*IT ALL ADDS UP* INITIATIVE-DESIGN AND TARGET-AUDIENCE RESEARCH

Secondary Research

Review of existing research, commonly referred to as secondary research,
provided solid support for development of a nationally based initiative
with a strong community-based component.

As a prelude to this effort, FHWA and EPA had commissioned the National
Association of Regional Councils (NARC) to review existing national,
regional, and local public information initiatives on transportation and
air quality. The resulting report, "Personal and Public Strategies for
Improving Air Quality: A Public Education Campaign," provided specific
recommendations and helped to identify some of the challenges and
opportunities for the national initiative, resulting in a framework
which included the following:

1.  Creating and disseminating consumer-based messages that encourage
    people to make choices that contribute to better air quality and
    less traffic congestion

2.  Developing a community-based program to seed new efforts

3.  Linking national organizations through a national transportation and
    air quality coalition

Secondary research was also used to develop a preliminary target
audience profile. A thorough review was conducted of demographic and
psychographic research regarding people=s transportation habits and
their attitudes and behavior related to the environment. These studies
included *The Environment: Public Attitudes and Individual Behavior* (a
long-term study of consumer environmental attitudes and behaviors
conducted by the Roper Organization, Inc.) and Mediamark Research, Inc.
Index (syndicated market research on people's purchasing behavior
categorized by demographics and media used). This profile was then
explored through primary research, including discussion groups[^1] and
focus groups^2^.

**Initiative Design Research**

The following formative research was conducted with key organizations
and members of the general driving and commuting public to gain a more
in-depth understanding of developing a national public education effort:

-   During January 1996, four moderated discussion groups were held with
    key national organizations in Washington, DC at the National
    Transportation Research Board meeting in order to gain insight from
    potential stakeholders into the challenges and potential obstacles
    of a national transportation and air quality initiative.

-   During February 1996, four two-hour focus groups were conducted with
    members of the general driving public to identify key issues and
    potential communications strategies in the development of the
    initiative in two regions of the country: the Northeast
    (Philadelphia) and West (Denver). A total of 38 drivers participated
    in the study.

Based on key findings from these studies, a message strategy was
developed to create positive messages that encouraged the public to take
such voluntary actions as trip chaining, maintaining their cars, and
using alternative modes of transportation that can help meet the
challenge of reducing traffic congestion and air pollution.

**Concept and Message Testing Research (Focus Groups)**

Additional research was conducted to ensure the messages resonated with
the target audience(s) as well as with communities that offered a
diverse array of transportation options. Concept testing focus groups
were conducted in Dover, Delaware and Albany, New York to obtain
information to help develop marketing materials to raise awareness of
the relationship between personal transportation habits, congestion, and
air quality. Findings were used to develop initiative messages, and in
November 1997, message testing focus groups were conducted in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. The results of this study were used to refine the messages,
which were translated into a wide range of media, including television,
radio, and print, and then packaged in a "resource toolkit" that
communities could use to tailor the initiative to meet local needs.

**Program Development Research**

***Pilot Sites***

The next phase of program development was to pilot test the initiative
community-based program and materials in three communities across the
nation, including San Francisco, CA; Milwaukee, WI; and Dover, DE.
Feedback from the communities helped to shape the development of
resources that could build community capacity and support program
activities in communities with various transportation options and
demographic profiles.

***Demonstration Communities***

Table 1 provides a summary of key research conducted to support the
development of the initiative. Each section, including Review of
Existing Research Initiative-Design Research,

Concept- and Message-Testing Research, and Program-Development Research
is described in greater detail in this section of the toolkit**.**

+--------------+------------------+-----------------+------------------+
| **Table 1:   |                  |                 |                  |
| Research     |                  |                 |                  |
| Conducted to |                  |                 |                  |
| Support *It  |                  |                 |                  |
| All Adds Up  |                  |                 |                  |
| to Cleaner   |                  |                 |                  |
| Air ***      |                  |                 |                  |
+==============+==================+=================+==================+
| **Review of  | **Primary        |                 |                  |
| Existing     | Research**       |                 |                  |
| Research**   |                  |                 |                  |
+--------------+------------------+-----------------+------------------+
|              | **Initiative     | **Concept and   | **Program        |
|              | Design/          | Message Testing | Development      |
|              | Exploratory**    | Research**      | Research**       |
+--------------+------------------+-----------------+------------------+
| -   NARC     | -   Stakeholder  | -   Concept     | -   Initiative   |
|     Review   |     Discussion   |     Testing     |     Pilot Phase  |
|     of       |     Groups       |     with Target |     (1998)       |
|     Existing |     (1996)       |     Audience    |                  |
|     Tr       |                  |     (1997)      | -   Initiative   |
| ansportation | -   Target       |                 |                  |
|     and Air  |     Audience     | -   Message     |    Demonstration |
|     Quality  |     Focus Groups |     Testing     |     Phase (May   |
|     Public   |     (1996)       |     with Target |     1999 -       |
|              |                  |     Audience    |     October      |
|    Education | -   Latino Focus |     (1997)      |     2000)        |
|     Programs |     Groups       |                 |                  |
|     (1995)   |     (1998)       |                 |                  |
|              |                  |                 |                  |
| -   Target   |                  |                 |                  |
|     Audience |                  |                 |                  |
|              |                  |                 |                  |
|    Research: |                  |                 |                  |
|     Roper    |                  |                 |                  |
|     O        |                  |                 |                  |
| rganization, |                  |                 |                  |
|     Inc.,    |                  |                 |                  |
|              |                  |                 |                  |
|    Mediamark |                  |                 |                  |
|              |                  |                 |                  |
|    Research, |                  |                 |                  |
|     Inc.,    |                  |                 |                  |
|     Index,   |                  |                 |                  |
|              |                  |                 |                  |
| Pennsylvania |                  |                 |                  |
|     DOT, and |                  |                 |                  |
|              |                  |                 |                  |
|   Washington |                  |                 |                  |
|              |                  |                 |                  |
| Metropolitan |                  |                 |                  |
|     Council  |                  |                 |                  |
|     of       |                  |                 |                  |
|              |                  |                 |                  |
|  Governments |                  |                 |                  |
+--------------+------------------+-----------------+------------------+

I **I. Review of Existing Research (Secondary Research)**

An extensive review of national and regional/local public education
programs on transportation and air quality, along with other DOT and EPA
public education initiatives, provided information on the "gaps" in
public education efforts, and identified the need for a nationally
implemented program. Other key information from the literature review
included potential barriers, opportunities, messages, and methods for
maximizing target audience participation. We found that, although there
are many national, local and regional organizations implementing
transportation and air quality programs, inconsistent messages are
directed at the general public. Also, many of the current and recent
programs have focused primarily on health messages versus traffic
congestion relief and other quality of life issues, such as time savings
and stress relief.

Benefits of both locally and nationally implemented programs were found
in the preliminary research. Most notably, local programs include
opportunities for Aface-to-face@ relationships with the target audience
(the general driving public), and are best at addressing community
issues, while programs implemented at the national level enable the
message to reach the broadest audience, establish the issue as a
national priority, and are usually more comprehensive and long-term.
Analysis of these benefits provided a basis for the development of a
national initiative with a strong community-based component.

**A. Review of Existing Transportation and Air Quality Public Education
Programs**

In 1994, the National Association of Regional Councils (NARC) conducted
a project C Personal and Public Strategies for Improving Air Quality: A
Public Education Campaign C to achieve the following goals:

-   Develop general agreement among interested parties on the problems
    they identified and a common mobility and air quality message.

-   Identify general strategies for implementing public
    education/outreach programs.

NARC conducted a thorough review of public information and outreach
programs across the country. In December 1994, they convened a
stakeholder conference of 40 representatives from a variety of
organizations with interests in both transportation and air quality.
From the review of the stakeholder conference, a framework for
organizing public education/outreach campaigns began to emerge. In their
report, published in 1995, NARC made a wide range of observations and
recommendations, including:

-   State and local entities have requested additional assistance in
    meeting the ambient air quality standards.

-   Messages disseminated by public education programs are inconsistent.

-   Messages do not clearly link transportation choices to air quality.

-   Messages related to air quality and mobility need a credible
    rationale.

-   Broad-based support from the public is essential.

-   The messages must be simple and understandable to be effective.

-   The performance of public education programs must be measured over
    time.

**B. Target Audience Research**

To identify segments of the general public who would be most amenable to
changing their transportation behaviors to improve air quality, we
reviewed demographic and psychographic research regarding people=s
transportation habits and their attitudes and behavior related to the
environment. These studies included *The Environment: Public Attitudes
and Individual Behavior* (a long-term study of consumer environmental
attitudes and behaviors conducted by the Roper Organization, Inc.),
Mediamark Research Inc., Index (syndicated market research on people=s
purchasing behavior categorized by demographics and media used) and
additional regional/state quantitative and qualitative research.

The Roper Organization uses a clustering technique to divide Americans
into the following five behavioral categories based primarily on whether
or not they have engaged in a list of

"environmentally friendly" practices (e.g., recycling, involvement in
environmental organizations, and purchasing environmentally-safe
products): True-blue Greens, Greenback Greens, Sprouts, Grousers, and
Basic Browns. The ability to divide the general public in this way is
helpful to understanding which audience segment would be most willing to
listen to, and potentially act on, messages pertaining to people=s
transportation choices and the effects such choices have on the
environment.

Following is a summary of each category:

-   ***True-blue Greens -*** This group=s behavior reflects their strong
    environmental concerns. They are the leaders of the green movement.
    They are distinguished by high levels of education and social
    involvement. As leaders of the environmental movement, this group
    would be most likely to be cognizant of the air quality effects of
    their transportation choices; however, their professional-level jobs
    and other commitments may force them to sometimes stray from their
    environmental commitment.

-   ***Greenback Greens -*** This is the segment of the general
    population most willing to pay more for environmentally safe
    products and services. They are also pro-environment voters and
    contribute to environmental organizations. However, they are
    reluctant to make substantial behavior changes, because they desire
    convenience and may perceive they have limited transportation
    options for responsibilities such as child care. While they are
    willing to pay substantially more for less polluting gasoline, they
    have not been willing to cut back on their use of automobiles.

-   ***Sprouts -*** This is a key "swing" group. Members of this market
    segment are moving out of the awareness phase and are just beginning
    to accept environmental messages. Although they are ambivalent about
    environmental regulations, a large percent regularly recycle
    newspapers and believe that individuals can reduce air pollution
    caused by automobile exhaust.

-   ***Grousers -*** Grousers are indifferent to the environment;
    however, they rationalize their indifference as identifying them
    with the mainstream. A huge majority of this group say that
    companies, not the public, should solve environmental problems, that
    they are too

> busy to make lifestyle changes for the environment, and that others
> aren=t making sacrifices, so why should they.

-   ***Basic Browns -*** This group conducts virtually no environmental
    activities. Unlike the Grousers, they do not rationalize their
    behavior. Instead, their indifference stems from the belief that
    there is little individuals can do about most environmental
    problems.

***Who Can We Reach and Affect?***

Based on the initial analysis of the data, the two population segments
selected to explore, through

further research, as the potential primary target for *It All Adds Up to
Cleaner Air* were the Greenback Greens and the Sprouts.

Greenback Greens were considered an important target audience because
they are likely to have the resources to change their transportation
behavior, although they may not be convinced that it is important or
relevant for them to do so. An environmental message alone may not tempt
this group to change their behavior, but because they describe their
lifestyles as busy, they may be swayed by the other potential benefits
of transportation alternatives, such as time savings and reduced stress.
In addition, because many members of the Greenback Greens are parents of
young children, the initiative should also target non-commuting trips,
such as shopping and taxiing children, that contribute to air quality
and congestion problems. According to a variety of sources, these
non-work-related trips now account for 70 to 75 percent of vehicle
trips.

Sprouts were thought to be a key sub population for the initiative
because they believe that individuals can contribute to reducing air
pollution, and many already have adjusted to recycling newspapers and
other small actions that benefit the environment. A message that uses
relevant analogies was highly rated by focus group participants. Sprouts
may be the type of people most open to messages that use analogies or
identify individual actions which cumulatively result in benefits for
the entire community. An environmental message will most likely affect
this group, and the added benefits of less traffic congestion may
bolster message appeal.

Although True-blue Greens, who are highly involved in environmental
issues, will probably most easily comprehend the program messages, they
probably already understand transportation and air quality issues and
are making decisions based on this knowledge. Although they most likely
will support the initiative, a program targeted to them was anticipated
to be "preaching to the choir." Therefore, it was not considered
necessary to target messages directly to this audience; however,
messages will provide reinforcement for their current practices.

Research, conducted on target audiences for similar initiatives by the
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments, clustered audiences by their
potential for adopting or changing behavior. They defined a group called
"Early Adopters" as people who recognize that air pollution is a problem
and feel that they personally can make a difference. At the time of the
studies, this segment was composed primarily of college graduates
employed in white-collar occupations. This profile tracked with Roper's
"Sprouts" profile, although a lot more than 50 percent were women.
Similar to the Roper poll, the two local studies estimated this subgroup
to be approximately 40 percent of the population.

***Who Will Be Hard To Reach?***

Grousers and Basic Browns were anticipated to be most unlikely to heed
messages on the environmental effects of transportation choices. These
groups may even "fight back" if a message asks them to make a personal
sacrifice for the environment. Primarily for this reason, the initiative
messages do not present the driver as the "bad guy." It is important to
be clear that we are not asking people not to drive or to give up their
automobile, but just to consider the benefits of using transportation
alternatives and making other behavioral changes.

In addition to demographic and psychographic characteristics, there are
also transportation infrastructure factors that will narrow the target
audience(s) for some messages. Although everyone can be asked to
consider the relationship between air quality and transportation, some
people do not have as many transportation options as others (e.g., rural
versus urban/suburban residents).

**II. Initiative Design Research**

**A. Stakeholder Discussion Groups**

During January 1996, four moderated discussion groups were held in order
to gain insight from potential stakeholders into the challenges and
potential obstacles of a national transportation and air quality
initiative. A moderated discussion group is a structured discussion that
typically involves eight to 10 people. In these particular groups,
participants were asked to describe their concerns about air quality and
transportation/congestion issues. They then discussed in detail a number
of specific scientific statements about air quality and the relationship
of automobile emissions and air pollution, and the strengths and
weaknesses of the sponsoring agencies. Participants were also asked to
provide advice on possible ways to implement an initiative of this type
and to provide general advice based on past and current experience in
similar initiatives. Two one-on-one phone interviews, which were
conducted with participants not able to attend a session, followed the
same line of questioning and requests for advice.

The sessions were conducted with representatives from four stakeholder
groups C industry, states, metropolitan planning organizations,
associations and non-governmental organizations C at the 1996
Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting to:

-   provide a forum for communicating Transportation/Air Quality
    initiative progress to a key group of stakeholders;

-   gain additional, specific information from a diverse range of key
    stakeholder groups;

-   begin identification and preliminary evaluation of potential
    coalition partners and credible sources for transmitting the program
    messages, and outline some potential strategies for working with
    partners; and

-   identify potential sites for Transportation/Air Quality pilot
    projects.

As in all studies of this kind, the results reflect the opinions and
attitudes of a limited number of people, and therefore, should be
regarded as suggestive rather than definitive. The research is

not intended to be quantitative; however, because these participants are
experts in the fields of transportation and the environment, their input
and recommendations are of considerable importance.

**Key Findings**

***Significant interest and enthusiasm existed in the subject area.***
Based on the high acceptance rate to the invitations to participate in
the discussion sessions, and based on feedback

within the sessions, there were significant levels of interest and
enthusiasm in the subject area among all stakeholder groups.

***There was general enthusiasm for a cooperative effort among FHWA,
EPA, FTA, and other organizations, although some people were skeptical
about the agencies= ability to work together, the credibility of a
message coming from federal agencies, and the effectiveness of a message
that would be agreed upon by all involved.*** In all groups,
participants indicated that the agencies lend credibility, expertise,
and the ability to assist a project at the local level. Stakeholder
groups expressed varying reasons to support the effort, from perceiving
it as an ongoing dialogue with the federal agencies and a method of
receiving guidance to seeing it as a potential opportunity to influence
national policy. However, it was often pointed out that the agencies=
differing missions may hinder (or water down) the effects of a
cooperative effort, and that the regulatory responsibilities of FHWA and
EPA may lessen the credibility of the initiative message.

***There was some disagreement over basic issues related to
transportation and air quality.*** While nearly all participants said
that air quality issues were priorities for their organizations, there
was some disagreement over the basic assumptions concerning air quality.
Disagreements ranged from unclear connections between congestion and air
quality to statements that automobiles are no longer a primary source of
ozone.

***There was a need for local identification of problems, solutions, and
message delivery.*** Several participants commented that the
relationships among transportation, air quality, and various
transportation control measures vary substantially from place to place.
Based on the nature of this problem, participants voiced the need for a
local orientation in identifying and addressing air quality issues.

***There was a need to focus on issues such as non-commuting trips, as
well as other mobile sources.*** It was noted by some of the
participants that two-thirds of today=s car trips are non-commuting
trips, and in order to address this problem fully, the initiative needs
to encompass both commuting and non-commuting trips. In addition, the
issue was raised regarding EPA and FHWA research that indicates the
automobile is no longer the primary source of ozone, and that the
initiative should address other mobile sources (e.g., planes, trains).

***There was a belief that the public does not fully understand air
quality issues and that education is necessary.*** Many participants
felt that public education is extremely important because the general
public does not understand the air quality problem. Some of the issues
they felt needed to be explained were the link between air quality and
health, transportation options available and the benefits of each, the
relationship of transportation and air quality, and the hidden costs of
driving a car.

***Disagreement existed regarding the content of the public education
and information initiative.*** Some participants pointed out a need to
reestablish links between health and air pollution, while others stated
that the public should be informed of improvements in today=s air
quality and auto emissions. Despite this disagreement, there was
consensus that education is an important aspect of the initiative. In
addition to public education, many participants noted that the future
success of the initiative is dependent upon incorporating air quality
and transportation issues into today=s school curriculum.

***The federal government should support its public education programs
with action and demonstrate an early success.*** Although the kind of
action was not specified by the participants, many expressed a need for
the sponsoring federal agencies to take actions that support this
initiative. These actions could range from encouraging government
employees to think about their transportation choices to offering
financial grants to communities willing to expand upon or improve their
public transportation system.

In addition, the stakeholders agreed that in order to ensure the program
succeeds in the long term, an early success should be demonstrated. This
success would encourage others to get involved, and provide those who
already are involved confidence that they are backing an important,
timely, and successful program.

**B. Target Audience Focus Groups**

During February 1996, four two-hour focus groups were conducted to
obtain information about transportation and air quality issues related
to the driving public. The study was

conducted primarily to identify key issues and potential communications
strategies in the development of the public education and information
initiative.

Participants were asked to describe their basic driving patterns,
transportation choices or alternatives to driving, and air quality in
general, and how they may or may not contribute to air pollution, and
also provide reactions to message concepts. Participants were
representatives of the general driving public, although some were
commercial drivers and drivers who use their cars in their work.

The groups were held in two regions of the country: the Northeast
(Philadelphia) and West (Denver). A total of 38 drivers participated in
the study. Each group contained both men and women, and held
considerable variation in terms of age, occupation, and income levels,
and some minority representation.

As in all studies of this kind, the results reflect the opinions and
attitudes of a limited number of people, and therefore, should be
regarded as suggestive rather than definitive. The research was not
intended to be quantitative or to provide a probability sample of the
population from which the participants were selected. It should also be
noted that these sessions were shaped, in part, by discussions with
individuals with a direct interest in transportation and air quality
issues, namely industry and association executives and state DOT and MPO
representatives.

**Key Findings**

***Time spent in the car.** Focus group participants said they accepted
the amount of time spent in their cars and adjusted their behaviors
accordingly.* Many noted that driving time was spent

mentally preparing for or unwinding from the workday, and for planning
errands. Although not directly stated, they seemed to attach importance
to that "transition time."

***Leaving the car at home.** Participants were not intrinsically
against the idea of leaving their cars at home, but believed it was more
appropriate for those who have more routine* *schedules**.*** While some
participants, and therefore a significant number of drivers today, want
ready access to their cars, others simply may need more motivation,
flexibility, and support to seek out alternatives to
single-occupant-vehicle (SOV) driving. In terms of potential motivators,
short- and longer-term financial incentives were most highly rated,
although there seemed to be important regional differences, because some
participants in the Denver group gave greater importance to incentives
such as a cleaner environment or health-related topics.

***The hidden costs of driving.*** One hypothesis going into the groups
was that the general public did not fully understand the true, or
"hidden," costs of operating a car, such as uninsured accidents, air
pollution, and opportunities lost through subsidies which reduce fuel
costs. The funding agencies wished to test whether informing drivers of
these hidden costs might motivate them to consider options to solo
driving. **Regardless of how the hidden costs of driving were presented,
participants did not place a great deal of importance on them.** Most
participants either accepted the figures as reasonable or were skeptical
of them. Among those participants who both believed the figures and
perceived that the expense of driving alone is significantly more than
alternate modes, many viewed the difference as the price of convenience.

***Air quality.*** *Participants in both cities voiced strong opinions
about their perceptions of poor air quality in their areas, and
participants in the Denver groups were more knowledgeable about
potential causes and effects.* In fact, knowledge of the situation and
its possible causes or main contributors was so specific, however, that
any public information efforts would have to be equally specific in
order to be relevant. Participants were also quite knowledgeable about
the many ways they may be contributing to poor air quality, but few
volunteered to change either their driving or purchasing behavior to
mitigate those contributions. This was especially important, given the
relatively large number of participants who traced health problems
within their families or friends to poor air quality.

***View of government agencies**. Participants had generally negative
attitudes and perceptions toward the federal government, but those
feelings softened when the discussion turned to specific agencies or
people.* This held true in both cities, with EPA registering a measure
of residual goodwill, even though some of the agency=s programs (e.g.,
ECO, Superfund) are viewed negatively. Criticism of DOT was given almost
exclusively by the commercial drivers in the groups. Furthermore,
participants, when prompted, had a relatively good grasp of the role of
each agency

***Public information initiatives**. Participants had fairly good levels
of awareness of marketing programs relating to public transportation or
issue-related initiatives, such as recycling.* Participants did not,
however, have positive impressions of the campaigns themselves, and they
did not believe such campaigns, as a whole, are effective. In fact, a
few of the participants cited public service announcements that are 20
to 30 years old (e.g., Native American crying at scenes of littering
along the roadway) as the most effective programs of their kind. In
describing these kinds of initiatives, participants continually stressed
the need for communicating convenience. This was reinforced in the
subsequent discussions on message statements. In terms of potential
program sponsors, those entities or individuals closest to the target
audience(s) were thought to be the most effective communicators, due to
their knowledge about local market conditions and

the needs of the community. Friends and family were rated as the most
favored potential messengers, and the federal government the least
favored messenger.

***Message statements.** Overall, the convenience, effectiveness, and
simplicity of specific actions were the most appealing aspects within
the messages.* An effective part of communicating convenience was the
use of a relevant analogy, for example seatbelts, recycling, or
littering. We also learned that to be effective, messages must strike a
balance between how individual actions can help improve air quality and
mobility, while placing the individual=s (i.e., automobile driver=s)
responsibility in context with that of other entities (i.e., business
and governments).

**C. Latino Focus Groups**

Two focus groups among Latinos were conducted on August 21, 1998 in San
Jose, California by Equals Three Communications, working with Garcia
Research Associates, a Hispanic research firm in the San Francisco Bay
Area. The focus groups were designed to gather exploratory information
to expand the national messages to reach Hispanic audiences across the
nation, and to support the San Francisco pilot site as they developed
information programs to meet the needs of Hispanic transit riders.

***National Research Objectives:***

-   Explore audience core values, beliefs, and information sources.

-   Identify perceptions related to air quality and transportation
    choices.

-   Explore perceived transportation options, transportation habits, and
    related benefits, barriers, and motivators for environmentally
    conscious transportation choices.

-   Generate possible ideas for adaptation of national messages for
    Hispanic audiences.

***Local Research Objectives:***

-   Determine the transit information needs of Spanish-speaking
    residents.

-   Assess the effectiveness of current information services in reaching

> Spanish-speaking populations.

-   Develop information programs that better meet the needs of
    Spanish-speaking

> individuals.

**Methodology**

One group was conducted in Spanish while the other was conducted in
English, both by the same moderator using the same discussion guide.
Qualified respondents met specific criteria outlined in the screener
questionnaire, namely Latinos who use public transportation, rideshare,
or drive alone to work. Although the participants came from a variety of
Latin American countries, most came from Mexico, therefore, these
findings may not be applicable to other subgroups of the Hispanic
population.

**Key Findings**

S

-   ***The participants were very concerned about job security and
    economic issues such as the cost of living, particularly with regard
    to housing.*** They also expressed concern about personal safety and
    education.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***Air quality was not mentioned on an unaided basis, although
    traffic congestion was a concern.*** The English speakers seemed
    much more environmentally conscious than the Spanish speakers who
    tended to be less critical and less demanding than their
    English-speaking counterparts, who saw degrading air quality as the
    cause of the increased incidence of asthma, particularly among
    children and seniors.

-   ***The Spanish speakers were much more likely to blame commercial
    and industrial sources of pollution than the English speakers who
    more readily acknowledged the role of privately owned automobiles in
    the air pollution problem.***

-   ***Both groups were aware of government regulations and felt such
    restrictions were important, even when the regulations directly
    affected them in the form of Smog Check programs and costly fuel
    additives.***

-   ***There was a perception that local air quality and congestion has
    worsened over the last 10 years, although they felt they were still
    better off than larger cities such as Los Angeles, Mexico City, or
    New York.*** Despite feeling relatively lucky, these respondents
    expressed willingness to undertake behavior changes that would
    benefit the environment.

-   ***The Latino respondents were satisfied for now with the
    transportation options available to them but felt that the system
    had limits and new programs and systems would have to be put into
    place to deal with the population growth in the area.*** They saw
    the need for new bus routes, new light rail lines, extending Bay
    Area Rapid Transit District (BART)\'s reach, better links between
    the different transit systems, and perhaps expanded boat systems.

-   ***They were open to using 800 lines to obtain information, but
    stated they were not pleased with phone tree systems, because they
    prefer to deal directly with operators.*** Spanish speakers would
    have been easier to please as long as Spanish-language services were
    available.

-   

-   ***Television, radio, and newspapers were reported as the best way
    to disseminate general information about transit issues.*** They
    recommended that more specific information and brochures be
    distributed not only at the transit stations, but also at schools,
    libraries, hospitals, clinics, malls, laundromats, parks, and
    churches, among others. The post office was mentioned as a key
    location by the Spanish-speaking group.

-   ***Rail systems were viewed more positively than bus lines.*** Rail
    was seen as cleaner, faster, safer, and more comfortable. Bus
    systems were seen as dirtier, slower, more prone to breakdowns, and
    to be crowded.

-   

-   

**III. III. Concept and Message Testing (Focus Groups)**

**A. Concept Testing**

Focus groups held in Dover, DE and Albany, NY, described below, were
critical in reshaping the initiative=s target audience(s). Based on
participants= input, combined with results of the previous focus groups,
the initial audience segmentation was revisited (see section I. B. on
existing target audience research on "Sprouts" and "Greenback Greens").

Focus groups revealed that many participants did not see environmental
benefits as a convincing reason for change and indicated other benefits
were much more relevant. Therefore, our strategy shifted from targeting
those who are most likely to change based on environmental reasons to
the general driving public. Those who would consider the environment as
one of many benefits to adopting environmentally conscious
transportation choices became our secondary target audience.

**1. Dover, Delaware Focus Groups**

On Thursday, June 19, 1997, two focus groups were conducted in Dover,
Delaware to obtain information that would be used to develop marketing
materials to raise awareness of the relationship between personal
transportation habits, congestion, and air quality. This research was
undertaken to explore ways of supporting state departments of
transportation and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in their
efforts to comply with the requirements of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (CAAA). Dover was selected as a pilot site to assist
with the development and implementation of a local initiative that could
draw on local transportation options and be delivered by a local
coalition of private and public organizations. The information obtained
in the Dover groups not only assisted in the development of the local
aspect of the initiative, but provided valuable insight into candidates
for national messages and how locations similar to Dover might react to
this initiative.

Pa Participants were asked about their awareness of local air quality
and congestion issues, then were asked to provide feedback on a campaign
positioning statement and some message concepts, presented in an
"ad-like" format.

The focus groups were conducted with members of the general driving
public. Because at this point the initiative messages were designed to
target members of the driving public who were moderately knowledgeable
of air quality and transportation issues, and were willing to make some
changes that would benefit the environment, the screener was designed to
exclude both ultra-pro-environmental individuals, and those who were not
willing to make any changes in their personal transportation habits (see
section I.B. for more information on preliminary target audience
segmentation). A total of 16 drivers participated in the study. Each
group contained both men and

women, and held considerable variation in terms of age, occupation, and
income levels, and some minority representation.

As In all studies of this kind, the results reflect the opinions and
attitudes of a limited number of people, and therefore, should be
regarded as suggestive rather than definitive. The research was

not intended to be quantitative or to provide a probability sample of
the population from which

the participants were selected.

**K Key Findings**

-   ***Environmental concerns were not among the highest priorities of
    many Dover commuters.*** Issues, including crime, wavering trust in
    state and national elected officials and government, day-to-day
    economics, and global issues appeared to occupy far more "share of
    mind" than issues related to the environment. Group participants=
    comments indicated that concern for the environment did exist, but
    that these environmental concerns had merely moved to the "back
    burner" to a number of other chronic issues.

-   ***Still, many group members bristled at the suggestion that they
    should have started doing something about the environment precisely
    because they believed they were already participating in a variety
    of direct and indirect environmentally Afriendly@ activities.***
    Specifically in the automotive category, group members pointed to
    their use of lead-free gasoline

-   and motor vehicles with pollution controls, and their adherence to
    state emission standards

-   testing as examples of their ongoing support of the environment.

-   ***Many persons were willing to share responsibility for protecting
    the environment. But they bristled at the suggestion that they
    should feel either personally guilty for its demise or responsible
    for its renewal.*** The people who took part in this study were
    willing - some even anxious - to take part in what they believed was
    a larger group effort required to restore and maintain the health of
    the environment. However, they firmly rejected, and were even
    insulted by the notion that they should have felt any personal
    responsibility for the condition of the environment or personal
    burden for its renewal.

-   ***Many Dover commuters did not perceive there to be a problem with
    the quality of air in central Delaware.*** The people who took part
    in this study outlined a variety of environmental concerns,
    including issues involving local watersheds and the impact of
    upstream polluters. They did not, however, perceive there to be any
    problems with air quality in metropolitan Dover. In fact, most
    described the local air as "very good." One even described the air
    in Dover as "looking as fresh and clear as if it was handed straight
    down from God."

-   ***There being no perceived problem, there was no perceived urgency
    associated with restoring air quality.*** The people who took part
    in this study believed that air quality was worthy of preservation,
    though they suggested that it would be a difficult task to convince
    local citizens to

-   take actions to meet this end. None of the members of either of the
    two focus groups believed the current air quality in the Dover area
    required any immediate, urgent remediation.

-   ***Any action taken for the good of Athe earth@ was assumed to
    include the air.*** The people who took part in this study did not
    perceive the earth and the air to be separate entities. Rather their
    belief was that the earth and the air are part of a single, holistic
    environment.

-   

-   ***Dover=s most significant contributors to environmental
    deterioration were perceived to be industrial polluters located
    outside Dover.*** When they thought of adverse environmental
    contributors, the study participants tended to look "up river" to
    the major refinery at Delaware City, to industrial installations in
    northern Delaware and in New Jersey, and even to the impact of coal
    mining and coal burning utilities in Pennsylvania. With only one or
    two minor exceptions, environmental deterioration was perceived to
    be an issue caused by outsiders.

-   ***Traffic congestion in Dover was said to be largely a function of
    transient motorists and ARace Weekend@ visitors.*** Group members
    believed that traffic originating in Dover was more likely to be
    private than commercial. However, group members also believed that
    local traffic congestion, and any resulting environmental
    deterioration, were caused more by transient traffic and "Race
    Weekend" visitors than they were by local residents.

-   ***Although some Dover commuters were undoubtedly predisposed to
    abandon their personal motor vehicle in the name of
    environmentalism, their perceived ability to do so was hindered by a
    lack of alternate modes.*** Most of the people who took part in this
    study had at least a basic awareness of the impact of motor vehicles
    on the environment. Most said, however, that any predispositions
    toward changing personal transportation habits were thwarted by 1)
    America=s traditional love of motor vehicles and driving; 2) the
    creeping "suburbanization" of our nation; and 3) the paucity of
    alternate modes of transportation.

-   ***A number of Dover commuters were aware of a bus system in the
    Dover metro area.*** But this system was perceived to be of little
    utility to them. Many of the persons who took part in this study
    were aware that there was a bus system in Dover. However, most
    believed that this system was most targeted to the needs of the
    elderly and other transit-dependent groups. Neither the timing nor
    the routing of the existing system was perceived to have utility to
    any of our group members.

-   ***Nearly all of the people taking part in this study agreed, at
    least conceptually, with the premise of the campaign positioning
    statement, which read: AMy travel choices have an effect on air
    quality and congestion in my community, and ultimately on quality of
    life.@ However, they did not like what they perceive to be its
    pointed, Aaccusatory@ tone.*** Initially, almost everyone who took
    part in this study was to some extent insulted by the campaign
    positioning statement. Upon further discussion, it was determined
    that they in fact agreed with the statement, but resented its
    implication (primarily through the use of the pronoun "my") that
    individuals are personally responsible for environmental
    deterioration and for its renewal.

-   ***The extent to which twelve Aad-like@ concepts were embraced or
    rejected appeared to have been determined by 1) perceived
    applicability to Dover; 2) overall credibility; and 3) recognition
    of an air quality problem in Dover.*** Study participants in each
    group had a variety of responses to the 12 concepts presented. Their
    feedback, however, was remarkably similar from group to group. Some
    said they simply did not feel they applied to Dover, either because
    they did

-   not perceive there to be an air quality problem in Dover, or because
    they made repeated reference to transportation modes not perceived
    to be available in Dover.

-   ***Nearly all participants agreed that a local coalition would be a
    credible source to deliver a message on the local situation and
    options.*** Although their first reaction was that the messages

-   

-   should come from local or federal government, they stated that they
    would be more likely to listen if the messages came from a local
    coalition that included both private and public organizations.

**2. 2. Albany, New York Focus Groups**

On Wednesday, July 30, 1997, two focus groups were conducted in Albany,
New York to obtain information to help develop marketing materials to
raise awareness of the relationship between personal transportation
habits, congestion, and air quality. This research sought to explore
ways of supporting state departments of transportation and metropolitan
planning organizations (MPOs) in their efforts to comply with the
requirements of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991 (ISTEA) and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA). The
information obtained in the Albany groups assisted in the development of
the local aspect of the initiative, and provided valuable insight into
candidates for national messages and how locations similar to Albany
might react to this initiative.

Par Participants were asked about their awareness of local air quality
and congestion issues, then to provide feedback on concept statements,
appeal statements, and some ad concepts. The participants, who were
screened by telephone in advance, were offered a cash payment as an
incentive to take part in the study. Because the initiative messages
were proposed to target members of the driving public who were
moderately knowledgeable of air quality and transportation issues, and
were willing to make some changes that would benefit the environment,
the screener was designed to exclude both ultra-pro-environmental
individuals and those who would not be willing to make any changes in
their personal transportation habits. A total of 20 drivers participated
in the study. Each group had both men and women, considerable variation
in terms of age, occupation, and income levels, and some minority
representation.

As In all studies of this kind, the results reflect the opinions and
attitudes of a limited number of people, and therefore, should be
regarded as suggestive rather than definitive. The research is not
intended to be quantitative or to provide a probability sample of the
population from which the participants were selected.

**K Key Findings**

***Group members did not perceive any serious problems with air quality
in the Albany metropolitan area.*** Albany group members conceded that
there might have been occasional, localized occurrences of air
pollution, mostly from industrial sources, and were generally aware that
pollution from the Midwest blows eastward into their region. However,
there was still a

feeling that the air was good in Albany, and largely free of any harmful
content that would require immediate attention.

-   ***Regarding their concern for the local environment, the Albany
    group members put the focus on environmental issues other than air
    pollution.*** The people who took part in this study were far more
    concerned about the more immediate implications of suburban
    expansion and the integrity of local municipal water supplies than
    they were about air quality.

-   

-   ***Albany group members knew that use of motor vehicles ultimately
    affects the environment.*** However, they did not believe current
    conditions warrant any change in their current driving habits.
    Members of the Albany groups were far quicker than their Dover peers
    to note the relationship between their use of motor vehicles *---*
    indeed a whole array of machines, ranging from cars to trucks to
    buses to boats and lawn mowers *---* and ocal air quality. But in
    the absence of any noticeable problem, Albany group members were
    reluctant to make any changes in their driving behavior.

-   ***Congestion was not perceived to be a problem in Albany.*** Group
    members described traffic congestion in the Albany metro area as a
    highly localized, time-limited problem. Although traffic volume was
    recognized to be increasing, for the majority of area drivers,
    congestion simply was not perceived to be a problem.

-   ***There was no awareness of the Commuter Register or Guaranteed
    Ride Home program.*** Even after understanding Guaranteed Ride Home,
    participants were not convinced it would work effectively or quickly
    enough in an emergency situation.

-   ***Albany group members believed that significant change in driving
    habits could only, or most effectively, be achieved through
    legislation.*** The members of both Albany groups were very cynical
    when the idea of citizens taking corrective actions for purely
    altruistic reasons was considered. They simply did not believe that
    people would take these actions without being required to do so.

-   ***Even those who were predisposed to consider other modes of
    transportation complained that there were few, if any, viable
    alternatives to personal automobiles for Albany-area drivers.***
    Group members believed that Albany=s bus system worked only for
    those who commuted from suburbs into Albany=s central business and
    government area. Carpooling, vanpooling and other shared riding
    initiatives were non-existent or unnoticed. Bicycling or walking
    were seen as unsuitable for people who lived in the suburbs because
    of the lack of sidewalks and time/safety issues.

-   

-   ***AChaining@ was already happening, but not for air quality or
    congestion relief reasons.*** Some of the group members were already
    linking commuting and errands, but they did so for time savings and
    convenience. Most said that if those incentives did not exist, they
    most likely would not have considered trip chaining purely for
    environmental reasons.

The focus groups also provided interesting feedback regarding the
development of any initiative or program designed to influence changes
in personal driving habits:

-   ***This initiative could only succeed if it was built upon a
    foundation of highly credible and compelling evidence that an air
    quality or congestion problem existed.*** Before they would even
    consider alternative "solutions," group members commented strongly
    and repeatedly that they needed to be convinced that an air quality
    or congestion problem existed. The adverse impact of this problem
    needed to be clear, close, and real. The party delivering this
    message needed to be beyond the reach of political or commercial
    influence.

-   ***Relieving traffic congestion appeared to be a far more effective
    influencer than reducing air pollution.*** However, because they
    didn=t perceive that Albany had a serious congestion problem, group
    members saw little reason to give this issue much attention.
    Although no true consensus appeared to exist, group members seemed
    most predisposed to alter their driving habits if they believed that
    both big organizations and individuals were working together to
    improve air quality and traffic congestion. Preservation of quality
    of life was another strong motivator, although again not one that
    was perceived to be an important issue at present in the Albany
    area.

-   ***Among the program elements shown to Albany group participants,
    only messages that spoke about carpooling were perceived to be
    relevant.*** Among the various modes discussed in this study, only
    carpooling was perceived to be a relevant, though not a highly
    realistic, alternative for Albany-area drivers.

-   ***The messages presented on automobile maintenance were considered
    to be too generic to be either noticed or compelling.*** Group
    members felt that those messages could have been coming

-   from anywhere Cfrom the automotive industry to neighborhood tune-up
    shops. The advice the messages conveyed was considered by most group
    members to be so basic as to be unnecessary.

**B. B. Message Testing**

On Monday, November 17, 1997, two focus groups were conducted in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin to obtain information to help develop marketing
materials to raise awareness of the relationship between personal
transportation habits, congestion, and air quality. The research sought
to explore ways of supporting state departments of transportation and
metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in their efforts to comply
with the requirements of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
(CAAA). Milwaukee was selected as a pilot site to assist with the
development and implementation of a local campaign that could draw on
local transportation options and be delivered by a local coalition of
private and public organizations. The information obtained through the
Milwaukee groups provided insight into national messages and how
locations similar to Milwaukee might have reacted to this initiative.

Participants in the groups were asked about their awareness of local air
quality and congestion issues, then to provide feedback on three
different approaches to communicating messages about
environmentally-friendly driving habits and which best meet the
communications objectives of the initiative.

Be Because we initially thought the initiative=s messages would target
members of the driving public who were moderately knowledgeable of air
quality and transportation issues, and were willing to make some changes
that would benefit the environment, the screener was designed to exclude
both ultra-pro-environmental individuals, and those who were not willing
to make any changes in their personal transportation habits. A total of
18 drivers participated in the study. Each group had both men and women,
with considerable variation in terms of age, occupation, and income
levels, and some minority representation.

As As in all studies of this kind, the results reflect the opinions and
attitudes of a limited number of people, and therefore, should be
regarded as suggestive rather than definitive. The research was not
intended to be quantitative or to provide a probability sample of the
population from which the participants were selected.

**Ke Key Findings**

-   ***Participants were not blind to their area's environmental
    challenges. But other problems had higher priority.*** The people
    taking part in this study were familiar with the many ways that
    Milwaukee=s environment was being tested. Environmental problems
    were the issues that came to mind most readily for most study
    participants when they thought about conditions that threatened
    their quality of life.

-   ***Traffic congestion was more of an issue to many Milwaukee-area
    residents.*** Most saw it to be a function of time, growth, and poor
    highway planning. There was little question among the people taking
    part in this study that traffic volume had increased, resulting in
    congestion in the Milwaukee area. Participants said that traffic on
    all roads was increasing, especially along busy suburban retail
    corridors. However, they said the most severe congestion was limited
    to people who commuted between the suburbs and the city center
    during "rush" hours. Some blamed area

-   traffic congestion on transportation planning agencies that failed
    to expand Milwaukee=s highways along with the growth of the
    metropolitan area.

-   ***Study participants were aware that there were some alternatives
    to driving alone; however,* *none were more than marginally
    predisposed to use these alternatives.*** Many study participants
    believed attempts to promote voluntary changes in personal driving
    habits were futile. Some younger members of our study said they
    loved their cars and "love to drive." Others said, "We work too hard
    for the time and money we have to give up any of it." Some merely
    described themselves as "dogs too old to learn new tricks." Whatever
    the reason, the people who took part in this study all said they
    were too confirmed in their personal driving habits to make changes.
    A number of the participants said they could have used the local bus
    system if they wanted, but they thought it required too much time
    and loss of freedom to accommodate their needs. Some knew that car
    pooling services were available, but did not think of using these
    services. A

-   number knew that "Kiss and Ride" sites were located near area
    byways, but few perceived them to be good for anyone other than
    those who worked "downtown."

-   ***Most study participants believed they were* already *taking steps
    to help improve local air quality.*** Members of both groups C some
    resentful, as if they were asked to give up a fundamental American
    birthright C described how residents of the Milwaukee area had to
    give up some of their vehicles= performance because a more
    environmentally friendly fuel formulation was mandated for the area.
    They further believed that they were singled out to be "guinea pigs"
    while people and industry "down south" in Chicago and Northern
    Indiana (sources that most group

-   members believe are the real polluters) had not yet been required to
    meet environmental requirements.

-   ***Within this context, study participants had interestingly similar
    impressions of the three creative approaches presented to them.***
    All three creative approaches were developed to support the
    initiative theme, *It All Adds Up to Cleaner Air*, that was
    developed based on feedback from previous stakeholder discussions
    and consumer focus groups. The first approach used humor and
    reflected the lifestyle and increasing demands made on individuals
    who felt as though they were already doing as much as they possibly
    could. The second approach, which came to be known as the "Anthem"
    approach, used rich visuals and an uplifting audio to convey a
    "bandwagon" feeling to call the public to action and to avoid the
    negative emotions elicited in earlier focus groups when individuals
    thought they were being told or pressured to change their
    transportation choices. The third approach used an animated
    character to bring humor and emotion to the messages.

-   Key feedback from focus group participants included the following:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   They understood the intent of all campaign messages and all three
    creative

> approaches.

-   They appeared to be confused regarding target audiences, with more
    than a

> few study participants failing to identify with some of the messages
> shown.

-   Study participants were most open to the congratulatory approach
    that reflected

> our active lifestyles, although they were somewhat taken aback by the
> intensity
>
> of this approach.

-   Although some study participants suggested that the animated
    character would

> likely draw the most attention, others did not identify with the
> character\'s
>
> "attitude." Others felt this approach would speak only to youngsters.

-   The "Anthem" approach, which is difficult to fully communicate in
    anything less

> than its completed form, was clearly understood by all group members.
> Group
>
> members appeared to be drawn to the beauty of the concept and the
> calming
>
> background music. Participants suggested that the "transportation
> choices"
>
> segment display a wider range of options, including options available
> in all
>
> communities.

***Study participants believed the most credible presenter of these
messages would be a***

***coalition of consumer, advocacy, and governmental groups.*** Some
study participants believed

that any one of these types of organizations might be too prone to
radical thoughts or,

conversely, bureaucracy. But united in a coalition having a strong
state-level connection, study

participants believed that these organizations would "keep an eye on one
another" and be able to

produce a credible, forceful message.

**IV. IV. Program Development Research**

**A. I A. Pilot Phase**

In 1 In 1997, three communities received support from the federal
partners (FHWA, EPA, and FTA)

to pilot test the national initiative, which was designed to initiate or
build community-based

efforts to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality. The
communities also introduced the

federally sponsored *It All Adds Up to Cleaner Air* campaign. One of the
nation\'s largest

metropolitan areas, San Francisco, CA, one medium-sized city, Milwaukee,
WI, and a rural area,

Dover, DE, were selected as pilot sites. Each of the sites collaborated
with community groups,

businesses, and environmental groups to implement and sustain the
program within their own

communities.

The The pilot phase included a comprehensive evaluation that tracked the
implementation of the pilot

program, including activities conducted at the community level, use of
media messages, the

initiative=s impact on the public, and recommendations for the launch of
the 1999 demonstration

community phase. Because this initiative is designed to support existing
efforts and identify

successful community strategies, the evaluation encompassed all
activities reported by the pilot

sites to support the initiative=s objectives of increasing awareness of
the relationship between

transportation and air quality and increasing awareness of alternate
modes of transportation. The

findings of the pilot phase provided valuable insight and encouragement
in continuing to develop

a national initiative to meet the needs of a diverse array of
communities, lay the foundation for a

sustainable effort, and ultimately inspire the public to take action.

**Key Findings**

> ***Community participation during the pilot phase was pivotal to
> developing and refining the***
>
> ***national initiative.*** The pilot communities lent their expertise
> to assist in the development of
>
> resources and support materials that will serve as a foundation for a
> nationwide community-based
>
> public education and information effort. The resulting insights and
> materials will serve to spark
>
> and sustain community efforts across the country. Participation was
> time consuming for pilot
>
> communities due to limited resources and staff. Pilot communities
> requested additional facts on
>
> transportation and air quality, which resulted in a collaborative DOT
> and EPA effort to quantify
>
> the benefits of environmentally conscious transportation choices to
> society and to individuals.
>
> One of the most significant results of the pilot phase was further
> development of this resource
>
> toolkit, providing resources and materials from which communities can
> select to tailor the
>
> initiative to meet their communities= needs.
>
> ***Many strategies selected by communities provided overarching themes
> while other approaches***
>
> ***were very tailored to specific local needs or expertise.***
> Although common "best practices" such as
>
> close collaboration with community organizations were identified,
> communities truly customized
>
> their strategies based on their unique needs. For example, Milwaukee
> enhanced its coalition's
>
> strategic planning process to build a foundation that will sustain its
> program, while Dover, as a
>
> new program, developed collaborative relationships with community
> organizations to establish a
>
> local coalition and produced localized television public service
> announcements (PSAs). San
>
> Francisco used the federal funding and technical assistance to conduct
> research to develop
>
> outreach materials for their growing Hispanic population, and provided
> us with insight on the
>
> development and operation of their extensive public education effort.
>
> ***Media coverage was significant, but there are opportunities for
> refinement and improvement.***
>
> Media coverage received across all three pilot sites was similar to
> the average coverage obtained
>
> in other national PSA initiatives. Across the three pilot sites the
> PSA air time was equivalent to
>
> almost half a million dollars in advertising space, not including
> radio or televison news stories.
>
> The most successful use of the media was San Francisco=s ability to
> leverage approximately
>
> \$415,000 worth of equivalent advertising space through public
> relations and strong media
>
> relationships. PSA usage rates could be improved by earlier
> distribution, further development of
>
> messages, increased community support, and national distribution of
> media materials.

***As expected, the initiative's impact on the general driving public
was limited to changes in***

> ***awareness.*** It was initially anticipated that the complex nature
> of changing travel patterns would

require 1-4 years. The results of this study do not suggest that any
significant changes in actual

> behavior occurred during the pilot campaign; however, there is
> evidence in all three markets that
>
> the initiative was noticed. Recall of messages, programs, and
> activities that draw attention to the
>
> relationship between personal driving habits and local air quality
> increased markedly between the
>
> times of the pre- and post-campaign market research. Recall of some
> specific campaign messages
>
> likewise increased markedly. There was, however, little change in
> awareness of the program
>
> tagline *It All Adds Up to Cleaner Air*.
>
> The key findings from the pilot phase of the initiative encouraged the
> federal partners

to refine and expand the program to support 14 demonstration communities
from May

1999 to October 2000, and make the initiative materials available to
additional communities.

**B. Demonstration Phase**

The *It All Adds Up to Cleaner Air* demonstration phase started at the
beginning of the 1999 ozone season. This phase represented continued
"real-world" research, this time in 14 demonstration communities.

These communities received the concepts, approaches, and high-quality
materials---incrementally

refined following pilot testing---and adapted them for their specific
purposes. The intent was to

demonstrate how *It All Adds Up to Cleaner Air* materials and strategies
could be modified and

incorporated into ongoing outreach and partnership-building efforts
across the country.

Lessons learned and products developed are now being shared with
communities that face similar

air quality and congestion issues and demographics. The 14 demonstration
communities

produced results showing the value of varied approaches, and, more
importantly, the need to

keep flexibility at the fore in material use and development.
Demonstration communities proved

the benefits of having diverse materials, as reflected in the rich
creativity of their individual

approaches.

[^1]: Discussion groups are structured discussions led by a moderator
    and typically include seven to nine people. The group

    > convenes for 90 minutes to two hours, covering three to four
    > topics in depth. (In all studies of this kind, results reflect the
    > opinions and attitudes of a limited number of people, and
    > therefore, should be regarded as suggestive rather than
    > definitive. This research is not intended to be quantitative or to
    > provide a probability sample of the population from which
    > participants are selected.)

    ^2^ Focus groups are structured discussions led by a moderator and
    typically include eight to 10 people. The group convenes for

    two hours, usually after work on a weekday. Typically two 2-hour
    groups are held per evening. The moderator leads the group

    through a discussion about their knowledge, awareness, attitudes,
    perceptions, and responses about a particular issue, product,

    or idea. Focus group participants should be recruited by reputable
    field services using a screener designed in collaboration with

    you. Typically, participants were offered small cash incentive for
    their participation. Each set of focus groups conducted for

    this project contained a mix of men and women, who varied
    considerably in terms of age, occupation, income level; minority

    representation was 10-20%, which reflected our target audience. (In
    all studies of this kind, results reflect the opinions and

    attitudes of a limited number of people, and therefore should be
    regarded as suggestive rather than definitive. This research is

    not intended to be quantitative or to provide a probability sample
    of the population from which participants are

    selected.)