A Survey of the Impact go the Energy Crisis Among the Low Income Population of PR (1977) by La Colección Puertorriqueña

EXCFSo D C P~4 OO~~(iAI.0 R UPR RP

FINAL

REPORT:

'A SURVEY OF THE IMPACT OF THE ENEBLY CRISIS »DNC THE LOW INCO?E POPULATION OF FJERTO RICO'

OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY OF PUERTO RICO OFr'10E OF THE GOVERNOR LA FORTALEZA, SAN JUAN, PR 1977

FxcEsO ~~ C Cp~ ~O p.R OJ~~Rp~4

FIlQAL REPORT OF THE STATE ECONONBC OPPORLDNITY OFFICE ON:

A SURVEY OF THE

ACT OF THE II ERGY CRISIS

AMJNG THE ITh INCA POPULATION OF PUERTO RICO

The Study reported herein was performed pursuant to Cooperative Agreement No. CA-22-60550-00 with the Federal Energy Administration Office of Constiner Affairs, Washington, D.C.

September, 1977

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Acknowledgement vi

List of Tables Translator's Note I.

III.

xvii

Executive Summary A.

Purpose of Study

The Methodology

Energy Consumption Patterns within the Poor Sectors of Puerto Rico

The Economic Impact of .Increased Energy Costs on Expenditures for Consumer Goods of the Needy Families in Puerto Rico

II.

....

Background A.

The Energy Situation in Puerto Rico

Government Efforts to Face the Energy Problems

Private Sector Efforts to Face the Energy Problems

The Energy Related Situation in the Poor Sector

The Energy Problem in Latin America

A Survey of the Impact of the Energy Crisis on the Poor Sector of Puerto Rico A.

Introduction

Housing Characteristics

Household Characteristics

Priorities in the Problems of the Poor

Patterns in the Use of Energy

Patterns of Energy Consumption in Reference to Home Appliances

Page No. The Pattern of Transportation in the Poor Sectors

The Impact of the Energy Crisis, the Strategies Developed to Face it, and the Opinion within the Poor Sectors of Selected Alternatives of Action

Some Variables Affecting Energy Expenditures

General Conclusions

107

G. H.

IV.

A Suggested Plan of Action to Deal with the Energy Aspects Ámong the Puerto Rican Poor A.

Introduction

110

Pilot Projects

111

Selection of Community Sites for Pilot Project

116

Suggested Budget for Pilot Projects (12 months)

118

Priorities of the Office of Economic Opportunity

120

APPENDIX A:

Methodology of the Study

Design of the Instrument

122

The Sampling Design

123

Sampling Tables

127

APPENDIX B:

Field Work Activities

The Training

141

Field Work

142

Coding the Data

143

Response Rate

144

Difficulties

144

Detailed Response Tables

146

APPENDIX C:

Questionnaire

177

APPENDIX D:

Supplementary Tables

225

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 4This investigation reflects the continuous labor of a group of individuals without whom it could not have taken place.

They have been working partners with a great sense

of sacrifice and a tremendous interest in contributing to the knowledge of a field of study about which little was known.

In fact, this work represents an initial effort to

learn some social aspects of the energy problem in Puerto Rico.

All who participated in the working team did not spare time or effort to insure that the goals of each phase of the ~

investigation were met.

They have been friends and colleagues

whose encouragement and understanding permitted us to finish what we began.

To all of them our sincere gratefulness, but

particularly to the following persons: To the Office of Economic Opportunity and its directors, Mrs. Teresita Picó de Silva and Mr. Ardin Terón, who gave us. the opportunity for carrying out this study.

We specially

want to mention the personal help and backing of Mr.. Terón when he took charge of the Office after a change of administration. ~

This work would not have been finished without his

diligent help and understanding.

To Leticia Diaz de Torres and Alicia Ghidetti who were completely in charge of the administrative phase of the project; To Benjamin Torres, who supervised the field work and the coding of the data; To Juan B. Salas, Jr., who was responsible for coordinating all of the data processing work with the Computer Center; To the team of interviewers who completed the field work while sacrificing holidays and working at night in order to complete the requirements of the study; To the team of encoders who understood the importance of a usually tedious task, my gratefulness; To Luis E. Aparicio from the Computer Center of the Highway Authority who was available at all times and actively helped to solve the frequent problems in the electronic processing of the data; To Professor Miguel Valencia, who designed the population sampling used in the study; To the secretarial

personnel who labored strenuously in

all phases of the study and in the preparation of this manuscript, but particularly to Felicita Ortiz, Esmelding Garcia,, Elizabeth Núñez Cosme, Lillian Villalobos, and Jocelyn Paravisíni;

We also want to thank Marta Acevedo, Juanita Vargas and Maria de los Angeles Sánchez,. who took care of the financial aspects of the project. ~

To Mr. Alan H. Simmons, Technical Project Officer of the Office of Consumer Affairs, Federal Energy Administration; for his continuing guidance and assistance in this project. To the Planification Board and specially to Mr. Iván Vázquez for the printing of this Report. Finally, our deepest thanks go to the needy Puerto Ricans who so generously welcomed U.S into their homes and agreed to participate in the study.

Their interest and amiability allowed

us to delve freely into some of the realities of life of our country.

Without them this investigation would not have been

possible.

INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC INVESTIGATION OF PUERTO RICO (INSE) Th

vi LIST OF TABT FS

Title

Table No.

Page No.

I-1

Percentage of Distribution of Consumex of the Population of Puerto Rico and of a Sample of the Poor Population: 1976

I-2

Percent Distribution of Monthly Use of Electricity in KVH

I-3

Percent Distribution of Weekly Use of Gasoline, in Gallons: 1976

I-4

Percent Distribution of Weekly Use of Kerosene, in Gallons: 1976

I-5

Percent Distribution of Expenses for Public Transportation of Working Family Members (Round Trips) :

1976 III-1

Percent Distribution of the Nnber of Persons Living Within the Family Unit, by Residential Area: 1976

III-2

Sex of Head of Family, by Residential Area (Percent)

III-3

Age Distribution of all Family Manbers: 1976

III-4

Fr1ii~ation Level Schooling of Persons Within the Family Unit: 1976

III-5

Occupation of the Needy in the Labor Force

III-6

Occupation of Heads of Family Employed in Productive Jobs: 1976

III-7

Average Monthly Income Within Family Units, by Source of Inane: 1976

III-8

Relationship. Between Some Selected Variablés and Food Stamps: 1976

III-9

Average Monthly Income for Family Units, by Source 40 of Income, Including Net Value of Food Stamps• 1976

III-10

Average Monthly Expenses of Poor Families, by selected Items-

1976

vii

Table. No.

Title

Page No.

III-11

Main Problem of the Poor in Puerto Rico, Now and in the Future: 1976

III-12

Importance Given to a Group of Selected Problems: 1976 - Degree of Importance (7)

III-13

Use of Electricity and Propane Gas, by Residential Sector: 1976

III-14

Use of Gasoline, by Residential Sector: 1976

III-15

Ownership of Radio, TV, and. Record Player by Residential Sector: 1976 (Percent)

III-16

Ownership of Radio, TV, and Record Player by Selected Variables: 1976 (Percent)

III-17

Furs of Exposure Daily to Radio, Television, and Record Player: 1976 (Percent)

III-18

Appliances Owned by Poor Families in Their Homes

III-19

length of Use of a Group of Selected Appliances: (Percent) 1976

III-20

Fuel Used in Stove, by Residential Area: 1976 (Percent)

III-21

Patterns in the Use of the Refrigerator: 1976 (Percent)

III-22

Patterns in the Preparation of Food Related to the Proper Use of Energy: 1976 (Percent)

III-23

Patterns Related to the Adequate Use of Energy in the Management of the Washing Machine: 1976 (Percent)

III-24

Characteristics Related to the Electric Wiring of the Homes: 1976 (Percent)

III-25

Means of Transportation to Work for the Head of of the Family and Other Working Manbers :of the Family Units: 1976 (Percent)

III-6

Distance to Place of WDYk of Head of Family, by Residential Sector: 197.6 (Percent)

viii

Table No.

Title

Page No.

III-27

Distribution of Motor Vehicles, by Residential Sector: 1976 (Percent)

III-28

Model Year of the Vehicles

III-29

Patterns in the Use of the Automobile: 1976 (Percent)

III-30

Monthly Expenses of Poor Families by Selected Items: 1976

Main Problem People Have About Electricity and Other Sources of Energy in Puerto Rico: 1976

III-31 III-32

Opinion of Persons Interviewed about a Selected= Group of Alternatives to Meet the Energy Crisis: (Percent) 1976

III-33

Relationship Between Family Income Per Month and Electricity Expenditure of Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent by Raw)

III-34

Relationship Between Family Income Per Month and Electricity Expenditures Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent by Column)

III-35

Relationship Between Family Income Per Month and and Gas Expenditure Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent by Column)

III-36

Relationship Between Family Income Per Month and Gas Expenditure Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent by Column)

III-37

Relationship Between Family Income Per Month and Gasoline Expenditure Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent by Raw)

III-38

Relationship Between Family Income Per Month and Gasoline Expenditure Puerto Rica: 1976 (Percent by Column)

III-39

Relationship Between Residential Area and Electricity Expenditures Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent by Rbw)

III-40

Relationship Between Residential Area and Gas Expenditures Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent by Row)

100

Table No

Title

Page No.

III-41

Relationship Between Residential Area and Gasoline Expenditures-Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent by Row)

100

III-42

Relationship Between Family Size and Electricity Expenditures-Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent by Row)

101

III-43

Relationship Between Family Size and Gas Expenditures - Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent by Row)

101

III-44

Relationship Between Family Size and Gasoline Expenditures-Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent' by Row)

102

III-45

Relationship Between Age of Household Head and Electricity Expenditures-Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent by Row)

102

III-46

Relationship Between Age of Household and Gas Expenditures-Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent by Row)

103

III-47

Relationship Between Age of Household Head and C~soline Expenditures-Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent by Row)

103

III-48

Relationship. Between Type of Construction Material 104 and Electricity Expenditures-Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent by Row)

III-49

Relationship Between Type of Construction Material and Gas Expenditures-Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent by Row)

104

III-50

Relationship Between Type of Construction Material and Gasoline ExpendituresPuerto Rico: 1976 (Percent by Row)

105

III-51

Relationship Between Ninber of Automobiles owned and Gasoline Expenditures

105

III-52

Relationship Between a Group of Selected Variables and Mileage Yield per Gallon of Gasoline

106

Table No

Title

Page No.

D-1

Construction Mateiral of the Dwelling, by Residential Area: 1976 (Percent)

225

D-2

Number of Bedrooms in the Dwelling, by Residential Area: 1976 (Percent)

226

D-3

Indoor Shower or Bathtub Facilities by Residential Area: 1976 (Percent)

227

D-4

Toilet or Latrine Facilities by Residential Area: 1976 (Percent)

228

D-5

Indoor Plumbing Facilities by Residential (Percent) Area: 1976 -

229

D-6

Indoor Hot Water Facilities by Residential Area: 1976 (Percent)

230

D-7

Square Footage or Dwelling in Poverty Areas by Residential Sectors: 1976 (Percent)

231

D-8

Square Footage of Dwelling in Poverty Areas by Monthly Family Income: 1976

232

D-9

Room in which Family Members Spend Most of the Time by Residential Area: 1976 (Percent)

233

D-10

Hours Spent Together Daily by Members of Poor Families by Level of Monthly Income: 1976 (Percent)

234

D-11

Relationship Between Satisfaction with the Home and the Residential Area: 1976 (Percent)

235

D-12

236 Relationship Between Satisfaction with the Home (Percent) and Sex of the Person Interviewed: 1976

D-13

Relationship Between Satisfaction with the Home and Occupation of Head of Family: 1976

D-14

Relationship Between Sex of the Person Interviewed 238 and Physical Mobility: 1976 (Percent)

D-15

Relationship Between Location of Home and Physical 239 Mobility: 1976 (Percent)

237

xi. Title

Table No. D-16

Relationship Between the Occupation of the Head of Family and Physical Nobility: 1976 (Percent)

240

D-17

Relationship Between Monthly Family Income and Physical Mobility: 1976 (Percent)

241

D-18

Relationship Between Residential Sector and Loss of Members of the Family Unit: 197`6 (Percent)

242

D-19

Relationship Between Sex and Loss of Family Members: 1976 (Percent)

243

D-20

Relationship Between Occupation of Head of Family and loss of Members of Family Unit:

244

1976

(Percent)

D-21

Relationship Between Residential Sector and the Addition of Members to the Family Unit: 1976 (Percent)

245

D-22

Relationship Between Sex of the Person Interviewed and the Addition of Members to the Family Unit: 1976 (Percent)

246

D-23

Relationship Between Occupation of Head of Family and the Addition of Members to Family Unit: 1976 (Percent)

247

D-24

Relationship Between Residential Area and the Opinion about the Main Problem of the Puerto (Percent) Rican Poor: 1976

248

D-25

Relationship Between Sex and Opinion About the Main Problem of the Puerto Rican Poor: 1976 (Percent)

249

D-26

Relationship Between Number of People Living With Family and Opinion About the Main Problem

250

of the Puerto Rican Poor: 1976

(Percent)

D-27

Relationship Between Schooling and Opinion about the Main Problem of the Puerto Rican Poor: 1976 (Percent)

251

D-28

Relationship Between Monthly Family Income and Opinion about the Main Problem of the Puerto Rican Poor: 1976 (Percent)

252

Page No.

xii Table No.

Title

Page No.

D-29

Relationship Between Main Occupation of Head of Family and Opinion of the Main Problem of the Puerto Rican Poor: 1976 (Percent)

253

D-30

Relationship Between Residential Area and Opinion About the Most Important Problem Within the Nex Three Years: 1976 (Percent)

254

D-31

Relationship Between Sex and the Opinion about the Most Important Problem During the Next Three Years • 1976 (Percent)

255

D-32

Relationship Between Number of Persons Living with the Family and Opinion About the Most Important Problem During the Next Three Years • 1976 (Percent)

256

D-33

Relationship Between Schooling and the Opinion About the Most Important Problem During the Next Three Years: 1976 (Percent)

257

D-34

Relationship Between Monthly Family Income and Opinion About the Most Important Problem During the Next Three Years: 1976 (Percent)

258

D-35

Relationship Between Main Occupation of Head of Family and Opinion About the Most Important Problem. During the Next Three Years: 1976 (Percent)

259

D-36

Relationship Between the Number of Persons Living 260 with the Family and the Degree of Importance Given to Unemployment: 1976 (Percent)

D-37

Relationship Between Schooling and the Degree of Importance Given to Unemployment: 1976 (Percent)

261

D-38

Relationship Between Number of People Living in the Family and the Degree of Importance Given to Fuel Supplies: 1976 (Percent)

262

D-39

Relationship Between Schooling and the Degree of Importance Given to the Fuel Supply: 1976 (Percent)

263

Table No

Title

Page No.

D-40

Relationship Between Residential Area and the Degree of Importance Given to Environmental Pollution: 1976 (Percent)

264

D-41

Relationship Between Schooling and the Degree of Importance Given to Environmental Pollution: 1976 (Percent)

265

D-42

Relationship Between Monthly Family Income and the Degree of Importance Given to Environmental Pollution: 1976 (Percent)

266

D-43

Source of Energy Used by the Poor Pollution: 1976

267

D-44

Principal Use of Electricity

268

D-45

Main Use of Propane Gas, Gasoline, and Charcoal: 1976

269

D-46

Use of Electricity by Monthly Income: 1976 (Percent)

270

D-47

Use of Propane Gas by Educational Level: 1976 (Percent)

271

D-48

Use of Propane GaS by Occupation of Head of Family: 1976 (Percent)

272

D-49

Use of Charcoal or Wood by Residential Area: 1976 (Percent)

273

D-50

Use of Charcoal or Wood by Educational level: 1976 (Percent)

274

D-51

Use of Other Sources of Energy, by Residential Area: 1976 (Percent)

275

D-52

Use of Gasoline and Sex of the Person Interviewed: 1976 (Percent)

276

D-53

Use of Gasoline and Monthly Family Income: (Percent) 1976

277

D-54

Use of Gasoline and Number of Members in the (Percent) Family: 1976

278

D-55

Use of Gasoline and Food Stamp Acquisition: 1976 (Percent)

279

X1v

Table No.

Title

Page No.

D-56

Ownership of Television.and Employment of Head of Family: 1976 (Percent)

280

D-57

Ownership of Record Player and Employment of Head of Family: 1976 (Percent)

281

D-58

Ni iber of Appliances Owned by Poor Families: 1976 (Percent)

282

D-59

Oven Facilities in Kitchen by Residential Area: 1976 (Percent)

283

D-60

Percent Distribution of Use of Clothes Washer by Residential Sector, Edurati_onal and Income Lewis: 1976

284

D-61

Percent Distribution of. Use of Electric Fan, by Residential. Sectors, Educational and Income Lewis: 1976

285

D-62

Percent Distribution of Use of Water Heater by Residential Sector, Educational and Income Levels: 1976

286

D-63

Percent Distribution of Use of Electric Blenders by Residential Sectors, Ed»cational and Income Levels: 1976

287

D-64

Percent Distribution of Use of Toasters by Residential Sectors, Educational and Income Levels: 1976

288

D-65

Percent Distribution of Use of Electric Can Openers by Residential Sectors, Educational and Income Levels: 1976

289

D-66

Percent Distribution of Use of Hair Dryers by Residential Sectors, Educational ánd Income Levels: 1976

290

D-67

Relationship Between Frequency of Travel by Public Car or Bus and Educational Level: 1976

291

D-68

Relationship Between Frequency of Travel by Public Car or Bus and Residential Sector: 1976 (Percent)

292

xv Title

Page No.

D-69

Relationship Between Frequency of Travel by Public Car or Bus and Sex of the Person Interviewed: 1976 (Percent)

293

D-70

Relationship Between Frequency of Travel by or Bus and Monthly Family Public Income: 1976 (Percent)

294

D-71

Relationship Between Frequency of Travel by Public Car or Bus and Whether Person Receives Food Stair s • 1976 (Percent)

295

D-72

Relationship Between Menas of Transportation to Work of Head of Family and Residential (Percent) Sector: 1976

296

D-73

Relationship Between Means of Transportation Work of Head of Family and Sex: 1976 (Percent)

297

D-74

Relationship Between Means of Transportation Work of Head of Family and Educational Level: 1976 (Percent)

298

D-75

Relationship Between Means of Transportation Work of Head of Family and Monthly Family Income: 1976 (Percent)

299

D-76

Relationship Between Means of Transportation to Work of Head of Family and Whether Family Receives Food Stamps 1976 (Percent)

300

D-77

Relationship Between Distance to Place of Work of Head of Family and Monthly Family Income: 1976 (Percent)

301

D-78

Relationship Between Distance to Place of Work of Head of Family and Educational Level: 1976 (Percent)

302

D-79

Relationship Between Distance to Place of Work (Percent) of Head of Family and Sex

303

D-80

Place of Work Relationship Between Distance Receives Whether Person and of Family of Head (Percent) Stamps • Food 1976

304

D-81

Relationship Between a Group of Selected Variables and Motor Vehicle Ownership: 1976 (Percent)

305

('ar

Table No.

Title

Page No.

D-82

Relationship Between Inane and Educational Level of Head of Family and Financing the Purchase of New Vehicles: 1976 (Percent)

306

D-83

Relationship Between a Group of Selected Variables and Mileage Per Gallon: 1976 (Percent)

307

D-84

Relationship Between Residential Area and Different Alternatives for Facing the Energy Crisis: 1976 (Percent)

308

D-85

Relationship Between Monthly Family Inane and Different Alternatives for Facing the Energy Crisis: 1976 (Percent)

309

D-86

Relationship Between Educational Level and Different Alternatives to Face the Energy Crisis: 1976 (Percent)

310

~ -4

TRANSLATOR'S NOTE: The word "island" is. used throughout this study

to denote non-metropolitan areas.

A. Purpose of Study A result of the formation of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), and the fuel price increases which followed, was a significant increase in production costs for those industries which use petroleum as a source of energy. This situation came to be known as the energy crisis. In reality, energy prices would be the instrument to solve the true crisis: the consumption of a non-renewable natural resource (petroleum) at prices which did not reflect the cost to society. That is, market prices did not include all the social costs involved in the production and use of petroleum as a source of energy, thus causing a greater consumption than what was necessary to society. Given this situation, the relative prices of petroleum, compared to other sources of energy, encouraged its use over and above the reserves that would allow its use and enjoyment by future generations. Increases in petroleum prices have encouraged the research for new sources of energy, particularly those which are renewable or nearly permanent, such as the wind, the sun, the atom, etc. Nevertheless, these price increases have had negative short-term effects on the consumer, and on poor families in particular. The purpose of this essay is to evaluate the impact of the energy crisis on poor families in Puerto Rico, and to recommend certain programs

to help u;,,;m;ze this impact upon the neediest sector of the country. Thus, we present the energy situation in Puerto Rico. Part II discusses the efforts of the government and of private enterprise in facing the energy crisis, stressing the situation of the needy; and _ we compare Puerto Rico's situation with that of other Latin American countries. The most important findings of the survey conducted about patterns in the use of energy by the Puerto Rican poor are presented in Part III while Part IV presents a suggested Plan of Action could lessen the impact of the energy crisis on poor families.

3 B. The Methodology A) Research Techniques: 1. Analysis of documents and other secondary sources r

This technique was used mainly in reference to the study of governmental efforts to deal with the energy crisis and the examination of selected experiences to conserve energy and lower its cost in areas with similar climatic conditions as Puerto Rico. 2. Intensive Interviews This technique was used to study the opinion of selected government offices and leaders of the poor about governmental and non-

governmental efforts to deal with the energy crisis. 3. Opinion survey (interviews) This was a primary data collection effort. The technique was used in identifying the patterns of energy use among the poor, in gathering data to determine the economic cost of energy use, identifying the energy problems, the impact of the energy crisis, the strategies the poor have developed to cope with the crisis and their opinion regarding selected voluntary action experiences dealing with energy problems. 3,252 households were interviewed. The year of the data collected was 1976.. 4. Economic Analysis This technique was used in determining the economic cost of existing patterns of energy use among the poor and the economic feasi-

bility of possible alternatives of action.

4 5. Statistical Analysis This technique was used to determine priority are

and

selected comrnmities to start the operational level of the plan. Also, in analyzing some governmental efforts like Law 106. 6. Field Visits This technique was used in reference to the study of any government or non-government operational effort as well as the examination of relevant strategies in mainland areas with similar climatic conditions as Puerto Rico. B. Population sample and statistical rr

cures -

The opinion survey of the poor on matters related to energy was based on a stratified random sample of the Puerto Rican poor and included the three categories of poor sectors connx~nly recognized in the island: urban slum areas, public developments and low socio-economic rural areas ; in accordance with the Selection Sheet

(The Yellow Pages).

The statistical measures used were the mean, the median, percentages, chi.-square and, where feasible, some analysis of variance. The data was transfered to tapés and processed electronically.

EL IMPACTO DE LA CRISIS ENERGETICA SOBRE LOS SECTORES DE BAJOS INGRESOS EN PUERTO RICO Hoja de selección de las unidades familiares a ser incluidas en el estudio

Localización

Distrito de Enumeración

Pueblo

La Oficina de Oportunidades Económicas y el Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales y Económicas están llevando a cabo un ectudio'sobre el uso de la energía en Puerto Rico y su impacto sobre el presupuesto familiar. Para saber si esta vivienda debe ser incluida en el estudio le agradeceríamos mucho que nos conteste las siguientes preguntas: 1. ¿Cuántas personas viven aquí? 2. ¿En cuál de estas categu'ías de ingreso anual cree usted que se puede clasificar la familia que vive aquí? el

ingreso semanal, abajo aparece compuNOTA: Si la familia da tado el correspondiente ingreso anual. Ingreso semanal

1'ngreso anual

2.1 (Menos de $10)

Menos de $500

2.2 (De $10 a $19)

De $500 - $999

2.3 (De $20 a $29)

De $1,000 - $1,499

2.4 (De $30 a $39)

De $1,500 - $1,999

2.5 (De $40 a $59)

De $2,000 - $2,999

2.6 (De $60 a $79)

De $3,000 - $3,999

2.7 (De $80 a $99)

De $4,000 - $4,999

2.8 '(De $100 a $119)

De $5,000 - $5,999

2.9 (De $120 a $139)

De $6,000 - $6,999

2.0 ($140 o más)

$7,000 o más

lifica

3. En base al cuadro siguiente determine si la unidad familiar cuapara ser incluida en el estudio. Si el nivel de ingresos número de personas que viven en la unidad familiar cae dentro de los límites que se especifican abajo, entonces la unidad familiar deber ser incluida en el estudio.

Número de miembros en la familia

Ingreso bajo el nivel: de pobreza Zona Urbana Zona Rural

3.1 Una sola persona menor de 65 años

$1,893

$1,641

3.2 Una sola persona mayor de 65 años

$1,757

$1,498

.3.3 Dos personas

$2,383

$2,012

3.4 Tres personas

$2,924

$2,480

3.5 Cuatro personas

$3,743

$3,195

3.6 Cinco personas

$4,415

$3,769

3.7 Seis personas

$4,958

$4,244

3.8 Siete personas o más

$6,101

$5,182

Resultado del sondeo preliminar: La familia cualifica para ser entrevistada La familia no cualifica para ser entrevistada La familia rehusó dar información para poder clasificarla NOTA: Si la familia cualifica proceda a hacer la entrevista. Si la familia no cualifica proceda a la próxima vivienda y haga el sondeo correspondiente.

C. Energy Consumption Patterns within the Poor Sectors of Puerto Rico

The most necessary appliances - radio, television, stove, refrigerator - are found in the home of the average needy person, and they are given rather satisfactory use. The main limitation does not arise from behavior patterns towards these appliances, but from the fact that they are generally old and with many years usage, which increases their consumption of energy. Nevertheless, education could contribute to improve even more the positive pattern prevalent in the use of energy in some areas, such as defrosting the refrigerator if it has too much ice, leaving the refrigerator on when absent from the home for several days, not using the oven for cooking, using pots and pans that do not cover the burner completely, leaving the. stove and the oven on until the food is cooked completely, using the washing machine more than three times weekly, not pre-soaking clothing before putting it i.n the washer, not having full loads, etc. In spite of this, the greatest deficiency seems to be in the electric wiring of the homes. In the field of transportation we find that, due to its alledged deficiencies, only 4 out of every 10 persons use public transportation. In general terms, those who use their own cars have old, big, used vehicles, which could increase their use of gasoline. We again find that the limiting factor is not so much the behavior patterns in using automobiles, but the type of vehicle available to the poor. Still,. there

are areas in which there could also be considerable improvement:

near-

ly one fourth of those who have automobiles are used to leaving the motor running, and drive over 50 MPH on the expressways. Furthermore, over two fifths of them use their brakes continuously. As we stated previously, the greatest impact of fuel price increases upon the needy family is to reduce even more their ability to meet their vital needs: they must allocate some of their limited income to cover rising costs. Faced with that situation, specific strategies are developed, generally the self-imposition of greater limitations, and a clear feeling of impotence at altering the processes which affect the family is evident. This all leads to the conclusion that within the poor sectors economy is for additional energy, since at the present time its pattern of usage is extremely restricted. Alternatives could be found 'in measures oriented towards the sectors which use more energy, and in the implementation of others such as solar heaters, improvement of the public transportation system, and in lower sFe~ed limits on highways. These have the almost unanimous endorsement of the poor.

D. The Economic Impact of Increased Energy Costs on Expenditures for Consumer Goods of the Needy Families in Puerto Rico

Consumer patterns of poor families are fundamentally different from those of the total population of Puerto Rico (Table I-1)

while food re-

presents 70.5% of the expenses of poor families, it represents only 25.7% of Puerto Rico's population as a whole.. This is consistent with traditional economic analysis, since food expenditures are inelastic as to changes in income level. That is, as income increases food expenditure levels increase in absolute terms while their relative importance decreases. Nonetheless, this 174.3% difference in the break-up of ex-

d•

penses for food cannot be explained solely by the income elasticity of The most important factor arises from the fact that 79% of the

interviewed families receive food stamps, which represent 39.5% of disposals family income. Nevertheless, we must ask ourselves if food stamps can develop such an encompassing impact that the 39.5% of family income which they represent can become 70.5% of total food expenditure. There are two reasons for this: first, food stamps are sold at a discount, which forces families to invest an additional amount of their resources in them. In this .case, family investments amounted to 26.7% of the total received. This implies that the expenses for food would be 26.7% more than the benefits received. Secondly,, food stamps represent a discount

in the price of food, which in turn encourages the purchase of larger amoxnits of food than what would be bought if the transfers were in cash instead of in stamps. This situation arises because stamps change the relative price of goods, making food cheaper than other goods and services and encouraging their consumption.

Table I-1 Percentage of Distribution of Consumer Expenses of the Population of Puerto Rico and of a Sample of the Poor Population: 1976 Percent of Expenses Sample

Percent of Expenses Population of P.R.

Food

70.5

25.7

Clothing and Accessories

6.4

7.1

Home Operation

9.5

12.7

Transportation

7.3

13.4

Recreation

1.4

7.8

Housing

3.8

11.9

Other

1.1

21.4

100.00

100.0

Item

Total:

Source: 1. Nieves Falcón, Luis • The Impact of the Energy Crisis on the Poor Sectors of Puerto Rico, April, 1977. 2. Planning Board, Economic. Report to the Governor, 1976: May, 1977. Once this 70.5% of family expenditures is channeled towards the consumption of food, the proportion of expenses set aside for other uses by the poor family will be lower than that of the population as a whole.

We must particularly point out that transportation costs, to include' both public and private transportation, maintenance, gasoline, etc., represent 7.3% of the expenses of the sampling, while they represent 13.4% of that of the entire populátion, an 83.6% increase. This situation arises from the fact that the demand for transportation services is a derivative one. This means that transportation services are needed for other tasks, such as getting to work, shopping, visits to the doctor, recreation, as objectives. Nevertheless, with a 60.7% unemployment rate, an 11.6% dependence rate, and the low income levels, there are few trips for work, shopping, doctor or other activities that the needy family can take. Therefore, their demand for transportation services and the level of expenditures will be low. Another factor creating this behavior arises from the limited use of private automobiles by poor families: there are 5 automobiles per 100 persons, while for the entire population 1 there are 30 per 100. This forces poor families to fall back on public transportation as their only alternative. Operational expenses in the home reflect a similar behavior, with those of the population as a whole being 33.5% greater than those in the sampling. This item includes expenses for electricity, propane gas, water, equipment, etc. among others, and thus reflects the fact that poor families spend less on these items. Reasons for this .are the low income levels which reduce usage and the existence of subsidies for the use of

Planning Board, 1976 Economic Report to the Governor; Nieves Falcón Luis, op. cit.

• electricity (70.6% of the sampling stated that they used less that 425 KVH

monthly and qualified for the subisdy), and for the services of the Water and Sewer Authority which are free in public housing areas;

Table 1-2 Percent Distribution of Monthly Use of Electricity in KVH KVH

Percent

11.3 24.2 19.3 14.5 10.1 6.1 8.1 2.3 1.7 2.5 100.0 Source: Water Resource Authority, Special Report - 1977. 0-100 101-200 201-300 301-400 401-500 501-600 601-700 701-800 801-900 901-1000

Still,, we must point out that in spite of the minimal transportation and home-operation costs, when we exclude food expenses these represent 56.9% of all other expenses in the family budget. This situation means that energy price increases will further decrease optional usage of the poor families, specially for education, recreation, personal care, trips, etc. If we consider that these items represent 2.5% of the consumer expenses of poor families, while for the entire population they represent 29.2%, it entails a much more drastic reduction for the poor sectors. SX

Since they represent 3.8% and 11.9%,respective):ly,for the sampling and for the population, housing costs deserve special attention. This situation is due to the low quality of the housing available to poor 1 families, and to the subsidies given residents of public housing areas.

Characteristic of Usage: A detailed account of consumer expenditures shows that 86.6% of gasoline users consume less than 25 gallon weekly, and 68.6% uses less than 2 gallons of kerosene a week, thus reflecting the limited access of needy families to available sources of energy. (Tables I-3 and I-4).

Table I-3 Percent Distribution of Weekly Use of Gasoline,in Gallons: 1976 Gallons

Percent_

0-25 26-50 51-75 76-100

88.6 8.5 2.1 .7 (N=703)

On the other hand, 79.3% of the working class spends less than .75 cents on the round trip from home to work. However, .75 cents dairy 2 If public income. family average of the means .$15.00 monthly, or 9.1%

Nieves Falcón, Luis, op. cit., Appendix D, Tables D-1 to D-6.

IbId, P. 14.

transportation were free, needy families would receive a significant

subsidy and would also have a greater availability of different services to which they cannot aspire. ~ Table 1-4 Percent Distribution of Weekly Use of Kerosene, In Gallons: 1976 Gallons

Percent

0-2 3-5 6-8 9-10

68.6 24.8 5.0 1.7 ( N=121) ~ ~

Table 1-5 'Percent Distribution of Expenses for Public Transportation of Working Family Members (Round Trips): 1976 Expense

Percent

O.00-r75 0.76-1.50 1.51-2:25 2.26-3..00

79.3 17.6 2.5 .6 ( N=324) ~

The most significant items in the food area are the expenses for meat (25.0%), milk (15.9%), rice and cereals (9.6%), beans and grains (5.5%),eggs (5.1%), vegetables (4.5%), bread (5.0%) and fruits (8,2%). These account for 78.8% of the family food budget. Other important items are coffee (5.3.%.), seasonings, 1..8%, fish (2.4%). This leaves 11.7% for other expenses to include lard, butter, oil, desserts, etc. The fairly balanced diet shown in this distribution of expenses could be the result of the food stamps..

14 A. The Energy Situation in Puerto Rico

)

The price increase of petroleum and its derivatives brought about significant changes in Puerto Rico's consumer patterns, since all the ~

petroleum used on the Island is imported .Grim OPEC member countries, and Venezuela in particular. This dependence is more clearly seen if we consider that 98.9% of all the electric power produced in the country is generated by using petroleum as a fuel.l Nearly 100% of the power used to move and transport goods and people is also provided by petroleum derivatives. Such an exclusive dependence on petroleum accentuates the impact of changes in price levels, both on the structural level as well as in the consumer patterns of particular sectors. On the structural level, the most noticeable effect of this price increase has been a 65.4% increase in the balance of trade deficits between 1974 and 1976.2 This entire situation is primarily related directly to the use of electric energy, which has increased significantly during the last 20 years. Electric energy consumed in 1956 totalled 930.8 million kilowatt hours (KVH), while it reached 10,497.3 million KVH in 1976.

This 9,566.5 million KVH

increase means an average growth rate of 51.47 yearly. While the residential sector represents 36.0/0 of total consumption in 1956, with business using 24.4% and industry, 32.3%, important changes took place by 1976. At this latter date, the residential participation

1. González, German: Socio-Legal Aspects of a New Energy Conservation Plan. 2. 1976 Economic Report of the Planning Board.

had gone down to 31.0%, as well as that of business to 22.2%, thus making the. industrial sector the greatest consumer at 43.1%. One of the reasons for this change is that the rates of the Water Resources Authority decline. as usage increases, thus encouraging the use of electricity. Gasoline consumption has also increased significantly during the past years: from a total of 289.2'million gallons in 1966 to 602.7 million gallons in 1976, a 108.4% increase. Basically, gasoline usage is a residential one, since nearly 85% of the registered vehicles are privately owned. In fact, we can come to the conclusion that the energy situation in Puerto Rico is characterized by continuous increases in the use of electricity, particularly by the industrial sector, and in the greater use of gasoline in the residential sector. There is an almost absolute dependence on petroleum-producing countries to satisfy the demand for these sources of energy.

B. Government Efforts to Face the Energy Problems The energy crisis affected Puerto Rico in terms of rising prices and not in terms of scarcity of fuel. Price increases filtered down to the consumer directly and indirectly: Puerto Ricans became aware that energy was cheap no longer. The low-income classes were affected primarily in costs for transportation and gasoline, whereas the middle income groups were also affected by electricity bills.l

1. This is meant in terms of direct increases in the price of fuels and electricity. The economic impact due to the increase in consuwcr goods as a result of the energy crisis was also severe.

The energy conservation i

ures adopted by Caminnaealth agencies

do not seem to constitute an event of major significance in ¿1Pa1ing with the energy problems of Puerto Rico. An examination of these plans indicates that they were basically lip service doomed to failure from their inception. Take for example the lowering of air conditioning thermostats to 80°or 78°as proposed in the agencies' plans. Although this is possible in agencies occupying new buildings such as the Minillas Government Center, many other agencies like the Department of Natural Resources use individual air conditioning units, which are very inefficient and which do not possess thermostats to set at 80°ór 78°.. Most of these old indiviciia1 units work on an all-or-none basis. The quantification of the results of energy conservation measures is virtually impossible with the constraints of Time and personnel associated with this report. The .subjective impression gathered from interviewing the persons which the agencies have designated to coordinate their energy conservation plans is that the energy crisis is now forgotten and that the bureaucracy was never deeply moved by it. Although it is true that same external building lights are being reduced, that air conditioners are being. switched off during wee-ends (some janitors interviewed said, however, that this was not always the case>, and that official car routes are better planned, this amotuits to a "drop in the bucket" and fails to achieve the objective of a 7% reduction in energy cons.n tion by the government sector. Whereas individual agencies such as the Public Buildings Authority experienced a decrease in electricity consumption of about lOh fran 1973

to 1975, several others such as the Metropolitan Bus Authority, Highways Authority, and EDA had increases.l Thé'success of the public education programs for energy conservation is virtually nil except for the programs carried out by the Water Resources Authority. The latter, based upon the real worry of the consumers being unable to balance their budgets due to high electricity bills, has succeeded in alerting the users on the contribution of their appliances to the monthly electric bill. As a result, the middle income classes are substituting air conditioner for electric fans, and. disconnecting their electric water heaters. Water Resources Authority subsidy programs have also encouraged reduced consumption among the low income classes. After an analysis of this program, we can state that at least it has been a part;al success and that the major stirrnilus behind it is the increased cost of electricity. Transportation alternating programs, with the exception of the trunkfeeder system and the bicycles, in that order, seem rather remote still. The Rapid Transit System for San Juan is subject to more studies and policy decisions. The Car Pool efforts are bound to failure if strong incentives cannot be developed to overcome the basic resistance of people to

Perhaps

new

abandon their transportation independence in lieu of a collective effort. government efforts should be addressed to the reorgani-

zation of the Metropolitan Bus Authority, and to the development of bicycle

1. The preliminary results derived from an analysis of the goverment accounts of the Water Resources Authority on electricity consumption

in the agencies are not conclusive, and would require intensified research to rule out other factors that might be responsible for the observed decreases and increases in electricity consumption.

conmmiting for short distances to work and school by providing traffic safety measures, bikeways, and bike parking.

C. Private Sector Efforts to Face the Enerjy Probleus Although the private sector has not developed an energy conservation plan, it has imposed a series of measures which could be of some help. For example, in the electricity consumption area, the introduction of electronic controls for light bulbs and air conditioners, the reduction in size of light bulbs, turning the air conditioner off before the usual time, and increasing the number of light switches. Windows are also protected by a special material to keep heat out, and new buildings are designed with overhangs, to protect windows fran.sunlight. In the areas of gasoline and diesel oil consumption, companies have consolidated or eliminated routes. In some cases, the amount of cargo has been increased in order to decrease the number of trips, and all have increased,regular maintenance and repair of vehicles. In order to reduce the use of electricity, consumers have also \carrieed out some basic changes such .as turning the water heater off all or

most of the tine, having air conditioners on for just a few hours and

only

on, very hot days, and drying clothes outdoors instead of in the dryer. The most significant change in the consumption of gasoline has been towards buying smaller vehicles which yield up to 45 miles per gallon. In some cases, an attempt has been made to lower the number of shopping trips, the number of visits to family and friends, and not-too-important errands are avoided.

We must point out that these actions by the consumer are the result of the impact of energy price increases on their bntlget, and not of a special conscienceness over the seriousness of the energy crisis. It is obvious that if usage is steadily maintained, price increases imply an increase in expenses for energy, and a reduction in the use of other goods and services if income does not increase proportionately. This explains why there is a great concentration of consumers in the 400-KVH-monthly group, once the government subsidywas approved.

1. The Government of Puerto Rico designed a subsidy program for all the population who consumed less than 425-KVH per month. The subsidy consist in the payment by the Government of the price of oil adjustment to the Water Resources Authority, if the uviithly consumption was less than 425KVH. The price of oil adjustment was the change in the price of energy that the Water Resources Authority apply in order to avoid changes in the rate structure every tip the OPEC decide to increase the oil price.

D. The Energy Related Situation in the Poor Sector The chief sources of energy used by the poor sectors of Puerto Rico are electricity and propane gas. The latter is used for cooking, particularly in the rural zone and in slum areas. The impact of price increases is reflected in various behavior patterns leading towards economy, such as limiting the use of electric appliances, watching less television, using fewer lights, etc. Nevertheless, in order to absorb direct price increases (electricity, propane gas, gasoline, and public transportation), it is necessary to curtail meeting other basic needs when part of their meager economic resources have to be used to cover rising costs. Thezefore, the situation of the needy places them in a precarious position, since they generally do not have sufficient economic resources to meet their vital needs.

E. The Energy Problem in Latin America The energy situation in Latin America is basically different from that of Puerto Rico. First, countries such as Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia. and Bolivia produce more petroleums than they use; secondly, other countries such. as Mexico, Argentina and Brazil import relatively little, petroleum, since they produce it and have also developed a policy oriented towards financing petroleum production and exploration. Their basic strategy is to

resources to finance

new

one hand and provides the

necessary

levy excise taxes on the use of gasoline, which lowers consumption on the production on

the other. Third, other countries such as Costa Rica, Panama and Nicaragua are oil importers,, but their level of development does not allow them to

21 establish a strict conservation policy. Instead, these countries develop their potential for hydro-electric energy production as the most feasible alternative for satisfying their energy needs. Nevertheless, petroleum exporting countries, and Venezuela in particular, are limiting the petroleum production levels in order to make their known reserves last longer. This is in contrast with their domestic price policy where a gallon of gasoline costs less than 20.0 cents, thus encouraging its indiscriminate use.

III. A SURVEY OF ThE IN1PACT'OF ']IIE ENERGY CRISIS ON OF PUERPO RICO

POOR SECTOR

Introduction Energy prices have been rising dramatically since 1973 as a result of the price, policies of the OPEC countries. Unfortunately, naningful data which indicated the adverse impact of this phen®menon on the low income population was not available. As a result, the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) undertook a major primary data collection effort in order: 1) to identify patterns in the use of energy; 2) to determine the economic cost of these patterns; 3) to identify energy problems as noticed by the poor themselves; 4) to' learn impact of the energy crisis on this sector of the population; 5) to identify the strategies developed by the needy in order to face the energy crisis; 6) to learn the poor's opinion of various alternatives for conserving energy and lowering its cost. The data presented in the following sections are essentially frequency distributions of the various attributes of poor families in Puerto Rico who participated' in the study, 1 and contains an analyses of the existing relationships between dependent and independent variables. The following independent variables were selected: residential area, size of the family group, sex of the person interviewed, occupation of the head of the family, geographical mobility, marital and employment status of the indivich,a1 interviewed, total family income, and whether the family receives food stamps or not. Due to the nature of the investigation, the major findings given are chiefly descriptive. They are first presented in regard to housing and household characteristics and subsequently in reference to the priorities

1. These consist of 17 information cards for each óf the 3,.252.subjects interviewed.

of problems of the poor, patterns in the consumption of energy, energy problems identified by the poor, the impact of the energy crisis on these sectors, the strategies used to face the energy crisis, and finally, their opinions of the alternatives for energy conservation.

that almost 80% of the public housing was build more than ten years ago ~

and at that time hot water facilities were not requested to be included in the project.

a :C. Household Characteristics The composition of these family units shows an average of 4.4 persons per family, a total of 14,179 indivicli,als. The majority of these families consist of three persons or less, although nearly 39% have 4 to six members. As can be seen in Table III-1, the families with the greater proportion of membérs are found in the rural zones and in the island public housing areas. We can also see that families living in slum areas, both island and metropolitan, have the least members per family unit.

Table III-1 Percent DistributiQri óf the Number of Persons Li Within the Family Unit, by Residential Area: 1.7•

Rural (N=1476)

1 to 2 27.2

3 to 4 28.0

Number 5 to6 7 or more 21.2 22.6

Slum - Island (N=570)

34.0

28.2

22.6

15.1

100.0

Slum - Metropolitan (N=526

31.2

34.0

22.8

12.0

100.0

Public Houisng Island (N=306)

30.1

24.5

23.9

21.6

100.0

P. H. - Metroplitan (N=355)

26.1

27.6

29.0

17.2

100.0

Residential Area

Total 100.0

~ 12. Number of persons per family: 1 to 2, 29.3%; 3 to 4, 28.6%; 5 to 6, 23.4%; 7 or more mcribers, 12% (N=3,252).

The dwelling where each family unit interacts has an overage total living space of 610 square feet. Limitations of living space

are much more critical in the rural areas and island slums, and in those families with lower family incomas.13

Most of their time is spent in the living room, which therefore becomes the main place for interaction. Here they tend to spend an average of 6.6 hours daily, but increased income lowers the tine spent together by members of the family. Families living in island public housing areas are the ones to give the living room the greater use as l4 a space unit for socialization. The majority of the members of these family units are children of the head of the family, but nearly 13% are relatives or relations of the head of family. 15 Most of these relatives and relations are found living with rural families.

13. See Appendix D, Tables D-7 and D-8. 14. Most of the tine is spent in: living roam, 67%; dining room, 0.6%; kitchen, 3.6%; bedroom, 16.0%; a combination of rooms, 7.3%; somewhere else in the dweliing, 4.7%; no information available, 0.8% (N=3,252) . See Appendix D, Tables D-9 and D-10, for further information. 15. Distribution by relations of persons living in family units: head, 22.1%; spouse, 14.4%; children, 50.4%; relatives and relations, 137 (N=14,142). See question 68 of the questionnaire.

24 c B.

Housing Characteristics 2 The inquires conducted are based on responses from 3,252 families. Of these, 45.7% are from :rural zones, 33.8% from slum and quasi-slum sectors of the metropolitan area and the rest of the island,3 and the arWtional 20.470 are located in public housing of the metropolitan area 4 and the rest of the island. 5 The majority of the dwellings are built of concrete or blocks, have three bedroams,ó indoor shower,, 7 toilet, 8 and indoor plumbing

2. The 743 rural units have a numerical value of two'. 3. Geographic Distribution: 16.3% in the metropolitan zone, 17.6% for the rest of the island. 4. Geographic Distribution: 11.C'/0 in the metropolitan zone, 9.570 for the rest of the island. 5. Construction material of the dwellings is: concrete or block, 58.3%; wood and zinc, 25.8%; wood and concrete, 9.5%; wood and pasteboard, 0.57; concrete and zinc, 1.570; other, 4.5%. 6. The number of bedrooms per dwelling is: one, 14.0%; two, 32.2%; three, 39.6%; four, 11.5%; five or Dore, 2.5%; no information available, 0.2%. 7. The data is: indoor shower, 64.6/; indoor bathtub, 3.5%; indoor shower and bathtub, 4.6%; neither shower nor bathtub indoors, 27.1%; no information available, 0.2%. 8. Dwellings without toilet, 72.2%; with latrine, 43.2; toilet and latrine, 0.6%; no facility, 2.7%; no information available, 0.2%. 9. 91% has indoor plumbing.

25 10 Only one•fovrth of the dwellings have indoor hot water service. Furthermore, slightly more than one fourth of the dwellings have neither shower nor bathtub indoors, and only have latrine facilities. It is also obvious that hot water is missing in the majority of the hones of the needy. On analyzing these elements of the material life of the poor by residential area, we notice, generally, a progressive improvement in the move from rural zone to slum, and finally to the public housing area. Nevertheless, important conclusions arise, Regarding the construction material of the dwellings, we find that island slums have the least concrete or block construction, and in this sense that particular resident,al zone shows a greater lag than rural ones. The greatest limitations in the nuirber of bedrooms appear in public housing. In fact, the rural areas show a lower proportion of dwellings with only one bedroom than that of public housing, but higher than slum areas. In addition, there is a significant increase in indoor running water facilities, shower or bathtub, and toilet, in proportion to the degree of urban development: fewer in the rural area, more in the metropolitan one. Although a like tendency also re,ain in what concerns indoor hot water, there are variations within the urban sectors themselves when we compare the urban zone as a whole with the rural one. Contrary to what was expected, both the island slums and those of the metropolitan areas have a greater proportion of dwellings with hot water facilities 11 This situation is explained by the fact than the public housing areas

10. 74.1% does not have hot water service. 11. Relationships are detailed in the Appendix D,. Tables D-1 to D-6.

28 -

The proportion of sexes among all the persons within the family units indicates slightly more females than males.. In fact, 52.2% are females. Nevertheless, this proportion is favorable to males when only heads of family are considered. fn that case, two-thirds are male, and one third, female. As presented in Table 111-2, important variations exist by residential sector. These show that female heads of family predominate in public housing areas and much less in the rural zones.

Table. 111-2 Sex of Head of Family, by Residential Area (Percent) Residential Area Male Female Rural

N=1480

Total

73.1

26.9

100.0

64.9

35.1

100.0

Slum - Metropolitan N=525

65.5

34.5

100.0

Public Housing - island

50.3

49.7

100.0

55.7

44.3

100.0

Slum - island

N=569

N=304

Public Housing - Metropolitan N=350

Table 111-3 shows age distribution of all family members. Although 28 is the average age, we find that 4570 of the members of family units are younger than 18, and nearly 127 are older than 61. This confirms data showing that the poverty problem in Puerto Rico is one which affects young .people mainly, and the aging, secondly.

Table III-3 Age Distribution of all Family Members=

1976

Age

Number

Percentage

Younger than 6

1751

12.5

From 6-9

1358

9.7

22.2

From 10-13

1640

11.7

33.9

From 14-17

1.554 _

11.1

45.0

From 18-21

1256

9.6

54.0

From 22-25

845

6.1

60.1

From 26-29

579

4.1

64.2

From 30-33

509

3.6

67.8

From 34-37

426

3.1

70.9.

From 38-41

456

3.3

74.2

From 42-45

386

2.8

77.0

From 46-49

347

2.5

79.5

From 50-53

397

2.8

82.3

From 54-57

386

2.8

85.1

From 58-61

429

3.1

88.2

From 62-65

549

4.0

92.2

Older than 65

1,096

7.8

100.0

Total

13,964

Cumulative Percent

According to Table III-4 an average education level is ~

5.4 grades, but more than a third attended less.

If we

eliminate the 9-year-old or younger population, then the pro~

portion of individuals with six grades or less of schooling is lowered to little more than a third (38.77).

It should

be noted that, the educational environment which tends to predominate in these homes is a very limited one, revealing the poor schooling is a fundamental characteristic of those poor surveyed.

In fact, the proportion of those finishing

secondary school is only 8.5%; those with some university preparation, 3.2%; and those who finish four years of university studies is less than 1%.

All this indicates the

limited educational attainment of the needy individual in Puerto Rico: only 8 of every 100 who begin first grade will finish secondary school, and only 1, university studies. There are no significant differences between total schooling of the heads of family and the other members, except that secondary and university education is less prevalent among the heads o:f 16 family units,

16.' Average education level for heads o.f family is of 5.4 grades. Its distribution by educational levels is as follows: 3 years or less, 38.1%; 4 to 6 years, 26.07o; 7 to 9 years, 19.2%; 10 to 12 years, 14.6%; 8.4% finished 12 years of school, while 0.4% completed 4 years of university studies.

Table III-4 Education Level Schooling of Persons Within.the Family Unit: 1976 Number (*)

Percent

Cu®ulative Percent

Three grades or less

5324

38.3

----

4 to 6 grades

3145

22.6

60.9

7 to 9 grades

2645

19.0

79.9

10 to 12 grades

2332

16.8

96.7

Some university ecfiw'ation

443

3.2 '

99:9

13,889

000.0

Ecri~ation Level

Total

(*) Except 208 cases lacking information on schooling.

Table III-5 represents occupational data of individuals 14 years old or older who belong to the labor force and who identified their occupation. Its analysis reveals that nearly three fourths of the working poor are laborers in various categories, and services workers. When grouped into manual and non-manual, we find that the great majority hold manual employment. 17 Their representation among the most prestigious occupations is meager: office jobs and the like are predominant.

17. Distribution is: (71.77).

Non-manual jobs, 610 (28.37o); Manual Jobs, 1548

If we consider the low educational level prevalent in these sectors, this occupational distribution is to be expected. ~ Table III-5 Occupation of the Needy in the Labor Force Number *

Percent

Professionals, technicians and similar workers

86.

4.0

Managers and administrators, except in farms

0.3

Salespeople

3.7

White collar workers

195

9.0

Craftsmen

381

17.7

Operators , including those in transportation

436

20.2

Laborers, including farm workers

370

17.1

Farmers and farm administrators-

185

8.6

Service workers, including domestics

361

16.7

Small merchants

2.7

2,158

100.0

Occupation

Total

* Excluding 710 cases who do not work and-who did not specify their occupation. In Table III-6, some differences of relative importance arise when comparing the occupational distribution of persons 14 years ó1d

or older with that of heads of family. These differences show a lower 18 representation of heads of family among the non-manual jobs. The greatest difference can be seen among white collar and similar jobs, although we can also see interesting tendencies in the manual employment area. The proportion of craftsmert, laborers, and small merchants is greater

among heads of family than among the total group of individuals who

comprise the family units. Nevertheless, the proportion of operators; farmers and farm administrators diminishes among heads of family. The majority of those employed work 5 days, although 16% works less that 5 days, and 18%, more than 5 days.19 In terms of hours worked, the

fourth works

data shows that the majority works 8 hours daily, although nearly one shorter shift, and 7% a longer one. 20

We must repeat, in reference to the unemployment situation, that the total number of family members in these units is 14,179 persons. Of these, 21 2,875 were either employed or unemployed. That is, the labor force consists of 20.3% of the needy population. The unemployment rate is 60.5% within the labor force of the poor, three times greater than Puerto Rico' official. rate. 22

18. Distribution is: non-manual jobs, 264 (19.8%O; manual jobs, 1067 (80.2%). 19. Distribution by days worked is: less than 5 days, 16.0%; 5 days, 65.6%; more than 5 days, 18.4% (N=977). Average, number of days worked = 4.9 days. 20. Distribution by hours worked: less than 8, 25.8%; 8 hours, 66.9%; more than 8 hours, 7.3% (N=997). Average number of hours worked, daily: 7 hours, 25 minutes. 21. 1,740 unemployed out of 2,874 workers in productive jobs. 22. El Mundo, May 25, 1977, P. 1: unemployment rate reported as 20.3.

34 ~ ~ Table III-6 Occupation of Heads of Family Employed in Productive Jobs : 1976 Occupation

Number*

Percent

Professionals, technicians and similar workers

3.1

Managers and administrators, except of farms

0.1

Salesmen

3.2

White collar and similar workers

3.8

Craftsmen and similar workers

277

20.8

Operators, including those in transportation

244

18.3

Laborers, including farm workers

324

24.3

Farmers and farm managers

3.4

Service workers, including domestics

222

16.7

Small merchants

6.3

1,331

100.0

Total

* Except 190 cases who do not work, 451 invalids, 442 retirees and nonspecified occupations, 771 housewives, 107 without information on occupations. ~ ~

An attempt to describe the conditions of the unemployed shows that slightly more than half of them comprise the only unemployed person in their.respective family units, but that the remainder shares its jobless 23 situation with others in the family. A third consists of heads of family, while more than half are their children. The rate of unemployment is 24 higher among male than female children. This prevalence of unemployment within the ranks of children of family units shows its major negative impact on the younger sector. This finding, however, does not underestimate the negative impact on families of the fact that one third of the heads of family cannot carry out productive tasks. At the time of the interview, the average time of unemployment was 15 months, 26 days. Nevertheless, more than a fourth had been without employment for 19 months or more, while 15% had held that status for 25 months or more.25

This data clearly indicates a critical structural situa-

tion and the concrete fact that unemployment is not a passing condition. On the contrary, it represents a prolonged threat to the security of these families. In spite of their lengthy state of unemployment, the majority

23. Distribution is: only one person jobless,53.9%; two or more unemployed, 46.1 (N=1,728). 24. Distribution of unemployment is: head of family, 32.5%; spouse, 3.2%; son, 33.7%; daughter, 20.5%; other relatives, 10.1% (N1,706). 25. Length of time unemployed: 1 to 6 months, 41.7%; 7 to 12 months, 24.8%; 13 to 18 months, 6.0%; 19 to 24 months, 12.6%; 25 months or more, 14.9% (N=1,438) ~.

of these indivjdw 1s continue to look for work.

An occupational analysis of the last job carried out by the unemployed ~

person reveals that, although nearly one fourth never held a job, the larger unemployment rate belongs to the various labor sectors. They comprise nearly half of the unemployed. Nevertheless, nearly 10'/0 of white collar workers do not escape the unemployment problem.

All this is indicative-""

of the fact that unemployment is one of the factors responsible for the persistent poverty of these families. Monthly incomes amounting to $502,278 is reported by these families: a monthly average of $165.01 or $1,980.12 annually per family. Sources of ~

income are presented in Table III-7. We find that the father's wages are the main source of income, and salaries of the entire family excluding Social Security , represents 60/0 of the total family income. On the other hand, the proportion of income from Federal credit transfers is 39.1%. In other words, these needy families depend heavily on the credit transfers, particularly Social Security, in order to maintain the mininnnn poverty levels in which they live. The economic reliance of poor families on Federal credit transfers is more acute. if we take into consideration the fact that 79 to 100 families are recipients of food stamps

Their dissanination is varied, as can be

26. The answers are: looking for work, 70.47; not looking for work, 27.1%; did not want to answer, 2.57 (N=1,703). ~

27. Distribution by last employe ntis: was never employed, 23.9%; professionals, managers and similar work, 2.9%; salesmen, 2.7%; office workers (white collar) , 4.0T/0; craftsmen., 14..7%; operators, including transportation workers, 17.0%; laborers, 16..x/O; agricultural jobs, 8.2%; service jobs, including domestics, 9.6%; small merchants, 0.5% (N=1, 597) .

1• Table III-7 Average Monthly Income Within Family Units, by Source of Income: 1976

Salary of the father

$ 47.62

Percent Of Total ?8.7

Salary of the mother

17.95

10.8

Salary of sons

4.35

2.6

Salary of daughters

4.63.

2.8

Contribution of other members of the family

6.51

3.9

Other income

4.80

2.9

Social Security - father

36.98

22.3

Social Security

mother

35.07

21.2

Social Security

sons

5.31

3.2

Social Security - daughters

.82

0..5

Social Services

1.65

1.0

$165.69

99.9

Average Dollar Amount

Source

Total

seen in Table III-8, It reveals a significant relationship to the variables presented, except for sex. Specific tendencies show a greater extent of the program in public housing and rural areas, with the former receiving the most benefits. The relationship to the number of persons in the family unit is perfect: to a greater number of persons, a greater proportion

of families receiveing food stamps, and vice-versa. The relationship to ~

~ Table III-8

Relationship Between Some Selected Variables and Food Stamps : 1976

(Percent)

Receives Food Stamps No Yes Total

Sex (N=1991) (N=1030)

77.4 81.7

22.6 18.3

100.0 100.0

(N=1352) .(N= 517) (N=`499) (N= 293) (N= 347)

81.2 71.4 72.3 87.0 83.6

18.8 28.6 27.7 13.0 16.4

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

(N= 862) (N= 878) (N= 722) (N= 562)

65.2 81.3 82.4 92.3

34..8 18.7 17.6 7.7

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Professionals and similar work (N=42) (N= 84) Salesmen (N= 255) Craftsmen (N= 235) Operatórs (N= 143) Laborers (N= 199) Agricultural jobs (N= 288) Service workers (N= 404) Invalid, sick (N= 394) Retiree, pensioner (N= 722) Housewife (N= 42) Other

71.4 73.8 82.4 73.2 82.5 80.9 74.7 84.4 67.0 83.9 81.0

26.6 26.2 17.6 26.8 17.5 19.1 25.3 15.6 33.0 16.1 19.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

86.2 78.9 71.4

13.8 21.1 28.6

100.0 100.0

Mal e Female Residential Area Rural Slum -island Slum - metropolitan Public Housing - island Public Housing - metro Number of Persons in Family 1 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 6 7 or more Occupation of Head of Family

Monthly Family Income ~

Less than $95.00 $95.00 to $199.99 $200.00 or more

(N=1026) (N=1036) (N= 974)

monthly family income is maintained in the same manner since, while income

increases, the proportion of those obtaining food stamps decreases. Finally, from the occupational viewpoint, family units with invalids as head, housewives, laborers, and craftsmen are the largest proportion to receive the benefits of food stamps. If we add the net value of food stamps to family income, the economic situation of the needy family shows important changes in primary sources 28 of income. In fact, food stamps appear as the item of greatest importance in total income, raising it from $154.38 to $255.71 monthly, and the projected annual income from $1,852.56 to $3,068.52 This represents an increase of 65.6%,

but at the same time means that needy families obtain 65.6%

of their limited income from Federal credit transfers. The situation clear-

ly establishes the impact of Federal transfers on the life of the poor in Puerto Rico (who comprise the majority of the society), and poses important questions about its implications on the country's public policy. The economic precariousness of the families included in this investigation achieves new perspectives when we analyze the patterns of monthly expenditures, as presented in Table III-IO.They show that expenses surpass income by $170,374 if the net value of the food stamps is included as part of the income. That is equal to an average deficit of $55.29 per month, per family, or $671.64 on an annual basis. This amount represents 21% of the average annual income. Undoubtedly, the underestimated income, characteris-

28. Total average value of food stamps per family is $129.30 mDntthly. ,The recipients pay $27.97 for .a net ant unt equal to $101.33. See Table III-9.

~ Table III-9 Average Monthly Income for Family Units, by Source of Income, Including Net Value of Food Stamps: 1976 Dollar Amount

Percent of Total

Salaries and contrbutions of all members of family

$ 74.55

29.2

Social Security benefits of all members of family

78,18

30.6

Social Services

1.65

Net worth of food stamps

101.33

39.6.

Total

$255.71

100.0

Source of Income

tic of research done in Puerto Rico, turns the income deficit into one greater than what it really is. Nevertheless, the pattern of expenses surpassing income is a reflection of the general tendency towards indebtedness characteristic of Puerto Rican society ... one to which poor families seem resigned to accept. In this case, the alarming thing is that the lack of food stamps would greatly increase the income defici.t for poor families. In fact., if the same consumer pattern were retained without food stamps, the average monthly deficit would rise from $55.29 to $156.62, and would practically equal the declared average family income. This fact partially y

helps to understand the traditional role the credit institution of "fiao"

Table III-10 Average Monthly Expenses of Poor Families, by Selected Items: 1976 Item Food Clothing Furniture and Appliances Rent Water Electricity Propane Gas Gasoline Public Transportation Recreation Other Expenses Total

Average Monthly Expense Dollars

Percent of Total

$218.00 20.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 7.00 5.00 15.00 8.00 4.00 4.00 $311.00

70.1 6.4 3.8 3.2 2.5 2.2 1.6 4.8 2.5 1.3 1.3 99.7

has played on the life of the poor. In fact, the survival of the needy person is due in great measure on the persistence of the institution which, in turn, places them in that perpetual indebtedness that keeps: them £ruui getting ahead. In short, the data shows that at the present time, poor families survive primarily due to Federal credit transfers and to persistent credits. An itemized analysis of expenditures shows that the majority goes for the purchase of foods (Table III-10), while only 29.9% satisfies the rest of their needs. As a result, we can concludes that the emerging pattern of expenditures among the needy is one chiefly oriented towards their survival. The ~

information at hand does not reveal a superfluous pattern of expenditures. Further on we present a more detailed analysis of the elements of

the pattern of expenses as directly related to energy factors. In spite of the economic hardships which characterize these families, the large majority is satisfied with their domicile at the time of the 29 interview. Rural residents and those in the skilled workers category were the most satisfied. On the other hand, white collar workers show the greatest degree of disatisfaction. Although the relationship between sec and satisfaction with housing does not appear as significant, never30 theless, men tend to feel more satisfied than women. Most of these families show little physical mobility: only 16% 31 state. that they did not live in the same dwelling two years previously. There are no significant differences between those who have moved and those who have not except by occupational areas: some manual sectors 32 show the greater mobility.

29. Answers to the question: "Do you like living here?" were: Yes, 70.6%; Conditional yes, 15.3%; It makes no difference, 0.4%; other answers, 0.2% (N=3252). 30• Appendix D, Tables D-:11 to D-13. 31. Answers to the question: "Did you live here two years ago?" were: Yes, 83.7%; No, 16.3% (N=3059). 32. Appendix D, Tables D-14 to D-17.

The make-up of family groups shows important changes in the composi~ tion of the family. These are more frequent as to persons leaving the nucleus than those who become part of it. In fact, slightly over one

fourth of the informants states that persons living within the family unit two years before no longer do so. On the other hand, 21% maintains 33 that someone joined the family who did not live there two years before The separation of the family nucleus is significantly higher in units where the head of family is female and,in turn, is a housewife or does non-manual or service work. Although there are no important identifiable differences by residential area, the tendency is more prevalent in family

34 units within metropolitan public housing. These facts seem to indicate a possible tendency towards family disintegration among these families. Such an inference,is apparently appropriate, since 16% of the heads of family are divorced or separated, while 19% are widowed. Both factors help to explain the decrease in the number of family units. The addition of members to the family unit does not cause identifiable significant differences by residential area or by sex, but they can be identified by occupational sectors. The facts show that the additions occur mainly in family units headed by individuals in the non-manual sector, 35 Slightly particularly white collar workers, and from jobs as laborers.

33• Answers to the question: "Does anyone live with you now who did not two years ago?" were:Yes, 25.8%; No, 73.3%; No information available, 0.9% (N=3059).

34• Appendix. D, Tables D-18 to D-20.

35• Appendix; D, Tables D-21 to D-23.

36 over half are female, with the majority being children or relatives who do 37 not belong to the irmediate family nucleus. More than half are minors, including new births, but there is an important proportion of adults as well 38 as a much smaller one of the aged.

36. Distribution by sex is: Males, 46.6%; Females, 53.4% (N=661). 37. Relationship to the head of the family is: Head of family, 3.5%; spouse, 2.5%; son, 22.8%; daughter, 26.1%; parents, 2.5% siblings, 3.8% nieces/nephews, 1.1%; other relatives and relations, 37.7% (N=663)'. 38. Age distribution is as follows: 5 years or less, 42.2%; 6 to 10, 5.7%; 11 to 15, 5.8%; 16 to 20, 8.9%; 21 to 25, 10.2% 26 to 30, 6.5%; 31 to 59, 11.6%; 60 or older, 9.1% (N=649).

D. Priorities in the Problems of the Poor:

~. ~

A group of questions within the inquiry attempted to obtain the individual general perception of the main problems of the needy Puerto Rican, and to evaluate the degree of importance of a series of also problematic situations. Table3IE-11 presents the data on the main problem, today and in the next three years. From it we derive that there are three areas of equal priority in regards to present problems. These are unemployment, general price increases,, and the drug (narcotic) problem. Slightly over one fourth of the subjects classified each one of these as today's main problem. Environmental pollution, lack of education, and increases in the price of fuels such as gasoline and electricity care ranked lower.

The same areas of unemployment, price increases and drugs, represent the greatest future worry, although unemployment definitely becomes the main problem, while that of drugs takes second place as general price increases diminish in importance. A small upsurge in importance, particularly in the areas of education and environmental pollution, is noticeable in spite of the fact that other areas are still considered less serious. Significant differences among the persons interviewed are seen in the itemized analysis of opinions about the main problem of the Puerto

Rican poor. Thus, in spite of the fact that nearly one third considers 4

price increases as a main concern, residents of rural areas and metropoli-

~ tan slums are the ones to give it major importance. Unemployment is the chief concern in island slums, the drug problem in public housing areas. Men are more concerned about unemployment, women with the drug problen but as the number of members in the family unit increases, the importance given to unemployment does also. Nevertheless, those with the higher educational levels who work at non-manual occupations are the ones to give 39 the most importance to this problem. The aforementioned differences in priorities tend fo decrease with the subjects' opinion about problems within the next three years. In that situation, nearly everyone increases the importance given to unemployment, although it still continues to be. the greatest worry of those with more schooling and non-manual employment. In the same manner, tendencies by sex and residential area noticed previously continue, but in a some40 what diminished manner. Environmental pollution, lack of education, and the increase in the price of fuels such as gasoline and electricity have low priorities among those of the poor sector in their perception of the immediate and shortterm problems. The data in Table_III-12 was obtained from letting the people evaluate the degree of importance of various situations. They reflect that the r

.fi

previously stated order of priorities remains relatively stable, and that

39. Appendix D, Tables D-24 to D-29. 40. Appendix D), Tables D-30 to D-35.

Table III-11 Main Problem of the Poor in Puerto Rico, Now and in the Future: 1976 (Percent) Main Problem In 3 Years Present Unemployment

28.5

31.3

Price increase in general

28.5

23.3

Drugs

26.4

26.7

Increase in the price of fuel

7.4

----

Supplies of fuels such as gasoline and electricity

----

4.3

Lack of education

3.0

4.0

Environmental pollution

0.7

1.6

Other

3.6

5.8

Combination of problems

1.3

0.8

No opinion, does not know

0.6

2.2

100.0

(N=3252)

unemployment and general price increases persist as fundamental worries. The increase in the price of fuel is also revealed as an essential anxiety in the diagram. Likewise, both the fuel supply and environmental pollution, previously in second place, are considered as problems of great importance by more than 6 of 10 persons interviewed when they had to make this type of classification.

48 ~ ~ Table 111-12 Importance Given to a Group of Selected Problems: 1976\ - tI Degree of Importance (Percen Total Medium Problem Little Much None Unemployment

89.6

4.5

3.2

2.7

General price increase

91.6

5.8

1.4

1.2

100.0

Fuel price increase

80.9

13.2

4.9

1.0

100.0

Fuel supply

68.7

19.9

4.5

6.9

100.0

Envionmental pollution (N=3252)

63.6

18.6

.11.5

6.3

.100.0

The detailed analysis of this area reveals that the importance attributed to unemployment and fuel supply is significantly affected only by the number of members of the family and the degree of schooling. That is, persons in small families and with less schooling give less importance to these problems than their opposites. On the other hand, price increases in general are catalogued as very important by 9 out of every 10 persons, and there are no significant differences in the opposing opinions. Neither are there any among those who believe that the increase in the price of fuel is very important and those who do not. Finally, the importance placed ~

on environmental pollution is influenced by education to such an extent that the more schooling the more discernment given to the problem. Income

levels also affect this opinion. What is noticeable in this respect is that the middle sectors are the ones to give the least consideration to

environmental pollution. Although geographical areas do not significantly affect the opinions on pollution, there is a tendency within metropolitan 41 sectors to give more importance to the problem, Finally, we can conclude that the principal tendency is to consider unemployment and price increases as the problems of the greatest impact on the Puerto Rican needy. Nevertheless, in the evaluation of five selected problems, fuel supply and environmental pollution appeared as significant areas, although unemployment and price increases maintain their lead. The government and its Department of Consumer Affairs (DACO) is held largely (41.5%) responsible for price increases (41..5%), although inmortant fac42 tions blame merchants (13.2%), importers, and oil companies (14.6%).

41. Appendix, D, Tables D-36 to D-42.. 42. A request to place the specific responsibility for price increases resulted in these answers: the government, 34.5%; DACO, 7.1%; the consumers themselves, 3.9%; merchants, 13.2%; the Arabs, 1.6%; importers, 7.6%; the oil companies, 7.1%; others, 8.4%; a combination, 3.6%; no opinion or does not know, 13.2% (1=2509).

~ E. Patterns in the Use of Energy: Y

This section includes information about the various sources of energy and their main utilization, the appliances owned and their patterns of use and finally, the means of transportation and their most relevant factors. 43 Electricity and propage gas are the main sources of energy. The principal uses of electricity are lighting, radio and television, wash.44 ing and ironing clothes. On the other hand, propane gas is used al-

most exclusively for cooking, as is charcoal, another minor source of 45 fuel. The third principal source of energy for the needy population, 46 gasoline, is used basically for transportation. The distribution of the two primary sources of energy is shown in Tahle III-13. From it we see that the use of electricity is spread prac47 tically throughout the income spectrum.

Also , the majority of poor.families use propane gas, except for those in public housing. The proportion of users here does not surpass

43• Appendix D, Table D-43. ~

44. Appendix D, Table D-44. 45• Appendix D, Table D-45.

46.

Ibid.

47.

Appendix D, Table D-46.

~c 29%. An important note regarding propane gas is that its use is more generalized among. families whose heads have the lowest degree of school.48 ing and work at manual occupations.

Table III-13 Use of Electricity and Propane Gas, by Residential Sector: 1976 (Percent) Residential Sector Source Slum Public Housing Metropolitan Metropolitan Island

Rural

Slum Island

95.8 4.2 100.0 (N=1486)

98.4 1.6 100.0 (N=571)

99.4 0.6 100.0 (N=530)

100.0

100.0 (N=302)

100.0 (N=356)

90.9 9.1 100.0 (N=1190)

85.3 14.7 100.0 (N=491)

85.2 14.8 100.0 (N~480)

29.0 71.0 100.0 (N=300)

16.3 83.7 100.0 (N=337)

Use electricity Yes No Total

z ~

Use propane gas Yes No Total

Charcoal or wood as a source of energy is a phenomena almost exclu49 sively rural; their use decreases as educational level increases. This can be more clearly seen when we note that almost one fourth of rural families use charcoal and wood. Nevertheless, in the remainñng sectors this proportion never reaches even two percent, although in island slums

it rises to nearly eight percent. Even so, the dissemination lacks ~ 48. Appendix,D, Tables D-47 to D-48. 49. Appendix D, Tables D-49 to 1,50.

the significance that it holds for real families. Knowing that charcoal and wood are the predominant sources of energy in the rural zones, it is not strange to find that the less education, the greater their use. Such relationship was to be expected since the rural areas have the most limited levels of schooling. Since it fundamentally tends to be a pattern of rural areas, the same relationship found between rural residential sectors and the use of charcoal and wood is also found for other sources of energy, like 50 candles, etc. Gasoline usage is significantly less in public housing, both in the island and in metropolitan areas. (Table III-14). Such lessened pro-

4•

portions can be explained by the fact that the main use of gasoline is for transportation and public housing areas are generally located near means of public transportation.

Table 111-14 Use of Gasoline, by Residential Sector: 1976 Use Gasoline Residential Sector (Percent) No Yes 71.8 28.2 Rural N=1460 76.9 23.1 N= 657 Slum - Island 72.3 27.7 N= 520 Slum - Metropolitan 16.0 84.0 Public Housing-Island N= 306 81.0 19.0 Public Housing-Metro N= 342

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

50•• Other sourced of energy used are: candles, 311; batteries, 80; alcohol and kerosene (kerosene lamps), 49; sunlight, 14; others, 10 (N=464). Appendix fl,. Table D-51.

The data shows that gasoline is less frequently used in homes with a female head of family. In addition, its use increases progressively in homes with a greater number of members, and with higher income. The latter fact is particularly noticéable: the proportion of gasoline users is only 15.6% in homes with a monthly family income of $95 or less, while 51 it increases to 40.1% among those whose income is $200 or more monthly. In use of household appliances, we find that 8 out of every 10 families owns radio and television, although the latter is slightly more generalized.. The dissemination of these items in the poor :sector is much less 52 that among the total population. Nearly two fifths of the homes have record players.53

Table 111-15 presents the distribution of these

goods by residential areas. In it we see that the rural areas are the most limited in

use

of these goods; the metropolitan areas, the

most.advantaged. The greatest restriction in the rural sector is found in ownership of record players, and the least in that of television. Further differences exist among those who own these goods and those who don't. The data on the noticeable variables is presented in Diagram 17:

51• Appendix D, Tables D-52 to D-55. 52. Ownership of these appliances is: radio, 82.2%; television, 85.6% (N=3252). Dissemination among the entire population is: radio, 96%; television, 90%. See: Luis Nieves Falcón: La Opinión Pública y las Aspiraciones de los Puertorriqueños, 1975.

53: 44.8% of the family units own record players. a~

54-

Table III-15

Ownership of Radio, TV, and Record Player by Residential Séctor: 1976 (Percent) Ownership Residential Sector Rural

Slum Island

Slum Metro

Public Housing Island Metro

80.4 19.6 100.0

83.8 16.2 100.0

86.7 13.3 100.0

80.4 19.6 100.0

86.0 14.0 100.0

83.3 17.0 100.0

•85.5 15.0 100.0

89.4 10.6 100.0

89.9 10.1 100.0

88.6 11.4 100.0

35.8 64.2 100.0 1=1460

49.7 50.3 100.0 N=567

52.3 47.7 100.0 1=570

51.0 49.0 100.0 1=306

57.9 42.1 100.0 1=342

Radio Yes No Total

Television Yes No Total Record Player Yes No Total

education, family income, number of persons in, the family. That is, the more limited the educational environment and income are, the greater the bs.ence of radio, television, and. record players,1owér th'é

availabili-

ty of these means of recreation and information. In the same manner, !i

the lower the number of members, the greater the lack of those items. In addition, lack of employment of the head of the family is reflected

~ Table III-16 Ownership of Radio, TV, and Record Player by Selected Variables: 1976 (Percent) Ownership of Selected Variables Record Player Television Radio No Yes No Yes Yes No Schooling 3 grades or less 4 to 6 grades 7 to 9 grades 10 grades or more

79.5 82.5 85.3 87.5

80.7 86.7 88.8 91.3

20.5 17.5 14.7 12.5

19.3 13.3 11.2 8.7

36.8 45.3 48.9 57.3

63.2 54.7 51.1 42.7

Income Less than $95.00 $95.00 - $199.99 $200.00 or mere

a 77.5 84.4 87.7

22.5 15.6 12.3

80.5 84,9 92..8

19.5 15.0 7.2

38.7 41.9 54.4

61.3 58.1 45.6

79.3 83.4 84.2 86.3

20.7 16.6 15.8 13.7

75.0 88.0 91.2 91.7

25.0 12.0 8.8 8.3

26.3 48.8 55.6 54.5

73.7 51.2 44.4 45.5

Number in family 1 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 6 7 or more

54 in the lack of television and record players. The majority only owns one of these appliances, although 12% awns more than one radio, and 5% 55 more than one television set. The analysis of the time given to each, sort of reveals that the record player is played an, average of 1 hour, 6 minutes; the radio, 3 hours, 15 minutes; and television, 4 hours, 8

54• Appendix D, Tables D-56 and fl-57. 55• The number of appliances is: radio: 1, 88.1%; more than 1, 11.9% (N=2673). Television: 1, 93.7%; more than 1, 6.3% (N=2767). Record player: 97.5% own 1; 2.5% owns more than 1 (N=1445).

~'a

~ minutes. That is, television is the media of the greatest impact a

among poor families. Details are given in Table III-17. The most interesting fact of the data presented is that one third of the families studied watch televison for 6 hours or more.

Table III-17 Hours of Exposure Daily to Radio, Television, and Record Player = 1976 (Percent) Record Player Television Radio Hours 2 Hours or Less

32.5

7.3

72.4

Less than 3 hours but 2 or more

22.0

10.2

14.2

Less than 4, but 3 or more

13.5

16.8

5.2

Less than 5 hours, but 4 or more

8.8

19.3

2.5

Less than 6, but more 5 or more

5.0

11.4

0.8

Six hours or more

17..2

33.2

2.1

No information available

1.0

1.8

2.9

100.0

N=2673

N=2767

N=1445

Total

The majority of these appliances have been in use for an average of 5 years (radio, 4 years, 8 months; television, 4 years, 9 months; record player, 4 years, 6 months) but more than one fourth of them

57 ~ 56 are 6 years old or older. Most of the television sets are black 57 and white, and the majority states that they'do not leave it on when

no one is watching. An identical observation is made about the radio and record player, although there is a greater tendency to leave the 58 radio on that there is for the television o record player. Ownership of these appliances is presented in Table 111-18. The first important fact is that appliances found most frequently are those which tend to become necessities of modern life: stove, refrigerator, electric iron, oven, and clothes washer. One fourth of the families owns a water

heater, and only a very small minority owns an air conditioning unit. In fact, the electric fan seems to serve as its substitute among poor

families since a bit more than one fourth of the families owns one.

56. Years of usage are: Radio: 2 or less, 37.9%; 3 years, 13.6%; 4 years, 10.9%; 5 years, 9.4%; 6 years or more, 28.2% (N=2661). Television: 2 or less, 31.1%: 3 years, 12.6%; 4 years, 12.8%; 5 years, 11.6%; 6 years or more, 31.9% (N=2744). Record player: 2 or less, 41.0%; 3 years, 14.1%; 4 years, 11.5%; 5 years, 7.1%; 6 years or more, 26.3% (N=1414). 57. Color television, 7.2%; black and white, 91.1%; both, 0.9%; no information available, 0.8% (N=2770). 58. Frequency of being left turned on while no one is listening or watching is: Radio: never, 79.9%; not often, 14.6%; often, 5.5%. Television: never, 81.3%;- not often, 16.2%; often, 2.5%. Record player: never, 89%; not often, 8.8%; often, 1.5%.

~ ~

Table III-18 Appliances Owned by Poor Families in Their Homes Number of Owners

Percent of Total; Number of Families

Stove

3190

98.1

Refrigerator

3084

94.8

Electric Iron

2642

81.2

Oven

2147

66.0

Clothes Washer

1970

60.6

Electric Wall Clock

1135

34.9

Electric Fan

948

29.2

Water Heater

883

27.2

Blender

768

23.6

Toaster

610

18..8

Electric Can Opener

237

7.3

Electric Hair Dryer

208

6.4

Electric Coffee Maker

1.9

Air Conditioner

1.0

Heating Pad

0.9

Electric Razor

0.8

Juice Extractor

0.7

Freezer

0.6

Clothes Dryer

0.3

245

7.5

Appliance

Other Appliances

As with the appliances previously mentioned, the majority of the homes contains only one of those which appear in the preceeding diagram, 59 but a basic difference as to length of usage exists, as seen in Table 111-14.

More than half of the irons and refrigerators have

had more that 5 years of use; the proportion is more or less the same for stoves: half of them are 4 years old or less, and the other half is 5 years old or more. However, this is not true in those homes where we find a clothes washer, water heater, air conditioner and fans: these items show 4 years or less of usage which indicates recent acquisition.

Table 111-19 Length of Use of a Group of Selected Appliances: 1976 (Percent) 5 years or 4 years or more less Total Appliance Stove Refrigerator Electric iron Electric fan Washer Water heater Air conditioner

50.6 46.7 42.2 66.7 58.4 63.9 65.6

49.4 53.3 57.8 33.3 41.6 36.1 34.4

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

(N=2876) (N=3024) (N=2628 (N= 899 (N=1937) (N= 823) (N= 31)

Although nearly all of the surveyed population has a stove and refrigerator in their homes, the low number of homes lacking these facilities is found in the rural area, and its heads of family are among

59. Appendix. D, Table D-58.

those with the lowest educational and income levels. As can be seen in ~

Table III-20 , the source of energy used for cooking is significantly different by residential sector, and its use follows the same tendencies previously noted in regards to the use of energy: public housing areas use mostly electricity, and the other sectors use propane gas.

Table III-20 Fuel Used in Stove, by Residential Area : 1976 (Percent) Residential Area Type of Fuel Used in Stove Propane Gas Kerosene Electricity Combination Total Rural

N=1416

91.2

4.4

2.7

1.7

100.0

Slum isiand

N= 552

85.0

2.4

10.5

2.1

100.0

Slum metropolitan N= 525

84.4

2.9

11.0

1.7

100.0

Public housing island N= 304

20.7

0.7

69.1

9.5

100.0

Public housing metropolitan N= 351

15.9

0.6

79.5

4.0

100.0

Homes which lack an electric iron are not significantly different from the rest, but contrary to what was expected, the lack of a cooking y

oven is more pronounced in public housing, both on the island and in the metropolitan area. In fact, while nearly three fourths of the family

units in the rural zone and in the slums indicate that their kitchens have an oven, the proportion goes down to approximately two fifths in 6Ó

public housing.

was expected,

Regarding clothes washers, the enexging tendency conforms with what ee the dispersion of this appliance is greater among

urban homes whose heads of family have higher ech tional and income 61 levels. The same inclination is seen in ownership of electric fans, 62 water heaters, blender, toaster, electric can openers and hair dryers. The distribution of other appliances is too restricted to make indivifi,a1 analyses, but the relationship to schooling and income levels is

maintained. It all seems to indicate that the expansion in the posession of goods, home appliances in particular, is related to the levels of income and education. That is, the more educational and economic attributes, the broader is the extent of appliance ownership. Welwist point out that although nearly one fourth of the homes has a water heater, 58% of these are small ones used for showers only. Nevertheless, the others supply the entire house. 63 The use of shower water heaters is mere generalized in the slum or near-slum are

the metropolitan area, and in island public housing. Its relationship

60 • Appendix D, Table D-59. 61 . Appendix D, Table D-60.

62. Appendix D, Tables D-61 to D-66. 63 . The type of water heater available is: shower only, 58.4%; the entire house, 41.x/O; no information available, 0.3% (N=883).

to the level of education is significant, but more so to the level of income. The tendency is very clear that more education and more income, the

lower the incidence of ownership of a water heater which is good only for water in the shower. In conclusion, the appliances with the greatest distribution among the poor are those which could be catalogued as fundamental to modern life. However, as education and income increase, so dóes the diversity of appliances. However, an influential element in the energy consuming patterns of the poor .sectors is the fact that half of their stoves, refrigerators and irons are more than 5 years old. This factor can

~ have a negative effect on the patterns of the use of ,energy. On the other hand, the main source of cooking fuel is propane gas, which has undergone one of the greatest price increases. As we will see later, this and other price increases in various energy items will have a decisive effect on the life-style of the poor.

F. Patterns of Energy Consumption in Reference to Home Appliances:

In this section we try to identify the consumer pattern predominant in the poor sectors in regards to home appliances so that we can determine if it is one which tends to economize or to waste energy. Fundamentally, it is based on predominant and customary ways of using individual appliances. When we reviewed additional data obtained about the uses of the refrigerator, we found that its average size is 14.6 cubic feet, and that there are 4.8 feet between it and the stove, and 8.6 feet between the refrigerator and the clothes washer. The refrigerator and the stove are in different rooms in 5% of the homes. The same situation exists between the refrigerator and the washer in more than half of the homes which own the latter. In Table III-21.,

we can see the patterns in the use of the

refrigerator. The tendencies shown reveal some uses which do not contribute to energy conservation. Among these are: to defrost the refrigerator when it has lots of ice , and to leave the refrigerator 64 Refrigerators withon when the owner goes away for a week or more.

64. However, the impact of these results is reduced when we consider the families who have automatic defrosters in their refrigerators and those who do not leave their homes for that length of time. 3,077 family units gave information about their type of refrigerator. Of these appliances, 975 áre automatic defrosters; 377 defrost manually when there is little ice. That is, the pattern of proper usage is predominant in 1352 family units, a 43.9% proportion.Prolongued absences from the home show a similarity: of those who leave for more than one week, 638 disconnect the refrigerator, 1411 do not go away for so long. Both represent 2049 of the total answers to the question (3022), or 67.8% to practice an adequate pattern of use.

out automatic defroster and those without separate freezer doors do not tend to conserve energy either. However, these two factors are

characteristics of the most recent and more expensive models and are therefore less accesible to the poor than the older ones. Truthfully speaking, although the predominant pattern on the use of the refrigerator is one which tends to increase the use of electricity, this is chiefly due to the type of article owned by the

individual. The

habit of defrosting the refrigerator when it has too much ice is the only one which seems to require inmediate educational action. On the other hand, a very positive habit is the one of not leaving the refrigerator door open when it is used. e Table III-21 Patterns in the Use of the Refrigerator; 1976 (Percent) Pattern of Use Customary Use

Yes

Total

Has automatic defroster in refrigerator

31.7

68.3

100.0

N=3077

If defroster is not automatic, defrosts when refrigerator has lots of ice

81.9

18.1

100.0

N=2084

Leaves door open while using refrigerator

9.7

90.3

100.0

N=3071

Freezer has own door

57.6

42.4

100.0

N=3076

Leaves refrigerator on if absent for a week or more

60.4

39.6

100.0

N=1611

As we noted previously, almost everyone uses a stove to cook on. Only 2% of these families indicates that they do not. Propane gas is the main source of energy for the stove, followed by electricity. According to the data in Table III-20, a very low nunher uses kerosene. The majority of the stoves do not have a thermostat, which IeMs to a greater use of energy, but neither do they have a 65 Slightly less than a third of pilot light, a positive savings factor. those who have a pilot light leave it one, thus increasing their use of propane fuel. Electricity for cooking purposes is used by 207 of the families who own stoves (653 of 3190) during an average of 3 hours, 27 uinutes daily, However, nearly one fifth uses their electric stoves for 5 or 66 This shows that within the minority group, cooking more hours daily. is one of the items with high energy consumption. In general, foods are not baked in spite of the fact that the 67' An important reason which helps majority of the stoves has an oven.

65. The facts on propane gds stoves are: with thermostat, 14.9%; without thermostat, 85.1% (N=2352). Pilot light, 15.6%; without pilot light, 84.4% (N=2352). Pilot light left one when stove is not being used, 30.3%; not lett on, 69.7% (N=366). 66. Daily hours of use for the electric stove: 4 hours or less, 7.8'/0; 5 hours or more, 21.8% (N=653). 67. Owns an oven in the kitchen: yes, 67.3%; no, 32.7% (N=3190). Place where most of the food is cooked: oven, .07%; on the burners, 99.3% (N=2147).

to explain the situation is that the ovens do not work in one third of

68 the cases.

When the oven is used, the large majority of individuals

tends to open the oven door to see how the food is doing, nor use

69 pyro-ceramic utensils. All of these tend to increase energy consumption. There are two predominant behavior patterns which have opposite effects: setting the oven at the temperature at which it will be used, 70 and not using it for tóasting bread. Negative uses of the oven are held in check partly by other patterns which tend to conserve energy in cooking. These are presented in Table 111-22, where we ca.n see that of the 7 patterns selected, 5 tend to be energy-saving. Those showing the greatest waste are' those who ~

use utensils which don't cover the entire burner, thus allowing some of the heat to escape without being used, and those who keep the stove or oven on until the last minute, thus wasting the opportunity to use accumulated heat to finish the cooking process.. The former represent only a small proportion of the families, but the latter group is the great majority.

68. 32.7% pointed out that their ovens did not work and were broken. (N=2147). 69. Opens oven door to see food: Yes, 82.4%; No, 17.6% (N=1132). Type of utensil used for baking: metal, 86.7%; glass or pyroceramic, 7.5%; combination of these, 5.8% (N=1131). ~ 70. 85% sets the oven at the temperature which will be used for cooking, ánd only 15% sets it. at a higher temperature (N=1129). At the same time, 89.5% does not use the oven to toast bread (N=1134).

Table III-22 Patterns in the Preparation of Food Related to the Proper -Use of Energy: 1976 (Percent) Individual Behavior Behavior Pattern Does

Does Not

Total

Lowers temperature when food begins to boil

91.0

9.0

100.0

(N=3173)

Uses utensils which cover entire burnér

84.4

15.6

100.0

(N=2821)

Does not use a high flame when cooking with propane

81.4

18.6

100.0

(N=2751)

Cooks several foods at the same time

77.3

22.7

100.0

(N=3170)

Does not use a lot of water in cooking vegetables

61.6

38.4

100.0

(N=3067)

Uses flat-bottom pots and pans

90.8

9.2

100.0

(N=2829)

Turns stove or oven off slighly before cooking is completed

80.2

19.8

100.0

(N=3173)

The use of washing machines also presents a fairly positive behavior;, only one of the five patterns of use presented shows a possible tendency towards less efficiency: the number of times a week the washer is used. Average use is 2.4 times weekly, but in 32% of the homes it is more than 3 times a week, thus increasing the possibility of greater inadequate usage.71In the same way, nearly one third does not pre-soak clothing

71: Frequency of distribution in the use of the washer is: once a week or less, 37.9%; twice a week, 30.3%; three times a' week, 14.8%; four, 4.1%; five, 2.7%; six, '2.6%; seven or more times ' a week, 7.6% (N=1930).

before placing it in the washer, nor do they do full loads, thus increasing the inadequate use of energy. d Table 111-23 Patterns Related to the. Adequate Use of Energy in the Management of the Washing Machine: 1976 (Percent)

Individual Behavior

Behavior Pattern

Does

Does Not

Total

Uses cold water

97.6

2.4

100.0

(N=1943)

Separates light from heavy clothing

87.6

12.4

100.0

(N=1930)

Pre-soaks heavily soiled clothing

65.9

34.1

100.0

(N=1590)

Washes full loads

61.5

38.5

100.0

(N=1929)

Uses the washer once a week

37.9

62.1

100.0

(N=1930)

Slightly over one fourth of the homes surveyed have one or more 73 72 They electric fans, used an average of 6 hours, 16 minutes daily. are used mostly at night, although nearly a fourth of the sample used

72. There are electric fans in 948 of 1098 homes, an average of 1.1 fan per family. 73. Daily use of the electric fan is: less than .1 hour, 11.9%; 2 to 3 hours, 20.2%; 4 to 5 hours, 12.6%; 6 to 7 hours, 12.8%, 8 to 9 hours, 26.3%; 10 hours or more, 16.2% (N=844).

74 them day and night.

Only a small m=inority states that they leave 75 the fan on even if there is no one in the room. Although in this respect they do not show improper consumer patterns, we must remember that the proiongued use of the fan (42.5% uses them for 8 hours, or more, daily) and the fact that these appliances are an average of 4 years old, could be factors leading to a greater expenditure of energy. The air conditioner is an appliance with little distribution in the poor sectors and which has probably been substituted by the electric fan. The scarcity of air conditioning units in these sectors could be due to its cost: the investment required by its purchase can be more adequately used in what seem to be appliances of greater priorities such as the stove, refrigerator, and washer. Only 31 families among all those interviewed said that they owned a total of 39 units. This is less than one percent of the poor population. In spite of the limited number of air conditioner owners, we analyzed the behavior patterns in its use: ownership of one could be a goal of the poor sectors and present pratices could indicate future behavior. The average air conditioning unit is 3 years, 7 months old and is used 6 hours daily. In general terms, the pattern of use tends to promote a saving of electricity since it is turned off when there is no one in the room, most lights are turned off to lessen sources of heat

75. The data (N=901).

is:

74.. 10.7% uses the fan during the day; 64.9% at night; 24.4% use it day and night (N=846). leave the fan on, 9.7%; turns fan off, 90.3%

in the room, filters are checked and cleaned frequently, and lamp and other heat-producing appliances are kept away from the unit. Other patterns practiced by slightly over half of the owners of the units show the possibility of a considerable margin for improvement. We refer to the desire to place the unit on the shady side of the room, check the unit once a year, protect windows and exits to avoid leakage of cold air, and have curtains at the windows to partially avoid the effects of solar heat. Besides showing a fairly adequate pattern in the use of the air conditioning units, the majority of the owners seems conscious of the impact this appliance can have on energy consumption and on the family budget: 9 out of 10 would pay a little more for a less attractive and more expensive unit but one that would conserve energy. The water heater is another appliance about which we required additional information during the investigation. Slightly over one fourth of the families own one, and the average age of the appliance is 76 4 years, 4 months. As was previously shown, the majority of the water heaters in these poor sectors are for use on showers only, thus making the facility of hot water available for bathing only. Only one fourth has a thermostat to regulate water temperature automatically77and those who have one

76. Years of use of the water heater are: 4 years or less, 63.9%; 5 to 7 years, 19.2%; 8 to 10 years, 10.7%; 11 years or more, 6.2% (N=883). 77. Water heater has a thermostat: Yes, 25.9%; No, 74.1% (N=883).

generally place it at a medium to low temperature setting.78 Other patterns of proper use are the fact that the heater is located near the place where most of the hot water is used, and the hot water is not allowed to run while dishes are being done, while shaving, or in any other way. It is also positive that two thirds turn off their 79 heaters when they are not needed. However, a cultural element exists: the Puerto Rican preference for showers, which could contribute to a greater use of energy. Yet in view of the general positive-pattern, the implications of this factor are not considered of major signifi80 cance. To conclude this section on patterns in energy use, we include some gauges which could give some information about the adequacy of the electrical wiring of the homes. This might lead to á greater use of energy than is necessary. Data in Table III-24 shows that in more tliian half of the homes,the possibility of inadequate wiring exists; this

7 . Temperature setting of the thermostat: low, 17.7%; medium, 69.9%; high, 12.4% (N=209). 79. 86.5 of the heaters is located near the place where most hot water is used (N=779). 73.2% turns the heater off when it is not being used, while 26.8% leaves it on all the time (N=802). Only 17.4% lets the water run , while 82.6% does not (N=740). 80. 95.9% of the members of the family units prefer to take showers (N=741).

is a certainty in one fifth or more of the homes, where electrical appliances are slow in heating or where the fuses blow out easily.

This could indicate an area which will require corrective measures to insure a more positive pattern in the use of energy.

Table 111-24 Characteristics Related to the Electric Wiring of the Homes : 1976 (Percent)

Yes

Condition Exists in the Home Total No

Lights dim or give less light

72.0

28.0

100.0

(N=3200)

TV picture get smaller

60.3

39.7

100.0

(N=2861)

Electrical appliances are slow in heating

33.0

67.0

100.0

(N=3122)

Fuses blow out easily

23.0

77.0

100.0

(N=3150)

Characteristic

As the conclusion of this section, we include additional elements which underline a positive pattern of use among the poor sectors. The information refers to the general custom of using 75-Watt light bulbs, or smaller, of turning lights off when not in use, and of not keeping lights on during the night. All of it seems to suggest a fairly adequate pattern in the use of energy among the poor sectors. ~

G. The Pattern of Transportation in the Poor Sectors:

The transportation field was investigated by a series of questions to all subjects, asking their opinion about public transportation; other questions were addressed only to those who are employed, and to motor vehicle owners. It was determined that the majority of those interviewed use public transportation infrequently or almost never. In fact, 6 out of every 10 persons gave that reply, while only 4 stated that they almost always use public transportation.81There are no differences between those who frequently use public cars or busses and those who do not, but there is a slight tendency towards the most asidious users being rural residents as well as those from metropolitan public housing, and 82 from among those who receive food stamps. The proportion which is considering a more frequent use of public transportation does not change 83 considerably. Various reasons are given for not using it, but the following stand out: the discomfort and inefficiency of busses, their limited schedule, and the fact that the person owns his own car or uses one belonging to neighbors or family. Table III-25

presents the situation of how those who work get

81. Frequency of use of public transportation is: Almost always, 39.5%; seldom, 28.3%; almost never, 31.5%; other answers, 0.7% (N=3273). 82. Appendix D, Tables D-67 to D-71. 83. Those who have thought about using public transportation more frequently, 44.2%; 54.1% are of the opposite opinion; and 1.7% gave other answers or did not answer (N=3273)

8.4 to their place of work.

We can deduce from it that as a means of

getting to work, the private automobile has the edge on public transportation. This tendency is stronger for heads of family than for the

rest of the working people, who depend a great deal on "Público" cars and "pisicorres" for their transportation. Only 3 out of every 10 persons who work use public transportation: public cars and mini-busses are mostly used. The low preference for busses is clearly understood in view of the previous opinions, while that for taxis is obviousl.y explained in terms of their high economic cost. A more detailed analysis shows some interesting tendencies about the means of transportation to the place of work. First, nearly one fifth of those who work productively walk to their place of work, but

TRANSLATOR'S NOTE: These privately owned automobiles, mini.-busses or station wagons are licencdd by the Public Service Commission and have set routes for specified fares. They carry as many passengers as can be squeezed into the vehicle, and travel as fast as possible between points of the route. A literal translation would be public cars.

84• This analysis is presented in regards to the heads of family. Besides the head of family, there are 57 spouses who work, and 284 relatives. Molt of their places of work are less than 4 miles away and most use public cars of mini-busses 'or their own car to get there. The great majority of those who own a car travel alone. Two thirds of them take 30 minutes or less to get to work, but think it would take much longer if they used public transportation. Their principal objection to it is the time it takes and the inconveniences, but many give as principal reason the fact that they are accustomed to their own car. Users of public transportation general pay 50.0 cents or less daily, and the majority gets to work 'in slightly over 30 minutes: they use public facilities because they do not own a car. Its lack, and the. alleged deficiencies of public transportation, has kept them from going to medical or dental appointments and from applying for work; they have also stopped studying or missed a social activity, but to a lesser degree than the previous reasons.

Table 111-25 Means of Transportation to Work for the Head of the Family and Other Working Members of the Family Units : 1976 (Percent) Person. who Works Means Of Transportation Head

Others

A11

Own car

36.9

20.4

31.0

Public automobile or station wagon

14.4

31.8

20.6

Walking or riding bicycle

23.4

17.4

21.3

Bus

8.4

7.3.

8.0

Another person's car

16.0

10.6

18.8

Taxi

0.7

11.1

4.4

Other (includes trucks and motorcycles)

5.2

1.4

3.9

100.0

N=667

N=368

N=1035

the proportion rises to 40% in the case of island public housing. Second, men depend chiefly on their own car or on walking to get to work, while women on public cars and station wagons and on walking. Third, there is a direct relationship between schooling and the availability of a personal car to get to work. That is, the greater the educational level, the greater proportion who uses their own car to get to work. That is, ~

761

while only 20.8% of those with educational levels of 3 grades or less uses their own car, the percentage rises to 51.2% among those with 10 8.5 grades or more of schooling. The distance from work by residential sector is included in Table III-26.

As can be seen, nearly three fourths of the persons

interviewed travel four miles or less to their place of work. And, although this is a little closer for island slum residents and slightly further for those in metropolitan slums, we can deduce that distance to the place of work is relatively short. The data does not include 38 persons who work in the inmedia-te vicinity of their homes, and who are mostly rural residents. Their inclusion would only sharpen the described tendency.

Table III-26 Distance to Place of Work of Head of Family, by Residential Sector: 1976 (Percent) Distance Residential Sector Less than 4 Miles

4 Miles or Total More

Rural

76.3

23.7

100.0

N=262

Slum - Island

83.8

16.2

100.0

N=111

Slum - metropolitan

70.5

29.5

100.0

N=105

Public Housing - Island

75.9

24.1

100.0

N= 54

Public Housing - Metropolitan

76.6

23.4

100.0

N= 64

Total

76.7

23.3

100.0

N=596

85. Details of this tendency are presented in Appendix., Tables D-72 to D-76.

When we compare a group of independent variables with the distance

to the place of work, we find on the one hand that female heads of family work nearer than the men, and that on the other, the greater the 86 schooling and income, the further the place of work.

Persons who use their own car for transportation to work mostly do so. alone:

nearly 7 of 10 travels without a companion. 87 This is mere-

ly a reflection of the country's general characteristic low rate of individuals per automobile. It takes the great majority of these people less than half an hour to get to work, and only a very small minority takes over an hour.88 Nevertheless, many of them believe that it will take longer if they use public transportation. This inference becomes a fact when we compare the proportion which states that it takes them half an hour or less to get to work in their own car, and those who point out that it would take them the same time using public transportation. The proportions are 78.7% and 37.1%. In other words, the proportion of those who believe that it would take half an hour to get to work if they used public transportation is reduced by more than half. In the same way, the proportion who believes it would take more than 45

86. Appendix D, Tables D-77 to D-80 $7. 66.9% of those who use their own car travel alone; 33.1% travel with another person (N=246).

8$. The time it takes to get to work is: 15 minutes or less, 48.0%; from 16 to 30 minutes, 30.7%; from 31 to 45 minutes, 5.8%; from 46 to 60 minutes, 10.2%; more than 1 hour, 5.3% (N=225). a

minutes increased from 15.5% to 47.9%. Undoubtedly, persons. who own a car see public transportation as a means which would considerably ~

lengthen the time required to get to their place of work. The additional time it would take to get to work, together with factors associated with that situation, are the main reasons given for not using public transportation: it takes too long,, too much waiting, there are no convenient routes. Other important reasons given are: the habit of using the car, the fact that the nature of the job itself requires the use of a car, that it costs more or less the same, and 9~0 that travel by public vehicles is very unconfortable. Individuals using, public transportation to get to work represent

3 out of every 10 workers.. Slightly over a third of them pays 50.0 cents or less to get to work, while a third pays between 51.0 cents and. $1.00 and the 94 This represents a daily average of 56.0 cents. remainder pays over $1.00.

89. Estimated time to get to work by taking public transportation: 15 minutes or less, 13.4%; from 16 to 30 minutes, 23.7%; from 31 to 45 minutes, 15.0%; from 46 to 60 minutes, 19.4%; more than 60 minutes, 28.5% (N=186). 90. The proportion per reason is: is used to taking car, 25.8%; it takes too long,. 15.9%; needs the car at work, 11.7%; there are no convenient routes, 9.1%; it is too unconfortable, 8.0%; we have to wait too long, 7.2%; it costs more or less the same, 1.5%; other reasons, 14.0%; a combination of reasons, 6.8% (N=264). 4,

91. The cost of transportation to work i's: 25 or less, 0.6%; from .26 to .50, 35.7%; from 51 to .75, 16.2%; from 76 to $1.00, 18.2%; from $1.01 to $1.50, 18.2%; from $1.51 to $2.00, 5.2%; more than $2.00, 5.9% (N=154)

In terms of time, 6 out of every 10 workers take half an hour or 92 less to get to work, and only 12% requires an hour or more. Not having an automobile is the main reason given by these people for using public transportation. Other minor reasons exist, but this 93 one stand out as the most important. The inconvenience of public transportation has at times been the cause for these people to leave important things undone, such as missing

doctors' appointments, not visit relatives, not go to a social activity or to a particular store.94 All of these reasons help to reinforce the negative attitude towards public transportation. 95 About one fourth of the surveyed homes have some car or vehicle. In concrete terms, that is the equivalent of 838 motor vehicles: 1 in 660 homes, 2 in 66 homes, and 3 or more in 10 homes. Tables III-27 Presents their distribution by residential sector. It is obvious that the distribution of these vehicles, the automobile in particular, is lower

92. The time it takes to get to work is: 15 minutes or less, 22.7% from 16 to 30 minutes, 37.4%; from 31 to 45 minutes, 4.9%; from 46 to 60 minutes, 22.7%; more than 6 minutes, 12.3% (N=158). 93. The reasons, given are: 88.07 do not have'. car; 5.í0`/o does not have a license, 3,.(á/a does not like to drive, 4,Ój, other reasons, (N=147) 94. Activities they have been unable to do because of lack of own transportation: not go to the doctor, 21.4%; not go to the dentist, 7.5%; not apply for work, 9.4%; not visit relatives, 24.1%; not go to a particular store, 12.0%; not go to a social activity, 12.4%; leave school, 4.5%; not do something else, 4.1% (N=266). 95, Distribution is: owns a vehicle, 25.4%; does not own a vehicle, 74.6% (N=3092).

in the public housing dwellings. However, what comes to our attention is the greater distribution of the automobile in the rural zone and island slums in comparison to the metropolitan public housing area. This behavior is more. in keeping with reality when the variables of income and schooling are introduced into the analysis. A clear relationship between both factors then arises: to the greater schooling and in'96 come, the greater the ownership of vehicles. ~ Table III-27 Distribution of Motor Vehicles, by Residential Sector : 1976 (Percent) Residential Sector Owns a Motor Vehicle Yes

Total

Rural.

28.5

71.5

100.0~

N=1333

Slum - Island

25.5

74.5

100.0

1N= 564

Slum - Metropolitan

27.4

72.6

100.0

N- 525

Public Housing - Island

16.0

84.0

100.0

N= 307

Public Housing - Metropolitan

19.1

80.9

100.0

N= 356

Total

25.4

74.6

100.0

N=3085

Another fact of importance related to the ownership of vehicles is the scant proportion of female heads of family who own automobiles in ~

comparison to males: 10% only for the former, while it is one third for

3 96. Appendix D, Table D-81.

the latter9 7

Undoubtedly,certain cultural patterns still prevail ~

which negatively affect women's behavior in this area. Although different members of the family drive the vehicle, the father is the one who generally does, and also the one who drives most frequently. After the father, the son is the one who usually drives. The proportion of female spouses as well as daughters to have access to the car is significantly more limited than that of their male counterparts.98 Thus we can deduce that driving an automobile is still a predominantly masculine activity in the poor sectors. Approximately one third of the iehicles were bought during the twelve months preceeding the interview, but the greatest majority was 99 100 acquired much earlier. the largest amount of vehicles was automobiles, and most were second hand. In fact, 7 out of 10 vehicles were used when their owners acquired them. 101 By using the model year as a basis, we found that each vehicle was

97. Ibid. 98. Answers to the question: 'What members of the family drive the car?' were: husband, 57.5%; wife, 3.8%; both, 6.8%; son, 10.2%; daughter, 10.2%; both, 1.5%; one of the spouses and one of the offspring, 9.5%; another relative, 7.3% (N=838). Answers to who drives it most frequently: husband, 72.7%; wife, 7.0%; botti, 1.5%; son, 14.6%; daughter, 3.7%; one of the spouses and one of the offsptng, 99. Date of purchase of vehicle: during the last 12 months, 35.3%; previously, 55.5%; makes no difference, 9.4% (1=838). 100. Type of vehicle: automobile, 74.3%; small trucks or vans 12.0%; trucks, 1.4%; others, 4.5%; no information available, 7.8% (N=838). 101• Distribution is: new vehicles, 18.4%; used, 74.5%; no information available, 7.8% (N=838).

7 years old on the average, which also shows that the vehicles owned by the poor have had relatively hard use. (See Table 111-28). ~ Table 111-28 Model Year of the Vehicles Year

Percent*

1962 or before

3.8

1963-1964

9.8

13.6

1965-1966

11.2

24.8

1967-1968

15.8

40.6

1969-1970

23.7

64.3

1971-1972

18.3

82.6

1973-1974

12.3

94.9

1975-1976

5.1

100.0

Cumulative - Percent

* Except 72 cases without information on model year N=766

Although 4 out of 10 purchases were for cash, nearly half were 102 bought through a bank or financing agency. These were prevalent among families with the least income (cash), while bank loans were the usual 103 thing among those with higher incomes. z 102. Type of financing: cash, 41.5%; bank loan, 22.6%; finance company loan, 5.2%; no information available, 5.2% (N=838). 103. Appendix D, Table D-82.

Only 7.97, of the vehicles, a very small minority, was insured. 104 The favorite automnbile is Chevrolet, followed by Ford. Most have 8-cylinder motors, although slightly over half of the owners have 105 6-cylinder or smaller Average mileage from the time of purchase of the vehicle is 2,558 miles.

In the cases where there is a second car, the average is slightly

less for the first one (2,475 miles), and slightly more for the second car (3,279 miles). Average performance is 16 miles per gallon, although the first vehicle gets 15 and the second, 13. Three variables seem to significantly affect this performance: residential area, sex, and school106 ing,. with the latter two being the predaminant ones. If we consider that the majority of the vehicles purchased by the poor have had considerable use and are mostly 8-cylinder nodéls giving low mileage per gallon, we can surmise that the automobile belonging to the poor can turn him into a major consumer for gasoline. In spite of this, worries over gasoline consumption and its increasing costs is expressed in the reason why one fourth of the owners prefer cars with 4cylinders or less.

104. The different makes are: Chevrolet, 35.37; Ford, 23..6%; Toyota, 9.47o; CHIC, 6.6%; Volkswagen, 6.17o; Datsun, 4.97o; Jeep, 4.57; Dodge,. 1.9%; International, 1.3%; Fiat, 0.'8%; other,. 5.6% (N=737). (101 cases without information were not incliirled) . 105...

The type of otor is: rotary, 0.6%; 4-cylinder or less, 26.9%; 6-cylinder, 27.2%; 8-cylinder, 45.3%. (1=773). This does not include 65 vehicles whose owners could not furnish information.

106. Appendix D, Table D-83.

As we begin to analyze other behavior patterns pertaining to the automobile, we find that the majority of the trips for which it is used are short, although slightly m ore than a fourth indicates that 107 they use it for long rides both on expressways and country roads. The automobile is used mostly for getting to work; as seen earlier, these are short trips mainly. Nearly a fourth also uses it for recrea108 It is important to note that the automobile has two main uses tion. among a fourth of those interviewed, which together seem to have equal priority. However, this combination usually includes the individual's transportation to work. As seen in the next diagram, other patterns in the use of the automobile by poor people are of a positive nat'ire. On the one hand, the majority does not keep the trunk full of unnecessary items, leave the motor running, go over 50 MPH on the expressway, or brake often. Equally positive habits are checking the oil at least every six months and keeping sufficient air in the tires. These are all measures which contribute to lower gasoline consumption.

107. Type of trip, taken: long, on the expressway or main highway, 18.3%; long, on secondary roads, 11.0%; short, 67.8%; no information available, 2.9% (N=832).

108. Main use of the automobile is: getting to work, 31.7%; shopping, 8.2%; in business or trade, 8.5%; recreation, 5.8%; getting to school, 4.4%; see the doctor or dentist, 3.8%; taking children to school, 3.2%; other uses, 7.2%; combination of reasons, 25.6%; no answer available, 1.9% (N=903). Some informants gave more than one answer, thus making the total over 832.

Within this generally satisfactory pattern of use, we can find

some elements which show a greater consumption of gasoline. Nearly a fourth of the owners habitually leave the motor on and drive at more than 50 MPH on the expressway; furthermore, over two fifths of them brake continuously. Undoubtedly, correcting these behavior patterns could contribute to lower energy consumption within this group. (See Table 111- 29).. Table 111-29 Patterns in the Use of the Automobile : 1976 (Percent) Individual Performance Pattern Other No Yes

Has trunk full of unecessary items

6.8

92.1

1.1

leaves the motor on

25.0

73.6

1.4

Travels over 50 MPH on the expressway

28.7

65.8

5.5

Brakes frequently

44.8

53.6

1.5

Checks the oil at least every six months

87.9

4.6

7.2

Keeps tires inflated

86.3

12.1

1.6

Uses unleaded gasoline

17.5

79.1

3.4

(N=832) ~ The use of unleaded gasoline is the last item in the patterns of automobile usage: slightly less than a fifth of those interviewed use

it. However, this situation is inherent to the automobiles owned by the poor rather than being negative behavior of the owners of these

vehicles. As we saw previously, only a minority are post-1973 models, which limits the use of unleaded gasoline for manufacturing reasons. The frequency of trade-in of the car is an additional factor related to the use of the automobile on which we obtained information. The poor sectors again show a positive attitude since the majority of them does not change their automobile, or only does so when -something 109 goes wrong. Only 10% of them trades the car every one to three years. On the other hand, this pattern is fairly prevalent among the middle classes in the country. Finally, the pattern of use of energy among the poor sectors is fairly positive. Its greatest drawback is the appliances available to them, such as refrigerators without separate freezers and large and used vehicles which use more gasoline. Both factors are conditioned by the limited resources of the poor. Of course, within these patterns of use certain behavior areas mentioned previously are subject to improvement. This could contribute significantly towards making the prevailing pattern an even more positive one.

109. Frequency of trade-in of automobile: 1 to 3 years, 10..1%; 4 to 6 years, 8.2%; 7 to 9 years, 1.1%; 10 years or more, 4.5%; when something goes wrong, 18.2%; does not change cars, 48.4%; did not answer, 9.5% (N=832).

H. The Impact of the Energy Crisis, the Stratégies Developed to Fact It, and the Opinion within the Poor Sectors of Selected Alternatives of Action.

The impact of the energy situation upon the poor sectors was examined in terms of monthly expenditures for selected consumer items, and through specific question about rate increases for electricity and in gasoline prices. Monthly expenses are presented in Table III-30., while an abbreviated form follows.

Table III-3:0

Item Food Clothing Furniture & appliances Rent Water Electricity Propane gas Gasoline Public Transportation Recreation

Percent of

Total

Monthly Expenses of Poor Families by Selected Items : 1976

70.5 6.4 3.2 3.8 2.5 2.3 1.5 4.8 2.5 1.1 100.0

(N=$1,000,236)

As can be seen, 7 out of every 10 dollars per month are invested in food, which again shows the poverty conditions of the families studied. This proportion in food expenses is 174.3% greater than that for the entire population. Direct expenses for energy (electricity, propane gas, gasoline, and public transportation) represent 37% of the remainder, which is used to cover all other needs. Consequently,

we can come to the conclusion that the it®s directly related to energy have a definite impact on the expense budget of needy families. The following presentation (Table III-31) shows the awareness these families have about the problems of electricity and other sources of energy here in Puerto Rico. As we can see, the main problem seems to be the high rates for electricity. With the exception of the one fifth of the families who do not have any problems and who have remained tmaffected by the rate increases, the rest of the families present a fairly clear picture. In order to face rate increases, the principal strategy developed by over half the families has been "to save electricity". This alternative is explained in terms which range from "keeping the bill dawn", "savings in using electricity", "using fewer lights in the house", to "cooking only once", "going to bed early", "washing by hand", "watching less television". It all has the obvious purpose of "using hardly any electricity". They also mention having stopped purchases of other items so as to be able to pay for electricity. Among these it

are: other appliances,

clothing, food (sweets in particular), and medicines

That is, they

spend only on what is necessary, and sacrifice other items. Even so, an important sector finds it difficult to get the money to pay for electricity. In these cases, they seek help Iruni relatives, take out ~

small loans, pay the bill mach later than the due date, use food stamps or public welfare aid to pay for it, and a minority use their savings

to absorb increased costs, while others decrease their recreational

activities by staying home or not going to the movies. ~ Table III-3~ Main Problem People Have About Electricity and Other Sources óf Energy in. Puerto Rico: 1976 Problem

Percent

High cost of Electricity

41.8

Low power

13.7

Unable to pay monthly

8.5

Meter not read properly

6.8

Poor installation

3.2

Others

2.4

Has no problems

22.5

Did not answer

1.1

As we can see, the principal recourse of poor families to face the increase in the price of electricity has been to -take measures in their home to decrease consumption or to reduce other needs. However, some families have initiated small economic activities to bring in some additional income. These are: "take odd jobs, sell chickens, sell Kool-Aid, ironing, day and night jobs, selling food, selling jewelry".

These activities have scant significance in lessening the impact of ~

90 rate increases on poor families. The greatest impact of the gasoline price increase has been in transportation expenses, and in limiting the recreational actities,, 110 often. or do so less pleasure rides take unable to since they are The main alternative used to face the situation has been to decrease the 111 nothing. fourth has done Slightly over a number of distance of trips. Using the previous data as a basis, we can assume that the increase in the rates for electricity and in the price of gasoline have been of considerable importance on poor families. Many react with feeling pf impotence to this situation, indicative of an awareness which places these increases out of their control, therefore, they do nothing. The rest follow different courses of action leading towards a decrease in their use of energy: use fewer electrical appliances, do not use the oven, live in near-darkness, don't go out so as not to spend money. Sometimes the increases mean the sacrifice of other needs. In presenting the problsns, the families state that they save on clothing expenses, don't eat as much so as to be able to pay, do not save. At the same time, some go into debt because they have to borrow to pay, take out loans and have a hard time of it, don't pay every uüiith and risk discon-

110 . Answers to the question.: How has the family been affected by the increase in gasoline prices? 'were: increased transportation costs, 21.87,; cannot go out often, 21.97,; spends more on gasoline, 4.870; other reasons, 2.67; have not been affected, 7.6%; does not know, 41.3%. 111 . Answers to the question: 'hat has your family done to face gasoline price increases? 'were: decrease the number and distance of trips, 30.47o; look for other means of transportation, 6.77; change some driving patterns, 4.5%; decrease other expenses, 3.8%; sell the car, 2.0%; stay at home, 1.6%; get gasoline on credit, 1.0%; other answers, 2.0%; have not been affected, 9.1%; nothing, 38.9%.

tinued service. Those with the most initiative start small activities

which give them additional income, but the condition of poverty itself limits the income-producing potential of these activities. In the case

of electricity, a few request the public agency to investigate the increases or inspect the meter. As for transportation, they use the cheapest one available, walk, or get a ride, but in many cases they decrease personal or recreational activities which require leaving the immediate surroundings of the home. In other words, the greatest impact of increases in the cost of energy has been to limit even more the narrow world of possibilities open to the poor. Finally, we asked the individuals interviewed to give their opinion aboút a group of alternative proposals to face the fuel crisis. The results are in Table III-3.2. As can be seen, all the alternatives are endorse by the majority, with the exception of gasoline rationing. Undoubtedly, this is the least-favored measure. Individual analyses of these opinions about strategies of action show no significant differences between the majority in favor and the minority against the education of the general public in ways to save electricity, or among those who believe that those who use excessive electricity should pay higher rates. However, we find differences among the other alternatives: the establishment of bicycle lanes has

~ Table III-32 C

Opinion of Persons Interviewed about a Selected Group of Alternatives

Alternative

to Meet the Energy Crisis : 1976' (Percent) Disagree Agree

Other

Establish bicycle lanes so that the people will use bicycles more frequently

56.3

41.7

2.0

Teach people various ways of saving electricity

95.5

3.2

1.3

Improve bus service so that people leave cars at home

87.9

10.5

1.6

Establish a subway system in the metropolitan area

74.7

19.5

6.8

Teach people how to build solar heaters

80.5

14.4

5.1

Charge higher rates to those who use too much electricity

66.7

30.9

2.4

Lower speed limits on highways

80.9

17.4

1.7

Ration gasoline

36.5

60.2

3.3

~. ~

the greatest acceptance in public housing areas and ~nong those families with higher income and educational levels. Similarly, the improvement of bus service and the establishment of a subway system are endorsed mainly by residents of the metropolitan area. On the other hand; residents of public housing and families with higher incomes are the ones s

to support teaching people how to build solar heaters. ~ Finally, the alternatives which suggest lowering speed limits on highways and gasoline rationing are more accepted among families with lower income and educational levels.112 That is, the salient point about the alternatives is their general acceptance, much lower for the establishment of bicycle lanes, and rejected by the mayority for gasoline rationing. We must point out that the greatest acceptance was the measure suggesting an .educational strategy of instruction in various ways of saving electricity, which open tremendous educational possibilities in the energy field.

At the same time, the general acceptance of

solar heaters by the poor is also noteworthy.

In fact,

their widespread use could bring the use of hot water into almost all needy homes.

Furthermore, this could

mean a real starting point for designing a new energy strategy to give Puerto Rico a source of energy more in keeping with its tropical condition. and available to satisfy its needs as a developing country.

~ 112.

Appendix D, Diagrams D-84 to D-86.

94 I. Soma Variables Affecting Energy Expenditures In this section we explores some variables that can be related to the energy expenditures by the poor. The variables are family income, residential area, family size, age of household head, type of construction material and number of cars. 1) Family Income - Family income is positive related to energy expendi1 tune in electricity, gas and gasoline. The chi-square test was significant to .999 for electricity and to .90 for gas and gasoline. Tables III-33 to III-38 shows. that the larger the family income the larger the proportion of families that expend over $18.00 per month, in each of the enemy related commdities. 2) Residential. Area - This variables has a very high degree of correlation with family income and no should expect a similar relationship between residential area. and energy expenditures. Also, we should expect that income will be larger in metropolitan area than.in the rural areas

However, in all cases the larger proportion of household

in each energy expenditures (See Tables III-39, III-40 and III-41) was in the rural areas. This finding can be explained by the fact that even of honey income is smaller in the rural areas, real income is larger beonise the family produce some consumption goods. This is a good explanation when we observed that the smallest proportion of families is in the slum areas of the rest of the island. 3) Family.size - The relation between family size and energy expenditures

1. This finding is consistent with the coeficient found in another paper done by Rosado, The Demand Function for Energy of the Poor Families in Puerto Rico, 1976 - INSE

95 is, as expected, positive. The larger the number of members in the family the larger the energy all of them, expenditures (See ~ Tables III-42, III-43 and III-44). 4) Age of Household Head - The relation between this variable and

energy consumption need to be analyzed by type of expenditure. Expenditures in gas and electricity shows the same pattern; for each level of expenditure the percentage of heads of household increases to a maxin m, in the bracket from 58 to 67 years and then decreases (See Tables III-46 and III-47). The relation of age with gasoline is similar but peaks are located in other age brackets like the 38 to 47 years. Also, the distribution is more stable in the first brackets (See Table III-48). This situation can be explained by the fact that driving is a relative young affair. In addition, the demand for gasoline

for older persons will be smaller because, generally they have less mobility. 5)

Type of construction. material -

This variable is, also, highly

correlated with income for this reason for each level of expenditure in gas, gasoline, and electricity. The larger proportion of households are in the blocks or concrete category. This condition is also affected by the public housing that is 180 percent in blocks or concrete (See Tables III-4'8, III-49 and III-50) . Is interesting to note none of the houses was build with palm wood. In addition, more than 90 percent of the houses use blocks, wood and/or zinc in its construction.

96 6) Number 'of Automobiles - This variable is positive related to gasoline expenditures. As is shown in Table III-51, the increase in the rnnmber of cars fram 1 to 2 increase the proportion of household expenditure in gasoline.1 Table III-52 presénts some selected variables in relation with miles per gallon of gasoline. These relationships are not so clear because miles per gallon is more related to the number of cylinders and weight of the car than to any other 2 variable. With this limitations in mind, we can inform that the poor in the metropolitan area are mroe efficient than in any other area. That females are more efficient than males and that 7th graders are more efficient than less and more echicated

Table III-3 Relationship between family incase per month and electricity expenditure Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent by Row) Electricity Expenditures ($)

Family Income ($) 151+

0-50

51-100

101-150

1-9

85.1

2.4

3.1

9.4 (N=1059)

10-17

76.3

3.4

2.3

19.0 (N=861)

18+

72.4

3.1

1.9

22.6 (N=800)

In other paper op.cit. Rosado found that rminber of cylinders was a better explanatory variable for gasoline expenditures.

See Note (1).

Table III-34 Relationship Between Family Income Per Month and Electricity Expenditures Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent by Column)

0-50

Family Income ($) 51-100 101-150

151 +

1-9

42.2

31.6

48.5

22.9

10-17

30.7

36.7

29.4

35.6

18 +

27.1

31.6

22.1

41.1

(1=2137)

(N=79)

(1 68)

(1=436)

Electricity Expenditure {$)

Table III-35 Relationship between family Income Per Month and Gas Expenditure Puerto Rico: 1976 Percent by Column) Gas Expenditure ($)

0-50

Family Income ($) 51-100 101-150

150 + 668)

1-8

80.5

2.2

2.8

14.5 (

9-17

79.4

2.2

1.2

17.2 (1=722)

18 +

76.6

3.2

3.4

16.8 (1=854)

Table III-36 Relationship Between Family Income Per Month and Gas Expenditure Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent by Colt.) Gas Expenditure ($)

0-50

Family Income ($) s51-100 101-150

150 +

1-8

30.5

25.9

33.3

26.4

9-17

32.5

27.6

50.9

39.5

18+

37.1

46.6

50.9

39.5

(1=1765)

(1=58)

(1=57)

(1=364)

Table III-37 Relationship Between Family Income Per Month and Gasoline Expenditure Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent by Row) Family Income ($). Gasoline ($) Expenditures

200 +

0-50

51-100

100-150

151-200

1-8

67.1

5.3

1.3

8.6

17.7 (1=156)

9-15

57.1

3.7

4.8

5.3

29.1 (1=189)

16+

50.8

3.4

12.7

29.7 (1=118)

Table III- 38 Relationship Between Family Income Per Month and 'Gasoline Expenditure Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent by Column) Family Income ($) Gasoline ($) Expenditures

200 +

0-50

51-100

101-150

151-200

1-8

37.0

42.1

13.3

34.2

22.9 (1=276)

9-15

39.1

36.8

60.0

26.3

46.6 (1=19)

16+

23.9

21.1

26.7

39.5

29.7 (1=15)

Table III- 39 Relationship Between Residential Area and Electricity Expenditures Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent By Row)

(1)

1/ Residential Area (2). (3)

1-8

36.0

6.5

9-17

58.3

18+

43.2.

Electricity Expenditures ($)

(4)

(5)

19.4

15.6

22.6 (1=789)

8.5

17.1

7.9

8.2 (1=636)

6.5

24.0

10.4

15.9 (1=599)

1/ 1) Rural 2) Slum or near slum rest of the Island Slum or near Slim metropolitan 3) Area

4) Public Housing Rest of the Island 5) Public Housing Metropolitan Area.

100

Table III-4Q Relationship Between Residential Area and Gas Expenditures Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent by Row) Residential Area 1 Gas ($) Expenditures

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1-8

47.3

6.3

31.9

7.2

7.4 (N=461)

9-17

59.7

7.5

26.3

3.8

2.7 (N=452)

18+

66.3

7.2

19.3

4.8

2.4 (N=543)

1/ 1) Rural 2) Slum or near Slum Rest of the Island 3) Slum or near Slum Metropolitan Area

4) Public Housing Rest of the Ilsand 5) Public Housing Metropolitan Area

Table III-41. Relationship Between Residential Area and Gasoline Expenditures Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent by Row)

Gasoline Expenditures ($)

1 Residential Area -/ (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1-8

40.7

19.9

22.0

7.1

10.4 (N=241)

9-15

50.0

15.4

18.8

7.7

8 1 (N=272)

16+

58.0

16.8

11.9

4.9

8.1 (N=185)

Rural Sluts or Near Slum Rest of the Island Shun or near 51,x.

Metropolitan Area

Public Housing Rest of of the Island 5) Public Housing Metropolitan Area 4)

101

Table III-42 Relationship Between Family Size and Electricity Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent by Row)

enditures 4-

Family Size Electricity Expenditures ($)

1-3

4-6

7-9

10-12

13 +

1-9

62.8

27.4

8.2

1.3

.1 (1=799)

10-17

33.8

45.7

14.1

5.4

.7 (1=636)

18+

21.5

50.1

21.5

5.5

1.4 (1=601)

Table III-4B. Relationship Between Family Size and Gas Expenditures, Puerto Rico: 1976 Percent By Row)

Gas Expenditures

($)

1-8

54.2

36.5

6.0

3.0

(1=+62)

9-17

34.9

45.9

14.5

3.3

1.3 (1=456)

18+

33.0

39.7

20.2

6.2

.7 (1=548)

Table III_L4

Relationship Between Family Size and Gasoline Expenditures, Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent by Row)

}

Gasoline Expenditures ($)

1-8

36.0

42.2

16.3

3.8

(N=239)

9-15

15.0

52.7

22.0

7.7

2.2

(N=273)

16 +

16.8

64.1

21.2

6.5

(N=185)

~ Table III-45. Relationship Between Age of Household Head and Electricity Expenditures Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent by Row)

Age and Household Head Electricity Expenditures

($) 18-27

28-37 38-47

48-57 58-67

68_77 78 +

1-9

8.6

13.8

11.8

24.1

19.8..

10.6 (1=799)

10-17

7.6

15.9

15.3

22.1

15.3

7.9 (1=636)

18+

5.2

14.2

18.9

22.9

19.0

12.7

5.1 (1=601)

103

Table III-46 Relationship Between Age of Household Head and Gas Expenditures Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent by Row) Age ,of Household Head Gasoline Expenditures ($) 1-8

18-27 28-37

38-47

48-57

58-67

68-77

78 +

8.4

15.7

10.6

21.1

17.7

8.7 (1=462)

9-17

7.9

14.9

16.7

23.2

17.2

5.7 0156)

18 +

6.8

15.1

16.8

17.4

22.2

14.0

7.7 (1=548)

~ Table III-47 Relationship Between.:Age of Household Head and Gasoline Expenditures Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent by Row)

Age of Household Head Gasoline Expenditures ($) 1-8

18-27 28-37

38-47

48-57

58-67

68-77

78 +

5.8

16.7

15.8

17.5

24.6

15.0

20 (t 239)

9-15

11.8

23.4

24.3

12.6

19.2

5.2

2.2 (1=273)

16 +

7.5

19.4

17.4

22.2

23.2

8.6

.5 (1=185) ~.

104

Table III-48 Relationship Between Type of Construction Material and Electricity Expenditures, Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent by Row) 1 Type of Construction Material -' Electricity Expenditures ($)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

1-9

60.6

25.0

8.4

1.4

2.1

1.1 (1=701)

10-17

55.9

28.4

9.2

1.8

2.0

1.4 (1=556)

18 +

75.9

14.9

5.9

1.3

.2 (1=544)

1/ 1) 2) 3) 4)

5) 6) 7) $)

Blocks or Concrete Wood and Zinc Wood and Concrete Wáod and Cardboard

Concrete and, Zinc Wood and Palm Wood Other Combination

Table 111-49 Relationship Between Type of Construction Material. and Gas Expenditures, Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent by Row)

Type of Construction Material

Gas

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5) (6)

(7)

(8)

53.0

30.1

11.7

1.2

1.5

1.7

.2 (1=402)

19-17

52.7

30.8

9.1

1.0

2.1

2.3

1.0 (1=383)

18+

54.0

30.8

9.5

1.5

1.3

1.7 (1=461)

5) 6) 7) 8)

Concrete and Zinc Wood and Palm Wood Other Combination

Fxpendi

1-8

ot're ($)

l~ 1) 2) 3) 4)

Blocks or Concrete Wood and Zinc Wood and Concrete Wood and Cardboard

105 Table III-SQ Relationship Between Type of Construction Material and Gasoline Expenditures, Puerto Rico: 1976 (Percent by Row)

1 Type of Construction Material-

Gasoline Expenditures ($) 1-8

64.1

19.6

9.4

2.4

1.2

2.4

(N=245)

9-15

59.6

25.8

4.0

2.5

1.1

5.1

(N=275)

16 +

63.4

18.3

10.2

1.1

4.8

(N=186)

1~ 1) 2) 3) 4)

5) 6) 7) 8)

Blocks or Concrete Wood and Zinc Wood and Concrete Wood and Cardboard

Concrete and Zinc Wood and Palim ood Other Combination

Table III-5Z Relationship Between Number of Automobiles owned and Gasoline Expenditures Number of Automobiles Gasoline Expenditures ($)

(1)

(2)

(3)

1-8

96.7

2.9

(N=245)

9-15

91.3

8.0

(N=275)

16+

84.4

14.5

(N=186) F

106

Table III-52 Relationship Between a Group of Selected Variables and Mileage Yield per Gallon of Gasoline Miles per Gallon

Selected Variables 15 or Less

16-30

31 or more

Total

RESIDENTIAL AREA (1) Rural Slum - Metropolitan Island Slum Public Housing - Island Public Housing Metropolitan

64.4 64.3 57.0 55.8 58.3

34.4 41.1 39.5 44.2 36.7

1.2 4.6 3.5 --5.0

100 (N=320 100 (N=129 100 (N=114) 100 (N= 43) 100 (N= 60)

60.4 51.0

37.4 42.9

2.2 5.1

100 (N=581) 100 (N= 77)

65.3 65.1 57.5 54.1

33.3 33.7 36.9 43.8

1.4 1.2 5.6 2.1

100 (N=147) 100 (N=166) 100 (N=160) 100 (N=194)

SEX (2) Male Female EDUCATION (3) 3 grades or less 4 to 6 grades 7 to 9 grades 10 grades or more

(1) Does not include 166 cases. (2) Does not include 174 cases. (3) Does not include 165 cases.

107 J. General Conclusions The principal findings of the survey conducted among 3,252 heads of family in the poor sectors of Puerto Rico can be divided into three maing areas • the socio-economic situation of the families investigated, the patterns in their use of energy and their awareness of the impact of the energy crisis on them, and their opinion about selected strategies of action for facing this crisis. The poverty situation is reflected in several vital aspects of the people. For example, in housing it is identified by the almost total lack of hot water in the homes and by the fact that one fourth of them do not have indoor shower or bathtub. On the other hand, the matter of education is one of the most limiting factors, since only 8 of every 10 persons who start first grade finish secondary school. The drop-out rate helps to explain the low educational level predominant in these families. Because 92% of the needy population does not work, the employment problem contributes to worsen the situation of the Puerto Rican poor: it

sóciety in general. Ached to the fact that the unemployment rate

produces a rate of dependence three times greater than that prevalent in 6017

within the needy labor force, that unemployment affects several people within the family nucleus, and that this tends to persist, then we have the evidence of the disadvantaged position in which the poor individual within Puerto Rican society finds himself. In the light of these facts, it is not strange that the average income of the needy family is extremely low, and depends a great deal on transfer payments from the Government of the United States. This dependence on transfers increases from 39% to. nearly 66% if we add the net value of the food stamps received by 79% of the families. In other words, two thirds of the limited income of the needy family depends on Federal transfers.

108 120

In spite of these transfers, the main expense of the needy is for food, and they must face continuous deficits which amount to 21% of their average yearly income. Within these circunstances o'F grave economic precariousness, it is not strange to find that the poor person reflects his irmediate condition in his priorities to problems: unemployment, price increases, drugs. Energy problems do not appear as primary needs. We found in the patterns of use that electricity and propane gas are the main sources of energy. With the exception of public, housing areas where its use is much more restricted, propane gas is used for cooking. The average needy home has the most indispensable appliances, and although their general pattern of use is faily satisfactory, it is limited by the fact that these appliances are relatively old. Nevertheless, there are some areas where educational efforts could help to improve even more the prevailing pattern of use: defrosting the refrigerator when it has too much ice, leaving the refrigerator on when absent for several days, not using the oven for cooking, using containers that do not cover the entire burner, keeping the stove and the' oven on until the food is completely cooked, using the washer more than three times weekly, not pre-soaking the wash, not having full loads, etc. Nevertheless, the greatest limitation seems to be the inadequate electric wiring of the homes. The area of transportation shows that, because of its alledged deficiencies, only 4 out of every 10 persons use public transportation.

109 121 Those who use their own cars generally own used ones, large and relatively old, which could increase their use of gasoline. We again find that the limiting factor is not the behavior pattern in u_s i-ng

the

automobile, but the type of vehicle available to the poor. The greatest impact fuel price increases have had on the needy family has been to reduce even more the fulfillment of their vital needs: they must set aside part of their limited income to cover these price increases. Faced with this situation, the needy develop specific strategies which are generally self-imposition of greater limitations and a clear sense of heiplesness in altering the processes which affect

them. This all' leads to the conclusion that any saving among the poor

sectors will be in additional energy, since their present pattern of use is extremely restricted. The alternative could be the measures oriented towards those sectors which use more energy, and to the implementation of some alternatives of action, such as solar heaters, an improved public transportation system, lower speed limits on the highways. They have the almost total endorsement of the needy population.

IV.

A Suggested Plan of. Action to Deal with Energy Related Aspects Among the Puerto Rican Poor

110 A. Introduction One of the host important findings of this survey is the significant role of energy related expenditures in the overall budget of the poor 1/ families in Puerto Rico. Those expenditures accotmt for 37.67 of the families' non-food consumption. In this sense, any action plan should be oriented towards the minimization of the energy crisis in the consumption of other commodities like health, echication and recreational services in order to maximize the welfare of the poor. To achieve this goal, this plan recommends of pilot projects to be implemented in different commin„ ties In addition, specific financing sources are indicated. However, we want to point out that the consumer pattern of the poor families is very conservative. In this sense, energy conservation programs by the poor are not going to reduce significantly the total energy consumption in Puerto Rico. The Department of Consi. er Affairs (DACO) found in the energy study ?/ that the major source for energy conservation is in the industrial sector because they consume 43.1% of all electricity production. In turn, this can be explained by the type of industry pranoted for the industrial development of the Island: high capital-intensive firms which use large qualities of electricity. Any effort to reduce the consumption of the industrial sector will have to pose the question of the durability of a shift in the development strategy prevalent in the Island. Any such strategy aimed at reducing energy consumption will have to pramote firms which use energy more efficiently.

l/ See Table I-1 2/ Department of Consumer Affairs, The Energy Conservation Plan of Puerto - Rico, March 1977 - Page 6.

111

Pilot Projects

1. Alternative Energy Sources: Solar Energy About 25% of the poor families of Puerto Rico use electrical resistance water heaters. This fact implies that potentially something may be gained by the poor in terms of reducing the economic impact of the energy crisis by solar water heaters. The main characteristic of solar energy processes is that relatively large initial investments are required in equipment to save in operating cost, that is, fuel purchases, in the long run. Thus, the initial e

investment required may be seen as an obstacle to the poor's possibility of using solar water heaters which are commercially available in Puerto

Rico at the prohibitive cost of $400 to $800. Unless it is shown that this investment may be substantially lower than these figures, this seems an expensive proposition. However, direct experience in Puerto Rico shows that a relatively sophisticated solar water heater may be individually constructed with an investment of between $150 and $200, as shown below: Plexiglass Panel, 4' x 4' x 1/4" Wood Panel,, 4' x 4' x 1/2" 1/2" Copper Tubing, Solder Pressure-resitant tank with thermal insulation (15-20 gals) Other materials

$ 35.00 7.00 50.00 50.00 35.00 * $ 177.00

112

In a little less-sophisticated system, this cost may be substantial-

ly reduced to below $150, if a 15-20 gallon common steel barrel is used ~

(cost: $25.00), the plexiglass panel's width is reduced to 1/4", and the 1 collector is reduced in size to 2' x 4" measurements. If this is coupled with community cooperatives organized to buy materials in larger scale 2 and proper technical guidance is supplied by the government, the total cos.t of the whole solar water heating system may be below $100. The fuel savings in a $100.00 solar water heating system make up for the initial investment in about three years, assuming that one fourth of the household consumption is due to electrical resistance water heating

in the poor families. This seems to be a reasonable assumption in view of the fact that nearly 60% of the poor families with electrical heaters

~ use the so-called "Marey" heaters or Sprinkle Heaters. We feel that in the aggregate this may prove to be an energy efficient measure of importance if this program is imitated by the rest of the residential sector. If so, the use of solar water heating will mean a significant conservation of fossil energy in Puerto Rico which may amount, assuming that 10% of the whole residential electrical energy consumption is due to water heating, to about 550,000 barrels of oil per year, or about $7.0 millions in savings annually. Furthermore, this program may lead to a solar industry in Puerto Rico which means more jobs. Solar developed energy produces from two to three more jobs than the same amount of energy produced

People & Energy, Vol. 3, No. 2:9 (1977).

'2.

Science, Vol. 191: 143-149 (1976).

113

1 by nuclear fission.

The viability of this program for Puerto Rico

is supported by the fact that the use of solar water heating is rapidly developing in countries such as Australia, Japan, and Israel during the last ten years. There are about =1 million installations already in -these 2 countries. We recommend a program of solar water heaters of this kind in the newly organized office of Fossil

Fuels directed to supply technical

know-how and organization assistance to the poor.

2. Car Pool Cooperatives While for the whole island there is one car for each three to four persons,for the poor families this proportion is nearly one to twenty five persons. Thus, it seems that car pools designed to save fuel do not apply to the poor in Puerto Rico. They are already saving fuel. Although most of the time there is one person per car, this reflects general social patterns and is not restricted to the poor. The recently submitted report to the Governor on energy conservation measures includes a detailed analysis of the car pooling arrangements which could be utilized in Puerto Rico. The authors of the study examined experiences elsewhere and drew up detailed proposals for Puerto Rico. A previous experiment was attempted in Puerto Rico, but met with little response and support from the government agencies.- Thus, not

People & Energy, Vol. 3, No. 2: 9 (1977).

Science , Vol. 191: 143-149 (1976).

114

only the previous experiment had little to do directly with the problems of the poor, particularly the unemployed poor, but also the survey showed facts probably not experienced elsewhere. However, an interesting bit of information from the survey has to do with the fact that cars, are primarily utilized for trips to work. Thus, a variation of the car pooling concept may be applied to the poor in Puerto Rico as a way of cutting down costs of transportation rather than as an energy saving mechanism. In this variation, instead of using individually owned cars, public

passenger vans will be purchased by a cooperative of poor families for round-trip transportation to places of work, schools, markets, and recreational areas. It is estimated that the average worker, based on the distances travelled and average gasoline consumption, and assuming that the number of travellers increases by a factor of two per trip, the cost reduction could be on the order of $2 to $3 per week. This assumes an average of five passengers per car. Assuming passenger vans of 10 to 12 passengers were used, the savings would be more significant for the poor. This estimate is very rough and is based on assumptions which may change. If the price of gasoline increases, savings would be correspondingly higher.

In conclusion, the car-pool cooperative seems to be one of the very few which has any possibility of lowering the costs of energy consumption

115

for poor families while increasing their mobility.

3. Energy Education Project Although the overall energy consumption pattern of the poor is positive, there are some salient factors which could form the basis for a sound educational program. Among such factors it is worth repeating that: 1) Most of the household appliances have been used for more than

conservation

accessories;

five years; 2) most of these appliances are old models with few energy 3) some current practices i.n the use of appli-

ances may lead to a higher energy consumption, i.e., leaving the pilot light on, using the electric range more than four hours per day, opening the door of the oven while using it, washing more than 3 times per week, faulty wiring systems, broken ovens, etc. Taking into consideration the specific areas pointed out by the survey, an educational program may be designed to further improve energy consumption patterns among the poor. Such a program may include four areas: 1) stress positive energy consumption patterns in use; 2) provide for educational correctives in current usages which stimulate energy consumption; 3) provide educational information for proper maintenance of existing old appliances in order to save energy; 4) check for faulty wiring systems in the houses of the poor. The educational project should be integrated in its field operations to the other suggested alternatives. It should also be integrated to

116

CESCO activities in the Department of Consumer Affairs.

Selection of Community Sites for Pilot Projects It is important to select one or more communities in which some of

the recommendations made could be carried out experimentally. Given the diversity of living conditions in which we find the poor in Puerto Rico, it is felt that more than one community should be selected. This is because conditions found in a Caserío (Public Housing Project)-may be quite different from those found in rural areas, and there are great differences between public housing residents in some of the Metropolitan area projects and those living in small-town public housing projects. Thus it is felt that it is important to choose at least three communities or areas on which to test some approaches for alleviating the conditions of the poor with respect to energy consumption. One important criteria in choosing communities is that the community involved have certain degree of organization and cohesion, and is agreeable to participating in such an experiment. This can be ascertained in a number of ways, but primarily through the experiences of other government agencies in dealing with the community. It is important to recognize that not all communities have the requirements to make them successful areas for purposes of carrying out experimental projects. A second criteria has to do with the accesibility of the community. This would dictate the selection of areas which the researchers and organizers would reach easily and with which a continuing link could be maintained. A third criteria would be to choose communities in which many of

117

the problems related to energy costs and its impact are present. Thus,

if it is a self-contained community in which trips to work are not import~ ant, the car pool idea would have to be discarded or, at least, tested elsewhere. The idea is to select communities in which a team of researchers could test various approaches in one community. Although it is felt that the definitive designation of specific communities should be the subject of further discussions, three possibilities have been identified: a. a large, San Juan Metropolitan Area Public Housing Project (Manuel A. Pérez Housing Project); b. a rural community (Catañer); C. an urban slum (Playa de Ponce).

The Manuel A. Pérez Project in Río Piedras is an old established one. The Castañer Community is chosen for its degree of cohesion and social characteristics. It is to some extent atypical of rural communities, but we feel that it provides the conditions required. The urban slum is the Playa Sector in Ponce, very active in Community Action Programs. The ,previous three-pronged selection would cover the main concentration of poor families and would provide a diversity of experiences for final appraisal of projects.

118

Suggested Budget for Pilot Projects (12 months)

1. Central Administrative Unit 1.1. Pilot Project Director 1.2 .Administrative Secretary at $750. per month ,1.3 Secretary at $550. per month 1.4 Travel 1.5 Office supplies 1.6 Typewriters (2 at $800. each) 1.7 Equipment Sub-Total

$ 24,000.00 9,000.00 6,600.00 3,000.00 2,000.00 1,600.00 1,000.00 $ 47,800.00

2. Solar Energy Project

2.1 Solar Energy Technician 2.2 Assistant Solar Energy Technician (3 at $800. monthly) 2.3 Community Organizer 2.4 Assistant Community Organizer (13 at $700 monthly) 2.5 Secretary at $600. monthly 2.6 Materials for solar heaters ($100. per family, x 300 families) 2.7 Office supplies 2.8 Office equipment 2.9 Shop and office space (3 sites at $200. monthly) 2.0 Tools and materials for heater construction (at 2% of total cost) 2.11 Travel Sub-Total

18,000.00 28,800.00 12,000.00 25,200.00 7,200.00 300,000.00 2,500.00 3,000.00 7,200.00 6,000.00 5,000.00 $414,900.00

3. Car Pool Cooperatives 3.1 Drivers ( 7 hours daily at $4.00 per hour , 52 weeks of five days, 12 drivers)

87,360.00

3.2 6 vans at $10,000.00 each

60,000.00

3.3 Maintenance materials at $25.00 per week for each van, 52 weeks

7,800.00 -

3.4 Contract services to mechanic at $100.00 per week for all vans

5,200.00

Sub-Total

$160,360.00

119

4. Educational Component 4.1 Field Program Coordinators for all projects (3) at $1,200 monthly 4.2 Curriculum technician at $800 monthly

$ 14,400.00 9,600.00

4.3 Media technician at $800 monthly

9,600.00

4.4 Secretary at $ 600 monthly

7,200.00

4.5 Audio-visual materials

5,000.00

4.6 Audio-visual equipment

3,000.00

Sub-Total 5. Fringe Benefits (15% of total salaries: $258,960.00)

$ 48,800.00 38,844.00

Sub-Total

$671,860.00

6. Overhead and emergency expenses (15% of total)

$100,779.00

7. Grand Total

$772,639.00

120

E. ~

Priorities of the Office of Economic Opportunity 'Priorities: Based on Staff discussions about the findings of the study,

g the OEO considers that its efforts in the energy field should be geared mainly towards the implementation of pilot projects. The latter would provide ampirical criteria for the evaluation of any possible expansion of energy-related projects in Puerto Rico. The pilot projects considered as the most promising for implementation axe the solar energy, energy education, and car-pool cooperatives projects, in that order. Hum

Resources: 1. Project Director: A person experienced in comannity

action programs and energy-related problems, would have the over-all responsibility of the conceptual and field integration of pilot projects and the selection of individual project directors. He would also be in charge of general supervision. 2. Solar Energy Technician: An individual with technical knowledge about the construction of solar water heaters. 3. Field Program Coordinator: A person with supervisory experience in ccmi in ty action programs who would assume the responsibility of coordinating all energy-related project in each respective comanity. 4.

Comrnnity Organizer: A person with ample experience in

caimxxiity work and organization. 5.

Curriculums Technician: A person experienced in curriculum

121

design and construction and with over-all knowledge of the philosophy of cotmiunity programs will be responsible for the design and testing of educational strategies related to energy and the poor. 6. Media Technician: An indivich1 1 experienced in the design of media strategies for curriculum will have the overall responsibility of developing appropriate media strategies on energy and the poor. Time-Table (12 months) 1. Selection and Training of Personnel 2. Selection of Commmities and Community Information on the Project 3. Initiation of Projects; Development of Evaluation 4.

Project Development

Project Development; .First Evaluation

7. Project Development 8. Project Development 9. Project Development 10.

Project Develo?

11. Final Evaluation 12. Recouiindations

122

1. Design of the Iñstrument: The inquiry upon which this investigation is based depends on a form specifically designed to obtain the information required and which includes 111 questions. Average time spent on an interview was one and a half hours. The final form used was based on an analysis of a pilot inquiry, with a preliminary questionnaire, of 96 subjects with socio-economic characteristics similar to the objects under study. This analysis was based on a manual tabulation of each respective question. It also includes an examination of the interviewers opinions of each question. These opinions are on their appraisal of the level of understanding and of other difficulties presented by the questions, and specific recommendations on each one. Thus used, the pilot test : 1) Allowed a comparison of the adequateness of the questions as to level of comprehension of the language and phraseology used, specially in regards to clarity and exactitude of the questions; 2) showed the willingness of the people to give information in the areas under study; 3) identified negative reactions to any question or series of questions so as to modify them to reduce ~

this negativeness;- 4) verified the adequateness of the internal order of the investigation; 5) determined the questions to be eliminated;

6) proved

if the categories of closed questions adjusted to the reality

under study; 7) established meaningful categories for closed questions

123

derived from open ones; 8) showed the average duration of the interview, so that required adjustments of time could be made to conform with a reasonable level of tolerance on the part of the interviewee; 9) identified possible difficulties which could arise in the field work, and designed strategies that permitted confronting them; 10) identified areas which would require special attention in the training of field work personnel; 11) developed strategies for the classification and coding of data; 12) showed the opinions of the field work personnel selected about the contents and the reception to the inquiry; 13) designed strategies adequate for checking the -interviews carried out by the field personnel.

The Sampling Design. The universe of the study comprises all low-income families who live in slum, near-slum, public housing, and rural areas. The sample families were chosen by a random selection procedure at various stages of conglomerate family units. Urban slum and near-slum, public housing, and the rural zones were used as social levels. The municipalities make up the first stage of sampling in the rural area level. Selection probability of a municipality is in proportion to the total number of families under the poverty level, as reported in the 1970 population census. Rural census enumeration districts are the second stage sample units. We selected one census enumeration district each tiv a

municipality was selected in the first stage. The selec-

124

tion probability of the enumeration districts. is in proportion to the number of housing units reported in 1970. Through the use of topographic maps, each enumeration district selected was sub-divided into a number of segments equal to the quotient of the total housing in 1970 divided by 15. Segments of different sizes were defined when easily identifiable terrain boundaries were impossible. These segments make up the third stage of our sample units. A segment with probability of choice in proportion to its size was chosen from each of the enumeration districts selected. A segments size equals the number of sample conglomerates included in the last stage. The unit size segments chosen were all considered (those in the final conglomerate of the sample).

K-size selected segments (those which had final K-conglomerate

sampling) were sub-sampled systematically on the basis of 1ín K. The first stage of our sampling units at the public housing level consisted of public housing areas. These were selected with probabilities in proportion to the number of family units reported in the most recent listing of the D epartment of Housing. In each case where a public housing area was selected, a final conglomerate of approximately 10 family units was included in the sample. Since dwellings in public housing units are identified alpha-numerically, we used systematic sampling methods in choosing the sample housing. ~

The municipalities are the first stage unit of sampling in the remaining social level of urban slum and near-slum. A municipality's

probability of selection is again in proportion to the total number of

125

families under the poverty level according to the 1970 census, minus the total number of family units in public housing as in the last census. The second sampling units are census statistics by city blocks, in those municipalities where they are available: San Juan, Bayamón, Carolina, Cataño, Guaynabo, Trujillo Alto, Toa Baja (Levittown), Ponce, Mayaguez, Arecibo, Caguas, Guayama, Humacao. In each municipality selected, city blocks were classified into three groups: Group 1: Slum areas Group 2:

Near-slum areas

Group 3: Other blocks Blocks in Groups 1 and 2 are shown with a probability in proportion to the number of dwellings reported in the 1970 census. Blocks in Group 3 were not sampled since they were not part of the defined universe. In spite of the fact that these blocks include low-income families, it was decided that their incorporation into the sampling would increase the cost of the investigation considerably without significantly altering its results. A final conglomerate of 10 family units was used in slum areas; this was of about 15 family units in the near-slum ones. The second stage unit of sampling was the census enumeration district in those municipalities which did not have census statistics by city-block. By using the available census information, these were classified into

three groups:

126

Group 1: Mostly slum enumeration district

Group 2: Mostly near-slum enumeration district Group 3:

Other enumeration districts

Using the procedures similar to that used in the rural zones, only the enumeration districts in the first two groups were sampled. The sampling rate in rural zones was half of that used in the other two levels. A sifting process was used to identify those families in the final conglomerates who qualified for interviews, since only low-income families (as defined by their level of poverty) are included in the investigation. This was based on an initial questionnaire (Selection Sheet for Family Units to be in Included in the Study) which requested information on the ~ number of persons living in the dwelling and on annual family income. Based on these two criteria, we determined if the family was included in those below poverty level. They were integrated into the study if the level of poverty and the number of persons living in the family unit fell within the specified poverty limits. If the family was not qualified, we then proceeded to the next household and repeated the process. In

qualified family units, we interviewed the head of

A field check consisting of 10% of the interviews by each worker was conducted so as to insure that the interviews were carried out in the proper geographical area. This check revealed that they were indeed carried out in the specified geographical zones.

P. 127 SAMPLE- URBAN AREA IN SAN JUAN- SLUMS AND NEAR-SLUMS Expected Values Household units Inter- Departure Subsampling views point Rate to visit Segment Municipality 3.

San Juan

2-101

San Juan

29-202

San Juan

35-402

San Juan

40-201

San Juan

41-407

San Juan San Juan

44-101 55-207

1 1

12 12

10 11

1 1

San Juan

102-103

San Juan

82-401

San Juan

55-105

San Juan

47-201

San Juan

46-101

12.

;San Juan

44-503

San Juan

40-401

12 .

San Juan

37-603

San Juan

35-705

San Juan

29-301

San Juan

23-502

San Juan

3-105

San Juan

20.02-303

San Juan

30-301

San Juan

37-204

San Juan

51-110

San Juan

68-116

San Juan-Res. Orquídeas VBC-53

52-815B

San Juan-Res. Las Camelias VBC-71973

52-815A

Guaynabo

401-101

~uaynabo

406-205

aynabo

401-805

128

4 SAMPLE- URBAN AREA IN SAN JUAN- SLUMS AND

Municipality

Segment

Subsampling Rate

NEARExpected Values Household units Inter- Departure to visit views point

Bayamón

317-609

Bayamón

315-705

¡1

Bayamón

311-201

Bayamón

310-505

-Bayamón

301-411

Bayamón

311-801

Bayamón

- 314-303

Bayamón

315-708

Bayamón

317-606

Bayamón

316.02707

Carolina

508-205

Carolina

504-206

Carolina

502..01504

1 1

15 15

10 10

1 1

Carolina

506-2.05

Carolina

50i-302

Carolina-Los Naranjales VBC-60

508-601

Cataño

204-414

Cataño-Jardines de Cataño ZlBC-65

204-201 i

Toa Baja Toa Baja

9501-1Ó1 9503-409

1 1

11 9

it 9

1 1

Trujillo Alto

604-104

Trujillo Alto

602-301

129

SAMPLE- URBAN AREA IN SAN JUAN- SLUMS AND NEAR_

Municipality

Segment

Expected Values Subsampling Household units Inter- Departure Rate to visit views point 10 1 17 1

Aguada

3-4

Aguadilla

5-19A

Aibonito

9-8

9-1 Aibonito'- Bella Vista VBC - 189 9501-108 Arecibo

9506-104

9506-506

" -San FelipeVBC - 138

9506-518

Arroyo

15-5

Barceloneta

17-4

Caguas

9505-407

1/2

9506-108

9506-506

9507-308

" -Ext. Valle Tolima VBC-151

25-126

Cayey

35-1.5

Cidra

41-3

Coamo

'3-6

" - Colinas de Cono VBC-208

r3-13

130

SAMPLE- URBAN AREA IN SAN JUAN- SLUMS AND ÁE91 -SLUMS Expected Values Subsampling Household units InterMunicipality Segment to visita views Rate

Departure point

Comerlo

45-1

Corozal

47=2

Fajardo

53-10

53-30

VBC-197 Guánica

55-3

Guayama

9503-515

"-Urb. La Hacienda 9502-609 VBC - 150

"-Valle de Guayama ' 95Q2-611 VSF - 9A

Gurabo

63-6

Ho nnigueros

67-6

Isabela

71-8

Juana Díaz

75-56

1/2

Lajas

79-3

Las Piedras

85-3

Loiza

87-2

Manatí

91-18

Mayaguez

808-404

811-307

131

SAMPLE- URBAN AREA IN SAN JUAN- SLUMS AND j -SLUMS Expected Values Subsampling Household units Intér Departure Municipality Segment to visit Rate views point Mayaguez

817-101

'l6

818-103

"-0ardines de Tayaguez LIST-7

815-406

Orocovis

107-5

Ponce

701-606

702-7,07

703-301

707-204

708-103

710-404

710-601

716-302

721-408

722-111

"-Finca la Flaca VBC - 98

716-106

"-3.. Sec. Los Caobos 'BC-176

722-311

Quebradillas

115-7

Sabana Grande

121-10

'10

Salinas (Coquí)

123-34

1/2

132

SAMPLE: URBAN AREAS- EXCEPT METROPOLITAN AREA- SLUMS AND Expected Values Subsampling Household uñits Inter Municipality Segment Rate to visit views -.

SLUMS Departure point

San Lorenzo

129-1

San Sebastián

131-3

Santa Isabel

133-7

Toa Alta

135-5

Utuado

141-1

141-7

Vega Alta

143-12

Vega Baja

145-24

Yabucoa

151-10

Yauco

153-2

Totales

1107

677

Promedios

133 Sample-Urban Areas Public Housing- Metropolitan Area~San Juan iTuni ci pal i ty San Juan

Project PRHA-17 San José

Total number of Household units 412

San Juan

PR 2-5 SJ Bautista

114

11-20

San Juan

PR 2-8 Ext. Las Casas

588

U1=10

PR 2-10 Vista Hermosa

834

351-861

PR 2-12 Villa España

500

241-250

San Juan

PR 3-16 M Pérez

850

271-280

San Juan

PR 3-81 Ext. .t4A Pérez

400

871-880

PR 5-1 Cordero D~dila

508

331-340

San Juan

PR .5-16 Alejandrino

294

21-30

San Juan

PR 5-39 Monte Hatillo

698

241-250

San Juan

PR 2-9 Liorens Torres

2610

61-70

San Juan

PR 2-9 Liorens Torres

2610

371-980

San Juan

PR 5-70 Dr. Figueroa

240

81-90

San Juan

PR 5-1':0 i pa.rtamentos (?visn~leya

380

171-180

Carolina

PR 3-25 Sánchez Osorio

196

170-178

Carolina

PR 5-103 Torres de la Sabana-

452

241-250

Cataño

PR 3-102 JuLna I1ai.os

400

241-250

Cataño

PR 5-'9 IFS 1►ec _ s

3G7

81-90

Bayamón

PR 3--J7 Virgil in I3~t►ila

'96

321-330

San Juan San Juan

San Juan

Selected Household• units 111-120

134

Sample- Urban Areas- Ruiblic Housing, Metropolitan Area, SJ

Municipality

Total number of Selected Household units Household units

Bayamón

PR 5-123 Miraflores III

Guaynabo

Nada

Trujillo Alto

Project

PR 5-114 Covadonga

504

23-32

181-190

135 Sample- Urban Area.s Public Housing Municipality , Adjuntas

rest of the island Total number of Pro,~ect - 1tousehold Units 150 e'R 3-30 Villa Verde

Selected Household Units 11-ZO

PR 5-158 Multita Fiontaiia

220

41-50

Añasco

PR 3-24 F Figueroa

160

101-110

Arecibo

PR 3-97 Trina Sanz

268

61-70

Cabo Rojo

PRHA 3-27 Sta. Rita

156

01-10

Caguas

PR 3-19 J. Jimenez García

256

61-70

PR 5-4 Raúl Castellón

200

81-90

PR 5-138 Villa. dei Rey

100

81-90

Coamo

PRHA-5 MJ Rivera

112

01-10

Comerlo

PR 5-62 La Hacienda I

01-09

Fajardo

PR 5-21 Puerto Real

100

51-60

Isabela

PR 3-7 Corchado Juarbe

170

161-170

F'anatí

PR 3-92 E Zorrilla

280

221-230

l;anati

PR .5-104 Jardines de Manatí

214

51-60

PR 4- 3 Franks i n RousevElt

L00

431-440

¡1ayaguez

PR 5-12 Sábalos Muevo

300

151-160

Ponce

PR 1-2 Santiago l~lesizs

280

261-270

Ponce

Pi:I- t' Li. Ucsr1í

238

l 61-170

Ponce

PR 1- lG LCpez i:i'

`04-

61-70

Yebucca

i=i: _

1lr.l;

51-60

Yavco

i. :-- 7_U t

20)

5160

Aguadilla

_Caguas Caguas

Maya gucz

1: i.cri íá`s i.

136

*in1cipál$iy

SAMPLE - RURAL AREA

and suburbs

D.E.

Sub-sampling Hbu eh ld unifis to Rate

Departure point 1

Aguada-Cerro Gordo

3-41

1/2

Interviews 15

alguadi U a-Camaceyes

5-44

1Aguas Buenas-Sonadora

7-10

Aibonito-Pasto

9-23

Añasco-Cagey Arriba

11-41

Arecibo-Hato Viejo

13-88

1/3

Arecibo-Arrozal

13-137

Arroyo- Ancones (Buena Vista)

15-17

1/2

Barceloneta-Florida Adentro (Selgas)

17-38

Barranquitas-Barrancas

19-14

Cabo Rojo-Boquerón

23-49

1/2

Caguas-Rio Cañas

25-119

Cidra-Bayamón

41-10

1/7

Coamo-Santa Catalina

43-31

Guaynabo-Guaraguao

61-89

Gurabo-Celada

63-17

1/2

Hatillo-Aibonito

65-39

1/2

Humacao-Anton Ruiz (Bajandas)

69-29

137 SAMPLE-RURAL AREA

EXPECTED VALUES Household Sub-sampling units to Rate visit ._:Interviews

Departure point

Municipality and suburbs

D.E.

Isabela-Arenales Altos

71-51

Jayuya-Veguitas

73-24

Juana Diaz-Guayabal

75-22

Lares-Buenos Aires

81-35

Las Marías-taima Escrita

83-19

Loi za-f edi anta Alta

87-10

Luquillo-Juan Martin

89-10

Ezrasi-Tierras huevas Poniente

91-30

1/2

1;auabo-Palo Seco

95-16

97-127

E ca-Acei tunas

99_7

h:ºrovis--h;arc'3.S Norte

301-11

t:aguabº--Mai zai es

a.03-- 27

Izaran j i to-!.rrones

1L'5-21

Orocovi s--Cr 5-

'07•-9

Peñuelzs- ,cio

111-7

Ponce-F;: gueyes

H3. 20^

1/2

QJebrac i 11~~ -S:n Antonic

1~ ~- 22

Sabana

aguez-Jinn A3onso

~ .. _-^_yo

S~1 mas- L~;L('Yr;-c;

-t - 2/ ~ • i.

138

SAMPLE-RURAL AREA ~

, Municipality and suburbs D.E.

EXPECTED VALUES Household Sub-sampling units to Rate visit ,..—_Interviews

' Departure point

San Germán-Hocomico Bajo

125-49

1/2

San Juan-Caimito

127-835

San Lorenzo-Florida

129-22

San Sebastian-Salto

131-20

Toa Alta-quebrada Cruz

135-27

Toa Baja-Media Luna (San José)

137-52

1/2

Utuado-Paso Palma

141-73

Vega Alta-Sabana (Breñas)

143-17

Yabucoa-Camino Nuevo

151-53

Yauco-Almácigo Alto

153-54

139

Additional Sample

I- Rural Area

1/2.

Departure point 1

Visits 19

Interviews 15

27-25

Comerlo- Vega Redonda

45-29

Lajas- Lajas Arriba

79=12

1/2

Rio Grande- Jimenez

119-22

Santa Isabel- Janca I

133-24

1/4

Vega Baja- Almirante Sur

145-55

136

106

Municipalities and suburbs_

D.L

Subsampling

Adjuntas- Yshuecas

1-24

Camay- Naranjito

II- Public Housing - Urban Areas Municipalities and Proyects

D.E.

Selected Household Units

Arecibo- Vista Azul

PR 5-124

Aguadilla- J. A. Aponte

181-190

Visits 10

Interviews 10

PR 3=86

221-230

Guaynabo- Ekt. Valcarcel

PR 3-26

71-80

Guayama - F. Calimano

PR 3-14

11-20

.ifloz Rivera

PR 3-83

131-140

PR 2-7

681-690

Cayey- L.

San Juan- Nemesio Canales

III- Slums and Cuasi Slums-Urban Areas

5-8

Subsampling 1

Departure point 1

Cayey

35-24

Guayanilla

59-4

Juana Diaz

75-8

Municipalities

D.E.

Aguadilla

Household Units to visit Inteviews 10 16

140 Lares

81-7

1/7

Vega Baja

145-13

Guayama

9503-114

1/2

?iayagues

804=301

1/2

Ponce

709-401

1/2

135

Visits 14

Interviews 11

IVMunicipalitiy

D±.-

-3ubsaipp-ling

Bayamón

307-104

1/3

Carolina

507-103

1/3

Catato

202-602

1/2

Guaynabo

405-112

Toa Baja

9503-501

San Juan

27-102

1/2

San Juan

43-207

San Juan

45-403

San Juan

64-302

1/5

112

Depari;itre 1

141

1. The Training:

The training of the poll-takers consisted of a 9-hour seminar. The following topics were discussed: 1) professional ethic of the organizations participating in the study; 2) poll investigations; 3) fundamentál principles of interview procedures; 4) the proposal on which

takers

the study is based; 5) the sample study and instructions for the poll the sample selection; 6) instructions on each question inclu-

ded in the interview questionnaire. After this phase of theoretical training, practice interviews were held among the participants themselves, with group discussion and criticism. The, group gave their opinions of the interviews observed. Each poll-taker then conducted three trial interviews in geographical areas similar to those in which he would later work. These were checked by a field supervisor to insure that they were properly edited and to identify mistakes and those areas where the poll-taker needed special assistance. Experiences during this trial period, mistakes made, and ways of correcting them, were called to the attention of the entire group during group discussions. After this training period, interviewers received their first quota of interviews.

142 2. The Field-Work: A field supervisor and a checker oversee the work of the poll-takers. The latter individual verifies that the interviews were conducted in the

proper geographical sector by checking 1 out of every 10 interviews done by each pollster. The field supervisor assigns work and checks the finished interviews to determine if they have been properly edited, if each q»estion has been answered. At the same time, in order to insure inaxinium productivity, he maintained a running account of the work done by each poll-taker. Interviews returned to the pollster by his field supervisor had to be redone. Field checks included a short form which told if the interview was held in the proper sector, and at the same time, obtained information on family camposition, income, motor vehicle ownership, and gasoline 1 expenses. An analysis of the answers shows:-/ 1) all the interviews were conducted in the proper geographical areas; 2) in 93.3% of the cases, answers on motor vehicle ownership agree with the original interview; 3) 89.4% of the answers on weekly gasoline expenses agree with those in the original interview;

84.8% of the cases did not slow any

difference in the total number of family members reported in the original and the check interviews, although 8.2% mention fewer members in the original one and the remainder, 7.0 more members; 5) the area of least agreanent was that of family income, where only 65.2% of the answers in

1/ The difference can be explained by the fact that the spot checking was taken 4 months latter of the original data collected, this affecting the household ability to remember the information given in the previous interview.

143

2 the check interview agree with those of the original one./ In spite of this, the level of agreement is fairly high, considering that questions

~ related to income are the ones which awaken the most animosity in the Puerto Rican population.

3. Coding the data: The organization of the data gathered was done by coding the information on 17 cards for each case interviewed. The guidelines for coding were prepared on the basis of the first 225 collated and accepted interviews (75, respectively,, for each area). The encoders were given 6-hour training sessions, during which the following were discussed: 1) the ~

proposal on which the investigation is based; 2) the form used for gathering the information; 3) general principles of encoding and their relationship to the electronic processing of the data. This phase was followed by practice exercises in coding, checking the work, and discussions of the results so as to create an awareness of the kind of error cammited and how to avoid it. The encoder are urged to check any doubts ~ with their supervisor. At the end of the 6-hour seminar, it was felt that the encoders were ready to begin work and they were assigned their first quota of interviews. Each case coded was later checked by another encoder so as

to minimize error to the utmost. 2/ The reason for the discrepancies is due to the fact that income related q11 tions generate dislike in the households. Therefore, sometimes the given information reflected some inconsistency.

144

4. Response Rate:

Field work began on July 1, 1976, and ended on November 30, 1976. A total of 2,592 interviews resulted from 4,207 visits. This was nearly 98% of the total number of interviews expected. Although the margin of interviews conducted was lower than expected in the slum and near-slum, and in the rual zones, it was greater than expected in the public housing areas.

Fifty-nine (59) interviews less than expected were con-

ducted.

5. Difficulties: The main difficulties confronting the study were chiefly concentrated in three areas:

personnel, vacant unity

~, and data processing.

The chief difficulty in the personnel area stemmed from the high rate of individuals leaving their jobs after finding more fruitful or more secure employment. As a result, it was necessary to recruit new personnel and to organize training seminars continuously through every phase of the field work. An additional difficulty was the geographical location of the segments. In many cases, the areas had been partially or totally destroyed which required the selection of new areas. The greatest hindrance in this study has been the data processing. A change of administration, the delay in the preparation and verification

of the data, and the assignn nt of a programmer with 1

imi

145

ted experience

in social science research, caused a delay of nearly five months. Plans had provided for all data processing to be completed by December 1976; in fact, the distribution of frequencies for each column of the 17 cards was finished during the first week of April 1977 and the processing of some of the cross tabulation could begin. It was only in June 1977 that the electronic processing of the data was practically finished.

- DETAILED FIELD WORK- (BY SE

METROPOLITAN AREA r SLUMS AND N

S E C T0R S

E. D.

Expec-. Interviews ted Inter- Performed views

ENTS

P. 146

R SLUMS

Total Interviews Not Performed of ROUSE Unó1d . Do Not Occu- Other Quali- ReUñits_ fused pied Visi>Eé~ fy

San Juan

2-101

San Juan

29-202

San

Juan

35-402

San Juan

40-201

San Juan

41-407 '

San Juan

444-101

San Juan

55-207

San Juan

102-103

San Juan

82-401

147

METROPOLITAN AREA - SLUMS AND rNEAR-SLUMS

Total

Inter-' Interviews Not Performed of•louse Unhóld views Do Not Occu- Other Uñits: Quali- RePerVistéñ fused pied fy formed

E. D.

Expected Interviews

San Juan

55-105

San Juan

47-201

San Juan

46-101

San Juan

44-503

San Juan

40-401

San Juan

37-603

San Juan

35-705

San Juan

29-301

San Juan

23-502

SE C T O RS

3-105

' San Juan

I 5

METROPOLITAN AREA

S E C T O R S

E. D,

•SLUMS AND NEAR-SLUMS

Expec- Interviews ted Inter- Performed views

148

Total. Interviews Not Performed of ouse Unóld Do Not Occu- Other Uñits, Quali- ReVisited fused pied fy

20.02 303

San Juan

3Q-301

San Juan

37-204

San Juan

51-110

San Juan

68-116

San Juan-Residential - Orquideas 52-8158 VBC-53

San Juan Las Camelias VBC-71973

52-815A

Guaynabo

401-101

Guaynabo

406-205

San Juan

METROPOLITAN AREA

SLUMS AND

NEAR-SLUMS

149

Yhter-') Interviews Not Performed • of Roue ted views Do Not Unfllg Inter- PerQuali- ReOccu- Other Uñita views formed fy fused pied Visi't~ Eapec-

SE C T O R S

E. D.

Guaynabo

401-805

Bayamon

317-609

Bayamon

315-706

Bayamon

311-201

Bayamon

310-505

Bayamon

301-41,1

Bayamon

311-801

Bayamon

314-303

Bayamon

315-708

3L1 E AND rNEA$-SLUMS

METROPOLITAN AREA

150 --_

• ~ ,,~,.•

i .. ! . ,....Y

~•¿

:.t

Í4

•

~ ••r:

{•

=`la~.—

.1):

1 `

( l ` _• • -

_ ~ ~ _

C' (:(.:. .~ ~_• I : 1_ . =•{. (i.._. ._. r y..

•

Bayamon

317-606i {

i ( _

Bayamon

316.02702

1.8

1.5

Í ~

! ,

t C'..rc=lina

508-205:

; i

~ ~ { Caro1 ilia

504-206

! i

~ Carolina

i Í~ ~

Carolina

( ::.rolina

± ~

502.01' ~ 10 504 •

13 ~.

. _

•

206-205''

501-302=

508-601

•

C ro).ta-Li. Naranjales VP,C-60

3 e

Cat.3fio

2Y: -")4

METROPOLITAN AREA - SLUMS AND ':: NEARSLUMS 151 _.-- -• S R C 5l' O R S ~

E. D.

CatañoJardines de Cataño VBC-65

C1'•-

(~t'; a7-•-

~:~._'- i-

.r:.-•g

.:-

td L1LC:Y• -

-- ----— --:-._ _, , .r ' •-J: C•:*s i '•c~t 1c., ~:. • d _ o :•'ot tlnl:C_r j? r c• ri

~ -, rY -- -

- —

OCt1L'. -n i t d

._ .

•~.

O'~. . ~.~' *::

(

- -- '-

, ,,'

l 1 204-201

2 i i

Toa Baja

9501-101

9 ► ~

Toa Baja

9503-409

Trujillo Alto

604-104

Trujillo Alto

602-301

1, ~ i

Bayamon

307-104

Carolina

507-103

i ~ Cataño

202-602

9 E i

t ~

Guaynabo

405-112

METROPOLITAN AREA - SLUMS AND <IEAR^-SLUMS 152

S E C T O R S

•E. D.

Baja

9503-501

Toa

Expelder-'' views ted Inter- Performed views

triers I Do Not Quali- Refused fy

UnOccupled

:Toth, P.~é ~ hola'i Other_ nit~ VisjE~

i i

San Juan

27-102

San Jua n

43-207

16~

San Juan

45-403

i 10►

64-302

San Juan

1 Í 33;

608

T 0 T A L :

514

258

103

941;

I i I

)

URBAN AREAS - REST OF THE ISLAND-SLUMS AND .NBAR _SLUMS 153

S E C T O R S

-Expec- Interviews E.D. ted Inter- Performed views

Toca] Interviews Not Performed of r.otlii Do Not Unhold Quali- ReOccu- Other Units fy fused pied Visit

Aguada

3=4

Aguadilla

5-19A

Aibonito

9-8

Aibonito Bella Vista VBC-189

9-1

Arecibo

950I108

Arecibo

9506104

9506506

9506518

Arecibo

Arecibo San Felipe VC 438

15 t

URBAN AREAS-REST OF THE ISLAND-SLUMS AND PTEAR SLUMS 154 Tota; I1SteYviews Nod Perfó~º MiterIof P• Do Not `' 1nviews Occu- Other Quali- ReUinta Per- , fused . pied fy visit fbrxd

E.D.

Expec ted Interviews

Arroyo

15-5

Barceloneta

17-4

Caguas

9505407

! ~ C ,T O R S

23 ~

Caguas

9506108

Caguas

Cayey

9506~06

9507308

VBC15126-126

35-15

URBAN AREAS-REST OF THE ISLAND-SLUMS AND Nom'-SLUMS 155

S E C T O R S

E.D.

Expec- Interviews ted Inter- Performed views

Intei sews Not Performed Do Not UnQuali- ReOccu- Other fy fused pied

Cidra

41-3

Coamo

43-6

Coamo

VBC208 43-19

Comerlo

45-1

Corozal

47-2

Fajardo

53-10

Guánica

VBC-197 55-3

9503515

Guay~üta

Tota; hóld Unit visit

URBAN AREAS-REST OF THE. ISLAND-SLUMS AND _NFAR-SLUMS 156 Expec-. interted views Inter- Performed views

Interviews Not Perfo d Do Not UnQuali- ReOccu- Other fy used pied

VBC-150 9502-603

VSF-9A 9502-6U

Gurabo

63-6

Hormigueros

67-6

S E C T O R S

Guayama

E.D,

Tota; f .. 4

hóld.i

~-~

Units Visite

Isabela

71-8

Juana Diaz

75-56

Lajas

79-3

Las Piedras

85-3

URBAN AREAS-REST OF THE ISLAND-SLUMS AND NEAR-SLUMS 157 II Tot_a. Interviews foot Perfome4, Inter"_ views "Do 14t - ún-" • ~ó PerQuali- ReOccu-: ether Unit formed fy fused pied Visit

E.D.

Expec= ted Interviews

Loiza

87-2

Manati

91-18

Mayaguez

808404

811307

101

818103

VST-7 815406

107-5

S E C T 0 R S

Mayaguez

Orocovis

URBAN AREAS-REST OF THE ISLAND-SLUMS AND

NEAR-SLUMS

S L" C T'~ K'@

E.I}.

views.

foru~éd

- -

Iiitervi-c~•:s Not Perfci. cd Do Not 1 L~` i lTni~ Quali- Deii Occu- 0-,`,:;r' ..H• V c • t f fyfused I pied

Ir~teri.ews

E:pected Iiiter-

158 -- -~-~ -

~ Ponce

Ponce

701606

702707

•10

703301

707i 204

Ponce

708103

710404

710601

716302

URB

AH£AS-REST OF THE ISLAND=SLUMS ANP

NEAR-SLUMS 159

~ red Interviews:

721408

722111

VBC176 716106

SE C~ O R S

Ei .

Ponce

á ~ Q~ ..~cr~i-arlti'zs-•P:ot Pc~fo ~-Ltl .i lln- ~ No-t 1 0ccu- Other 'u a1i - P.e1 ii L' picd fused Y

vic~.s Performed

Ponce

Quebradillas

VBC176722311

115-7

~ ~

Sabana Grande

12~-1d

• ,

i i ;

~ Salinas(Coqui)

123-34

~ San Lorenzo

129-1

URBAN. AREAS-REST OF THE ISLAND-SLUMS ANr NEAR'-SLUMS 3

16 0

F: c T ORS

E.D.

E~pected Inter-

Iuter• ro 3:bt

Inter-

Quali-

views

Per-• forried

~5 *dot Pe;:- for„ .•.i • { Un-

I 0ccuRefused pi`

131-3

Santa Isabel

133-7

Toa Alta

135-5

Utuado

141-1

Utuado

141-7

Vega Alta

'143-12

Vega Baja

145-24

Yabucoa

151-10

' ~1

0tht~,

San Sebastián

, ,f'

I3EAR SLUMS

URBíN AREAS-REST OF THE ISLAND-SLUMS AND

161 ~ SECTORS

E.D,

r:_pected Interviews;

Inte.iiEws Not Prr rci,ned InterÜ -r ~~vt Vi eses o QualiPerforced_ . fy.

:eOccüfused. pied

~,,~1

ví_: i;

Yauco

153-2

Aguadilla

5-8

Cayey

35-24

Guayanilla

59-4

Juana Diaz

75-8

Lares

81-7

Vega Baja

14513

Guayama

95003,114 ~~ •

OtL`r

UREA

AREAS':3tEST3 DK) FTHE iII SL~ATTIDñSLgIMS : AND I 162

SECTORS:

i~z

E.D..

8O 4.. 30301

Espected Interviews

Intr.rdews Per-formed

101tá

Int~vz:ews P;ot Perforned Un)ó i~Ot' Occu- Other Qua li -i. Re= fused_ pied fy

t;iíi:

11. i

Palñrree e

7093-. 40'LY1

1010• ,3

1515

22.

3445

171

TD TAL

54541 .3030.

131131

1,a ~

PUBLIC HOUSING - METROPOLITAN AREA i

163 Interviews Not Perforaadd Do Not Unr Other QuaRe- Occulify fused pied

Total j Household Units Visiteo

PROJECT

Selected Household Units

T o t a 1

Interviews Performed

San Juan

PRHA-17 San José

111-120

San Juan

PR 2-5 S.J.Bautista

11-20

PR 2-8 Ext. Las Casas

01-10

PR 2-10 Vista Hermosa

851-861

PR 2-12 Villa España

241-150

PR 3-16 M. A. Pérez

271-280

PR 5-1 Cordero Dávila

331-340

PR 5-16 Alejandrino

21-30

PR 5-39 Monte Hatillo

241-250

PR 2-9 Lloréns Torres

61-70

SECTOR..

i i

San::Juan

San Juan

• San Juan

San Juan

i 37

San Juan

PUBLIC HOUSING - METROPOLITAN AREA Selected Household Units

T o t a 1

Inter views Performed

PR 2-9 Llorens Torres

971-980

PR 5-70 Dr. Figue roa

81-90

San Juan

PR 5-140 Apts. Quis-171-180 queya

Carolina

PR 3-25 Sánchez Osorio

170-178

Carolina

PR 5-0103 Torres de Sabana

241-250

Cataño

PR 3-102 Juana Matos

241-250

Cataño

PR 5-49 Las Vegas

81-90

Bayamón

PR 3-17 Virgilio Dávila

321-330

Bayamón

PR 5-23 Miraflores III

23-32

PROJECT

SECTOR

San Juan

164

Interviews Not Performed Do Not UnoccuQuail- ReOther fused pied fy 1

Total

House= hold Units Visite

J Trujillo Alto

PR 5-114 Covadonga

181-190

SECTOR

PROJECT

Seléáted Household Units

T o t a 1

METROPOLITAN AREA

Inter views Performed

Interviews Not Perfºrmed Do Not Qualify

San Juan

PR 3-81 Ext A. Pérez

871-880 10

San Juan

PR 2-7 Nemesio Canales

681-690

PR 3-26 Ext. Valéarcel

71,-80

Guaynabo

T 0 T A L

230

388

165

UnoccuRefused pied

Other

Total Household Units Visite 25

519

}

PUBLIC ROUSING -

PUBLIC HOUSING - REST OF THE ISLAND Selected Household Units

T o t a 1

Inter views Performed

SECTOR

PROJECT

Adjuntas

PR 3-30 Vila Verde

11-20

PR 5-158 Multita Montaña

41-50

PR 3-24 F. Figue-101'110 roa

61-70

01-10

Aguadilla

Añasco

PR 3-97 Trina Sanz

Arecibo

Cabo Rojo

PRHA 3-27 Santa Rita

166

Interviews Nbt Performed UnDo Not occuQuail- ReOther fused pied -f9

Total ó Household Units Visited

10 p

Caguas

PR 3-19 J. Jiménez Garcia

61-70

81-90

01-10

PRS-62 La Hacienda. 01-09

Caguas

PR 5-4 Raúl Caste 116n

Coamo

PRHA-5 M.J. River

Comerlo

Fajardo

PR 5-21 Puerto Rea

~ 51-60

24 s

PUBLIC HOUSING - REST OF THE ISLAND 167 Selected Household Units

T o t a 1

Inter views Ferformed

PR 3-7 Corchado Juarbe

161-70

PR 5-104 Jardines Manatí

51-60

PR 4-3 'rat~klin 481-490 Roosevelt

PR 5-12 Sábalos Nuevos

151-160

PR 1-2 Santiago Iglesias

261-270

PR 1-9 J. Rosali 161-.170

61-70

51-60

PROJECT

SECTOR _ Isabela

Manatí

Mayaguez

Ponce

Interviews Not Performed Do Not UnQuali- ReoccuOther fused pied -y

Total Household Units Visite

Ponce

PR 1-16 López Nussa

Ponce

Yabucoa

PR -3028 V.Berrios

Yauao

PR 5-28 Santa Catalina

PR 3-92 E.Zorrilla 221-230

Manatí

22 }

PUBLIC HOUSING - REST OF THE ISLAND

SECTOR

Arecibo

PROJECT

PR 5-124 Vista Azul

Selected Household Units

o t a 1

Inter views Performed

181-190 10

10.

221-230 10

Aguadilla

PR 3-86 J.A.Aponte

Guayama

PR 3-14 F.Calimano

11-20 10

PR 3-83 L. Muñoz

131-140 10

Cayey

Caguas

PR 5-138 Villa de]. 81-90 Rey

168

Intervifews Not Performed UnDo Not occuQuali- ReOther fused pied .f

Total House hold Units Visit'

I O T A L!

249

315

389

RURAL AREA Expec-. Interviews ted Inter- Performed views

169

Total Interviews Not Performed of Rouse UnDo Not 51d Quali- ReOccu- Other Units fy fused pied Vis ±èd

S E C' T O R S

•E. D.

AguadaCerro Gordo

3-41

AguadillaCamaceyes

5-44

Aguas BuenasSonadora

7-10

AibonitoPasto

9-23

AñascoCasey Arriba

11-41

AreciboHato Viejo

13-88

AreciboArrozal

13-137

ArroyoAncones

15-17

RURAL AREA 170 `\ S E C T 0 R S

E. 'D,

• Total Interviews Not Performed • of• Ró~i • E~cpec-~ Inter-' 7 -Unviews - ho Not ted Inter- Per.Qtiali- ReOccu-, Other Uñit~ forked fy views fused pied ' .Vis Jt

Barceloneta Adentro

17-38

24'

BarranquitasBarrancas

19-14

Cabo Rojo-. Boquerón

23-49

CaguasRio Cañas

25-119

CidráBayam6n

41-10

CoamoSanta Catalina

43L31

GuaynaboGuaraguao

61-89

GuraboCelada

63-17

e HatilloAibonito

65-39

RURAL .AREA 171 Total Inter -j' ' Interviews Not Performed • of- Xóus ynDo Not views ]tpld Quail- Re- ' ccu- Other Per~izifta, fused pied ' fy formed Vi"siEéd

S E C T O R S

•E •D

Eapected Interviews

Humacao-Antón Ruiz (Bajandas)

69-29

IsabelaArenales Altos

71-51

JayuyaVeguitas

73-24

Juana DiazGuayabal

75-22 '

LaresBuenos Aires

81-35

1"6

18 r

Las MaríasPalma 'Escrita

83-19

LoizaMedianía Alta

87-10

36 f

LuquilloJuan Martin

89-10

Manatí-Tierras Nuevas(Poniente)

91-30

- 1

. __

172

RURAL. AREA I S E C T O R S

MaunaboPalo Seco

' —~ Total Not Performed 'Interviews Rouse Inter=' o. ExpecUnflld • views Do Not ted Occu- Other i~ñitsi Quali- ReInter- Perfused pied formed fy - Vsiféá views

'E, D,

95-16

r MayaguezJuan Alonso

97-127

MocaAceitunas

99-7

MorovisMorovis Norte

101-11

fNaguaboMaizales

103-27

Naranj it6Arrones

105=21

OrocovisGato.

107=9

13_

PeñuelasRucio

111-7

113-204

' 1

•4

I PonceMagueyes

173

RURAL AREA _ E. n.

S E C T 0 R S

I Total of- .thous e Expec- Inter- k Interviews Not Performed `` }ipld Un.. views Tho Not ted UñitsJ Quali- ReOccu- Other Inter- PerVisftdd fused pied formed _ fy views

San Antonio

.115-22

sabana GrandeRayo

121-27

salinas-Lapa (Vázquez)

123-16

:an GermánHocomico Bajo

125-49

r, t

8 Í

.an JuanCaimito

127-835

'an LorenzoFlorida

129-22

an SebastiánSalto

131-20

'oa AltaQuebrada Cruz

. 135-27

'oa Bajauna- (San José)

f 137-52

RURAL AfA

174

E, •D,

Total Interviews Not Performed Expec- Interof dio se views ted Do Not Unh6ld Inter- PerQuali- ReOccu- Other ñits: formed fy views fused pied Vis ±ea

ftuadoPaso Palma

141-73

'ega Altajabana (Breñas)

143-17

14.

•abucoaamino Nuevo

151-53.

S E C T O RS

r raucoAlmácigo Alto

153-54

22 i

~djuntasYahuecas

1-24

►

i ~amuyNaranjito

27-25

"omerioVega Redonda

45-29

.ajasLajas Arriba

79-12

119-22

I ;ío GrandeJimenez

RURAL AREA 175

S E C T 0 R S

•E• D.

Eapec- Interviews ted Inter- Performed views

Totals Interviews Not Performbd of Xiiise Do Not - Un}u51d • Quali- ReOccu- Other Uñi•ts. fy fused pied VIsitéd,

anta IsabelJanca I

133-24

ega BajaAlmirante Sur

145-55

778

278

1,220

T O T A L

'o n r -I W

FIELD ACTIVITIES

Total Refused

Total Did Not Qualifv

Total Unoccupied Units

Other

Total of Visits Performed

94.8

278

1,220

- 94

85.0

258

103

941

315

+ 66

126.5

389

220

388

+168

176.4

519

747

608

-139

81.4

345

131

1,168

2,645

2,603

- 42

98.4

181

971

407

4,237

Difference

% Interviews Performed

778

- 43

608

514

Public Housing Rest of the Island

249

Public Housings Metrnnolitan•Area Urban Areas Rest of the Island Slums and -Slums

Total Interviews Expected

Total Interviews Performed

Rural

821

Metropolitan Area Slums N a .-Slums

A R E A

T0 T A L

177

THE IMPACT OF THE ENERGY CRISIS ON LOW INCOME SECTORS ~

IN PUERTO RICO

Place

District Number

Town

I NTRODUCT I ON The Office of Economic Opportunity and the Institute for Social and Economic Research are conducting a study on the use of energy in Puerto Rico and its impact on the family budget. We expect the information obtained to be of use in the development of conservation plans, educational campaigns and action programs which will benefit the Puerto Rican consumer. As part of this effort we are interviewing hundreds of families on the Island. The information given us will serve as a basis for these plans, campaigns and programs - and it will be used

only by us for these purposes. We

greatly appreciate your co-

operation, which is vital for the completion of our work. Inasmuch, ~

we ask you to try to give us the most exact information that you, can possibly provide. This will enable us to help the poor Puerto Rican

consumer in the best way possible_

178

THE IMPACT OF THE ENERGY CRISIS ~

ON Low INCOME SECTORS IN PUERTO RICO

INTERVIEWS NOT HELD

Place

District Number

Town

Reason interview could not be held: 1. Person was not at home and could not be reached after two additional visits.

2. Person was off the Island.. 3.

House was impossible to locate.

4. Person disabled, and no other person could be interviewed. 5. Person refused. 6. Other reason (Specify)

Interviewer: Date and time interviews were held Firs.t visit Second visit . Third visit

179

The first questions I am going to ask you concern things which people regularly give their opinións on.

Which of the following problems seem to you to be the main problem of the Puerto -Rican poor? (NOTE: Rótate choices) 1.1 Unemployment Drugs 1.3 Rising prices in general 1.4 Pollution L5 Lack of Education 1.6 The increasing price of fuels such as gasoline and electricity 1.7 Other (Specify)

i:2

2..

And does the problem of rising fuel prices strike you as- one of great, medium or low importance? 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

And the pollution problem, do you consider it to be of great,, medium or little importance? 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

Great Medium Little Doesn't know, no opinion

And the problem of rising prices in general, does it strike you as being ofpgreat, medium or little importance? 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Great Medium Little Doesn't know, no opinion

~ 5.

Would you say that the problem of the supply of fuels such as gasoline and electricity is one of greats medium or little importance? 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

Great Medium Little Doesn't know, no opinion

<<I80 6.

Does unemployment strike you as a problem of great, medium or little importance? 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4

Great Medium Little Doesn't know, no opinion

Which of these problems do you beliéve will be the most important during the next three years here in Puerto Rico? (NOTE: Rotate choices) 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7

Unemployment Drugs Price increases in general Pollution Lack of education The supply of fuels such as gasoline and electricity Other (Specify)

Many people continually complain abount rising prices - with 'respect to this, could you tell me:

What five articles seem to you to have suffered the highest price increase over the past three years? (Probe when answer is "everything" or "food") 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 Doesn't know, no opinion

8a. What five articles seem to you to have experienced the greatest reduction in price over the past three years? 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 Doesn't know, no opinion

(4) 9.

Whom do you consider to be directly responsible for the previously mentioned price increases? (NOTE: Rotate choices) 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 96 9.7 9.8 9.9

1 10.

The government in general Department of Consumer Affairs Consumers themselves Merchants The Arabs Importers The oil companies Others (Specify) Doesn't know, no opinion

Now I'm going to ask you some questions about this house Do you like living in this house? 10.1 Yes 10.2 Conditional yes (Explain) 10.3 No 10.4 It makes no difference 10.5 Other (Explain) 10.6

11.

No opinion, Doesn't know

How many bedrooms does this house have? number of bedrooms

12.

Is there a shower or bathtub in the house? 12.1 Shower in house 12.2 Bathtub in house 12.3 Neither bathtub or shower in house

13.

Do you have a toilet or letrine? 13.1 Toilet 13.2 Letrine 13.3 Neither

14. Do you have running water in the house? 14.1 Yes 14.2 No 15. Do you have hot water? 15.1 Yes '15.2 No

181

182

(~)

16. Could you tell me the size of each of your bedrooms? (If the person doesn't know, ask for permission and measure with the tape).(size in feet) Bedroom

Width

As determined by: Interviewee Interviewer

Length

1 .2 3 4 5 _6 7 8 9

~ 17. Could you tell me the approximate size of the other rooms in this house? (If the .person doesn't know, ask permission and measure with your tape) As determined by: Rooms

Width

Length

Interviewee

Interviewer

Living room. Dining room Living/dining room Kitchen Bathroom 1 Bathroom 2 Bathroom 3 Balcony Garage Carport

183 C6) 18.

In which room would you say your family spends the most time while at home? 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 18:5

Living room Dining room Kitchen Bedroom Combination (Specify)

18a. How many hours a day would you say that you spend together in the room? hours/day

19.

What is the primary material this house is built out of? 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.5 19.6 19.7

20.

Concrete or concrete block Wood and zinc* Wood and concrete Wood and cardboard Concrete and zinc* Wood and palm frond Other (Specify)

Could you tell me how many doors your home has'? doors

20.a.

How many open to the outside?

21.

How many windows does the house have? windows

* "zinc" refers to sheets of galvanized zinc which are commonly used for roofing- Translator.

184 (7)

22.

Can you tell me the approximate size of windows and doors to the outside? (If the person doesn't know, ask permission and measure with your tape) (size in feet)'

Doors to Outside

Width

Length

Interviewee

Interviewer

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ~

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

185 (8) 23.

What type of windows does the house have?

23.1 Wooden."miami" * 23.2 Alun4num "miami"* 23.3 Glass "miami"* 23.4 Glass pane 23.5 Wood shutters 23..6 Combination (explain) 23.7 Other (specify

Now I am going to ask you some questions which concern energy sources used in this home, and the specific uses they are put to.

24.

Do you use LPG here? -24.1 Yes 24.2 No

25.

If answer is yes: What do you use it for?

25.1 25.2 25.3 25.4 25.5 25.6 25.7 25.8

Cooking Baking Ironing Washing Drying clothes Heating water Lighting Other uses (Explain).

* "miami" refers to jalousie ty.pe windows which may be made of any of the materials listed above. These windows have horizontal slats which open and clóse by the turn of a crank.

186 (9)

26.

Do you use kerosene here?

26.1 Yes 26.2 No 27.

If answer is yes: What do you use it for?

27.1 27.2 27.3 27.4 27.5 27.6 27.7 27.8

28.

Cooking Baking Ironing Washing Drying clothes Heating water Lighting Other uses (Explain)

Do you use electricity here? 28.1 Yes 28.2 No

29.

If answer is yes:

29.1v 29.2 29.3 29.4 29.5 29.6 29.7 29.8 29.9 29.0

What do you use it for?

Cooking Baking Ironing Washing. clothes Drying clothes Heating water Lighting Television Radio Other (Explain)

(10)

30.

Do you use charcoal or firewood? 30.1 30.2 30.3 30.4

31.

Yes, charcoal Yes, firewood Yes, both No

If añswer is yes: What do you use it for?

31.1 31.2' 31.3 31.4 • 31.5 31.6 31.7 • 31.8

Cooking Baking Ironing Washing Drying clothes Heating water Lighting Other uses (Explain)

-187

188

32.

Do you use gasoline here? 32.1 32.2

33.

If answer is yes:

33.1 _ ._- _33:-2 • 33.3 33.4 •• 33.5 ' 33.6 33.7 33.8 33.9

34.

Yes No What for?

Cooking •Ba1-i — — Ironing Washing Clothes drying Heating water Lighting Transportation Other uses ( Explain)

Dou you use any other source of energy in this home? 34.1 34.2

Yes No

34a. If answer is yes: What source?

35.

I'm going to mention a list of equipment and appliances for the home and would like you to tell me which of these are found in your home. (NOTE: After identifying the appliances, ask for additional information on amount, make, model, price and patterns of usage).

35.1

Radio 35.11 Has it 35.12 How many? 35.13 Years owned

Make

Purchase Price

189

(12) Radio cont'd. ~

35.14 How many hours a day do you listen to radio in this house? hours per day

35.15 How often is the radio left on while no one is listening to it? 35.151 Frequently 35.152 Rarely 35.153 Never

35.2

Television 35.21 Has it 35.22 How many? 35.23 Years owned

Maké

Purchase Price

35.24 How many hours a day do you watch TV here? hours a day 35.25 Is the TV color or black and white? 35.251 Color 35:252 8 & W 35.26

How often is the TV left on although no one is watching? 35.261 Frequently 35.262 Rarely 35.263 Never

35.3

Record player 35.31 Has it 35..32 How many?

190 (13) Record player cont'd. 35.33 Years owned

Make

Purchase Price

35.34 How many hours a day is radio listened to in your house? hours per day 35.35 How often is it left on when no one is watching? 35.351 Often 35.352 Rarely 35.353 Never

35.4

Refrigerator 35.41 Has it 35.42 How many? 35.43 Years owned

Make

Purchase Price

35.44 Does the freezer have a separate door? 35.441 Yes 35.442 No 35.45 Is it "Frostfree"? 35.451 Yés 35.452 No 35.46 If the .refrigerator defrosts manually: Do you defrost it when it has a lot of ice (one quarter inch) or'little? 35.461` A lot 35.462 Little 35.47 When you use the refrigerator, do you leave the door open or do you close it right away? For example, while filling a bottle of water, do you leave the door open? 35.471 leave the door open 35.472 leave the door closed

191 (14) Refrigerator cont'd. ~ 35.48 If you leave home for a week or more, do you leave the refrigerator on and filled or-do you turn it off and empty it? 35.481 Leave it on 35.482 Turn it off Now if you'll permit me, I'd like to take some measurements in your kitchen. 35.49 Distance in feet between refrigerator and-stove feet 35.50 Distance in feet between refrigerator and washing machine - feet— -_ -- - 35.51 Size of refrigerator in cubic feet

35 ..5

cu/ft.

Gas, kerosene or electric stove 35.50 Has it 35.51 Fuel used 35.511 LPG 35.512 Kerosene 35.513 Electricity 35.52 How many? 35.53 Years owned

Make

Purchase Price

35.54 If it is a propane gas stove:

gallons 3S.541 How many gallons does it use per month? 35.542 Does the stove have a thermostat (automatic temperature regulator) ? 35.5421 Yes 35.5421 No 35.543 Does the stove have a pilot light? 35.5431 Yes 35."5432 No

192 (15)

Stove cont'd. 35.544 If answer is yes: Is it left on while stove is not in use? 35.5441 Yes 35.5442 No 35.55 If it is a kerosene stove: 35.551

35.56

How many gallons of kerosene does —it-consume each week? gallons per week

If it is an electric stove: 35.561

How many hours a day would you say you use your stove? hours per day

35.57 Does your kitchen have an oven? 35.571 Yes 35.572 No 35.58 If it has an oven: 35.581 Do you cook the greater part of your food in the oven, on the range or both places at once? 35.5811 Oven 35.5812 Range 35.5813 Both ., 35.582 When baking, do you pre-heat the oven to the temperature you'll be baking at, or to a higher temperature? 35.5821 Baking temperature 35.5822 Higher 35.583 When you are baking, do you open the door to check the food? 35.5831 Yes 35.5831 No 35.584 Do you use the oven to toast bread? 35.5841

Yes RI_

-16)

193

Stove cont'd_ s

35.585 When baking, do you use metal or glass and ceramic dishes? 35.5851 Metal 35.5852 Glass and ceramic

Ask of everyone, regardless of stove type or whether they have an oven or not

35.59 Do you use pots and pans with flat or. curved bottoms? 35.591 Flat 35.591 Curved Y

35.60 Do you use pots and pans which cover all or only part of the range? 35.601 All 35.602 Part 35.61

When you cook vegetables, do you fill the pot to half full or more, or use little water? 35.611 Little water 35.612 _Half full or more

35.62 When you cook, do you let the flame rise around the sides of the pot or pan? 35.521 Yes 35.622 No 35.63 When you cook, do you turn off the stove or oven before the food is completely cooked or after? 35.631 Before 35.632 After i

35.64 When cooking various foods, do you cook them at once or one after the other? 35.641 At once 35.642 One after the other 35.65 When food begins to boil, do you lower the heat? 35.651 Leave at same heat 35.652 Turn it down

194

35.6

Iron 35.61 Has it 35.52 How many? 35.63 Type of Iron 35.631 35.632 35.633 35.634

Electric Charcoal Gasoline Other

35.64 Years owned

Make

Purchase Price

35.65 How many times per week is ironing done in your house? times per week

35.7

Washing machine 35.71 Has it 35.72 How many? 35.73 Years owned

Make

Purchase Price

35.74 How many times per week is the washer used? times 35.75 When using the washer, do you wash a full load? 35.751 Yes 35.752 No 35.76 When washing .J thes, do you use mainly cold, hot or warm water? 35.761 Cold 35.762 Warm 35.763 Hot

195

( 18)

Washing machine cont'd.

35.77 When washing, do you separate heavy and light clothes? 35.771 Yes 35.772 No 35.78 When washing highly sóiled or grease-stained clothes, do you pre-soak ? 35.781 Yes 35.782 No

35.8

Clothes dryer 35.81 Has it 35.82 How many? 35.83 Years owned

Make

Purchase Price

35.84 How many times per week do you use the dryer? times per week 35.85 Would you say that you are used to putting a larger load than necessary into your dryer? 35.851 Yes 35.852 No 35.8fá Do you clean the lint filter after each use? 35.861 Yes 35.862 No S

35.87 Do you leave the dryer running until clothes are completely dry? 35.871 Yes 35.872 No

196

(19)

35.9

Garbage disposal 35.91 Has it 35.92 How many? 35.93 Years owned

Make

Purchase Price

35.94 Du you use the garbage disposal after washing the plates at each meal or whenever necessary? - -.-35-.-941 After each meal 35.942 Whenever necessary

35.10

Fan 35.101 Has it 35.102 Hoe many? 35.103 Years owned

Make

Puerchase Price

35.104 Do you use the fan during the day, night or both day and night? 35.1041 Day 35.1042 Night 35.1043 Both 35.l05 How many hours a day is it kept running? hours 35.106

Is it left on even while no one is in the room? 35.1061 Yes 35.1061 No

197

( 20}

35.11

Air conditioner 35.111 Has it 35.112 How many? 35.113 Years owned

Make

Purchase Price

35.114 Around how many hours a day is your air conditioner on? hours 35.115

How many BTU's / flour does it have (check the appliance itself) BTU / hr.

35.116

How many watts are listed? watts

35.117

Is your air conditioner located on the sunny side of the house? 35.1171 Yes 35.1172 No

35.118 Do you check your air conditioner once a year? 35.1181 Yes 35.1182 No 35.119 Do you check and clean the filters of your unit once a month? 35.1191 Yes 35.1192 No 35.120 Do you have curtains in air conditioned rooms to reduce heat? 35.1201 Yes 35.1202 No 35.121

Are windows and doors of these rooms protected to ensure better cooling? 35.1211 Yes 35.1212 No

198 (21)

Air- conditioner cont'd 35.121

Do you have theiamps, television -or other appliances which produce heat far away from the unit? 35.1211 Yes 35.1212 No

35.122 Do you turn off unnecessary lights in the room when the air conditioner i's functioniclg? 35.1221 Yes 35.1222 Yes 35.123 Do you leave the air conditioner on even when no one is in the room? 35.1231 35.1231

Yes No

35.124 If you had to choose between 2 air conditioning units; one which has a better appearance than the other and costs $50 less but costs $20 more a year to operate, which would you choose: the better looking one which costs more to run or the more expensive one which consumes less energy? 35.1241 The better looking one which consumes mare 35.1242 The more expensive one which consumes less

35.12

Water heater 35.121 Has it 35.122 Type of heater 35.1221 Shower head only 35.1222 Tank heater for whole house 35.1223 Both 35.123 Amount 35.124 Years owned

Make

Purchase price

(22)

199

Water heater cont`d 35.125 Does your heater have a thermostat? 35.1251 Yes 35.1252 No 35.126 If answer is yes: What temperature is it set at? 35.1261 Low 35.1262 Medium 35.1263 High

35.127 Is it located close to the place where most of the hot water is used? 35.1271 Yes 3.5.1272 No

* 35.128 Does your family prefer showers or baths? 35.1281 Showers 35.1282 Baths 35.129 Do you turn off the heater when no hot water is being used? 35.1291 Yes 35.1292 No

35.130 When shai'ing, washing dishes or using hot water in another way, do members of your family let it run continuously? 35.1301 Yes 35.1302 No ~

200

35.13

Dishwasher 35.131 Has it 35.132 How many? 35.133 Years owned

Make

Purchase Price

35.134 Dd you use the dishwasher every time you have a few dirty dishes or do you wait till you have enough to f-i-LI i-t completel y? 35.1341 A few dishes 35.1342 A full load 35.135 Do you wait until the dishes are completely dry and the machine shuts off automatically or do you turn the machine off earlier and let the dishes dry by themselves? 35.1351 Wait end-cycle 35.1352 Turn off before end-cycle

36.

I would like you to tell me whether you have noticed any of these things in your home: yes no 36.1 Television image shrinks 36.2 Lights flicker and become weak 36.3 Electric appliances take a long time to heat up 36.4 Fuses blow easily

201

( 24) 3

37. And concerning the lights in this house: ~

37.1 Do you mainly use 75 watt bulbs or lower, or over 75 watt bulbs? 37.11 75 watt or less 37.12 more than 75 watt 37.2 Do you turn the lights off when not in use or do you leave them on? 37.21 Turn off 37.22 Leave on 37-.3 Do you leave any lights on at night either inside or outside - -you—home? 37.31 Yes, inside

37.311

How many?

37.32 Yes, outside ~

37.321

How many?

37.33 Yes, both inside and outside 37.331 How many inside? 37.332 How many outside? 37.34 No 37.4 If a light is left on at night inside the house, is this for better vision or security? 37.41 Better vision 37.42 Security 37.43 Other reason (Specify)

-s

202 (25 j

you

please tell me of any other electric appliance used in this 38. Could house which we have not previously mentioned? Appliance 38.1 Toaster 38.2 Blender 38.3 Wall clock 38.4 Can opener 38.5 Hair dryer 38.6 Heating pad 38.7 Freezer 38.8 Shaver 38.9 Juice squeezer 38.10 Coffee pot 38.11 Other (specify)

Now I'd like to talk with you about cars and transportation problems

39. Do you have any cars or vehichles in this household? 39.1 Yes 39.2 No (proceed to question X64) 40.

How many motor vehicles? 40.1 40.2 40.3 40.4

One Two Three Four or more

40a. How much do you spend on gasoline (weekly/monthly)? 40b. How many gallons would you say that you use? gallons

203 (26) In cases where théee are more than th.ree cars in the family, ask only about the first three. First Vehicle

41. Tell me the make and year of each: 41.1 Make 41.2 Year. 42. Tell me what type of vehicle(s) it (they) is (are): Car, station wagon, truck, etc. 42.1 42.2 42.3 42.4

Car Station wagon Trúck Other

43.

Now many cylinders does it. have? 43.1 43.2 43.3 43.4

Rotary Four Six Eight

44:. Model name? 45.

Was it bought new or used?

46.

Did you acquire this vehicle within the last 12 months? 46.1

Yes 46.11 Month and year?

46.2 No 46.21 Month and Year?

Second Vehicle

Third Vehicle

204 (-27) ~ First Vehicle

Second Vehicle

Third Vehicle ~

How many miles have you driven, more or less?

47.

If it was a used car and the person doesn't know, ask him to let you see the odometer and note the mileage which appears there. If it was a used car when purchased and the person doesn't know, ask him how many miles the car had when he bought it. Then ask to see the odometer. Enter both figures below to calculate the mileage later. mileage upon purchase

present odometer reading ~ i

First Vehicle 4E.

Second Vehicle

Third Vehicle

How many miles per gallon does your vehicle yield?

NOTE:

If the person doesn't know, ask how much gas he put in the last time he put gas in the car.. Then ask him all the places he has been to since then. Help him calculate the mileage these trips amount to and enter the appropriate figures in the spaces below: Last time he put gasoline in car Amount he put in Distance traveled since then Amount of gasoline remaining in the tank

205 (28) ~ First Vehicle

Second Vehicle

Third Vehicle

49. And how many miles per gallon do you get when you drive on the highways-during long. trips? 50. For the most part, do you take long trips on the highways or short trips close by? -50.1 Long trips on highways 50,2 :Long;trips oh _ country roads 50.3 Short trips 4 ~

51. Which' .'mem5ers of the family drive 'the car? 51.1 51.2 5L3 51.4 51.5

Húsband Wife Son Daughter Another member

53. Who drives it most often? 52.1 52.2 52.3 52.4 52.5

Husband Wife Son Daughter Another member - r

Hqw ddSypú".fi nance the purchase of the vehicle?

53.1 Cash _53.2 Bank loan 53.3 Finance company loan

53.

4: S".. -

V"...

206 (29)

First Vehicle 54.

Third Vehicle

Second Vehicle

Is the vehicle insured? 55.1 55.2

Yes No

55. What is the car mainly used for? 55.1 55.2 55.3 55.4 55.5 55.6 55.7 55.8

Travel tó- wdr-k Shopping ;Travel to school Taking children to school Recreation Doctor's or Dentist's visits Business or job Other (Specify)

~ About the person who most frequently drives in this famil y,,, tell me: 56.

When driving on highways does he drive at more than 50 m.p.h. or less? 56.1 More than 50 m.p.h. 56.2 Less than 50 m.p.h.

57.

Does he brake often? 57.1 Yes 57.2 No

58. Does he leave the motor on while waiting for someone? 58.1 Yes 58.2 No 59.

Does he give the car a check-up at least every six months? 59.1 Yes 59.2 No 59.3 :Tot applicable, he has the car less than six months

60. Are the tires kept well inflated?

60..1 Yes 60.2 No

207 (30) ~

61. Does he use unleaded gasoline? 61.1 Yes 61.2 No 62. Does he keep the trunk full of heavy and unnecessary things? 62.1 Yes 62.2 No 63. How often do they change cars?

Ask everyone, whether they have a car or not:

64. How often do you ride on a bus or "públicos' * ? 64.1 Almost always 64.2 Rarely 64.3 Almost never 65. Have you thought about using public transportation more often? 65.1 Yes 65.2 No 65.21

What is your main reason for not using public transportation more often?

The following questions concern persons who live in this household. I would appreciate your telling me the following:

66. How many people live here? Include relatives, friends, children and adults. number of people

*Translator's note: "públ'ico" is a commercial vehicle which travels a specific route (mostly rural), carrying a full car and charging each person a fixed fare. Similar to "jitney".

208 (31)

What is the age of each of these persons? Begin with the oldest.

67.

NOTE:

Enter answers in space provided on family -chart.

What is the relation of each to the family head?

68.

NOTE:

Enter answers in space provided on family chart.

69. Tell me the sex of each person. -NOTE:

70.

-Enter "F".: for female and "M" for male in the appropriate space provided on family chart.

What was the last grade completed by each person at school?

NOTE:

Enter answers in space provided on family chart.

71. Tell me whether each person 14 years old and over knows how to drive. NOTE:

72.

Which of these persons (14 and over) are presently employed? What do the others do?

NOTE:

73.

each employed person work?

Enter answer in family chart. If job is irregular, help person calculate.

How many days per•week does each of these people work?

NOTE: 75.

Write answers in the appropriate space ón family chart. Enter a "1" if the person is working, a "2" if unemployed, "3" if attending school, "4" if person is a housewife, "5" if pensioned or retired and "6" if disabled.

How many hours per week does

NOTE: 74.

Enter "Yes" if the person knows how to drive and "No" if he doesn't in the appropriate space provided on family chart.

Enter answers in space provided on family chart.

What is

NOTE:

the occupation

of each person 14 years old or over?

Determine the occupation.

(32) Discriptive Chart of Family Group Questions 66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74 and 75

Member

Relation to Family Head

Age

Sex

Education

2 3

4 5

6 7 8

NOTE: CIRCLE NUMBER REPRESENTING 'V, , ,

EmDrives ployed Occupation

Hours/Day

Days/Week

210 (33)

76.

Ask of every person 14 years and older who is unemployed and has a "2" entered in the "Employed" column on the Family Chart:

Member

Period Unemployed

Seeking Work? Yes No

Last Job

211

(34)

77. Did you live in this house 2 years ago? 77.1 Yes 77.2 No 78.

Is there anyone living with you now who did not 2 years ago? 78.1 Yes 78.11

79.

What is this person's number in the Family Chart?

Was there anyone living with you 2 years ago who no longer lives here? 79.1

Yes 79'.11

Who was that person? Relation to Family Head

80.

Age

Sex

You probably already know from the preceeding information what the'. civil status of the person interviewed is. If you don't know, ask him: What is your civil status? 80.1 80.2 80.3 80.4 80.5 80.6

Single Married Widow(er) Divorced Separated Other

212 (35).

The following questions refer to persons you have told me work and live here:

The person interviewed (if he/she works) The spouse (if he/she works) Other family members (if they work)

~ Person Interviewed

ENTER HERE THE NUMBER OF THIS PERSON IN THE FAMILY CHART

81.

How many miles from here to where you (your wife, etc.) work? 81.1 81.2 81.3 81.4 81.5 81.6 81.7

32.

Less than 1 1 - 4 5- 9 10 - 14 15 or more Doesn't know Works at home

How do you get to work? 82.1 82.2 82.3 82.4 82.5 82.6 82.7 82.8 82.9

Bus "Público" Other person's car Taxi Motorcycle Truck Walking or bicycle Other (Specify) Own car

Spouse

Other Person

213

(36) ~ First Vehicle ~

Second Vehicle

Third Vehicle

E1TER HERE THE NUMBER OF THIS PERSON ;;1 THE FAMILY CHART \ If the person travels in his own car

33. Does he drive alone or with others? 83.1 Alone 83.2 With others 83.21

Number of persons

34. How long does it take him to get to work? 35.

How long would it take if he were to use public transportation?

85. What is the person's reason main reason for not using public transportation? 86.1

86.2 86.3 86.4 86.5 86.6 86.7 86.8

It costs the same, more or less It's very uncomfortable It takes too long One has to wait a great deal I'm used to using the car There are no convenient routes I need the car for work Other (Specify)

214 (37)

¿ First Vehicle -

Second Vehicle

Third Vehicle ~.

ENTER HERE THE NUMBER OF THIS ~'ERSON IN THE FAMILY BOX If the person travels by public transportation

87. How much is the round trip fare? 8.

How long does it take to get to work ?

'.,9. Why does the person use transportation? 89.1 89.2 89.3 89.4 89.5 89.6 89.7 89.8

public

Doesn't have a car Doesn't have a license It's cheaper No parking problem More secure It's quicker Doesn't like to drive Other (Specify)

.33. At times many people find that they can't do certain things because they donut have their own transportation. Tell me if you have had to stop doing any of the following things due to lack of transportation: 90.1 90.2 90.3 90.4 90.5 90.6 90.7 90.8

Seeing the doctor Seeing the dentist Looking for a job Going to a particular store Visiting a relative Going to a social activity Attending school Other (Specify)

Now I would like to ask you several questions which concern family expenses

ji.

Approximately how much do you spend on food per week? Now tell me what you spend each week on:

per week.

91.1 91.2 913 91.4

Milk Meat . Eggs Green, yellow and salad veget b]es(1) 91.5 Fruit'.2) 91.6 Bread 91.7 Rice and other Cereals (3) (4) 91.3 Beans and legumes 91.9 Starchy vegetables("viandas") 91.10 Lard 91.11 Oil 91.12 Butter(5) 91.13 Sugar 91.14 Coffee 91.15 Seasonings(6) 91.16 Crac~7cs, cookies, etc. 91.17 Fish 91.18 Other (Specify) 91.19 Detergent and cleaning products 91.20 Products for personal use (1)Squash, green beags, tomatoes, cabbage,etc. (2)Fresh or canned M(3)Includes pasta (4) "verduras"* (5)Includes margarine (6)Fresh or canned (7)Includes dried, codfish. ?2. ''here do you buy your food? 92.1 92.2 92.3 92.4

Small store or grocery Supermarket Marketplace Other (Specify)

Translator's note: "Viandas" and "verduras" describe a category of starchy vegetables which includes potatoes, manioc, boiled bananas, chayote, etc.

(39)

216

~ 3.

During the last three months, how much did your family spend on

clothes?

total cost ~ tvow tell me, how much was spent on: 93.1

Babies' clothes 93.11 93.12 93.13 93.14 .93.15 93.16 93.17 93.18 93.19

Diapers T-shirts Suits Blankets Socks Shoes Sheets Rubber. pants Other (Specify) -C.

93.2

Other persons' clothes ~ 93.20 93.21 93.22 93.23 93.24 93.25 93.26 93.27 93.28 93.29

93.3

Skirts Blouses Pants Shirts Dresses and suits Underwear Footwear (except socks) Socks Coats Other (Specify)

Other Expenses 93.30 93.31

China and Silverware Bedclothes ~

217 ( 40-)

~ 94.

Do you pay rent?

94.1 Yes $ 94.11 How much per month? 94.12 Does this include electricity and water? 94.121 _ Yes 94.122 Only electricity 94.123 Only water 94.124 No

~ 94.2 No 94.21 Are you the owner of the house? 94.211 Yes 94.212 No 94.22 If you are the owner of the house: Do you pay mortgage? 94.221 Yes 94.222 No 94.23 If you pay mortgage: How much do you pay per month? $ s

218 (41)

95.

Tell me if you have had to buy any furniture or appliances for your home within the last 12 months, what price you paid for the items, and whether you bought them cash or on credit. For example, did you have to buy: Number

Credit

Cash

95.1 Living room furniture• 95.2 Dining room furniture 95.3 Stove 95.4 Refrigerator 95.5

Washing machine

95.6

Electric Iron

95.7 Radio 95.8 Record Player 95.9 Television

96.

How much do you pay for water? $

Amount

96.1 May I see the receipt from your last,payment? 96.11 Yes 96.111 Amount paid $ 96.112 Account 96.113 Name and Adress.

96.114 Days of consumption 96.115 Units consumed 96.12

219 (-42) x 97.

How much do you pay for electricity?

97.1

Could I see the receipt from your last bill? 97.11

Yes 97.111 Amount paid $ 97.112 Account 97.113 Name and Address of Customer

97.114 Number of days consumption 97.115

Units consumed

97.12 No

If the person uses LPG: How much do you pay for gas each month? $

98.

98.1

Could I see the receipt from your last payment? 98.11

Yes 98.111

Amount paid $

98.12 No 98.2 From what distributor or company do you buy your gas?

(L3)

99.

220

What do you spend, more or less, on recreation each month? per month

100 .

What other expenses which we have not mentioned does the family have each month? (Probe: Loans..Medical expenses..medicines..)

NOTE: Specify in detail and calculate monthly cost

101.

What would you say is the main problem persons like yourself face as regards electricity and other energy sources here in P.R.? (Probe) 101.1 101.2 101.3 101.4 101.5 101.6 101.7 101.8

High cost of electricíty_tor_other fuel Frequent supervision ofelectricity Low power The electric company reads badly Can't pay every month Bad installations Improper use of electricity Other problems (Specify)

101.9

No problem

102.

How has the increase in the cost of electricity affected this family? What did you do before that you can't do now? (Probe)

103.

How has the increase in the price of gasoline personally affected this family?

~ =

221 {44)

ti'

~ 104.

What has you family done to help face the increase in the cost of electricity?

105.

What has your family done to help face the increase in the price of gasoline? (Probe, even if the person answers "nothing")

222

106.

To help reduce some of the limitations that have been caused by the increase in energy costs, several ideas have been suggested. I'm going to mention some of these so that you may tell me whether you agree or disagree with them.

Alternatives

106 1. Establish±.i cycl e _paths to encourage bicycle use.

106.2 Show people different ways to save energy.

106.3 Improve bus system so that people leave their cars home.

106.4 Establish a subway system in the Metropolitan Area

106.5 Teach people how to build solar water heaters.

106.6

Charge high rates to people who consume more electricity

106.7 Reduce speed limits.

106.8 Ration gasoline

Agree

Disagree

223 ( 46 ) x

107

Now I am going to ask you about your family income. I refer mainly to the persons you have told me are working.

Amount Received Annually Weekly Monthly A. Income from Salaries 1- Father's salary 2- Mother's salary 3- Sons' salary 4- Daughters' salary 5- Contributions from relatives B. Other Income

,r-

1- Father's Social Sec. 2- Mother's Social Sec. 3- Children's Social Sec. 4- Welfare 5- Government Pension 6- Other Income C. Total Family Income (Do not ask. For calculation only)

D. Classification of Family Income (Do not ask. For calculation only

108.

Do you receive Food Stamps? 108.1

Yes 108.11 Amount received $ 108.12 Amount paid $

108.2

224 (.47) 109.

Number of floors

110..

Time interview ended

111.

Town where interview was held

113.

Briefly describe the situation in which the interview was held.

114.

Person who checked interview:

Signature of Interviewer Accepted Totally Rejected Partially Rejected

225 aE-

TABLE D-1

CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OF THE DWELLING, BY RESIDENTIAL AREA: 1976 (Y1RCENT)

AREA

Concrete or Block

CONST1JJca1ON MATERIAL Wood Concrete Wood and and and Concrete Zinc Zinc

Rural

44.2

36.5

11.1

2.2

6.0 (N=1486:

Slum - Island

37.9

35.4

17.3

1.6

7.8 (N= 571

Slum Metropolitan

62.9

23.1

0.3

13.7(N= 530

-- (N= 309

Public Housing 100.0 Island Public Housing 100.0 Metropolitan

Other

-- (N= 356

226

TABLE D-2

NUMBER OF BEDROOMS IN THE DWELLING BY RESIDENTIAL AREA: 1976 (rrxGENT)

NUMBER OF BEDROOMS !

4 or more

RESIDENTIAL AREA

Total

' t

Rural

13.7

33.6

36.2

16.5

100.0 (N=1486) ~

Slum-Island

9.5

32.7

42.6

15.2

100.0 (N=571)

Slum-Metropolitan

8.1

27.9

49.8

14.2

100.0 (N=530)

Public Housing Residential-Island

21.7

31.7

32.7

13.9

100.0 (N=309)

~ Public Housing Residential-Metropolitan

24.4

31.2

39.9

4.5

100.0 (N=356)

227 TABLE D-3

INDOOR SHOWER OR BATHTUB FACILITIES BY RESIDENTIAL AREA: 1976 (PERCENT)

HAS INDOOR SHOWER OR BATHTUB FACTT T IlES

Total

RESIDENTIAL AREA

Yes

Rural

54.9

45.1

100.0 (N=1486)

Slum-Island

77.4

22.6

100.0 (N=571)

Slum-Metropolitan

84.2

15.8

100.0 (N=530)

Public Housing Residential-Island

99.4

0.6

100.0 (N=309)

Public Housing Residential-Metropolitan

100.0

100.0 (N=356)

228 TABLE D-4

TOILET OR LATRINE FACILITIES BY RESIDENTIAL AREA: 1976 (YJRGENT)

TOILET OR LATRINE FACILITIES AVAILABLE Total

Toilet

Latrine

Both

None

Rural

51.5

52.7

1.1

4.7

100.0 (N=1486)

Slum-Island

77.4

18.9

0.2

3.5

100.0 (N=571)

Slum-Metropolitan

90.0

8.7

0.2

1.1

100.0 (N=530)

Public Housing Residential-Island

100.0

100.0 (N=309)

Public Housing Residential-Metropolitan

100.0

100.0 (N=356)

RESIDENTIAL AREA

229 TABLE

D-5

INDOOR PLUMBING FACILITIES BY RESIDENTIAL AREA- 1976 (PERCENT)

INDOOR PLUMBING FACILITIES TOTAL

RESIDENTIAL AREA

YES

Rural

84.7

15.3

100.0 (N=1486)

Slum-Island

93.0

7.0

100.0 (N=571)

Slum-Metropolitan

96.2

3.8

100.0 (N=530)

Public Housing Residential-Island

100.0

100.0 (N=309)

Public Housing Residential-Metropolitan

100.0

100.0 (N=356)

230 TABLE D-6

INDOOR HOT WATER FACILITIES BY RESIDENTIAL AREA: 1976 (PERCENT) ~

INDOOR HOT WATER FACILTiiES Y

RESIDENTIAL AREA

Yes

Total

Rural

17.1

82.9

100.0 (N=1486) ~

Slum-Island

35.0

65.0

100.0 (N=571)

Slum-Metropolitan

35.3

64.7

100.0 (N=530)

Public Housing Residential-Island

29.1

70.9

100.0 (N=309)

Public Housing Residential-Metropolitan

25.6

74.4

100.0 (N=356)

231

TABLE D-7

SQUARE FOOTAGE OF DWELLINGS IN POVERTY AREAS BY RESIDENTIAL SECTORS: 1976 (PERCENT)

SIZE. IN SQUARE FEET 0 to 395

396 to 791

7,92 or more

Total

Rural

22.8

57.2

20.0

100.0 (N=1450)

Slum-Island

18.5

61.3

20.2

100.0 (N=550)

Slum-Metropolitan

16.5

60.7

22.9

100.0 (N=516)

Public Housing Residential-Island

12.1

64.4

23.5

100.0 (N=306)

Public Housing Residential-Metropolitan

11.0

61.4

27.6

100.0 (N=355)

RESIDENTIAL SECTOR

232 TABLE D-8

SQUARE FOOTAGE OF DWELLINGS IN POVERTY AREAS BY MONTHLY FAMILY INCOME: 1976

SIZE IN SQUARE FEET MONTHLY FAMTY INCOME

to 395

396 to 791

792 or more

Less than $95.00

24.9

59.2

15.9

100.0 (N=995)

($95.00 to $199.99

18.5

60.6

20.9

100.0 (N=1002)

$200.00 or more

12.1

59.4

28.5

100.0 (N=940)

233 TABLE D-9

ROOM IN WHICH FAMILY MEMBERS SPEND MOST OF THE TIME BY RESIDENTIAL AREA: 1976 (PERCENT)

RESIDENTIAL AREA

Room where Family Members Spend nest Time CombiLiving Dining Kitchen Bedroom nation Other Total

(N=1486) Rural

67.6

0.4

4.0

14.8

7.0

6.2

..100..0

Slum-Island

61.5

0.5

3.5

19.0

9.5

6.0

~(N==571) 100.0

Slum-Metropolitan

64.0

.0.4

2.5

15.7

9.6

7.8

(N=539) 100.0

Public Housing Residential-Island

78.0

1.0

3.2

13.0

2.6

2.2

(N=309) 100.0

Public Housing Residential-Metropolitan

68.3

1.1

3.9

19.4

5.3

2.0

'(N=356) 100.0

234. TABLE 'D-10

HOURS SPENT TOGETHER DAILY BY MEMBERS OF POOR FAMILIES BY LEVEL OF MONTHLY INCOME: 1976 (PERCENT)

NUMBER OF HOURS SPENT TOGETHER BY FAMILY MEMBERS MONTHLY FAMILY INCOME

Six or more

Less than $95.00

44.9

55.1

100.0 (N=1077)

I$95.00 to $199.99

44.4

55.6

100.0 (N=1103)

$200.00 or more

53.6

46.4

100.0 (N=1003)

Less than 5

Does not include those who gave no information.

Total

235

TABLE D-11

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SATISFACTION WITH THE HOME AND THE RESIDENTAL AREA : 1976 (

Satisfied with Hor

RESIDENTIAL AREA Yes

Yes (Qualified)

Other

Total

Rural

N=1486

75.1

14.3

10.2

0.4

100.0

Slum - Island

N=571

65.3

16.3

17.3

1.1

100.0

Slum - Metropolitan N=530

69.1

13.6

16.6

0.7

100.0

Public Housing Island

N=309

69.6

17.2

12.0

1.2

100.0

Public Housing Metropolitan

N=356

63.5

18.5

17.7

0.3

100.0

236

TABLE D-12

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SATISFACTION WITH THE HOME AND SEX OF THE PERSON INTERVIEWED: 1976 (k'i≤RCENT) Satisfied with Nome

SEX Yes

MALE

N=2143

Yes (Qualified) 72.3 14.7

Female

N=1084

67.4

16.5

Other Total

12.4

0.6

100.0

15.4

0.7

100.0

237

~ TABLE D-13 l

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SATISFACTION WITH THE HOME AND OCCUPATION OF' HEAD OF FAMILY: 1976

PERc

Satisfied with Home Occupation

Yes

Yes (Qualified)

Other

Total ~

N=42

47.6

26.2

19.0

7.2

100.0

Sales people, Office workers, and the N=90 like

56.7

20.0

23.3

---

100.0

Crafstmen

N=274

78.5

11.3

9.9

0.3

100.0

Machinists

N=241

71.4

16.2

12.4

---

100.0

Laborers

N=152

67.8

14.5

15.8

1.9

100.0

Agricultural Workers

N=216

75.9

18.1

6.0

---

100.0

Service Workers

N=302

69.9

11.9

16.6

1.6

100.0

Others

N=1953

70.3

15.5

13.8

0.4

100.0

Professionals

238

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SEX OF THE PERSON INTERVIEWED AND

TABLE D-14

(am)

PHYSICAL MOBILITY: 1976

LIVED IN THE SAME HOUSE TWO YEARS BEFORE YES

TAL

Male

84.2

15.8

100.0

N=2128

Female

83.5

16.5

100.0

N=1084

SEX

.239

TABLE D-15

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCATION OF HOME AND PHYSICAL MOBILITY: 1976 (PERCENT)

LIVED IN THE SAME HOUSE TWO YEARS BEFORE Yes

Total

Rural

84.5

15.5

100.0

N=1486

Slum - Island

81.9

18.1

100..0

N= 571

Slum - Metropolitan

86.4

13.6

100.0

N= 530

Public Housing - Island

85.6

14.4

100.0

N= 309

Public Housing - Metropolitan

79.9

20.1

100.0

N= 356

RESIDENTIAL AREA

240

TABLE D-16

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE OCCUPATION OF THE HEAD OF FAMILY AND PHYSICAL MOBILITY: 1976 (PERCENT)

LIVED IN THE SAME HOUSE TWO YEARS BEFORE Yes

Total

Professionals

69.8

30.2

100.0

N= 42

Sales people, office and similar workers

78.3

21.7

100.0

N= 90

Craftsmen

83.4

16.2

100.0

N= 274

Machinists

81.8

18.2

100.0

N= 241

Laborers

77.0

23.0

100.0

•N= 152

Agricultural Workers

85.4

14.6

100.0

N= 216

Service Workers

81.3

18.7

100.0

N= 302

Others

86.8

13.2

100.0

N=1953

OCCUPATION

241

TABLE D-17

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MONTHLY FAMILY INCOME AND PHYSICAL MOBILITY: 1976 (PERcENT)

LIVED IN THE SAME HOUSE TWO YEARS BEFORE Yes

Total

Less than. $95.00

81.2

18.8

100.0

N=1077

$95.00 to $199.99

85.9

14.1

100.0

N=1103

$200.00 or nnre

84.3

15.7

100.0

N=1003

MONTHLY FAMILY INCOME

242

TABLE D-18

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL SECTOR AND LOSS OF MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY UNIT: 1976 (PERGT)

Someone who lived with the family two years before no longer does Residential Area Yes

Total

Rural

25.9

74.1

100.0

(N=1486)

Slum - Island

23.8

76.2

100.0

(N= 571)

Slum - Metropolitan

24.1

75.9

100.0

(N= 530)

Public Housing - Island

27.8

72.2

100.0

(N= 309)

Public Housing - Metropolitan

28.5

71.5

100.0

(N= 356)

243

TABLE D-19

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SEX AND LOSS OF FAMILY MEMBERS: 1976 (Yrt a GENT)

SOMEONE WHO LIVED WITH THE FAMILY TWO YEARS AGO NO LONGER LIVES THERE YES

TOTAL

Male

21.6

78.4

100.0

N=.21.28

Female

33.6

66.4.

100.0

N=..1085

SEX

244

TABLE D-20 ~ RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OCCUPATION OF HEAD OF FAMILY AND LOSS OF MEMBERS OF FAMILY UNIT: 1976

(PExcacT2) SOMEONE WHO LIVED WITH THE FAMILY TWO YEARS AGO NO LONGER LIVES THERE Occupation

Yes

Professionals

31.6

68.4

100.0 (N=38)

Salespeople, Office Workers, and similar workers

13.3

86,7

100.0 (N=75)

Craftsmen

20.6

79.4

100.0 (N=253)

Machinists

18.6

81.4

100.0 (N=215)

Laborers

20.0

80.0

100.0 (N=125)

Agricultural Workers

21.3

78.7

100.0 (N=18.3)

Service Workers

26.8

73.2

100.0 (N=246)

Others

28.4

71.6

100.0 (N=1924)

Total T

245

TABLE D-21

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL SECTOR AND THE ADDITION OF MEMBERS TO THE FAMILY UNIT: 1976

SOMEONE IS LIVING WITH THE FAMILY WHO DID NOT TWO YEARS BEFORE YES

TOTAL

Rural

`17.5

82.5

100.0

Slum - Island

16.0

84.0

100.0 (N= 562)

Slum - Metropolitan

14.0

86.0

100.0 (N= 522)

Public Housing - Island

83.0

17.0

100.0 (N= 306)

Public Housing - 14etropolitan

83.1

16.9

100.0 (N= 354)

RESIDENTIAL AREA

(N4460)

246

TABLE D-22

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SEX OF THE PERSON INTERVIEWED AND THE ADDITION OF METERS TO THE FAMILY UNIT: 1976 (

)

SOMEONE LIVES WITH THE FAMILY WHO DID NOT DO SO TWO YEARS BEFORE YES

Male

82.2

17.8

100.0 (N=2128)

Female

84.8

15.2

100.0 (N=1085)

TOTAL

SEX

247

~ TABLE D-23 ~ RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OCCUPATION OF HEAD OF FAMILY AND THE ADDITION OF MEMBERS TO FAMILY UNIT: 1976 (ce)

SOMEONE LIVES WITH THE FAMILY WHO DID NOT DO SO TWO YEARS BEFORE OCCUPATION

TOTAL

YES

Professionals

18.4

81.6

100.0 (N= 38)

Salepeople, office workers, and similar personnel

29.3

70.7

100.0 (N= 75)

Craftsmen

21.3

78.7

100.0 (N= 253)

Operators

18.1

81.9

100.0 (N= 215)

Laborers

26.4

73.6

100.0 (N= 125)

Agricultural workers

15.8

84.2

100.0 (N= 183)

Service workers

19.1

80.9

100.0 (N= 346)

Others

14.1

85.9

100.0 (N=1924)

TABLE D-24 ~ cV RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AREA AND THE OPINION ABOUT THE MAIN PROBLEM OF THE PUERTO RICAN POOR: 1976 (

)

RESIDENTIAL AREA

MAIN PROBLEM Unemployment

Drugs

General Environmen-Lack of Fuel price Others price tal education increases Pollution increases

Total

Rural

28.0

23.6

32.2

o.5

3.0

7.8

4.8

100.0 (N=1486)

Slum - Island

31.5

25.4

24.5

1.4

2.6

8.2

6.4

100.0 (N= 571)

Slum - Metropolitan

37.2

26.0

30.0

0.9

2.8

7.2

5.9

100.0 (N= 530)

Public Housing - Island

28.2

31.1

25.9

0.3

3.6

5.5

5.4

100.0 (N= 309)

Public Housing - Metropolitan

28.4

36.5

19.4

0.3

3.9

5.9

5.6

100.0 (N= 356)

TABLE D-25

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SEX AND OPINION ABOUT THE MAIN PROBLEM OF THE PUERTO RICAN POOR: 1976 ( ) MAIN PROBLEM SEX

Unemployment

Drugs

Male

30.3

23.7

28.9

0.8

3.1

7.4

5.8

100.0 (N=2143)

Female

24.8

32.2

27.5

0.6

3.0

7.3

4.6

100.0 (N=1084)

General Environmen- Lack of Fuel Others price tal price increases pollution education increases

Total

TABLE 0-26 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NUMBER OF PEOPLE LIVING WITH FAMILY AND OPINION ABOUT THE MAIN PROBLEM OF THE PUERTO RICAN POOR: 1976 (PERCE1r) MAIN PROBLEM NUMBER Unemployment

Drugs

General Price Increases

Environmental Pollution

Lack of Education

From 1 to 2

22.2

27.5

30.5

1.2

3.5

7.3

7.8

100.0 N= 945

From 3 to 4

30.6

27.0

27.2

0.3

3.4

6.6

4.9

100.0 N= 925

From 5 to 6

• 31.0

24.1

29.8

0.4

2.8

7.8

4.2

100.0 N= 759

7 or more

31.3

27.2

26.2

1.0

2.3

8.2

3.8

100.0 N= 600

Fuel Price Increases

Others Total

TABLE D-27

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOLING AND OPINION ABOUT THE MAIN PROBLEM OF THE PUERTO RICAN POOR: 1976 (PERCENT)

MAIN PROBLEM SCHOOLING

Unemployement

Drugs General Environmen- Lack Fuel Others price tal of price increases pollution education increases

Total

3 grades or less

24.7

27.2

28.7

1.1

1.7

9.6

7.0

100.0 (N=1225)

From 4 to 6 grades

28..5

27.6

29.1

0.5

3.5

7.2

3.6

100.0 (N= 836)

From 7 to 9 grades

27.4

27.9

29.3

0.3

3.7

4.7

6.7

100.0 (N= 617)

10 grades or more

38.2

22.0

25.6

0.5

4.7

5.6

3.2

100.0 (N= 550)

4►

TABLE D-28 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MONTHLY FAMILY INCOME AND OPINION ABOUT THE MAIN PROBLEM OF THE PUERTO RICAN POOR: 1976 (PERCENT)

MAIN PROBLEM MONTHLY FAMILY INCOME Unemployment

Drugs

General Environmen- Lack Fuel Others of price tal price increases pollution education increases

Total

.Tess than $95.00

33.6

27.9

23.7

1.0

3.7

5.0

5.2

100.0 (N=1077)

$95.00 to $199.99

25.1

26.6

31.5

0.8

2.7

8.3

5.0

100.0 (N=1103)

$200.00 or more

27.7

24.4

30.0

0.3

3.0

8.4

6.2

100.0 (N=1003)

TABLE D-29

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MAIN OCCUPATION OF HEAD OF FAMILY AND OPINION OF THE MAIN PROBLEM OF THE PUERTO RICAN POOR: 1-976 )

MAIN PROBLEM OCCUPATION

Unemployment

Drugs

General Environmen- Lack Fuel Other price tal of price increases pollution education increases

Total

Professionals

57.1

19.0

9.5

2.4

100.0 (N= 42)

Sales personnel

47.8

16.7

22.2

1.1

4.4

3.3

4.4

100.0 (N= 90)

Craftsmen

37.2

22.6

27.4

1.5

2.6

4.7

4.0

100.0 (N= 274)

Operators

31.1

24.9

29.0

2.1

7.5

5.4

100.0 (N 241)

Laborers

36.8

24.3

23.7

2.6

6.0

6.5

100.0 (n= 152)

Agricultural workers

33.3

15.7

30.1

1.9

11.6

5.5

100.0 (N= 216)

Service workers

27.2

25.5

26.5

0.7

3.3

11.3

5.6

100.0 (N= 302)

Invalids

21.1

25.2

35.5

0.7

3.1

8.3

6.1

100.0 (N= 445)

Retiree, Pensioner

20.0

29.0

33.4

0.5

2.1

7.8

7.2

100.0 (N= 434)'

Housewife

24.8

33.2

26.5

0.8

3.0

6.5

5.2

100.0 (N= 766)

Others

30.2

21.0

30.2

14.0

2.3

100.0 (N= 43)

'r,

TABLE D-30

~ N

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AREA AND OPINION ABOUT THE MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM WITHIN THE NEXT THREE YEARS : 1976 (YRCENT)

MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM RESIDENTIAL AREA

Unemployment

Drugs

General Environmen- Lack price of tal increases pollution education

Fuel Supply

Others Total

Rural

29.1

23.7

25.7

1.2

4.4

5.4

8.7

100.0 N4486

Slum - Island

30.4

25.0

21.5

3.2

4.6

2.5

9.2

100.0 N= 571

Slum - metropolitan

32.6

27.9

21.7

1.7

3.2

4.0

8.9

100.0 N= 530

Public Housing - Island

32.4

33.0

22.3

1.0

3.2

2.9

5.2

1000 N= 309

Public Housing - metropolitan

33.1

34.3

18.8

0.8

2.5

4.5

6.0

100.0 N= 356

u-' ~

TABLE D-31

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SEX AND THE OPINION ABOUT THE MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM DURING THE NEXT THREE YEARS: 1976 (PERCEí~]T)

MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM SEX

Unemployment

Others Environmen- Lack of Fuel Drugs General Supply tal education price increases Pollution

Total

Male

32.4

24.8

23.1

1.7

4.4

4.9

8.7

100.0 N=2143

Female

28.8

30.4

23.5

1.4

3.2

3.1

9.5

100.0 N=1084

TABLE D-32 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NUMBER OF PERSONS LIVING WITH THE FAMILY AND OPINION ABOUT THE MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM DURING THE NEXT THREE YEARS 1976 (P ) MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM NUMBER OF PERSONS Environmental Unemployment Drugs General Price Pollution Increases

Lack of Fuel education Supply

Others Total

From 1 to 2

25.9

27.1

26.0

1.0

4.0

12.0

100.0 N= 945

From 3 to 4

31.9

24.0

24.5

2.1

4.9

4.0

8.7

100.0 N= 925

From 5 to 6

36.2

26.4

21.2

1.6

2.9

4.6

7.2

100.0 N= 759

7 or more

32.3

30.5

19.5

1.5

4.2

4.8

7.2

100.0 N= 600

TABLE D--33

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOLING AND THE OPINION ABOUT THE MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM DURING THE NEXT THREE YEARS : 1976

(PERcENr)

MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM SCHOOLING Unemployment

Drugs

General Environmental price pollution increases

Lack of education

Fuel supply

Other Total

~ N=1225

3 grades or less

28.9

27.0

24.9

1.3

3.6

4.9

9.5

100.0

From 4 to 6 grades

29.7

28.7

21.5

1.4

4.2

4.7

9.8

100.0 N= 836

From 7 to 9 grades

30.5

28.5

23.2

2.3

4.1

3.1

8.4

100.0 N= 617

10 grades or more

39.5

20.7

22.4

1.6

4.7

3.6

7.5

100.0

N= 550

TABLE D-34

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MONTHLY FAMILY INCOME AND OPINION ABOUT THE MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM DURING THE NEXT THREE YEARS : 1976 (PERCENT)

MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM MONTHLY FAMILY INCOME

Unemployment

Drugs

General price increases

Environmental pollution

Lack of education

Fuel supply

Others Total

Less than $95.00

32.8

27.5

21.2

2.0

3.5

3.6

9.5 100.0 N=1077

$95.00 to $199.99

28.8

26.8

25.0

1.3

4.8

4.7

8.7 100.0 N=1103

$200 or more

33.1

26.1

22.1

1.4

3.9

4.6

8.9 100.0 N=1003

Lto'

TABLE _D-35

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MAIN OCCUPATION OF HEAD OF FAMILY AND OPINION ABOUT THE MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM DURING THE NEXT THREE YEARS: 1976 (PERCENT)

MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM Unemployment

OCCUPATION

General price increases

Drugs

Environmental pollution

Lack of education

Fuel Supply

Oth~zrs Total

Professional's

50.0

16.7

7.1

2.4

9.5

2.4

11.9

100.0 N= 42

Salespeople

43.3

18.9

26.7

1.1

5.5

100.0 N= 90

Craftsmen

37.2

20.8

21.9

2.9

3.3

5.8

8,0

100.0 N= 274

Operators

33.6

29.0

20.3

1.2

2.9

4.6

8.3

100.0 N= 241

Laborers

37.5

19.1

21.1

2.0

7.9

3.3

9.2

100.0 N= 152

Agricultural workers

'33.8

26.4

21.3

0.9

2.8

7.4

7.5

100.0 N= 216

Service workers

37.7

28.8

16.6

1.0

5.6

5.3

5.0

100.0 N= 302

Invalids

27.0

24.3

29.9

0.9

3.8

4.9

9.2

100.0 N= 445

Retiree or Pensioner

23..5

26.3

27.9

1.6

4.8

3.5

12.5

100.0 N= 434

Housewife Others

27.5

32.5

21.8

1.4

3.0

3.9

9.8

100.0 N= 766

41.9

16,3

23.3

7.0

2.3

4.7

4.6

100.0 N= 43

111

260

TABLE D-36

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF PERSONS LIVING WITH THE FAMILY AND

(am)

THE DEGREE OF IMPORTANCE GIVEN TO UNEMPLOYMENT: 1976

DEGREE OF IMPORTANCE NUMBER A great deal

Medium

Slight

None

Total

From 1 to 2

85.8

4.4

4r4

5.3

100.0 N= 945

From 3 to 4

92.8

4.0

1.6

100.0 N= 925

From 5 to 6

89.1

5.7

3.4

1.8

100.0 N= 759

7 or more

90.8

4.0

3.5

1.7

100.0 N= 6.00

261

TABLE D-37

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOLING AND: 1976 THE DEGREE OF IMPORTANCE GIVEN TO UNEMPLOYMENT iPERcE r)

DEGREE OF IMPORTANCE GIVEN TO UI~LOYNENT~ SCHOOLING

A great. deal

Medium

Slight

None

Total

3 grades or less

87.8

4.6

3.4

4.2

100.0 N=1225

From 4 to 6 grades

88.8

5.3

3.1

2.9

100.0 N= 836

From 7 to 9 grades.

90.6

3.7

4.5

1.1

100.0 N= 617

10 grades or more

93.1

4.2

1.5

1,3

100.0 N= 550

262

~ TABLE D-38

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NUMBER OF PEOPLE LIVING IN THE FAMILY AND THE DEGREE OF IMPORTANCE GIVEN TO FUEL SUPPLIES: 1976 (PERCENT)

DECREE OF TIPORTANCE GIVEN TO FUEL SUPPLIES NUMBER A great deal

Medium

Slight

None

Total

From 1 to 2

62.6

22.9

5.9

8.5

100.0 (N= 945)

From 3 to 4

72.2

18.2

4.2

5.4

100.0 (N= 925)

From 5 to 6

71.9

18.1

4.3

5.6

100.0 (N= 759)

7 or more

68.5

20.2

3.3

8.0

100.0 (N= 600)

263

a TABLE D-39 S

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOLING AND THE DEGREE OF IMPORTANCE GIVEN TO THE FUEL SUPPLY : 1976

(PERCENT)

DEGREE OF TIPORTANCE GIVEN TO FUEL SUPPLIES SCHOOLING A great deal

Medium

Slight

None

Total

3 grades or less

65.1

21.5

3.7

9.7

100.0 N=1225

From 4 to 6 grades

68.8

18.5

6.6

6.7

100.0 N= 836

From 7 to 9 grades

73.3

17.5

3.9

5.4

100.0 N= 617

10 grades or more

70.9

21.3

4.4

3.5

100.0 N= 550

264

TABLE D-40 z RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AREA AND THE DEGREE OF IMPORTANCE GIVEN TO ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION: 1976 (PERCENT)

RESIDENTIAL AREA

AGREE OF IMPORTANCE GIVEN TO ENSIIRONMENTAL POLLUTION Medium Slight None Total A great deal

Rural

61.0

18.4

13.5

7.2

100.0 N=1486

Slum - Island

63.9

19.4

11.2

5.4

100.0 N= 571 z

Slum - Metropolitan

66.8

19.1

7.7

6.4

100.0 N= 530

Public Housing - Island

64.4

19.4

10.7

5.5

100.0 N= 309

Public Housing - Metro

68.5

16.6

10.4

4.5

100.0 N= 356

265

TABLE D-41 ~ RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOLING AND THE DEGREE OF IMPORTANCE GIVEN TO ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION= 1976

CPERcENT>

SCHOOLING

DEGREE OF IMPORTANCE GIVEN TO E RONMEI AL POLLUTION Total A great deal Medium Slight None

3 grades or less

61.1

18.0

12.,3

8.5

100.0 N=1225

From 4 to 6 grades

63,0

18,1

12,1

6.9

100.0 N= 836

From 7 to 9 grades

67.3

19.1

10,1

3.5

100.0 N= 617

10 Grades or more

65,6

20,2

10.5

3.7

100,0 N= 550

266

~ TABLE D-42

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MONTHLY FAMILY INCOME AND THE DEGREE OF IMPORTANCE GIVEN TO ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION: 1976 (PERCENr)

DEGREE OF IMPORTANCE GIVEN 'ID ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION MONTHLY FAMILY INCOME A great deal

Medium

Slight

None

Total

Less than. $95.00

N=1977

63.4

19.6

9.3

7.8

100.0-

$95.00 to $199.99

N=1103

60.6

17.2

15.2

7.0

100.0

$200.00 or more

N=1003

65.0

19.7

10.8

4.9

100.0

267

TABLE D-43

SOURCE OF ENERGY USED BY THE POOR POPULATION= 1976

PERCENT

SOURCE OF ENERGY

NUMBER*

Electricity

.3157

45.3

Propane Gas

2074

29.8

Gasoline

809

11.6

Charcoal

403

5.8

527 6970

7.5 100.0

Other sources

TOTAL

* The total number is more than 3,252 because some families use more than one source of energy.

268

~ TABLE D-44 ~ PRINCIPAL USE OF ELECTRICITY

PRINCIPAL USE

NUMBER *

PERCENT

Lighting

3074

23.4

Television and Radio

2949

22.5

Ironing

2409

18.4

Washing

1870

14.3

Air conditioners, fans

853

6.5

Heat water

783

6.0

Cook

702

5.3

Baking

180

1.4

Drying clothes

0.2

Other uses

270

2.0

13111

100.0

TOTAL

The total number is more than 3252 since the people gave more than one answer. ~ ~ ~

269

~ TABLE D-45 ~ MAIN USE.OF PROPANE GAS; GASOLINE, AND CHARCOAL: 1976

NUMBER

PERCENT

Cooking

2054

72..2

Baking

564

19.8

Heating water

222

7.8

0.2

2845

100.0

Transportation

763

95.4

Other uses

4.6

800

100,0

Cooking

375

83.5

Heating water

5.8

10.7

449

100.0

PROPANE GAS

Other uses Total GASOLINE

Total CHARCOAL

Other uses Total

270

~ TABLE D-46

USE OF ELECTRICITY BY NC)NIHLY FAMILY INCOME : 1976 (PERcELr)

Yes

USE ELECTRICITY Total No

Less than $95.00

95.9

4.1

100.0

N=1077

$95.00 to $199.99

97.6

2.4

100.0

N=1103

$200.00 or more

99.6

0.4

100.0

N=1003

MONTHLY FAMILY INCOME

271

ti TABLE D-47

USE OF PROPANE GAS BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL: 1976 (PERCENT)

YES

USE PROPANE GAS `DOTAL NO

3 grades or less

75.9

24.1

100.0

N=1225

From 4 to 6 grades

77.7

22,3

100.0

N= 836

From 7 to 9 grades

68.7

31,3

100.0

N= 617

More than 10 grades

67.2

32.8

100,0

N= 550

EDUCATIONAL LEVEL

272

~ TABLE D-48 ~ USE OF PROPANE GAS BY OCCUPATION OF HEAD OF FAMILY: 1976

(am)

OCCUPATION

YES

USE PROPANE GAS NO TOTAL

Professionals

55.6

44.4

100.0

Salespeople and office workers

61.8

38.2.

100.0

Craftsmen

73.2

26.8

100.0

N= 274

Operators

77.2

22.8

100.0

N= 291

Laborers

76.3

25.7

100.0

N= 152

Agricultural workers

85.5

14.5

100.0

N= 216

Service Workers

70.4

29.6

100.0

N= 302

Invalids

72.8

27.2

100.0

N= 445

Retiree or Pensioner

81.0

19.0

100.0

N= 434

Housewife

66.9

33.1

100.0

N= 766

Others

65.9

34.1

100.0

43 ~ ~

273

TABLE D-49

USE OF CHARCOAL OR WOOD BY RESIDENTIAL AREA : 1976 (PERcENr)

USE WOOD OR CHARCOAL RESIDENTIAL AREA

Yes

Total

Rural

23.6

76.4

100.0

N=1486

Slum - Island

7.6

92.4

100.0

N= 571

Slum - Metropolitan

1.7

98.3

100.0

N= 530

Public Housing - Island

1.6

98.4

100.0

N= 309

Public Housing - Metropolitan

0, 3

99.7

100.0

N= 356

274

TABLE D-50 USE OF CHARCOAL OR WOOD BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL: 1976 (PERCENT) USE WOOD OR CHARCOAL NO

Three grades or less

16.6

83.4

100.0

N=1225

From 4 to 6 grades

14.0

86.0

100.0

N= 836

From 7 to 9 grades

8.8

91.2

100.0

N= 617

10 grades or more

5.2

94.8

100.0

N= 550

io'rAl,

EDUCATIONAL LEVEL

YES

275

~i TABLE D-51 ~ USE OF OTHER SOURCES OF ENERGY, BY RESIDENTIAL AREA: 1976 (PERCENT)

RESIDENTIAL AREA

YES

USE OTHER SOURCES OF ENERGY l/ NO TOTAL

Rural

22.2

27.8

100.0

N=1460

Slum - Island

12.7

87.3

100.0

N= 567

Slum - Metropolitan

9.2

90.8

100..0

N= 520

Public Housing - Island

9.5

90.5

100.0

N= 306

Public Housing - Metropolitan

12 5 0

88.0

100.0

N= 342

1/ Other Source Include: 1) Candles, batteries, alcohol, kerosene, sunlight and charcol.

276

TABLE D-52

USE OF GASOLINE AND SEX OF THE PERSON INTERVIEWED: 1976 (PERCENT)

YES

USE GASOLINE NO

Male

32.5

67.5

100.0

N=2143

Female

10.1

89.9

100.0

N=1084

SEX.

277

~ TABLE D-53 ~ USE OF GASOLINE AND NOIUHLY FAMELY INCOME: 1976

(PERCENT)

Yes

Less than $95.00

15.6

84.4

100.0

N=1077

$95.00 to $199.99

20.9

79.1

100.0

N=1103

l$200.00 or more

40.1

59.9

100.0

N=1003

MONTHLY FAMILY INCOME

USE GASOLINE Total

278

TABLE D-54 ~ USE OF GASOLINE AND NUMBER OF MEMBERS IN THE FAMILY: 1976

(rr c NT)

USE GASOLINE SAL

YES

From 1 to 2

9.8

90.2

100.0

N=945

From 3 to 4

24.1

75.9

100.0

N=925

From 5 to 6

33.9

66.1

100.0

N=759

7 or more

37.8

62.2

100.0

N=600

NUMBER OF MEMBERS

279

TABLE D-55

USE OF GASOLINE AND FOOD STAMP ACQUISITION: 1976 (PERCE

Yes

YES

23.4

76.6

100.0

N=2546

32.7

67.3

100.0

N= 678

RECEIVE FOOD STAMPS

-c

USE GASOLINE Total

280

TABLE D-,56

OWNERSHIP OF TELEVISION AND EMPLOYMENT OF HEAD OF FAJ ILY : 1976

(PERCENT)

EN FLOYINENT STATUS

Yes

OWNS A TELEVISION Total No

Employed

93.0

7.0

100.0

N= 514

Unemployed

83.4

16.5

100.0

N=2493

281

TABLE D-57

OWNERSHIP OF RECORD PLAYER AND EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF HEAD OF FAMILY: 1976 ~ (PERCENT)

EMPLOYMENT STATUS

OWNS A RECORD PLAYER TOTAL YES NO

EMPLOYED V

57.6

42.4

100.0

N= 514

UNEMPLOYED

42.2

57.6

100.0

N=2493

282

TABLE D=58

NUMBER OF APPLIANCES OWNED BY POOR FAMILIES: 1976 (PERCENT)

APPLIANCE One

NUMBER OF APPLIANCES OWNED More than Total one

Stove

96.8

3.2

100.0

N=3153

Refrigerator

98.8

1.2

100.0

N=3081

Electric Iron

99.2

0.8

100.0

N=2659

Clothes washer

99.3

0.7

100.0

N=1970

Electric fan

86.8

13.2

100.0

N= 948

Water Heater

99.3

0.7

100.0

N= 883

Air conditioner

96.7

3.3

100.0

N= 31

Clothes Dryer

100.0

---

100.0

283

~.._ ~ b TABLE D-59 ~

OVEN FACILITIES IN KITCHEN BY RESIDENTIAL AREA: 1976

(Yr xcavrr)

RESIDENTIAL AREA

Yes

HAS OVEN IN THE KITCHEN No Total

Rural

73.5

26.5

100.0

N=148 6

Slum - Island

75.3

24.7

100.0

N= 5.71

Slum - Metropolitan

75.9

24.1

100.0

N= 530

Public Housing - Island

38.6

61.4

100.0

N= .309

Public Housing - Metropolitan 43.8

56.2

100.0

N= 356

284

TABLE D-60

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF USE OF CLOTHES WASHER BY RESIDENTIAL SECTOR, EDUCATIONAL AND INCOME LEVELS: 1976

OWNS A CLOTHES WASHER. No

Total

47.7 31.8 32.6 35.3 30.8

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N= 1448 N= 57 N= 53 N= 306 N= 35

53.1 57.6 65.1

46.9 42.4 34.9

100.0 100.0 100.0

N= 122 N= 83 N= 116'

50.8 58.3 75.7

49.2 41.7 24.3

100.0 100.0 100.0

N= 107 N= 11O. N= 100

Yes RESIDENTIAL SECTOR 52.3 Rural 68.2 Slum - Island 67.4 Slum - Metropolitan 64.7 Public Housing - Island Public Housing - Metropolitan 69.2 EDUCATIONAL LEVEL 3 grades or less From 4 to 6 grades 7 grades or more 1rNTHLY FAMILY INCOME Less than $95.00 $95.00 to $199.99 {$200.00 or unre

285 ~ ~p

TABLE D-61

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF USE OF FTFCTRIC FAN, BY RESIDENTLAL SECIO?S EDUCATIONAL AMID INCOME LEVELS: 1976

Owns an Electric Fan No

Total

82.3 67.0 54.2 71.6 52.1

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100..0

N=1486 N= 571 N=. 530 N= 306 N= 356

22.5 26.9 32.5

77.5 73.1 67.5

100.0 100.0 100.0

N=12.25 N= 836 N=1167

24.7 25.9 39.0

75.3 74.1 61.0

100.0 100.0 100.0

N=1077 N=1103 N=1003

Yes RESIDENTIAL SECTOR 17.7 Rural 33.0 Slum - Island 45.8 Slum - Metropolitan 28.4 Public Housing = Island Public Housing - Metropolitan 46.9

EDUCATIONAL LEVEL 3 grades or less From 4 to 6 grades 7 grades or more

MONTHLY FAMILY INCOME Less than $95.,00 $95.00 to $199.99 $200.00 or more y

286

TABLE D-62

PERCEDIC DISTRIBUfON OF USE OF WATER BEATER BY RESIDENIAL SECTOR, EDUCATIONAL AND INCOME LEVELS: 1976

Owns a Water Heater No

Total

81.8 64.1 63.5 67.9 70.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N= 571 N= 530 N= 306 N= 355

20.6 26.3 28.4

79.4 73.7 71.6

100.0 100.0 100.0

N=x,22'5 N= 886 N=116x7

18.4 26.2 38.1

81.6 73.8 61.9

100.0 100.0 100.0

N=10.77 N=1103 N1003

Yes

RESIDENTIAL SECTOR 18.2 Rural Slum - Island 35.9 Slum - Metropolitan 36.5 Public Housing - Island 32.1 Public Housing - Metropolitan 30.0

EDUCATIONAL LEVEL 3 grades or less From 4 to 6 grades 7 grades or more

MONTHLY FAMILY INCOME Less than $95.00 ,$y5.0Ú to $199.99 $200.00 or more

287

~ TABLE D-63 x

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF USE OF ELECTRIC BLEJDERS BY RESIDENIAL SECTORS, EDUCATIONAL AND INCOME LEVELS = 1976

Yes

RESIDENTIAL SECTOR

19.1 Rural 22.7 Slum - Island 28.1 Slum - Metropolitan 29.2 Public Housing - Island Public Housing - Metropolitan 29.7

Owns an Electric Blender Total No

80.9 77.3 71.9 70.8 70.3

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N=1486 N= 57_1 N= 53o. N= 30 N= 356

16.1 21.9 28.2

83.9 78.1 71.8

100.0 100.0 100.0

N=122. N= 83 N=116'

18.0 20.6 33.7

82.0 79.4 66.3

100.0 100.0 100.0

N='1077 N=.1.10 3 N=1.003

EDUCATIONAL LEVEL 3 grades or less From 4 to 6 grades 7 grades or more MONTHLY FAMILY INCOME Less than $95.00 $95.00 to $199.99 $200.00 or more

288

TABLE D-64

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF USE OF TOASTERS BY RESIDENTIAL SECTORS, EDUCATIONAL AND INCOME LEVELS= 1976

Yes

Owns a Toaster Total No

RESIDENTIAL SECTOR 86.5 80.3 76.6 74.0 74.5

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N= 1486 N= 5.71 N= 530 N= 306 N= 356

14.4 17.2 18.8

85.6 82.8 81.2

100.0 100.0 100.0

N= 1225 N= 836 N= 1167

14.0 16.7 26.0

86.0 83.3 74.0

100.0 100.0 100.0

N= N= N=

13.5 Rural 19.7 Slum - Island 23.4 Slum - Metropolitan 26.0 Public Housing - Island Public Housing - Metropolitan 25.5

EDUCATIONAL LEVEL 3 grades or less From 4 to 6 grades 7 grades or more MONTHLY FAMILY INCOME Less than $95.00 $95.00 to $199.99 $200.00 or more

1077 1103 1003

289

',.

TABLE D-65

PERC

DISTRIBUTION OF USE OF ELECTRIC CAN OPENERS BY 1RSSIDENTIAL SECTORS, EDUCATIONAL AND INCOME LEVELS: 1976

Owns an Electric Can Opener

-1-

RESIDENTIAL SECTOR

Rural Slum - Island Slum - Metropolitan Public Housing - Island Public Housing - Metropolitan

Yes

Total

6.8 7.9 8.2 6.2 7.9

93.2 92.1 91.8 93.8 92.1

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N= 14 N= 57. N= 53i N= 3Oi

5.0 7.7 9.1

95.0 92..3 90.9

100.0 100.0 100.0

N=.1225 N= 836 N=1167

6.0 5.7 10.8

94.0 94.3 89.2

100.0 100.0 100.0

N=-.107' N= 110: N=100:

EDUCATIONAL LEVEL 3 grades or less From 4 to 6 grades 7 grades or more MONTHLY FAMILY INCOME Less than $95.00 $95.00 to $199.99 $200:00 or more ~

290

TABLE D-66

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF USE OF HAIR DRYERS BY RESIDENTIAL SECTORS, EDUCATIONAL AND INCOME LEVELS: 1976

Yes

Owns a Hair Dryer Total !2

3.9 8.1 9.5 6.5 8.8

96.1 91.9 90.5 93.5 91.2

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N=146 N= 571 N= 530 N= 306 N= 355

4.5 4.5 7.5

95.5 95.5 92.5

100.0 100.0 100.0

N=122"5 N= 836 N=1167

4.2 4.9 10.7

95.8 95.1 89.3

100.0 100.0 100.0

N=1077 N=1102 N=1Q.0.3

RESIDENTIAL SECTOR Rural Slum - Island Slum - Metropolitan Public Housing - Island Public Housing - Metropolitan EDUCATIONAL LEVEL 3 grades or less From 4 to 6, grades 7 grades or more MONTHLY FAMILY INCOME Less than $95.00 $95.00 to $199.99 $200.00 or more

291

TABLE D-67

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FREQUENCY OF TRAVEL BY PUBLIC CAR OR BUS AND EDUCATIONAL LEVEL - 1976

r1~.~QUENCY OF TRAVEL BY PUBLIC CAR OR BUS Other Seldom Almost Almost Total Never Always

EDUCATIONAL

3 grades or less

N=1225

38.2

29.5

31.7

0.6 100.0

From 4 to 6 grades

N= 836

42.4

29.5

27.1

1.0 100.0

From 7 to 9 grades

N= 61,7

37.1

28.2

34.1

0.6 100.0

10 grades or more

N= 550

40.7

23.6

34.8

0.9 100.0

292

TABLE D-68

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FREQUENCY OF TRAVEL BY PUBLIC CAR OR BUS AND RESIDENTIAL SECTOR: 1976 (PERGENT)

FREQUENCY OF TRAVEL BY PUBLIC CAR OR BUS

RESIDENTIAL SECTOR

Almost Always

Seldom

Almost Never

Other Total

Rural

N=14&6

42.7

30.9

25.5

0.9

100.0

Slum - Island

N= 57-1

30.4

27.4

41.4

0.8

100.0

Slum Metropolitan

N= 530

39.7

22.4

37.3

0.6

100.0

Public Housing Island

N= 306

35.9

27.8

36.3

Public Housing Metropolitan

N= 356

42.8

28.5

100.0 0.2

100.0

293

TABLE D-69 r RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FREQUENCY OF TRAVEL BY PUBLIC CAR OR BUS AND SEX OF THE PERSON INTERVIEWED: 1976 (PERCENT)

FREQUENCY OF TRAVEL BY PUBLIC CAR OR BUS

SEX

Almost Always

Seldom

Almost Never

Other Total

Male

N=2162

38.5

28.8

32.1

0.6

100.0

Female

N=1087

41.6

27.2

30.3

0.9

100.0

294

TABLE D-70

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FREQUENCY OF TRAVEL BY PUBLIC CAR OR BUS AND MON7IiLY FANILY INCONE - 1976 (PERCENT)

FREQUENCY OF TRAVEL BY PUBLIC C_4R.OR BUS

Monthly Family Income

Almost Never

Other

32.7

28.9

0.6

100.0

Almost Alwáys

Seldom

Total ~.

Less than $95.00

N1077

37.8

$95.00 to $199.99

N=11.03

39.4

28.2

31.5

0.9

100.0

$200.00 or more

N=1002

38.8

25.2

35.4

0.6

100.0

295

TABLE D-71

~ RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FREQUENCY OF TRAVEL BY PUBLIC CAR OR BUS AND WHETHER PERSON RECEIVES FOOD STAMPS: 1976 (PERCENT)

FREQUENCY OF TRAVEL BY PUBLIC CAR OR BUS

RECEIVES FOOD STAMPS

Almost Always

Seldom

Almost Never

Other Total

Yes

N=~546

39.9

29.2

30.2

0.7

100..0

N= 678

34.4

27.0

38.1

0.5

100.0

tr)

TABLE D-72

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK OF HEAD OF FAMILY AND RESIDENTIAL SECTOR : 1976 (rratGENT)

RESIDENTIAL SECTOR

MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK Own Car

"Públicó" Walks or Bicycle Cars

Bus

Another's Taxi Car

Other

6.O

10O.O

7.3

10O.O

3.5

10O.O

Total ~

Rural

N= 298

39.6

17.4

18.8

3.4

14.1

Slum - island

N= 123

38.2

15.5

26.8

1.6

1O.6

Slum - metropolitan

N= 114

37.7

1O.5

24.6

15.O

6.1

Public Housing - island

N= 59

27.1

1O.2

4O.7

5.1

8.5

10O.O

Public Housing Metropolitan

N= 72

3O.6

6.9

22.2

33.3

6.9

---

10O.O

O.7

2.6

TABLE D-73

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK OF HEAD OF FAMILY AND SEX : 1976 (PERCENT)

MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO ARK SEX

Own Car

"Público" Car

Walks or Bicycle

Bus

Another's Car

Taxi

Other Total

N=562

40.8

12.6

22.6

7.1

10.9

0.7

5.3

100.0

Female

N=105

16.2

23.8

29.5

14.3

9.5

1.0

5.7

100.0

4,)

Male

~►)

TABLE D-74

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK OF HEAD OF FAMILY AND

EDUCATIONAL LEVEL: 1976

(L a car) / MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK Own Car

EDUCATIONAL LEVEL

"Público" Walks or Car Bicycles

Bus

Another's Car

Taxi

Other Total

3 grades or less

N=144

20.8

17.4

29.9

11.8

13.8

2.8

3.5

100.0

From 4 to 6 grades

N=172

26.7

21.5

30.2

6.4

8.1

---

7.0

100.0

From 7 to 9 grades

N=185

46.0

9.2

19.0

8.6

11.3

---

5.9

100.0

10 grades or more

N=166

51.2

10.2

17.0

6.6

9.6

0.6

4.8

100.0

TABLE D-75

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK OF HEAD OF FAMILY AND MONTHLY FAMILY INCOME: 1976 (PERCENT)

MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION MONTHLY FAMILY INCOME

Own Car

"Público" Walks or Car Bicycles

Bus

Another's Car

Taxi

Other Total

Less than $95.00

N= 72

40.3

8.3

29.2

9.7

5.5

1.4

5.6

100.0

$95.00 to $199.99

N=183

27.9

16.9

24.6

7.7

16.4

0.5

6.0

100.0

$200.00 or more

N=411

40.4

14.4

21.9

8.2

9.5

0.7

4.9

100.0

TABLE D-76

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK OF HEAD OF FAMILY AND WHETHER .FAMILY RECEIVES FOOD STAMPS: 1976 (PERCENT)

MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK RECEIVES FOOD STAMPS Own car

"Público" Walks or Bicyc1 e Car

Bus

Another's Car

Taxi

Other Total

YES

N=496

35.7

15.5

22.2

8.4

12.0

0.8

5.4

100.0

N=170

40.6

11.2

27.1

7.6

8.2

0.6

4.7

100.0

301

TABLE D-77

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DISTANCE TO PLACE OF WORK OF HEAD OF FAMILY AND MONTHLY FAMILY INCOME : 1976 (PERCENT)

MONTHLY FAMILY INCOME

DISTANCE TO PLACE OF WORK 4 Miles or Less

More than 4 miles

Total

Less than $95.00

N= 64

62.5

37.5

100.0

$95.00 to $199.99

N= 155

61.9

38.1

100.0

$200.00 or more

N= 378

54.5

45.5

100.0

Total

N= 597

57.3

42.7

100.0

302

TABLE D:78

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DISTANCE TO PLACE OF WORK OF HEAD OF FAMILY AND EDUCATIONAL LEVEL: 1976 (PERCENT)

EDUCATIONAL LEVEL

DISTANCE TO PLACE OF WORK 4Miles or More than Less 4 Miles Total

3 grades or less

N= 117

60.7

39.3

100.0

From 4 to 6 grades

N= 155

66.5

33.5

100.0

From 7 to 9 grades

N= 173

53.8

46.2

100.0

10 grades or more

N= 152

50.0

50.,0

100.0

Total

N= 597

57.5

42.5

100.0

303

TABLE D-79

~ RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DISTANCE TO PLACE OF WORK OF HEAD OF FAMILY AND SEX (PERCENT)

DISTANCE TO PLACE OF WORK

SEX

4 Miles or Less

More than 4 Miles

Total

Male

N=508

55.7

44.3

100.0

Female

N= 89

67.4

32.6

100.0

Total

N=597

57.5

42.5

100.0

304

TABLE D-80 ~ RELATION BETWEEN DISTANCE TO PLACE OF WORK OF HEAD OF FAMILY AND WHETHER PERSON RECEIVES FOOD STAMPS : 1976 'PERCENT)

RECEIVES FOOD STAMPS

DISTANCE TO PLACE OF WORK 4 Miles or Less

More than 4 Miles

Total

~ Yes

N= 454

56.6

43.4

100.0

N=152

59.2

40.8

100.0

Total

N=597

57.3

42.7

100.0

305

TABLE D-81

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A GROUP OF SELECTED VARIABLES AND MOTOR VEHICLE OWNERSHIP: 1976 (PERCENT)

OWNS VEHICLE

SELECTED VARIABLE Yes

Total

Male

33.2

68.8

100.0

N=1848

Female

10.4

89.6

100.0

N= 956

Less than $95.00

15.6

84.4

100.0

N= 881

$95.00 to $199.99

20.7

79.3

100.0

N= 881

$200.00 or more

41.2

58.8

100.0

N= 842

3 grades or less

13.9

86.1

100.0

N=1044

From 4 to 6 grades

25.3

74.7

100.0

N= 731

From 7 to 9 grades

33.3

66.7

100.0

N= 550

More than 10 grades

41.2

58.6

100.0

N= 485

SEX

MONTHLY FAMILY INCOME

EDUCATIONAL LEVEL

TABLE D-82

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INCOME AND EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OF HEAD OF FAMILY AND FINANCING THE PURCHASE OF NEW VEHICLES : 1976 (PERCENT) WAY OF FINANCING Cash

Bank Loan

Finance Company Loan

Other Total

Monthly Family Income Less than $95.00 $95.00 to $199.99 $200.00 or more

50.3 46.7 37.7

16,6 17.8 20.1

28.2 28.9 27.9

4.9 6.6 5.3

100.0 100.0 100.0

41.3 44.4 42.2 39.5

23.9 22.9 22.3 26.9

29.7 26.8 28.2 30.0

5.1 5.9 7.3 3.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Educational Level 3 grades or less From 3 to 6 grades From 7 to 9 grades 10 grades or more

307

TABLE D-83

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A GROUP OF SELECTED VARIABLES AND

MILEAGE PER GALLON = 1976 (PERCEDIT)

SELECTED VARIABLES

15 or less

MILES PER GALLON 16 - 30 31 or more

Total

PLACE OF RESIDENCE*

Rural Slum - Island Slum - Metropolitan Public Housing - Island Public Housing - Metropolitan

64.4 57.0 64.3 55.8 58.3

34.4 39.5 41.1 44.2 36.7

1.2 3.5 4.6 --5.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

60.4 51.0

37.4 42.9

2.2 5.1

100.0 100.0

65.3 65.1 57.5 54.1

33.3 33.7 36.9 43.8

1.4 1.2 5.6 2.1

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

SEX** Male Female Educational Level 3 grades or less From 4 to 6 grades From 7 to 9 grades 10 grades or more

308

TABLE. D-84

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AREA AND DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES FOR FACING THE ENERGY CRISIS: 1976 (PERCENT)

RESIDENTIAL AREAS ALTERNATIVES

Rural

Slum Island

Slum Metro

Public Housing Island Metro

47.5 49.9 2.6

60.8 37.1 2.1

61.3 36.6 2.1

6.8.8 30.9 0.3

67.7 31.5 0.8

84.8 13.2 2.0

86.6 10.5 2.9

92.4 7.1 0.5

98.6 8.2 1.0

93.5 6.5

70.3 21.5 8.2

74.3 20.0 5.7

78.8 17.4 3.8

78.6 17.8 3.6

82.6 16.3 1.1

81.5 13.9 4.6

85.5 12.5 2.0

86.0 11.2 2.0

1. Establish Bicycle lanes Agrees Disagrees Other 2. Improve bus service Agreees Disagrees Ether 3. Establish a subway system Agrees Disagrees Other

4. Instruction on building solar heaters Agrees Di sagre~s Other

77.4 16.2 6.4

81.3 13.2 5.5

309

TABLE D-85 ~ RELATIONSHIP BETGVFN MONTHLY FAMILY INCOME ACID DI

PENT ALTERNATIVES

FOR FACING THE ENERGY CRISIS: 1976 (PERCENT)

ALTERNATIVE

Less than $95.00

MONTHLY FAMILY INCOME $200.00 or $95.00 to more $199.99

1. Establish bicycle lanes 53.1 45.0 1.0

53.8 43.7 2.5

62.2 36,3 1.5

7L6 23.2 5..2

72.7 20.0 7.3

80.3 15.0 4.7

78.1 16.2 5.7

80.3 14.2 5.5

83 .. 4 12.7 3..9

4. Lower MPH limit on highways 81.8 Agrees Disagrees 16.5 1.7 Other

82,8 15.6 1.6

78.0 20.3 1.7

36.3 59.9 3.8

32.7 64,4 2.9

Agrees Disagrees Other 2. Establish a subway system Agrees Disagrees Other 3. Teach people how to build solar water heaters Agrees Disagrees Other

5. Gasoline rationing

Agrees Disagrees Other

40.2 56.7 3.1

310

TABLE D-,86

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EDUCATIONAL LEVEL AND DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES TO FACE THE ENERGY CRISIS= 1976 (PERCENT)

EDUCATIONAL LEVEL ALTERNATIVE

3 Grades From 4 to From 7 to or less 6 grades 9 grades

10 grades or more

1. Establish bicycle lanes Agrees Disagrees Other

51.8 45.8 2.4

56.2 41.5 2.3

60.2 38.5 1.3

61.5 36.9 1.6

84.2 13.0 2.8

85.1 14.7 0.2

76.9 21.3 1.8

72.2 26.5 1.3

38.3 56.8 4.9

39.0 57.3 3.7

35.0 63.1 1.9

30.4 68.9 0.7

2. Lower MPH limit on highways Agrees Disagrees Other 3. Gasoline rationing Agrees Disagrees Other