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]