# A PRIL 

# 2006 S PARE THE 

# A I R 

# T ONIGHT 

# S TUDY 

# 2005-2006 W INTER

# W OOD 

# S MOKE 

# S EASON



# C ONDUCTED FOR THE

## THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANKTable of Contents



# i Winter Spare the Air To night Study BAAQMD © 2006

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

# T ABLE O F 

# C ONTENTS Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Motivation for Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Overview of Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Just the Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Wood Burning Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Changes in Wood Burning Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Recall and Awareness of Spare the Air Tonight Messaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Attitudes About Wood Smoke. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Changing Heating Device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Perceptions of Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Wood Burning Behavior. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Heating Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Question 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Fuel Type & Source. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Primary Reason for Burning Wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Question 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Use of Fireplace, Wood Stove or Pellet Stove . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Question 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Seasonal Wood Burning Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Question 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Question 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Question 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Wood Burning Behavior in Past Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Question 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Question 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Duration & Volume of Wood Burning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Question 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Question 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Non-Winter Wood Burning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Question D1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Changes in Wood Burning Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Changes in Wood Burning Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Question 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Question 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Changes Among Those who Increased Burning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Question 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Question 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Question 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Reductions in Wood Burning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Question 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Table of Contents



# ii Winter Spare the Air To night Study BAAQMD © 2006

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

### Question 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Campaign Impacts on Wood Burning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Recall and Awareness of Spare the Air Tonight Messaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Recall Exposure to Spare the Air Messaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Question 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Information Source. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 Question 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Attitudes about Wood Smoke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Question 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Question 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Wood Smoke a Neighborhood Problem? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Question 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Question 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Changing Heating Device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Question 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Willingness to Change Heating Device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Question 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Question 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Question 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Recall News Story, Advertisement or Announcement? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Question 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Question 36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Policy Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Question 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Question 38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Question 39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Perceptions of Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Question 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Opinions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Question 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Exposure to Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Question 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Background & Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 CATI & Pre-Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Sample & Weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Margin of Error. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Data Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Questionnaire & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60List of Tables



# iii

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

## Winter Spare the Air To night Study BAAQMD © 2006 

# L IST O F 

# T ABLES Table 1 Frequency of Burning Wood this Winter by Study Year (n = 864) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Table 2 Burned Wood in Past Seven Days by Study Year (n = 864) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Table 3 Wood Burning on Non-winter Months by Heat ing Device in Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Table 4 Frequency of Wood Burning Among Thos e Burning More Often Because of Increased Energy Costs (n = 89) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Table 5 Spare the Air Reducers: Confidence Interval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Table 6 Background and Demographics (n = 2,625) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Table 7 Completed Interviews by County (Unweighted) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Table 8 Interview Dates (Unweighted) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58List of Figures



# iv

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

## Winter Spare the Air To night Study BAAQMD © 2006 

# L IST O F 

# F IGURES Figure 1 Types of Heating Devices in Home by Study Ye ar (n = 2,625). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 2 Types of Heating Devices in Home by County (n = 2,625) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 3 At Least One Heating Device in Home by Co unty (n = 2,625) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 4 At Least One Heating Device in Home by Home Type & Age of Home in Years (n = 2,625) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 5 Type of Fuel Burned (n = 1,547) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 6 Type of Wood Burned (n = 813) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 7 Type of Wood Burned by Expected Frequency of Winter Wood Burning (n = 813) . . . 13 Figure 8 Wood Source (n = 813) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 9 Wood Source by Expected Frequency of Winter Wood Burning (n = 813) . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 10 Status of Wood Typically Burned (n = 813). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 11 Status of Wood Ty pically Burned by Expected Freque ncy of Winter Wood Burning (n = 813). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 12 Primary Purpose of Wood Burning (n = 813). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 13 Primary Purpose of Wood Burning by Expected Frequency of Winter Wood Burning (n = 813). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 14 Heating Device Usage this Winter by Study Year (Fireplace: n = 1,547; Pellet Stove: n = 170; Wood stove: n = 165) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 15 Household Heating Device Usage this Wint er by County (n = 2,625) . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 16 Reason for Not Using Heating Device this Winter (Fireplace: n = 581; Pellet Stove: n = 42; Woodstove: n = 35) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 17 Heating Device Households No t Burning Because of Air Quality Reasons (n = 1,679) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 18 Frequency of Burning Wood this Winter (n = 864) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 19 Frequency of Burnin g Wood this Winter Among Al l Heating Device Households by County (n = 1,679) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 20 Burned Wood in Past Seven Days (n = 864) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 21 Heating Device Households that Burned Wood in Past Seven Days by County (n = 1,679) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 22 Heating Device Households that Bu rned Wood Yesterday / Last Night by County (n = 1,679) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 23 Heating Device Households that Bu rned Wood Yesterday / Last Night by Day Type, Precipitation on Day Prior to Interview & Low Temperature on Day Prior to Interview (n = 1,679) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 24 Hours of Burning in Typical Day of Wood Burning (n = 864). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 25 Distribution and Av erage Hours of Burning in Typical Day of Wood Burning by County & Expected Frequency of Winter Wood Burning (n = 864) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 26 Logs Burned in Typical Day of Wood Burning (n = 864) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 27 Logs Burned in Typical Day of Wood Burning by County & Expected Frequency of Winter Wood Burning (n = 864) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 28 Expected Frequency of Wood Burning this Winter Compared to Last Winter and Reasons for Burning More Often (n = 864) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 29 Frequency of Wood Burning Last Wi nter Among Those Burnin g More Often Because of Increased Energy Costs (n = 89) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 30 Chose not to Burn this Winter (n = 864). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 31 Spare the Air Reducers by Study Year & County Showing Confidence Intervals (n = 1,679) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 32 Heard, Read, or Saw Spare the Air Winter Information by Study Year (n = 2,625) . . 32 Figure 33 Heard, Read, or Saw Spare the Air Winter Information by County (n = 2,625) . . . . . 33 Figure 34 Heard, Read, or Saw Spare the Air Winter Information by Age & Household Income (n = 2,625) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 35 Source for Spare the Air Winter Information (n = 891) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34List of Figures



# v

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

## Winter Spare the Air To night Study BAAQMD © 2006 Figure 36 Perceive Negative Health Effects are Associated with Wood Smoke by Study Year (n = 2,625) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure 37 Perceive Negative Health Effects are Associated with Wood Smoke by County (n = 2,625) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 38 Perceive Negative Health Effect s are Associated with Wood Smoke by Age (n = 2,625) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 39 Perceived Negative Effe cts of Breathing Wood Smoke (n = 1,730) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 40 Perception of Periodic Wood Smoke Pr oblem in Neighborhood (n = 2,625) . . . . . . 38 Figure 41 Perception of Wood Smoke Problem in Neighborhood by Study Year & County (n = 2,625) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 42 Woodstove or Pellet Stove EPA Certified by Study Year (n = 328) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 43 Willingness to Replace Fireplace or Stove with EPA Certified Model (n = 913) . . . . . 41 Figure 44 Willingness to Replace Fireplace or Stove with EPA Certified Model by County (n = 913). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 45 Willingness to Replace Fireplace or Stove with EPA Certified Model by Age (n = 913). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 46 Willingness to Participate in Government-Sponsored Rebate Program (n = 511) . . . 43 Figure 47 Santa Clara County Prog ram Awareness by Study Year (n = 637) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure 48 Marin County Program Awareness by Study Year (n = 109) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure 49 Support for Proposed Policy Changes (n = 2,6 25) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Figure 50 Support for Proposed EPA Cert ification Requirements in New Housing Construction by Study YEar (n = 2, 625) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Figure 51 Support for Proposed Polic y Changes by County (n = 2,625) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Figure 52 Support for Proposed Polic y Changes by Age (n = 2,625). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 53 Support for Proposed Policy Chan ges by Household Income & Home Type (n = 2,625) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 54 Awareness of BAAQMD & Spare the Air Tonight Campaign by Study Year (n = 2,625) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Figure 55 Awareness of BAAQMD & Spare the Air Tonight Campaign by County (n = 2,625) . 50 Figure 56 Opinions of BAAQMD & Spare the Air Campaign by Study Year (BAAQMD: n = 1,466; STA Toni ght Campaign: n = 1,218) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Figure 57 Encountered Info about BAAQMD & Spare the Air Tonight Ca mpaign in Past Six Months by Study Year (BAAQMD: n = 1,466; STA Tonight Campaign: n = 1,218) . . 52 Figure 58 Encountered Info about BAAQMD & Spare the Air Tonight Ca mpaign in Past Six Months by County (n = 2,625). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Figure 59 Encountered Info about BAAQMD & Spare the Air Tonight Ca mpaign in Past Six Months by Heating Device in Home & Age (n = 2,625). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Figure 60 Maximum Margin of Error Plot. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Introduction



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 1 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

# I NTRODUCTIONThe Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) was established in 1955 by the California State Legislature as the firs t multi-county agency in the Stat e to address the problem of air pollution on a regular basis. The BAAQMD’s primary regulatory authority covers stationarysources of air pollution such as factories, industrial facilities, manufacturing operations, gasoline stations and dry cleaners. The BAAQMD is al so responsible for transportation control measures to reduce emissions from mobile sour ces of air pollution in its Clean Air Plan. Serving the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and the western half of Solano and southern half of Sonoma, one of the BAAQMD’s primary charges is to increase public awareness of positive air quality choices. To facilitate this effort, the Spare the Air Program was establish ed by the BAAQMD in 1991 to educate residents about air pollution and to encour age them to modify their behav ior to reduce and prevent it. During the summer ozone season (May to October), the BAAQMD conducts episodic public education campaigns designed to encourage the public to reduce their driving and use of certain household products on days that are expected to violate ozone air quality standards. During the winter season (November to February), the focus of the Program shifts to reducing the impact of wood burning on air quality by encouraging the public to not burn wood and to replace their wood burning fireplaces and stov es with cleaner alternatives, su ch as natural gas fireplaces. Although today many air quality management districts throughout the country administer similar programs, the Spare the Air program in th e Bay Area was the first of its kind. 

## MOTIVATION FOR STUDY The primary motivation for this study was to better understand the public’s attitudes and behavior with re spect to burning wood, their awareness of the Spare the Air Tonight Program, as well as the impact that the Program has had on awareness, opinions and behavior relevant to burning wood and air quality. In this respect, this study is quite similar to past surveys conducted for the BAAQMD in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. The passage of California Senate Bill 656 to reduce public exposure to particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) was another key motivation for the 2005 study. 1 

### SB 656 requires the California Air Resources Board (ARB), in consultation with local air districts, to develop and adopt a list of the most readily available, feasible and cost-effective control measures that could be used to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 -- with the goal of making progress in the near-term toward attainment of State and Federal PM10 and PM2.5 standards. Although th e Bay Area is currently in attainment for the Federal PM10 and PM2.5 standards, like almost ev ery other area in California it does not meet the stricter State standards.

1. Particulate matter (PM) consists of very small liquid and solid particles suspended in the air, and includes particles smaller than 10 micr ons (PM10) as well as finer particles sm aller than 2.5 micron s (PM2.5). Ambient PM is made up of particles that are emitted directly -- such as soot and fugitive dust -- as well as secondary particles that are formed in the atmosphere from reactions involving precursor pollutants such as oxides of nitrogen, sulfer oxides, volatile organic compounds, an d ammonia. Exposure to PM is linked to increased frequency and severity of asthma attacks and even prem ature death in people with pre-existing cardiac or respiratory disease. Infants and children, the elderly, and persons with heart and lung disease are the most sensitive to PM pollution. For more on particulate matter, SB 656 and the BAAQ MD’s implementation schedule, see the Particulate Matter Im plementation Schedule staff report prepared by the Planning and Research Division of the BAAQ MD, November 9, 2005.Introduction



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 2 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

### With a greater emphasis placed on reducing part iculate matter in the Bay Area, the 2005 study presented a good opportunity to develop an updat ed profile of wood burning behavior in the Bay Area that would allow for statistically reliable es timates within each of the nine member counties. The most recent inventory prior to this study was conducted in 1988. 2 

## OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY A full description of the methodology used for this study is included later in this report (see Methodology on page 55). A total of 2,625 randomly selected residents within the Dist rict’s boundaries participated in a telephone survey on one of twenty-eight interviewing dates between November 22, 2005 and February 17, 2006. Probabilitybased sampling techniques and moni toring of the demographics resu lted in a sample that is representative of the adult popu lation within the District. To accommodate the District’s interest in obtaining statistically reliable estimates within each of the nine member counties, as well as to explor e the relationship between both weather and special events on wood burning beh avior, the study employed a sa mpling strategy that involved stratification by county, month, and day type with strategic oversampling for select counties and day types. To adjust for the oversampling, the raw data were then weighted by day type and adult population estimates by co unty prior to analyses and presentation. The results presented in this report are the weighted re sults, which are representative at the District-wide level, as well as within the nine member counties. When compared to the past surveys conducted fo r the District on wood burning and the Spare the Air Tonight Program, there are several method ological changes worth noting at the outset of this report. The most obvious diff erence is the substantially larger sample size (2,625) employed in this study when compared to past efforts, which improves the statistical reliability of the results. In the intere st of improving the validity and reliability of select opinion and behavior measures, the 2005 study continued several questionnaire changes that were first implemented in the 2004 season. The most notable of thes e changes addressed how the questionnaire measured the impacts of the Spare the Air Tonight Program. The changes we re made so that the impacts of the winter program on wood bu rning behavior would be measured using the same basic methodology employed by the BAAQMD -- and recommended by CARB and EPA 3 

### -- to measure the impacts of the summer Spare the Air Program on driving behavior. 4 

### Based on the 2004 results, several additional refinements were made to the 2005 questionnaire with respect to measuring wood burning behavior. Because these improvements often involved changing the wording, format and/or response op tions for a particular question, it is not possi2. The California Residential Wood Consumption Survey. Report prepared by Northe rn California Research Associates for the California Air Resources Board, 1988. 3. The CARB/EPA Method is summarized in the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) journal -- Transportation Research Record -- for 2004 in an article entitled Development of a Quantificati on Method for Measuring the Travel and Emissions Impacts of Episodic Ozone Alert Programs (pages 153-159). It is described in detail in the following air resources guidance report: CARB, “Quantification Meth od Reference Manual: A Method to Measure Travel and Emissions Impacts of Ozone Action Public Education Programs,” April 2003. In addition to Eric Schreffler, Dr. Ti mothy McLarney and Richard Sarles, the TRB paper and guidance report were coauthored by Joann Lu and Jeff Weir of CARB, as well as Thomas Higgins an d Dr. Will Johnson of K.T. Analytics. 4. For a detailed description of the updated CARB/EPA Method and its application to the BAAQMD’s summer Spare the Air Program, see the Spare the Air Study: 2005 Summer Ozone Season report prepared for the BAAQMD by True North & ESTC.Introduction



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 3 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

### ble to statistically compare the results of the 20 05 survey with previous surveys for select measures. Where such comparisons ar e possible, however, this report presents the results from past surveys. 

## ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to me et the needs of readers who prefer a summary of the findings, as well as those who are interested in the details of the results. For those who seek an overview of the findings, the sections titled Just the Facts and Conclusionsare for you. They provide a summary of the most important factual findings of the survey in bullet-point format and a discussion of their implications. For the interested reader, this section is followed by a more detailed question-by-question discussion of the resu lts from the survey by topic area (see Table of Contents ), as well as a description ofthe methodology employed for collecting and analyzing the data. And, for the truly ambitious re ader, the questionnaire used for the interviews is contained at the back of this report, and a co mplete set of crosstabulations for the survey results is contained in Appendix A. 

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS True North would like to thank Emily Hopkins and Dr. David Fairely of the BAAQMD, as well as Eric Schreffler of ESTC, for their valuable input during the design and reporting stages of this study. Thei r expertise and insight improved the overall quality of the research presented here. 

## DISCLAIMER The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the authors,Dr. Timothy McLarney and Richard Sarles at True North Research, Inc. (True North), and not necessarily those of the BAAQMD. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors.Just the Facts



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 4 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

# J UST THE 

# F ACTS The following is an outline of the main factual findings from the 2005 study. For the reader’s convenience, we have organized th e findings according to the sect ion titles used in the body of this report. Thus, to learn more about a particular finding and how it may compare to findings from prior surveys (where applicable), simp ly turn to the appropriate report section. 

## WOOD BURNING BEHAVIOR • Sixty-four percent (64%) of households in the District contain at least one fireplace, pellet stove or wood stove. • Among households with a fireplace, the type offuel most commonly used is wood (48%), followed by natural gas (16%) and manufactured lo gs such as a Durafl ame or Presto (10%). • Among wood-burning households, oak was the most commonly mentioned (39%) type of wood burned. Approximately 38% of households were unable to identify the type of wood that they burn. • When asked how they typicall y acquire their wood, responde nts were split between those who gather their own (35%), those who purchase the wood from a local store (32%), those who rely on a wood supplier (22%), those who use an alternative source (7%), and those who were unsure (4%).• The vast majority (85%) of households that burn wood indicated that they burn dry, seasoned wood as opposed to fresh-cut, moist wood (5%). Approximately 10% were unsure as to the status of the wood that they burn. • Half (50%) of all households that burn wood indicated that they primarilydo so for ambiance rather than heat. • Households that contain a wood stove were the most likely (74%) to report that they would use the stove during the winter months of November through February. The rate of expected use for pellet stoves and fir eplaces was 72% and 60%, respectively. • Approximately 8% of respondents who reported that they would not use their fireplace this winter indicated that were refraining from usin g the device for air quality reasons. An additional 8% referenced a health-related reason for not using their fireplace. • Approximately half (49%) of households that expected to burn wood th is winter anticipated doing so on a weekly basis. • Forty-three percent (43%) of households with at least one fireplace, wood stove or pellet stove that expected to burn w ood this winter indicated that they had burned wood in the week prior to the interview. • Twenty-two percent (22%) of households with at least one fireplace, wood stove or pellet stove that expected to burn wood this winter indicated that they had burned wood on the day prior to the interview. • On a typical burn day, wood-burning households averaged 3.8 hours of burning time. • On a typical burn day, wood-burning households consumed an average 5.12 logs. • Seventeen percent (17%) of all households indicated that theyburn wood in a least one nonwinter month.Just the Facts



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 5 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

## CHANGES IN WOOD BURNING BEHAVIOR • Overall, 56% of households that own a wood-b urning heating device and expected to burn wood this season reported that they anticipated burning wood at about the same frequency this season as last. • Among the 22% of households that expected to burn more frequently this winter when compared to last, approximately half stated that they were burning more often due to the high cost of energy/gas. • Twenty-nine percent (29%) of respondents who have a fireplace, wood stove and/or pellet stove and expected to burn wood during the 2005-2006 winter season indicated that -- on at least one occasion -- they refrained from burning wood. • When asked why they chose not to burn wood on these occasions, 1% specifically mentioned the Spare the Air Tonight Campai gn and an additional 3% offer ed an air quality or healthrelated reason. • Approximately 2% of adults who live in a hous ehold with at least one fireplace, wood stoveor pellet stove reduced the amount of wood they burned during the 2005-2006 winter season in response to the Spare the Air Tonight Campaign. 

## RECALL AND AWARENESS OF SPARE THE AIR TONIGHT MESSAGING • Overall, 34% of adults in the Bay Area recall ed being exposed to news stories, advertisements or public service announcements related to the Spare the Air Tonight Program during the three months prior to the interview. • When asked to indicate where they obtained th e information about the Spare the Air Tonight Program, the most commonly cited sources were television (45%) and radio (38%). 

## ATTITUDES ABOUT WOOD SMOKE • Approximately two-thirds (66%) of Bay Area ad ults perceive that ther e are negative health effects associated with breathing wood smoke. • When asked in an open-ended ma nner to identify some of the specific negative health effects associated with breathing wood smoke, most respondents focused on lung disease in general (36%) or made a specific reference to asthma (24%). • Eighteen percent (18%) of Bay Area adults pe rceive that their neighborhood periodically experiences air pollution from wood smoke. Twelve percent (12%) st ated that the problem was a small one, 4% indicated it was a moderate or medium problem, and 1% felt that air pollution due to wood smoke was a big problem in their neighborhood. 

## CHANGING HEATING DEVICE • Among individuals who own a wood stove or a pellet stove, 59% indicated that their stove is EPA certified. • Twenty-eight percent (28%) of respondents who owned a wood burning fireplace and/or non-EPA certified wood stove or pellet stove were willing to replace their current device -- without a financial incentive -- with a gas fireplace.• Thirty-four percent (34%) of respondents who owned a wood burning fireplace and/or nonEPA certified wood stove or pellet stove were willing to replace their current device -- without a financial incentive -- with an EPA certified wood stove or pellet stove.Just the Facts



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 6 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

### • Ten percent (10%) of those who were initially unwilling to replace their current heating device for a cleaner alternative in the absence of a financial incentive were willing to do so if a $200 rebate were offered. As the amount of the rebate increased to $300, $400 and $500, the proportion of these indivi duals who would participate in the rebate program increased to 13%, 16% and 23%, respectively. • Just 6% of Santa Clara County residents -- and 4% of Marin County residents -- could recall hearing, reading or seeing a news story, advertisement or public service announcement about the rebate programs offer ed by the respective counties.• Sixty-one percent (61%) of Bay Area adults support a policy that would require all new housing construction to use only gas fireplaces or EPA certified fireplace inserts, wood stoves or pellet stoves. • Seventy-four percent (74%) of Bay Area adults support a policy that would prohibit wood burning on nights when air pollution is expected to reach unhealthy levels. • Half (50%) of Bay Area adults support a polic y that would require ol der wood stoves to be removed or replaced with a cl eaner burning model when a ho me is sold to a new owner. 

## PERCEPTIONS OF ENTITIES• Prior to taking the survey, 56% of respondents had heard of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and 46% had heard of the Spare the Air Tonight Program. • Among respondents who had heard of the BAAQ MD, half (51%) held a favorable opinion of the agency, whereas 41% held a neutral opinion or weren’t sure of their opinion, and just 8% held an unfavorable opinion. • Among respondents who had heard of the Spar e the Air Tonight Program, 64% held a favorable opinion of the Program, whereas 30% held a neutral opinion or weren’t sure of their opinion, and 5% held an unfavorable opinion. • Thirty-five percent (35%) of respondents reca lled hearing, reading or seeing a news story, advertisement or public service announcement in the six months prior to taking the interview that pertained to the BAAQMD. The corresp onding figure for the Spare the Air Tonight campaign was 43%.Conclusions



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 7 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

# C ONCLUSIONS As noted in the Introduction , this study was designed to provide a better understanding of the public’s attitudes and behavior with respect to burning wood, their awar eness of the Spare the Air Tonight Program, as well as the impact that the Program has had on awareness, opinions and behavior relevant to wood burning and air qua lity. Whereas subsequent sections of this report are devoted to conveying the detail ed results of the study, in this section we attempt to ‘see the forest through the trees’ and note how the collect ive results answer some of the key questions that motivated the research. What is the profile of wood burning behavior in the Bay Area? 

### Overall, nearly two-thirds (64%) of households in the Bay Area own at least one fireplace, wood stove or pellet stove, and one-third (33%) burned wood in the 2005-2006 winter months. Although the type of wood burned varies considerably, as does the source from which the wood is obtained, the vast majority (85%) of households report that they burn dry, seasoned wood. Wood burning behavior varies co nsiderably depending on how frequently a household burns. Wood-burning households can easily be divided between the 49% that burn at least once per week (frequent burners) and those that burn less of ten (infrequent burners). Not only do frequent burners build fires more often, then tend to burn significantly more hours per burn day (4.63 hours on average) and consume more wood per burn day (6.28 logs on av erage) when compared to infrequent burners. Their reasons for burning wo od are also different. Whereas frequent burners primarily build fires fo r heat, infrequent burners primarily build fires for ambiance. Wood burning behavior also varies considerably across the nine-county District. In the predominately rural counties of Marin, Sonoma, Solano and Napa, the proportion of househol ds with a heating device that burn wood at least once per week is substantially greater than in the rest of the District. For example, whereas 43% of Sonoma County households with a heating device bu rn wood at least once per week, the corresponding figure for San Francisco County is just 21%. For more information about wood burning behavi or in the Bay Area, see Wood Burning Behavior on page 9. How effective was the Spare the Air Tonight Campaign during the 2005-2006 winter? 

### The Spare the Air Tonight Campaign seeks to shape public awareness and opinions about the District and air quality issues, as well as change behavior with respect to burning wo od. Accordingly, the survey sought to measure the impacts that the camp aign had on each of these dimensions. In terms of attitudes and awarene ss, by most measures the 2005-2006 campaign was a success. Awareness of the BAAQMD and the Spare the Air Tonight Program was widespread among Bay Area adults. Moreover,Conclusions



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 8 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

### opinions about the BAAQMD and the Spare the Air Tonight Program were much more favorable in 2005 and 2004 when compared to the 2003 winter season. With respect to atti tudes about wood smoke, the Program has succeeded in raising public re cognition of the negative health impacts of breathing wood smoke by 17% since 2002. The increased awareness of the health -related problems caused by wood smoke arguably underpins what is broad support for the adoption of new policies designed to improve th e air quality in the region. Nearly two-thirds of adults favor requiring all new housing construction to use only gas fireplaces or EPA certified fi replace inserts, wood stoves or pellet stoves, and three-quarters (74%) favor prohibiting wood burning on evenings when air pollution is forecast to reach unhealthy levels. So how did these positive changes in attitudes and awareness translate to actual changes in wo od burning behavior? Based on the survey data, it is estimated that 2% of adults who live in a household with at least one fireplace, wood stove or pellet stove reduced the amount of wood they burned during the 2005-2006 winter season in direct response to the Spare the Air Tonight Campaign. 5 

### Some respondents refrained from burning wood the entire season for ai r quality or health-related reasons, whereas those who did burn wood reported that they refrained from burning wood on an average 2.5 occasions during the season in response to the campaign.Are there any opportunities that the Program can take advantage of to be more successful in the future? 

### The survey results suggest a clear oppo rtunity for the Program to further reduce air pollution due to wood smoke by helping to establish and promote rebate programs for the replac ement of traditional fireplaces and non-EPA certified wood stoves and pellet stoves. Approximately 38% of respondents who owned a traditional fireplace and/or a non-EPA certified wood stove or pellet stove indicated that they were willing to replace the device if offered a modest incentive ($200), yet only two counties (Santa Clara and Marin) currently o ffer such a rebate program and public awareness of these existing programs is poor. Helping to increase the awareness of the existing programs would be anatural first step in gauging the effectiveness of this approach to reducing air pollution due to wood smoke. Raising the amount of the rebate could also be expected to significantl y increase the percentage of households that participate in the Progra m. If the promotion of the existing programs is determined to substantia lly increase participation in the programs, it would make sense to invest in establishing and promoting similar programs in the remaining Bay Area counties.

5. Stated differently, 36,547 households out of the estimated 1,555,185 ho usehold with at least one fireplace, wood stove or pellet stove refrained from burning wood on at least one occasion in response to the Spare the Air Tonight Campaign.Wood Burning Behavior



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 9 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

# W OOD 

# B URNING 

# B EHAVIOR One of the key objectives of the survey was to pr ofile respondents’ use of wood burning heating devices, including fireplaces, pellet stoves and wo od stoves. Accordingly, the first series of questions in the survey asked respondents about th e types of wood burning heating devices they have in their home, as well as their use of thes e devices during the 2005- 2006 winter months of November through February. 

## HEATING DEVICES The first question in this series simply asked respondents to identify how many fireplaces, wood stoves and pellet stoves their household contains. As shown in Figure 1, 59% of households contain at least one fireplace, 7% contain at least one pellet stove, and 6% contain at least one wood stove. Collect ively, 64% of respondents reported that their household contained at least one fireplace, pellet stove orwood stove, whereas 36% of respondents indicated that their household does not co ntain a fireplace, pellet stove or wood stove. 6 

### For reference, the results from the 2004 survey are also shown in Figure 1. Question 1 Do you have a: _____ in your home? If yes, ask: How many: _____s do you have in your home?

F IGURE 

### 1 T YPES OF 

### H EATING 

### D EVICES IN 

### H OME BY 

### S TUDY 

### Y EAR 

### ( N 

### = 2,625) 7

6. Because some households contained more than on e type of heating device -- e.g., a fireplace and a woodstove -- one can not simply add the percentages shown in Figure 1 to determine the percentage of households that have at least one type of heating device. One 50.5

One 4.7 One 4.9 Two 7.4

One - 5.8 One - 5.6 One 50.4 Two 8.9 Three or more 1.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Fireplace Pellet stove Woodstove Fireplace Pellet stove Woodstove 2005 2004 Study Year% Households 

### 59.0

6.5 6.3 61.6

5.6 5.4Wood Burning Behavior



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 10 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

### For the interested reader, the following figures show how the presence of fireplaces, wood stoves and pellet stoves varied by county (see Fi gures 2 and 3), home type, and age of home (see Figure 4).
F IGURE 

### 2 T YPES OF 

### H EATING 

### D EVICES IN 

### H OME BY 

### C OUNTY 

### ( N 

### = 2,625)

F IGURE 

### 3 A T 

### L EAST

### O NE 

### H EATING 

### D EVICE IN 

### H OME BY 

### C OUNTY 

### ( N 

### = 2,625)

7. The n = 2,625 refers to the number of respondents who received this question. This convention will be followed throughout the report to allow the reader to id entify how many respondents are included in each figure. 55.8 62.5
54.0 61.2 67.0

5.8 6.4 8.9 4.2 3.8 2.9 8.9 4.2 5.8 6.7 2.6 7.0 14.2 21.5

7.0 2.7 9.7 4.7 60.6

45.0 68.8 63.8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Santa Clara San Francisco San Mateo Marin Sonoma Solano Alameda Napa Contra Costa
County% Households Fireplace Pellet Stove Woodstove

70.9 65.0 58.7 67.3 70.7 65.1

48.5 73.3 73.8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Santa Clara San Francisco San Mateo Marin Sonoma Solano Alameda Napa Contra Costa County% Households with Heating DeviceWood Burning Behavior



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 11 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F IGURE 

### 4 A T 

### L EAST

### O NE 

### H EATING 

### D EVICE IN 

### H OME BY 

### H OME 

### T YPE 

### & A GE OF 

### H OME IN 

### Y EARS 

### ( N 

### = 2,625)



## FUEL TYPE & SOURCE For the 59% of respondents who re ported that their household contains a fireplace, the survey next inquir ed as to the type of fuel that they primarilyuse in the fireplace (see Figure 5). The most commonly used fuel was wood (48%), followed by natural gas (16%), and artificial lo gs such as a Duraflame (6%), Presto (2%) or other manufactured log (2%). 8 

### Approximately 21% of respondents volunteer ed that they never use their fireplace. Households with fireplaces that primarily burn wood, as well as households with wood stoves, were next asked a series of questions about the type of wood they burn (Question 3), from where they purchase their wood (Question 4), as well as their primary reason for burning wood (Question 5). As shown in Figure 6, 38% of respondents were unable to identify the type of wood that they burn. Of the specific woods mentioned, oak was the most common (39%), followed by pine/ cedar (10%), almond (4%), and eucalyptus (3%). The ability to identify the type of wood burned was related to the frequency of burning, with th ose who burn at least once per week being less likely than their counterparts to be uncertain as to the type of wood that theyburn (see Figure 7). Nevertheless, regardless of frequency, oak was the most commonly mentioned type of wood.

8. Note that some respondents initially identified their manufactured logs as ‘wood’ in Question 2, but subsequently clarified that they used manufactured logs in Question 3. Their responses to Question 2 were appropriately adjusted prior to analysis. 16.4 64.0 72.8 67.4 65.2 69.6 66.0 83.0

60.8 62.6

16.7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Apartment Condo Townhome Detached Mobile home 0 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 Over 50
Home Type Age of Home in Years% Households with Heating DeviceWood Burning Behavior



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 12 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

### Question 2 What type of fuel do you primarily use in your fireplace - Wood, natural gas, propane, or some other fuel?
F IGURE 

### 5 T YPE OF 

### F UEL 

### B URNED 

### ( N 

### = 1,547)



### Question 3 What type of wood do you typically burn?
F IGURE 

### 6 T YPE OF 

### W OOD 

### B URNED 

### ( N 

### = 813) 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.1 15.8 21.0 47.7

5.9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 

### Other Wood + Gas Pellets Propane

Electric Scrap wood

Presto log Other manufactured log Not sure Duraflame log Natural gas Never use fireplace Wood

% Households with Fireplace



### 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.8 1.3

2.3

3.1 3.5 38.0 38.7

9.5

0 10 20 30 40 50 

### Fir Other

Ash Hardwood (general) Fruitwood (general) Walnut Whatever available / Mixed Eucalyptus Almond Pine (cedar) Not sure Oak

% Wood-burning Households (Fireplace or Woodstove)Wood Burning Behavior



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 13 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F IGURE 

### 7 T YPE OF 

### W OOD 

### B URNED BY 

### E XPECTED 

### F REQUENCY OF 

### W INTER 

### W OOD 

### B URNING 

### ( N 

### = 813)



### When asked how they typically acquire their wo od, respondents were split between those who gather their own (35%), those who purchase the wood from a local store (32%), and those who rely on a wood supplier (22%). Seven percent (7%) mentioned an alternative source, and 4% were unsure of where their household acquires the wood that they bu rn (see Figure 8). When compared to their respective counterparts, those who burn wood frequentl y were more likely to gather their own wood or rely on a wood supplier (see Figure 9). Question 4 Do you typically purchase your wood from a wood supplier, the local store, or do you gather your own wood?
F IGURE 

### 8 W OOD 

### S OURCE 

### ( N 

### = 813) 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.4

1.2 0.0

0.9

2.0 2.0 37.0 43.9

0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.6

1.9 1.5 1.5 3.7 11.6 35.1 42.8

0.9 0.5 0.7 1.2 0.6

1.5 3.4 5.3 4.2 8.7 43.5 29.6

8.2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Fir Other

Ash Fruitwood (general) Hardwood (general) Walnut Whatever available / Mixed Eucalyptus Almond Pine (cedar) Oak Not sure

% Households that Have and Use Wood-burning Device At least once per week Less than once per week Not at all Expected Frequency of Winter Wood Burning



### Other

7.1

Local store 31.8 Wood supplier 21.7 Not sure 4.1

Gather own 35.3Wood Burning Behavior



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 14 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F IGURE 

### 9 W OOD 

### S OURCE BY 

### E XPECTED 

### F REQUENCY OF 

### W INTER 

### W OOD 

### B URNING 

### ( N 

### = 813)



### The survey next inquired as to whether the resp ondent typically burns dry, seasoned wood or wood that is fresh-cut and somewhat moist. As shown in Figure 10, 85% of respondents stated that they burn dry, seasoned wood, 5% reported that they typically burn fresh-cut wood, and 10% were note sure. Although frequent burners were more likely to kn ow the status of the wood that they burn, when one compares the responses among those who provided a specific answer to Question 5 it appears that frequency of wood bu rning is not related to the status of the wood burned. That is, infrequent burners were just as likely as frequent burner s to burn dry, seasoned wood (see Figure 11). Question 5 Do you tend to burn dry, seasoned wood or wood that is fresh-cut and somewhat moist?
F IGURE 

### 10 S TATUS OF 

### W OOD 

### T YPICALLY 

### B URNED 

### ( N 

### = 813) 5.9

13.3 13.9

17.7 15.3 Wood supplier 27.7 42.0 35.4 Local store 21.6 Gather own 44.6 33.5

22.1 Other 4.7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

At least once per week Less than once per week Not at all Expected Frequency of Winter Wood Burning% Households that Have and Use Wood-burning Device



### Not sure 9.8

Dry, seasoned 84.9 Fresh-cut, moist 5.2Wood Burning Behavior



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 15 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F IGURE 

### 11 S TATUS OF 

### W OOD 

### T YPICALLY 

### B URNED BY 

### E XPECTED 

### F REQUENCY OF 

### W INTER

### W OOD 

### B URNING 

### ( N 

### = 813)



## PRIMARY REASON FOR BURNING WOOD Households that have a wood burning heating device and expected to use it during th e winter were next asked to indicate the primaryreason for why they use the device -- to heat their home, or for the ambiance of having a fire? Figure 12 shows that residents, as a whole, were ra ther evenly divided be tween those who primarily burn for heat (46%) and those who primarily burn for ambiance (50%). As expected, the reason for using a heating device was related to the fr equency of burning. Fr equent burners were much more likely (66%) to indicate that they burn wo od for heating purposes, whereas infrequent burners much more likely (69%) to report that they burn for ambiance (see Figure 13). Question 6 When you use your fireplace or woodstove, which of the following would you say is the primary reason you do so? For heating your home, or for the ambiance of having a fire
F IGURE 

### 12 P RIMARY 

### P URPOSE OF 

### W OOD 

### B URNING 

### ( N 

### = 813) Dry, seasoned 89.1 75.7 86.6 Fresh-cut, moist 6.5
3.4 5.0 20.8 8.3 Not sure 4.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

At least once per week Less than once per week Not at all Expected Frequency of Winter Wood Burning% Households that Have and Use Wood-burning Device



### Ambiance 50.3 Heat 46.1 Not sure 3.6Wood Burning Behavior



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 16 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F IGURE 

### 13 P RIMARY 

### P URPOSE OF 

### W OOD 

### B URNING BY 

### E XPECTED 

### F REQUENCY OF 

### W INTER 

### W OOD 

### B URNING 

### ( N 

### = 813)



## USE OF FIREPLACE, WOOD ST OVE OR PELLET STOVE Respondents whose household contained at least one fir eplace, pellet stove or wood stov e were next asked -- for each device they own -- whether they have or intend to use the device this winter between the months of November through February. As shown in Figure 14, 74% of households that contain a wood stove indicated that they would use the device this winter. The rate of use was similar for pellet stoves (72%) and notably lower for fireplaces (60%). The results for the 2004 survey -- which was conducted at the end of the season rather th an throughout -- are presented for comparison. Question 7 Will you use your: _____ this winter?
F IGURE 

### 14 H EATING 

### D EVICE 

### U SAGE THIS 

### W INTER BY 

### S TUDY 

### Y EAR 

### (F IREPLACE 

### : N 

### = 1,547; P ELLET 

### S TOVE 

### : N 

### = 170; W OOD STOVE 

### : N 

### = 165) 29.2 35.6 Heat 66.0 69.1 56.0 Ambiance

31.2 Not sure 2.8 8.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

At least once per week Less than once per week Not at all Expected Frequency of Winter Wood Burning% Households that Have and Use Wood-burning Device

56.4 84.2 Yes 59.8 56.1 74.4 71.8 No 37.6 42.5 21.4 24.9† 43.6 15.8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Use fireplace this winter Use pellet stove this winter Use woodstove this winter Use fireplace this winter Use pellet stove this winter Use woodstove this winter 2005 2004 Study Year% Heating Device HouseholdsWood Burning Behavior



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 17 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

### Figure 15 provides a useful summary of the pr esence and expected use of heating devices for the District as a whole, as well as by the nine member counties. Overall, 64% of households surveyed in the District contained at least one heating device (fireplac e, wood stove or pellet stove), 41% expected to use a heating device this winter , and one-third (33%) expected to use at least one wood burning heating device this winter. Among the ni ne counties, households in Marin had the highest rate of expected heating device use ( 58%), as well as the highest expected use of wood burning heating devices (47%). San Francisc o County residents reported the lowest rates of the presence and use of heating devices.
F IGURE 

### 15 H OUSEHOLD 

### H EATING 

### D EVICE 

### U SAGE THIS 

### W INTER BY 

### C OUNTY 

### ( N 

### = 2,625)



### Respondents who indicated that they do not expec t to use their fireplace, wood stove or pellet stove this winter in Question 7 were next asked to indicate why they do not intend to use the device. As shown in Figure 16, approximately 8% of fireplace owners who did not intend to use the device this winter offered a reason related to air quality and an additional 8% mentioned a specific health-related reason. Approximately 3% of pellet stove owners and 9% of wood stove owners who did not intend to use the devices al so mentioned air quality as a reason for not using the device this winter. The remaining respon dents offered a reason unrelated to air quality or health. For the interested reader, Figure 17 displays the percentage of households that own a fireplace, wood stove or pellet stove and offe red air quality as a reason for why they did not expect to use the device this winter, by county. San Mateo Co unty had the highest percentage (6%) of device owning households that fit th is description, whereas Sonoma County had the lowest (2%). 73.8 70.9 65.0 58.7 67.3 70.7

42.9 37.9 49.0 46.8

33.2 27.9 27.8 40.2 46.6 40.9 33.9 32.2 39.1 35.7 65.1

48.5 73.3
63.9

52.3 57.8

35.9 32.0 47.4 41.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

BAAQMD District Overall Santa Clara San Francisco San Mateo Marin Sonoma Solano Alameda Napa Contra Costa
County% Households At least one heating device in home Expect to use at least one heating device Expect to use at least one wood burning heating deviceWood Burning Behavior



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 18 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

### Question 8 Why do you not expect to use your: _____ this winter?
F IGURE 

### 16 R EASON FOR

### N OT 

### U SING 

### H EATING 

### D EVICE THIS 

### W INTER 

### (F IREPLACE 

### : N 

### = 581; P ELLET 

### S TOVE 

### : N 

### = 42; W OODSTOVE 

### : N 

### = 35)

F IGURE 

### 17 H EATING 

### D EVICE 

### H OUSEHOLDS 

### N OT 

### B URNING 

### B ECAUSE OF 

### A IR

### Q UALITY 

### R EASONS 

### ( N 

### = 1,679) Air quality 8.2 9.4

3.3 Health reasons 8.3 2.8

0 5 10 15 20

Fireplace Pellet stove Woodstove Q8 Reason for not using . . .% Households that Do Not Plan to Use aParticular Heating Device this Winter Health reasons Air quality

1.9 2.5 2.5 4.4

2.6 2.7 3.8 6.0

2.2

0 2 4 6 8 10

Santa Clara San Francisco San Mateo Marin Sonoma Solano Alameda Napa Contra Costa County% Heating Device Households that Mentioned Air Quality as aReason for Not Using a Heating Device this WinterWood Burning Behavior



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 19 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

## SEASONAL WOOD BURNING BEHAVIOR The next series of questions were only asked of respondents who owned at least one fireplace, pellet stove or wood stove and indicated that they will burn wood during the 2005-2006 winter months. The first question (Question 9) asked each respondent how often they expected that they would burn wood this winter -- at least once per we ek or less often? Respondents who indicated that they expected to burn wood less often than once per week were next asked to be more specific as to how often they expected to burn wood -- tw o to three times per month, once per month, or less often than once per month? For respondents who indicated that they expected to burn wood weekly, Question 11 asked how many days they ex pected to burn wood in a typical winter week. The results to all three questi ons are combined in Figure 18. Overall, nearly half (49%) of respondents indica ted that they expected to burn wood on a weekly basis, although most (31%) stated that they wo uld burn wood three days or less per week. Overall, 19% indicated that they expected to burn wood two to three times per month, 17% once per month, and 12% expected to burn w ood less often than once per month. Question 9 How often do you expect to burn wood this winter? At least once per week or less often than that? Question 10 Would you say that you will burn wood about two to three times per month, once per month, or less often than once per month? Question 11 In a typical winter week, how many days do you expect to burn wood?
F IGURE 

### 18 F REQUENCY OF 

### B URNING 

### W OOD THIS 

### W INTER 

### ( N 

### = 864)



### When compared to 2004, there was a statistically significant increase in the percentage of respondents who indicated that their household would burn wood at least once per week (seeTable 1). Whereas in 2004 just over one-third (34%) expected to burn wood weekly, the percentage in 2005 was much higher at 49%. A portion of this increase is clearly due to the higher cost At least once

per week 48.9 Once per month 17.0 Not sure 4.0 Less than once per month 11.7

2 to 3 times per month

18.5 Seven days 7.2 Six days 0.8 Four days 4.3 One day 9.3 Two days 11.5 Three days 10.4

Five days 3.2 Not sure 2.2Wood Burning Behavior



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 20 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

### of natural gas and propane in 2005, as some ho useholds were relying on wood as a substitute fuel (see Changes in Wood Burning Behavior on page 27).
T ABLE 

### 1 F REQUENCY OF 

### B URNING 

### W OOD THIS 

### W INTER BY 

### S TUDY 

### Y EAR 

### ( N 

### = 864)



### Figure 19 provides a useful summary of wood burning behavio r among households that own a heating device in the District ov erall, as well as by county. Overall, 26% of households expected to burn wood weekly, 25% expect ed to burn wood less frequent ly than once per week, 31% own a wood burning heating but indicated that theydo not expect to burn wood, and 19% own a heating device that primarily bu rns fuels other than wood. Amon g the nine member counties, Sonoma County had the highest percentage of heating device-owning ho useholds that expected to burn wood weekly (43%), where San Francisco had the lowest (21%).
F IGURE 

### 19 F REQUENCY OF 

### B URNING 

### W OOD THIS 

### W INTER 

### A MONG 

### A LL

### H EATING 

### D EVICE 

### H OUSEHOLDS BY 

### C OUNTY 

### ( N 

### = 1,679) 2005 2004 At least once per week 48.9%† 34.2% One day 9.3% 11.2% Two days 11.5%† 5.6% Three days 10.4% 6.1% Four days 4.3%† 1.0% Five days 3.2% 2.6% Six days 0.8% 1.5% Seven days 7.2% 6.1% Not sure # of days 2.2% 0.0% 2 to 3 times per month 18.5%† 28.1% Once per month 17.0% 15.8% Less than once per month 11.7%† 18.4% Not sure of frequency 4.0% 3.6% Frequency of Burning Among Households with a Wood-burning Device

Expected to be Used During Winter Season (Q9/Q10/Q11) Study Year

35.0 42.8 34.0 21.4 39.3 27.2 25.8 13.7 17.1 32.1 17.2 22.5 30.7 33.0 24.5 28.7 29.8 31.1 34.2 28.5 30.3 34.4 18.6 25.7 18.1 18.3 9.5 12.4 14.8 18.0 13.2 15.9

25.5 21.9 21.1 22.2 25.2 30.8 36.3 19.3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

BAAQMD District Overall Santa Clara San Francisco San Mateo Marin Sonoma Solano Alameda Napa Contra Costa
County% Heating Device Households Primarily gas, electric / never burn wood

Do not expect to burn

Expect to burn less tha n once per week

Expect to burn at least once per weekWood Burning Behavior



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 21 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

## WOOD BURNING BEHAVIOR IN PAST WEEK Respondents were also asked whether they burned wood in the past week and -- if yes -- if they burned wood the day or evening prior to the interview. The results to these two questions are combined in Figure 20. Forty-three percent (43%) of respondents whose household includes at least one fireplace, pellet stove and/or wood stove and expected to burn wood during the winter months indicated that they had burned wood during the week prior to the interview. Moreov er, approximately 22% ha d burned wood the day prior to the interview. Question 12 Did you burn wood in the past seven days? Question 13 Did you burn wood yesterday or last night?
F IGURE 

### 20 B URNED 

### W OOD IN 

### P AST

### S EVEN 

### D AYS 

### ( N 

### = 864)



### When compared to 2004, a signific antly higher percentage of hous eholds reported that they had burned wood in the week prior to the intervie w. Whereas approximately one-third (32%) reported burning wood during this period in 2004, the corresponding figure for 2005 was 43% (see Table 2). 9



### T ABLE 

### 2 B URNED 

### W OOD IN 

### P AST

### S EVEN 

### D AYS BY 

### S TUDY 

### Y EAR 

### ( N 

### = 864)

9. This discrepancy may be partially du e to the timing of the interviews. In 2004, the interviews were conducted in the last two weeks of the season, whereas in 2005 th e interviews were conducte d throughout the season. 

### Burned wood in past seven days 43.0

Not sure 0.2 Did not burn wood in last seven days 56.6 Burned wood yesterday 21.7

Did not burn wood yesterday 21.1 Not sure 0.4

2005 2004 Burned wood in past seven days 43.0%† 32.1% Burned wood yesterday 21.7% 12.8% Did not burn wood yesterday 21.1% 19.4% Not sure of burning yesterday 0.2% 0.0% Did not burn wood in last seven days 56.6%† 67.3% Not sure of burning in past seven days 0.4% 0.5% Study Year
Frequency of Burning in Past Seven Days AmongHouseholds with a Woodburning Device Expected to

be Used During Winter

Season (Q12/Q13)Wood Burning Behavior



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 22 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

### The following two figures show the percentage of heating device-owning households that burned wood in the seven days prior to the interview (Figure 21) and on the day prior to the interview (Figure 22) for the District as a whole, as well as by the nine member counties. Consistent with prior measures of wood burning frequency, Sono ma County residents reported the highest rate of wood burning behavior.
F IGURE 

### 21 H EATING 

### D EVICE 

### H OUSEHOLDS THAT

### B URNED 

### W OOD IN 

### P AST 

### S EVEN 

### D AYS BY 

### C OUNTY 

### ( N 

### = 1,679)

F IGURE 

### 22 H EATING 

### D EVICE 

### H OUSEHOLDS THAT

### B URNED 

### W OOD 

### Y ESTERDAY 

### / L AST 

### N IGHT BY 

### C OUNTY 

### ( N 

### = 1,679) 30.1 38.1

24.4

16.8 31.5

24.5 22.2 19.8 21.7 19.2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

BAAQMD District Overall Santa Clara San Francisco San Mateo Marin Sonoma Solano Alameda Napa Contra Costa
County% Heating Device Households that BurnedWood in Past Seven Days

16.2 24.1

13.7

8.4 19.6

11.5 9.7 7.9 9.7 11.2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

BAAQMD District Overall Santa Clara San Francisco San Mateo Marin Sonoma Solano Alameda Napa Contra Costa
County% Heating Device Households that BurnedWood Yesterday / Last NightWood Burning Behavior



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 23 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

### During the design stage of the study, it wa s expected that wood bu rning behavior could be linked to both the type of day (weekday, weeken d and holiday) and weather-related factors such as precipitation and temperature. Figure 23 sh ows that although precip itation and temperature on the reference day for the interview was clearl y related to wood burning behavior on said day in the expected manner, the type of day did not bare a statistical relationship to wood burning behavior. Overall, households were no more likely (or unlikely) to burn wood on a holiday or on weekends than they were on weekdays.
F IGURE 

### 23 H EATING 

### D EVICE 

### H OUSEHOLDS THAT

### B URNED 

### W OOD 

### Y ESTERDAY 

### / L AST 

### N IGHT BY 

### D AY 

### T YPE 

### , P RECIPITATION ON 

### D AY 

### P RIOR TO 

### I NTERVIEW

### & L OW

### T EMPERATURE ON 

### D AY 

### P RIOR TO 

### I NTERVIEW

### ( N 

### = 1,679)



## DURATION & VOLUME OF WOOD BURNING Questions 14 and 15 asked respondents with wood-burning devices who al so expected to use the device th is winter to estimate the number of hours they have a fire burning -- as well as the number of logs they burn -- on a typical day that they burn wood. In terms of hours, more than half (53%) of re spondents indicated that they burn three to four hours on a typical day. The remaining respon dents were split between those who burn for shorter durations (27%) and those who burn for five hours or longer (21%). The average duration among all respondents who received this question was 3.8 hours. Figure 25 presents the distributi on of burning hours on a typica l day by county and expected frequency of burning during the 2005-2006 winter season. When compared to their respective counterparts, Marin County residents reported the longest average duration of wood burning on a typical burn day at 5.19 hours, followed closely by Sonoma County at 4.88 hours. Frequent burners also reported a longer duration (4.63 hours) for a typical burn day when compared to those who burn less than on ce per week (3.03 hours). 11.1 19.8

15.3

9.2 11.7 10.4 10.4 10.5 11.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Weekday Weekend Holiday None Less than .5 inches .5 inches or more Below 40 40 to 49 50 or over
Day Type Precipitation on Day Prior to Interview Low Temperature of Day Prior to Interview% Heating Device Households that BurnedWood Yesterday / Last NightWood Burning Behavior



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 24 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

### Question 14 In a typical day that you burn wood, how many hours of the day do you have a fire burning?
F IGURE 

### 24 H OURS OF 

### B URNING IN 

### T YPICAL 

### D AY OF 

### W OOD 

### B URNING 

### ( N 

### = 864)

F IGURE 

### 25 D ISTRIBUTION AND 

### A VERAGE 

### H OURS OF 

### B URNING IN 

### T YPICAL 

### D AY OF 

### W OOD 

### B URNING BY 

### C OUNTY 

### & E XPECTED 

### F REQUENCY OF 

### W INTER

### W OOD 

### B URNING 

### ( N 

### = 864)



### In terms of volume, respondents were rather ev enly split between those who burn one or two logs per typical burn day (34%), those who estimated that they burn three to five logs (34%), and those who reported burning more than five lo gs per day (32%). The average number of logs reported per burn day was 5.12 (see Figure 26). As shown in Figure 27, those counties that reported the longest duration of burning on a ty pical burn day (Marin and Sonoma) also reported the highest volume of logs burned per burn day (7.0 and 7.6, respective ly). Frequent burners Five or more hours 21.0 One or two hours 26.5

Three or four hours 52.6

12.2 28.3 36.0 21.7 21.8 15.9 35.7 45.4 44.4 52.5

46.1 57.2 53.6 52.0 23.0 10.4 22.1 29.2 42.4 27.3 11.5 32.2 21.0 30.5 12.3

23.9 37.4 24.1 14.5 53.0 56.3 53.9 52.3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Santa Clara San Francisco San Mateo Marin Sonoma Solano Alameda Napa Contra Costa At least once per week Less than once per

week 4.24 3.02 3.66 5.19 4.88 4.17 3.01 4.63 3.65 4.63 3.03 County and Average Hours per Burning Expected Frequency of Winter Wood Burning and Average Hours per Burning% Households with Wood-burning Heating DeviceExpected to be Used During Winter Season Five or more hours

Three or four hours

One or two hoursWood Burning Behavior



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 25 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

### also reported a higher number of logs burned (6.28) per burn day when compared to their counterparts (3.94) who burn less frequently than once per week. Question 15 In a typical day that you burn wood, how many logs do you burn throughout the entire day?
F IGURE 

### 26 L OGS 

### B URNED IN 

### T YPICAL

### D AY OF 

### W OOD 

### B URNING 

### ( N 

### = 864)

F IGURE 

### 27 L OGS 

### B URNED IN 

### T YPICAL 

### D AY OF 

### W OOD 

### B URNING BY 

### C OUNTY 

### & E XPECTED 

### F REQUENCY OF 

### W INTER 

### W OOD 

### B URNING 

### ( N 

### = 864)



## NON-WINTER WOOD BURNING Whereas the bulk of the questions on wood burning focused on the winter season, respondents were also asked ab out their wood burning behavior during non-winter months. This line of inquiry was administered to all respondents -- not justthose with a heating device in the home -- in order to capture wood burning that occurs at campfires and beaches, in chimineas and at other locations in addition to their home. As shown in Three to five 34.1 One or two 34.1 Six or more 31.8

18.1 36.2 38.4 25.1 32.7 27.8 40.0 27.0 31.1 29.5
30.8 34.9 31.2 36.7 29.3 15.9 27.3 45.9 54.8 32.8 32.1 44.2 32.4 41.1 23.4

23.9 34.6 53.5
28.3 30.6

38.1

30.1 42.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Santa Clara San Francisco San Mateo Marin Sonoma Solano Alameda Napa Contra Costa At least once per week Less than once per

week 5.05 3.00 4.89 7.00 7.57 5.00 4.75 6.92 5.39 6.28 3.94 County and Average Logs per Burning Expected Frequency of Winter Wood Burning and Average Logs per Burning% Households with Wood-burning Heating DeviceExpected to be Used During Winter Season Six or more logs

Three to five logs

One or two logsWood Burning Behavior



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 26 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

### Table 3, the vast majority of hous eholds (83%) reported that they do not burn wood in non-winter months. The percentage of respondents that indica ted they do burn wood is shown for each nonwinter month overall, as well as according to whether they own a heating device in their home. Question D1 Do you ever burn wood in non-winter months, between March and October? If no, record. If yes, ask: Which months during this period to you tend to burn wood?
T ABLE 

### 3 W OOD 

### B URNING ON 

### N ON 

### - WINTER 

### M ONTHS BY 

### H EATING 

### D EVICE IN 

### H OME

Yes No March 7.2 8.8 4.3 April 5.3 6.3 3.7 May 3.7 4.0 3.3 June 4.8 4.9 4.7 July 5.1 5.2 4.9 August 4.3 4.2 4.5 September 4.5 4.7 4.2 October 6.4 7.8 3.9 None 82.9 78.8 90.2 Not sure 4.1 5.3 2.0 BAAQMD District Overall Heating Device in Home

QD1 Non-winter months anticipated for wood-burningChanges in Wood Burning Behavior



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 27 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

# C HANGES I N 

# W OOD 

# B URNING 

# B EHAVIOR Having measured respondents’ basic wood bu rning behavior, the survey next focused on whether respondents had made changes in thei r wood burning behavior during the 2005-2006 winter season in response to the Spare the Air Tonight Campaign or other factors such as the higher cost of natural ga s and propane this season. 

## CHANGES IN WOOD BURNING BEHAVIOR The first question in this series simply asked the respondent if they ex pected that they would burn wo od more frequently, less frequently, or at about the same frequency as th e prior winter season. Re spondents who indicated that they expected to burn wood more frequ ently this season were subsequently asked why they expected to burn more frequent ly this season. The responses to both questions are combined in Figure 28. Overall, 56% of households that own a wood-bur ning heating device and expected to burn wood this season reported that they anticipated burning wood at abou t the same frequency this season as last. Approximately 16% anticipated burn ing wood less frequently, whereas 22% expected to burn wood more frequently in winter 2005-20 06 when compared to the prior season. The 22% who expected to burn more frequently this seas on were divided rather evenly between those who were doing so due to the in creased cost of energy and gas (10%) and those who were doing so for other reasons (12%). Question 16 This winter, do you expect that you will burn wood more often, less often, or about the same frequency as you did last winter? Question 17 Why are you burning wood mo re frequently this year?
F IGURE 

### 28 E XPECTED 

### F REQUENCY OF 

### W OOD 

### B URNING THIS 

### W INTER

### C OMPARED TO 

### L AST 

### W INTER AND 

### R EASONS FOR 

### B URNING 

### M ORE 

### O FTEN 

### ( N 

### = 864)



### Burn about the same 55.5 Energy / Gas costs 10.3 Not sure 6.3

Burn less

often 16.2 Other reason 11.5

Not sure 0.2 Burn more often 21.9Changes in Wood Burning Behavior



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 28 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

## CHANGES AMONG THOSE WHO INCREASED BURNING Approximately 10% of households that own a wood-burning heating device and anticipated burning wood this winter also indicated that they expected to increase th eir frequency of wood burning in winter 2005- 2006 in response to the high cost of energy and/or gas (see Figure 28). Questions 18, 19 and 20 were designed to profile these resp ondents’ wood burning during the prior winter season, thereby allowing a comparison to their expect ed burning behavior in 2005-2006 which was previously measured in the survey. Figure 29 shows the distribution of recalledwood burning frequency during the 2004-2005 winter season among respondents who expected to increase their frequency of wood burning in 2005-2006 due to high energy/gas costs. Approximately 62% expected to burn wood at least once per week, and 22% expected to burn wood at least four days per week. Question 18 How often did you burn wood last winter? At least once per week or less often than that? Question 19 Last winter, would you say that you burned wood about two to three times per month, once per month, or less often than once per month? Question 20 Last winter, how many days did you burn wood in a typical week?
F IGURE 

### 29 F REQUENCY OF 

### W OOD 

### B URNING 

### L AST 

### W INTER 

### A MONG 

### T HOSE 

### B URNING 

### M ORE 

### O FTEN 

### B ECAUSE OF 

### I NCREASED 

### E NERGY 

### C OSTS 

### ( N 

### = 89)



### Table 4 on the next page compares the expect ed frequency of wood burning for the 2005-2006 season and the recalled burning behavior from 2004-2005 among households that expected to burn wood more frequently this season in respon se to high energy costs. For reference, the far right column also shows the frequency of wood burning reported during the 2004 season among all wood-burning households. The results are co nsistent with the respondents’ reported behavior. For example, 80% of households that expect ed to increase their w ood burning due to energy costs anticipated burning at least once per week this winter, compared to just 62% in 2004. Not sure 2.6 Five days 0.9 Three days 4.4 Two days 8.3 One day

25.0

Four days 15.1

Six days 1.5 Seven days 4.5 2 to 3 times per month

18.5 Less than once per month 6.9 Not sure 1.1

Once per month 9.7 At least once per week 62.3Changes in Wood Burning Behavior



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 29 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T ABLE 

### 4 F REQUENCY OF 

### W OOD 

### B URNING 

### A MONG 

### T HOSE 

### B URNING 

### M ORE 

### O FTEN 

### B ECAUSE OF 

### I NCREASED 

### E NERGY 

### C OSTS 

### ( N 

### = 89)



## REDUCTIONS IN WO OD BURNING Respondents were next asked whether there were occasions this winter when they normally wo uld have burned wood, but decided not to. If a respondent indicated that they had refrained from burning wood on at least one occasion, they were then asked in an open -ended manner to indicate why they reduced their wood burning. 10 

### The manner in which these questions were asked, as well as their placement in the survey relative to specific questions about the Spare th e Air Tonight Campaign, was changed in 2004 from prior surveys. Previous surveys first introduc ed the Spare the Air Tonight Program and then asked if individuals responded to the Program by reducing the amount of wood they burned. Asking the question in this manner is likely to prompt a socially desirable response from some respondents that they had reduced their wood burn ing even if they had not -- which leads to artificially high estimates of the campaign’s impact. To more accurately measure reductions in woodburning that can be attributed to the campaign, the 2004 and 2005 surveys employed an indirect approach similar to that used in the CARB/EPA Method for estimating reductions in driving due to the summer Sp are the Air Campaign. As shown in Figure 30, 29% of respondents who have a fireplace, wood stove and/or pellet stove and expected to burn wood during the 2005-2006 winter season indicated that -- on at least one occasion -- they refrained from burning wood. When asked why they chose not to burn wood on these occasions, 1% specifically mentioned th e Spare the Air Campaign and an additional 3% offered an air quality or health-related reason.

10.Respondents were allowed to provide multiple response s to this question, as their reason for not burning wood could vary from occasion to occasion. 2005 Recalled 2004 At least once per week 80.2% 62.3% 34.2% One day 9.2% 25.0% 11.2% Two days 14.9% 8.3% 5.6% Three days 20.3% 4.4% 6.1% Four days 6.2% 15.1% 1.0% Five days 7.6% 0.9% 2.6% Six days 0.6% 1.5% 1.5% Seven days 16.9% 4.5% 6.1% Not sure # of days 4.5% 2.6% 0.0% 2 to 3 times per month 10.7% 20.0% 28.1% Once per month 4.3% 9.7% 15.8% Less than once per month 3.7% 6.9% 18.4% Not sure of frequency 1.1% 1.1% 3.6% Households that Will Burn More Wood Because of Increased Energy / Gas Costs

Frequency of Burning Among

Households with a Woodburning Heating Device Expected to be Used During Winter Season that Will Burn

More Wood Because of Increased Energy / Gas Costs All Wood-burning Households from 2004 Study YearChanges in Wood Burning Behavior



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 30 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

### Question 21 Were there occasions this winter when you normally would have burned wood, but decided not to? Question 22 Why did you decide not to burn wood on these occasions?
F IGURE 

### 30 C HOSE NOT TO 

### B URN THIS 

### W INTER 

### ( N 

### = 864)



## CAMPAIGN IMPACTS ON WOOD BURNING To estimate the proportion of adults in the District who reduced the amount of wood that they burned during the winter season in response to the campaign, one must combine th e responses from several questions in the survey. Naturally, respondents who do not live in a household that contains a fireplace, wood stove or pellet stove (Question 1) should not be included in the analysis since they could not respond to the campaign by reducing their wood burn ing behavior. Respondents who chose not to burn wood at all during the winter (Question 7), did so because of air quality reasons (Question 8), and were aware of the Spare the Air Tonight Prog ram (Question 40) can be considered a Spare the Air (STA) reducer. So too can respondents wh o indicated that although they did burn wood, they refrained from doing so on occasion (Question 21), did so because of the campaign or for air quality/health re asons (Question 22), and were aware of the Spare the Air Tonight Program (Question 40). Table 5 shows that of the 1,679 respondents in the survey who were eligible to respond to the campaign, 39 (2.3%) reduced thei r wood burning behavior on at least one occasion during the 2005-2006 winter in response to the Spare the Air Tonight Program. 11 

### This represents 36,547 households out of the estimated 1,555,185 households with a heating device.

11.The survey included a follow-up question (Question 23) which asked respondents who refrained from burning wood for campaign-related reasons (Question 22) ho w many times they refrained from burning wood for air quality reasons during the winter season. The average response was 2.52 times, although the small sample size for this question means that the statistical ma rgins of error around the es timate are large. Moreover, respondents who did not burn wood at all during the wi nter were not asked this question, so the figure represents the average reduction among in dividuals who normally burn wood. 

### Not sure 4.8 Air quality / Health

2.9 Spare the Air

campaign 0.7

No 65.9 Other reason 25.4

Not sure 0.8 Yes 29.3Changes in Wood Burning Behavior



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 31 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T ABLE 

### 5 S PARE THE 

### A IR 

### R EDUCERS 

### : C ONFIDENCE 

### I NTERVAL



### Figure 31 displays the estimated percentage of heating-device owning ho useholds that reduced their wood burning on at least one occasion due to the Spare the Air Tonight Program by study year (2005 and 2004), as well as by county for 200 5. For reference, the confidence intervals are also shown to provide a sense for the reliability of the estimates. 12



### F IGURE 

### 31 S PARE THE 

### A IR 

### R EDUCERS BY 

### S TUDY 

### Y EAR 

### & C OUNTY 

### S HOWING 

### C ONFIDENCE 

### I NTERVALS 

### ( N 

### = 1,679)

12.The confidence intervals indicate the range within whic h one can be 95% confident that the true value exists. 

### 1,555,185 1,679

39 1639 2.35% 97.65% 0.72% Lower Bound 1.62% Upper Bound 3.07% Confidence Interval for Proportion of Winter STA Reducers Non-STA Reducers Proportion of STA Reducers Proportion of Non-STA Reducers Maximum Margin of Error (95% confidence) Winter Spare the Air Tonight Reducers Universe Estimate (households with heating device) Sample Size (surveyed households with heating device) STA Reducers

8.11

2.28 3.14

0.96 6.86

1.89 5.19

2.93 8.00

4.22

2.35

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

2005 2004 Santa Clara San Francisco San Mateo Marin Sonoma Solano Alameda Napa Contra Costa Study Year County% Heating Device HouseholdsRecall and Awareness of Spare the Air Tonight Messaging



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 32 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

# R ECALL AND 

# A WARENESS O F 

# S PARE THE 

# A I R 

# T ONIGHT 

# M ESSAGING Although the ultimate goal of the Spare the Air Tonight Campaign is to persuade individuals to reduce the amount of wood that they burn an d to replace wood burning devices with cleaner alternatives, there are a series of related objectiv es which must be met in order for this to occur. For example, regardless of how compelling the me ssage may be, if the message does not reach the target audience then the campaign can not succeed in it s primary goal. Thus, an instrumental objective of the campaign is to simply incr ease awareness of the Spare the Air Tonight Program and related events. 

## RECALL EXPOSURE TO SP ARE THE AIR MESSAGING Accordingly, a series of questions was asked of respondents about their recall of Spare the Air Tonight messaging. The first of these questions asked: During this winter, have you hear d, read, or seen any new stories, advertisements or public service announcements about Spare the Air Tonight, poor air quality, or requests not to use your fireplace, pellet stove or wood stove? Figure 32 presents the results to this question for the study years 2002 through 2005. In 2005, 34% of respondents recalled being exposed to news stories, advertisements or public service announcements related to the Spare the Air Toni ght Program during the winter months. Recalled exposure was significantly lower in 2005 when comp ared to prior winters, perhaps in part due to the timing of interviews. In prior years, the inte rviews were all conducted at the end of the season -- as opposed to throughout the season as in 2005 -- which increases a respondent’s opportunities to be exposed to the campaign. Question 24 During this winter, have you heard, read, or seen any news stories, advertisements, or public service announcements about Spare the Air Tonight, poor air quality, or requests not to use your fireplace, pellet stove, or woodstove?
F IGURE 

### 32 H EARD 

### , R EAD 

### , OR 

### S AW 

### S PARE THE 

### A IR 

### W INTER 

### I NFORMATION BY 

### S TUDY 

### Y EAR

### ( N 

### = 2,625)

Yes, heard, read, or saw info 34.0† 56.0 42.0 38.7 No, did not hear, read, or

see info 64.9† 43.0 56.0 60.1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2005 2004 2003 2002 Study Year% RespondentsRecall and Awareness of Spare the Air Tonight Messaging



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 33 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

### For the interested reader, Figures 33 and 34 di splay the percentage of respondents who recalled being exposed to news stories, advertisements or public servic e announcements related to the Spare the Air Tonight Program during the winter months by county, age and household income. When compared to their respective counterparts, those who reside in Marin and Contra Costa counties, those 45 years of age or older, and those who enjoy annual family incomes of$200,000 or more were the most likely to recall being exposed to the Spare the Air Tonight Program.
F IGURE 

### 33 H EARD 

### , R EAD 

### , OR 

### S AW 

### S PARE THE 

### A IR 

### W INTER 

### I NFORMATION BY 

### C OUNTY 

### ( N 

### = 2,625)

F IGURE 

### 34 H EARD 

### , R EAD 

### , OR 

### S AW 

### S PARE THE 

### A IR 

### W INTER 

### I NFORMATION BY 

### A GE 

### & H OUSEHOLD 

### I NCOME 

### ( N 

### = 2,625) 32.5 34.9
28.5 29.2 40.5 35.2 31.8 35.1 39.7

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Santa Clara San Francisco San Mateo Marin Sonoma Solano Alameda Napa Contra Costa County% Respondents

47.0 42.0

30.3 33.6 34.9 37.4
31.3 40.2 41.5

28.9 28.9

19.3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 and over Under $50K $50K to $74K $75K to $99K $100K to $149K $150K to $199K $200K or more Age Household Income% RespondentsRecall and Awareness of Spare the Air Tonight Messaging



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 34 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

## INFORMATION SOURCE Those who indicated that they reca lled hearing, reading, or seeing Spare the Air Tonight related information du ring the winter were next asked where they obtained the information. Multiple responses to the question were allowed, so the percentages shown in Figure 35 represent the percentage of respondents who mention ed a particular source and thus add to more than 100%. Because this question was asked in an identical manner in the 2002, 2003 and 2004 survey s, the results from th ese surveys are also included in Figure 35 for comparison. As in the previous three surveys, the most popular methods of obtaining information related to Spare the Air Tonight and air quality during the winter of 2005-2006 were television (45%) and radio (38%). Within these two sour ces, however, there appears to be a significant shift since 2003 toward a greater reliance on television and less reliance on radio for this information. Newspapers (17%) were the only other information source mentioned by at least 10% of respondents. Question 25 Where did you see the news story, advertisement or public service announcement?
F IGURE 

### 35 S OURCE FOR 

### S PARE THE 

### A IR 

### W INTER 

### I NFORMATION 

### ( N 

### = 891)

45.0

6.9
2.7 1.4 1.0 49.4

7.4
2.2 1.1 1.1 0.7 17.4 38.2

5.4† 17.3 38.4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Television Radio Newspaper Not sure Billboard Website Bus signs Email Alert Q25 Spare the Air, air quality information source . . .% Respondents 2005 2004 2003 2002 Study YearAttitudes about Wood Smoke



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 35 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

# A TTITUDES ABOUT 

# W OOD 

# S MOKE In addition to changing wood burning behavior, one of the goals of the Spare the Air Tonight Program is to change how residents think about wood smoke and its impact on public health. To track how effective the Program has been in achi eving this goal, the survey included several measures of residents’ opinions an d perceptions about wood smoke.The first of these questions simply asked the respondent whether they think there are any negative health effects associated with breathing wo od smoke. As shown in Figure 36, approximately two-thirds (66%) of adults in the Bay Area do perceive wood smoke to have negative health impacts. Moreover, public opinion on this matter has changed substantially in the past four years -- in part due to the Spare the Air Tonight Program. The proportion of adults that perceive wood smoke to have negative health impacts has increased by nearly 17% since 2002. Question 27 Do you think there are any negative health effects associated with breathing wood smoke?
F IGURE 

### 36 P ERCEIVE 

### N EGATIVE 

### H EALTH 

### E FFECTS ARE 

### A SSOCIATED WITH 

### W OOD 

### S MOKE BY 

### S TUDY 

### Y EAR 

### ( N 

### = 2,625)



### Figures 37 and 38 display how adults in the Bay Area differ in their opinions about the health impacts of wood smoke based on their county of residence and ag e, respectively. Although there were some notable differences by county, atti tudes about the health-impacts of wood smoke bore little relationship to respondent age. 13.5 15.0 12.0

Yes, negative health effects

from wood

smoke 65.9 49.0 59.0 66.6 No negative health effects

from wood

smoke

23.5 39.0 26.0 19.9 Not sure

10.7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2005 2004 2003 2002 Study Year% RespondentsAttitudes about Wood Smoke



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 36 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F IGURE 

### 37 P ERCEIVE 

### N EGATIVE 

### H EALTH 

### E FFECTS ARE 

### A SSOCIATED WITH 

### W OOD 

### S MOKE BY 

### C OUNTY 

### ( N 

### = 2,625)

F IGURE 

### 38 P ERCEIVE 

### N EGATIVE 

### H EALTH 

### E FFECTS ARE 

### A SSOCIATED WITH 

### W OOD 

### S MOKE BY 

### A GE 

### ( N 

### = 2,625) 73.0

58.0 67.5
54.4 67.3 66.2 65.2 64.0 66.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Santa Clara San Francisco San Mateo Marin Sonoma Solano Alameda Napa Contra Costa County% Respondents



### 66.1 65.2 61.7 64.2 68.4 69.8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 and over Age% RespondentsAttitudes about Wood Smoke



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 37 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

### Respondents who perceived wood smoke to have negative health impacts (Question 27) were next asked to identify what the specific health effects are of breathing wood smoke. Multiple responses were allowed for this question, so th e percentages shown in Figure 39 represent the percentage of respondents who mentioned a particular health ef fect. The most common response (36%) was a general reference to lung disease, followed by a specific reference to asthma (24%). Approximately 12% of respondents mentioned properties of wood -- chemicals,carcinogens and toxins -- that are released when burned, and an additional 10% mentioned carbon monoxide. Overall, 17% of those who perce ived that wood smoke had negative health impacts could not name a specific impact. 13 

### Question 28 What are the negative health effects associated with breathing wood smoke?
F IGURE 

### 39 P ERCEIVED 

### N EGATIVE 

### E FFECTS OF 

### B REATHING 

### W OOD 

### S MOKE 

### ( N 

### = 1,730)



## WOOD SMOKE A NEIGHBORHOOD PROBLEM? Most adults recognize that there are negative health impacts due to wood smoke. But do they think that their neighborhood has a wood smoke problem? To answer this question, the survey first informed respondents that different neighborhoods in the Bay Area experienc e different levels of air pollution from wood smoke. Respondents were then asked to indicate whether, in their opinion, their neighborhood periodically experiences air pollution from w ood smoke. Those who perceived their neighborhood to have an occasional wood smoke problem were asked in a follow-up question to identify

13.The structure of this question wa s changed somewhat from th at used in 2004, so a direct comparison of results is not provided. 

### 3.3 4.2 4.7 8.8 9.7 12.3 17.0 23.9 36.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 

### Bronchitis Emphysema Allergies

Cancer Carbon monoxide Toxins in wood Not sure

Asthma Lung disease

% RespondentsAttitudes about Wood Smoke



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 38 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

### the magnitude of the problem. The answers to both of these questions are combined in Figure 40. Overall, 18% of adults surveyed indicated that their neighborhood periodically experiences air pollution from wood smoke. Twelve percent (1 2%) stated that the problem was a small one, 4% indicated it was a moderate or medium problem, and 1% felt that air pollution due to wood smoke was a big problem in their neighborhood. Question 29 Different neighborhoods in the Bay Area experience different levels of air pollution from wood smoke. In your opinion, does yourneighborhood periodically experience air pollution from wood smoke? Question 30 Would you say that periodic air pollution from wood smoke in your neighborhood is a big problem, medium problem or a small problem?
F IGURE 

### 40 P ERCEPTION OF 

### P ERIODIC 

### W OOD 

### S MOKE 

### P ROBLEM IN 

### N EIGHBORHOOD 

### ( N 

### = 2,625)



### Figure 41 shows how the answers to Questions 29 and 30 varied by study year and by county within the Bay Area in 2005. Overall, perceptions of wood smoke being a neighborhood problemdid not change significantly between 2004 and 2005. Among the nine member counties, perceptions of wood smoke as being at least a moderate problem were greatest in Marin (24%), Napa (22%), and Contra Costa (22%) counties. Experience wood smoke pollution 17.7

Not sure 0.3 Small problem 12.3 Do not experience wood smoke pollution

74.4 Big problem 1.1 Medium problem 4.0 Not sure 7.9Attitudes about Wood Smoke



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 39 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F IGURE 

### 41 P ERCEPTION OF 

### W OOD 

### S MOKE 

### P ROBLEM IN 

### N EIGHBORHOOD BY 

### S TUDY 

### Y EAR 

### & C OUNTY 

### ( N 

### = 2,625)

86.3 75.3 81.9 82.4 81.2 76.9 77.9 9.6 18.4 13.6 13.9 12.0 17.4 16.3 4.4 5.6 3.6 3.0 3.9 5.5 4.1 2.5 6.1 4.9 5.5

86.1 78.5 80.1 81.1 12.8 15.7 8.5 13.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2005 2004 Santa Clara San Francisco San Mateo Marin Sonoma Solano Alameda Napa Contra Costa Study Year County% Households Big problem

Medium problem

Small problem

Do not experience wood smoke pollutionChanging Heating Device



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 40 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

# C HANGING 

# H EATING 

# D EVICE Reducing the amount of air pollution caused by wood burning is the ultimate goal of the Spare the Air Tonight Program. Toward this end, the Pr ogram adopts both direct and indirect strategies. Direct strategies encourage individuals to si mply not use their firepl ace, wood stove or pellet stove -- or to use it less frequently. For re spondents who depend on their fireplace or stove for heat, however, this strategy may not be practi cal or effective. For th ese and other individuals, the Program also employs strategies to reduce wood smoke pollutants indirectly -- that is, by changing the type of fuel burned and/or the efficiency of the heat ing device, rather than the frequency of burning. To understand the potential impact that these indirect strategies may have on air pollution from wood smoke, the first task is to develop a profil e of the specific type of heating devices that are owned by Bay Area residents. In addition to understanding the number of fireplaces, wood stoves and pellet stoves that are owned by respondents (see Heating Devices on page 9) and the type of fuel that they burn (see Fuel Type & Sourceon page 11), respondents with wood stoves or pellet stoves were also asked to identify whet her their stove is EPA certified. Figure 42 shows that in 2005 most respondents (59%) thought that their stove was EPA certified, whereas 13% indicated that it was not and 28% were unsure. The 2004 results are also shown in Figure 42 for comparison. Question 31 Is your woodstove or pellet stove EPA cert ified? If not sure, clarify: Wood stoves and pellet stoves manufactured after 1992 ar e EPA certified, while older ones are not.
F IGURE 

### 42 W OODSTOVE OR 

### P ELLET 

### S TOVE 

### EPA C ERTIFIED BY 

### S TUDY 

### Y EAR 

### ( N 

### = 328)

22.7

61.3 Yes, EPA certified

59.3 16.0 No, not EPA

certified

12.8 Not sure

27.9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2005 2004 Study Year% Households with Woodstove or Pellet StoveChanging Heating Device



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 41 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

## WILLINGNESS TO CHANGE HEATING DEVICE For respondents who owned a woodburning fireplace and/or a non-EP A certified wood stove or pellet stove, the survey next inquired as to whether the respondent would be willing to replace their current device with a gas fireplace (Question 32) or EPA certified wood stove or pellet stove (Question 33) that would burn much cleaner and be less polluting. The responses to both of these questions are presented in Figure 43. Overall, 28% of respondents in 2005 were willing to replace their current device with a gas fireplace, whereas a slightly higher percentag e (34%) were willing to replace their device with an EPA certified wood stove or pellet stove. The results are statistically similar to those found in 2004. Question 32 Gas fireplaces and EPA certified wood stov es, inserts or pellet stoves burn much cleaner and are less polluting than traditional fireplaces or old wood stoves. Would you be willingto replace your traditional fireplace, non-EPA certified woodstove or pellet stove with a gas fireplace? Question 33 Would you be willing to replace your traditional fireplace, non-EPA certified woodstove or pellet stove with an EPA certified woodstove or pellet stove?
F IGURE 

### 43 W ILLINGNESS TO 

### R EPLACE 

### F IREPLACE OR 

### S TOVE WITH 

### EPA C ERTIFIED 

### M ODEL 

### ( N 

### = 913)



### Figures 44 and 45 show the proportion of resp ondents who were admini stered these questions that were willing to replace thei r fireplace or non-EPA certified st ove, respectively, with a cleaner burning model by county and age. Interestingly, although residents in all counties displayed agreater willing to replace a current device with an EPA certified wood burning model when compared to a gas model, this disparity was partic ularly pronounced among Sonoma County residents -- who also happen to be the group with the highest proportion of frequent wood burners. 6.5 10.9 9.1

Yes, willin g to replace

27.5 30.0 33.6 32.6 No, not willing

to replace 62.6 60.9 55.6 60.9 Not sure 9.9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2005 2004 2005 2004 Q31 Replace traditional fireplace or stove with gas model? Q32 Replace traditional fireplace or stove with EPA certified model?% Households with Non-EPA CertifiedWood-burning DeviceChanging Heating Device



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 42 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

### Willingness to replace an existing device with an EPA certified device generally declined with age (see Figure 45).
F IGURE 

### 44 W ILLINGNESS TO 

### R EPLACE 

### F IREPLACE OR 

### S TOVE WITH 

### EPA C ERTIFIED 

### M ODEL BY 

### C OUNTY 

### ( N 

### = 913)

F IGURE 

### 45 W ILLINGNESS TO 

### R EPLACE 

### F IREPLACE OR 

### S TOVE WITH 

### EPA C ERTIFIED 

### M ODEL BY 

### A GE 

### ( N 

### = 913)



### Questions 32 and 33 measured respondents’ willingness to replace their current heating devices in the absence of a financial incentive to do so. For those respondents who were unwilling to 20.3 23.2 32.9

18.9 23.7 37.8
30.8 28.7 26.6 24.4 28.4 30.7 26.9 43.1

32.5 31.0 32.4 35.2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Santa Clara San Francisco San Mateo Marin Sonoma Solano Alameda Napa Contra Costa County% Households with Non-EPA CertifiedWood-burning Device Willing to replace traditional fireplace or stove with gas model Willing to replace traditional fireplace or stove with EPA certified model

28.8 27.3 34.7

23.6 29.1 30.1 60.0

32.9 32.4 37.9

28.1 26.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 and over Age% Households with Non-EPA CertifiedWood-burning Device Willing to replace traditional fireplace or stove with gas model Willing to replace traditional fireplace or stove with EPA certified modelChanging Heating Device



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 43 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

### replace their current device in this context, the survey next inquired as to whether they would do so if they were offered a financial incentive.In Question 34, respondents who indicated that they were unwilling to replace their current heating device for a cleaner alternative (Questions 32 and 33) were first informed that there is a government sponsored program that offers rebate s to residents who replace their traditional fireplace or non-EPA certified stove with a gas fireplace or EPA certified wood stove or pellet stove. They were then asked if they would part icipate in this program knowing that they would receive a $200 rebate. For those who remained unwilling at $200, rates of $300, $400 and $500 were tested in sequential order. As shown in Figure 46, 10% of those who were initially unwilling to replace their heating device for a cleaner alternative were willing to do so if a $200 rebate were offered. As the amount of the rebate increased to $300, $400 and $500, the proportion of respondents who indicated that they would participate in the program increased to 13%, 16% and 23%, respectively. Combining residents who are willing to replace their current devices without a financial incentive (see Figure 43) with those who require $200 suggests approximately 38% of the target population would be receptive to a modest rebate program. Question 34 There is a government sponsored program that offers rebates to residents whoreplace their traditional fireplace or non-EPA certified woodstove or pellet stove with a gas fireplace or EPA certified woodstove or pellet stove. If you knew that you could receive a rebate of: _____ dollars, would you participate in this program?
F IGURE 

### 46 W ILLINGNESS TO 

### P ARTICIPATE IN 

### G OVERNMENT 

### -S PONSORED 

### R EBATE 

### P ROGRAM 

### ( N 

### = 511)

12.8 16.0 23.2 Yes 10.1 68.2 64.3 58.9 No 70.9 17.9 Not sure

19.0 19.0 19.7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

$200 rebate $300 rebate $400 rebate $500 rebate Q34 Willing to replace non-EPA heating device for . . .% Households with Non-EPA Certified Wood-burning DeviceUnwilling to Voluntarily Replace Heating DeviceChanging Heating Device



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 44 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

## RECALL NEWS STORY, ADVERTISE MENT OR ANNOUNCEMENT? Two counties (Santa Clara and Marin) that are served by the BAAQMD currently offer rebate programs similar to that described above that part ially reimburse residents for the cost of replacing a traditional fireplace with a gas fireplace or an EPA certified fireplace, wood stove or pellet stove. In Questions 35 and 36, respondents who reside in thes e two counties were asked if -- in the three months prior to taking the interview -- they had heard, read or seen any news stories, advertisements or public service announcements about thei r county’s program. The answers to this question are shown for Santa Clara County and Mari n County in Figures 47 and 48, respectively. Overall, just 6% of Santa Clar a County residents -- and 4% of Marin County residents -- could recall hearing, reading or seeing a news story, advertisement or public service announcement about the rebate program. The proportion of thos e who recalled exposure to the rebate program remained virtually unchanged from that recor ded in 2004 for Santa Clara residents, but was lower in 2005 among Marin County residents. Question 35 Santa Clara County has a program to offe r residents a rebate for replacing a traditional fireplace with a gas burning fireplace or an EPA certified fireplace, woodstove or pellet stove. In the past three months, have you heard, read or seen any news stories, advertisements or public service announcements about this program?
F IGURE 

### 47 S ANTA

### C LARA

### C OUNTY 

### P ROGRAM 

### A WARENESS BY 

### S TUDY 

### Y EAR

### ( N 

### = 637)

Heard about

program 5.7 5.5 Did not hear about program

93.4 93.9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2005 2004 Study Year% Santa Clara County RespondentsChanging Heating Device



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 45 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

### Question 36 Marin County has a program to offer residents a rebate for replacing a traditional fireplace with a gas burning fireplace or an EPA certified fireplace, woodstove or pellet stove. In the past three months, have you heard, read or seen any news stories, advertisements or public service announcements about this program?
F IGURE 

### 48 M ARIN 

### C OUNTY 

### P ROGRAM 

### A WARENESS BY 

### S TUDY 

### Y EAR 

### ( N 

### = 109)



## POLICY ATTITUDES The final three questions in this series measured residents’ support for several policy changes designed to improve the air quality in th e region. In Question 37, all respondents were asked whether they would suppo rt a local policy that would require all new housing construction to use only gas fireplaces or EPA certified fireplace inserts, wood stoves or pellet stoves. Question 38 measured respondent support for a local policy that prohibits wood burning on nights when air pollution is expected to reach unhealthy levels. Finally, Question 39 inquired as to residents’ willingness to support a policy that would require older wood stoves to be removed or replaced with a less polluting model when a home is sold to a new owner. The answers to all three questions have been combined in Figure 49. For each of the policies tested, the predominant po sition was one of support for the policy. Sixtyone percent (61%) supported requiring all new housin g construction to use only gas or EPA certified models, 74% favored prohibit ed wood burning on nights when air pollution is expected to reach unhealthy levels, and 50% favored requirin g the replacement of older woodstoves with a cleaner burning model when a home is sold to a new owner. 7.1 Heard about

program 3.6 89.3 Did not hear about program

96.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2005 2004 Study Year% Marin County RespondentsChanging Heating Device



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 46 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

### Question 37 Local governments throughout the Bay Area are considering a policy that would require all new housing construction to use only gas fireplaces or EPA certified fireplace inserts, wood stoves or pellet stoves. Would you support or oppose this policy? Question 38 In some areas, local governments have a policy that prohibits wood burning on nights when air pollution is expected to reach unhealthy levels. Would you support or oppose a policy like this in your area? Question 39 In some areas, local governments require that when a home that contains an older woodstove is sold to a new owner, the stove must be removed -- or replaced with a new stove or fireplace that causes less pollution. Wo uld you support or oppose a policy like this in your area?
F IGURE 

### 49 S UPPORT FOR

### P ROPOSED 

### P OLICY 

### C HANGES 

### ( N 

### = 2,625)



### Question 37 was also asked in 2004 and -- as shown in Figure 50 -- public opinion on this matter has not changed in the past year. For the intere sted reader, Figures 51- 53 show how support for each policy varied by county, age, household inco me, and the type of home in which a respondent lived. Perhaps the most interesting pattern in the results is that support for the replacement of older woodstoves when a home is sold to a new owner was notably lower among those age groups and income brackets that are likely to be home owners, as well as those who live in the type of home (detached) that is most likely to have a wood stove. 7.4 10.1

Support

61.0 49.8 73.9 Oppose

24.1 40.1 18.7 Not sure

14.9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Q37 Gas fireplace or EPA certified model requirement in new housing Q38 Prohibiting burning on nights with unhealthy air pollution levels Q39 Required replacement of older wood stove upon sale of home% RespondentsChanging Heating Device



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 47 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F IGURE 

### 50 S UPPORT FOR

### P ROPOSED 

### EPA C ERTIFICATION 

### R EQUIREMENTS IN 

### N EW

### H OUSING 

### C ONSTRUCTION BY 

### S TUDY 

### YE AR 

### ( N 

### = 2,625)

F IGURE 

### 51 S UPPORT FOR

### P ROPOSED 

### P OLICY 

### C HANGES BY 

### C OUNTY 

### ( N 

### = 2,625) 16.6

62.9 Support

61.0 20.6 Oppose

24.1 Not sure

14.9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2005 2004 Study Year% Respondents

60.9 54.7 61.3 53.1 57.7 70.0 69.0 79.1

49.5 50.2 47.3 49.6 56.9

45.8 50.3 46.8 50.7 63.7 70.2 62.3 59.2 75.7 79.1 78.1 74.2
65.4 67.3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Santa Clara San Francisco San Mateo Marin Sonoma Solano Alameda Napa Contra Costa
County% Respondents Support g as fireplace or EPA certified model requirement in new housin g Support prohibiting burning on nights with unhealthy air pollution levels Support required replacement of older wood stove upon sale of homeChanging Heating Device



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 48 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F IGURE 

### 52 S UPPORT FOR

### P ROPOSED 

### P OLICY 

### C HANGES BY 

### A GE 

### ( N 

### = 2,625)

F IGURE 

### 53 S UPPORT FOR

### P ROPOSED 

### P OLICY 

### C HANGES BY 

### H OUSEHOLD 

### I NCOME 

### & H OME 

### T YPE 

### ( N 

### = 2,625) 57.7 58.3 62.7

50.4 47.0 48.5 49.8 47.5 58.0 60.3 67.7 65.7 74.6 79.0

68.6 76.2 77.9 71.3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 and over Age% Respondents Support g as fireplace or EPA certified model requirement in new housin g Support prohibiting burning on nights with unhealthy air pollution levels Support required replacement of older wood stove upon sale of home

62.7 57.6 52.7 64.6 70.7 63.6 59.3 70.1 80.9 74.7 75.4 68.4
59.4 58.9 53.0 45.3 38.3 42.6 56.1 67.0

53.3 46.4 60.4 60.6 65.1 65.9 63.2 75.1 78.7 75.3 75.4 73.3 71.6

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Under $50K $50K to $74K $75K to $99K $100K to $149K $150K to $199K $200K or more Apartment Condo Townhome Detached Mobile home
Household Income Home Type% Respondents Support gas fireplace or EPA certified model requirement in new housing Support prohibiting burning on nights with unhealthy air pollution levels Support required replacement of older wood stove upon sale of homePerceptions of Entities



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 49 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

# P ERCEPTIONS O F 

# E NTITIES To identify and track perceptions of the BAAQ MD and the Spare the Ai r Tonight Campaign, a series of three questions was presented to re spondents to measure th eir awareness and opinions of the agency and the program, as well th eir recent exposure to information about each. Because these questions were asked in an identical manner in the 2004, 2003 and 2002 winter surveys, the results from these stud ies are also shown for comparison. 

## AWARENESS Figure 54 shows that awareness of the BAAQMD (56%) remained statistically similar to awareness of the agency in prior years. The same is true of awareness of the Spare the Air Tonight Campaign (46%). Question 40 Let's change gears a bit. Have you ever heard of the _____?
F IGURE 

### 54 A WARENESS OF 

### BAAQMD & S PARE THE 

### A IR 

### T ONIGHT 

### C AMPAIGN BY 

### S TUDY 

### Y EAR

### ( N 

### = 2,625)



### Across the nine member counties, awareness of the BAAQMD was highest in Marin County (69%) and lowest in San Francisco (49%). Awareness of the Spare the Air Tonight Program displayed less variation, ranging from a high of 56% in Sonoma County to a low of 43% in San Francisco County (see Figure 55). 46.4 47.7 49.8 48.0 50.2 52.0

57.1 60.5 59.0 Yes 55.8 52.3 53.6 42.9 39.5 41.0 No 44.2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2005 2004 2003 2002 2005 2004 2003 2002 Q40a Heard of Bay Area Air Quality Management District Q40b Heard of Spare the Air Tonight Campaign% RespondentsPerceptions of Entities



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 50 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F IGURE 

### 55 A WARENESS OF 

### BAAQMD & S PARE THE 

### A IR 

### T ONIGHT 

### C AMPAIGN BY 

### C OUNTY 

### ( N 

### = 2,625)



## OPINIONS Respondents who had heard of an entity were next asked whether their opinion of the entity was favorable, unfavorable, or neutral. Figure 56 displays the findings of these questions in 2005, as well as the findings from the 2004 and 2003 studies. 14 

### Of the individuals who received the question in 2005, half (51%) held a favorable opinion of the BAAQMD, whereas 38% held a neutral opinion and just 8% held an unfavorable opinion. When compared to the opinions recorded in the prev ious studies, opinions of the BAAQMD have become increasingly favorable -- from 29% favorable in 2003 to 51% favorable in 2005. The same is also true of public opinion regarding the Spare the Air Tonight Campaign, although the trend is less pronounced. Wh ereas 56% of respondents who had heard of the campaign held a favorable opinion of it in 2003, the corresponding percentage for 2005 was substantially higher at 64%.

14.The response options for these questions were more li mited in the 2002 study, so comparisons are not provided in Figure 56. 63.4 56.5 59.1 56.6 59.7

43.5 46.2 50.4 49.2 69.3

58.8
48.8 45.9 45.9 47.1 43.3 55.7
46.6

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Santa Clara San Francisco San Mateo Marin Sonoma Solano Alameda Napa Contra Costa County% Respondents Heard of Bay Area Air Quality Management District Heard of Spare the Air Tonight CampaignPerceptions of Entities



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 51 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

### Question 41 Generally speaking, would you say you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the _____, or do you have no opinion either way? Get answer and ask: Would that be very or somewhat favorable / unfavorable?
F IGURE 

### 56 O PINIONS OF 

### BAAQMD & S PARE THE 

### A IR 

### C AMPAIGN BY 

### S TUDY 

### Y EAR

### (BAAQMD: N 

### = 1,466; STA T ONIGHT

### C AMPAIGN 

### : N 

### = 1,218)



## EXPOSURE TO INFORMATION The last question in this series asked respondents whether they recalled hearing, reading or seeing any news stories, advertisements or public service announcements about the BAAQMD and/or the Spare the Air Tonigh t Program in the six months prior to the interview. As shown in Figure 57, the proportion of respondents who recalled being exposed to information about the BAAQMD during this period was 35%, upslightly from 33% in 2004. On the other hand, the proportion of respondents who recalled exposure to the Spare the Air Tonight Program was 43%, down slightly from 49% in 2004. With respect to the Program, however, it may be that the disparity between 2004 and 2005 is partially a reflection of the timing of the interviewing. As noted previously in this report, the 2004 surveys were conducted at the end of the season, whic h maximized a respondent’s opportunity to be exposed to information about the Program. In terviews for the 2005-2006 season were distributed throughout the season, which meant that some respondents would have had a much more limited opportunity to be ex posed to the campaign. For the interested reader, Figures 58 and 59 display the percentage of all respondents who recalled hearing, reading or seei ng information about the BAAQMD and the Spare the Air Tonight Program -- not just among those who had heard of the agency or program as shown in Figure 57. Among all respondents, recalled exposure was gr eatest for both the agency and the program among Contra Costa residents (see Figure 58), th ose with heating devices in the home (see Figure 59), and respondents between the ages of 45 and 54 (see Figure 59). 34.4 23.6 42.0 58.3 25.7 28.4 35.2 3.4 4.3 4.1 2.2 3.6 2.5 4.4 3.3 5.8 2.5 3.8 5.1 2.9 5.2 4.6 4.0

20.1† 31.6

9.1 15.8 30.7 32.1

19.8 29.5 28.1
32.2 37.6 3.2† 0.9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2005 2004 2003 2005 2004 2003 Q41a Opinion of Bay Area Air Quality Management District Q41b Opinion of Spare the Air Tonight Campaign% Respondents who Had Heard of Entity Not sure

Very unfavorable

Somewhat unfavorable

No opinion

Somewhat favorable

Very favorablePerceptions of Entities



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 52 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

### Question 42 In the past six months, have you heard, read, or seen any news stories, advertisements, or public service announcements about the _____?
F IGURE 

### 57 E NCOUNTERED 

### I NFO ABOUT 

### BAAQMD & S PARE THE 

### A IR 

### T ONIGHT

### C AMPAIGN IN 

### P AST

### S IX 

### M ONTHS BY 

### S TUDY 

### Y EAR

### (BAAQMD: N 

### = 1,466; STA T ONIGHT 

### C AMPAIGN 

### : N 

### = 1,218)

F IGURE 

### 58 E NCOUNTERED 

### I NFO ABOUT 

### BAAQMD & S PARE THE 

### A IR 

### T ONIGHT

### C AMPAIGN IN 

### P AST

### S IX 

### M ONTHS BY 

### C OUNTY 

### ( N 

### = 2,625) 42.6 48.5 52.3 45.0 47.2 54.0 6.5 6.2 5.4

Yes 35.1 40.0 28.9 33.3 No 58.5 59.0 70.7 60.3 51.2 46.1 Not sure

6.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2005 2004 2003 2002 2005 2004 2003 2002 Q42a Heard, read, or saw news, ads, PSAs about Bay Area Air Quality Management District in past six months Q42a Heard, read, or saw news, ads, PSAs about Spare the Air Tonight Campaign in past six months% Respondents who Had Heard of Entity

21.0 20.4 18.5 20.0 21.0 25.4
22.2

17.0 15.2 26.7

19.6 19.2 18.2 16.6 19.8 18.9 18.4 19.2 19.4 20.3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

BAAQMD District Overall Santa Clara San Francisco San Mateo Marin Sonoma Solano Alameda Napa Contra Costa
County% Respondents Heard, read, or saw BAAQMD info in past six months Heard, read, or saw STA Tonight Campaign info in past six monthsPerceptions of Entities



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 53 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F IGURE 

### 59 E NCOUNTERED 

### I NFO ABOUT 

### BAAQMD & S PARE THE 

### A IR 

### T ONIGHT

### C AMPAIGN IN 

### P AST

### S IX 

### M ONTHS BY 

### H EATING 

### D EVICE IN 

### H OME 

### & A GE 

### ( N 

### = 2,625)

21.2 28.4

24.4

17.5 21.0

17.9 21.7

16.1

4.6 15.9 22.9

18.3

11.4 14.2 20.5 25.8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Yes No 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 and over Heating Device in Home Age% Respondents Heard, read, or saw BAAQMD info in past six months Heard, read, or saw STA Tonight Campaign info in past six monthsBackground & Demographics



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 54 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

# B ACKGROUND 

# & D EMOGRAPHICS Table 6 displays the demographic and backgro und information collected during the survey. Because of the sampling methodology used in the study as well as the weighting scheme, the results shown below are representative of the ad ult population within the nine-county District. 15

### The demographic and background information was used to monitor the sample during data collection, as well as provide insight into how the results of the substantive questions of the survey vary across important subgroups of adults.
T ABLE 

### 6 B ACKGROUND AND 

### D EMOGRAPHICS 

### ( N 

### = 2,625)

15.For more information on the sampling method and data collection protocol, please refer to Methodology on page 55. 2005 2004 2003 2002 Total Respondents 2,625 700 400 400 Drivers in Household % % % %

Zero to one 27 27 31 32 Two to three 64 65 59 60 Four or more 7 7 10 8 Refused 2211 Age

18 to 29 20 11 16 15 30 to 39 22 19 19 18 40 to 49 20 23 21 18 50 to 64 19 18 25 27 65 and over 14 21 13 18 Refused 5875 Home Type

Apartment 21 20 21 16 Condo 6452 Town home 8854 Single-family detached 60 63 66 73 Mobile home 2224 Refused 4331 Age of Home

0 to 10 years 11 10 14 20 11 to 20 years 14 10 9 18 21 to 30 years 13 12 14 20 31 to 40 years 13 13 15 10 41 to 50 years 10 11 14 8 Over 50 years 27 30 18 10 Not sure / Refused 13 14 16 15 Household Income

Under $50,000 21 22 24 33 $50,000 to $74,999 16 18 17 20 $75,000 to $99,999 15 16 16 13 $100,000 to $149,999 17 14 15 9 $150,000 to $199,999 6633 $200,000 or more 7462 Not sure / Refused 18 19 20 21 Gender

Male 48 43 45 44 Female 52 57 55 56 County

Alameda 21 23 22 - Contra Costa 14 15 14 - Marin 444 - Napa 222 - San Francisco 13 14 14 - San Mateo 11 10 11 - Santa Clara 24 23 23 - Solano 635 - Sonoma 556 - Study YearMethodology



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 55 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

# M ETHODOLOGY This section of the report outlines the methodology and protocols used when conducting this study, as well as the motivation for employing certain techniques. 

## QUESTIONNAIRE With the questionnaire used in 2004 as a starting point, Dr. McLarney of True North Research worked closely with the B AAQMD to develop and refine an improved survey instrument for the 2005 study. To more reliably measure the quantity of wood burned by eachperson, the relevant questions were revised in 2005 to focus on the amount they burned in a typical fire -- rather than for the entire season as in 2004. Questions were also added to the 2005 instrument to capture the type of wood burned, the source of the wood, the duration of the typical fire, the primary reason for burning wood, as well as changes in wood burning when compared to the prior season. The 2005 questionnaire also incorporated severa l improvements that were first implemented in 2004. The most notable of these changes ad dressed how the questionnaire measured the impacts of the Spare the Air Tonight Program. Th e changes were made so that the impacts of the winter program on wood burning behavior woul d be measured using the same basic methodology employed by the BAAQMD -- and recommended by CARB and EPA 16 

### -- to measure the impacts of the summer Spare the Air Program on driving behavior. 17 

### Because these improvements often involved chan ging the wording, format and/or response options for a particular question, it is not possi ble to statistically compare the results of the 2005 survey with previous surve ys for select measures. Where such comparisons are possible, however, this report presents the results from past surveys. 

## CATI & PRE-TEST Before fielding the survey, the qu estionnaire was CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing ) programmed to assist the liv e interviewers when conducting the interviews. The CATI program automatically navigates the skip patterns, randomizes the appropriate question items, and alerts the inte rviewer to certain types of keypunching mistakes should they happen during the in terview. The integrity of the qu estionnaire was pre-tested internally by True North and by dialing into random homes within the District prior to formally beginning the survey. Two training sessions were conducted to familiarize interviewers with the study and to answer questions and clarify details of the study.

16.The CARB/EPA Method is summarized in the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) journal -- Transportation Research Record -- for 2004 in an article entitled Development of a Quantificati on Method for Measuring the Travel and Emissions Impacts of Episodic Ozone Alert Programs (pages 153-159). It is described in detail in the following air resources guidance report: CARB, “Q uantification Method Reference Manual: A Method to Measure Travel and Emissions Impacts of Ozone Action Public Education Programs,” April 2003. In addition to Eric Schreffler, Dr. Timothy McLa rney and Richard Sarles, the TRB paper and guidance report were coauthored by Joann Lu and Jeff Weir of CARB, as well as Thomas Higgins and Dr. Will Johnson of K.T. Analytics. 17.For a detailed description of the updated CARB/EPA Method and its application to the BAAQMD’s summer Spare the Air Program, see the Spare the Air Study: 2004 Summer Ozone Season report prepared for the BAAQMD by True North & ESTC.Methodology



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 56 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

## SAMPLE & WEIGHTING Because the primary focus of the study was to gather information from adults who reside within th e District, households were chos en for this study using a random digit dial (RDD) sampling method. An RDD sample is drawn by first selecting all of the active phone exchanges (first three digits in a seven digit phone nu mber) and working blocks that service the area. After estimating the nu mber of listed households within each phone exchange that are located within the area, a sample of randomly selected phone numbers is generated with the number of phone numbers per ex change being proportional to the estimated number of households within ea ch exchange in the area. This method ensures that both listed and unlisted households are included in the sample . It also ensures that new residents and new developments have an opportunit y to participate in the study, which is not true if the sample were based on a telephone directory. Although the RDD method is widely used for local and regional surveys, the method also has several known limitations that must be adjusted for to ensure representative data. Research has shown, for example, that indivi duals with certain demographic pr ofiles (e.g., older women) are more likely to be at home and are more likely to answer the phone even when other members of the household are available. If this tendency is not adjusted for, the RDD sampling method will produce a survey that is biased in favor of women -- particularly older women. To adjust for this behavioral tendency, the survey included a screen ing question which initially asked to speak tothe youngest male adult available in the home. If a male adult was not available, then the interviewer was instructed to speak to the youngest female adult currently available. This protocol was followed -- to the extent needed -- to ensure a representative sample of adults. In addition to following this protocol, the samp le demographics were monitore d as the interviewing proceededto make sure they were within certain tolerances. Because the District is composed of seven complete counties and two partial counties, responde nts were initially asked the ZIP code of their residence so that only those within the Dist rict’s boundaries were included in the study. To accommodate the District’s interest in obtaining statistically reliable estimates within each of the nine member counties, as well as to explor e the relationship between both weather and special events on wood burning beh avior, the study employed a sa mpling strategy that involved stratification by county, month, and day type with strategic oversampling for select counties and day types. To adjust for the oversampling, the raw data were then weighted by day type, respondent age, and adult population estimates by co unty prior to analyses and presentation. The results presented in this report are the weighted results, which are represen tative at the Districtwide level, as well as within the nine member counties. 

## MARGIN OF ERROR By using an RDD probability-based sample and monitoring the sample characteristics as data collection proceeded, True North ensured that the sample was representative of adults and households in the District. Th e results of the sample can thus be used to estimate the opinions of all adults -- and characteristics of all households -- in the District. Because not every adult or household in the District participated, however, the results have what is known as a statistical margin of error due to sampling. For household characteristics, the margin of error refers to the difference between what wa s found in the survey of 2,625 households for aparticular question and what would have been found if all of the estimated 2,432,147 households in the District had been interviewed.Methodology



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 57 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

### For example, in estimating the percentage of ho useholds who have at least one heating device in their home, the margin of error can be calculated if one knows the number of households in the District, the size of the sample, a chosen confi dence level, and the distribution of responses to the question. The appropriate equati on for estimating the margin of error, in this case, is shown below.

where is the proportion of households who in dicated that they have at least one heating device in their home (0.639 for 63.9%, for exampl e), is the total number of households in the District (2,432,147), is the sample size that received the question (2,625), and is the upper point for the t-distribution with degrees of freedom (1.9 6 for a 95% confidence interval). Solving this equation using these values re veals a margin of error of +/- 1.84%. This means that, with 63.9% of sampled househ olds indicating that they own at least one heating device, one can be 95 percent confident that the actual percentage is between 62% and 66%. Figure 60 provides a graphic plot of the maximum margin of error in this study. The maximum margin of error for a dichotomous percentage re sult occurs when the answers are evenly split such that 50% provide one response and 50% prov ide the alternative response (i.e., =0.5). For this survey, the maximum margin of error is 1. 91% for District-wide estimates, and ranges from 5.92% to 6.64% for estimates within counties.
F IGURE 

### 60 M AXIMUM 

### M ARGIN OF 

### E RROR 

### P LOT 

## p ˆ t N n

– N ------------     p ˆ 1 p ˆ

– ( ) n 1

– ------------------- ±

p ˆ N n t
α 2

⁄ n 1

–

p ˆ

Sample within counties +/- 5.92% to

+/- 6.64% Sample of 2,625 Households ± 1.91%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%0100200300400500600700800900100011001200130014001500160017001800190020002100220023002400250026002700280029003000 

### Sample Size (Number of Households)Margin of ErrorMethodology



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 58 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

### Within this report, figures and tables show how responses to ce rtain questions varied by county, as well as by demographic char acteristics such as presence of a heating device, respondent age, etc. Because the margin of error grows exponent ially as the sample size decreases (see the left side of Figure 60), the reader should use cautio n when generalizing and interpreting the results of questions received by only a small percentage of the sample or when comparing results within subgroups of respondents. 

## DATA COLLECTION Interviews were conducted via te lephone during weekday evenings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM) on randomly selected dates between November 22, 2005 and February 17, 2006. It is standard practice not to call during the day on weekdays because most working adul ts are unavailable and thus ca lling during those hours would bias the sample. Table 7 displays the number of interviews completed in each county, and Table 8 displays the date, day type, and number of interviews completed for the entire season.
T ABLE 

### 7 C OMPLETED 

### I NTERVIEWS BY 

### C OUNTY 

### (U NWEIGHTED 

### )

T ABLE 

### 8 I NTERVIEW

### D ATES 

### (U NWEIGHTED 

### ) County Completed Interviews Alameda 305 Contra Costa 337 Marin 292 Napa 309 San Francisco 284 San Mateo 293 Santa Clara 288 Solano 288 Sonoma 229

Date Completed Interviews Day Prior to Interview Nov 22 108 Weekday Nov 25 105 Holiday Nov 26 104 Holiday Nov 28 103 Weekend Nov 30 100 Weekday Dec 6 101 Weekday Dec 7 100 Weekday Dec 12 103 Weekend Dec 13 104 Weekday Dec 16 106 Weekday Dec 22 112 Weekday Dec 26 99 Holiday Dec 27 67 Holiday Jan 3 101 Weekday Jan 4 101 Weekday Jan 9 105 Weekend Jan 12 98 Weekday Jan 21 98 Weekday Jan 22 92 Weekend Jan 23 105 Weekend Jan 24 100 Weekday Jan 27 100 Weekday Jan 29 80 Weekend Feb 13 131 Weekend Feb 14 45 Weekday Feb 15 72 Weekday Feb 16 47 Weekday Feb 17 38 WeekdayMethodology



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 59 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

## DATA PROCESSING Data processing consisted of checking the data for errors or inconsistencies, coding and recoding responses, catego rizing open-end responses, and preparing frequency analyses and crosstabulat ions. Because the research objectives involved comparing the 2005 results with those of prior studies, where appropriate, True Nort h also accessed and processed data from the 2004, 2003 and 2002 winter season surveys to allow for meaningful comparisons. Additionally, meteorological data su pplied by the BAAQMD including precipitation, temperature and heating degree days was merged to the survey data based on the reference day and ZIP code. 

## ROUNDING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole number, whereas numbers that end in 0.4 or lower are rounded down to the nearest whole number. These same rounding rules are also applied, when needed, to arrive at numbers that include a decimal place in constructing figures and charts. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place wh en comparing tables and pie charts for a given question.Questionnaire & Toplines



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 60 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

# Q UESTIONNAIRE 

# & T OPLINES

BAAQMD © 2005 Page 1 Winter 05-06 Spare the Air Survey Designed by True North Research Final Toplines for Season 2,625 Respondents Section 1: Introduction to Study Hi, my name is _____ and I’m calling on behalf of TNR, a public opinion research firm. We’re conducting a survey concerning issues of importance to residents in the Bay Area region and we’d like to get your opinions. If needed: This is only a survey about important issues in the Bay Area – I’m NOT trying to sell anything. If needed: The survey should take no more than 15 minutes to complete. If needed: If now is not a convenient time, can you let me know a better time so I can call back? If the person says they are an elected official or is somehow associated with the survey, politely explain that this survey is designed to the measure the opinions of those not closely associated with the study, thank them for their time, and terminate the interview.
Section 2: Screener for Inclusion in the Study For statistical reasons, I would like to speak to the youngest adult male currently at home that is at least 18 years of age. I f there is no male currently at home that is at least 18 years of age, then ask: Ok, then I’d like to speak to the youngest female currently at home that is at least 18 years of age. If there is no adult currently available, then ask for a callback time. NOTE: Adjust this screener as needed to match sample quotas on gender & age
SC1 To begin, what is the zip code of your residence? Read zip code back to respondent to confirm before submitting. Terminate those that fall outside District. Data on File Record 5 digit zip code
SC2 County of Residence [2,625]

1 Santa Clara 24% 2 San Francisco 13% 3 San Mateo 11% 4 Marin 4% 5 Sonoma 5% 6 Solano 6% 7 Alameda 21% 8 Napa 2% 9 Contra Costa 14%Questionnaire & Toplines



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 61 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bay Area Air Quality Management District Winter Spare the Air Survey March 2006

BAAQMD © 2005 Page 2 Section 3: Heating Device Use I’d like to begin by asking you a few questions about heating devices that you may have in your home. Q1 Do you have a: _____ in your home? If yes, ask: How many: _____s do you have in your home? Do Not Randomize A Fireplace [2,625] None 41% One 50% Two 7% Three or more 1% B Pellet stove [2,625] None 94% One 6% Two 0% Three or more 0% C Woodstove [2,625] None 94% One 6% Two 0% Three or more 0% If Q1.1a, Q1.1b AND Q1.1c = (2,98), skip to Q24 Only ask Q2 if Q1.1a = 1, otherwise skip to instructions preceding Q3.Questionnaire & Toplines



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 62 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bay Area Air Quality Management District Winter Spare the Air Survey March 2006

BAAQMD © 2005 Page 3 Q2 What type of fuel do you primarily use in your fireplace – Wood, natural gas, propane or some other fuel? If ‘other’, ask : what type? [1,547] 1 Wood 47.7% 2 Natural gas 15.8% 3 Propane 0.6% 4 Duraflame log 5.9% 5 Presto log 1.6% 6 Other manufactured log 2.4% 7 Scrap wood 0.8% 8 Electric 0.7% 9 Never use fireplace 21.0% Skip to Q7 10 Wood + Gas 0.1% 11 Pellets 0.3% 12 Other 0.1% 13 Not sure 2.6% 14 Refused 0.5% Only ask Q3 if (Q1.1a = 1 and Q2 = 1) or (Q1.1c = 1) , otherwise skip to introduction preceding Q7 Q3 What type of wood do you typically burn? [813]

1 Ash 0.5% 2 Eucalyptus 3.1% 3 Oak 38.7% 4 Pine (cedar) 9.5% 5 Walnut 1.3% 6 Hardwood (general) 0.8% 7 Fruitwood (general) 0.8% 8 Fir 0.3% 9 Almond 3.5% 10 Whatever available / Mixed 2.3% 11 Other 0.4% 12 Not sure 38.0% 99 Refused 0.8%Questionnaire & Toplines



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 63 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bay Area Air Quality Management District Winter Spare the Air Survey March 2006

BAAQMD © 2005 Page 4 Q4 Do you typically purchase your wood from a wood supplier, the local store, or do you gather your own wood? [813] 1 Wood supplier 22% 2 Local store 32% 3 Gather own wood 35% 4 Other 7% 98 Don’t Know 3% 99 Refused 1% Q5 Do you tend to burn dry, seasoned wood or wood that is fresh-cut and somewhat moist? [813] 1 Dry, seasoned wood 85% 2 Fresh-cut & moist 5% 98 Don’t Know 9% 99 Refused 0% Q6 When you use your fireplace or woodstove, which of the following would you say is the primary reason you do so? For heating your home, or for the ambiance of having a fire? [813] 1 Heat 46% 2 Ambiance 50% 98 Don’t Know 3% 99 Refused 0% For the next series of questions, when I refer to “winter” I mean the months of November through February. Only ask Q7 for each appliance where Q1.1 = 1 Q7 Will you use your _____ this winter?

Do Not Randomize Yes No Not Sure Refused A Fireplace [1,547] 60% 38% 3% 0% B Pellet stove [170] 72% 25% 2% 2% C Woodstove [165] 74% 21% 4% 0% Only ask Q8 for each appliance where Q7 = 2.Questionnaire & Toplines



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 64 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bay Area Air Quality Management District Winter Spare the Air Survey March 2006

BAAQMD © 2005 Page 5 Q8 Why do you not expect to use your _____ this winter? Do Not Read Responses. Multiple Responses OK.
Do Not Randomize Air Quality Reasons Too Much Hassle Heath Reasons Other A Fireplace [581] 8% 34% 8% 56% B Pellet stove [42] 3% 21% 0% 76% C Woodstove [35] 9% 36% 3% 56%

Only ask Q9 if [Q2 = (1,4,5,6 or 7) AND Q7a = 1], Q7b = 1 or Q7c = 1. Otherwise, skip to Q24. Q9 How often do you expect to burn wood this winter? At least once per week or less often than that? If unsure, ask them to estimate. [864] 1 At least once per week 49% Skip to Q11 2 Less often than once per week 48% Ask Q10 98 Don’t Know 2% Skip to Q12 99 Refused 0% Skip to Q12 Q10 Would you say that you will burn wood about two to three times per month, once per month, or less often than once per month? If unsure, ask them to estimate. [416] 1 Two to three times per month 38% Skip to Q12 2 Once per month 35% Skip to Q12 3 Less often than once per month 24% Skip to Q12 98 Don’t Know 2% Skip to Q12 99 Refused 1% Skip to Q12 Q11 In a typical winter week, how many days do you expect to burn wood? If unsure, ask them to estimate. [423] 1 One day 19% 2 Two days 24% 3 Three days 21% 4 Four days 9% 5 Five days 6% 6 Six days 2% 7 Seven days 15% 98 Don’t Know 4% 99 Refused 0%Questionnaire & Toplines



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 65 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bay Area Air Quality Management District Winter Spare the Air Survey March 2006

BAAQMD © 2005 Page 6 Q12 Did you burn wood in the past seven days? [864]

1 Yes 43% Ask Q13 2 No 57% Skip to Q14 98 Don’t Know/No opinion 0% Skip to Q14 99 Refused 0% Skip to Q14 Q13 Did you burn wood yesterday or last night? [372]

1 Yes 50% 2 No 49% 98 Don’t Know/No opinion 0% 99 Refused 0% Q14 In a typical day that you burn wood, how many hours of the day do you have a fire burning? If unsure, ask them to estimate. [864] One or two 26% Three or four 53% Five or more 21% Q15 In a typical day that you burn wood, how many logs do you burn throughout the entire day? If unsure, ask them to estimate. [864] One or two 34% Three to five 34% Six or more 32% Section 4: Changes in Wood Burning Behavior Only ask Q16 if [Q2 = (1,4,5,6 or 7) AND Q7a = 1], Q7b = 1 OR Q7c = 1. Otherwise, skip to Q24. Q16 This winter, do you expect that you will burn wood more often, less often, or about the same frequency as you did last winter? [864] 1 More often 22% Ask Q17 2 Less often 16% Skip to Q21 3 About the same 56% Skip to Q21 98 Don’t Know/No opinion 6% Skip to Q21 99 Refused 0% Skip to Q21Questionnaire & Toplines



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 66 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bay Area Air Quality Management District Winter Spare the Air Survey March 2006

BAAQMD © 2005 Page 7 Q17 Why are you burning wood more frequently this year? Don’t read choices. [190]

1 Price of gas/Energy costs/Wood is cheaper/More affordable 47% Ask Q18 2 Other 52% Skip to Q21 98 Don’t Know/No opinion 1% Skip to Q21 99 Refused 0% Skip to Q21 Q18 How often did you burn wood last winter? At least once per week or less often than that? If unsure, ask them to estimate. [89] 1 At least once per week 62% Skip to Q20 2 Less often than once per week 37% Ask Q19 98 Don’t Know 1% Skip to Q21 99 Refused 0% Skip to Q21 Q19 Last winter, would you say that you burned wood about two to three times per month, once per month, or less often than once per month? If unsure, ask them to estimate. [33] 1 Two to three times per month 55% Skip to Q21 2 Once per month 26% Skip to Q21 3 Less often than once per month 19% Skip to Q21 98 Don’t Know 0% Skip to Q21 99 Refused 0% Skip to Q21 Q20 Last winter, how many days did you burn wood in a typical week? If unsure, ask them to estimate. [56] 1 One day 40% 2 Two days 13% 3 Three days 7% 4 Four days 24% 5 Five days 1% 6 Six days 2% 7 Seven days 7% 98 Don’t Know 4% 99 Refused 0% Q21 Ok, back to this winter. Were there occasions this winter when you normally would have burned wood, but decided not to? [864] 1 Yes 29% Ask Q22 2 No 66% Skip to Q24 98 Don’t Know/No opinion 5% Skip to Q24 99 Refused 0% Skip to Q24Questionnaire & Toplines



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 67 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bay Area Air Quality Management District Winter Spare the Air Survey March 2006

BAAQMD © 2005 Page 8 Q22 Why did you decide not to burn wood on these occasions? Do NOT Read Response Options. Multiple Responses OK. [253]
1 Spare the Air campaign/advertisements asking people not to burn wood/Don’t Light the Night campaign 2% Ask Q23 2 Air quality reason/health reason 10% Ask Q23 3 Other 86% Skip to Q24 98 Don’t Know/No opinion 3% Skip to Q24 99 Refused 0% Skip to Q24 Q23 So far this winter, how many times did you choose not to burn wood because of air quality reasons? If respondent is unsure, ask them to estimate. [31] Total number of times 78 (Average of 2.52 times)
Section 5: Awareness of Campaign Q24 During this winter, have you heard, read, or seen any news stories, advertisements, or public service announcements about Spare the Air Tonight, poor air quality, or requests not to use your fireplace, pellet stove, or woodstove? [2,625] 1 Yes 34% Ask Q25 2 No 65% Skip to Q26 98 Don’t Know/No opinion 1% Skip to Q26 99 Refused 0% Skip to Q26 Q25 Where did you see or hear the news story, advertisement or public service announcement? Don’t read choices – multiple responses OK. [891] 1 Television 45% 2 Radio 38% 3 Newspaper 17% 4 Website 3% 5 Billboard 5% 6 E-mail/E-mail Air Alert 1% 7 Fax/Fax Alert 0% 8 Bus signs 1% 9 Other 5% 98 Don’t Know/Not Sure 7% 99 Refused 0%

Only ask Q25 if interviewing the day after a Spare the Air event. Otherwise, skip to Q27.Questionnaire & Toplines



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 68 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bay Area Air Quality Management District Winter Spare the Air Survey March 2006

BAAQMD © 2005 Page 9 Q26 Prior to taking this survey, were you aware that there was a “Spare the Air Tonight” advisory yesterday? [0] 1 Yes N/A 2 No N/A 98 Don’t Know/No opinion N/A 99 Refused N/A
Section 6: Attitudes about Wood Smoke Q27 Do you think there are any negative health effects associated with breathing wood smoke? [2,625] 1 Yes 66% Ask Q28 2 No 23% Skip to Q29 98 Don’t Know/No opinion 11% Skip to Q29 99 Refused 0% Skip to Q29 Q28 What are the negative health effects associated with breathing wood smoke? Don’t read options -- Multiple response OK [1,730] 1 Lung Disease – general reference 36% 2 Asthma 24% 3 Allergies 5% 4 Bronchitis 3% 5 Cancer 9% 6 Emphysema 4% 7 Chemicals/Carcinogens/Toxins in wood 12% 8 Carbon monoxide 10% 9 Other health issue 21% 98 Don’t Know/No opinion 17% 99 Refused 0% Q29 Different neighborhoods in the Bay Area experience different levels of air pollution from wood smoke. In your opinion, does your neighborhood periodically experience air pollution from wood smoke? [2,625] 1 Yes 18% Ask Q29 2 No 74% Skip to Section 7 98 Don’t Know/No opinion 8% Skip to Section 7 99 Refused 0% Skip to Section 7Questionnaire & Toplines



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 69 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bay Area Air Quality Management District Winter Spare the Air Survey March 2006

BAAQMD © 2005 Page 10 Q30 Would you say that periodic air pollution from wood smoke in your neighborhood is a big problem, medium problem or a small problem? [464] 1 Big problem 6% 2 Medium problem 23% 3 Small problem 69% 98 Don’t Know/No opinion 2% 99 Refused 0% Section 7: Willingness to Change Heating Device If Q1.1a, Q1.1b AND Q1.1c = (2, 98), skip to Section 8. Only ask Q31 if Q1b = 1 or Q1c = 1. Othe rwise, skip to instruction preceding Q32. Q31 Is your woodstove or pellet stove EPA certified? If necessary:Most woodstoves and pellet stoves manufactured after 1992 are EPA certified, while older ones are not. [328] 1 Yes, EPA certified 59% Skip to Section 8 2 No, not EPA certified 13% Go to Q32 98 Don’t Know 28% Go to Q32 99 Refused 0% Skip to Section 8 Only ask Q32 if (Q2 = 1,4,5,6 or 7) or (Q1b = 1 AND Q31 = 2, 98) or (Q1c = 1 AND Q31 = 2, 98). Otherwise, skip to Section 8.
Q32 Gas fireplaces and EPA certified woodstoves, inserts or pellet stoves burn much cleaner and are less polluting than traditional fireplaces or old woodstoves. Would you be willing to replace your traditional fireplace, non-EPA certified woodstove or pellet stove with a gas fireplace? [913] 1 Yes 27% 2 No 63% 98 Don’t Know/No opinion 10% 99 Refused 0% Q33 Would you be willing to replace your traditional fireplace, non-EPA certified woodstove or pellet stove with an EPA certified woodstove or pellet stove? [913] 1 Yes 34% 2 No 56% 98 Don’t Know/No opinion 11% 99 Refused 0% If Q32 = 1 OR Q33 = 1, skip to Section 8. Otherwise, askQ34.Questionnaire & Toplines



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 70 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bay Area Air Quality Management District Winter Spare the Air Survey March 2006

BAAQMD © 2005 Page 11 Q34 There is a government sponsored program that offers rebates to residents who replace their traditional fireplace or non-EPA certified woodstove or pellet stove with a gas fireplace or EPA certified woodstove or pellet stove. If you knew that you could receive a rebate of: _____ dollars, would you participate in this program? [511] If respondent says ‘yes’, record ‘yes’ for all hi gher dollar amounts and go to Section 8.
Do Not Randomize Yes No Not Sure/Don’t Know Refused A 200 10% 71% 19% 0% B 300 13% 68% 19% 0% C 400 16% 64% 20% 0% D 500 23% 59% 18% 0% Section 8: Santa Clara County Program Awareness Only ask questions in this section if SC2 = 1. Otherwise, skip to Section 9.

Q35 Santa Clara County has a program to offer residents a rebate for replacing a traditional fireplace with a gas burning fireplace or an EPA certified fireplace, woodstove or pellet stove. In the past three months, have you heard, read or seen any news stories, advertisements or public service announcements about this program? [637] 1 Yes 6% 2 No 93% 98 Don’t Know/No opinion 1% 99 Refused 0% Section 9: Marin County Program Awareness Only ask questions in this section if SC2 = 4. Otherwise, skip to Section 10.

Q36 Marin County has a program to offer residents a rebate for replacing a traditional fireplace with a gas burning fireplace or an EPA certified fireplace, woodstove or pellet stove. In the past three months, have you heard, read or seen any news stories, advertisements or public service announcements about this program? [109] 1 Yes 4% 2 No 96% 98 Don’t Know/No opinion 0% 99 Refused 0%Questionnaire & Toplines



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 71 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bay Area Air Quality Management District Winter Spare the Air Survey March 2006

BAAQMD © 2005 Page 12 Section 10: Policy Attitude

Q37 Local governments throughout the Bay Area are considering a policy that would require all new housing construction to use only gas fireplaces or EPA certified fireplace inserts, woodstoves or pellet stoves. Would you support or oppose this policy? [2,625] 1 Support 61% 2 Oppose 24% 98 Don’t Know/No opinion 15% 99 Refused 0%
Q38 In some areas, local governments have a policy that prohibits wood burning on nights when air pollution is expected to reach unhealthy levels. Would you support or oppose a policy like this in your area? [2,625] 1 Support 74% 2 Oppose 19% 98 Don’t Know/No opinion 7% 99 Refused 0%

Q39 In some areas, local governments require that when a home that contains an older woodstove is sold to a new owner, the stove must be removed -- or replaced with a new stove or fireplace that causes less pollution. Would you support or oppose a policy like this in your area? [2,625] 1 Support 50% 2 Oppose 40% 98 Don’t Know/No opinion 10% 99 Refused 0% Section 11: BAAQMD and Spare the Air Tonight Name Recognition Q40 Let’s change gears a bit. Have you ever heard of the _____? Code ‘Not sure’ as ‘No’. [2,625] Randomize Yes No A Bay Area Air Quality Management District 56% 44% B Spare the Air Tonight Campaign 46% 54% Only ask Q41 and Q42 for each item in Q40 that respondent had heard of.Questionnaire & Toplines



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 72 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bay Area Air Quality Management District Winter Spare the Air Survey March 2006

BAAQMD © 2005 Page 13 Q41 Generally speaking, would you say you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the _____, or do you have no opinion either way? Get answer and ask:Would that be very or somewhat favorable / unfavorable?VeryFavorableSomewhatFavorableNeutral/No OpinionEither WaySomewhatUnfavorableVeryUnfavorableNot Sure(Don’tRead)

A Bay Area Air Quality Management District [1,466] 20% 31% 38% 3% 4% 4% B Spare the Air Tonight Campaign [1,218] 32% 32% 26% 2% 3% 5% Q42 In the past six months, have you heard, read, or seen any news stories, advertisements, or public service announcements about the ______?
Yes No Unsure A Bay Area Air Quality Management District [1,466] 35% 58% 6% B Spare the Air Tonight Campaign [1,218] 43% 51% 6% Section 12: Background/Demographics Thank you so much for your participation. I have just a few background questions for statistical purposes. D1 Do you ever burn wood in non-winter months, between March and October? If no, record. If yes, ask: Which months during this period to you tend to burn wood? Check all months that apply. [2,625] 1 March 7% 2 April 5% 3 May 4% 4 June 5% 5 July 5% 6 August 4% 7 September 4% 8 October 6% 9 No 83% 98 Don’t Know 3% 99 Refused 1% D2 Including yourself, how many licensed drivers live in your household? [2,625] None 3% One 24% Two 49% Three or more 21% Refused 2%Questionnaire & Toplines



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 73 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bay Area Air Quality Management District Winter Spare the Air Survey March 2006

BAAQMD © 2005 Page 14

D3 In what year where you born? Recoded to age. [2,625] 18 to 24 11% 25 to 34 21% 35 to 44 22% 45 to 54 18% 55 to 64 10% 65 and over 14% Refused 5%
D4 Do you live in an apartment, condo, townhome, single-family detached home, or mobile home? [2,625] 1 Apartment 21% 2 Condo 6% 3 Townhome 8% 4 Single-family detached home 60% 5 Mobile home 2% 99 Refused 4% D5 Approximately how many years ago was your home built? [2,625]

1 0 to 10 years 11% 2 11 to 20 years 14% 3 21 to 30 years 13% 4 31 to 40 years 13% 5 41 to 50 years 10% 6 Over 50 years 27% 98 Don’t Know 11% 99 Refused 2%
D6 This last question is for statistical purposes only. As I read the following income categories, please stop me when I reach the category that best represents your household’s total annual income before taxes. [2,625] 1 Under $50,000 21% 2 $50,000 to $74,999 16% 3 $75,000 to $99,999 15% 4 $100,000 to $149,999 17% 5 $150,000 to $199,999 6% 6 $200,000 or more 7% 7 Not sure or Refused (Don’t read) 18%Questionnaire & Toplines



## BAAQMD © 2006 

# 74 Winter Spare the Air Tonight Study

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bay Area Air Quality Management District Winter Spare the Air Survey March 2006

BAAQMD © 2005 Page 15 Those are all of the questions that I have for you! Thanks very much for participating. This survey is sponsored by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Post-Interview Items
D7 Gender [2,625]

1 Male 48% 2 Female 52% D8 Day Type (day prior to interview) [2,625] Weekday 69% Weekend 22% Holiday 9%