This is the third installment in the exclusive RCR five-part series highlighting the results of the 1997 National Wireless Opinion Poll conducted by TynanGroup Inc., of Santa Barbara, Calif., in December. This article explores public attitudes on tower siting and NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) in detail. Six hundred households were surveyed. The margin of error associated with the results is 4 percent.
Take and take
Americans want their cake and want to eat it, too. They want the delight of sweet-tasting morsels without the despair of adding pounds. They want to plug tons of electrical gadgets of convenience into their homes without having to look at any unsightly extension cords or wires. They want wireless phones without broadcast antennas in their backyards.
NIMBYism is prevailing across city streets and rural acres. And it has and will continue to significantly affect the future of wireless site development.
Site support
The key question from our point of view is, of course, how deeply people care about wireless technology, and whether they care about it in a way that makes them receptive to allowing wireless broadcast antennas to be placed in their areas. We used another 10-point scale to assess this issue. Specifically, we asked people the following question:
“The demand for wireless telephones is increasing very quickly with 5,000 new wireless users around the country every day. Again using the same zero-to-10 scale, how important do you feel it is to expand the wireless system in your neighborhood to meet that demand?”
The average of the responses indicates a relatively weak level of support: 5.5, slightly higher than the middle point of the scale. To put this result in words, the importance of accommodating the increased demand for wireless phones is only mildly important to the public as a whole.
Friends and users
The importance of expanding wireless technology is heavily correlated with usage. People who use wireless phones feel that keeping up with demand in their neighborhood is important to them (mean score of 6.9). People who do not use wireless phones are neutral (mean score of 5.0).
While the results just discussed suggest the public might support-even if only weakly support-locating wireless antennas in their neighborhoods, this is not the case. When asked a direct question, most voters were opposed.
The question was worded as follows:
“In order to meet the increased demand for wireless service, more smaller wireless broadcast antennas will have to be located in residential neighborhoods, rather than having fewer large antennas at central locations.
Thinking about the neighborhood you live in, would you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose having such a broadcast antenna in your neighborhood?”
“Survey Says . . . “
Strongly favor antennas – 10 percent.
Somewhat favor antennas -26 percent.
Somewhat oppose antennas – 21 percent.
Strongly oppose antennas – 30 percent.
While reviewing earlier questions we found that the most important predictor of support for wireless technology was whether people were wireless users. To the point, the wireless industry should really focus on its customers.
On the “yes” side, the single most important reason, mentioned by 61 percent of the respondents, is improved reception. In other words, those who value wireless technology support expanding antenna networks into neighborhoods.
The demographics of opposition:
1. People living in Northeastern states.
2. Suburbanites and people living in cities, but not in center cities.
3. High income voters (incomes of more than $75,000).
4. High involvement voters.
Only about one-half of the wireless users favor having broadcast antennas located in their own neighborhoods. While the industry’s consumers are still its best source of support, these results show that the industry needs to engage in a significant amount of education of its consumers before it can count on a majority of consumers to support its point of view.
The top four reasons for opposition:
1. Appearance.
2. Health.
3. Interference.
4. Climbing risks to children.
Forty-one percent of opponents said that wireless towers are ugly. Fourteen percent suspect wireless phones may present a health hazard. A word-for-word reading of comments suggests that many people only suspect there might be a health risk; they’re not sure of it. Some people mentioned that antennas might be like electric transmission lines. Eleven percent were concerned the signal might interfere with appliances, specifically with television reception. Finally, 10 percent were concerned that children might climb towers and fall.
Relatively few people mentioned a concern about property values, although when that issue was specifically raised, many people said it was an important concern-as important as health or aesthetics in the neighborhood. Few of the arguments had anything to do with wireless use. Only 6 percent said they did not need them, for instance, and another 4 percent said they were opposed to the use of wireless phones. Finally, about 7 percent said they’d be against wireless antennas until they heard more about the issue.
A word-for-word reading of these comments suggests the lack of familiarity with the topic clearly led many people to oppose wireless antennas. When the question about neighborhood siting of antennas is raised, the reaction on the part of some people is they don’t want to give up neighborhood appearance. People had a hard time visualizing what they would look like, and guessed that they would look ugly.
Finally, many are opposed to these antennas until they know more. Lack of familiarity leads people to make negative assumptions about what the antennas will look like and what their effect will be. Since most people, particularly non-users, view wireless technology as not particularly important, only the subset of current users care about expanding the wireless network.
Again, education is the key to informing people of the safety of wireless technology and its universal benefits. The telecommunications industry will continue to thrive successfully in the age of NIMBYism if it can master one thing: The ability to conduct community outreach and education.
The next installment in this series will deal with ways to persuade attitudes and gain supporters. For a copy of the complete 200 page opinion poll including all questions, results and cross-tabs or to receive a company profile, call TynanGroup, Inc., 2927 De La Vina St. Santa Barbara, CA 93105, (805) 898-0567, fax (805) 898-9897.
