December1984 

# TheRoleofFocusGroupsinDesigninga ContingentValuationSurveytoMeasure theBenefitsofHazardousWaste ManagementRegulations



# . linga Prepared for U.s.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency

EconomicAnalysisDivision Washington,DC20460

Preparedby Dr.WilliamH.Desvousges Research TriangleInstitute Research TrianglePark.NC27709

Dr. V. Kerry Smith Centennial Professor of Economics Vanderbilt University Nashville. TN 37235

Diane H. Brown and D. Kirk Pate Research Triangle Institute Research Triangle Park. NC 27709



### . 1mProjectNo.2505-13 EPAContractNo.68-01-6595 SubcontractNo.700-C WorkAssignmentNo.C-Oll EPACooperative

AgreementNo.CR811075-01Chapter Preface Figures Tables 1 Introduction. 

## . . .. . . . . . . . . 1.1 Background. . . . . . . . . . 1.1.1 A PolicymakingChallenge: CongressionalMandates. 1.1.2 Benefit-CostAssessment: to Decisionmaking 

## . .. . 1.1.3 A CentralTheme: The Rc 

### I.2 Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 WhyUsetheContingentValuation 1.4 WhyUseFocusGroups? . . . . 

## 1.5Summary.. . . . . . . . . . .

,

## .6 GuidetotheReport. . . . . . . 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 2 Focus Groups--An

2.1 J ntroduction 2.2 The Advantages of FocusGroups.. . . . . 2.3 The Disadvantages of Focus Groups. . . . 2.4 The Design of FocusGroups. . . . . . . . 

### 2.4.1 PlanningWiththeClient. . . . . . 2.4.2 The Focus Group Moderator. . . . . 2.5 Insights from Hazardous Waste Focus Group Experience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.1 The Moderator. . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.2 Recruiting. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.3 Organizing the Session. . . . . . . 

### 2.5.4 RecordingEquipment: Suggestions.

2.5.5 Setting 

### 2.5.6 Lengthof Session. . . . . . . . . 2.5.7 N umberof People.. . . . . . . . . 2.5.8 Degreeof GroupAcquaintance. . . 2.5.9 Group Homogeneity. . . . . . . . . 2.5.10 Number of Groups. . . . . . . . . 

## !.6Summary

Suggestions.

. . . . . . . . . .

- - - - 

### . .

# . 2.5.7N umber ofPeople. . . . . . . . . . .

# . 2.5.8 Degreeof GroupAcquaintance. .

# .... 2.5.9 Group Homogeneity. . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.10 Number of Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . 

## 2.6 Summary

Suggestions.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . The Useof FocusGroupsto DevelopaQuestionnaireto Measurethe Benefitsof HazardousWasteManagement 3.1 Guidetothe Chapter. . . . . - - 3 

### CONTENTS 

## .E!9! iii ix xi 

# . . 

# . .

. . . . . . . 

# . .

. . 

# . 

# . . . . 

# . 

# . . . 

# . . 

# . . . 

# . . . 

# . . 

# . . . . 

# . 

# . . . . 

# . . . 

# .

. . . 

# . . . 

# . 1-1

1-1 1-2 

# . . 

# . . . . 

# . . . .



# . . . . . 

# . . 

# . . . . 

# . ... The 

# . . .

. 

# . . 

# . . A

## ... Guide 

# . 

# .

. 

# . 

# . . 

# . . . 1-2

1-3 1-4 1-6 1-8 1-12 1-14 

# . 

# . . . 

# . .. Role 

# . 

# .

. 

# . . . . 

## . . Risk of 

# . . . . .

. . . . Survey 

## . . . . . Valuation . . . . 

# . . . . . . . Approach? 

# .

. . . 

# . . . . 

# . . . 

# . 

# . . . . 

# . . . . . . . 

# . . . . . 

# . . . . . . Report. . 

### Overview 

# . 

# . . . . . 

# . .

. . 

# . . . 

# . . 

# . 

# . . 

# . . 

# . 2-1 2-1 2-2 2-4 2-5 2-5 2-6 2-9 2-9 

### 2-10 2-13 2-13 2-14 2-16 2-16 2-17 2-17 2-18 2-18 

# . . 

# . . . 

# . 

# . . . 

## . . . . . 

# . . . 

# . . . . . . . . 

# . . . . . . 

# . 

# . . . . . . 

# . . . . . . 

# . 

# . . . 

# .

. . . 

# . . 

# . . . . ..

# . . . 

# . . . . . . . 

# . 

# . . . . . . . 

# . . 

# . . . 

# . . . . 

# . 

# . . . . . . 

# . . . . . . . . . 

# . 

# . . 

# . . . . of of of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

# . .

. . 

# . . . .

. . . 

# . . 

# . . . 

# . 

# . . . 

# . . . . . 

# . . 

# . . . . . Homogeneity.

. of Groups. 

# . 

# .

. . 

# . . . 

# . . 

# . . . . . 

# . 

# . . . . .

. . 

# . . . 

# . . 

# . . . 

# . . 

# . 

# . . 

# .. 3-1 3-1 . . 

# . . 

# . . . . . . . Chapter 

# .



# . 

# . .

. 

# . . . . . . 

# . . .

. 

# . 

# . . . 

# . . . 

# . 

# . . . 

# . vChapter 3.3

4 Analytical Findings of FocusGroups on Hazardous WasteIssues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Overview: Topics for Discussion. . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Guide to the Chapter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Focus Group Profile: Participant Awareness of the Hazardous WasteProblem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Risk Perceptions and Attributes. . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1 Perceptions of Risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2 Occupational Risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.3 Attributes of Risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Perceived Risks of Hazardous WasteExposure. . . . . 4.5.1 Participants Closeto Hazardous WasteProblems. 4.5.2 Participants Not Closeto Hazardous Waste 

### f

## '1 I. 

## ~. 6 Environmental

Attitudes.. . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.1 Perceptions01EnvironmentalIssues. . 4.6.2 Responsibilityfor EnvironmentalProblems 4.6.3 Risksfrom EnvironmentalProblems. . . J.7 Understanding of Hazardous Wastes. . . . . . , 4.7.1 Knowledge of Hazardous Wastes. . . . . 4.7.2 Hazardous WasteExposure Pathways. . . 4.7.3 The Unknowns of Hazardous Wastes. . . 4.7.4 Hazardous WasteLandfill Siting. . . . . 4.7.5 Responsibility for Hazardous Wastes. . . I!



### ~

f" 

## f] (continued) 

### CONTENTS f!.a! 3-2 3-4 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-11 3-16 3-22 3-25 3-25 3-30 3-38 3.2 Overview: Findings and Issues in Questionnaire Development. . . . - . . 

# . . . . 

# . 

# . . . .

. . . . 

## .

# . .

. . 

# . . . 

# . 3.3 probability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 Introduction.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3 Round 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4 Round 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.5 Rounds 4 and 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.6 Round 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Perception of Exposure Risk. . . . . . . . . .

3.4.1 Circles 3.4.2 Risk Ladder. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.3 Distance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Numbers and Types of Products with Hazardous Byproducts 3.6 Exposure Pathways and How Consumers Pay. . . . 3.7 Information Necessary to Understand the Valuation - .. 

# . . . 

# . 

# . ..

. 

# . . . 

# . .

. 

# . . 

# . . . . 

# . . . 

# . . . . .

. . 

# . . . . . 

# . . . 

# . . 

# . . 

# . 

# . . 

# ..

. 

# . 5 

# . . .

. . .

. . 

# . 

# . . .

. . . . 

# . .

. . 

# . . 

# . . . . . Risk . . 

# . . .

. 

# . . . 3.4 

# . . 

# . . . . . 

# . . 

# . . . . 

# . . . . 

# . . . . . 

# .

. . 

# . . 

# . . . .



# . 

# . . 3-41

3-43 . . 

# .. . . 

# . 3-48 3-48 3-52 3-54 3-58 Question 

# . 

# . .

.

. . 

## . . . 

# . . .

. 

# . . . . . . . 

# . . 

# . . 3.7.1 Hypothetical Sitl 3.7.2 Dollar Amounts. 3.7.3 Valuation Task. 

### 3.8 Summary.. . . . . . Situation 

# . . . . . . 

## . 

# . . 

# . . . . . 

## .

. . 

# . . . 

# . . 

# . . . . 

# . . . 

# . . . 

# . 

# . . . . . 

# . . . of Focus Groups on Hazardous 4-1 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-7 4-7 4-10 4-11 4.13 4-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Awareness 

# . .

. . 

# . . . 

# . . 

# . 

# . .. 

# .



# . . 

# . . . of . . the 

## . 

# . 

# . . 

## .

. .

. . 

## .

. . . . . 

# . . . . . . .

.



## . 

# . 

# . .

# . . . 

# . . . . 

## . . . 

## . 

# . . . 4-16

4-17 4-17 4-18 4-19 4-20 4-20 4-23 4-24 4-25 4-26 Problems 

# . .



# . 

# . . 

# .

. . 

## . . 

# . . . . . . 

# . .

. 

# . . . . 

# .



# . . . 

# . . 

# . . . 

# . . . . . 

# .

.. 

# . 

# . . . . . 

# . . . 

# . 

# . . viChapter 4.8 Understanding of the Payment Vehicle. . . . . . . . 4.8.1 Understanding of WhoPays. . . . . . . . . . 4.8.2 Understanding of How Much Should Be Paid. 4.8.3 Ability of Participants to Think Hypothetically 4.8.4 Significant Factors in the Hypothetical 

## Situation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8.5 Difficulties of Presenting the PaymentVehicle Concept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9 Perception of Compensation. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.10 Governmental Effectiveness and Other Key Analytical 

## Variables.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.10.1 Perceptions of Governmental Effectiveness. . 4.10.2 Other Analytical Variables. . . . . . . . . . 5 The Role of Pretesting and

in Developing a Contingent 

### Questionnaire. . . . . . 5.2 Pretest of Contingent

Questionnaire 

### 5.3 VdeotapedInterviews. . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Questionnai

re Reviews. . . . . . . . . . 5.5 The Questionnaire Development Process: Reflections and Suggestions for Improvement Bibliography (continued)



### CONTENTS



### ~ 4-30 4-30 4-31 4-31 4-33 4-35 4-35 

# . . . . 

# . . 

# . 

# .. .

# . . .

# . 4-38 4-38 4-45 4-47 . . . . 

# . . 

# . Videotaped 'Interviews Valuation Survey 5-1 5-1 

# . . 

# . . . . .

. . . . Survey 

# . . . . . . 

## . .. . . Valuation 

# . . . 

# . . . . 

# . 

# . 

# . . . 

# . . 5-2

5-7 5-11 5-11 6-1 

# . . . . 

# . . 

# . . . 

# . . . . 

# . . . . 

# . . . 

# . . 

# . . .

. 

# . . 

# . . 

# . . .

. 

# . . . 

# .

. . 

# . 

# . .

. 

# . . . .

vii