FINDINGS FROM 2010 FOCUS GROUPS CONDUCTED UNDER

EPA ICR #2402.01

Office of Water

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Prepared with the assistance of

Abt Associates Inc.

January 19, 2011
– Page intentionally left blank –
Prepared by:

Elena Besedin,

Ryan Stapler, and

Lauren Parker

Abt Associates Inc.

55 Wheeler Street

Cambridge, MA 02138

For:

Erik Helm

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water
– Page intentionally left blank –
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings i

Introduction

This report presents the main findings from the focus groups and cognitive interviews that were conduced

as part of the design and pre-testing of the 316(b) stated preference survey. These focus groups and

cognitive interview were conducted under EPA ICR #2402.01, “Willingness to Pay Survey for 316(b)

Existing Facilities Cooling Water Intake Structures: Instrument, Pre-Test, and Implementation.”

This report is organized as follows:

 Part 1: Executive Summary – Summarizes the cumulative findings from the 2010 focus groups

and cognitive interviews

 Part 2: Findings from Focus Groups Conducted in 2010 – Presents detailed results and extensive

transcript excerpts from the six focus group and a series of cognitive interviews conducted in

2010.

 Appendices A to G – Present full documentation for all focus groups and cognitive interviews

from 2010, including transcripts, survey instruments, and fact sheets. The appendices accompany

this report as separate memos.
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings ii

Table of Contents

1 Executive Summary..................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Presentation of Information to Survey Respondents .............................................................3

1.2 Interpretation of Information by Respondents ......................................................................6

1.3 Survey Scenario and Respondent Decision-making..............................................................9

1.4 Budget Issues ....................................................................................................................11

1.5 Respondent Motivations ....................................................................................................12

2 Findings from Focus Groups Conducted in 2010..................................................................... 17

2.1 Presentation of Information to Survey Respondents ...........................................................19

2.2 Interpretation of Information by Respondents ....................................................................38

2.3 Survey Scenario and Respondent Decision-making............................................................50

2.4 Budget Issues ....................................................................................................................60

2.5 Respondent Motivations ....................................................................................................67

Appendix A: Documentation for Focus Group in East Providence, RI, 7/21/10

Appendix B: Documentation for Focus Group in Waltham, MA, 7/29/10

Appendix C: Documentation for Focus Group in St Louis, MO, 8/4/10

Appendix D: Documentation for Cognitive Interviews in East Providence, RI, 8/12/10

Appendix E: Documentation for Focus Group in Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10

Appendix F: Documentation for Focus Group in Charlotte, NC, 9/8/10

Appendix G: Documentation for Focus Group in Philadelphia, PA, 9/23/10
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 1

1 Executive Summary

This report summarizes the main findings from six focus groups and a series of cognitive interviews that

have been conducted as part of the design and pre-testing of the 316(b) stated preference survey. These

focus groups and cognitive interview were conducted under EPA ICR #2402.01, “Willingness to Pay

Survey for 316(b) Existing Facilities Cooling Water Intake Structures: Instrument, Pre-Test, and

Implementation.” The focus groups an interview took place in the following locations and on these dates:1

1) East Providence, RI, July 21, 2010

2) Waltham, MA, July 29, 2010

3) St. Louis, MO, August 4, 2010

4) East Providence, RI, August 12, 2010 [8 cognitive interviews]

5) Bethesda, MD, August 18, 2010

6) Charlotte, NC, September 8, 2010

7) Philadelphia, PA, September 23, 2010

Each focus group was composed of eight to ten individuals that were randomly selected by the focus

group facilities from panels of potential participants maintained by each facility. Participants were eligible

if they were eighteen years of age or older and if they were not full-time students. Each of the focus

groups included a mix of individuals with diverse socioeconomics backgrounds, based on characteristics

such as income, marital status, age, rage, education, occupation, and gender. Participants were

compensated for their participation in the focus groups. Each focus group session was one to two hours

long. All sessions were audiotaped and transcribed.2,3 Inasmuch as was possible, focus group questions

followed ethnographic guidelines to avoid excessive moderator influence on participants’ responses.

Within the focus group and cognitive interview format, the moderator first asked the participants to

complete the entire survey instrument. The moderator then led a general conversation which took the

group/individual through a series of debriefing questions. During the debriefing sessions, the moderator

asked focus group and cognitive interview participants about their reactions to the survey format and

content, whether the survey questions were clear, whether the background information presented in the

survey or introductory materials was sufficient and how participants interpreted it, what went through

participants’ minds when they read survey questions, and what their motivations were for responding they

way they did to the survey. Major topics discussed are listed on the following page. For each discussion

topic, we provide representative transcript excerpts that illustrate the variety of viewpoints expressed by

focus group participants, as well as the general frequency with which those viewpoints were expressed.

1

In this report, we use the citation format (#X-Z to refer to page Z of the transcript for focus group X. Citations to cognitive

interviews use a similar format, (#X/Y-Z), where Y represents the interview number.

2 Where “M:” stands for moderator and “R:” stands for respondent.

3 Audiotapes for two cognitive interviews were inaudible and could not be transcribed.
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 2

Topics Discussed in 2010 Focus Groups and Cognitive Interviews

1.1 Presentation of Information to Survey Respondents.................................................................. 3

1.1.1 Use of Graphics in the Survey .............................................................................................3

1.1.2 Comprehension and Retention of Information......................................................................3

1.1.3 Characterization of Magnitude of Fish Losses......................................................................4

1.1.4 Usefulness of Introductory Material and Potential for Bias...................................................4

1.1.5 Presentation Format for Policy Effects.................................................................................5

1.1.6 Characterization of Scientific Uncertainty............................................................................6

1.2 Interpretation of Information by Respondents .......................................................................... 6

1.2.1 Eggs and Larvae versus Adult Fish......................................................................................6

1.2.2 Interpretation of Ecological Scores ......................................................................................7

1.2.3 Importance of Program Details ............................................................................................8

1.2.4 The Warm Glow Effect .......................................................................................................8

1.3 Survey Scenario and Respondent Decision-making ................................................................... 9

1.3.1 Decision Scenario................................................................................................................9

1.3.2 Survey Realism ...................................................................................................................9

1.3.3 Hypothetical Bias..............................................................................................................10

1.3.4 Participant Confidence and Certainty.................................................................................10

1.3.5 Scope Tests .......................................................................................................................11

1.4 Budget Issues ............................................................................................................................. 11

1.4.1 Budget Constraints ............................................................................................................11

1.4.2 Payment Vehicle ...............................................................................................................12

1.5 Respondent Motivations............................................................................................................ 12

1.5.1 Motivations for Protecting Fish .........................................................................................12

1.5.2 Fish Losses versus Fish Populations and Ecosystem Condition ..........................................13

1.5.3 Government Regulation.....................................................................................................14

1.5.4 Cause of Losses.................................................................................................................14

1.5.5 Geographic Concerns ........................................................................................................15

1.5.6 Importance of Protecting Aquatic Ecosystems Compared to Other Issues...........................15
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 3

1.1 Presentation of Information to Survey Respondents

1.1.1 Use of Graphics in the Survey

Participants endorsed the use of graphics in the survey.

Participants endorsed the use of graphics in the survey booklet. Most felt that the graphics helped them to

visualize how fish are entrained and impinged, technological solutions, facilities locations, and ecosystem

effects. For example, some respondents stated: “I mean, the filter thing, where you can see X number of

fish on one side and then only the little ones are getting through, it kind of tells you what’s going on”(#1-

5), “After reading the previous page and then reading this the picture clicked [...] I got it” (#7-10), and “I

think it was good to visualize the problem in the graphic” (#7-10). Participants also felt that the graphics

improved their understanding of these issues and tended to think of them as “providing information” (#6-

14), rather than pushing them to answer a certain way. Many respondents indicated that they understood

the meaning of the graphics: “I think they were easy to follow. It was pretty straightforward” (#1-10) and

“It looks clear” (#5-5). However, some respondents provided feedback regarding aspects of the various

graphics which they found confusing and on how they might be improved. Regarding the map showing

facilities locations, a participant stated “I was confused about the generator and manufacturer icons and

exactly what’s going on” (#7-10). Participants’ comments during the focus groups were used to refine the

graphics within the draft survey in order to improve clarity and reduce the potential for respondent

confusion. For example, the current version of the survey instrument no longer distinguishes between

manufacturing and generating facilities. Overall, when asked participants preferred that the survey include

graphics: “Yeah, I’d rather have them” (#5-5) and “I like on page 2 the graph and illustration because the

adage a picture is worth a thousand words” (#7-3). Participants’ comments also indicated that they had

little emotional reaction to the image on the cover of the survey and that it did not influence their survey

responses: “It’s a nice picture, but it didn’t do anything, you know, wow, spectacular” (#4/5-3), “I noticed

it. I didn’t – as far – kind of gave me an idea what the topic was going to be about” (#4/1-2), “[...] it’s

calming kind of – it reminds if you were looking at a fish tank [...]” (#4/3-9), and “But looking at it

without knowing any of this inside, I think my impression was, it’s colorful and kind of blurry” (#4/6-10).

1.1.2 Comprehension and Retention of Information

Participants generally understood and remembered key information necessary to complete the survey,

with some exceptions.

Despite some exceptions, most participants understood and remember information presented in the

survey. Some participants indicated that they had to re-read some parts of the survey or refer back to the

survey page which presents the definition of effects. For example, one respondent stated, “So, I definitely

had to read those boxes a few times. It wasn’t that it was hard to understand” (#7-2). As in any survey, a

limited number of participants failed to understand or remember certain pieces of information presented

in the survey booklet. One participant stated they he felt the complexity of the information presented in

the survey influenced the quality of his answers: “I felt the complexity prevented me from giving good

answers in an area that I’m very concerned about ‘cause I fish” (#7-2). The draft survey was revised

throughout the course of the focus groups to reduce unnecessary complexity, remove extraneous

information regarding effect definitions, and reduce the overall length of the survey in order to improve

understanding and promote completion when self-administered. Participants generally showed an
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 4

understanding of the scores describing policy effects regarding commercial fish populations, fish

populations (all fish), fish saved, and condition of aquatic ecosystems. Participant understanding and

interpretation of the ecological scores is discussed in Section 1.2.2.

1.1.3 Characterization of Magnitude of Fish Losses

Participants generally felt that the survey provided useful information about fish losses attributable to

CWIS, other sources of mortality, and population sizes.

Participants generally felt that the survey provided useful information about fish losses attributable to

CWIS, other sources of mortality, and population sizes. Participants generally understood based on the

introductory material that CWIS is not the largest source of fish mortality. One participant stated he

initially thought that CWIS losses are a very large problem but the statement on Page 3 that “Cooling

water use is not the large cause of fish loss in most areas” “kind of tempers it a little bit” (#7-12).

However, a few participants still indicated that the information provided in the draft survey was

insufficient for them to understand the magnitude of the CWIS losses relative to other factors: “All this

information, all this research, but I mean, how many salmons to Americans eat a year, you know? I mean,

I don’t know in comparison to 17,000 paddlefish?” (#3-21). The draft survey was revised to include pie

charts comparing young fish losses from CWIS to estimated adult fish populations for example species.

This presentation was deemed important in order to address participant comments on intermediate draft

survey versions which did not specifically include examples to this effect: “If there was like a pie chart

right below that first sentence showing me the difference between what’s how much fish are lost and

affected and how many are not, that probably would have affected the way I looked at [...] the rest this

pamphlet” (#7-11) and “Like that part of it did tell you how much [...] we could lose but it never told you

how much that we have” (#7-2).

Also, most participants understood the meaning of “fish saved per year” and felt that it was less confusing

than potential alternatives for describing the magnitude of fish losses. For example:

M: [...] The attribute in the middle is described as “fish saved per year”. Would it have made a difference

to you, do you think, if we had described that instead in terms of “reduction of fish losses”?

R: No.

M: No? Do you think “fish saved” was a reasonable way to describe it?

R: Yeah. [#5-15]

1.1.4 Usefulness of Introductory Material and Potential for Bias

Participants generally felt that the introductory material was useful and sufficient for them to provide

meaningful responses. Most respondents felt that the introductory material did not push them to answer in

a particular way.

Results from the focus groups revealed that participants’ baseline knowledge about CWIS and fish stocks

was limited and mostly based on their personal experience. Some participants stated that they were

previously unaware of some of the terms used in the survey: “I had never heard the term forage fish. You

know it was educational that there’s a lot more forage fish that there are fish that are actually caught and

consumed by humans. Whether or not it affected my answer I don’t know” (#7-7). Participants also had

little baseline knowledge regarding the size of fish stocks, as stated by one respondent, “I think that my

perception of how many fish are really in any body of water is very unclear. So you could have put down
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 5

here that you could save 20 billion fish and I probably would have believed it [...]” (#4/6-5). Participants

generally felt that the introductory material would enable them to give meaningful responses to the survey

questions. For example, some respondents stated “[...] it was nice to know the differentiation between

commercial fish and recreational fish and the forage fish. So, that I think having that information kind of

influenced some of my votes I would say” (#7-10), and “I just don’t know enough about it, I guess coming

into it, but I felt like it – I mean it was pretty straightforward” (#4/5-2). Some participants thought that the

draft survey did not provide enough information, as one participant stated, “Like that part of it did tell you

how much [...] we could lose but it never told you how much that we have” (#7-2). Generally participants

indicated that this additional information probably would not have influenced their vote in the choice

questions. As stated by one participant, “I probably would have made the same decision, but it would

have been nice to know exactly what the difference between 48 and 53 would have been” (#5-17). The

draft survey was revised to include additional information addressing many of the participant comments

and concerns. Additional discussion of participant confidence and certainty is provided in Section 1.3.4.

Many respondents felt that the introductory material provided objective information, rather than feeling

that the information included in the survey pushed them to respond a certain way. For example, when

asked about potential bias some respondents stated “No, I didn’t think so” (#5-14) and “Only if by biased

meaning that there’s missing information that could help us in that sense perhaps again. Other than that,

no” (#5-14). However some participants expressed a general concern that the introductory material may

not be objective or may be biased mainly because it did not provide enough information. As some

participants stated, “I mean, opinions are like belly buttons, everyone’s got one, so how one-sided is all

this information? I always am kind of cynical in my thinking, what is the other perspective?” (#2-3), “I

think the presentation is biasing the answer” (#5-14). Some other participants described what they

perceived as a bias in the other direction: “I knew that I wanted to vote because of how important the fish

are in the ecosystem. [...] I felt like it was pushing you in one direction or another according to what

percentage of the population you’re going to save overall. It was biased in that respect” (#6-4), “The first

sentence is a bit skewed. [...] The cause – cooling water use is not the largest cause of fish loss in most. It

kind of basically it’s saying, hey, it’s not so bad. There’s other things that are doing it, as well, so you

know” (#7-11). Some other participants also indicated that any perceived bias did not influence the way

they answered the choice questions.

1.1.5 Presentation Format for Policy Effects

Most participants interpreted the fish losses scales correctly and generally felt that the presentation of

policy information was clear within the choice questions. Furthermore, participants generally endorsed

the use of percentages to describe ecological effects.

Focus groups showed that most respondents correctly interpreted the scales of the ecological scores. For

example, one participant stated “[...] I think the percentages really, to me, really helped me” (#4/5-11). In

initial draft versions of the survey, a few participants were confused about the meaning of a maximum

scores presented in the choice questions. The draft survey was revised to include additional reminders

within the choice questions regarding the maximum score under each effect along with its meaning (e.g.,

“100% is populations without human influence”). Another revision based on focus group results included

additional emphasis regarding how scores would be used in the remainder of the survey as stated on Page

7: “The next part of the survey will ask you to consider different types of policies protect fish, and indicate

how you would vote. Effects on each possible policy will be described using the following scores.”

Participants clearly understood that the values presented under the “No Policy” option represented the

current situation and that the marginal effect of a policy was the difference between values presented
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 6

under “No Policy” and Option A or Option B. Additional discussion of the scores used to describe policy

effects is presented in Section 1.2.2.

1.1.6 Characterization of Scientific Uncertainty

Participants understood that the ecological changes described in the survey were uncertain, and most were

comfortable making decisions in the presence of this uncertainty.

Participants understood that the ecological changes described in the survey were uncertain, and most

participants were comfortable making decisions in the presence of this uncertainty. Their responses

indicated that they understood this uncertainty based on the information presented in the introductory

material and considered it when evaluating policy options. For example, one participant referred to Page

4, which addresses scientific uncertainty as, “That one kind of the disclaimer page” (#7-19). Some

participants also expressed that they weren’t surprised at this uncertainty, with statements such as “I

wasn’t surprised at that” (#4/4-7). Multiple participants expressed that they perceived the values as a

“best guess”: “My guess is that it did come from studies but I have a healthy dose of skepticism about the

accuracy of it. I don’t think it’s been in any way skewed purposefully, but I know that this is a best guess,

reasonable guess perhaps” (#5-10), “it shows me that they are being honest for the most part. You know,

you can't obviously be accurate on everything, but this is a kind of a best guess” (#4/1-3), “[...] They had

more numbers on the commercial fish population. The rest was more of a guesstimate” (#5-15), and “you

don’t know the exact number and nobody knows” (#4/3-4). Overall, participants felt comfortable making

decisions in the presence of uncertainty, but some participants had differing opinions on how it impacted

their choices: “No it didn’t – it didn’t either way” (#4/4-7) and “I’m assuming if you’re a scientist and you

are doing studies, I’m taking you at your word. I still don’t think that anyone’s capable of complete

accuracy in this matter – I guess it did affect my answers because I think that taking them that they can do

it pretty decently” (#4/5-3).

1.2 Interpretation of Information by Respondents

1.2.1 Eggs and Larvae versus Adult Fish

Participants generally understood that CWIS primary affects “young fish” which may eventually develop

into adult fish.

Participants generally understood that CWIS primary affects “young fish” which may eventually develop

into adult fish. Many participants stated that the graphic on Page 2 of the survey (“How Fish are Affected

by Water Intake”) helped them understand how CWIS impacts fish and how it differentially affects eggs,

juvenile, and adult fish: “I was thinking more fish is going to get through the screen if they’re smaller.

The smaller, the more eggs and the more fish you’re going to lose” (#6-8). The draft survey was also

revised to further clarify the graphic with arrows linking it to supporting text. As said by a participant, “I

like the arrows. Large fish are easier to kill. The arrow points to a larger adult fish. Juvenile fish and

eggs it points to juvenile fish and eggs” (#7-10). Many participants showed an understanding of the

meaning of “young fish” and the relationship between young fish and adult fish. One stated, “[...] still

young eggs and fish are important too [...], but an egg is an egg which grows to an adult.” (#3-21), and

another described juvenile fish as “the kids” (#6-8). Some respondents expressed confusion about the

specific definition of young fish, as stated by one participant “What does that mean to be a young fish?

What is the criteria for young fish is one of the questions I had” (#4/1-5). Comments by some participants
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 7

also revealed that they may have been somewhat confused about what “young fish” includes: “One thing

that it never addresses and I was kind of wondering about, it addresses small fish but never eggs” (#5-3).

However, it generally appears that any such confusion did not prevent respondents from being confident

in their selections in choice questions.

1.2.2 Interpretation of Ecological Scores

Participants generally understood the meaning of the ecological scores and differences between ecological

scores.

Participants generally understood the meaning of the ecological scores and differences between ecological

scores. Multiple respondents commented on the complexity of the scores, but fewer respondents indicated

that the complexity prevented them from understanding the scores or from providing meaningful

responses. As stated by one participant, “[...] I definitely had to read those boxes a few times. It wasn’t

that it was hard to understand. It was just like you said it was a little maybe more complex the way it was

written out.” (#7-2). The draft survey was revised to reduce the detail regarding the ecological scores to

prevent respondents from being confused or overwhelmed. With this information excluded, participants

still appeared to understand the concept being addressed: “I personally thought everything from pollution

to fish to everything. It’s an ecosystem. Literally comprises everything as a whole” (#5-8). This revision

also reduces the potential for participants to focus on measures within the aquatic ecosystem score which

are not affected by the policy options presented in the choice questions (e.g., fish tissue contamination). A

few participants suggested the “commercial fish sustainability” score used in the initial draft survey may

be confusing: “The commercial fish thing is a little bit confusing [...] commercial fishing sustainability

score, that’s – I was reading through that a couple of times” (#1-14). The draft survey was revised to

describe commercial fishing impacts in terms of a “commercial fish populations” and participants

generally understood the difference between “commercial fish population” and “fish populations (all

fish)”: “[...] specifically the fish that are more generally used as food for people versus some of these

other fish that are just fish [...]” (#2-5). See Section 1.1.3 for additional discussion specific to the “fish

saved per year” score.

Participants indicated that it was useful to have the effects specified separately within the choice

questions: “The fact that you gave the statistics for both types influenced my answers. If you said fish in

general, I might answer a different way” (#7-12). Many participants expressed preferences among the

effects, while others said they considered all effects: “For me, it was just the cost, the condition of aquatic

ecosystem, and the fish saved per year. That’s all I looked at” (#5-8), “For me, it was conditions of

aquatic ecosystem which was primary – Not so much as how much is there, but the ecosystem” (#5-6),

and “[...] I read all of them and all of it was taken into consideration” (#4/6-2). Some other respondents

focused on the effect exhibiting the largest changes under the policy options: “I think the most striking

thing on the page, or option , was – or statistic, was the 50% and the 1.4 billion fish saved. So, that alone

helped with my decision. Then looking down, some of them are not as much as of a difference. But I’m all

for trying to save as many as we can.” (#4/6-2), “I went with B because I saw that was a higher

percentage fish saved” (#1-11), and “[...] when I compared A and B, they’re virtually the same statistics

except on fish saved per year, where there were a lot more fish saved. It’s like, hey, for twelve more

dollars a year saves 0.3 billion more fish? So, I selected Option B” (#5-6). The draft survey was revised,

changing the order in which ecological effects were presented in the choice questions in order to reduce

the potential for participants to focus excessively on the “fish saved per year” score when choosing

between policy options or to suggest that it is more important than other scores.
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 8

Participants generally appeared to have some understanding of how the ecological scores interact and this

influenced their responses. As stated by one participant regarding the “fish saved” score in comparison to

other ecological scores, “many of those will die anyway because they’ll be eaten by others, so again, I am

not so concerned with that fish saved per year” (#4/2-4) and “Fish are only part of it, this ecosystem” (#3-

11). Participants generally understood that not all effects will necessarily improve with an increase in

“fish saved per year”: [...] it was saying, saving more fish does not necessarily mean that all the effects

will improve. That swayed me a little” (#6-2). Some participants’ responses indicated that the choice

questions would have been more difficult if some effects were to go up and others down within the same

policy option. Some others indicated that they still could have answered the questions: “I don’t think it

would have been more confusing. It would have made me think more about my answer because I would

have had to really weigh the different things” (#5-13).

1.2.3 Importance of Program Details

Participant understanding of program details based on the survey was sufficient for them to provide

meaningful responses to the choice questions.

Participant understanding of program details based on the survey was sufficient for them to provide

meaningful responses to the choice questions. Many participants expressed that graphics and charts within

the survey were helpful for illustrating differences between technologies and potential policy programs.

Generally responses from participants indicated that they understood that policy options would include a

combination of closed cycle and filters: “I assumed it would be a combination of the two” (#5-13), and

“Like each time I read when I went to question 5, I had in mind this is a different set of cooling and filters.

So, you know that in the back of my mind also when I was looking at the numbers” (#7-6). Some other

participants indicated that they would have liked to have been provided more detail regarding the

combination of technologies that would be applied under policy options, with comments such as, “[...]

it’s very vague. These options require a different mix of technologies in different areas. It doesn’t really

address how they’re different” (#5-12) with one participant stating,“[if the survey] had actually addressed

the technologies more in the introduction, I think then if they include them later on that could definitely

affect how I would have picked” (#5-13). The draft survey was revised based on participant feedback to

clarify that new policies could use a combination of closed cycle and advanced filters. Overall, feedback

from participants indicated that these details might allow they to make a slightly more informed decision

but are unlikely to affect their policy choices : “[...] being somebody that didn’t have to look for an

extended amount of time, I don’t think that would matter” (#4/6-8), and “A slightly more informed

answer” (#7-6).

1.2.4 The Warm Glow Effect

Most participants answered the choice questions based on the effects discussed in the survey, not on a

desire to help the environment in general.

Many participants indicated that while they were concerned about the environment in general, their

answers were based on the specific effects presented in the survey. Comments from some participants that

their policy choices were based primarily on “fish saved per year” suggest that they felt fish were worth

saving for their own sake to some degree. While participants’ responses indicated that they consider

increasing the “fish saved per year” score to be a good thing but they generally did not express a strong
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 9

response to fish losses specifically with one participant stating, “I’d like to say it is pretty difficult to

become emotional with fish” (#3-11). However, a few participants stated that while they were making

decisions based on the effects presented within the survey, their choices were based at least partially on a

desire to help the environment in general. For example:

M: [...] Were the specific effects important to you when you were answering? Or were you answering just

because maybe you want do your part or do the right thing or something like that?

R: For me it was both. I did a cost benefit on each one. Should I spend that much a year for this marginal

improvement? It was really both. [#5-11].

Some participants indicated that it was difficult to choose the status quo after reading the introductory

information and some others indicated that they thought that “they could do a thing” given the relatively

low household cost. A few respondents indicated that they were inclined to support environmental causes

and would like “to do a good thing” but still considered the cost and effects under the policy options. For

example, one respondent stated, “[...] if we can do something to help as long as the price is right, then do

it” (#7-16) and “I feel if it’s going to benefit everyone and be better for the economy, I’m OK with paying

a little bit more” (#1-12).

1.3 Survey Scenario and Respondent Decision-making

1.3.1 Decision Scenario

Respondents understood the choice task correctly and generally believed that the survey decision scenario

was clear.

Participants understood the choice task correctly and generally believed that the survey decision scenario

was clear. Most indicated that they followed the survey’s instruction to evaluate each policy question on

its own and did not compare policy options across pages. A small minority of participants stated that they

did look page across the choice questions when completing the participants looked back across pages but

these participants generally indicated that this was to help them better understand. As stated by one

participant, “I did look back, not to compare, but I did look back just to see how I answered [...] to make

sure that I’m thinking about this right and being consistent. So I don’t know that I compared, I just

wanted to make – I think it helped me understand” (#3-7). When probed it was clear that they were

answering the choice questions on their own. For example:

M: - or were you looking at it in reference to other questions, and kind of answering them as a group?

R: No, on it’s own.

R: On it’s own.

R: On it’s own. [#3-7]

1.3.2 Survey Realism

Participants were generally willing to accept the information presented in the survey at face value.

Participants were generally willing to accept the information presented in the survey at face value. There

were some objections regarding the information presented in the survey, and for the most part these

objections were related to a perceived insufficiency of information. An objection was raised in early focus

groups regarding the basis for values presented in the survey and why it did not list specific information

sources: “You have to list your sources, like ‘Where did you get these numbers from?’”(#2-10). While
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 10

participants generally suspected the numbers were based on government data, some respondents

expressed that listing sources would add “some degree of credibility to it, rather than just and arbitrary

number [...]” (#2-10). A statement listing organizations which contributed data was added to Page 1 and

this appeared to resolve much of these concerns. A cognitive interview participant also described how

differences in the level of effects could possibly influence his perception of realism: “[...] if they were

more dramatic, perhaps it might have, you know, made me look a little harder [...] maybe I would have

been even more skeptical. I’m not sure” (#4/2-2). Overall though, participants appeared to approach the

numbers and consider them as if they were real when choosing between policy options.

1.3.3 Hypothetical Bias

Participants took the survey questions seriously, indicating that hypothetical bias may not be a significant

design issue for this survey.

Participants took the survey questions seriously and indicated that they thought that their choices would

actually influence policy. They thought that their responses would be used by the government to make

policy decisions, as one participant referenced back to the survey text, “It says here that your answer will

help the government decide which policies will be enacted, unless that’s a lie” (#6-11). Some took the

mere development of the survey as an indication that the government would be using their input to make

policy decisions and that their response was important, “Or they wouldn’t be doing this survey” (#6-11).

Many participants were confident when asked whether their choices would be different if they knew the

vote was binding. For example, one participant stated that “No. It would have been the same actually”

(#4/1-11). Some participants expressed mixed impressions of why EPA had developed the survey and

how their responses would be used for decision making: “I just assumed EPA is trying to see how many

allies they have” (#6-12), and “[to see] Who would vote in their favor before they go to wherever they

need to go” (#6-12). Overall, participants thought that their votes were important. Participants also

indicated that they thought of the “cost line” in the choice questions as real costs that they household may

have to pay if the policy option was enacted. See Section 1.4.1 for discussion of focus group results

related to budget constraints.

1.3.4 Participant Confidence and Certainty

Participants generally felt comfortable with their answers based on the information provided in the

survey, but some expressed uncertainty.

Some participants felt very certain about their answers. For example, participants made statements such

as: “Yeah, I’m pretty much confident” (#3-8), and “If I believed that it was gonna affect regulations, I

think I would have voted the same exact way.”(#7-9). Some others expressed confidence but thought that

additional information might improve their confidence or impact their choices. For example some

respondents stated: “To be really more confident, I would need more information [...]” (#5-3), and “[...]

based on what I had I feel confident. If I would be provided more information maybe my answers would

be different” (#3-8). A few participants indicated that a specific piece of information might improve their

confidence, for example: “And I’d want to know if there are any job losses related to this” (#5-3). The

vast majority indicated that they were neutral or confident in their responses to Question 8, with those

lacking confidence as a small minority. Among participants indicating a lack of confidence, a lack of

information was typically cited as the primary reason rather than confusion regarding the survey format or
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 11

decision scenarios: “I didn’t feel like I was pushed a certain way, but I wasn’t confident in my answers. I

just answered the best that I thought that I could in the information that was given. If I had taken a test, I

feel like I would fail” (#6-4). Another participant stated that he felt “Uninformed” (#1-5). When asked,

many participants tended to agree that they would vote the same way if in a “voting booth” or if questions

were part of a referendum. A few participants agreed but caveated their response somewhat: “Yes, but I

would hope that I have done a lot more research beforehand to answer those questions that I had” (#5-9).

1.3.5 Scope Tests

Participants’ responses provide some evidence that the utility participants gain from saving fish increases

when more fish are saved, but at a declining rate.

Participants’ responses provide some evidence that the utility participants gain from saving fish increases

when more fish are saved, but at a declining rate. Many participants indicated that they would be willing

to pay more money to save additional fish, as stated by one participant, “[...] when I compared A and B,

they’re virtually the same statistics except on fish saved per year, where there were a lot more fish saved.

It’s like, hey, for twelve more dollars a year saves 0.3 billion more fish? So, I selected Option B” (#5-6).

However, some participants who were willing to pay some money to avert some fish losses (Option A)

were not willing to pay additional money to avert additional losses (Option B). Some valued increases in

fish saved but were unwilling to bear greater cost without significant increases in other ecological effects:

“I have to admit, I voted generally for the higher plan until we go to question 6, where the condition of

the ecosystem didn’t change” (#5-11). While another participant stated this was because he would rather

get some improvement while saving some money: “[...] yes, it’s saving 50% more fish. But at the same

time we don’t know the other effects of this policy. So I went with the safer route in terms of saving a little

bit of money but also still improving the problem” (#7-5).

1.4 Budget Issues

1.4.1 Budget Constraints

Participants considered budget constraints when they evaluated how much they were willing for policy

options.

Most participants considered their budget when choosing between specific policy options. For example,

some of them stated “So, I don’t go out to eat twice (#5-12)”, “[...] if I was working at my old job making

the money that I was making, I would probably have chose a higher amount” (#4/5-12), and “the cost per

month came out to only $3 per month, which I feel is very affordable” (#2-6). Some participants stated

that household cost was the most important factor in their decision: “Yeah. Absolutely” (#4/4-8). Even

though some respondents stated that they did not focus on the cost of the proposed policy option, their

comments and responses to follow-up questions generally revealed that they simply didn’t view the

household cost amounts under the policy options as significant relative to their personal budget

constraints: “[...] $2 per month doesn’t seem like a whole lot of money. So, you almost feel guilty like 2

bucks a month, I’ll save some fish” (#7-4). Another participant indicated that household cost wasn’t his

primary focus when choosing between policies because of the importance of the issue: “[...] I think it’s

super-important. So if it’s something that’s going to affect my kid’s kids down the line or something like

that, then that’s something that I could buy into and invest being passionate about that” (#4/6-3). Some

participants indicated that they would have to think harder about budget trade-offs if the amounts were
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 12

higher. For example, one respondent stated, “If you put a zero behind one of the numbers, I’d have to

think about it very harder than, you know, 24 dollars a year” (#5-12). Others indicated that they were

evaluating the cost effectiveness of options based on changes in the ecological scores. For example, one

participant stated “Why would we pay a dollar more per month with no changes affecting three of the four

categories [...] why are we regulating people to pay more for no improvement?” (#2-14). The

presentation of household cost in terms of both monthly and annual amounts appeared to help respondents

to realistically compare increases to their household budget, with some choosing to focus on monthly

amounts and others on annual cost. Overall, participants approached the questions as if the household cost

amounts would actually come out of their pocket. As one respondent stated, that if he knew costs were

binding, “No. [my vote] would have been the same actually” (#4/1-11).

1.4.2 Payment Vehicle

Participants generally accepted the payment vehicle of increased household cost, although their

interpretations of these costs varied for early draft survey versions.

Participants understood that selecting Options A or B would result in increased costs to their household.

They generally understood that costs to industry would be passed on to consumers, with one participant

stating, “So my thought process is that the household stuff is being passed down to consumers from the

cost of the added regulation they have” (#3-4). Some participants that received early draft survey versions

expressed confusion regarding how these costs would be manifested: “Cost per household – is that only

relate to the purchase or consumption of fish and seafood? Or is that going to be a consumer cost or a

tax?” (#3-3), and “Are we the only ones that our taxes are going to go up [...]” (#6-8). The draft survey

was revised to improve clarity regarding how these costs would be passed to consumers by adding a

clause on Page 1 stating that goods and services with costs would include “electricity and common

household products”. The definition of “cost per year” on Page 7 was also revised to include “services”

purchased by consumers. These revisions appeared to reduce the potential for respondent confusion when

evaluating policy options.

A few respondents expressed that companies should be bearing the costs, rather than consumers. For

example, a participant stated, “Instead of passing these charges to us, why aren’t they passing them to

these companies [...] that are responsible” (#2-4). However, there was a general understanding among

most participants that “[...] ultimately it’s all us consumers that ultimately pay for everything” (#2-4).

Also, only one participant indicated in Question 7 that this issue was the reason for selecting “No Policy”

for all choice questions.

1.5 Respondent Motivations

1.5.1 Motivations for Protecting Fish

Participants cited a variety of motivations for reducing fish mortality, including motivations associated

with use and non-use values.

Participants cited a variety of reasons for wanting to protect fish. Some participants indicated that they

wanted improvements in effects either for sake of employment or because of their own consumption. For

example, participants stated, “I care because I like to eat it” (#3-11), “And also you have to look at the

employment factor. This industry employs a lot of people, and if you start losing fish population, you’re
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 13

going to lose a lot more jobs” (#2-13). Some participants wanted to maintain recreational opportunities:

“[...] and the recreational chain, too. I mean, my husband’s an avid fisherman” (#2-5), “thinking back on

when you were a child [...] those are fond memories, and you take fish away and that goes away too”

(#2-5), and “[...] you know, I love snorkeling, and I love being outdoors especially. I'm a beach guy so

that plays heavily into my influence. I don't think we do enough for our ecosystems [...]” (#4/1-4).

Some other participants indicated that they were interested in the role that fish losses and the policy

options play within the environment rather than consumptive uses. For example, participants stated, “I’m

not a fisherman, [...] And I’m not a big seafood eater. [...] but the environment is more of what I was

kind of interested in” (#4/5-9) and “[...] my whole focus was the industrial northeast rivers and streams”

(#7-18). A number of participants indicated that they wanted to preserve fish populations for future

generations. For example:

M: Why is it important to you to support a program like that? What’s going through your head?

R: The sustainability of life was going through my head. I have children. Thinking of my children.

Thinking about what kind of world they’re gonna have. And you know from there their kids and just

everybody in general. [#7-14]

Most participants cared equally about fresh and saltwater fish or considered this distinction as of little

importance when choosing between policy options. Regarding the importance of saltwater versus

freshwater fish, participants gave responses such as: “To me it made no difference because the waterways

are interrelated” (#7-19), “More freshwater fish than saltwater fish, I would think so” (#5-17), “Honestly,

even just looking at it, I was looking at it as we’re going to save a fish” (#6-6), and “It didn’t even occur

to me about the ocean and fresh vs. salt water” (#7-18).

Some participants also indicated that they were motivated by concerns regarding household costs and the

state of the economy: “the rest of them, reducing my cost, is very important” (#1-6) and “the way the

economy’s going and everything, I think it’s important to maintain industries. Even though you’re going

to save ecology, everything else is going to go down the tubes. [...] So that’s important to me” (#1-3).

1.5.2 Fish Losses versus Fish Populations and Ecosystem Condition

Participants’ statements implied different opinions about the importance of preventing fish losses versus

increasing fish population or improving the condition of aquatic ecosystems.

Participants’ choices and statements implied different opinions about whether changes in fish mortality

were of importance without large increases in the long-term fish population or the condition of aquatic

ecosystems. Some participants stated that they chose a policy option because of the difference in fish

saved, “I went with B because I saw that was a higher percentage fish saved” (#1-11). Comments from

some of these participants indicate that they want to avoid losses because they place some value on fish in

their own right: “[...] looking down, some of them are not as much of a difference. But I’m all for trying

to save as many as we can” (#4/6-2). Some other participants indicated that effects on populations or

ecosystem condition were most important, and that they felt uncomfortable spending money to prevent

fish mortality if there was uncertainty in whether it would improve these effects: “I have to admit, I voted

generally for the higher plan until we go to question 6, where the condition of the ecosystem didn’t

change” (#5-11), and “But see everything else follows the conditions of aquatic ecosystem. [...] the

commercial fish population hinges upon the condition of aquatic ecosystem, as does the fish population

[...]” (#3-15). Generally participants understood that in most cases the amount of fish saved is small

relative to the total fish population. For example:
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 14

M: When you look at that fish saved per year, how did you think about that in terms of all the fish out there

in the water?

R: I guess probably a pretty small part [#6-7].

1.5.3 Government Regulation

A limited number of participants expressed general concern regarding more or less government

regulation, but these concerns did not prevent participants from providing meaningful responses to choice

questions.

A limited number of participants expressed general concern regarding more or less government

regulation, but these concerns did not prevent participants from providing meaningful responses to choice

questions. Some participants indicated that they were concerned about additional government regulations

or the ability of the government to regulate effectively, providing comments such as: “You asked if there

were cons, negative, and other than price, there really was one in my mined, and that is government,

which is getting bigger and bigger and bigger, and I’m very much in favor of smaller government, so that

clearly was an issue as I was reading this” (#2-15), “I think there’s a basic distrust of government

agencies” (#5-9), “I’m tired of spending money on government stuff myself, you know. Every time you

turn around, they want more” (#3-11), and “[...] I don’t have a lot of faith in the government about

anything” (#4/2-3). However, these concerns were typically general and not tied to specific aspects of the

policy options presented in the survey. Question 1 of the draft survey was revised based on participant

feedback in order to eliminate confusion regarding its meaning or the purposes of inquiring about

respondent preferences regarding government regulation. Only one participant among all seven focus

group sessions selected “I don’t trust government to fix the problem” in Question 7 as the reason for

choosing “No Policy” for choice questions. This suggests that participants’ general preferences regarding

government regulation are unlikely to result in a large number of protest responses. While respondents

may have preferences for more or less government regulation (as addressed in Question 1 of the current

draft survey), focus group results suggest that these preferences would not prevent respondents from

providing meaningful responses to the choice questions.

1.5.4 Cause of Losses

Some participants considered fish losses caused by humans to be more important than losses attributable

to natural causes, while some other had mixed opinions about whether it is more important.

For some participants, the specific cause of losses was important, as said by one participant: “Specific

cause is the issue that comes [...] in my opinion” (#3-19). And some participants indicated that fish losses

by human activities were more important than fish losses attributable to natural causes, mainly because

man-made losses can be changed: “There’s nothing we can do about natural causes. There is something

we can do about the opposite” (#3-19), and “I mean, we know what the problem is, [...]. It can be fixed. I

just costs money do it. And who’s going to pay for it?” (#3-19). Another respondent’s comment suggested

that it is important because of the relevance to the policies evaluated in the survey: “I think it would have

been addressed in the very beginning if it wasn’t important. I mean, it just would’ve not addressed it or it

would’ve said well, it could be because of hurricanes or – [...] Tsunamis – or I mean, other non-manmade problems” (#3-19). Other participants had mixed opinions about whether fish losses caused by

human activities are more important that fish losses due to natural causes: “No, I mean doing this survey it
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 15

was brought to my attention. I really didn’t think about it previously. I know fish are lost by other means,

but I wasn’t thinking anything other than what I was looking at” (#4/5-14).

1.5.5 Geographic Concerns

Many participants indicated that protecting regional populations of fish was more important than

protecting national fish populations, but some indicated that geographic concerns were not important.

Many participants indicated that they value protecting regional populations of fish more than they valued

fishery resources outside of their region. As one stated, “[...] I can relate to those rivers and inlets. But

they were like down in Georgia and southeast, I wouldn’t know those waterways” (#7-18). Participants

tended to interpret the regions correctly, with one participant indicating that “[...] I think in the back of

mind I was already assuming that it was a nationwide problem to begin with. And we were just kind of

narrowing in on the northeast.” (#7-18). However, the inclusion of both regional and national questions

within a single draft survey was confusing to many participants while consequently adding additional

length to the survey. Many respondents appeared to be thrown off by the change in scope, with one

respondent stating “if I was to put [the national] question in the front, my answers would be completely

different” (#2-14). Some other respondents were confused about the reasons for differences in costs

between regional and national programs: “Quite frankly, I didn’t really understand that [...] because if

you’re spreading this out over the entire United States and everybody is paying, then the cost should be

less” (#4/2-6). Some others thought that people in other regions should bear the costs of changes in their

own region. This issue led to the exclusion of the national questions from the regional surveys. Based on

these comments, choice questions addressing national policies were excluded from the regional surveys in

favor of a separate national survey questionnaire.

Some participants indicated that the specific facility locations within the region were important. Referring

to the regional map including within the survey, one respondent stated “I think it’s good there’s especially

a map of our area because that made it more realistic that you know it effects our area like Philadelphia

region specifically” (#7-6). Still other participants found the specific facility locations to be unimportant

or did not notice their locations. Participants’ feedback also indicated that it was unnecessary to make a

distinction between saltwater and freshwater facilities within a given region, and that including both

improves understanding of total effects within the region. For example, one participant stated, “To me it

made no difference because the waterways are interrelated” (#7-19). Participants’ comments did not

suggest that it was important for their choices to know manufacturer versus generator locations and this

distinction caused confusion among some participants when included within the map on Page 2 of draft

survey versions: “I’m guessing that’s a generator that’s on a river. You have to really look at it, but you

can’t tell the difference if you just look at the red, the charts and map” (#6-13). The map was therefore

revised to show “all facilities” in order to reduce the potential for confusion among respondents.

1.5.6 Importance of Protecting Aquatic Ecosystems Compared to Other Issues

The majority of participants thought that protecting aquatic ecosystems is at least somewhat important

compared to other issues that the government might address, with many indicating that it is important or

very important.

The majority of participants thought that protecting aquatic ecosystems is at least somewhat important

compared to other issues that the government might address, with many indicating that it is important or
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 16

very important. Question 2 was revised within the draft survey to compare “protection of aquatic

ecosystems” more generally to “other issues that the government might address – such as public safety,

education, and health”, in order to prevent confusion among participants regarding the question’s purpose.

The majority of participants rated protecting aquatic life and habitat” as at least somewhat important with

many participants selecting “very important” and very few participants selecting “not important”.

Multiple participants stated that they view improvements of aquatic ecosystems as an important issue

without directly comparing it to other issues the government might address: “I don't think we do enough

for our ecosystems” (#4/1-4), and “We live on the water, so I’m concerned about it. I have children that

are in the water, and so very important” (#1-7). Some also raised the economy and jobs as important

issues, and some described fish losses and related regulations in the context of these issues: “This industry

employs a lot of people, and if you start losing fish population, you’re going to lose a lot more jobs”(#2-

13), “And it’s not just the fisherman, it’s the restaurateurs, it’s the waiters, it’s the whole economy, and

everything” (#2-13), and “I just want to know cost, whether more jobs would be created by equipment,

manufacturing equipment, monitoring equipment – take care of the equipment, you know, would there be

some job creation in this cost?” (#3-3).
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 17

2 Findings from Focus Groups Conducted in 2010

In this section of the report, we present detailed findings from five focus groups a series of cognitive

interviews that were conducted in 2010 as part of the design and pre-testing of the 316(b) stated

preference survey. The focus groups an interview took place in the following locations and on these

dates:4

1) East Providence, RI, July 21, 2010

2) Waltham, MA, July 29, 2010

3) St. Louis, MO, August 4, 2010

4) East Providence, RI, August 12, 2010 [8 cognitive interviews]

5) Bethesda, MD, August 18, 2010

6) Charlotte, NC, September 8, 2010

7) Philadelphia, PA, September 23, 2010

Each focus group was composed of eight to ten individuals that were randomly selected by the focus

group facilities from panels of potential participants maintained by each facility. Participants were eligible

if they were eighteen years of age or older and if they were not full-time students. Each of the focus

groups included a mix of individuals with diverse socioeconomics backgrounds, based on characteristics

such as income, marital status, age, rage, education, occupation, and gender. Participants were

compensated for their participation in the focus groups.

Within the focus group and cognitive interview format, the moderator first asked the participants to

complete the entire survey instrument. The moderator then led a general conversation which took the

group/individual through a series of debriefing questions. During the debriefing sessions, the moderator

asked focus group and cognitive interview participants about their reactions to the survey format and

content, whether the survey questions were clear, whether the background information presented in the

survey or introductory materials was sufficient and how participants interpreted it, what went through

participants’ minds when they read survey questions, and what their motivations were for responding they

way they did to the survey. Inasmuch as was possible, focus group questions followed ethnographic

guidelines to avoid excessive moderator influence on participants’ responses. Each focus group session

was one to two hours long. All sessions were audiotaped and transcribed.5,6

The focus groups and cognitive interviews covered a variety of topics. For each topic, we provide

representative transcript excerpts that illustrate the variety of viewpoints expressed by focus group

participants, as well as the general frequency with which those viewpoints were expressed. Major topics

discussed are listed on the following page.

Appendices A through G of this report provide full transcripts, survey instruments, and fact sheets for

each focus group and set of cognitive interviews.

4

In this report, we use the citation format (#X-Z to refer to page Z of the transcript for focus group X. Citations to cognitive

interviews use a similar format, (#X/Y-Z), where Y represents the interview number.

5 Where “M:” stands for moderator and “R:” stands for respondent.

6 Audiotapes for two cognitive interviews were inaudible and could not be transcribed.
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 18

Topics Discussed in 2010 Focus Groups and Cognitive Interviews

2.1 Presentation of Information to Survey Respondents................................................................ 19

2.1.1 Use of Graphic in the Survey.............................................................................................19

2.1.2 Comprehension and Retention of Information....................................................................24

2.1.3 Characterization of Magnitude of Fish Losses....................................................................26

2.1.4 Usefulness of Introductory Material and Potential for Bias.................................................29

2.1.5 Presentation Format for Policy Effects...............................................................................33

2.1.6 Characterization of Scientific Uncertainty..........................................................................35

2.2 Interpretation of Information by Respondents ........................................................................ 38

2.2.1 Eggs and Larvae versus Adult Fish....................................................................................38

2.2.2 Interpretation of Ecological Scores ....................................................................................40

2.2.3 Importance of Program Details ..........................................................................................46

2.2.4 The Warm Glow Effect .....................................................................................................48

2.3 Survey Scenario and Respondent Decision-making ................................................................. 50

2.3.1 Decision Scenario..............................................................................................................50

2.3.2 Survey Realism .................................................................................................................52

2.3.3 Hypothetical Bias..............................................................................................................54

2.3.4 Participant Confidence and Certainty.................................................................................57

2.3.5 Scope Tests .......................................................................................................................59

2.4 Budget Issues ............................................................................................................................. 60

2.4.1 Budget Constraints ............................................................................................................60

2.4.2 Payment Vehicle ...............................................................................................................64

2.5 Respondent Motivations............................................................................................................ 67

2.5.1 Motivations for Protecting Fish .........................................................................................67

2.5.2 Fish Losses versus Fish Populations and Ecosystems Condition.........................................71

2.5.3 Government Regulation.....................................................................................................73

2.5.4 Cause of Losses.................................................................................................................75

2.5.5 Geographic Concerns ........................................................................................................76

2.5.6 Importance of Protecting Aquatic Ecosystems Compared to Other Issues...........................79
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 19

2.1 Presentation of Information to Survey Respondents

2.1.1 Use of Graphics in the Survey

Participants endorsed the use of graphics in the survey booklet. Most felt that the graphics helped them to

visualize how fish are entrained and impinged, technological solutions, facilities locations, and ecosystem

effects. Participants also felt that the graphics improved their understanding of these issues and tended to

think of them as providing information, rather than pushing them to answer a certain way. Many

respondents indicated that they understood the meaning of the graphics. However, some respondents

provided feedback regarding aspects of the various graphics which they found confusing and on how they

might be improved. Participants’ comments during the focus groups were used to refine the graphics

within the draft survey in order to improve clarity and reduce the potential for respondent confusion. For

example, the current version of the survey instrument no longer distinguishes between manufacturing and

generating facilities. Overall, when asked participants preferred that the survey include graphics.

Participants’ comments also indicated that they had little emotional reaction to the image on the cover of

the survey and that it did not influence their survey responses.

M: Was there anything that—Conversely, did you find anything that was not particularly useful to you?

Did you find that you pretty much read all the information in the survey?

R: Yes.

R: Yeah, I was just going to comment that—maybe more illustrations of what they’re talking about as you

go through. I mean, the filter thing, where you can see X number of fish on one side and then only the little

ones are getting through, it kind of tells you what’s going on. Do the same with the other options. Show us

exactly what they’re trying to accomplish and how easy the system that you could implement [crosstalk] I

think that would give us more confidence in how to answer the questions.

M: When you say illustrations, you mean graphical [crosstalk]

R: Graphical, yeah, exactly.

M: Do other people agree with that? Disagree? How do you—

R: I agree.

R: Yeah, that kind of stuff always helps. Pictures are good.

M: In general, do you feel that the pictures in the survey were useful to you? Not useful? It sounds like—

R: I thought some of them—I think you need more. [crosstalk]

R: It might help me to understand the whole program.

M: Were there any pictures that you didn’t find particularly useful?

R: [inaudible] Nothing major. [East Providence, RI, 7/21/10, pp.5]

***

M: Page 2. Sorry. The one with the picture and the map right here. What did you think about this page?

R: I thought it was the clearest page in the whole thing.

R: Right.

R: Wow. This is the one thing that I was confused on. So, I couldn’t understand the picture on the top

where they’re showing the egg and the juvenile going through and I understand it’s going through the plant.

But to me they looked like they’re still alive. I look at it that’s what I thought. The eggs in the juvenile

patch. The big fish come. Where’s the problem?

R: You need to see a skeleton.

[...]
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 20

R: After reading the previous page and then reading this the picture clicked. Like I knew. I was like

[inaudible]. I got it.

R: I liked the picture. I said that at the beginning I liked the picture. It was good.

[...]

R: What if the other pictures were color or something? You had to read the explanation.

R: You have to read the explanation to get it.

R: Once you read it like, oh, yeah. It makes sense.

R: I like the arrows. Large fish are easier to kill. The arrow points to a larger adult fish. Juvenile fish and

eggs it points to juvenile fish and eggs.

R: So, did this page help you to understand what was being talked about later in the survey? I’m seeing a

few nodding heads. I’m seeing one shaking head. What?

[...]

R: It didn’t really make a big difference later on. In terms of understanding like and getting an idea of what

I’m about to read or you know make a decision on, yes. But in terms of – because you know all the

questions later on were questions about the policy. Not necessarily what I thought about the actual process

of the fish that live and die.

R: I think it was good to visualize the problem in the graphic [inaudible]. [Philadelphia, PA, 9/23/10, pp.9]

***

R: I was confused about the generator and manufacturer icons and exactly what’s going on.

M: Could you explain just?

R: I’m not really sure what, I mean, a manufacturer would be a facility that is using one of these cooling

screens? Or I didn’t really know. [Philadelphia, PA, 9/23/10, pp.10]

***

M: Were there any pictures in the survey that you felt pushed you to answer in one way or the other?

R: Providing information.

[...]

R: I have one question. I felt that this map was deceptive because the fact is it looks to me like all these

numbers relate to salt water fish. If you’re looking at this, if you were taking a survey and you are living in

Charlotte for example, you might think this is somehow going to benefit you. In fact, I really think the only

ones that are really significant here are the coastal plants. [Charlotte, NC, 9/8/10, pp.14]

***

M: Could you tell me how you interpreted the little graphics here, what that meant to you?

R: How many fish you save with the filters and with the cycle.

R: I think they were easy to follow. It was pretty straightforward.

R: I thought it was pretty straightforward.

M: Would you say that these graphs were useful in helping you understand this?

R: Yes.

M: And so, again, I apologize if this sounds like a silly question, but when you looked at, say, this green

area, what did that represent to you?

R: The fish that are being saved. [East Providence, RI, 7/21/10, pp.10]
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 21

***

M: In general, did you find these pictures useful in helping you to understand what was going on or would

it have been just as good if they were gone?

R: Pictures are worth a thousand words.

R: Yeah, I’d rather have them.

M: Were any of the pictures – I mean I think these comments that you’re making are very good. Were any

of the pictures confusing or misleading in any way?

R: I don’t think there are very many pictures.

R: The chart on page 7, “Fish saved per year”. That was not very clear to me, the third one down. What is

the darkened portion of that circle?

M: So that little graphic in the box here was –

R: Maybe say “refer to page 5” or something.

M: And regarding page 5, as long as we’re talking about that, the pie charts on page 5, were those relatively

clear? Were they useful? Did you pay attention to them at all? A couple people are nodding.

R: It looks clear.

R: It did say earlier in the first two pages that it’s per year, but you know when you go through it you could

lose sight of it. When it says “1.1 billion fish lost”. If you had per year, it would just make a little more

clarity.

R: The only other thing I’d add on these three is on the third one where it says “less than 0.1 billion fish

lost,” that’s for the blue pie part. It’s clear if you’ve read the first two above but if you were only looking

at that, it’s not intuitively obvious. I think overall it works if you’re looking at all three of them.

R: I thought you could just have the words.

R: I could see inside blue is fish lost, green is fish saved. [Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10, pp.5]

***

M: Just in general, I mean, we’ve been spending some time talking about the information within the survey

and the complexity and things like that. In general did you feel like the survey provided enough

information for you to give reasonable answers?

[...]

R: I think that the way the information was presented was confusing. I liked on page 2 the graph and the

illustration because the adage a picture is worth a thousand words. I like the filter and I like the diagrams

and they correlated to each other. But when you start just throwing numbers at somebody and percentages

and asking about a graph on a pie chart, it became to me like the words [inaudible] and purposely

confusing. [Philadelphia, PA, 9/23/10, pp.3]

***

M: I see, and what about the cover? Did you notice the cover at all when you started? Any thoughts on

that? Just the picture in the center, there.

R: No. It didn't, no. It's a nice picture, but it didn't do anything, you know, wow, spectacular.

M: You don't think it influenced you in any way? During the survey?

R: No, no. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #5, pp.5]

***
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 22

M: So would you say that, you know, that the graphics in there influenced the way you responded to the

survey? And then you said that that one was particularly helpful [inaudible] cool water structures. Do you

think if it wasn't there you might have responded differently?

R: Yeah. I probably would have responded differently. I mean, it gives you a visual image of what has

taken place and you can kind of see it on top of when you—like it's one thing to read about it and you see

the images or you can see examples of what you're reading. That does enhance your knowledge of the

topic.

M: Did you notice the cover at all when you started?

R: Yeah.

M: Any thoughts on the picture on it?

R: Just reminds me of, like—because I teach Geography, and I do a lot of stuff with the ocean. It reminds

me of, like, schools of fish, and the color obviously pops out, and you can see how it's a small fish. Looks

like it's a healthy type of environment for fish.

M: Do you think it influenced you at all? Did you notice it when you first started?

R: Yeah. I noticed it. I didn't—as far as—kind of gave me an idea what the topic was going to be about.

M: Oh you didn't think about it much though?

R: No. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #1, pp.2]

***

M: [inaudible] questions. If you look at this survey cover, how did you interpret this picture? Did it make

any difference? Was it important?

R: It doesn’t really have anything to do with what the survey’s about on the inside.

[...]

M: Did you have any emotional response to the fish, “Oh my God, this fish is so cute?”

R: Yeah, I think it’s [inaudible] because it’s a calming kind of – it reminds me as if you were looking at a

fish tank, an aquarium where [inaudible]. It’s just calm. It’s not your typical [inaudible]. It’s just – it’s not

business. It’s just very calming. I don’t know. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #3, pp.8]

***

M: Just looking at the cover, there’s a picture on the cover. Does that influence the way you approach the

survey at all?

R: No. I think you could probably get a way better picture than what it is.

M: And when you say, “way better,” what do you – in what way?

R: Something a little more clear, maybe against a background that’s not so dark. I think maybe even if it

was white on the front with this same picture, I think I would feel differently about it. But looking at it

without knowing any of this inside, I think my impression was, it’s colorful and kind of blurry.

M: All right. [laughter] Did the picture on the cover influence the way you answered the survey in any

way?

R: Definitely not. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #6, pp.10]

***

M: Let’s go over some of these first pages because there have been a few comments about the information

that was in the survey and maybe some information that wasn’t in the survey that you might have found

useful. In these first couple pages, pages 1 and 2, how did you interpret the information that was there and

did you find that information helpful in answering questions later on in the survey?
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 23

R: This food web I didn’t understand too well. Am I missing something there?

M: Could you explain how you interpreted it?

R: Well, I think they were trying to illustrate the cycle and with all those arrows I wasn’t sure how many

cycles there were here.

R: To me it makes perfect sense.

R: It’s showing what you eat.

R: Who eats what, and a lot of things eat a lot of different things. As each species gets lower down the

food chain, each species get munched on by multiple different species. The graphic of the water intake,

that made a lot more sense to me than the actual words next to it, but the words made perfect sense, too.

M: How about other folks? Did this information make sense to you and was it useful or were there parts

that you didn’t understand or you didn’t find particularly useful?

R: I don’t think I could have answered the questions had I not read this part. I got the gist of it then,

especially with the example. [Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10, pp.3]

***

M: What did you think about the graphics and pictures in the survey—throughout the survey? On the cover

and then if you looked through this—

R: They’re all right.

M: Did you find them useful?

R: Yeah, I think so. I think they’re useful. I think especially the regional thing where it defines exactly

where this, you know, area that was covered, this particular survey, and then the little things about the fish

and stuff. It was—and I think pictures are always helpful.

M: And the little pie charts on Page 5, did you find those—

R: They were OK. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #2, pp.7]

***

M: What are your initial general reactions to the survey?

R: I thought it was very good. I liked all the charts, the colored charts and stuff. It made the questions a lot

easier to understand. When I started seeing percentages, that’s where I started getting a little bit confused.

Overall, I thought it was very good.

R: Looking at the charts, specifically as the way it pertains to price of the program. Some of the numbers

were constant, but it was trying to change your opinion according to how many fish you save and the price

that it was going to cost to save that many fish, and what percentage in relation to actually how many

millions of fish you actually save. I thought that was a bit odd going that way, but I guess you’re trying to

see what people are willing to pay to save what.

R: I interpreted it the same way. That’s probably the right way to do it. [laughter] [Charlotte, NC, 9/8/10,

pp.1]

***

M: Did anybody think it was unclear, or did anybody have any questions on the information here?

R: [inaudible] I didn’t know that was [inaudible]

R: I didn’t even know what that picture was.

M: You’re speaking about this black-and-white—

R: I saw it and I’m just like, I have no idea what it was. [inaudible]

R: Fish crashing into a wall?
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 24

R: Who knows?

R: Again, having more photos and being a little bit more detailed so visually you can understand it, I think

that would help.

M: Did you find this information useful later on in the survey as you were answering questions?

R: Yes. [East Providence, RI, 7/21/10, pp.7]

2.1.2 Comprehension and Retention of Information

Despite some exceptions, most participants understood and remembered information presented in the

survey. Some participants indicated that they had to re-read some parts of the survey or refer back to the

survey page which presents the definition of effects. As in any survey, a limited number of participants

failed to understand or remember certain pieces of information presented in the survey booklet, or

indicated that they felt the complexity of the information presented in the survey influenced the quality of

their answers. The draft survey was revised throughout the course of the focus groups to reduce

unnecessary complexity, remove extraneous information regarding effect definitions, and reduce the

overall length of the survey in order to improve understanding and promote completion when selfadministered. Participants generally showed an understanding of the scores describing policy effects

regarding commercial fish populations, fish populations (all fish), fish saved, and condition of aquatic

ecosystems. Participant understanding and interpretation of the ecological scores is discussed in Section

2.2.2.

M: [...] So it looks like at this point most people have gotten, you know, reasonably far through the survey.

At least through, you know, Question maybe 5 or 6 or so. So what I'd like to do at this point is just to have

a little chat about it. First question I'd like to ask is pretty broad, and that is just give me your reactions.

What did you think of the survey?

R: It's very easy to understand most of it. I do agree that a little bit more information needs to be in there.

M: And we're going to explore a number of these things in depth later on, yeah. But at this point I just

would like to get some general reactions, thoughts.

R: It was easy to understand for me. [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10, pp.2]

***

M: Let's talk about this commercial fish populations [inaudible]. So what was your understanding of what

a score of 100 meant?

R: Exactly what it said. One hundred—I understood that to mean that whatever the commercial fisherman

are capturing is the size that the regulations state that you should be allowed to catch. So if they're not just

catching cod that's undersized, I mean, that score would be lower. That's what I took from that [inaudible].

M: So what was your thoughts on just the current scoring [inaudible] the water is at 43? Do you have any

thoughts about that?

R: I mean, it's kind of like in the middle almost. Still a little disappointed. I can imagine what it is in other

areas of the world where there's less regulations and so forth. You know, I also was thinking about how a

lot of foreign countries, particularly Japanese, are coming to our fishing areas, and they aren't following the

same rules that our commercial fisherman have to follow. And that's a big problem that can get addressed

and so forth.

M: So how about the next one? "Fish population (all fish)." What was your impression of what, you know,

what this one meant generally? What would you say this—that is sort of talking about?

R: I understood this one, like, all fish including ones that we don't consume for food and so forth in that

they are able to grow or live to be their natural sizes and so forth. And zero means there's no fish that's,

you know, that population of the size that they're supposed to be. And 100 means that they are healthy
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 25

livestock and so forth. That's what why I couldn't put a 10 on my—then I saw 31 I was a little—thought

that was pretty low in the—kind of looking back to the statistics I read on the previous pages about the cool

systems that maybe those fishes are being affected by that, and the other ones are being killed off. So

they're not living to their natural size or whatever.

[...]

M: So what do you think the—actually let's move on to the next question. "Condition of aquatic

ecosystems." How would you describe this one compared to the commercial fish population if the fish

population affects about—what do you think this one meant to you when you were going through with the

survey?

R: Again it's maybe the healthiness of those ecosystems. If the temperatures are too high or if the number

of fish there are being down compared to say fifty years ago or twenty years ago. Or other conditions in

those areas that might be affecting, like right in the beginning, they were talking about how people are

building in those areas or pollution has had an affect on there. And that's what I kind of took it how

pollution or number of fish or the depletion of those ecosystems, if it's being encroached by industry or so

forth.

M: Did you feel like you understood?

R: Yeah.

M: That one. Was there any effect that you thought you understood better than the others?

R: The commercial one I understood. I felt like I was most comfortable with.

M: Is there any that just—would there be any one that you were less comfortable with in particular?

R: Probably the first one. "Fish saved for a year."

M: Well let's talk about that one for a little bit. What was your impression of what that meant? What did

you think might be confusing about it?

R: Like the current score for the northeast coastal waters is zero. [inaudible]. So little or no fish are being

saved for a year because there's no policies in place? I was a little bit confused on that. So that one I read a

few times. Then I kind of said re-read this other stuff maybe [inaudible] first will make sense. [East

Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #1, pp.4]

***

M: [...] And the first thing I’d like to ask is your initial reactions. What did you think of it? For example,

were the survey and questions clear? You know, what did you think?

R: I thought it was pretty clear and concise in what they were asking for between pretty much reading the

information that you need to answer the questions. I didn’t have too much trouble.

M: Other thoughts?

R: I thought they were very complex. You know what, they referred to all the previous answers.

Somewhat frustrating.

M: And did you feel able to answer the questions despite the frustrating part of it? Or did you feel the

complexity prevented you from giving good answers?

R: I felt the complexity prevented me from giving good answers in an area that I’m very concerned about

‘cause I fish.

R: Maybe a bit vague in certain areas.

M: I’m gonna follow up on a number of these things. Other just kind of initial thoughts.

R: I kind of agree on page 7 where it first kind of stated like it gave me what it means in terms of each box.

Sometimes I definitely had to read that more than once to really get it in my head. Like, all right, this is

what I need to understand what this means, this means, this means and this means and how it’s gonna relate

to the question I know I’m gonna be asked. So, I definitely had to read those boxes a few times. It wasn’t

that it was hard to understand. It was just like you said it was a little maybe complex the way it was written

out. You had to like, yeah, just had to almost double check. Do I get this? All right. [Philadelphia, PA,

9/23/10, pp.2]
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 26

***

M: Let me follow up on that, because a couple of folks have talked about the information in the survey.

You said that you could have used more information. What did you think about the information that was in

the survey?

R: The information that’s in there was good, and it was pretty easy to understand. The wording wasn’t too

complex or anything like that [...] [East Providence, RI, 7/21/10, pp.3]

***

M: How about other folks? Did this information make sense to you and was it useful or were there parts

that you didn’t understand or you didn’t find particularly useful?

R: I don’t think I could have answered the questions had I not read this part. I got the gist of it then,

especially with the example.

[...]

R: Yeah, I thought the whole thing could be simplified. I don’t know who is intended for answering this

but a lot of people wouldn’t go through it and answer it.

M: How did you feel about the level of difficulty or the level of simplicity? Was the information too

difficult for you personally?

R: I thought it was oversimplified, honestly, where it was just too, I don’t know, easy that I wanted more.

M: Let me ask you, anybody around the table please, there have been a few comments that you might have

wanted more information. What specific types of information would you have liked to see on the page?

[Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10, pp.4]

***

R: I had a question on that, because it – the numbers didn’t make sense to me, I agree the 25 and 50 is big,

but I didn’t understand why, if that number is so big, why the commercial fishing, the fish population, and

the condition of aquatic was so small. Because the fish that are commercial fish that we eat, I mean, I don’t

know, I’m not a fisherman, but don’t they eat the smaller fish that we don’t eat, and if they’re not there,

then what are they gonna eat? And so this number here, the top one, fish saved per year, how could that –

that may be true, but how could it not impact on the others of those numbers, and that’s what I didn’t

understand.

M: So let me ask you, when you saw those numbers, how did you interpret that, or what did you think that

meant, if anything?

R: I don’t – I didn’t know, I didn’t understand it; it didn’t make sense to me. How can the commercial fish

be the same on A and B, when it’s so different between A and – on the commercial fish, when there’s so

much different on fish saved per year. What are those big fish that we’re gonna eat, what are they gonna eat

in order for them to be there? I don’t know. Michael knows, he’s looking there. [Waltham, MA, 7/29/10,

pp.6]

2.1.3 Characterization of Magnitude of Fish Losses

Participants generally felt that the survey provided useful information about fish losses attributable to

CWIS, other sources of mortality, and population sizes. Participants generally understood based on the

introductory material that CWIS is not the largest source of fish mortality with some indicating specific

points in the survey which contributed to this understanding. However, a few participants still indicated

that the information provided in the draft survey was insufficient for them yo understand the magnitude of

the CWIS losses relative to other factors. The draft survey was revised to include pie charts comparing

young fish losses from CWIS to estimated adult fish populations for example species. This presentation
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 27

was deemed important in order to address participant comments on intermediate draft survey versions

which did not specifically include examples to this effect. Also, most participants understood the meaning

of “fish saved per year” and felt that it was less confusing than potential alternatives for describing the

magnitude of fish losses.

M: [...] The attribute in the middle is described as “fish saved per year”. Would it have made a difference

to you, do you think, if we had described that instead in terms of “reduction of fish losses”?

R: No.

M: No? Do you think “fish saved” was a reasonable way to describe it?

R: Yeah. [Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10, pp.15]

***

M: So, I guess just pushing out a little bit ‘cause I didn’t get too much response. In terms of kind of the

way the information was weighted did you feel that it was maybe pushing you to answer the survey in one

particular way or another? Or did you feel that it was more kind of even handed?

R: I mean, clearly it’s trying to convince people that there’s a problem. It’s trying to show people that

there’s a problem and that to fix that problem we need to make a change. It clearly at this point through

option A or option B.

M: And did you feel like it was trying to convince you that this problem was particularly big or small? Or

did you feel it was just trying to help you understand the problem?

R: Well, I think it kind of goes back to what this gentleman said earlier, which is clearly it’s trying to make

us think it’s big ‘cause it’s using numbers like one billion, you know, this billion. But yet at the same time

leaving out what the actual total number of fish are.

R: It said to us that we didn’t have a number in the commercial fish that we have. They never gave us that

number. So, it’s kind of it does kind of lead you to vote on the way that, all right, this is a big problem.

This is something that we need to address. This is something that can be fixed.

R: And so, I want to push on this a little bit because I’m hearing two different things. I’m hearing one

comment that said, well, the first sentence on page 3 that says cooling water use is not the largest cause of

fish loss. One person just told me, John, that that made him think that the problem wasn’t a very big

problem. And then a couple other folks are it sounds like you’re saying that it sounds like it is a big

problem. Where do you all fall on that you know in terms of you know did the survey make it – you know

did the survey seem to make it sound like a big problem or a small problem or somewhere in between?

R: I’ll say this. If there was like a pie chart right below that first sentence showing me the difference

between what’s how much fish are lost and affected and how many are not, that probably would have

affected the way I looked at the rest of this the rest of the pamphlet.

R: And like she said the graph showing are helpful when you’re dealing with a lot of comparative numbers.

R: Yeah. Like you say one billion you automatically are like, oh, wow.

R: When I read the first couple pages, I thought it was [crosstalk] maybe slightly slanted ‘cause it talked

killed and injured. And it was like they’re planting the seed that this is a huge problem you know. But

then the statement on the top of page 3 kind of tempers it a little bit. But I definitely thought they the first

two pages definitely planted the seed that this is a huge problem you know. Just looking at the graph and

the adult fish are killed or injured and. [Philadephia, PA, 9/23/10, pp.11]

***

M: I'm just – I – the question I asked was based on the information on this page in the survey, how

important do you think the effects of cooling water – how important are these effects on the number of fish

in the water do you think? Well, what was – what did you think in your own mind, based on what was
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 28

here? Do you think of it as being a very large effect, or a small effect? You aren't sure? What kind of –

what were you drawing from the survey in terms of that?

R: It seemed to be larger than it really was to me. When you look at the numbers. I mean, as I look at it

again here, 1.5 million and 128,000, that's not a whole lot. You know [inaudible] big mouth buffalo. I

mean you put percentage next to that, and what are you looking at? So I mean, yeah. When I first read it I

thought it was big, you know, but – it's still important even if it's one little fish.

R: That's this 0.4 % of a billion fish.

[crosstalk]

R: I mean, yeah, I think you're supposed to assume it's important, otherwise you wouldn't have this – all

this information, all this research, but I mean, how many salmons do Americans eat a year, you know? I

mean, I don't know in comparison to 17,000 paddlefish? I assume we'd eat more salmon in America in

about a year, so it's just, you know, it's hard to see. [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10, pp.21]

***

M: [...] What are other people’s thoughts on the complexity and whether that made it hard or not hard to

understand?

R: Well, I think it’s a pretty complex issue. And then like I guess it had to be scaled down so the average

person can understand it. So, I just felt reading through these things that there’s a whole lot more that I’m

not being informed about. Like what went into this score 43? And there was a statement somewhere early

on 1.1 billion fish are lost. Well, when you first read that, like, wow. That’s a ton of fish just a big

problem. Well, if the population of fish is 100 billion, then it’s not –

R: And I agree totally. Like that part of it did tell you how much you know how much we could lose but it

never told you how much that we have. It said that there’s no way that they could tell or especially when

the species that we didn’t fish for ourselves that were used for you know other fish to eat or things like that,

that could lead to a little problem trying to understand that. [Philadelphia, PA, 9/23/10, pp.2]

***

M: And when you were voting were you thinking you were affecting a small part? Or were you thinking

you were affecting or you were changing the bigger?

R: Probably small.

R: Small.

R: I was looking at the numbers because granted it’s a small difference. But there is a difference. If there

was no difference at all or if the numbers were in the opposite direction, I clearly wouldn’t pick A or B. I

would just leave it in the current situation and I guess sit back and wait to see if a new or different policy

was presented. But I wouldn’t just pick these two because they were there. I’d pick the one that actually

showed some sort of progress. So, the numbers I was looking at the numbers. [Philadelphia, PA, 9/23/10,

pp.15]

***

M: Is there any that just—would there be any one that you were less comfortable with in particular?

R: Probably the first one. "Fish saved for a year."

M: Well let's talk about that one for a little bit. What was your impression of what that meant? What did

you think might be confusing about it?

R: Like the current score for the northeast coastal waters is zero. [inaudible]. So little or no fish are being

saved for a year because there's no policies in place? I was a little bit confused on that. So that one I read a

few times. Then I kind of said re-read this other stuff maybe [inaudible] first will make sense.

[...]
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 29

M: So you feel like you understood—I know you said you re-read it a few times. Did you feel like you

understood that fish saved effect well enough when you got to the different policy questions, when you had

that column sitting there? Did you feel like your understanding was good enough that you read it a couple

of times or—

R: After I read it a few times and going through some of these other type of topics here, the commercial

fish or fish populations. Then once that's seen together, the solutions in the fall pages, then it started

making a little more sense. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #1, pp.5]

2.1.4 Usefulness of Introductory Material and Potential for Bias

Results from the focus groups revealed that participants’ baseline knowledge about CWIS and fish stocks

was limited and mostly based on their personal experience. Some participants stated that they were

previously unaware of some of the terms used in the survey. Participants also had little baseline

knowledge regarding the size of fish stocks. Participants generally felt that the introductory material

would enable them to give meaningful responses to the survey questions. Some participants thought that

the draft survey did not provide enough information, but generally participants indicated that additional

information probably would not have influenced their vote in the choice questions. The draft survey was

revised to include additional information addressing many of the participant comments and concerns.

Additional discussion of participant confidence and certainty is provided in Section 2.3.4.

Many respondents felt that the introductory material provided objective information, rather than feeling

that the information included in the survey pushed them to respond a certain way. However some

participants expressed a general concern that the introductory material may not be objective or may be

biased mainly because it did not provide enough information. Some other participants described what

they perceived as a bias in the other direction. Some other participants also indicated that any perceived

bias did not influence the way they answered the choice questions.

M: Well, actually could we turn to page 1? Just ‘cause one of the things that I did want to do is to go page

by page and to see what people thought of each page. What did you think of this first page the information

that was there that was presented other than you know what’s just been said?

R: It was pretty educational.

R: Was it useful to you in answering the survey other than the you know the issues that have been issued

before? I saw one person shaking their head.

R: Yeah. I did not use it to answer any question not the first page.

R: It was just like background is how this is what you’re about to read, yeah, for reference.

R: Was it useful background? Or could we have left it out and it wouldn’t have made a difference?

R: I had never heard the term forage fish. You know it was educational that there’s a lot more forage fish

than there are fish that are actually caught and consumed by humans. Whether or not it affected my answer

I don’t know [inaudible].

M: Was there anything on this page that you found confusing or not clear?

R: No. [Philadelphia, PA, 9/23/10, pp.7]

***

M: Did – when you were looking at Questions 4, 5 and 6, did the size of these effects matter? Or was it

just that we were doing a good thing? I mean, were you paying attention to how much – how large these

effects were, or was it just kind of the general sense that you wanted to do something good for the

environment?
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 30

R: I think that my perception of how many fish are really in any body of water is very unclear. So you

could have put down here that you could save 20 billion fish and I probably would have believed it,

because I have no concept of how many fish would really be in the water. [laughter] But I think there’s a

pretty substantial difference between Option A and Option B on all three of those questions, to where that’s

a lot – 27 billion compared to two billion is – [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #6, pp.5]

***

M: [...] Let’s turn to the next couple pages where they talk about what kinds of fish and how many fish are

affected. Was this information useful to you as you went through the survey? Was it clear? Was it

confusing? What can you tell me about it?

R: It was clear to me and it kind of just gave me a little more information about and it was nice to know

that the differentiation between commercial fish and recreational fish and the forage fish. So, that I think

having that information kind of influenced some of my votes I would say.

M: Any other thoughts on it? In general when you were looking at this information, did this strike you as

being kind of fair and balanced? Or did it strike you as being kind of skewed or pushing you to answer in

one way or another? Just in general.

R: The first sentence is a bit skewed.

M: In which one?

R: The cause – cooling water use is not the largest cause of fish loss in most. It kind of basically it’s

saying, hey, it’s not so bad. There’s other things that are doing it, as well, so you know.

M: Did other people notice that sentence?

R: No. [Philadelphia, PA, 9/23/10, pp.10]

***

M: So do you think if you had more information, that would've been helpful? Or do you think the

information and there was sufficient?

R: I think so, but I mean there are going to be people that say I want to see the — maybe the studies or

surveys or the environmental report. I don't know.

M: So, you're saying you didn't really feel that way?

R: I didn't personally, but then again, again I'm not up-to-date. Someone who may be more in tuned to the

issues might want more, you know, evidence of these effects. I don't know. I just don't know enough about

it, I guess coming into it, but I felt like it — I mean it was pretty straightforward.

M: And you sort of went through all the introductory material and read through it all?

R: Yep. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #5, pp.2]

***

M: [...] What are other people’s thoughts on the complexity and whether that made it hard or not hard to

understand?

R: Well, I think it’s a pretty complex issue. And then like I guess it had to be scaled down so the average

person can understand it. So, I just felt reading through these things that there’s a whole lot more that I’m

not being informed about. Like what went into this score 43? And there was a statement somewhere early

on 1.1 billion fish are lost. Well, when you first read that, like, wow. That’s a ton of fish just a big

problem. Well, if the population of fish is 100 billion, then it’s not –

R: And I agree totally. Like that part of it did tell you how much you know how much we could lose but it

never told you how much that we have. It said that there’s no way that they could tell or especially when

the species that we didn’t fish for ourselves that were used for you know other fish to eat or things like that,

that could lead to a little problem trying to understand that. [Philadelphia, PA, 9/23/10, pp.2]
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 31

***

M: [...] In other words, would more information, do you think, have helped you make a better choice in

terms of, you know, for example whether you would vote for these policies or not? Are you shaking your

head or –

R: No.

M: It wouldn’t have affected you? How about the rest of you? Would it have helped you make a choice or

don’t you think so if we had provided you with that information?

R: It depends on what that information was.

R: I probably would have made the same decision, but it would have been nice to know exactly what the

difference between 48 and 53 would have been.

M: I’m sorry. You were about to say something.

R: I agree. I mean, it would be nice to understand what it means, but at the same time you’ve got to keep

the survey concise. [Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10, pp.17]

***

M: [...] Let’s put it another way, do you feel you had enough information on what these numbers meant to

make a reasonable vote to decide on which option to choose or would you have wanted more information?

R: I think the presentation is biasing the answer.

M: How so?

R: How so. Because just by looking at the “fish saved” and the other percentages going up and you’re

comparing that against the cost, it’s biasing us to make a decision which may be adversely affecting all of

us.

M: Do you think you were able to make a good choice on this?

R: Based upon what you presented, yes.

M: How about the rest of you? Did you view this as biased or pushing you to answer in one way or the

other?

R: Only if biased – I’m sorry. Go ahead.

R: No, I didn’t think so.

M: You didn’t think so?

R: Only if by biased meaning that there’s missing information that could help us in that sense perhaps

again. Other than that, no.

R: The ultimate cost.

R: Right.

M: Overall, just in general, did you feel that the survey was kind of fair and balanced or did you feel it was

pushing you to give one particular type of answer?

R: More NBC than Fox. [Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10, pp.14]

***

M: [...] At this point I just kind of want to get different – the input from different people, and then we’ll go

more in-depth into specific issues.

[...]

R: [...] I mean, opinions are like belly buttons, everyone’s got one, so how one-sided is all this

information? I always am kind of a little cynical in my thinking, what is the other perspective? What would

be others peoples’ opinion? What are other agencies, what are their statistics look like? And for me to make
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 32

a decision solely based on this, I found almost impossible, because I would want a lot more information

before I could vote. And I also thought that the discussion that we all have, I felt confident that after we all

talked about it I’d probably vote differently than I had initially. So it’s just an awful lot of information –

yeah, there’s a lot of information here and there’s a lot of questions that are not being answered. [Waltham,

MA, 7/29/10, pp.3]

***

M: Did you feel that the survey was well balanced?

R: I never thought I was being pressured.

R: I thought it was fair.

R: Some of the questions could have been clearer because I was confused by some things. It was more the

lack of information than being pushed.

R: Going into it, I knew that I wanted to vote because of how important the fish are in the ecosystem. Once

you’re looking at those charts, and I know that it says don’t compare them, but even when you look at this

and then you don’t look at this, that you’d see the variation of the numbers. I felt like it was pushing you in

one direction or another according to what percentage of the population you’re going to save overall. It was

biased in that respect. [Charlotte, NC, 9/8/10, pp.4]

***

M: Right, well, the whole – imagine you had answered this and I had told you based on what people chose,

that’s what’s going to determine what the government really does, and you were looking at a question like

question five, do you think you would have answered the same way, or would you change your answer?

R: Can I just interject something? At that point, if it’s up for to be voted on, usually you’ve at least been

able to hear of the output and been able to study it for a while, think about it, albeit I think what you see

and read is affected by a lot of the lobbyists, who are again trying to – I hate to sounds cynical, but I can

only go on the reality of things – but the point being mainly here, to answer your question, at least you’ve

had a chance to study and get some degree of familiarity, and hear some degree of pros and cons of an

argument, rather than just taking it up here, if we all, except for Ken here, who’s at least had some

experience with fishing, I frankly haven’t, to that extent, and I can just go on numbers that I can see here,

and assume that they’re correct.

R: We’re not informed voters, here. This is one piece of paper and it’s telling you, “that’s perspective,” and

it doesn’t even say it where the statistics come from, so until we become more informed voters, I – how do

I know whether I would vote this way or not until I hear the pros and cons?

M: Well, let me follow up on that a little bit. What did you think of the information that was in the survey?

Do you feel it presented pros and cons?

R: No.

M: Could you explain a little bit more what you thought was missing?

R: It’s one perspective, and that doesn’t mean it’s wrong, it may be 100% right, but I want to hear a

different perspective.

R: It has no negatives, in this. If you don’t vote for this, what’s going to happen down the road?

R: When you think of a ballot question, there’s always a summary, a pro and a con, on a ballot question

when we go to vote. That’s not designed to be the only information used to base your vote, I would hope

you’re not voting on just that little bit of information, but you’ve had three, six months of talk shows,

reading the paper, studying it, hearing different input, and so if this was a ballot question, you’d have to

think about what was set up front. Again, for me the route typically of what’s is in the reality of it versus

the hypothetical, and if it’s a valid question – the answer to your question is I would have still voted D, the

way it voted, but I was assuming all that other stuff was accurate, in that – but you know, not having the

pro or the con, it’s hard to say, but in general I want to see our environment and fisheries protected. So

that’s – and it get down to $5 a month, I can do $5 a month.

[...]
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 33

M: So now, onto the con side, did you think of any cons potentially of voting for option A or option B

compared to the current situation?

R: Just money.

[crosstalk]

R: The cost – actually, there’s a big difference between just the Northeast and then when you go to the

United States, it’s – why is it so much more per month? I mean – yeah, per month. [Waltham, MA,

7/29/10, pp.12]

2.1.5 Presentation Format for Policy Effects

Focus groups showed that most respondents correctly interpreted the scales of the ecological scores. In

initial draft versions of the survey, a few participants were confused about the meaning of a maximum

scores presented in the choice questions. The draft survey was revised to include additional reminders

within the choice questions regarding the maximum score under each effect along with its meaning (e.g.,

“100% is populations without human influence”). Another revision based on focus group results included

additional emphasis regarding how scores would be used in the remainder of the survey as stated on Page

7: “The next part of the survey will ask you to consider different types of policies protect fish, and indicate

how you would vote. Effects on each possible policy will be described using the following scores.”

Participants clearly understood that the values presented under the “No Policy” option represented the

current situation and that the marginal effect of a policy was the difference between values presented

under “No Policy” and Option A or Option B. Additional discussion of the scores used to describe policy

effects is presented in Section 2.2.2.

M: We've been going through pretty quick. Any other thoughts generally after going through that maybe I

skipped over? So far?

R: No, I mean I think it's — I think what you probably are trying to get out of me without coming out and

saying it, you know, why did answer this question the way I did, or you know, what affected me — did this

affect. I understand that, but I mean I still think that it's pretty decent numbers. It is broken up. I personally

didn't break out in my mind, but they are broken out pretty well, and I think the percentages really, to me,

really helped me. The differences across the board. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #5, pp.11]

***

M: Could you tell me how you interpreted that effect, “fish saved”? And it says a score between zero to 100

showing the reduction in young fish lost, could you explain, just in simple terms what that meant to you

when you were thinking about the survey questions?

R: Well, 100 would be no fish died?

M: Mm-hmm.

R: And that’s I think what the first one was trying to say here, was no change in status quo, meaning no fish

died. If you chose option A, it means out of 100 fish, 25 were saved. If you chose option B, 50 fish out of

100 were saved. That’s how I took that. [Waltham, MA, 7/29/10, pp.5]

***

M: So when you were answering this, were you just looking at the fish saved per year or were you looking

at the full set of —?

R: I was looking at the full set, but I was confused about what each percentage meant and everything. Only

now that we're going through it and talking it am I actually understanding what each percentage means.
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 34

M: So is it fair to say, and would more information on what each of these percentages meant have been

useful, or would that have not been useful to you? It sounds like for at least some people, more information

would have been useful, is that something everyone agrees with? Or did some people feel you had enough

information?

R: I don't need more information on the percentages.

R: Yeah.

R: Neither do I. [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10, pp.15]

***

M: So for fish population, could you explain how you're interpreting that again?

R: It says – well it said on here – it's compared to the natural undisturbed levels. And the higher score

means more fish so I assume 100 is natural, undisturbed level where we would be.

M: Did other people think about that when they were looking at the fish population? Was that something

that you were thinking of when you were trying to interpret those numbers?

R: [inaudible]

R: As we sit here I think about it and, you know, if the undisturbed population is x and you have 1 billion

lost, you know, it's x minus 1 billion so it's 100 % of the 1 billion that's lost, I think.

R: Yeah, I'm starting to wonder myself.

R: How many people are going to mess with the math? You – the assumption is that whoever put this

survey together knows how many commercial fish are available. And if we can save a third of them by

implementing that policy – I mean, doesn't – isn't it illogical assumptions? Do we have to put the number

of fish down with this?

M: I'm going to kind of put something out there, just because I want to see how you react to it. For, say,

the commercial fish populations, our intention in writing that was that for example, Option A would be 33

% of essentially the best you could do in terms of those populations, you know, that essentially kind of the

biological optimum, you know, if the best these fish populations can be without human effects. That's kind

of what we're trying to get at there. It sounds like most of you maybe didn't perceive it exactly that way, is

that fair to say? Or were you thinking of it in that sort of way? Yes, no, maybe?

R: Can you repeat the intent?

M: 33 % out of 100 % maximum – one of – what we're hoping that folks can get out of that is it's 33 % of

essentially the best that these commercial fish stocks can do, based on government data. Government says,

"Well this is the best, essentially the largest size that these stocks can get to," and we're 33 % of the way

there. That's the general thought we were looking for. And I'm wondering whether that was we looked at

this or whether that was different from the way you were —?

R: That's what one would logically assume, I would think.

R: With that said right there, what is the maxim – what is 100 % maximum commercial fishing population?

Is there an answer for that?

R: Maybe you should have put that number over here, like you got the 1.0 billion a year, you should have

put, you know, 350 million or –

R: Yeah.

M: So would that have been helpful for say, under commercial fish population, to have a number there, you

know, of, you know, x [inaudible] fish?

R: Of course it would.

R: Yeah.

R: Maximum equaling, you know, whatever it is. [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10, pp.13]

***
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 35

M: Unless there are any other, are there any other general comments at all?

R: Yes, one, zero to 100 is rather confusing, so I just –

R: I agree on that one.

R: The way it’s stated in some scenarios is rather [inaudible]. And then you’ve got a situation where your

fish, say there’s no score, and then you’ve got a score of maybe 43. Where’s the relevance in those scores?

How accurate or – what’s the basis for that score, and how is that determined in some general sense? Is that

100% realistic? Because those scores are going to have to do with what I’m going to be willing to pay. So

if it’s a random score and they’re just guessing, “Oh, it’ll be 50% [inaudible] 43%,” what does that mean?

R: Yeah, it goes from 43 to 45, is that statistically significant to whatever we’re paying as a whole

population?

M: As long as we’re talking about that, could we actually turn to the page, page 7, where we talk about –

R: It said zero status quo, didn’t it? [inaudible] [Waltham, MA, 7-29-10, pp.4]

***

M: So after, you know, again after what you just said, did you answer the question based on the numbers

that were here or not?

R: I think I answered the question based on that sure I would like to improve things. I certainly wasn’t

going to say stick with the status quo because I don’t think we’re doing things very well. [...] [East

Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #2, pp.2]

***

M: When you were reading the description of this index on this page. You said that you would like to

know more. What was your interpretation of this index? What it really means to you?

R: Well, this was all telling me that almost half of it affected [inaudible]. I understood it all. [inaudible].

Maybe I should know more about that. That’s basically it.

M: So what does this number mean to you, 48 on an aquatic ecological condition index?

R: [inaudible] 48 [inaudible] right in the middle. It’s not a low score it’s not that it’s not natural; it’s more

policy [inaudible] number off because it’s a good score.

M: You think 48 is a good score?

R: Well, it’s almost half – I mean I’m looking at it that way. I mean it’s not 20% out of 20.

M: What does 100 mean to you on this score?

R: Well, that’s really good. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #3, pp.2]

2.1.6 Characterization of Scientific Uncertainty

Participants understood that the ecological changes described in the survey were uncertain, and most

participants were comfortable making decisions in the presence of this uncertainty. Their responses

indicated that they understood this uncertainty based on the information presented in the introductory

material and considered it when evaluating policy options. Some participants also expressed that they

weren’t surprised at this uncertainty and multiple participants expressed that they perceived the values as

a “best guess”. Overall, participants felt comfortable making decisions in the presence of uncertainty, but

some participants had differing opinions on how it impacted their choices.

R: And I guess the last thing I’d like to ask before we wrap it up is as we talked about, there are a lot of

numbers in this survey. When you saw those numbers, did you imagine that those were things that

scientists knew with 100% certainty?
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 36

R: [inaudible]

R: That one page kind of the disclaimer page.

M: What page is that?

R: [crosstalk]

R: Page 4 where they kind of say, well, we really don’t know.

R: We’re just guessing.

R: Scientists can’t predict the number of fish [inaudible] effect. It’s uncertain. Fish population are only

known for some species. Scientists don’t really know the total number of fish in the northeast. So, kind of

like –

M: So, where did you imagine that these numbers came from?

R: I don’t think you guys are pulling them out of a hat I definitely think. And I definitely think there is

some legitimacy to it. But I do respect the fact that I’m not gonna – you’re not saying that we’re 100%

right. [Philadelphia, PA, 9/23/10, pp.19]

***

M: How did you interpret the statement that “scientists can predict the number of fish saved each year, but

the exact effect on fish populations, the number of fish in the water, is uncertain”? How did you interpret it,

what that means to you?

R: I kind of assume that would be the answer anyway, because it’s – I wasn’t surprised at that, the

paragraph.

M: Did it bother you that the number of fish was uncertain in the water?

R: No, it didn’t – it didn’t either way.

M: But was it an important factor in your decision?

R: Was it important that it was uncertain?

M: Yes.

R: No.

M: So it wouldn’t make a difference if they were to say “scientists know the exact number of fish” –

R: Yeah. [laughter] [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #4, pp.7]

***

M: When you were looking at these numbers, were you thinking that these were the kinds of things that

scientists new for certain?

R: No. They even say that.

R: [inaudible]

M: I’m seeing people kind of shaking their heads. Can you explain a little bit more about how you

interpreted what those numbers – where they came from?

R: My guess is that it did come from studies but I have a healthy dose of skepticism about the accuracy of

it. I don’t think it’s been in any way skewed purposefully, but I know that this is a best guess, reasonable

guess perhaps.

R: There is a sentence here, “The exact effect on fish populations is uncertain.”

R: Now you have more fish that are eating more of the plankton or whatever, which is not – Taking the

carbon dioxide and making it into oxygen or whatever. So, yeah, you increase one thing, it affects

everything else, maybe not for the best.

M: How about the rest of you? Is that pretty much the same way you were looking at these numbers? Or

were some of you looking at them in different ways?

R: Maybe as being kind of an educated guess.
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 37

M: I’m interested in how you interpreted them. I don’t want to put words into your mouth.

R: No, that’s how I thought. [Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10, pp.10]

***

M: [...] I want to get your general sense about what you think scientists can predict with certainty and what

they can't predict. What was your general impression about the scientific predictions that were included in

here? Did you think about that much?

R: Well I mean it's always interesting how they come up the numbers obviously. Do they take a certain

fragment and they kind of extrapolate from that? Like, you know, they estimate this amount of time at this

square footage area or whatever, this is how many fish were blah, blah, blah. So let's extrapolate this to a

larger area. Is that the way they did it? I mean, I'd like to see how they, you know, how did they calibrate

this. How did they come up with this number and so forth, which I'm sure might be complex. But I also

like that if it's on this page where the text does admit that. Obviously these numbers are just an estimate.

They're not—can't be a hundred percent accurate which it's good to, you know, they admit that.

M: So you don't think that influenced the way you responded?

R: It does because it shows me that they are being honest for the most part. You know, you can't obviously

be accurate on everything, but this is a kind of a best guess of what—you know, the loss or whatever. This

locates the fish that's being, you know, caught and so forth [inaudible].

M: So if it was phrased a little bit differently and they said they could predict things with a hundred percent

certainty, do you think you would have—?

R: No. See then I would have definitely [inaudible]. We can't even predict tomorrow's weather. And we're

going to predict the habitat of 1.1 billion—

M: So would it make you more skeptical?

R: Yeah. I would have been more skeptical. I mean, obviously this environment is so diverse and

complex. There's going to be a variant there and so forth.

M: So would you say overall that mentioning the uncertainty didn't have a large negative impact on your—

R: No. Actually it painted more of an honest picture of what's taken place.

M: So were you thinking about that at all when you got to the actual policy questions?

R: I did because [inaudible] you know, they're giving you percentages. I mean, how accurate are those

percentages? I mean, I like to believe they're as close as possibly they can get based on information that

they're obtaining or they're providing me and so forth. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #4, pp.3]

***

M: [...] What about the order in which we presented the things on the page? Was that something that you

noticed at all? I mean, “commercial fish population” at the top, “fish populations” next, where it lies on the

page. If we had switched that up, do you think it would have affected you at all? Say maybe if we had put

“fish saved” up at the top or “cost” up at the top, would that have made a difference? Did you pay attention

to the order?

R: I thought you started with commercial fish populations because that was something that was more of a

known fact. They had more numbers on the commercial fish population. The rest was more of a

guesstimate. [Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10, p.15]

***

M: But what else does this page tell you? Do scientists know the exact effect on fish populations?

R: No, they don’t know the exact. They don’t, but they’re just saying that this can make it better for the

water, for the fish.
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 38

M: Is it important to you that scientists don’t know the exact effect? Did it affect you in your answers in

any way?

R: Well, they [inaudible] research. So I mean [inaudible] certain. No, because nothing is for certain.

M: How do you interpret this word uncertain effects? What does that mean to you?

R: That you don’t know the exact number and nobody knows. You have to do research and develop

policies so that you can make the water better. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #3, pp.4]

***

M: Let's go to page 4. It's that page — yep. So, there's a section where we talk about what science —

scientists can predict. So, based on the information that was presented here, do you think that scientists can

predict what's going to happen with certainty to fish populations and the environment from the changes

were talking about here? Or — I mean, what was your sense [crosstalk]

R: I mean, again I'm taking them at their word, but it sounds like they could be pretty close, but they can't

guarantee it. I mean they don't really know how many babies are born every year and species to — as far as

complete accuracy, no, I don't think so, but I think they probably overall can do a pretty good job at

calculating. I'd say yes.

M: So, is that sort of what you were thinking when you were completing the survey?

R: Yeah. I mean, I still had, like, OK.

M: Sort of taking them at their word?

R: Yeah.

M: And so that, you know, not being predictable perfectly, you wouldn't say that affected your responses?

Or you'd say that you are satisfied?

R: Yes. Because I'm personally taking — because I'm not, you know, a fisherman or an — I’m

environmentally challenged on some issues. I'm assuming if you're a scientist and you are doing studies,

I'm taking you at your word. I still don't think that anyone's capable of complete accuracy in this matter, but

I think it affected — I guess it did affect my answers because I think that taking them that they can do it

pretty decently. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #5, pp.3]

2.2 Interpretation of Information by Respondents

2.2.1 Eggs and Larvae versus Adult Fish

Participants generally understood that CWIS primary affects “young fish” which may eventually develop

into adult fish. Many participants stated that the graphic on Page 2 of the survey (“How Fish are Affected

by Water Intake”) helped them understand how CWIS impacts fish and how it differentially affects eggs,

juvenile, and adult fish. The draft survey was also revised to further clarify the graphic with arrows

linking it to supporting text. Many participants showed an understanding of the meaning of “young fish”

and the relationship between young fish and adult fish. However, comments by some participants also

revealed that they may have been somewhat confused about what “young fish” includes. It generally

appears that any such confusion did not prevent respondents from being confident in their selections in

choice questions.

M: What does juvenile fish mean to you?

R: The kids. [laughter] [Several respondents agreed.]

R: It’s like the fish [inaudible/crosstalk]. They don’t know anything.

R: I was thinking more fish is going to get through the screen if they’re smaller. The smaller, the more eggs

and the more fish you’re going to lose. [Charlotte, NC, 9/8/10, pp.8]
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 39

***

M: Page 2. Sorry. The one with the picture and the map right here. What did you think about this page?

[...]

R: You have to read the explanation to get it.

R: Once you read it like, oh, yeah. It makes sense.

R: I like the arrows. Large fish are easier to kill. The arrow points to a larger adult fish. Juvenile fish and

eggs it points to juvenile fish and eggs. [Philadelphia, PA, 9/23/10, pp.10]

***

R: The survey did a good job of stressing the importance even though that the numbers don’t reflect, you

know, if you understand what I'm saying.

M: We are. I'm sorry, go on.

R: Well, we mentioned this before, but still young eggs and fish are important to – it gives you some

information on whether – so it did sway just, you know, have some effect on how I answer questions, but

an egg is an egg which grows to an adult, so these help you decide somewhat, but then I did get lost with

the, you know, you don't know how many gizzard chad or – you know, I don't know if I'm — [St. Louis,

MO, 8/4/10, pp.21].

***

R: [...] "Fish saved for a year."

M: Well let's talk about that one for a little bit. What was your impression of what that meant? What did

you think might be confusing about it?

R: Like the current score for the northeast coastal waters is zero. [inaudible]. So little or no fish are being

saved for a year because there's no policies in place? I was a little bit confused on that. So that one I read a

few times. Then I kind of said re-read this other stuff maybe [inaudible] first will make sense.

M: So is it the language that you think is confusing?

R: Yeah. It's talking about young fish lost per year. So basically saying—I mean, I'm reading this a few

times. I guess it's trying to talk about the younger fish? What does that mean to be young fish? What is

the criteria for young fish is one of the questions I had. Is that the number that the EPA set as [inaudible]?

Is that—like, I don't know [inaudible]

M: So that's something you thought about when you were doing the survey, the young fish part?

R: Yeah. I mean, I notice it's in bold. So I, you know, it's in bold I mean, it's important. Reduction of the

young fish lost. What does that mean, young fish? When you say fish I mean, gee you have so many

different types of fish. Commercial fisherman, then the other types of fish. And the EPA has different

standards of what could be caught and what size and so forth. And to me that was just way too vague and

too broad.

M: So were you trying to think about different species?

R: Yeah.

M: So you feel like you understood—I know you said you re-read it a few times. Did you feel like you

understood that fish saved effect well enough when you got to the different policy questions, when you had

that column sitting there? Did you feel like your understanding was good enough that you read it a couple

of times or—

R: After I read it a few times and going through some of these other type of topics here, the commercial

fish or fish populations. Then once that's seen together, the solutions in the fall pages, then it started

making a little more sense. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #1, pp.5]
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 40

***

M: [...] Again, these are all very good comments. Other kind of general comments on parts of the survey

that were clear or that you found unclear or just general reactions to the survey.

R: I just thought it could be more in-depth. Like, it just seemed very vague. All the background material

from page 1 to 7, I thought it could be more like how they would be implemented and how exactly – One

thing it never addresses that I was kind of wondering about, it addresses small fish but never eggs and, you

know, which one would be more – and the actual percentages. I think that would be more beneficial to me.

[Bethesda, MD, 9/8/10, pp.3]

***

M: I'm going to ask a few questions again just based on the information in the survey, and I apologize if

they seem simple, but again it's important that, you know, that we understand what people are reading when

they read the – a survey talked about saving small fish and fish eggs. So when you were thinking about

how the – how this works, how were you thinking that that would affect adult fish or why affect adult fish?

R: So you mean small fish eggs?

M: Yeah.

R: How would that affect adult fish?

M: Yeah.

R: Well you're not going to have adult fish if there are no fish eggs [laughter]. [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10,

pp.19]

***

M: So you think — so we mentioned small fish and fish eggs in the survey. Did you find anything about

that confusing? Or how that can affect the population?

R: I would think that killing off eggs and babies would dramatically reduce the population. I mean, it says

even bigger fish can be caught in it, but killing off the future fish, so, yeah, I think that's very important.

M: But, did you find that confusing at all?

R: No.

M: Any of the language associated with that?

R: No. I thought it was actually, you know, pretty good. [East Providence, 8/12/10, Interview #5, pp.14]

2.2.2 Interpretation of Ecological Scores

Participants generally understood the meaning of the ecological scores and differences between ecological

scores. Multiple respondents commented on the complexity of the scores, but fewer respondents indicated

that the complexity prevented them from understanding the scores or from providing meaningful

responses. The draft survey was revised to reduce the detail regarding the ecological scores to prevent

respondents from being confused or overwhelmed. With this information excluded, participants still

appeared to understand the concept being addressed. This revision also reduces the potential for

participants to focus on measures within the aquatic ecosystem score which are not affected by the policy

options presented in the choice questions (e.g., fish tissue contamination). A few participants suggested

the “commercial fish sustainability” score used in the initial draft survey may be confusing. The draft

survey was revised to describe commercial fishing impacts in terms of a “commercial fish populations”

and participants generally understood the difference between “commercial fish population” and “fish
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 41

populations (all fish)”. See Section 2.1.3 for additional discussion specific to the “fish saved per year”

score.

Participants indicated that it was useful to have the effects specified separately within the choice

questions. Many participants expressed preferences among the effects, while others said they considered

all effects. Some other respondents focused on the effect exhibiting the largest changes under the policy

options. The draft survey was revised, changing the order in which ecological effects were presented in

the choice questions in order to reduce the potential for participants to focus excessively on the “fish

saved per year” score when choosing between policy options or to suggest that it is more important than

other scores.

Participants generally appeared to have some understanding of how the ecological scores interact and this

influenced their responses. Also, participants generally understood that not all effects will necessarily

improve with an increase in “fish saved per year”. Some participants’ responses indicated that the choice

questions would have been more difficult if some effects were to go up and others down within the same

policy option. Some others indicated that they still could have answered the questions.

M: I’m gonna follow up on a number of these things. Other just kind of initial thoughts.

R: I kind of agree on page 7 where it first kind of stated like it gave me what it means in terms of each box.

Sometimes I definitely had to read that more than once to really get it in my head. Like, all right, this is

what I need to understand what this means, this means, this means and this means and how it’s gonna relate

to the question I know I’m gonna be asked. So, I definitely had to read those boxes a few times. It wasn’t

that it was hard to understand. It was just like you said it was a little maybe complex the way it was written

out. You had to like, yeah, just had to almost double check. Do I get this? All right.

M: How do other people feel about the general complexity? And, I mean, you just made the comment that

it was complex but not necessarily hard to understand. Is that something that other people agree with? I

mean, there was another comment there was complex and that made it frustrating I think was what you

commented. What are other people’s thoughts on the complexity and whether that made it hard or not hard

to understand?

R: Well, I think it’s a pretty complex issue. And then like I guess it had to be scaled down so the average

person can understand it. [Philadelphia, PA, 9/23/10, pp.2]

***

M: Was there any information on this page that you just didn’t use, and it may be different for different

people? Did you look at all the information that was here?

R: Mm-hmm.

M: Did you feel like you had sufficient information on each of these attributes? In other words, were there

any of these that you really felt like you needed more information in order to answer this question?

R: It would have been nice to know how the condition of the aquatic ecosystem would have been improved

besides just a numerical value.

R: And actually add a qualification to that in what ways it will be improved. And the first two pages it

doesn’t address the ecosystem really at all. Besides fish, does it mean any other, you know, environmental

effects or is it simply just fish?

M: What were you imagining when you saw that “condition of aquatic ecosystems”? What were you

thinking was happening when that changed?

R: I personally thought everything from pollution to the fish to just everything. It’s an ecosystem.

Literally comprises everything as a whole.

M: Is that what the rest of you were thinking?

R: Right down to dissolved oxygen content. Perhaps the dead zone in the Chesapeake Bay. [Bethesda,

MD, 8/18/10, pp.8]
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 42

***

M: So if you were going to explain to me based on what’s in the survey in simple terms what the aquatic

ecosystem score meant to you when you were answering these questions, could you explain that? How

would you explain it?

R: It’s just 48 out of 100. To me, that doesn’t seem to be very big. Same thing with the fish population. 37

out of 100, that’s awful. What’s going on? But then, I don’t know, it doesn’t make sense to me why

commercial fish is at 65.

M: When you were looking at, say, differences between commercial fish sustainability and fish population,

all fish, was it just that—Were you just looking at the numbers, or were you thinking about the differences

between commercial fish and all the other fish? In other words, did it matter to you that these were talking

about different effects, or was it just that—

R: You have to go back and look at the previous pages. There’s another page, this one here, that explains

those other two items. Again, those are a little bit confusing. The commercial fish thing is a little bit

confusing. The fish population score, that’s the total number. That’s pretty good, but commercial fishing

sustainability score, that’s—I was reading through that a couple of times. [East Providence, RI, 7/21/10,

pp.14]

***

M: What about moving down, and I’d like to eventually get to question four, but let’s stay on page seven

for a minute, moving down to commercial fish populations. Could you explain to me how you interpreted

that effect, again, what that just meant to you, what you were thinking, for example when you saw effect on

commercial fish populations in the sample question and question four, and also when it was described here,

what did you think that meant, in your own mind?

R: Perhaps preventing overfishing by commercial fishermen.

R: What will end up at the supermarket. Commercial fish populations, how’s this going to affect us,

[inaudible].

R: Would that be specifically the fish that are more generally used as food for people versus some of these

other fish that are just fish, and aside from the fact that they’re God’s creatures, I don’t know why that

should be – unless they’re used for eating up waste and stuff like that – but then again, I don’t know – but

they would be less important in my opinion than fish that you use for food. [Waltham, MA, 7/19/10, pp.5]

***

R: So, actually related to that I’d like to turn back. Let’s actually look at question 5. It’s on page 13. So,

was it useful to you, I mean, in this question we talk about commercial fish populations vs. all fish

populations. Was that useful to have those split out like that?

R: Which one?

M: Here at the top we show the question shows the effects on commercial fish populations on the top line.

Then down below it says fish populations all fish. Was it useful to have those effects split out like that?

R: To me it was. The fact that you gave the statistics for both types influenced my answers. If you just

said fish in general, I might answer a different way.

R: I’d say, yes, that it is good that it’s separated because kind of what this gentleman is saying. I think if

people are looking at this and you just have one fish population, they – it’s good that they can actually think

in terms of both. Because if they just have one number and people didn’t know if you were referencing fish

that actually affect them and fish that don’t, I do think people would vote differently.

R: Me personally it didn’t make a difference because again I thought of the interdependence of the fish.

You know the big fish eat little fish. Maybe the big fish only or the commercial type fish but those fish

depend on the other fish. They’re not consumed by humans.
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 43

R: Sure. And when you looked at that say commercial fish populations line, what kind of fish were you

thinking of?

R: The fish I eat. I was really concerned [inaudible] [crosstalk].

R: The fish that were mentioned.

R: [inaudible]

R: Striped bass, cod, things like that that they had mentioned. I can’t remember what things it was, but

they had mentioned certain fish that’s sustainable for us. I was thinking more along those lines.

R: I was thinking flounder, haddock and cod.

R: And when you saw that all the fish population all fish, what kind of things were you thinking about

then?

R: Krill, sea robins. [Philadelphia, PA, 9/23/10, pp.12]

***

M: [...] Was it useful – People, a couple folks have said that they paid attention to fish saved per year. At

least one person said that condition of aquatic ecosystems was important. Do you find it useful to have all

these different effects described: commercial fish populations, fish populations of all fish, fish saved per

year? Was it useful to have those things all split out like that?

R: Yes.

M: One yes I heard.

R: Well, I mean just to me the commercial fish populations I don’t – didn’t affect me.

M: Are you saying that you just didn’t feel that that affected you or that the information –

R: For me, it was just the cost, the condition of aquatic ecosystems and the fish saved per year. That’s all I

looked at.

M: How about other folks? Was it useful to have these different effects spelled out or not?

R: I thought so.

M: You thought so?

R: Yeah.

R: Yeah. [Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10, pp.7]

***

M: Yeah, question 4. It’s on page 11, the first of the questions with this big table on it. Sorry, I’m jumping

around a little bit. How did you answer it? How did you decide how to answer it?

R: For me, what Louis said before when I saw the dollar amounts, it seemed relatively inconsequential, and

then when I compared A and B, they’re virtually the same statistics except on fish saved per year, where

there were a lot more fish saved. It’s like, hey, for twelve more dollars a year saves 0.3 billion more fish?

So, I selected Option B.

R: That’s how I felt.

M: How about the rest of you? How did you –

R: Exactly the same way. Looking at our families and our kids and our grandkids. For twelve dollars a

year, it’s a no-brainer.

R: For me, it was conditions of the aquatic ecosystem which was the primary – Not so much as how much

is there but the ecosystem. [Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10, pp.6]

***
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 44

M: Let’s – and as long as we’re talking about the scores, why don’t we – let’s turn to Question 4. It’s on

Page 11. Could you tell me what you voted for and how you decided or why you decided to answer that

way?

R: I voted for Option B. I think the most striking thing on the page, or option, was – or statistic, was the

50% and the 1.4 billion fish saved. So, that alone helped with my decision. Then looking down, some of

them are not as much of a difference. But I’m all for trying to save as many as we can. [laughter] So –

M: Were you – when you were answering these questions and you said that – you know, obviously, the fish

saved per year, that had a larger effect and some of the other ones you mentioned had smaller effects. Was

it useful to you to have the different effects laid out like this on the page?

R: It was. I think that some of them that are – and I know that on one of the other pages, they – some of the

percentages stayed the same on a couple of them. Those didn’t make me think any deeper into the

decision. It was more the ones that were – had a larger difference. But, I mean, I read all of them and all of

it was taken into consideration; but the closer ones, not as much.

M: And when you say, “the closer ones not as much,” why is that? Was it just because they were closer, or

some other reason?

R: That’s a good one. Well, like the fish population for all fish in three to five years, 40%, and 43%

without human influence, that just didn’t strike me as a deal-breaker one way or another. [East Providence,

RI, 8/12/10, Interview #6, pp.2]

***

M: So what did you choose?

R: What option did I choose? I went with B because I saw that was a higher percentage of fish saved.

R: I did too. I went with B, and I agree. [crosstalk] If everybody kicks in that is willing to, then we can save

more [inaudible]

M: Great. What about the rest of you? How did you decide what to answer?

R: Same way. It’s either two or three dollars, and you’re saving twice as much fish for an extra buck, come

on. [East Providence, RI, 7/21/10, pp.11]

***

M: [...] Question 5 where you have the moving from fish saved in the status quo from zero percent to 75

percent is quite a large change. And then commercial fish changing from 43 to 47, a much smaller change.

Could you explain what that meant to you?

R: Well, I mean, I—yes, I think so. I think I can say that that the effect on the overall commercial fish

population is not going to be as large as the effect on all—of well, what they say fish saved per year. These

fish saved per year are simply the fish that were being lost, like the eggs and the fry that are killed by the

hot water—by the heated water or the ones that get caught in the filters. Those are—many of those will die

anyway because they’ll be eaten by others, so again, I was not so concerned with that fish saved per year.

Because to me, the ecosystem is going to—this is all going to work itself out in the ecosystem. I was much

more concerned about these upper two and the overall condition of the ecosystem.

M: Would it have mattered to you which order these were on the page, do you think?

R: No. No. I think it would have—no. It doesn’t matter. Because, you know, I think I was a little bit—I

don’t think I just looked at the top thing.

M: All right. Just different people think differently.

R: It’s true. I don’t always vote for the first guy on the ballot. Because his name begins with A. [East

Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #2, pp.4]

***
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 45

M: Well, there's actually two things there that I'd like to get at. The idea, and we've only got 90 minutes

and so far there are but 1,000 things I want to explore more, but the first thing somebody brought up is that

if you look at fish saved, there's a fairly large it seems, you know, 25 %, 50 %, so it's fairly large, and then

if you look at effects on say the condition of the aquatic ecosystems, it's much smaller. Someone

mentioned that. How – when – you can see the same thing for commercial fish populations. How did you

interpret that, you know, when you saw that? What – how did you understand that or [inaudible] you

explain what you thought was going on here?

R: Fish are only part of it, this ecosystem. You got plants, you got ocean [inaudible] all sorts of life so

that's why they – it's a different [inaudible] percentage is because fish are only a part of it. [St. Louis, MO,

8/4/10, pp.11]

***

R: For some reason, it was on page 12 that the last bullet stood out to me because I felt like up until that

point in the survey, my opinion was guided by the numbers and the facts. Then it was saying, saving more

fish does not necessarily mean that all the effects will improve. That swayed me a little.

M: How are you guided that it is going to happen?

R: I was being guided by the fact that I assumed that the higher the number, the more fish you save

automatically the better.

R: I was thinking of that too. [Charlotte, NC, 9/8/10, pp.2]

***

R: That question over here where it says, on page 12, “Saving more fish does not necessarily mean that all

effects will improve.” If you take a look at all three charts, saving more fish, everything else is better. It

doesn’t – One doesn’t follow the other.

M: Did that effect how you answered it, or was that just something you noticed as being –

R: Certainly. I looked at the charts and I said I’m getting more bounce for the bucks in every one.

[...]

R: If others went down and saving the fish went up, that could have changed some answers.

M: How would you have interpreted that, if that happened, if “fish saved” went up but other things went

down? Would that have been confusing to you or do you feel you could have been able to answer the

question fairly if that had happened?

R: If the “fish saved” went down and the ecosystem went down that would be confusing.

M: Imagine that say we save some fish, 25 or 75% say in question 5, but imagine that some of these other

things went down, like “condition of aquatic ecosystems” got worse. Would that have made the question

confusing to you?

R: Yeah.

M: Yeah? You think it would have? How about the rest of you? Would that have made the question

confusing?

R: You spell it out right on page 12, it does not necessarily affect everything else.

R: I would just assume that there would be more fish swimming around breathing the oxygen and going to

the bathroom and changing the cycle there and if they had that problem they’d have to fish more.

R: I don’t think it would have been more confusing. It would have made me think more about my answer

because I would have had to really weigh the different things. [Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10, pp.13]

***
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 46

M: And weighted, could you explain a little bit more?

R: The order, the order. The order of importance. The graph.

M: Let me ask —

R: Like we can actually jump, and I'm not saying everyone, but I did it, one would not [inaudible] but jump

to conclusions, this is the most important thing, because it's right on top. I suppose that –

M: What if we put that at the bottom?

R: Pardon me?

R: What if we had put fish saved per year at the bottom?

R: At the very bottom?

M: Well, you know, lower down on the page instead of being up at the top, we put it —?

R: What is the most important issue in all of this? The condition of the aquatic ecosystems, at least in my

opinion. Shouldn't that be number one?

M: But let me ask the rest, what was the most important issue? When you were looking at all these things,

what was the most important of these different attributes here? Fish saved, commercial fish, fish

populations, condition of the aquatic ecosystem, the cost, what were you thinking in your mind was the

most important?

R: The condition of the aquatic ecosystem for me, but then I really took it a step further and just thought the

condition of the ecosystem. Not just aquatic.

M: What about the rest of you?

R: Pertaining to this particular survey, mine was commercial fish population, and increase in cost

[laughter].

M: That's fair. [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10, pp.14]

2.2.3 Importance of Program Details

Participant understanding of program details based on the survey was sufficient for them to provide

meaningful responses to the choice questions. Many participants expressed that graphics and charts within

the survey were helpful for illustrating differences between technologies and potential policy programs.

Generally responses from participants indicated that they understood that policy options would include a

combination of closed cycle and filters. Some participants indicated that they would have liked to have

been provided more detail regarding the combination of technologies that would be applied under policy

options. The draft survey was revised based on participant feedback to clarify that new policies could use

a combination of closed cycle and advanced filters. Overall, feedback from participants indicated that

these details might allow they to make a slightly more informed decision but are unlikely to affect their

policy choices.

R: [...] These options require a different mix of technologies in different areas. It doesn’t really address

how they’re different.

M: Do you think that would have affected your answers if the questions had specified this particular mix of

technologies?

R: Possibly.

M: Could you explain how or why that would have affected you?

R: I don’t know exactly. If they had actually addressed the technologies more in the introduction, I think

then if they include them later on that could definitely affect how I would have picked. But without

knowing anything more about the technologies, that would be just a meaningless [inaudible].
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 47

M: How about the rest of you? There have been a couple comments about the technologies. Do you think

it would have been useful to know exactly which technologies were being applied or wouldn’t that have

mattered to you in terms of how you voted for questions 4 through 6?

R: I assumed it would be a combination of the two.

M: Was that what the rest of you assumed or did you assume something different?

R: I thought it was a combination. [Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10, pp.12]

***

R: I thought the questions were a little vague in the sense of it would require a different mix of techniques

or whatever and without really getting and how would you know what they were and how you know how

that affects? Just looking at the end price or result.

R: I read the top part and that’s part of the reason why I went for option A also. Just because it said you

know this different mix of filters and cooling cycles you don’t know what the end result may be by using

this different mix. That’s part of it I think.

M: So, when you were answering this question, were you answering it based on the numbers that were

here? Or were you answering it based on things that maybe weren’t here kind of things that were in the

background?

R: Both. Like each time I read when I went to question 5, I had in mind this is a different set of cooling

and filters. So, you know that was in the back of my mind also when I was looking at the numbers.

R: So, is that something that you think would have made a difference to how you would answer? For

example, if we’d given specific say technological details about cooling towers and advanced filters and

things like that, is that something that would have do you think helped you give better answers?

R: A slightly more informed answer. [Philadelphia, PA, 9/23/10, pp.6]

***

M: All right. And other than the numbers, the effects that were here on the page, would it really matter to

you the specific technology that was required to get there? For example, whether it were filters or closedcycle cooling, once you knew what the numbers were?

R: No.

M: All right.

R: Not unless you’re a bogus group that talks about, you know, like – I don’t think that – being somebody

that didn’t have to look for an extended amount of time, I don’t think that would matter. [East Providence,

RI, 8/12/10, Interview #6, pp.8]

***

M: So would you say that the details of the specific programs were important? Like, for example the

technologies that were being used? Or the specific —

R: Yes.

M: You'd say that those were important?

R: Yes.

M: And would you say that the details of the changes within the options we showed you were important

your decision?

R: Yes, I do. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #5, pp.13]

***
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 48

M: Actually, let me ask – kind of draw from that and ask the rest of you, when you saw these things

changing, why did you think – what was happening, for example, option A, what in general was happening,

why did you think these numbers were changing, in other words?

R: I thought they had different technologies for each option.

M: How about –

R: Assumptions. If this happened then – option A, option B – they’re just assumptions. If this were done,

they were hoping to get a 50% increase, et cetera, et cetera.

M: But when you say “if this were done,” what were you thinking “this” was?

R: The measures taken in controlling the factories and the –

R: If you pay this much, this is what happens.

R: Controlling the industries that are creating the problems, I always took it back to that. That’s what I

thought the preface was, maybe I’m wrong. [Waltham, MA, 7/29/10, p.11]

***

M: So when you thought about the programs that were presented in the survey, the different policies, did

you feel like the details were really important? I mean, the details of the changes and the details of what

those changes meant.

R: I would like to have seen more information on those two options, which I guess one would be the

enclosed system and the other being the filter system. I'd like to have seen more information on that. Like,

who is going to build it? Who is going to maintain? How is it going to be checked? Who is going to, you

know, who is going to be overseer. Is that the EPA and how often? But, you know, all these type of

questions. And obviously not as much if you're going to do that. And what are the costs to those

companies are going to be. Is it really going to affect my business? Is it going to be to the point where

we're forcing these companies in New England to put these filter systems or enclosed systems in, and it's

going to drive these businesses out of this area and go to different areas. [inaudible] hate that. I mean,

losing jobs and so forth. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #1, pp.14]

2.2.4 The Warm Glow Effect

Many participants indicated that while they were concerned about the environment in general, their

answers were based on the specific effects presented in the survey. Comments from some participants that

their policy choices were based primarily on “fish saved per year” suggest that they felt fish were worth

saving for their own sake to some degree. While participants’ responses indicated that they consider

increasing the “fish saved per year” score a good thing but they generally did not express a strong

response to fish losses specifically. However, a few participants stated that while they were making

decisions based on the effects presented within the survey, their choices were based at least partially on a

desire to help the environment in general.

Some participants indicated that it was difficult to choose the status quo after reading the introductory

information and some others indicated that they thought that “they could do a thing” given the relatively

low household cost. A few respondents indicated that they were inclined to support environmental causes

and would like “to do a good thing” but still considered the cost and effects under the policy options.

M: I'd like to push on and again I apologize. I go back to things 'cause I write notes and I want to make

sure to kind of revisit

[...]

R: That's a lot of money for some people.
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 49

R: But that's your choice, what they spend their money on.

R: I'm tired of spending money on government stuff myself, you know. Every time you turn around, they

want more.

R: I don't think that's true.

R: The other thing about the survey on people in general is – forgive me – [inaudible] what I'm saying is –

or what I'd like to say is that it's pretty difficult to become emotional with fish. If we're talking about puppy

dogs, everyone would be scrambling to fill this out. I don't know if people really give a hoot about how

many fish are saved.

R: I care because I like to eat it. [laughter] [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10, pp.10]

***

M: [...] Were the specific effects important to you when you were answering? Or were you answering just

because maybe you want to do your part or do the right thing or something like that?

R: For me it was both. I did a cost benefit on each one. Should I spend that much a year for this marginal

improvement? It was really both.

R: I have to admit, I voted generally for the higher plan until we got to question 6, where the condition of

the ecosystem didn’t change. So, I voted for the 24 dollar one. Not because – I mean if the ecosystem had

improved, the 72, I would have gone that way, but since there was no change and that was the main thing

that I was looking at.

M: Let’s turn to question 6. Is everyone there? This is a different question. Could other folks tell me how

you decided to answer that question?

R: I did the same as Leah.

R: I also, yes.

R: To save 400 million fish for such a small amount.

[...]

R: If you put a zero behind each one of those numbers, I’d have to think about it very harder than, you

know, 24 dollars a year. So, I don’t go out to eat twice.

M: When other folks were looking at the money, were you thinking about, for example, what that 24

dollars would really mean in terms of what’s it worth to you or what you might not be able to do with it?

R: Not for 24 dollars, but 240 dollars I would.

R: I agree. With 24 dollars, that’s, you know, you can easily spend that, but 240 dollars, that does mean a

lot more to a lot more people. [Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10, p.11]

***

M: Sometimes when looking at questions like this and again it’s a similar question but not quite exactly the

same. You might, I mean, one way that one might look at this question is to answer and say, if I vote for

option A, I’m gonna get a certain change in commercial fish, a certain change in fish population, a certain

change in fish safety. And I suppose another way that one might look at it is, well, I want to do a good

thing. I want to do the right thing. And you know it doesn’t really matter to me exactly what’s going on. I

just you know I want to do my part. You know I want to do a good thing. Which would you say are either

of those – do either of those describe what you were doing? Or which is closer to what you were doing

when you answered these questions?

R: Mine was like, yeah, if we can do something to help as long as the price is right, then do it. And at first

I just kind of glanced through the numbers. And then I really looked I thought, well, there’s really not

much effect until – but there is a big effect here. We’re saving to me it looks like a large number of fish.

And I was expecting the economic price to be a whole lot higher. And I thought, well, for $3 a month or $2

a month, yeah, that’s worth it. If it was much higher, I would probably have looked at it and said you know

I’d be more inclined to keep the status quo. [Philadelphia, PA, 9/23/10, pp.15]
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 50

***

M: [...] As long as you mentioned pricing, when you were looking at these dollar amounts, were you

taking those seriously? Were you thinking of those as dollars that you would really have to pay?

R: Yeah.

R: I was wondering how the increases would filter down. I knew I was going to pay them. I was just

thinking about how it was going to filter down to us. How do they arrive at the cost? Is it—Obviously, if an

industry needs to refurbish their cooling system, they’re going to have a cost. Yes, they’re going to add to

the price of their products. All these systems, that’s all I was going—To me, it seemed cheap. 36 dollars

seemed pretty cheap if you’re going to do this across the New England region. I thought maybe they missed

something. I don’t know. That’s my thought.

R: Most people see this, they’re going to check off the least amount to owe. [crosstalk] We’re sitting here

saying we’re going to check this because we know the environment stuff, but most people don’t even

recycle, you know what I mean?

R: I feel if it’s going to benefit everyone and be better for the economy, I’m OK with paying a little bit

more.

R: [inaudible]

M: When you looked at those dollar amounts, were you thinking about how that would affect what you

could afford, what you could buy, things like that?

R: You look at some people that spend money on cigarettes that are not good for you, whereas five dollars

a month, I think, is going to something that’s going to be good for us.

R: I look at it like a donation. If it was a capital campaign of some sort, would I donate to save fish? Yes, I

would. I would pay 36 [crosstalk] I would pay 36 bucks. [East Providence, 7/21/10, pp.12]

***

M: What do you think about your confidence in answering the survey and did you feel that the survey was

pushing you to answer it?

R: I thought the difference between these levels were sort of nominal. They’re talking about zero dollars

versus $6.00 a month. I think in my case that for six bucks it’s something that’s well worth it. I tend to say,

why not? It’d be worth doing. I saw it being a very nominal cost for the benefit you’re getting. [Charlotte,

NC, 9/8/10, pp.4]

2.3 Survey Scenario and Respondent Decision-making

2.3.1 Decision Scenario

Participants understood the choice task correctly and generally believed that the survey decision scenario

was clear. Most indicated that they followed the survey’s instruction to evaluate each policy question on

its own and did not compare policy options across pages. A small minority of participants stated that they

did look page across the choice questions when completing the participants looked back across pages but

these participants generally indicated that this was to help them better understand. When probed it was

clear that they were answering the choice questions on their own.

M: So were you comparing them across this or across different pages?

R: No, across this page.

R: I was comparing across pages.

R: I did too.
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 51

R: I did too.

R: But I did look back, not to compare, but I did look back just to see how I answered just because I wanted

to be consistent in my answers and my thinking was like I just want to make sure that I'm thinking about

this right and being consistent. So I don't know that I compared, I just wanted to make – I think it helped

me understand.

M: Well let me ask, when you were looking at – and this goes I think for everybody, when you look at each

question, were you answering it in a sense on its own —

R: Yeah, I did.

M: — or were you looking at it and in reference to other questions, and kind of answering them as a group?

R: No, on its own.

R: On its own.

R: On its own. [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10, pp.7]

***

M: Just moving back to the, kind of between different questions issue, when you were looking – let’s just

look at questions four, five, and six for now, the regional questions. Did you feel that – when you were

answering them – would you say that you were answering them independently as each question?

R: [crosstalk]

R: I did, because I was looking at the percentage, it wasn’t much of a difference from beginning to end.

M: When you’re saying – which question were you looking at now?

R: Well, all of them. When I answered all of them, I was looking at them percentage-wise, but when I got

to eight I was looking at price-wise, dear God, definitely no. Especially when it’s no longer just the coastal

northeast, it’s the whole United States that’s being affected. [Waltham, MA, 7/29/10, pp.15]

***

M: When you were answering this question, and I'm spending, you know, a little more time on Question 4

because it's a little more complex than some of the other questions. Were you looking at all these different

effects and fish saved per year and commercial fish and fish populations, or did you find yourself

considering each of those effects separately? Did you look at one and not the other? How were – when

you were actually going through and deciding what to answer, how did you – what was going on in your

head?

R: I looked at each – considered each.

R: I looked at each, but the most important is the total fish saved per year.

R: [inaudible] a variety of [inaudible] was more important than another [inaudible] I looked at them all,

[inaudible] three bucks, sure, save a fish for three bucks. [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10, pp.8]

***

M: These different effects, we were talking about some of them. We were just talking about the commercial

fish sustainability and the fish population. Were you looking at all of those when deciding how to answer,

or were there certain things that you didn’t look at?

R: I looked at the big zero dollars. That’s all I wanted to see.

M: That’s fair. How about the rest of you? Another way, I guess, of asking this is, did you use all the

information that was here, or were there some pieces of information that you just didn’t really look at?

R: I looked at it all.

M: Were all these things at least somewhat important to you? Did you consider all of them?
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 52

R: I think the commercial fish sustainability is going to be a big one. We all want to see zero, but if we

crush the commercial fishing industry, that’s less [inaudible] If you look at it as a whole, their catch limits

are going down. [inaudible] [East Providence, RI, 7/21/10, pp.12]

2.3.2 Survey Realism

Participants were generally willing to accept the information presented in the survey at face value. There

were some objections regarding the information presented in the survey, and for the most part these

objections were related to a perceived insufficiency of information. An objection was raised in early focus

groups regarding the basis for values presented in the survey and why it did not list specific information

sources. While participants generally suspected the numbers were based on government data, some

respondents expressed that listing sources would add credibility. A statement listing organizations which

contributed data was added to Page 1 and this appeared to resolve much of these concerns. Overall,

participants appeared to approach the numbers and consider them as if they were real when choosing

between policy options.

M: Would it have been useful to have that information, where the numbers came from?

R: Yes.

R: Yes, it would.

R: Yeah.

R: [crosstalk]

R: Some degree of credibility to it, rather than just an arbitrary number that somebody in school

[inaudible].

R: You have to list your sources, like “Where did you get these numbers from?” anybody that does a

presentation in any class or whatever, you have to put your sources like what journal, whoever said it, what

year did it come from, all that stuff. [Waltham, MA, 7/29/10, pp.10]

***

M: Would it have mattered to you if these numbers were different?

R: Well, it might have—I guess it might have—if they were more dramatic, perhaps it might have, you

know, made me look a little harder, you know, maybe, I guess if—maybe I would have been even more

skeptical. I’m not sure. But I think if the numbers were more dramatic, that may have swayed me to think

that they were maybe a little more valid, you know, even though I can’t believe them. You know, but how

can anybody even measure a 1 or 2 percent change, especially when you consider—sure you can do it for a

year, you know, but how can you—to do something like that long-term and what other factors have entered

in the meantime, so who knows what is going on. You know what I’m saying?

M: So after, you know, again after what you just said, did you answer the question based on the numbers

that were here or not?

R: I think I answered the question based on that sure I would like to improve things. I certainly wasn’t

going to say stick with the status quo because I don’t think we’re doing things very well. On the other

hand, I’m—you know, I’m not so naïve to think that we’re going to make great inroads with just minor

changes. [...] [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #2, pp.2]

***

M: [...] did you think the cost of the programs were realistic based on what you were getting out of it? I

know you voted yes for some policy options, but did you really think about, you know, whether those costs
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 53

seemed realistic relative to, you know, other things that you pay for, or whatever kinds of regulations might

cost?

R: I mean they were specified. A lot of the times you don't get that, you know the specifics on an average.

I’m assuming that was an average of this is what, per household — I didn't think it was that much. I mean, I

do feel strongly enough that we do need to help the environment in all aspects, and I feel a lot of people

feel like that, but they also think that cost at this time in the economy — people just don't have it. And it’s

unfortunate. It's gonna make a difference in the way they vote, I personally think. [East Providence, RI,

8/12/10, Interview #5, pp.12]

***

M: Unless there are any other, are there any other general comments at all?

R: Yes, one, zero to 100 is rather confusing, so I just –

R: I agree on that one.

R: The way it’s stated in some scenarios is rather [inaudible]. And then you’ve got a situation where your

fish, say there’s no score, and then you’ve got a score of maybe 43. Where’s the relevance in those scores?

How accurate or – what’s the basis for that score, and how is that determined in some general sense? Is that

100% realistic? Because those scores are going to have to do with what I’m going to be willing to pay. So

if it’s a random score and they’re just guessing, “Oh, it’ll be 50% [inaudible] 43%,” what does that mean?

R: Yeah, it goes from 43 to 45, is that statistically significant to whatever we’re paying as a whole

population? [Waltham, MA, 7/29/10, pp.4]

***

M: What was going through your mind about; you got one very large change and then a bunch of small

ones, did that make sense to you?

R: It made sense to me. [One respondent agreed.] It explains to you on the side here what the percentage is

about. All population in this percentage is going to be smaller because there is a lot more fish than

[inaudible].

R: I see the 1% or the 2% as, that’s just 1% or 2%. I’ll either just kind of gaze in the pasture; use that to

confirm my answer to the new one.

R: I refer it as these just being things that we just can’t prevent like they said, 100% if we didn’t have any

influence on it, this is what will happen. That’s going to happen and then at commercial, you’re going to

have commercial fish. I thought that those areas were just, those would be realistic because there’s not

much you really can do about those but you can do a lot about the cooling system in saving the fish.

[Charlotte, NC, 9/8/10, pp.6]

***

M: So did you sort of think of these as being real policy options when you were doing it? Did you treat it

like you were—the information you were providing would be used by EPA?

R: Yeah. I like to think so.

M: And did it seem—they seemed like realistic type choices? Anything stand out to you as not being

realistic?

R: I mean, you kind of—you like to think the EPA is straightforward and [inaudible] they all have their

own agenda. I mean, you always hear about commercial fishermen complaining and whining. Not

whining, you know, arguing about the regulations that's placed upon them as not realistic and so forth.

That kind of played into my mind as hopefully the EPA is listening to the concerns and so forth that also

look into the other [inaudible] can't all go fishing in our waters and so forth. What is the best policy to go

forth [inaudible] and so forth. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #1, pp.11]
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 54

***

M: We’ll call them question attributes. Would you have wanted to have more information on any of them,

or were any of them too unclear? Did – you wanted to really know something more? Or did you feel like

you had enough information on each of these to make a reasonable vote?

R: I think that there was enough information.

M: Did you think of this as being a realistic choice when you were answering it?

R: Yeah. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #6, pp.9]

2.3.3 Hypothetical Bias

Participants took the survey questions seriously and indicated that they thought that their choices would

actually influence policy. They thought that their responses would be used by the government to make

policy decisions. Some took the mere development of the survey as an indication that the government

would be using their input to make policy decisions and that their response was important. Many

participants were confident when asked whether their choices would be different if they knew the vote

was binding. Some participants expressed mixed impressions of why EPA had developed the survey and

how their responses would be used for decision making. Overall, participants thought that their votes

were important. Participants also indicated that they thought of the “cost line” in the choice questions as

real costs that they household may have to pay if the policy option was enacted. See Section 2.4.1 for

discussion of focus group results related to budget constraints.

M: Did you think the government would use this to help improve the policy, do you think that your answers

would matter?

R: I do. [One respondent agreed.]

R: It says here that your answer will help the government decide which policies will be inactive, unless

that’s a lie. [laughter]

R: Or they wouldn’t be doing this survey.

R: Offered their time and money into doing all this.

R: It’s just like with the smokestacks that put out the CO2, that have special filters and all that. The

government regulates how much you can put out. That’s going to be the same thing with this. They’re

going to regulate how many fish you can suck in to your filters and kill. This is just trying to give us some

benefits of not killing as many of the fish. That’s the one thing; it doesn’t really say what does this mean.

Does this mean the government is doing this and decides to make more rules for these plants or are we

doing this to give the plant some idea of what we’d accept?

M: When you were answering this survey, why did you think that EPA was doing it?

R: It’s about regulation on filters.

M: How did you interpret why EPA was asking these questions?

R: Because they wanted to do something. Even like going back to your earlier question about, with my

permission, I think with current administration and everything, it would matter. Something would get done,

but it varies according to who’s in office and who’s making the policies.

R: I just assumed the EPA is trying to see how many allies they have.

R: They even want to...

R: Who would vote in their favor before they go to wherever they need to go. [One respondent agreed.]

[Charlotte, NC, 9/8/10, pp.11]

***
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 55

M: So you know that these questions are hypothetical? Do you feel like your answers would have been

different if you knew with certainty that you were going to have to pay that amount rather than just being a

survey right now? I mean, if you—

R: No. It would have been the same actually. It would be nice if we had this type of—these type of if you

want to call if a valid questions on the next election, you know, instead of supporting some legal

[inaudible] for bragging [inaudible] you or I or some new building for you or I or some new cleaning

facility that's going to filter our waters or whatever, clean our waters. That would be something that I'd be

willing to invest some support and so forth.

M: So if it was a referendum, I think you would have answered similarly?

R: Definitely. [...] [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #1, pp.11]

***

M: Going back to question 4, imagine that you actually saw this and it was a binding vote that you saw, say

a referendum or, you know you were actually making a decision that would influence what the government

did, would you vote the same way?

R: Yes.

R: Yes, but I would hope that I would have done a lot more research beforehand to answer those questions

that I had. [Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10, pp.9]

***

M: So, would you say, I mean, even though this is hypothetical and we're not asking you to pay the money

as you walk out the door — would you say that you thought about it as if it was real money that you

actually pay?

R: Yes, I did. I mean, that's kind of how I took it in the beginning when, like, I'm gonna make these

decisions is that they are true, they are real, and what would I decide if I had to make a decision.

M: So you were thinking about these might be things that actually happen in the future?

R: Yes.

[...]

M: And would you say that you, when you're answering the survey, did you think that the results might

actually be used by the government? I mean did you think that your vote was important?

R: Yes.

M: Did you think that affected the way you answered?

R: No, I mean the person — the type of person that I am I'm an answer as honestly, so one way or the other,

I still think it's important. That's why I'm being here asking this. You gotta be honest one way or the other,

so it would be nice if it made a difference, but I'm still gonna be honest. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10,

Interview #5, pp.13]

***

M: And so if you – you know, if this were – instead of being just a survey that we’re answering today, if

this were, say, a real binding vote and, you know, you – this was – say you were in a voting booth and

someone saw a question like this. Would you have voted the same way, do you think, if real money – you

know, real money would be on the line?

R: Definitely. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #6, pp.3]

***
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 56

M: What I'd like to do – I have a whole 10 minutes left and there's lots and lots of questions that I would

love to ask, but I'd just like to ask a few questions that I have on my list that I wanted to make sure to ask.

When you were answering this survey, I mean, we're obviously testing the survey today, but based on how

you looked at the survey, did you consider that the results might actually be used by say EPA or the

government in deciding what to do?

R: Yes.

R: Mm-hmm.

R: Mm-hmm.

M: And so when you were answering that, I mean, were you taking the question seriously, I guess?

R: Yes.

M: So most people are nodding. And, you know, a little while ago the – some various discussions about a

couple people commented that well, this tends to focus a lot on fish, and there were some other comments

about kind of broader effects on ecosystems – when you were voting on this, were the details important to

you? Were the numbers important to you? For this question?

R: For the national one.

R: Yeah. Any percentage matters, even just one %. And I want to – on page 17, the last question,

[inaudible] to preserve fish and the ecosystem's future generations, I think that the whole [inaudible] thing

should elaborate on that because it would hook more people. Some people just don't get that it's [inaudible]

ecosystem. [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10, pp.18]

***

R: Were you thinking about it like this is you know $2 out of my pocket, if I vote for this?

R: Yeah.

R: Yeah.

R: Absolutely.

R: [inaudible]

M: And you know one thing about the survey is you know it’s just a survey question. I mean, if you check

the box, it’s not like someone actually comes and takes $2 from you or depending on what you vote. Do

you think you know if this were a binding vote, I mean, if you were in a voting booth and you were being

asked to check a box and you know this was actually gonna go into effect if enough people voted for it.

Would you have voted the same way do you think?

R: If it looked just like this?

M: Yeah. Assume you got exactly the same, I mean, aside from the other things we’ve been talking about.

Imagine you had the same thing but instead of being a paper survey imagine this were something that this is

a binding vote. And it’s you know it’s gonna affect regulations on the spot. Do you think you’d have

answered the same way?

R: If I believed that it was gonna affect regulations, I think I would voted the same exact way. If I was

unsure it was gonna change anything, I definitely would vote different.

M: So, in other words and please correct me if I’m wrong, but if you were saying that if this was correct

and if you were sure that this was gonna do what it said it was gonna do, then you would vote the same way

that you just did.

R: Correct.

R: I just wanted to be clear. How about other folks would you have voted the same way you know if this

were a binding vote you know?

R: Yes.

R: Yeah.

M: Yeah?

R: Yes. [Philadelphia, PA, 9/23/10, pp.8]
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 57

***

M: If you had seen this in an actual voting booth, do you think you would have voted the same way?

R: Mm-hmm [affirmative].

R: Yes. This almost forces you to vote yes or no instead of this middle, where you say you somewhat agree

or whatever that option was. [Charlotte, NC, 9/8/10, p.3]

***

M: When you were answering the survey and stated that all of this may be enacted by the government, you

said that in the real world it would work differently. Did you think that this was just for research purposes,

and that it’s not the real policy?

R: Yeah, I did. I still do [laughter].

M: What makes you think that?

R: Because it’s the first I’m hearing about it. I didn’t hear – I mean,

M: What if you didn’t hear about it?

R: If I didn’t know this is – if I didn’t hear anything about this with the government going on – I hadn’t

heard about this. So to think that this is actually going to happen is one thing, but because I never heard of

this – the cooling water affecting the fish, and the government and all that. I just assumed that no, it wasn’t

going to happen.

M: What would you like to see in the survey to help you to understand that that maybe a policy?

R: I don’t think it has to do with survey. I think it’s more the public knowledge, and if it was advertising

more, with the news and what have you, newspapers and all that. As opposed to actually putting out a

survey. That’s my opinion.

M: So you think that the fact that it’s not advertised in the newspapers –

R: Yeah, absolutely. I’m thinking something, too, to do with the contact [inaudible]. You could do a survey

on it. [inaudible] You wouldn’t have to put on it that this is an actual, real survey. I think it’s just – you can

advertise, you can put them out [inaudible] on the news and things like that. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10,

Interview #4, pp.8]

2.3.4 Participant Confidence and Certainty

Some participants felt very certain about their answers. Some others expressed confidence but thought

that additional information might improve their confidence or impact their choices. A few participants

indicated that a specific piece of information, such as job losses, might improve their confidence. The vast

majority indicated that they were neutral or confident in their responses to Question 8, with those lacking

confidence as a small minority. Among participants indicating a lack of confidence, a lack of information

was typically cited as the primary reason rather than confusion regarding the survey format or decision

scenarios. When asked, many participants tended to agree that they would vote the same way if in a

“voting booth” or if questions were part of a referendum. A few participants agreed but caveated their

response somewhat, hoping that they would have done additional research prior to answering.

M: But let me ask you with regard to that – I want to spend some more time on the specifics of this

question, but at the end of the day, how confident did you feel on your – with your answers to say,

Question 4 and Question 5, the choice questions like this?

R: I didn't feel at all confident —

M: You didn't feel at all confid —?
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 58

R: — so I just put "No policy" on everything, 'cause I don't feel like I have enough information to – I mean

the amount of money per month – I don't have anything to justify it. I don't feel like it's – I know how big

the problem is, so I know how much money it would be worth spending on it, I guess.

M: I'd like to follow up on that, so don't let me forget about – how did other people feel?

R: Based on the data you provided us [inaudible] on the data in the survey.

M: How about other folks – I have a mix of – I'm seeing some nodding heads, is that confident or not

confident?

R: Confident.

R: That's what I said based on what I had I feel confident. If I would be provided more information maybe

my answers would be different.

M: That's fair.

R: Confident.

R: Yeah.

R: Yeah, I'm pretty much confident. [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10, pp.8]

***

Before I get there, though, I guess I’d like to ask how did you feel about your answers? Did you feel

confident about the answers you provided in the survey?

R: No.

M: No?

R: I mean, I felt like – Generally, I just felt like OK, I think that all species are important, and sixty dollars

a year is not that much to spend for that. Let me just put that out there. I just kind of generalized it in my

head, just did it kind of quickly at a certain point. So, I don’t feel like I really analyzed it and went over it

in my head.

M: How about the rest of you? Would you say you felt confident about your answers? Not confident?

R: To be really more confident, I would need more information besides, “Oh, we’re going to use the

recycling water and different filters in some sort of combination”.

R: This is not something many of us think about on a daily basis.

R: Yeah.

R: And I’d want to know if there are any job losses related to this. [Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10, pp.3]

***

M: Did you feel that you were being pushed to answer in a certain way by the questions?

R: No, uh-uh [negative].

R: I didn’t felt like I was pushed a certain way, but I wasn’t confident in my answers. I just answered the

best that I thought that I could in the information that was given. If I had taken a test, I feel like I would

fail. [laughter]

R: It almost makes you answer about your feeling and not after you analyzed something.

M: What do you think about your confidence in answering the survey and did you feel that the survey was

pushing you to answer it?

R: I thought the difference between these levels were sort of nominal. They’re talking about zero dollars

versus $6.00 a month. I think in my case that for six bucks it’s something that’s well worth it. I tend to say,

why not? It’d be worth doing. I saw it being a very nominal cost for the benefit you’re getting.

[...]

M: Did you feel confident in your answers?
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 59

R: I feel confident. I think the whole point of this is not to give us all the details that we need to know about

exactly what they’re going to do but maybe to get the feel of the public as far as how much we’re willing to

give to protect our recreational and our fish and their population. I wasn’t so much concerned about having

to know. I got the feeling they just wanted to know how much it was, how far I’m willing to go to protect

that. I feel like this, if we sit back and don’t protect it, it’s going to be too late at some point. [Charlotte,

NC, 9/8/10, pp.4]

***

M: [...] In general, moving on from the information, in terms of overall, how confident did you feel you

about your answers to the survey in general?

R: Not confident at all.

M: Not confident?

R: Uninformed.

M: When you say uninformed, other than that, are there other reasons why you did not feel confident? Or

can you explain why you didn’t feel confident?

R: To me, it was just because I don’t think there was enough information to answer those questions.

Questions six and eight, [inaudible] we know what the two options were. Either you’re going to use screens

or you’re just going to keep circulating the same water. You’re asking me to choose two other options that I

have no idea what they’re doing, how they’re preventing with the program. How can I answer a question on

something that I don’t even know what the whole program—

M: What are some other reactions to how confident or not confident you felt about the answers you gave?

R: Like you said at the beginning, there’s no right or wrong answer to those. So you can be confident that

you made a choice. [crosstalk]

R: I was talking in my answer [crosstalk] I was looking at the options to choose, so with the information I

was given, with my choices, I’m comfortable with what I put down. [East Providence, RI, 7/21/10, pp.5]

***

M: Going back to question 4, imagine that you actually saw this and it was a binding vote that you saw, say

a referendum or, you know you were actually making a decision that would influence what the government

did, would you vote the same way?

R: Yes.

R: Yes, but I would hope that I would have done a lot more research beforehand to answer those questions

that I had. [Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10, pp.9]

2.3.5 Scope Tests

Participants’ responses provide some evidence that the utility participants gain from saving fish increases

when more fish are saved, but at a declining rate. Many participants indicated that they would be willing

to pay more money to save additional fish. However, some participants who were willing to pay some

money to avert some fish losses (Option A) were not willing to pay additional money to avert additional

losses (Option B). Some valued increases in fish saved but were unwilling to bear greater cost without

significant increases in other ecological effects. One participant stated this was because he would rather

get some improvement while saving some money.

M: Yeah, question 4. It’s on page 11, the first of the questions with this big table on it. Sorry, I’m jumping

around a little bit. How did you answer it? How did you decide how to answer it?
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 60

R: For me, what Louis said before when I saw the dollar amounts, it seemed relatively inconsequential, and

then when I compared A and B, they’re virtually the same statistics except on fish saved per year, where

there were a lot more fish saved. It’s like, hey, for twelve more dollars a year saves 0.3 billion more fish?

So, I selected Option B.

R: That’s how I felt.

M: How about the rest of you? How did you –

R: Exactly the same way. Looking at our families and our kids and our grandkids. For twelve dollars a

year, it’s a no-brainer. [Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10, pp.6]

***

M: And you felt that you were able to answer the question given the way you were thinking about the

numbers as the result of studies or educated guesses? When you were answering question 4, and question 5

and 6, what I’ll call “the choice questions”, were you focusing mainly on the things that were on the page

here, “effects on fish”, and were you thinking of that when you were choosing? Or were you answering

just because maybe you wanted to do the right thing? Were the specific effects important to you when you

were answering? Or were you answering just because maybe you want to do your part or do the right thing

or something like that?

R: For me it was both. I did a cost benefit on each one. Should I spend that much a year for this marginal

improvement? It was really both.

R: I have to admit, I voted generally for the higher plan until we got to question 6, where the condition of

the ecosystem didn’t change. So, I voted for the 24 dollar one. Not because – I mean if the ecosystem had

improved, the 72, I would have gone that way, but since there was no change and that was the main thing

that I was looking at. [Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10, pp.11]

***

M: Could I just ask how did you decide how to answer this question 4? Anybody?

[...]

R: I actually went based on what everyone else is saying I assume everybody went with option B. I

actually went with option A and only because as much as it seems like a tiny bit of money and it’s only a

dollar difference, we really don’t know the overall effect of this option in terms of granted, yes, it’s saving

50% more fish. But at the same time we don’t know the other effects of this policy. So, I went with the

safer route in terms of saving a little bit of money but also still improving the problem. I feel like if after

the first couple years it showed improvement, then I could see maybe going with option B in trying to

increase, if we see that we’re actually meeting the goals that are here. Does that make sense? I don’t

know. [Philadelphia, PA, 9/23/10, pp.4]

2.4 Budget Issues

2.4.1 Budget Constraints

Most participants considered their budget when choosing between specific policy options and some stated

that household cost was the most important factor in their decision. Even though some respondents stated

that they did not focus on the cost of the proposed policy option, their comments and responses to followup questions generally revealed that they simply didn’t view the household cost amounts under the policy

options as significant relative to their personal budget constraints. Another participant indicated that

household cost wasn’t his primary focus when choosing between policies because of the importance of

the issue. Some participants indicated that they would have to think harder about budget trade-off if the

amounts were higher. Others indicated that they were evaluating the cost effectiveness of options based

on changes in the ecological scores. The presentation of household cost in terms of both monthly and
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 61

annual amounts appeared to help respondents to realistically compare increases to their household budget,

with some choosing to focus on monthly amounts and others on annual cost. Overall, participants

approached the questions as if the household cost amounts would actually come out of their pocket.

M: Could I just ask how did you decide how to answer this question 4? Anybody?

R: I like looked at that thing pretty much and just said you know how much fish were saved and ultimately

from the bottom just increased the cost of household.

M: How about other thoughts?

R: Basically the same thing where the cost that it would cost. It’s almost negligible that $3 or $2 a month

[inaudible] just ‘cause you know a day so. It wouldn’t affect me too much. [Philadelphia, PA, 9/23/10,

pp.4]

***

M: OK, so you voted for option A? Other folks voted for option B? Did anybody vote for no policy? If

this dollar amount had been high enough, would some folks have voted for no policy?

R: If which dollar amount?

M: For example, imagine that instead of 72 dollars, that had been 372 dollars. I’m just making that number

up. Would that have caused anybody to vote for no policy?

R: As opposed to 24 dollars?

M: Yes. In other words, if the cost had been substantially higher than what was listed here, would people

have changed their votes?

R: Depending on the value.

R: Depending upon what’s on B. If 24 stays on B.

M: Good point. I guess I was asking imagine that both of the costs on A and B went up significantly.

R: If you put a zero behind each one of those numbers, I’d have to think about it very harder than, you

know, 24 dollars a year. So, I don’t go out to eat twice.

M: When other folks were looking at the money, were you thinking about, for example, what that 24

dollars would really mean in terms of what’s it worth to you or what you might not be able to do with it?

R: Not for 24 dollars, but 240 dollars I would.

R: I agree. With 24 dollars, that’s, you know, you can easily spend that, but 240 dollars, that does mean a

lot more to a lot more people. [Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10, pp.11]

***

M: So what did you select for an answer on that one?

R: The first option, the 10%.

M: 1-10%?

R: Yeah.

M: Do you mind talking about what you were reasoning for that?

R: It's my personal situation at this time, many-wise. That's the only reason, because if I was working at my

old job making the money that I was making, I would probably have chose a higher amount. That's the only

reason.

M: So would you say that you were more willing to pay for changes that were in the Northeast US as

compared to other areas of the country in general?

R: No, I'm saying I can't pay more.

M: You're saying you can’t pay more.
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 62

R: Yes, I mean my financial situation at this time.

M: So you care about them, you just —

R: Yes, yes. I mean if I had to vote on it based on what the cost would be, that would be something that's

severe to me at this moment, but if I was still working at my old job, then it wouldn't affect me because was

make a very good money and it's still important, but I could afford the higher increase to pay.

M: So it sounds like from what you said previously you were really thinking about the amount of money

and sort of the trade-offs, like thinking about in terms of the budget, would you say that's true?

R: Yes. I mean, I know it's important and if necessary, and I think we all should be able to pay to help it —

to improve it for our future, but I'm just saying in my particular, you know, where I'm at in my life right

now, that’s what I would be willing to pay if I had a choice — if I was given a choice as far as — again, if

the situation was different, I still think it's just as important, but I'd be able to pay more. I'd be able to give

more. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #5, pp.12]

***

M: [...] Could you tell me, looking at question four, how you decided – how you answered and how you

decided what to answer? In other words, how did you answer that question?

R: I voted for option B.

R: So did I.

M: Could you tell me why you chose to -- ?

R: Because the fish saved per year doubled under this. And relatively, there was only a 2% difference –

differential in the condition of aquatic ecosystems, and the cost per month came out to only $3 per month,

which I feel is very affordable. [Waltham, MA, 7/29/10, pp.6]

***

M: So is it fair to say that the cost to your household was the most important factor in your –

R: Yeah. Absolutely.

M: Let’s look at question seven, page 15.

R: Actually, I would like to change this one, because I put [inaudible] – can I change that?

M: Sure, yeah.

R: What I don’t understand because it’s not coming out of my paycheck and it’s something you want to

have sympathy for what’s going on, and you want to do something about it, it’s fine. But when you find out

it’s coming out of your paycheck, no. It’s totally different. 15.

M: How did you respond to this question?

R: Questions 4 to 6, I put the cost to my household was too high. The problems created by private facilities,

they should fix it without passing on the cost to consumers.

M: So these are the most important factors. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #4, pp.8]

***

R: I mean, are these realistic expectations? Like the policy would only – ‘cause to me going from 43% to

44% really isn’t that big of a deal. But with the fish saved to me looks huge. And then like and also $2 per

month to me like, well, that’s no big deal. So, it almost seems slanted that we don’t hear – $2 per month

doesn’t seem like a whole lot of money. So, you almost feel guilty like 2 bucks a month, I’ll save some

fish.

M: Now when you say slanted, what could you say a little bit more?
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 63

R: Maybe we don’t hear how come – why don’t the industry have these screenings? Why don’t they do –

you know what is the cost to them? So, it says you know we have this problem. And I almost felt, well, $2

per month. I’ll do that. It’s no big deal. [Philadelphia, PA, 9/23/10, pp.4]

***

M: Would you say that when you were answering this question you were really paying close attention to

the specific numbers that were on the page?

R: Specific? I think that I looked at all of the numbers and kind of looked across the board and looked

individually at all three numbers in each section. But I think that the decision was really mostly based on

not just fish saved per year; the cost didn’t really have much influence at all. That’s a tough one. I don’t

know.

M: When you say, “the cost didn’t have much influence at all,” why was that?

R: Because I think it’s super-important. So if it’s something that’s going to affect my kid’s kids down the

line or something like that, then that’s something that I could buy into and invest being passionate about

that. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #6, pp.3]

 

M: So how did you vote for question eight, then?

R: I voted no.

R: I voted no.

R: I shut it down.

R: Yeah.

R: Why would we pay a dollar more per month with no changes affecting three of the four categories, so

the rest of the country – so we’re regulating what? For what reason, why are we regulating these people to

pay more for no improvement? [Waltham, MA, 7/29/10, pp.13]

** *

M: So generally speaking how would you say the monetary costs the options, how do you think that

weighed into your decision making when you were answering the survey? Did all the costs seem

reasonable? Did some of them seem too high? Was that sort of the last thing you considered? Just kind of

put that out there.

R: The cost I mean, it's a tough time. Everyone is going to save a penny here and there. And obviously if

your costs are more than some is going to repay, that's going to affect some of the decision to want to

support an initiative. But like to me the costs are reasonable, five dollars per month. I mean, most people

don't think twice about spending three dollars on a Starbucks coffee blah, blah, blah, and they do every day.

But to send five bucks a month and we see, you know, it's presented to us after a year the benefits of what

this five dollars per month is doing, then you're not—to me that cost won't be a factor.

M: Were you thinking about things that you might have to give up for you to spend that money?

R: No. I was actually thinking about things that we would gain by spending that money, you know,

healthier waters. And that gives us so much when we don't give back which is kind of sad. Everyone keep

taking from the oceans and lakes. We're just—we're not doing a very good job maintaining and taking care

of it.

M: So you know that these questions are hypothetical? Do you feel like your answers would have been

different if you knew with certainty that you were going to have to pay that amount rather than just being a

survey right now? I mean, if you—

R: No. It would have been the same actually. [...] [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #1, pp.11]
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 64

***

M: I’m sorry, I’m being confusing. You commented that if you put question eight first, you would have

answered everything else differently.

R: I may have, I may have. I mean, I’m not positively sure, but it definitely – being at the end, made me say

no.

M: So I guess my question is, is that just because question eight was different from the others ones, in that

it –

R: It was significantly different, especially the cost factor.

R: Cost factor, yeah.

R: Mm-hmm, seemed higher. So after a while you don’t even look at the numbers, you just look at the

price, like how much [inaudible]. [Waltham, MA, 7/29/10, pp.14]

***

M: Now let me ask you – a couple times we've come back to the [inaudible] – when you were answering

this question, were you really thinking of these dollar figures – were you thinking of these where, "OK,

what would it really mean to pay say $2 a month or $3 a month?"

R: Mm-hmm.

M: I mean, were you thinking about this like real money, the kind of money —?

R: Oh, yeah. Every dollar counts.

R: It's not a lot of money, when you got so many different regulations from so many different things, and

they hit you for everything, [inaudible][laughter] —

R: Right, everything's going up.

R: And so, you know, it's just not – it's not so much the fish that I was thinking about, it's everything else

that have to go along with the fish, you know, so, you know, and like I said, any time you start getting into

people's money, I mean, you know, when you look at the overall effect, we do need the fish, you know, and

for more than one reason. But I believe everybody looked at that part, you know. [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10,

pp.10]

2.4.2 Payment Vehicle

Participants understood that selecting Options A or B would result in increased costs to their household.

They also generally understood that costs to industry would be passed on to consumers. Some participants

that received early draft survey versions expressed confusion regarding how these costs would be

manifested. The draft survey was revised to improve clarity regarding how these costs would be passed to

consumers by adding a clause on Page 1 stating that goods and services with costs would include

“electricity and common household products”. The definition of “cost per year” on Page 7 was also

revised to include “services” purchased by consumers. These revisions appeared to reduce the potential

for respondent confusion when evaluating policy options.

A few respondents expressed that companies should be bearing the costs, rather than consumers.

However, there was a general understanding among most participants that consumers would ultimately

bear the cost. Also, only one participant indicated in Question 7 that this issue was the reason for selecting

“No Policy” for all choice questions.

M: What – did you take a particular message on that from what you read? I apologize, I'm going to answer

a lot of your questions with questions.

R: I don't know, just that the comparison of, you know, many are lost.
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 65

R: To me, I don't feel like it's – what I don't understand from the survey is how this particular specific

problem that would be fixed with the regulation fits into the fish loss as a whole. Because if it says like –

like I circled the things in here that said like, "A third of the fish loss is from commercial and recreational

fisherman." And then, "two-thirds are from – are part of the food web." So I don't understand what this

piece fits in. 'Cause from my understanding of it, the corporations you're talking about are like power

companies and electric companies. So my thought process is that the household stuff is being passed down

to consumers from the cost of the added regulation they have. So, if it's not just fishing causing it or

something, then – like I just don't see what part of the problem that specific thing regulation fixes. So that's

why I had a difficulty understanding the survey. [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10, pp.4]

***

M: Other just general thoughts before we delve into specific pages and issues?

R: I personally would have liked more peripheral information, not just relating to the cost and the fish.

Examples – so for – should I expand on that or —?

M: Sure. You know, it'd be useful to know what you mean by peripheral.

R: From my perspective, I want to know how – well, first of all how the estimates on cost are reached.

Cost per household – is this only relate to the purchase or consumption of fish and seafood? Or is that

going to be a consumer cost or a tax? How many facilities are going to be affected? Sorry.

M: No, that's fine. I mean, I, you know, again I'm very purposefully not answering them because I want to

listen to what you have to say. At the end if you'd like specific answers I will answer the ones that I can

answer. [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10, pp.3]

***

R: Is there some reason they’re only showing our coast? That’s another thing I really didn’t understand.

R: [inaudible/crosstalk]

R: I understand that but then these other questions about saving ocean populations and stuff. How come

they’re only talking about this little area of the country? Are we the only ones that our taxes are going to go

up, this $25.00, $50.00 and $30.00?

M: Would you have preferred to see a survey that addressed a policy that affected the entire country instead

of just one region of the country?

R: I would have. It would have made me feel better about my answers because this looks like they’re just

asking us to pay the price for everybody. [Charlotte, NC, 9/8/10, pp.8]

***

M: Other kind of general thoughts? We’re going to explore some of these issue definitely in a little more

depth, but before we go on.

R: Instead of passing these charges to us, why aren’t they passing them to these companies that are

[inaudible] or that are using the water for – at least the majority of the cost, not maybe fully, but – the ones

that are responsible.

R: But then they pass that cost on to us.

R: Exactly.

R: I mean, that’s a great idea, but ultimately it’s all us consumers that ultimately pay for everything.

R: Yeah, but I mean – I don’t know, this is still a new law, maybe they can still tweak it here and there, I

don’t know. [Waltham, MA, 7/29/10, pp.3]

***
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 66

M: Sorry, I'm just trying to find one point here. There was a statement in there where we said, you know,

all those policies produce fish losses that they would increase the cost of producing many goods and

services and for these costs to be passed on to consumers like you, did you think about that sentence at all?

I mean, did that — did you think about what was causing the costs, or anything like that? Or were you

thinking about your household costs?

R: Well, yeah. I took that into consideration, but as far as what the cause of the costs would be, would be, I

took from this, the cooling systems, the change. Some of them, they said, have them already. Some of them

have to be changed. Some of them have to have them, and they don't. I am assuming that was the cost that

we would pay, eventually.

M: Sure. Actually, let's flip to page 6. I want to be able to look at it.

R: That's OK.

M: Right at the top there, read that if you would. So, would you say that bothered you at all, if it was passed

on to you? Or —

R: No, I was concerned with it again for personal reasons, but anytime there is improvement like that,

companies are going to pass it on to the consumer. It's expected. We're not happy about it [laughter], but it's

expected. Yes, I mean it didn't —

M: It didn't bother you when you were answering questions?

R: No. I would rather it didn't, but it does. It's a reality. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #5, pp.14]

***

M: So now, onto the con side, did you think of any cons potentially of voting for option A or option B

compared to the current situation?

R: Just money.

[crosstalk]

R: The cost – actually, there’s a big difference between just the Northeast and then when you go to the

United States, it’s – why is it so much more per month? I mean – yeah, per month. [Waltham, MA,

7/29/10, pp.13]

***

M: Would it be more helpful to say explicitly that it will count toward your electric bill –

R: Absolutely.

M: Absolutely?

R: Oh yeah.

M: Would it make a difference to your response?

R: Absolutely.

M: How?

R: I’d be ticked off right away, saying “Help me now, I really don’t care how much”, it goes high enough

right now and it’s ridiculous and I think – you’re talking about products that you can buy, you can avoid

that. Because of what – you’re going to have to pay the electric bill. You can’t get around that, they’d

finally shut it off. But I’d be ticked off. I would be ticked off.

M: Why would you be ticked off?

R: Because it’s another income - it’s another cost, and a way the jobs are nowadays, the society, and

everything, it’s very costly. Everything’s very costly. And it’s just to actually heat your home and

electricity and everything to pay for a home, it adds up. Especially in the summer. You’ve got the A/C

going on, and central air, or filters for your pool, what have you, it adds up. It’s tight enough now. If that
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 67

was from the get-go on my electric bill, then I wouldn’t be like – you feel bad in a way but yet, it’s costing

us. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #4, pp.3]

***

M: Let me skip back actually. If you [inaudible]—on page 6 we talked about—right down at the bottom.

Actually at the top here. It says "While these policies reduce fish losses they would also increase the cost

of producing the end goods and services. These costs would be passed on to consumers like you." Is that

something you noticed when you were [crosstalk]

R: Yeah. Good and services—what do you mean? What are goods and services? That's the question I

have for that. What goods it's going to be. Increase in services. You mean services, you mean what,

higher—the EPA, we would have to pay them more or increase that government agencies because we then

need more federal funding is that—that's what I was thinking about. As far as goods, what goods are they

talking about? Are the fish going to be more expensive to buy when you go to the fish market or

fishmonger or whatever. And I didn't know what goods and what services would that increase.

M: So you didn't have any necessarily a particular thought that these costs would be passed on to

consumers like you? Did you—

R: I mean, eventually yeah. If it's a government agency thing, that's always going to be passed on to

consumers or to the taxpayer and so forth.

M: So you didn't have any real strong reaction to that?

R: No. I mean, as long as it's done for all the good reasons and [inaudible] be five dollars a month. That's

all it could be. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #1, pp.15]

2.5 Respondent Motivations

2.5.1 Motivations for Protecting Fish

Participants cited a variety of reasons for wanting to protect fish. Some participants indicated that they

wanted improvements in effects either for sake of employment or because of their own consumption.

Some participants wanted to maintain recreational opportunities. Some other participants indicated that

they were interested in the role that fish losses and the policy options play within the environment rather

than consumptive uses and a number of participants indicated that they wanted to preserve fish

populations for future generations. Most participants cared equally about fresh and saltwater fish or

considered this distinction as of little importance when choosing between policy options. Some

participants also indicated that they were motivated by concerns regarding household costs and the state

of the economy.

M: What's that?

[...]

R: I'm tired of spending money on government stuff myself, you know. Every time you turn around, they

want more.

R: I don't think that's true.

R: The other thing about the survey on people in general is – forgive me – [inaudible] what I'm saying is –

or what I'd like to say is that it's pretty difficult to become emotional with fish. If we're talking about puppy

dogs, everyone would be scrambling to fill this out. I don't know if people really give a hoot about how

many fish are saved.

R: I care because I like to eat it. [laughter] [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10, pp.10]

***
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 68

M: Well, let me put it into – ‘cause we’re speaking about pro versus con language. What would you see,

just in simple terms, as kind of the pros of, the benefits of say voting for option A or option B here, in your

own mind?

R: Preserving fisheries and the fish. I don’t have any children, but there are other people that do, and you

certainly want to have a future, whether it’s fishing and/or commercial fishing for eating, and it’s more than

people that eat, there are a lot of animals that eat the first that are caught, too. The byproducts of what we

don’t eat, the bones and the heads and whatnot, that gets ground up and goes to cattle, I’m sure.

M: And what about the rest of you? Other thoughts on what kind of the pros or the benefits for voting for

one of these options might be?

R: Well, I suppose that the population obviously continues to grow, therefore what we have now isn’t

necessarily going to be enough in the future, so therefore you have to do something to try to protect and

preserve that, but it’s supply and demand, I suppose.

R: And also, you have to look at the employment factor. This industry employs a lot of people, and if you

start losing fish population, you’re going to lose a lot more jobs.

M: Now when you say “this industry,” which –

R: The fishing industry. [Waltham, MA, 7/29/10, pp.12]

***

M: Well, what I’d like to do is just ask you, and again we’re on the page where it says, “This survey is

similar to a public vote,” page seven. What did you think about when you were looking at these different

effects, fish saved, commercial fish populations, when you were looking at those numbers?

R: In the back of your mind, you have to keep – consider your children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren,

is there gonna be enough fish and food for them? So it’s not just us, it’s perpetuating the food chain.

R: And the recreational chain, too. I mean, my husband’s an avid fisherman, and –

R: I used to do it.

R: Thinking back on when you were a child, particularly [inaudible] fisher fishing with women, but you

know, those are fond memories, and you take the fish away and then that goes away too. [Waltham, MA,

7/29/10, pp.4]

***

M: So were you thinking about other issues when you're completing the survey at all?

R: [inaudible] go through the survey I was thinking about tourism in Rhode Island, and take New England

[inaudible], we are a very tourist area. One of the big reasons because we're an ocean state. We're so close

to the beaches, and we have beautiful beaches and waterfronts and so forth. And that's being depleted. Our

ecosystems are being damaged, and no tourist wants to go to an area where it's polluted. No tourists are

going, you know, get a hotel room next to a lake or whatever that smells of rotting whatever, you know,

fish or a beach front area that's damaged. So that definitely plays into my mind. And, you know, I love

snorkeling, and I love being outdoors especially. I'm a beach guy so that plays heavily into my influence. I

don't think we do enough for our ecosystems [inaudible].

M: So you were pretty much focused on the aquatic ecosystems and fish and things like that?

R: Yes.

M: Were you thinking about—well it mentions public safety, education, health. Were you thinking about

other things that government spends money on or regulates?

R: I mean, we do and I think we do enough if not—and some people obviously do too much with those

other topics like education [inaudible]. And you know, me personally, I'd like to see more—spending more

and more effort and time on the ecosystems and so forth. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #1,

pp.3]
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 69

***

M: So were you thinking about any particular type of fish when you're going through these questions?

R: No. I'm not a fisherman, so. I used to be. My brother used to take me a lot. And I'm not a big seafood

eater. I mean I do here and there. As far as fish go, but the environment is more of what I was kind of

interested in what I was called on this is how it affects the environment, the water and everything that goes

on. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #5, pp.9]

***

M: And so, when you were answering say for on question 4 through 6, were you thinking you were

affecting just the northeast or the whole country?

R: Just the northeast.

[...]

R: I was thinking more fresh water. I was thinking the industrial northeast all these plants along these

rivers. I see it driving along the Schuylkill. I see, you see plants, if they’re operational anymore along the

Schuylkill. And just the other day I could see water spewing out into the Schuylkill and I just thought that

doesn’t look very good. So, my whole focus was the industrial northeast rivers and streams. It didn’t even

occur to me about the ocean and fresh vs. salt water.

R: To me it made no difference because the waterways are interrelated. The Delaware River becomes the

Delaware Bay. The Schuylkill River goes into the Delaware and the Delaware Bay goes into the Atlantic

Ocean.

M: How about other folks?

R: I don’t think it would make a difference.

R: It’d been nice to [inaudible].

R: It wouldn’t have made a difference for me. [Philadelphia, PA, 9/23/10, pp.18]

***

M: So, I want to just ask in general you know when you go back to the choice questions 4, 5 and 6 when

you’re voting for things, it sounds like a number of people at least you know voted you know either for

option A or option B. Why is it – could you explain why you’d be willing to vote for something? Why

would you vote for that? Why is it important to you to support a program like that? What’s going through

your head?

R: The sustainability of life was going through my head. I have children. Thinking of my children.

Thinking about what kind of world they’re gonna have. And you know from there their kids and just

everybody in general.

M: What about other folks?

R: I felt the same thing like he said but I was thinking of my threshold for tolerance, too.

M: Threshold for tolerance of?

R: Spending more money.

R: I was thinking actually I wasn’t thinking at the time I answered but thinking through it the BP oil spill

and how companies can destroy the environment and again I like to do some fishing. I’m going out this

weekend probably. And just thinking about my children and actually my children’s children that we should

be careful what we do so that there’s like he said sustainability for future generations.

R: When you were answering, was it – there have been a couple comments about fish that you use and fish

that you don’t use. When you were voting, was it primarily about things that you use? Or were other

things also important?
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 70

R: I think the waterways in general for me anything.

R: I think my overall thought was just the environment in general again just saving it, keeping it as clean as

we can. So, when I was thinking of the fish even though it was nice to see them separated, I was really

thinking of both the environment as a whole. [Philadelphia, PA, 9/23/10, pp.14]

***

R: Let me ask a question. I want to know, you know, if this is relative to what we’re talking about. Would

it make any difference if it would have been saltwater fish or freshwater fish?

M: Would it make a difference to you, do you think?

R: Right. More freshwater fish than saltwater fish, I would think so.

M: Would that have affected the way that you answered the survey?

R: I believe so. [Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10]

***

M: Do you agree that it would have been easier if it had been all cooling water intakes and fresh and salt

water instead of trying to look at just one or the other?

R: Honestly, even just looking at it, I was looking at it and we’re going to save a fish. My effect was more

on the household income, like around $40.00 is the price point. The $3.00 a month isn’t anything. I was

like, okay, $2.00 as opposed to $3.00 and you can save 50 million more fish.

R: It would be $36.00 and $3.00 a month

R: If they were to give this survey in good terms, everybody would be picking this column, the good one.

R: Right now, like she said on the boat, $2.00 is a lot of money if you don’t have any money. [One

respondent agreed.]

R: I was thinking about long term for my children, their children.

R: That’s more how I kind of answered it. [Charlotte, NC, 9/8/10, pp.6]

***

M: Turning, then, I guess, to question two, which is this page right here, could you tell me how you reacted

to that question, how you answered it?

R: Almost all of it was important. I’m not a big aquatic—I’m not a fisherman or anything like that, so to me

that was the only one that was somewhat important. The rest of them, reducing my cost, is very important.

R: Why would they put reducing taxes as a questions in here? I mean, I’m just asking. Is that just a trick

question?

M: I’m going to not answer that. [crosstalk] I’ll happily answer anything after we’re done.

R: It’s just kind of weird to have that thrown in.

R: The only thing I wasn’t sure was the homeland security link. I feel like that one’s kind of thrown in.

R: That’s the same thing as reducing taxes. Does that pertain to what we’re talking about here? I don’t

know.

R: I put not important on both. Where are the control questions? [crosstalk]

R: We live on the water, so I’m concerned about all of it. I have children that are in the water, and so very

important. [East Providence, RI, 7/21/10, pp.6]

***
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 71

M: Let me follow up on that, because a couple of folks have talked about the information in the survey.

You said that you could have used more information. What did you think about the information that was in

the survey?

R: The information that’s in there was good, and it was pretty easy to understand. The wording wasn’t too

complex or anything like that, but I don’t know if it gave me enough information to answer the questions.

That’s the only thing. Maybe I need some more. [inaudible] First thing I always thought of. The way the

economy’s going and everything, I think it’s important to maintain industries. Granted, we’re going to

hammer them with a lot of cost. Even though you’re going to save the ecology, everything else is going to

go down the tubes. Other things are going to be [inaudible]. So that’s important to me. [East Providence,

RI, 7/21/10, pp.3]

2.5.2 Fish Losses versus Fish Populations and Ecosystems Condition

Participants’ choices and statements implied different opinions about whether changes in fish mortality

were of importance without large increases in the long-term fish population or the condition of aquatic

ecosystems. Some participants stated that they choose a policy option because of the difference in fish

saved. Comments from some of these participants indicate that they want to avoid losses because they

place some values on fish in their own right. Some other participants indicated that effects on populations

or ecosystem condition were most important, and that they felt uncomfortable spending money to prevent

fish mortality if there was uncertainty in whether it would improve these effects. Generally participants

understood that in most cases the amount of fish saved is small relative to the total fish population.

M: Could you tell me, what was the process that went through your mind when you were answering

question four? How did you decide what to answer? You mentioned what was going through your mind.

What about the rest of you? How did you decide what box to check?

R: [inaudible] more fish, and the commercial fish sustainability.

M: So what did you choose?

R: What option did I choose? I went with B because I saw that was a higher percentage of fish saved.

R: I did too. I went with B, and I agree. [crosstalk] If everybody kicks in that is willing to, then we can save

more [inaudible] [East Providence, RI, 7/21/10, pp.11]

***

M: Let’s – and as long as we’re talking about the scores, why don’t we – let’s turn to Question 4. It’s on

Page 11. Could you tell me what you voted for and how you decided or why you decided to answer that

way?

R: I voted for Option B. I think the most striking thing on the page, or option, was – or statistic, was the

50% and the 1.4 billion fish saved. So, that alone helped with my decision. Then looking down, some of

them are not as much of a difference. But I’m all for trying to save as many as we can. [laughter] So –

M: Were you – when you were answering these questions and you said that – you know, obviously, the fish

saved per year, that had a larger effect and some of the other ones you mentioned had smaller effects. Was

it useful to you to have the different effects laid out like this on the page?

R: It was. I think that some of them that are – and I know that on one of the other pages, they – some of the

percentages stayed the same on a couple of them. Those didn’t make me think any deeper into the

decision. It was more the ones that were – had a larger difference. But, I mean, I read all of them and all of

it was taken into consideration; but the closer ones, not as much.

M: And when you say, “the closer ones not as much,” why is that? Was it just because they were closer, or

some other reason?

R: That’s a good one. Well, like the fish population for all fish in three to five years, 40%, and 43%

without human influence, that just didn’t strike me as a deal-breaker one way or another. [East Providence,

RI, 8/12/10, Interview #6, pp.2]
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 72

***

R: I have to admit, I voted generally for the higher plan until we got to question 6, where the condition of

the ecosystem didn’t change. So, I voted for the 24 dollar one. Not because – I mean if the ecosystem had

improved, the 72, I would have gone that way, but since there was no change and that was the main thing

that I was looking at.

M: Let’s turn to question 6. Is everyone there? This is a different question. Could other folks tell me how

you decided to answer that question?

R: I did the same as Leah.

R: I also, yes.

R: To save 400 million fish for such a small amount.

M: So, which one did everyone vote for?

R: Fish saved.

R: I did option B.

R: Option B.

R: Option B.

M: OK, so you voted for option A? Other folks voted for option B? Did anybody vote for no policy? If

this dollar amount had been high enough, would some folks have voted for no policy? [...] [Bethesda,

MD, 8/18/10, pp.11]

***

M: But let me ask the rest, what was the most important issue? When you were looking at all these things,

what was the most important of these different attributes here? Fish saved, commercial fish, fish

populations, condition of the aquatic ecosystem, the cost, what were you thinking in your mind was the

most important?

[...]

R: Pertaining to this particular survey, mine was commercial fish population, and increase in cost

[laughter].

M: That's fair.

R: But see everything else follows the condition of the aquatic ecosystem. Commerc – what I'm saying is

the commercial fish population hinges upon the condition of the aquatic ecosystem, as does the fish

population, as does – it all follows that condition.

R: And it does seem like – 'cause it's, you know, kind of written in small print underneath it – all you do,

and kind of, you know, and you're just reading through it and scanning it and trying to get done with it, all

you can read is fish saved per year. 50 %, sweet, awesome, I'll vote for it, you know, so, but, you know, if

it was like you were really looking at the changes the condition of the ecosystems and fish population, you

know, it's – I just – I think it's kind of misunderstand the first [inaudible]. [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10, pp.15]

***

M: When you look at that fish saved per year, how did you think about that in terms of all the fish out there

in the water?

R: I guess probably a pretty small part.

R: I watched this show on some history channel or something; they shot a boat that’s up in Alaska in the

Bering Sea. They’re fishing for the fish that McDonald’s has for the fish Filet-O-Fish. They catch it with a

net that’s 10 miles long. They haul this in and it’s bigger than this building when they pulled it on to the

ship. They got to have 200 million fish inside of that net when they pulled it in because they were like this
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 73

big. They’re catching this many fish every time they go out there and make Filet-O-Fish. [laughter]

[Charlotte, NC, 9/8/10, pp.7]

2.5.3 Government Regulation

A limited number of participants expressed general concern regarding more or less government

regulation, but these concerns did not prevent participants from providing meaningful responses to choice

questions. Some participants indicated that they were concerned about additional government regulations

or the ability of the government to regulate effectively. However, these concerns were typically general

and not tied to specific aspects of the policy options presented in the survey. Question 1 of the draft

survey was revised based on participant feedback in order to eliminate confusion regarding its meaning or

the purposes of inquiring about respondent preferences regarding government regulation. Only one

participant among all seven focus group sessions selected “I don’t trust government to fix the problem” in

Question 7 as the reason for choosing “No Policy” for choice questions. This suggests that participants’

general preferences regarding government regulation are unlikely to result in a large number of protest

responses. While respondents may have preferences for more or less government regulation (as addressed

in Question 1 of the current draft survey), focus group results suggest that these preferences would not

prevent respondents from providing meaningful responses to the choice questions.

R: You know, following up on that, you asked if there were any cons, negatives, and other than price, there

really was one in my mind, and that is government, which is getting bigger and bigger and bigger, and I’m

very much in favor of smaller government, so that clearly was an issue as I was reading this –

R: Get rid of Congress.

R: Yeah, well, November second isn’t that far away. [Waltham, MA, 7/29/10, pp.15]

***

M: Other than what we’ve already discussed, were there particular types of information that you think

might have affected how you answered this question?

R: I think most of us don’t trust the government today. I think had there been some comments about from

the manufacturers and industrial users, it may have been a little more effective.

M: When you say “effective”, could you explain a little bit more what you mean by that?

R: I mean coming from the government, that’s like the IRS. “I’m from the IRS. I’m here to help you.”

The same thing like this. Most of us don’t believe it. I think there’s a basic distrust of government

agencies.

M: When the rest of you were answering the survey, were you thinking about similar sorts of things or not?

R: The only thing I was thinking, and I know I’m being repetitive on this, is what would the job effect be?

R: That would be very similar to having a manufacturers. If they’re looking at it the same way, it would be

one thing, but if they’re looking at it – “Hey, if you’re going to regulate me too much, I’m closing up my

door.”

R: I was just wondering about the ultimate effect. It wasn’t so much just jobs, but this is just looking at the

going government policy and it always has a multiple effect, just like the ecocycle, or the ecosystems. It’s

a tangled web of life we live. [Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10, pp.9]

***

M: I'd like to push on and again I apologize. I go back to things 'cause I write notes and I want to make

sure to kind of revisit –
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 74

[...]

R: I'm tired of spending money on government stuff myself, you know. Every time you turn around, they

want more.

R: I don't think that's true. [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10, pp.10]

***

M: So I guess then the—what I’d like to ask is: When you were answering these questions, say Question 4,

where did you think these numbers came from?

R: Well, I mean, I think they’re somebody’s calculations of, you know, somebody’s assessments or

estimates of, you know, of what, you know, doing A is going to do to the system but like I said, you know,

I think that’s—you know, they could be great numbers. They could be absolutely excellent, but I don’t

have a lot of—first of all, I don’t have a lot of faith in the government about anything at [inaudible], and

you know, and certain, you know, skeptical about the numbers.

M: So is it fair to say you viewed these numbers, whether in Question 4, 5, as being pretty uncertain?

R: Yeah. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #2, pp.3]

***

M: So when you were answering the questions, were you thinking about how much money you might

already be spending on the environment, you know, and the government might be spending on the

environment?

R: No.

M: So, you just kind of consider these policies on their own?

R: Yeah, I mean, again, I think because of my lack of knowledge as far as these issues, specifically fishing.

I know I keep certain fish and family members fish, and I know businesses and all that, but I thought it was

very interesting. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #5, pp.15]

***

M: Well, I mean, you know – that's actually a good question. When you all were looking at that, were you

thinking of government regulations in the context of the survey and fish and – upon so were you thinking

about government regulations more broadly on everything?

R: I think it's supposed to be assumed it's supposed to be about – but I think he has a point, but I mean —

R: Well, I was trying to say that in a survey why won't people see govern – I got to tell you, when I see

government regulation it's the first thing that popped – I mean I knew it was talking about this survey, I'm

just telling you right now, the word government regulations and society that [inaudible] goes along with

them. Means a lot.

M: Fair enough.

R: The phrase could be changed.

R: The phrase, right. If you changed –

[crosstalk]

M: So either way regardless it sounds like there's some concerns with that Part 5 and we will certainly look

at that.

R: Now, most times when government involves itself in some – it's who's going to have to pay for it. That's

– I don't care what they – do I have to pay for this or not? That's what it – 'cause it affects a lot of people,

you know, and you start messing with people's income [inaudible]. [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10, pp.6]
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 75

2.5.4 Cause of Losses

For some participants, the specific cause of losses was important. Some participants indicated that fish

losses by human activities were more important than fish losses attributable to natural causes, mainly

because man-made losses can be changed. Another respondent’s suggested that the cause of losses is

important because of the relevance to the policies evaluated in the survey. Other participants had mixed

opinions about whether fish losses caused by human activities are more important that fish losses due to

natural causes.

M: And when you were thinking about fish saved per year and such, did it matter to you why they were lost

in the first place?

R: Why or how?

M: How, why, I mean, you know —

R: [inaudible]

M: Did that affect your answer? I mean if we had said we're talking about fish that are lost to natural

causes like hurricanes, would that have – would you have answered differently do you think? Or —?

R: Mm-hmm.

R: Yeah.

R: Well sure.

R: [inaudible] some other non-natural cause, it wouldn't make any difference. It's just fish lost.

[inaudible].

M: Is that the way with the folks we're looking at – that the primary thing you were thinking about was the

effects on the fish and the ecosystems and it wasn't the specific cause that was important? Or was the

specific cause important?

R: Specific cause is the issue that comes [inaudible] in my opinion.

M: So this – so for you the specific reason why the fish were lost was relevant in terms of the answers you

gave before?

R: Right.

R: Well I think it would have been addressed in the very beginning if it wasn't important. I mean, it just

would've not addressed it or it would've said well, it could be because of hurricanes or —

R: [inaudible]

R: Tsunamis, or – I mean, other non-man-made problems.

R: There's nothing we can do about natural causes. There is something we can do about the opposite.

R: This is a sample [inaudible] here. Does this cost money?

M: Got to do it.

R: I mean, we know what the problem is, it's very out – it's outlined what the problem is. It can be fixed. It

just costs money to do it. And who's going to pay for it? So, you know, it's a shame that it comes down to

that, but that's what it, you know, it's about. [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10, pp.19]

***

M: Did you think it mattered how the fish were being lost? So we were talking about cooling water here.

Do you think it mattered that they were lost by that means as compared to natural causes or any other way?

R: No, I mean doing this survey it was brought to my attention. I really didn't think about it previously. I

know fish are lost by other means, but I wasn't thinking anything other than what I was looking at.
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 76

M: So you weren't thinking about other types of policies that might affect the fish, so you work considering

just what was in front of you?

R: No. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #5, pp.14]

***

M: What was going through your mind about; you got one very large change and then a bunch of small

ones, did that make sense to you?

[...]

R: I refer it as these just being things that we just can’t prevent like they said, 100% if we didn’t have any

influence on it, this is what will happen. That’s going to happen and then at commercial, you’re going to

have commercial fish. I thought that those areas were just, those would be realistic because there’s not

much you really can do about those but you can do a lot about the cooling system in saving the fish.

[Charlotte, NC, 9/8/10, pp.6]

2.5.5 Geographic Concerns

Many participants indicated that they value protecting regional populations of fish more than they valued

fishery resources outside of their region and participants tended to interpret the regions correctly.

However, the inclusion of both regional and national questions within a single draft survey was confusing

to many participants while consequently adding additional length to the survey. Many respondents

appeared to be thrown off by the change in scope and some other respondents were confused about the

reasons for differences in costs between regional and national programs. Some others thought that people

in other regions should bear the costs of changes in their own region. This issue led to the exclusion of the

national questions from the regional surveys. Based on these comments, choice questions addressing

national policies were excluded from the regional surveys in favor of a separate national survey

questionnaire.

Some participants indicated that the specific facility locations within the region were important. Still other

participants found the specific facility locations to be unimportant or did not notice their locations.

Participants’ feedback also indicated that it was unnecessary to make a distinction between saltwater and

freshwater facilities within a given region, and that including both improves understanding of total effects

within the region. Participants’ comments did not suggest that it was important for their choices to know

manufacturer versus generator locations and this distinction caused confusion among some participants

when included within the map on Page 2 of draft survey versions. The map was therefore revised to show

“all facilities” in order to reduce the potential for confusion among respondents.

M: If this had been a survey that in addition to dealing with you know just the northeast the green area here,

imagine that this had been a survey where the green area was the entire United States so here and you know

everywhere else Oregon and California, Florida, whatever. Would you have thought about the survey the

same way? Or would you have thought about it differently?

R: I thought about it differently.

M: Could you explain a little bit?

R: Just like the gentleman said here about the condition in the Gulf and everything that happened with the

oil drilling and things that’s going on with that that has an effect on the ecosystem even more so than this

would. This is killing they’re saying a billion fish a year. How many fish did we lose when the oil spill in

that? You know if they had a big [inaudible], this would ever happen in my opinion. I may be wrong but I

think it did. So, it would make a big different when you’re talking about the whole country ‘cause you got

to think about everyone. And maybe fishing is you know as you go further up northeast Main and

Connecticut, you might get you know a little bit more. It’s colder water. There’s more fishing as far as for

commercial for the rest of the country to use. So, you know you go down south you know in the Gulf of
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 77

Mexico you’ll see more commercial fishing for us to use. Here people commercial fish but normally

they’re fishing for themselves. There’s not a lot that’s going on right on the Jersey shore where it’s worried

about feeding the whole country whereas in other places there will be.

R: It didn’t really – I honestly looked at it the opposite. I think in the back of my mind I was already

thinking of the U.S. as a whole. Because even though I only saw this chunk we all know it’s a nationwide

problem. So, in the back of my mind I’m thinking, oh, wow. This affects just the northeast this much.

Imagine how much it’s affecting the rest of the U.S. So, I think in the back of my mind I was already

assuming that it was a nationwide problem to begin with. And we were just kind of narrowing in on the

northeast. We all know there’s generators and manufacturers all over the country. And they’re probably

all using the same – not all of them. But many of them are probably using the same sort of technology. So,

I assumed this was just a chunk of the bigger problem.

M: And so, when you were answering say for on question 4 through 6, were you thinking you were

affecting just the northeast or the whole country?

R: Just the northeast.

R: I like the map. To me I can relate better to it because I know those waterways just by living up here, the

Chesapeake, the Delaware Bay, up by New York. So, I can relate to those rivers and inlets. But if they

were like down in Georgia and southeast, I wouldn’t know those waterways.

R: Well, we don’t have too much time left. And so, there’s just two quick questions that I’d like to ask

‘cause they’re on my list. This survey talks about fresh and salt water so kind of all waters on the map

we’re talking about. Would it have been helpful to you if it had split out fresh and salt water effects.

Here’s the effects in fresh water. Here’s the effects on salt water. Or was it OK the way it was kind of

mixing those effects into one survey? What do you think?

R: I was thinking more fresh water. I was thinking the industrial northeast all these plants along these

rivers. I see it driving along the Schuylkill. I see, you see plants, if they’re operational anymore along the

Schuylkill. And just the other day I could see water spewing out into the Schuylkill and I just thought that

doesn’t look very good. So, my whole focus was the industrial northeast rivers and streams. It didn’t even

occur to me about the ocean and fresh vs. salt water.

R: To me it made no difference because the waterways are interrelated. The Delaware River becomes the

Delaware Bay. The Schuylkill River goes into the Delaware and the Delaware Bay goes into the Atlantic

Ocean.

M: How about other folks?

R: I don’t think it would make a difference.

R: It’d been nice to [inaudible].

R: It wouldn’t have made a difference for me. [Philadelphia, PA, 9/23/10, pp.18]

***

R: I think the way the survey was set up is an issue, because if I was to put that question in the front, my

answers would be completely different.

M: Could you explain why?

R: Well, because I wouldn’t know that the cost with a smaller population would be a lot less. I’ll be

thinking on a national basis, start now, and then I would think, “Well, you know, maybe six dollars is not

that much.”

R: Then you go back to there and you say, “Wait a minute, I got to cross off this -” [Waltham, MA,

7/29/10, pp.14]

***

M: Question 8. We’re bouncing around. Could you explain how you interpret that question and how you

answered it?
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 78

R: Yeah, that one gave me a little [inaudible], but I answered toward the bottom there that I would be

willing to pay between 101 and 200 percent more if the policies affected the entire United States. Quite

frankly, I didn’t really understand that—I mean I didn’t really—I’m not sure I really thought that the

concept, because if you’re spreading this out over the entire United States and everybody is paying, then

the cost should be less, and—but I also agree that I would have paid more if I were assured that—if I could

be assured that there would be significant changes or significant beneficial effects.

M: So just to reiterate, and please correct me—

R: This did give me a problem.

M: So basically you’re saying that if you were presented with a situation where it would, in fact, affect the

whole United States and everything was above board and fair, that you would be willing to pay between

101 and 200 percent more, but it sounds like maybe you didn’t buy or—that the dynamics whereby it

would be more—

R: Right. I couldn’t understand why. As a matter of fact, I think I did double-takes and looked back, is it

saying less 100 percent or 200 percent less? Or more? [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, pp.6]

***

M: What are other comments on the pictures that were on the survey?

R: I think it’s on page two, they were very good. I don’t get hung up on the numbers. With the food web, I

couldn’t trace it but I understood the point they were making. It made a point.

R: There was a variation with the dots because I was looking at this I would like to see where the

generators were and...

R: There are a lot of generators on there. [laughter]

R: They are in blue and the manufacturers are blue as well. You can’t tell the difference. This looks like...

R: They all look good. [Several respondents agreed.]

M: The color in the legend is different from the color on the map?

R: Yes. I’m guessing that’s a generator that’s on a river. You have to really look at it, but you can’t tell the

difference if you just look at the red, the charts and map.

R: Yes, the rivers have that rectangular design maybe. [laughter]

R: Those were the discrepancies in it...

R: I think rectangle’s on there.

R: They are, they’re up there.

R: Maybe that’s just...

R: I think they’re the customers.

R: Yes, the customers.

R: Those are manufacturers.

M: There is a little bit of confusion regarding the shapes and colors on the map.

R: Yes. [Charlotte, NC, 9/8/10, pp.12]

***

M: We talked a little bit about the pictures in the survey so far. I’d just like to ask a little bit more about

that. And I guess in general what did you think about the pictures that were in the survey? Were they

helpful to you in making good answers? Or were there any pictures that stood out as being particularly

helpful or maybe particularly confusing?

R: I think it’s good there’s especially a map of our area because that made it more realistic that you know it

effects our area like Philadelphia region specifically, so they were important.

M: And do you feel you had enough information on where the effects were gonna happen?
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 79

R: Kind of.

R: Maybe?

R: I don’t know. [Philadelphia, PA, 9/23/10, pp.6]

***

M: Let me ask you, what did the rest of you – I know that you didn’t even get to question five – but for

those of you who did – or who got to the national question, question eight, it’s now – where it’s talking

about natural versus northeast policies, there was just a comment that cost was more. How did you interpret

that, what did you think about that?

R: I couldn’t believe how much more we had to pay when a larger sum of people came into the –

R: [crosstalk]

R: It’s like Massachusetts covering the rest of the country.

R: Exactly.

R: Taxachusetts.

R: [crosstalk]

R: Maine has foreclosures, Florida has foreclosures, you know.

R: [crosstalk, crosstalk]

M: So how did you vote for question eight, then?

R: I voted no.

R: I voted no.

R: I shut it down.

R: Yeah. [Waltham, MA, 7/29/10, pp.13]

2.5.6 Importance of Protecting Aquatic Ecosystems Compared to Other Issues

The majority of participants thought that protecting aquatic ecosystems is at least somewhat important

compared to other issues that the government might address, with many indicating that it is important or

very important. Question 2 was revised within the draft survey to compare “protection of aquatic

ecosystems” more generally to “other issues that the government might address – such as public safety,

education, and health”, in order to prevent confusion among participants regarding the question’s purpose.

The majority of participants rated protecting aquatic life and habitat” as at least somewhat important with

many participants selecting “very important” and very few participants selecting “not important”.

Multiple participants stated that they view improvements of aquatic ecosystems as an important issue

without directly comparing it to other issues the government might address. Some also raised the

economy and jobs as important issues, and some described fish losses and related regulations in the

context of these issues.

M: Actually skip ahead to page 6. It's question 2 in the middle where it says "Compared to other issues that

the government might address such as public safety, education, and health. How important is protecting a

part of ecosystems here." So how did you respond on that one?

R: I put the second—number 4, which is "almost very important."

M: So were you thinking about other issues when you're completing the survey at all?

R: [inaudible] go through the survey I was thinking about tourism in Rhode Island, and take New England

[inaudible], we are a very tourist area. One of the big reasons because we're an ocean state. We're so close

to the beaches, and we have beautiful beaches and waterfronts and so forth. And that's being depleted. Our

ecosystems are being damaged, and no tourist wants to go to an area where it's polluted. No tourists are
Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011 Focus Group Findings 80

going, you know, get a hotel room next to a lake or whatever that smells of rotting whatever, you know,

fish or a beach front area that's damaged. So that definitely plays into my mind. And, you know, I love

snorkeling, and I love being outdoors especially. I'm a beach guy so that plays heavily into my influence. I

don't think we do enough for our ecosystems [inaudible].

M: So you were pretty much focused on the aquatic ecosystems and fish and things like that?

R: Yes. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #1, pp.3]

***

M: Turning, then, I guess, to question two, which is this page right here, could you tell me how you reacted

to that question, how you answered it?

R: Almost all of it was important. I’m not a big aquatic—I’m not a fisherman or anything like that, so to me

that was the only one that was somewhat important. The rest of them, reducing my cost, is very important.

R: Why would they put reducing taxes as a questions in here? I mean, I’m just asking. Is that just a trick

question?

M: I’m going to not answer that. [crosstalk] I’ll happily answer anything after we’re done.

R: It’s just kind of weird to have that thrown in.

R: The only thing I wasn’t sure was the homeland security link. I feel like that one’s kind of thrown in.

R: That’s the same thing as reducing taxes. Does that pertain to what we’re talking about here? I don’t

know.

R: I put not important on both. Where are the control questions? [crosstalk]

R: We live on the water, so I’m concerned about all of it. I have children that are in the water, and so very

important. [East Providence, RI, 7/21/10, pp.6]

***

M: And what about the rest of you? Other thoughts on what kind of the pros or the benefits for voting for

one of these options might be?

R: Well, I suppose that the population obviously continues to grow, therefore what we have now isn’t

necessarily going to be enough in the future, so therefore you have to do something to try to protect and

preserve that, but it’s supply and demand, I suppose.

R: And also, you have to look at the employment factor. This industry employs a lot of people, and if you

start losing fish population, you’re going to lose a lot more jobs.

M: Now when you say “this industry,” which –

R: The fishing industry.

R: Just ask the people in the Gulf right now.

R: That’s right. And it’s not just the fishermen, it’s the restaurateurs, it’s the waiters, it’s the whole

economy, [inaudible] and everything. [Waltham, MA, 7/29/10, pp.13]

***

M: What's that? No, please.

R: Sort of the same thing. I just want to know cost, whether more jobs would be created by [inaudible]

equipment, manufacturing equipment, monitoring equipment – take care of the equipment, you know,

would there be some job creation in this cost? Because that's—

M: And when you say equipment —

R: Well, the filters, the, you know, monitoring equipment, whatever is necessary to have the, you know,

this fully implemented. Would there still be job creation? [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10, pp.3]