6 Actual and perceived environmental quality, and the issue of environmental equity

Transcription

1 6 Actual and perceived environmental quality, and the issue of environmental equity 6.1 Introduction The previous chapters described environmental equity the distribution of environmental quality among income categories using factual measurement data, comparable to many other environmental equity studies. However, the actual environmental situation does not always match public perceptions of local environmental quality, as has been demonstrated repeatedly by sociological and socio-psychological studies (e.g., Leroy and Nelissen, 1999). Natural scientists and environmental policymakers often use a reductionist, quantitative, technical perspective. Environmental policymakers use factual data for their monitoring purposes and policy plans. However, for the public, their perception is the leading factor. They include different aspects of their residential situation in their perception of the local area, and also take qualitative issues into consideration (e.g., Tesh, 1999; Slovic, 2000). Environment-related attitudes and behaviour have also been studied extensively in the Netherlands (Nelissen and Scheepers, 1992, Ester et al., 1994, and SCP, 1997, in: Leroy and Nelissen, 1999). These sociological studies, and studies in the field of risk perception and noise, point out that actual exposure explains only a part of the variance in perception. For example, noise exposure explains about 25-30% of the variance in noise annoyance at an individual level (Guski, 1999, Job, 1999, Stallen, 1999, and Van Kamp et al., 2004, in: Van Kempen et al., 2005), and about 70% at a group level (e.g., Miedema et al., 1992). Important factors other than exposure that affect perception of the environmental situation are fairness, voluntariness of exposure, and the distribution of burdens and benefits, as described by Vlek (1996), Tesh (1999), and Slovic (2000), among others. Furthermore, sensitivity to, and fear about a source (and to a lesser extent the attitude towards the source, perceived control over the situation, and the perceived benefits for society of the polluting activity) explain a large part of the observed variance (Fields, 1993, Miedema and Vos, 1998, Guski, 1999, Job, 1999, and Stallen, 1999, in: Van Kempen et al., 2005; Houthuijs and Van Wiechen, 2006). Consequently, what scientists, policymakers, and the public perceive to be environmental problems may differ (Leroy and Nelissen, 1999). Though also focusing on perceptions, our approach is different. We are specifically interested in the association between the actual environmental situation and the way members of the public perceive it in an environmental equity context, as well as the way perception may affect environmental equity. A negative association a mismatch may be interpreted as a social problem. This is of relevance for policymakers. If the mismatch is considerable, it may lead to social unrest and dissatisfaction. However, perceptions also influence location preferences 105

2 and may result in neighbourhood change and, in that way, perceptions affect the actual equity situation. For example, people with a higher socio-economic status (SES) have more opportunities to adapt the actual environmental situation to their needs, in the light of their perceptions, than people with a lower socio-economic status. On the one hand, the former have more choice about where they live. On the other, they are better able to influence decisionmaking about their locality, and are often more actively involved in it (e.g. Hermans, 2004). They also seem to participate more often in environmental movements than lower-income groups (Low and Gleeson, 1998). This may result in better environmental quality for higher SES groups compared to lower groups. Against this background, it is of interest to assess the association between the actual environmental situation and public perception of it in an environmental equity context. Since as explained in previous chapters socio-economic differences may be larger in regions with high spatial pressure, it is useful not only to analyse the Dutch situation in general, but also to zoom in on such regions. Secondly, it is important to acquire more insight into the way in which public perceptions may influence environmental equity by exploring socio-economic differences in potentially explanatory factors such as active involvement in the neighbourhood, attitude towards the neighbourhood, and values attached to environmental issues. A third important topic is the policy relevance of this type of analysis and the impact of the public perception of the actual situation on policymaking. This leads us to the research questions covered by this chapter: 1. To what extent does actual environmental quality match the way people perceive it? This is investigated for several environmental indicators (noise, air pollution, and green space): for the general Dutch population; for different socio-economic subpopulations; in regions with high spatial pressure. 2. What factors may help to explain how public perception may affect environmental equity? 3. What are the implications of public perception for policymaking and decision-making processes within an environmental equity context? The first step is a description of the research design used to investigate the first two questions. The results generated by these questions are then described and conclusions are drawn. Finally, the third research question the implications of public perception for policymaking is discussed. 6.2 Research design: study area, materials and methods Study area Analyses were performed for the general Dutch situation as well as for two regions characterised by high spatial pressure: the Rijnmond region and the Amsterdam Airport region (Figure 2.1). These two regions house two activities that are particularly important for the Dutch economy: Rotterdam harbour and Amsterdam Airport ( Schiphol ). These mainports attract industrial 106

3 and other economic activities, which require a good transportation network. In addition, these regions are home to a large part of the Dutch population due to the employment opportunities. In such regions, economic activities, transportation and housing grow closer to each other day by day and place severe pressure on environmental quality. This has caused intense land use conflicts during the last decades. An important policy aim at present is to combine economic development with the simultaneous improvement of living conditions. As explained in previous chapters, this makes these regions interesting study areas Data To answer the first two research questions, we used recent secondary data from a combined data set drawn from several national databases available at the Dutch National Institute of Public Health and the Environment. This included data from the databases mentioned in the previous chapters (see Table 3.2), and data from the national Survey on Housing Needs (WBO). The WBO Survey is a periodical survey involving a large sample (90,000 people in 2002) of the Dutch adult population, consisting in total of about 16 million citizens. This sample does not cover all Dutch six-character post code levels. The WBO survey covers a broad range of topics and therefore provides opportunities to analyse a broad range of associations. It provides insights into the composition of households, housing conditions, housing needs, and residential mobility. By contrast with Chapters 3, 4 and 5, the factual environmental data used in this chapter covered the six-character post code level (street level). Compared to newly collected data, secondary data are cheaper and more directly available, and they cover a broad range of topics. The drawback is that we have no influence on the contents, or on data gathering.the factual environmental data and the income data were linked with the WBO Survey data at the six-character post code area level. A difficulty with these data is that they correspond to different spatial scales; the factual environmental data and income data were available at the 6-character post code level for almost the whole of the Netherlands. The perception data and data on the educational level were available at the individual level, having been obtained from a large sample of the Dutch population. However, they do not cover all 6-character post code areas in the Netherlands. Another difficulty was that weighting factors to adjust for selective non-response were available for the Netherlands as a whole, but not for the specific regions. As a result, only non-adjusted results were available for these regions Selection of indicators Indicators to assess the association between actual and perceived environmental quality In order to assess to what extent actual environmental quality matches public perceptions, and the socio-economic differences in this match, three types of indicators were needed: indicators relating to the actual environmental situation, indicators of the way people perceive the environmental situation in their neighbourhood, and socio-economic indicators. For actual environmental quality, the following set of indicators was used: road traffic noise (L den (db(a)); rail traffic noise(l den (db(a)); air traffic noise (L den (db(a)); combined traffic noise (a combination of the sources mentioned above) (L den (db(a)); 107

4 NO 2 (µg/m 3 ); availability of public green space (parks, forests, and recreational areas) (m 2 within 500 m of the home, available per inhabitant). Unfortunately, no nationwide, spatially detailed information was available about other environmental indicators with variation at the local level, such as industrial noise, even though we know these are also major local environmental pollutants for the selected regions. Another important environmental indicator not included in this study is noise from neighbours. This noise source is the second most important source of annoyance and therefore an important source to consider. However, there is a lack of nationwide factual data about this source and the available information is difficult to assess, since it includes a whole range of different kinds of noise. Nevertheless, there should be more emphasis on this noise source in both research and policy. For perceived environmental quality, we selected the indicators closest to the actual environmental indicators that were available from the combined dataset: annoyance due to noise; annoyance due to malodour, dust or dirt; satisfaction with public green space in the neighbourhood. We are aware that noise annoyance includes more than solely traffic noise, but there was no more specific data about traffic annoyance. The same is true for NO 2 and annoyance due to malodour, dust or dirt; there was no specific information available about annoyance due to NO 2. However, databases including both objective and subjective data are rare, particularly at a nationwide level. Combining objective data with survey data is often prevented by privacy considerations, and this is an obstacle to the combination of these types of datasets at a spatially detailed level. By contrast with most other studies, income and educational level were both selected as socioeconomic indicators, because they refer to two different processes that are relevant for our study. Income level is commonly used in studies that quantitatively analyse disparities in environmental quality within a population in the context of environmental equity. Information about household income was available from a telephone survey in which the interviewer assessed the main household income level of the post code area on the basis of the information received from the respondent. The categories various and unknown were excluded from most of the analyses. Educational level is often included in perception and participation studies rather than income. It is assumed to be particularly related to the perception of local environmental quality. It is also linked to the income level, because these more highly educated people often have a higher income, and can move out of the neighbourhood ( vote with their feet ) if they are dissatisfied with the environmental situation (Anderton et al., 1994). Information about educational level was available from the WBO Survey 2002 and indicates the highest completed educational level of the respondent. Although income and educational level are related, they are not fully correlated (Liu, 2001). The differentiation of the population into income and educational categories is relevant. However, it should be noted that this classification is a simplification of reality. As mentioned before, there are individual differences not caught by this distinction that may be important in the context of the discrepancy between actual and perceived quality as well. It is beyond the scope of this paper 108

5 to investigate the role of all relevant personal and contextual factors. We have selected some that we assume to be relevant in an environmental equity context, and that were available from the WBO survey. Table 6.1 Background to perception data about the environment and the neighbourhood, and educational level, as assessed in the WBO 2002 Survey Topic Question Answer categories Perceptions of environmental quality Importance of these environmental issues Involvement with neighbourhood Feeling responsible for liveability Evaluation of development neighbourhood Expectation about development neighbourhood Educational level To what extent are you annoyed by <noise/malodour, dust, dirt> in this neighbourhood? To what extent are you satisfied with public green space in your neighbourhood? Could you please indicate how important it is for you to have green areas in the proximity of your home/new home? not to hear a lot of ambient noise in your home/new home? To what extent do you feel actively involved with what happens in your neighbourhood? In several neighbourhoods residents are asked to help with plans to change and improve the neighbourhood. Would you actively commit yourself to such plans? I feel jointly responsible for liveability in this neighbourhood Do you think that the neighbourhood you are living in has improved or deteriorated over the past year? Do you think that the neighbourhood you are living in will improve or deteriorate over the next year? What is the highest completed educational level? often/sometimes/(almost) never very satisfied/satisfied/not satisfied, not dissatisfied/dissatisfied/very dissatisfied/don t know/no answer very important/important/not important/totally not important strongly involved/involved/not actively involved/do not know/refuses to answer yes/no/do not know/refuses to answer agree entirely/agree/do not agree or disagree/disagree/disagree entirely improved/deteriorated/remained the same/do not know/refuses to answer improve/deteriorate/remain the same/ do not know/refuses to answer elementary school/technical and vocational training for yearolds/secundary school, lower level, and technical training for years-old/secundary school higher level, and technical and vocational training for years-old/technical and vocational training for 18+ and university/other 109

6 Indicators to explain how public perceptions may affect environmental equity The WBO survey provided a number of indicators that may help to explain how public perceptions may affect environmental equity: Active involvement with the neighbourhood and feeling responsible for liveability in the neighbourhood As indicated in the introduction, people with a higher socio-economic status, and more specifically with a higher educational level, may be more able to influence decision-making regarding their neighbourhood, and are often more actively involved than people with a lower socio-economic status (e.g. Hermans, 2004). They are therefore better able to adapt the actual environmental situation to their needs, bringing the actual and perceived situations closer together. This may result in better environmental quality for people with a higher socio-economic status compared to groups with lower socio-economic status. Evaluation of, and expectations relating to, the development of the neighbourhood People who feel powerless to change a negative situation may have a more negative attitude towards their neighbourhood and the development of it than people who have the feeling they can change it. Since people with a higher socio-economic status may have more capacity to influence decision-making regarding their neighbourhood, they may have a more positive attitude towards the neighbourhood and its development than people with a lower socioeconomic status. Moreover, they have more options to choose a residential location that meets their needs. The valuation of environmental issues: absence of noise and presence of green facilities As indicated in the introduction, people with a higher socio-economic status attach greater importance to environmental issues than people with a lower socio-economic status. As a consequence they probably attach greater weight to it when selecting their residential location and are probably keener to fight for good environmental quality in their neighbourhood. This may result in better environmental quality for people with a higher socio-economic status compared to those with a lower socio-economic status. Table 6.1 lists the WBO questions and answers about the selected indicators. The answer categories do not know/refuses to answer were excluded from the analyses Research approach Method used to analyse the association between actual and perceived environmental quality There are several ways to investigate the association between actual and perceived environmental quality. One way to describe this association is by using exposure-response relationships. In the case of noise, for example, the association between noise exposure and noise annoyance in the Netherlands has been described in this way by Miedema and Oudshoorn (2001), Van Kempen et al. (2005), Houthuijs and Van Wiechen (2006), and Breugelmans et al. (2007). In this chapter, however, we do not analyse the (shape of ) the relationship between the exposure level and the effect in that way. Instead, we want to assess to what extent actual and perceived environmental quality match or do not match, with a special focus on differences between socio-economic categories. Since perceived environmental quality is described by an ordinal variable with a limited number of categories, it does not make sense to describe the match 110

7 with correlations. We therefore chose to describe the match using a 2x2 quadrant, distinguishing between four combinations of actual and perceived environmental quality (Table 6.2): Situation A(ctual)g(ood)P(erceived)g(ood): the actual and perceived environmental quality are both good ; Situation AbPg: the actual environmental quality is bad, but perceived environmental quality is good ; Situation AgPb: the actual environmental situation is good, but perceived environmental quality is bad ; Situation AbPb: the actual and perceived environmental quality are both bad. This quadrant is also useful for policymaking. The four situations require different policy approaches. For example, in the situation where the actual environmental quality is bad, technical and additional policy measures are required. This will not help if the actual situation is good, but people perceive it to be bad. Using this quadrant, decision-makers can determine the extent to which each situation occurs. In addition, if information about the location (e.g., x,y coordinates) is available, it is possible to determine where these situations occur and what action needs to be taken; it is meant as a general tool. For local environmental inequity situations and in order to find more detailed explanations for discrepancies between the actual and perceived environmental situation, a location-specific approach is required, and more in-depth (qualitative) research is needed. In addition, the best policy approach depends on other local conditions as well, and should therefore be determined in the first place by local policymakers. As mentioned in Chapter 2, the classification into good and bad stems from an approach used by the OECD in a project concerning the distributional effect of environmental policies conducted under the work programme on the Environmental and Social Interface (OECD, 2004; Serret and Johnstone, 2006). The definition of good or bad is normative, and choices made at this point may affect the results. There is no golden rule for the definition of good or bad. We took legal standards as thresholds to characterise the actual environmental situation, Table 6.2 2x2 quadrant to describe the match/mismatch between actual and perceived environmental quality: definition of the four combinations Actual environmental quality + - Perceived environmental quality + never annoyed by noise/ malodour, dust, dirt satisfied/not dissatisfied with green facilities - sometimes/often annoyed by noise/malodour, dust, dirt dissatisfied/very dissatisfied with green facilities Noise < 65 db(a) NO 2 < 40 µg/m 3 Green space > 75 m 2 per inhabitant AgPg AgPb Noise > 65 db(a) NO 2 > 40 µg/m 3 Green space < 75 m 2 per inhabitant AbPg AbPb 111

8 because they are important for policy-making processes and decisions. These standards are dynamic, and change over time. Furthermore, there are many different standards for road traffic that are applicable to different situations (e.g., new situations/existing situations). In addition, no legal standard was available for the availability of public green space. Instead, we took 75 m 2 per inhabitant within 500 metres (a five-minute walk) as a boundary, a value derived by experts from existing index numbers based on research data about recreational behaviour (Middelkoop et al., 2001). Partly deviating from other chapters in this thesis, these standards were used to define both bads and goods for the actual situation. In the case of the perception data, being often or sometimes annoyed was considered to be bad, and never being annoyed was considered to be good. For satisfaction with green facilities, dissatisfied and very dissatisfied were labelled as bad and the other categories as good. The main reason for this classification was the number of observations per category. This number should be large enough for further analyses and subdivisions into socio-economic categories, for example. We investigated the following combinations of actual and perceived environmental characteristics: traffic noise levels and noise annoyance; NO 2 concentrations and annoyance due to malodour, dust or dirt; the amount of available public green space within the 500 m radius and satisfaction with green areas. 2x2 quadrants were produced for these combinations: for the general Dutch population; for different socio-economic subpopulations; in two specific Dutch regions with high spatial pressure (the Rijnmond region and the Amsterdam Airport region). Method used to explain how public perceptions may affect environmental equity Descriptive analyses were performed to investigate differences in the valuation of environmental issues, and differences in public involvement in and evaluation of developments of their neighbourhood between income and educational categories. As explained before, these analyses relate to the Netherlands nationwide, as well as the Rijnmond region and Amsterdam Airport region. For the region-specific analyses we selected the relevant post codes of the region from the nationwide dataset Weighting of the results Although the selected sample was meant to be representative of the Dutch population, this was not entirely the case, due to non-response. In order to make the calculated prevalence representative for the Dutch population, the results of the aforementioned analyses were weighted for age, gender, and ethnicity, using weightings provided in the WBO survey, adjusting for population categories which were over- or under-represented. These weightings were available for the Netherlands as a whole, but not for the two selected regions. Consequently, only the results of the analyses at the national level are weighted, while the results for the regions are not. The results for the selected regions are therefore probably not entirely representative for the 112

9 population. Since we did not have data about the constitution of the population in these regions in terms of age, gender, and ethnicity, we cannot indicate how large the difference is, and the results therefore apply primarily to the sample. In any case, differences between weighted and unweighted results are small for the Netherlands (see, for example, Table 6.3) Additional remarks Since this study was explorative and aimed to establish a broad overview rather than in-depth insights, we performed descriptive analyses. In order to acquire more in-depth insights into, for example, explanations of differences in actual and perceived environmental quality, and the differences between socio-economic categories, multivariate analyses as well as interviews or focus groups with members of the public are recommended. More theory-oriented studies, including studies using a qualitative approach, are needed to understand differences between actual and perceived environmental quality better. 6.3 Results This section provides a broad description of the results. These findings are based on numerous tables and figures. Most of them can be found in Appendix 3. A general description of the data is given first. Then the match between actual and perceived environmental quality is described for the general Dutch situation. This match/mismatch is then presented for different socio-economic categories, and the two selected regions with high spatial pressure. Finally, the section concludes with a description of the results for the factors that may help explain how public perception may affect environmental equity (see Section 6.2) General description of the data Actual environmental quality Table 6.3 presents the general outcomes for the actual and perceived data for the total populations of the Rijnmond region and for the Amsterdam Airport region respectively. As expected, the spatial pressure and presence of a mainport led to lower actual environmental quality in the Amsterdam Airport region and the Rijnmond region compared to the situation nationwide, particularly for the amount of public green space within 500 metres of people s homes. At the national level, there is an average of 406 m 2 per inhabitant, compared to 56 m 2 in the Rijnmond region and 91 m 2 in the Amsterdam Airport region. In the Amsterdam Airport region, levels of air traffic noise are higher due to the presence of the large international airport (48 db(a) in the Amsterdam Airport region, 24 db(a) in the Rijnmond region and 22 db(a) at the national level). In the Rijnmond region, NO 2 concentrations are higher on average, due to the infrastructure of highways and high road-traffic intensities in this region, which are partly related to the harbour and industry (38 µg/m 3 in the Rijnmond region compared to 31 µg/m 3 in the Amsterdam Airport region and 27 µg/m 3 at the national level). Public perception The percentage of people annoyed by or dissatisfied with the environmental situation in their neighbourhood is obviously higher in both regions compared to the national level, particularly 113

10 Table 6.3 General description of the data Actual environmental quality (mean) road traffic noise (L den, db(a)) rail traffic noise (L den, db(a)) air traffic noise (L den, db(a)) combined traffic noise (L den, db(a)) NO 2 (µg/m 3 ) available public green space (m 2 /inh. within 500 m.) Perceived environmental quality (%) annoyed/often annoyed by noise annoyed/often annoyed by malodour/dust/dirt dissatisfied/very dissatisfied with green areas absence of noise important/very important presence of green facilities important/very important involved/strongly involved with neighbourhood putting effort into neighbourhood neighbourhood deteriorated last year neighbourhood will deteriorate next year not responsible for liveability in neighbourhood Income (%) high above average average low minimum various unknown Educational level (%) 1 (lowest) (highest) 1 not weighted; 2 weigted Netherlands Rijnmond region Amsterdam Airport region n % or mean # of missings n % or mean # of missings n % or mean # of missings 74, / / / / / / ,862 65,862 65,862 70,673 70,673 65,862 65,862 65,862 65,862 65,862 71,670 74, / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

11 with respect to noise, and malodour, dust or dirt. The absence of noise and presence of green facilities in the neighbourhood appears to be important for most people. In total, 92% of the Dutch adult population stated that the absence of noise is important or very important to them, and 95% stated that presence of green facilities is also important or very important. Sixty-six percent of Dutch people stated that their neighbourhood had remained the same in the last year. Twenty percent had observed improvement, and 14% had seen deterioration. Percentages were comparable in the Amsterdam Airport region, while the population in the Rijnmond region was a little more negative, with 56% seeing no change, 15% seeing improvement and 29% seeing deterioration (see Appendix 3). Expectations about future developments were about the same. Finally, income and educational level in the Rijnmond region were lower than in the Amsterdam Airport region and nationally Differences between actual and perceived environmental quality in the general Dutch population First of all, we would like to recall that the results relate to the combinations of traffic noise levels and noise annoyance, NO 2 concentrations and annoyance due to malodour, dust or dirt; the amount of available public green space within a 500 m radius per inhabitant and satisfaction with green space in the neighbourhood (Table 6.2). Traffic noise levels and noise annoyance For this indicator, about 65% of the Dutch population above 18 years old both have a good actual environmental situation and also perceive it to be good (AgPg) (Table 6.4). NO 2 and annoyance due to malodour, dust or dirt With regard to NO 2, the situation where both the actual and perceived environmental quality are good (AgPg) occurs in 76% of the Dutch adult population (Table 6.5). In addition, for this Table 6.4 2x2 quadrant of traffic noise and annoyance for the general Dutch population (% of the population) Perceived environmental quality + never annoyed by noise (a) 63.7 (b) 64.9 (c) 65.2 (d) sometimes/often annoyed by noise Actual environmental quality + - Traffic noise Traffic noise < 65 db(a) > 65 db(a) (a) combined (a) combined (b) road (b) road (c) rail (c) rail (d) air (d) air (a) 31.8 (b) 32.9 (c) 33.1 (d) 33.9 (a) 2.3 (b) 1.2 (c) 0.9 (d) 0.1 (a) 2.2 (b) 1.1 (c) 0.8 (d)

12 indicator, the combination of both bad actual and bad perceived environmental quality (AbPb) is rare (1%). The same is true for a bad actual situation that is perceived to be good. The situation where the actual quality is good but is perceived to be bad (AgPb) is again found more often, in 22% of the population. The amount of available public green space and satisfaction with green areas Turning to the availability of public green space, it is less common for the actual and perceived environmental quality to be both characterised as good compared to the other two environmental indicators; this combination was found in about 23% of the adult Dutch population (Table 6.6). Although most people are satisfied with the public green space (88%), 75% of the population find the amount of public green space per inhabitant to be insufficient on the basis of the experts standard (Middelkoop et al., 2001). As a result, the situation in which both the actual and perceived environmental quality are bad is found more often: in 10% of the population. The situation of a mismatch between the actual environmental situation and the perception of it is most common. Almost 66% of the adult Dutch population are satisfied with the green space, while the actual quality is bad. Table 6.5 2x2 quadrant of NO2 and annoyance for the general Dutch population (% of the population) Actual environmental quality Perceived environmental quality + - NO 2 < 40 µg/m 3 NO 2 > 40 µg/m 3 + never annoyed by malodour, dust, dirt - sometimes/often annoyed by malodour, dust, dirt Table 6.6 2x2 quadrant of availability of public green space and satisfaction for the general Dutch population (% of the population) Actual environmental quality Perceived environmental quality + - Green space > 75 m 2 per inhabitant Green space < 75 m 2 per inhabitant + satisfied/not dissatisfied with green facilities - dissatisfied/very dissatisfied with green facilities 116

13 6.3.3 Differences between actual and perceived environmental quality in groups with a different income or educational level Income To understand the differences between the socio-economic categories, it is of interest to present the differences between socio-economic categories in both the actual environmental quality and the way they perceive it, before presenting the results of the 2x2 quadrants. Lower-income categories are worse off than higher-income categories for rail traffic noise, NO 2 and, in particular, the amount of public green space within walking distance on the basis of the actual environmental situation (Appendix 3). For example, 83% of the minimum incomes lack the amount of public green space that experts advise as a minimum, compared to 65% of the high incomes. Lower incomes are more often dissatisfied with, or annoyed by, the environmental situation in their neighbourhood than higher incomes. For example, 18% of the minimum incomes are dissatisfied with the green space in their neighbourhood, as compared to 8% of the high incomes. In the case of traffic noise, the situation in which both the actual and environmental situation is good and people perceive it to be good (situation AgPg) occurs more often for higher income categories than for lower income categories. For the other combinations of the quadrant (AgPb, AbPg, and AbPb), there are no clear trends associated with income (Table 6.7). Turning to rail traffic noise, people with a low and minimum income live more often in a bad actual environmental situation and perceive it to be bad (situation AbPb). Differences between income categories are more outspoken for NO 2 than for traffic noise. Higher incomes live more often in a good situation, and perceive it to be good, while lower incomes live more often in a bad situation and perceive it to be bad. In addition, lower incomes more often perceive the situation to be bad while the actual situation is good, and vice-versa, than higher incomes. In terms of the availability of green space, differences were found between income categories for the situations in which both actual and perceived environmental quality are good (34% of the high incomes, decreasing to 15% of the minimum incomes), and in which both are bad. Educational level Generally, differences between educational categories are fewer and smaller compared to income categories (Table 6.8). Although, intuitively, comparable trends with income would be expected, opposite trends are sometimes observed. Higher educated people are on average exposed to somewhat higher levels of air traffic noise compared to less educated people. There is no trend in the association between bads in actual environmental quality and educational level, except for green space, with less educated people lacking the advised amount more often. Remarkably, people with a higher educational level are more often dissatisfied or annoyed by the environmental situation in their neighbourhood than people with a lower educational level. For example, 26% of the lowest educated people are annoyed by noise, compared to 40% of the highest educated people. 117

14 This may also explain why a match between actual and perceived environmental good quality (AgPg) is more frequent in the group with lower education levels, although these differences are relatively small (factor 1 to 1.2 between the highest and lowest category). Differences are also found for the situation in which actual environmental quality is good but the public perceive it to be bad (AgPb), which is found about 1.5 times more often for the most educated people than for the least educated people with respect to road traffic noise, rail traffic noise and combined traffic noise Differences between actual and perceived environmental quality in the Rijnmond region and the Amsterdam Airport region In the introduction (Section 6.1), we assumed that differences between income and educational categories would be larger in regions with high spatial pressure. In general, the results do not support this assumption. What we did find is that, in both regions as compared to the general Dutch situation, high spatial pressure means that both the actual and perceived environmental situation is worse (Table 6.3). Furthermore, lower incomes lack the advised amount of public green space more often than higher incomes (Appendix 3). In the Amsterdam Airport region, people with low incomes are more often exposed to the bads of combined traffic noise, rail traffic noise and NO 2 compared to the other income categories, including the minimum income category. A remarkable finding in the Rijnmond region is that high incomes are exposed slightly more often to levels of more dan 65 db(a) of road traffic noise compared to the other income categories (7% and 4-6% respectively). With regard to the 2x2 quadrant, it is obvious that the situation where both actual and perceived environmental quality are described as good is less common compared to the general adult Dutch population, while the situation where both actual and environmental quality are bad occurs more often in these regions (Table 6.7). The case in which actual quality is good but perceived by the public to be bad was more frequent in the selected regions for traffic noise and NO 2. The case where the actual situation is bad but perceived as good occurred more often for combined noise in both regions (4% in Rijnmond and 3% in Amsterdam Airport region). Moreover, this was more often the situation for NO 2 in the Rijnmond region (10%). Differences between income categories are generally comparable with the general Dutch population. Turning to educational level, the trends described earlier for NO 2 are absent in both regions, which is contrary to the findings for the general Dutch population Potential explanations of how public perception may affect environmental equity The description of the results is based on tables and figures presented in Appendix 3. Income The absence of noise and presence of green facilities in the neighbourhood are more important for higher incomes than for lower incomes on average. For example, 35% of the high incomes consider the presence of green facilities to be very important compared to 25% of the minimum incomes (Appendix 3; Table A3.1). These differences between income categories are larger in the Rijnmond region compared to the national level. For example, in this region, 9% of the minimum income categories attach no value to the presence of green areas. This percentage falls to 4% in the case of high incomes. 118

15 Table 6.7 2x2 quadrant per income category in the Netherlands (NL) (weighted), Rijnmond region (RM) (not weighted), and the Amsterdam Airport region (AA) (not weighted) A. Combined traffic noise/noise annoyance AgPg AbPg AgPb AbPb NL RM AA NL RM AA NL RM AA NL RM AA High Above average Average Low Minimum Total B. Road traffic noise/noise annoyance AgPg AbPg AgPb AbPb NL RM AA NL RM AA NL RM AA NL RM AA High Above average Average Low Minimum Total AgPg: Actual environmental quality good, perceived environmental quality good AbPg: Actual environmental quality bad, perceived environmental quality good AgPb: Actual environmental quality good, perceived environmental quality bad AbPb: Actual environmental quality bad, perceived environmental quality bad 119

16 (Table 6.7 continued) C. Rail traffic noise/noise annoyance AgPg AbPg AgPb AbPb NL RM AA NL RM AA NL RM AA NL RM AA High Above average Average Low Minimum Total D. Air traffic noise/noise annoyance AgPg AbPg AgPb AbPb NL RM AA NL RM AA NL RM AA NL RM AA High Above average Average Low Minimum Total AgPg: Actual environmental quality good, perceived environmental quality good AbPg: Actual environmental quality bad, perceived environmental quality good AgPb: Actual environmental quality good, perceived environmental quality bad AbPb: Actual environmental quality bad, perceived environmental quality bad 120

17 (Table 6.7 continued) E. NO 2 /annoyance due to malodour, dust, dirt AgPg AbPg AgPb AbPb NL RM AA NL RM AA NL RM AA NL RM AA High Above average Average Low Minimum Total F. Availability of public green space/satisfaction with green facilities AgPg AbPg AgPb AbPb NL RM AA NL RM AA NL RM AA NL RM AA High Above average Average Low Minimum Total AgPg: Actual environmental quality good, perceived environmental quality good AbPg: Actual environmental quality bad, perceived environmental quality good AgPb: Actual environmental quality good, perceived environmental quality bad AbPb: Actual environmental quality bad, perceived environmental quality bad 121

18 Table 6.8 2x2 quadrant per educational category in the Netherlands (NL) (weighted), Rijnmond region (RM) (not weighted), and the Amsterdam Airport region (AA) (not weighted) A. Combined traffic noise/noise annoyance AgPg AbPg AgPb AbPb NL RM AA NL RM AA NL RM AA NL RM AA 1-lowest highest Total B. Road traffic noise/noise annoyance AgPg AbPg AgPb AbPb NL RM AA NL RM AA NL RM AA NL RM AA 1-lowest highest Total AgPg: Actual environmental quality good, perceived environmental quality good AbPg: Actual environmental quality bad, perceived environmental quality good AgPb: Actual environmental quality good, perceived environmental quality bad AbPb: Actual environmental quality bad, perceived environmental quality bad 122

19 (Table 6.8 continued) C. Rail traffic noise/noise annoyance AgPg AbPg AgPb AbPb NL RM AA NL RM AA NL RM AA NL RM AA 1-lowest highest Total D. Air traffic noise/noise annoyance AgPg AbPg AgPb AbPb NL RM AA NL RM AA NL RM AA NL RM AA 1-lowest highest Total AgPg: Actual environmental quality good, perceived environmental quality good AbPg: Actual environmental quality bad, perceived environmental quality good AgPb: Actual environmental quality good, perceived environmental quality bad AbPb: Actual environmental quality bad, perceived environmental quality bad 123

20 (Table 6.8 continued) E. NO 2 /annoyance due to malodour, dust, dirt AgPg AbPg AgPb AbPb NL RM AA NL RM AA NL RM AA NL RM AA 1-lowest highest Total F. Availability of public green space/satisfaction with green facilities AgPg AbPg AgPb AbPb NL RM AA NL RM AA NL RM AA NL RM AA 1-lowest highest Total AgPg: Actual environmental quality good, perceived environmental quality good AbPg: Actual environmental quality bad, perceived environmental quality good AgPb: Actual environmental quality good, perceived environmental quality bad AbPb: Actual environmental quality bad, perceived environmental quality bad 124

21 In addition, higher incomes are more actively involved with their neighbourhood and feel more often responsible for liveability in their neighbourhood than lower incomes. Moreover, lower incomes more often think their neighbourhood has changed over the last year and will change over the next year compared to higher incomes. For example, 23% of the minimum incomes think their neighbourhood deteriorated last year and will deteriorate next year compared to 9% of the high incomes. Educational level Higher educated people feel more actively involved with, and more often responsible for, the liveability of their neighbourhood than people with less education. In addition, lower educated people are more negative about developments in their neighbourhood than higher educated people, both retrospectively and prospectively. For example, 11% of the highest educated people think their neighbourhood deteriorated last year. This percentage rises to 19% in the lowest educated group. 6.4 Conclusions In summary, five conclusions can be drawn from the results: 1. In the case of traffic noise and NO 2 the actual environmental situation matches perception more often than in the case of the availability of green space. The results presented in this chapter indicate that there are differences between environmental indicators in the extent to which the actual environmental situation and the way people perceive it match. The match for traffic noise and NO 2 seems to be stronger than for availability of green space. This may partly be explained by the fact that the questions about the perception of green space differ from those about the perception of noise and air pollution (malodour, dust or dirt). In addition, it may be explained by other individual, environmental, cultural and social factors that affect the association between actual and perceived environmental quality (e.g., Leroy and Nelissen, 1999; Slovic, 2000). The influence of these factors may vary between environmental indicators, and determine the different extent to which they match. 2. Both actual and perceived environmental quality are slightly worse for lower incomes compared to higher incomes, and discrepancies between actual and perceived environmental quality are sometimes larger. Lower incomes are exposed to higher levels of rail traffic noise and NO 2, and have less public green space within walking distance of their homes than higher incomes. An exception is air traffic noise, for which the opposite trend was found. The latter might be due to the policy of minimising flights over densely populated areas. Relatively more low-income people live in such areas. In addition, lower incomes are more often annoyed and dissatisfied with the environmental situation in their neighbourhood than higher incomes. We cannot derive an explanation from the results of this study. However, it is plausible that higher income categories have more options when selecting a residential location that meets their needs than lower income 125