Haynes et al. which could be categorized into the choices given (lack of enforcement from governmental agencies and economic impacts), but others were unique, including lack of community education on the topic of air quality (16%, 8 of 50), failure of media to recognize or draw attention to the problem (6%, 3 of 50), and perceived “helplessness,” “apathy,” “malaise,” and “good old boy government.” Community-identified research areas. The leading health outcome of interest was “can­ cer” (data not shown). A total of 13% (30 of 229) of the respondents entered a health out­ come in the “other” category. Seventy­seven percent (177 of 229) of all survey respondents selected cancer as an important health out­ come to study. Other leading health outcomes included “overall health” (66%, 152 of 229), asthma (56%, 128 of 229), and allergies (52%, 120 of 229). Interestingly, 33% (76 of 229) of all respondents selected “brain development.” Within the “other” category, approximately 40% of all responses can be equally divided into “immune disorders” and “breathing prob­ lems.” Other responses included birth defects, sarcoidosis, cardiovascular disease, and head­ ache. One respondent stated, “You have to study it all; we don’t want to be ill because of the air pollution.” Respondents were asked to identify which group of people they thought was most affected by the quality of air in their community and, if a research study was conducted, on whom the research should focus. Respondents identified children as the leading group most affected by air quality and on whom research should focus (Figure 2). The respondents viewed the elderly as the second leading group most affected by air quality, followed by adults and infants. Interestingly, respondents did not view adoles­ cents as a group affected by air quality or as a group on whom research should focus. Willingness to participate in research studies. We also asked the participants’ likeli­ hood to participate in a research study. The vast majority of respondents reported that they would be extremely likely and likely to participate (77%, 175 of 228), whereas 18% (41 of 228) were unsure (data not shown). Most affected Focus of research Infants Children Adolescents Adults Elderly Figure 2. Community­ identified populations that are most affected by air quality and on whom the research should focus (percentage of survey respondents indicating each population). 45 ts 40 n de 35 n po 30 s re 25 f o 20 e tag 15 en 10 c re 5 P 0 1368 No trust A lot of trust No knowledge A lot of knowledge Most the respondents would also allow their children to participate (63%, 120 of 189), whereas about a quarter of the respondents (22%, 41 of 189) were unsure and 15% (28 of 189) reported that they would be unlikely or extremely unlikely to allow their child to participate in a research study. Community perception of information sources. Respondents were asked where they would search for information about the risks of local industrial emissions in their com­ munity’s environment. The response choices were “yes” or “no,” and the questions were answered by 226 respondents. Web sites (88%, 161 of 183), environmental groups (88%, 166 of 189), news reporters (84%, 152 of 182), research scientists (83%, 121 of 145), medical doctors (73%, 103 of 141), and town meetings (62%, 82 of 133) were the leading sources of their searched information (data not shown). When asked to rate the amount of information received about the risks of local industrial emissions in their environment, the leading information sources, those selected as “a lot” of information received were environ­ mental groups (31%, 68 of 216) and Web sites (19%, 38 of 204; Figure 3A). The most highly trusted sources of information (percent­ age of respondents indicating “a lot of trust”) were research scientists (41%, 87 of 212), environmental groups (35%, 75 of 217), med­ ical doctors (19%, 39 of 209), and friends/ neighbors (16%, 35 of 213; Figure 3B). Participants also perceived research scientists Amount of information No information A lot of information 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Percentage of respondents Figure 3. Community­ identified amount of information received (A), perceived level of trust (B), and amount of knowledge (C) for each information source on risk of local industrial emissions (percentage indicating “no”and “a lot”). ovlume 119 | number 10 | October 2011 • Environmental Health Perspectives News reporters Friends/neighbors Local government ofﬁcials State government ofﬁcials Federal government ofﬁcials Chemical industry ofﬁcials Medical doctors Research scientists Teachers Web sites Environmental groups Town meetings Church meetings News reporters Friends/neighbors Local government ofﬁcials State government ofﬁcials Federal government ofﬁcials Chemical industry ofﬁcials Medical doctors Research scientists Teachers Web sites Environmental groups Town meetings Church meetings News reporters Friends/neighbors Local government ofﬁcials State government ofﬁcials Federal government ofﬁcials Chemical industry ofﬁcials Medical doctors Research scientists Teachers Web sites Environmental groups Town meetings Church meetings Level of trust Amount of knowledge 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 Percentage of respondents 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Percentage of respondents