Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0595-0012
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2011-01-21T05:00Z

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.



– 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 –



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.



Table of Contents

  TOC \o "2-2" \h \z \t "Heading 1,1"    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283113075"  1
Executive Summary	  PAGEREF _Toc283113075 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283113076"  1.1	Presentation of Information to
Survey Respondents	  PAGEREF _Toc283113076 \h  3  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283113077"  1.2	Interpretation of Information by
Respondents	  PAGEREF _Toc283113077 \h  6  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283113078"  1.3	Survey Scenario and Respondent
Decision-making	  PAGEREF _Toc283113078 \h  9  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283113079"  1.4	Budget Issues	  PAGEREF
_Toc283113079 \h  11  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283113080"  1.5	Respondent Motivations	  PAGEREF
_Toc283113080 \h  12  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283113081"  2	Findings from Focus Groups Conducted
in 2010	  PAGEREF _Toc283113081 \h  17  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283113082"  2.1	Presentation of Information to
Survey Respondents	  PAGEREF _Toc283113082 \h  19  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283113083"  2.2	Interpretation of Information by
Respondents	  PAGEREF _Toc283113083 \h  38  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283113084"  2.3	Survey Scenario and Respondent
Decision-making	  PAGEREF _Toc283113084 \h  50  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283113085"  2.4	Budget Issues	  PAGEREF
_Toc283113085 \h  60  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283113086"  2.5	Respondent Motivations	  PAGEREF
_Toc283113086 \h  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

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:

East Providence, RI, July 21, 2010

Waltham, MA, July 29, 2010

St. Louis, MO, August 4, 2010

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

Bethesda, MD, August 18, 2010

Charlotte, NC, September 8, 2010

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.,  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. 



Topics Discussed in 2010 Focus Groups and Cognitive Interviews

  TOC \h \z \t "Heading 2,1,Heading 3,2"    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283119618"
 1.1	Presentation of Information to Survey Respondents	  PAGEREF
_Toc283119618 \h  3  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283119619"  1.1.1	Use of Graphics in the Survey	 
PAGEREF _Toc283119619 \h  3  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283119620"  1.1.2	Comprehension and Retention of
Information	  PAGEREF _Toc283119620 \h  3  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283119621"  1.1.3	Characterization of Magnitude of
Fish Losses	  PAGEREF _Toc283119621 \h  4  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283119622"  1.1.4	Usefulness of Introductory
Material and Potential for Bias	  PAGEREF _Toc283119622 \h  4  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283119623"  1.1.5	Presentation Format for Policy
Effects	  PAGEREF _Toc283119623 \h  5  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283119624"  1.1.6	Characterization of Scientific
Uncertainty	  PAGEREF _Toc283119624 \h  6  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283119625"  1.2	Interpretation of Information by
Respondents	  PAGEREF _Toc283119625 \h  6  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283119626"  1.2.1	Eggs and Larvae versus Adult Fish	
 PAGEREF _Toc283119626 \h  6  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283119627"  1.2.2	Interpretation of Ecological
Scores	  PAGEREF _Toc283119627 \h  7  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283119629"  1.2.3	Importance of Program Details	 
PAGEREF _Toc283119629 \h  8  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283119630"  1.2.4	The Warm Glow Effect	  PAGEREF
_Toc283119630 \h  8  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283119631"  1.3	Survey Scenario and Respondent
Decision-making	  PAGEREF _Toc283119631 \h  9  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283119632"  1.3.1	Decision Scenario	  PAGEREF
_Toc283119632 \h  9  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283119633"  1.3.2	Survey Realism	  PAGEREF
_Toc283119633 \h  9  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283119634"  1.3.3	Hypothetical Bias	  PAGEREF
_Toc283119634 \h  10  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283119635"  1.3.4	Participant Confidence and
Certainty	  PAGEREF _Toc283119635 \h  10  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283119636"  1.3.5	Scope Tests	  PAGEREF
_Toc283119636 \h  11  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283119637"  1.4	Budget Issues	  PAGEREF
_Toc283119637 \h  11  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283119638"  1.4.1	Budget Constraints	  PAGEREF
_Toc283119638 \h  11  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283119639"  1.4.2	Payment Vehicle	  PAGEREF
_Toc283119639 \h  12  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283119640"  1.5	Respondent Motivations	  PAGEREF
_Toc283119640 \h  12  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283119641"  1.5.1	Motivations for Protecting Fish	 
PAGEREF _Toc283119641 \h  12  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283119642"  1.5.2	Fish Losses versus Fish
Populations and Ecosystem Condition	  PAGEREF _Toc283119642 \h  13  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283119643"  1.5.3	Government Regulation	  PAGEREF
_Toc283119643 \h  14  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283119644"  1.5.4	Cause of Losses	  PAGEREF
_Toc283119644 \h  14  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283119645"  1.5.5	Geographic Concerns	  PAGEREF
_Toc283119645 \h  15  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283119646"  1.5.6	Importance of Protecting Aquatic
Ecosystems Compared to Other Issues	  PAGEREF _Toc283119646 \h  15  

 

Presentation of Information to Survey Respondents

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).

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 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   REF _Ref274051678 \r \h  1.2.2 .

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]

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 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   REF
_Ref275372901 \n \h  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.

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 under “No Policy”
and Option A or Option B. Additional discussion of the scores used to
describe policy effects is presented in Section   REF _Ref274051678 \r
\h  1.2.2 .

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).

Interpretation of Information by Respondents

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 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.

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   REF _Ref275378954 \n \h  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.

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).

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).

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 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).

Survey Scenario and Respondent Decision-making

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]

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 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.

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   REF _Ref274819923 \r \h  1.4.1 
for discussion of focus group results related to budget constraints.

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 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).

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). 

Budget Issues

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 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).

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.

Respondent Motivations

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 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).

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:

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].

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. 

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-man-made 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 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).

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.

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
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).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:

East Providence, RI, July 21, 2010

Waltham, MA, July 29, 2010

St. Louis, MO, August 4, 2010

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

Bethesda, MD, August 18, 2010

Charlotte, NC, September 8, 2010

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.,

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.Topics Discussed in 2010 Focus Groups and Cognitive
Interviews

  TOC \h \z \t "Heading 2,1,Heading 3,2"    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283112459"
 2.1	Presentation of Information to Survey Respondents	  PAGEREF
_Toc283112459 \h  19  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283112460"  2.1.1	Use of Graphic in the Survey	 
PAGEREF _Toc283112460 \h  19  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283112461"  2.1.2	Comprehension and Retention of
Information	  PAGEREF _Toc283112461 \h  24  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283112462"  2.1.3	Characterization of Magnitude of
Fish Losses	  PAGEREF _Toc283112462 \h  26  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283112463"  2.1.4	Usefulness of Introductory
Material and Potential for Bias	  PAGEREF _Toc283112463 \h  29  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283112464"  2.1.5	Presentation Format for Policy
Effects	  PAGEREF _Toc283112464 \h  33  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283112465"  2.1.6	Characterization of Scientific
Uncertainty	  PAGEREF _Toc283112465 \h  35  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283112466"  2.2	Interpretation of Information by
Respondents	  PAGEREF _Toc283112466 \h  38  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283112467"  2.2.1	Eggs and Larvae versus Adult Fish	
 PAGEREF _Toc283112467 \h  38  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283112468"  2.2.2	Interpretation of Ecological
Scores	  PAGEREF _Toc283112468 \h  40  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283112469"  2.2.3	Importance of Program Details	 
PAGEREF _Toc283112469 \h  46  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283112470"  2.2.4	The Warm Glow Effect	  PAGEREF
_Toc283112470 \h  48  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283112471"  2.3	Survey Scenario and Respondent
Decision-making	  PAGEREF _Toc283112471 \h  50  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283112472"  2.3.1	Decision Scenario	  PAGEREF
_Toc283112472 \h  50  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283112473"  2.3.2	Survey Realism	  PAGEREF
_Toc283112473 \h  52  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283112474"  2.3.3	Hypothetical Bias	  PAGEREF
_Toc283112474 \h  54  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283112475"  2.3.4	Participant Confidence and
Certainty	  PAGEREF _Toc283112475 \h  57  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283112476"  2.3.5	Scope Tests	  PAGEREF
_Toc283112476 \h  59  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283112477"  2.4	Budget Issues	  PAGEREF
_Toc283112477 \h  60  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283112478"  2.4.1	Budget Constraints	  PAGEREF
_Toc283112478 \h  60  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283112479"  2.4.2	Payment Vehicle	  PAGEREF
_Toc283112479 \h  64  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283112480"  2.5	Respondent Motivations	  PAGEREF
_Toc283112480 \h  67  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283112481"  2.5.1	Motivations for Protecting Fish	 
PAGEREF _Toc283112481 \h  67  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283112482"  2.5.2	Fish Losses versus Fish
Populations and Ecosystems Condition	  PAGEREF _Toc283112482 \h  71  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283112483"  2.5.3	Government Regulation	  PAGEREF
_Toc283112483 \h  73  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283112484"  2.5.4	Cause of Losses	  PAGEREF
_Toc283112484 \h  75  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283112485"  2.5.5	Geographic Concerns	  PAGEREF
_Toc283112485 \h  76  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc283112486"  2.5.6	Importance of Protecting Aquatic
Ecosystems Compared to Other Issues	  PAGEREF _Toc283112486 \h  79  

 



Presentation of Information to Survey Respondents

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.

[…]

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]

***

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]

***

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?  

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?

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]

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 self-administered.
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   REF _Ref283113769 \r \h  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 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]

***

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]

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 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 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.

[…]

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]

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   REF _Ref283114305 \r \h  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?

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]

***

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 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.

[…]

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]

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   REF
_Ref283114524 \r \h  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.

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]

***

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]

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?

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.

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.  

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]

Interpretation of Information by Respondents

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]

***

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]

***

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]

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 populations (all
fish)”. See Section   REF _Ref283114849 \r \h  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]

***

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.

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]

***

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]

***

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]

***

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]

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].

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
closed-cycle 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]

***

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]

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.

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]

***

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]

Survey Scenario and Respondent Decision-making

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.

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?

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]

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
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]

***

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]

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   REF
_Ref283115760 \r \h  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]

***

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]

***

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]

***

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]

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 —?

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?

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]

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?

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]

Budget Issues

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 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.
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 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.

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?

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]

***

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]

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.

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]

***

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 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]

Respondent Motivations

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]

***

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]

***

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?

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]

***

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]

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]

***

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 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]

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 – 

[…]

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]

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.

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]

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 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?

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?

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]

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 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]

 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. 

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

 Audiotapes for two cognitive interviews were inaudible and could not be
transcribed.

 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.

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

 Audiotapes for two cognitive interviews were inaudible and could not be
transcribed.

Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011	Focus Group Findings	  PAGE  i 

January 19, 2011