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?