26%        

Other

Noise pollution

Overuse of land / naturalresources

Deforestation

Pollution of fresh water(rivers and lakes)

Loss of green belt

Conservation of endangeredspecies

Air pollution

Pollution of the oceans

Litter / Plastics

Global warming / Climatechange

Figure 1: Environmental issues most concerned about

2 How concerned were respondents about air quality?

4

1. The discussion groups illustrated that environmental issues were not key

amongst participants’ day-to-day concerns.

2. However, when survey respondents were prompted about the environmental

concerns that they personally cared about, air quality was selected by over

half (57%) of respondents.11% said air quality was the environmental issue

they were most concerned about (see Figure 1).

3. Concern about air quality was higher amongst certain groups, the survey

results illustrated. Respondents living in urban areas, members of ethnic

minority groups, and those who had, or cared for someone, with a

lung/respiratory condition had the highest levels of concern.

4. For many, the relationship between air quality and health was not front-

of-mind. Respondents to the survey were less likely to select the ‘quality of the

air you breathe’ as a health concern (34%) than as an environmental concern

(57%), and the issue was seldom raised when discussing health concerns

during group discussions (without prompting for air quality).

Unweighted base: NatRep (1982)

32%

48%

50%

51%

Doesn't have, or carefor someone with, a

lung condition (2393)

Cares for someonewith lung condition

(312)

Has lung conditionand cares for

someone with lungcondition (154)

Has lung condition(701)

Figure 2: Air quality as a health concern: Lung conditions

5

2 How concerned were respondents about air quality?

5

5. Perceptions of air quality as a concern to health was highest amongst

survey respondents who had or cared for someone with a lung/respiratory

condition (see Figure 2). By contrast, the same difference was not evident

among those who had or cared for someone with a heart condition, or that were

pregnant or cared for very young children.

6. A variety of reasons were given in the discussion groups for a lack of

concern about the environment, including people:

• not having considered the issue;

• not feeling impacted;

• seeing the issue as unimportant;

• not feeling it is within their control to change.

A feeling of redundancy: “I think about it [the environment] but I don’t overthink about it. I listen to it when it's on the news to see what's going

on, and [if] it affects the weather and all that. But I don’t worry about it, to

be honest I don’t think we'd be able to fix something like that”

45-54, Male, SEG - D, Lydgate

Unweighted base: NatRep + Boost (3252)

= Significantly

higher than the total

= Significantly lower

than the total

6

3 How much did respondents know about air quality issues?

42%

24%16%

71%

10%6%

Transport/Traffic Industry Energy generation(e g fossil fuels)

18-24(284) 75+ (211)

Figure 3: Differences in perceptions ofmain causes of poor air quality in the UKby age

1. (Self-reported) knowledge of the effects of air quality on people’s health and

wellbeing was relatively low compared with their knowledge in other areas.

Around one in five survey respondents (21%) said they knew ‘a lot’ about the effects

of air quality on health. The proportions were higher amongst those who cared for

others with lung or heart conditions and/or were sufferers themselves. However

there was little difference between those who were pregnant or responsible for

young children and the overall figure.

2. Transport and traffic were considered to be the main cause of poor air quality.

A majority of survey respondents selected transport and traffic as the principle

cause of poor air quality in the UK (59%), far ahead of the proportion selecting

industry (18%), which was the second most cited response. Burning of wood and

coal in homes was only seen as the main cause of poor air quality by 3% of

respondents.

o This said, younger respondents were less likely to select transport as the

main cause of poor air quality than older respondents. Instead, their views

were more split (Figure 3).

3. Just under half (46%) of survey respondents felt the air quality in their local

area was ‘good enough’, with considerable differences in perceptions based

on geographical location and ethnicity. 42% of those living in urban areas said

the air quality in their area was ‘good enough’, compared to 67% of rural

respondents (Figure 4); and while half (49%) of white British/Irish respondents were

satisfied, this was only 28% of BME participants.

67%

42%

Rural (567)

Urban (2681)

Figure 4: Air Quality in my local area is ‘good enough’ by Urban/Rural

Unweighted base: NatRep + Boost (3252)

Unweighted base: NatRep + Boost (3252)

20%

21%

23%

23%

24%

25%

27%

32%

40%

50%

Minimising the number ofdeliveries to homes/ workplaces

Using environmentally-friendlycleaning products or paints

Eco-driving (e.g. minimisingbreaking and acceleration,…

Burning less/not at all the home(e. g. in stoves, wood burners,…

Using less energy at home

Buying your electricity from asustainable energy supplier

Not idling a vehicle

Using public transport instead ofmaking journeys in their own…

Switching to driving a lesspolluting vehicle

Walking or cycling instead ofmaking short journeys in a…

7

4 What were respondents prepared to do about air quality?

1. Transport related changes were regarded as those most likely

to have the greatest impact on reducing levels of air pollution,

according to the survey results (Figure 5). This is consistent with

transport being regarded as the main cause of air pollution.

2. Cost implications, inconvenience and force of habit were seen

as the main barriers to behaviour change. Cost was the most

frequently cited barrier to switching to less polluting cars (selected by

63% of survey respondents), buying energy from a sustainable

energy supplier (selected by 52%) and buying less polluting cleaning

products or paints (selected by 54%). Inconvenience and force of

habit were seen as the biggest barriers to behaviour change for the

other behaviours tested in the survey. For example, 60% said that

inconvenience was a reason people did not make fewer journeys by

car/motorcycle, with force of habit (38%) and preferring current

modes of transport (36%) the next most often selected responses.

Unweighted base: NatRep (2132)

Figure 5: Behaviours that were perceived to have a largeimpact on improving air quality

8

4 What were respondents prepared to do about air quality?

4. More often than not, respondents who made changes to their

behaviour were not doing it principally to improve air quality.

The survey results found that when respondents adopted positive

environmental behaviours which could impact on AQ, the majority

did so for reasons other than benefiting the environment (Figure 6).

The narrative from the discussion groups reinforced this finding.

During the groups, it was evident that behavioural changes with

positive environmental effects had usually come about for financial

or health reasons, with any positive environmental effects seen as a

“welcome bonus”, but not the primary driver of behavioural change.

5. However, the majority of survey respondents (95%) said they

would be willing to change at least one behaviour if they felt it

would make a difference to AQ, e.g. using less energy in the home,

45%, or walking/cycling instead of driving short distances, 44%.

11%

11%

12%

12%

14%

17%

18%

18%

18%

20%

27%

22%

23%

41%

45%

30%

24%

34%

54%

58%

Bought your electricity from asustainable energy supplier

Switched to driving a less pollutingvehicle (i.e. with lower emissions)

Burnt less/not at all the home (e.g., instoves, wood burners, open fires etc)

Eco-driving (e.g. minimising breakingand acceleration, limiting driving…

Made fewer journeys bycar/motorcycle

Used environmentally friendly cleaningproducts/paints

Minimised the number of deliveries tohome/ the workplace

Stopped idling a vehicle (i.e. running avehicles engine when the vehicle is…

Walked or cycled instead of drivingshort distances

Used less energy at home (i.e. byturning down the heating, using less…

I have done this, primarily for the benefit of air quality

I have done this, but not primarily because of air quality

Figure 6: Reasons for the positive environmentalbehaviours respondents had done over the last 12 months

Unweighted base: NatRep (2132)

9

5 What did respondents think about certain air quality improvement levers?

“Increasing taxes, if it hurts them in the

pocket it could change their behaviour”

"I support number two [increased taxes]. I wouldn't be happy

about it, but I can see the initiative it would

create."

“unfair on the lowest paid

workers”

“Worst [policy idea] is increasing taxes on high

polluting products because I don’t think it’s a good idea to just tax

everything”

1. Actions from government or other bodies that have no direct cost to the

individual were viewed as the most reasonable interventions, according to

the survey and discussion group results. When asked what policies they felt were

reasonable to take on air pollution, the options most frequently selected by

survey respondents were “Applying stricter controls on emissions from new

vehicles” (52%) and “Requiring industry to use best available technology” (52%).

2. Tax breaks for lower emitting vehicles were considered reasonable by just

under a half of the survey respondents (45%).

3. Overall, 38% of survey respondents felt that increasing taxes on the

highest polluting products was reasonable, with higher income, degree-

educated respondents most likely to support this.

4. There was less support for restrictions on in-home burning than there was

for other policy proposals. This may reflect a lack of awareness of the air

quality risks related to burning. However it was especially true for respondents

who burned in their homes: only 24% of burners felt that “Restricting burning

wood or coal in homes to clean up the most polluted areas” was reasonable,

compared with 35% of those who did not burn at home. Similarly, only 27% of

burners felt that introducing “Stricter controls on emissions from new stoves” was

reasonable compared with 38% of non-burners.

65-74, Female, SEG - B, London

25-34, Male, SEG - C1,

Birmingham 2

25-34, Female, SEG - C2, Birmingham 1

55-64, Male, SEG - C2,London

10

6 What did respondents want to know about air quality and from whom?

Figure 7: Who do you think hasresponsibility for improving thequality of the air in your local area?

1. Improving local air quality was regarded as a joint responsibility between local

and central government, local residents and local businesses, the survey

results suggested (Figure 7).

2. Many survey respondents were keen to be kept informed about air quality,

including wanting to know where the pollution hotspots were (52%), what was being

done to tackle them (51%), what people could do themselves to improve air quality

(41%), what they could do to protect themselves/others (36%); and up- to-date

measurement information (34%).

3. Under one in five (17%) had actively looked for a forecast on air quality

conditions over the last 12 months. Respondents with lung (30%) or heart (31%)

conditions were more likely to have searched for a forecast.

4. The majority of respondents (87%) felt the UK government had a duty to

inform the public about the risks associated with poor air quality. This was

echoed by discussion group participants.

5. There was strong support for poor air quality being reported in the media in

the same way as the pollen count. 82% of survey respondents agreed that it

should be. Unweighted base: NatRep (2132)

3%        

10%        

16%        

16%        

26%        

26%        

40%        

48%        

51%        

59%        

Other

Don’t know

Businesses outside thisarea

Farmers

Your local MP

People travelling throughthe area

Local businesses

Central government

Those living here

The local council

11

Domestic Burner (751):

26%

Non-Domestic Burner(2501):

12%

6. The Met Office was found to be the most trusted source for providing

information about air quality; 23% of survey respondents selected it over the other

options. Despite many saying that local councils had responsibility for improving

local air quality, only 3% said they most trusted the council to provide air quality

information.

7. Information from official bodies on the negative health impacts of burning

wood or coal inside the home was less trusted (and less well known) than

information on the impacts of smoking, alcohol, lack of exercise, and

transport emissions. For example, 74% of survey respondents said they believed

official bodies when they said emissions from cars, vans and lorries could be bad for

their health, similar to the numbers believing messages about the impact of alcohol

consumption and lack of exercise. However, less than half (48%) said they believed

official bodies when it came to warnings that burning wood or coal in the home could

be bad for them. In addition, more than a quarter (27%) said they were unsure about

burning wood/coal being bad and 10% said they had not heard this before.

8. Those undertaking specific activities were less likely than average to believe

official bodies’ claims on the effects of their behaviours. Just over one quarter

(26%) of ‘domestic burners’ (respondents who burn solid fuel in their home) said they

did not believe official bodies when they said burning in their home could be bad for

their health, more than twice the figure for those who did not burn at home (12%).

6 What did respondents want to know about air quality and from whom?

Figure 8: Do not believe official bodies when they say domestic burning can be

bad for health

Unweighted base: NatRep + Boost (3252)

= Significantly

higher than the total

= Significantly lower

than the total

12

Levels of environmental concern: Those who were more concerned about the environmentseemed more likely to have greater knowledge of air quality issues, and more likely to bewilling to, or already be taking, actions to improve air quality.

Proximity to areas with poor AQ: Those that lived in urban areas, closer to areas of higher air pollution, were more likely to be concerned about poor air quality.

Health conditions: Those with health conditions affected by the quality of the air, such as asthma or bronchitis, were more likely to be concerned about air quality, and take actions that will improve the quality of the air.

Additional demographic factors: Younger respondents, those with higher qualifications and BME respondents were the main demographic groups to show statically significant variation in the levels of concern about and knowledge of AQ and key AQ behaviours.

1.

2.

3.

4. Influence o

n v

iew

s &

be

havio

urs

KEY FINDING: Throughout this research project it has become evident that there are a wide number of factors associated with

respondents’ knowledge of, attitudes towards, and behaviours relating to AQ issues. However, having examined the results in some

detail, it is the authors’ view that there is likely to be a hierarchy of influence. First, as one might expect, it was clear from both the

survey and the discussion group results that level of environmental concern was strongly associated with knowledge, attitudes and

behaviour on AQ issues. Below that came respondents’ physical and medical proximity to the subject; with those who lived in areas

likely to have poorer AQ, and those with health conditions that are susceptible to poor AQ, being more likely to be aware of and

concerned about AQ. Finally, demographic and socioeconomic effects on attitudes and behaviours were evident from the results, but

these associations tended to be much weaker than those influences already described.

7 Factors that shape attitudes, knowledge & behaviours

13

Socio Economic Grade (SEG):

Social Grade classification is a commonly used measure among social and market researchers. The classification provides an

indication of socio-economic position or ‘social class’ based on occupation of the chief income earner of the household. The

classification is used to help explain variations in social behaviour and other social phenomena.

AB Higher & intermediate managerial, administrative & professional occupations

C1 Supervisory, clerical & junior managerial, administrative & professional occupations

C2 Skilled manual occupations

DESemi-skilled & unskilled manual occupations, state pensioners, casual and lowest grade

workers, unemployed with state benefits only

Urban-Rural Classification

The 2011 rural-urban classification is a simple binary classification that distinguishes between built-up (urban) and more

sparsely populated (rural) Output Areas,

Output areas (OA) were created for Census data, specifically for the output of census estimates. The OA is the lowest

geographical level at which census estimates are provided. OAs are treated as ‘urban’ if they were allocated to a 2011 built-

up area with a population of 10,000 people or more, while all remaining OAs are classed as ‘rural’.

8 Appendix

14

BMG Research adheres to a number of industry recognised standards; including:

• Market Research Society Company Partner

• The provision of Market Research Services in accordance with ISO 20252:2012

• The provision of Market Research Services in accordance with ISO 9001:2008

• The International Standard for Information Security Management ISO 27001:2013

• Investors in People Standard - Certificate No. WMQC 0614

• Interviewer Quality Control Scheme (IQCS) Member Company

• A Fair Data organisation

• Cyber Essentials certification

• Registered under the Data Protection Act - Registration No. Z5081943

9 Quality Standards

15