R: Well, they [inaudible] research.  So I mean [inaudible] certain.  No,
because nothing is for certain.

M: How do you interpret this word uncertain effects?  What does that
mean to you?

R: That you don’t know the exact number and nobody knows.  You have to
do research and develop policies so that you can make the water better.
[East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #3, pp.4]

***

M: Let's go to page 4. It's that page — yep. So, there's a section
where we talk about what science — scientists can predict. So, based
on the information that was presented here, do you think that scientists
can predict what's going to happen with certainty to fish populations
and the environment from the changes were talking about here? Or — I
mean, what was your sense [crosstalk]

R: I mean, again I'm taking them at their word, but it sounds like they
could be pretty close, but they can't guarantee it. I mean they don't
really know how many babies are born every year and species to — as
far as complete accuracy, no, I don't think so, but I think they
probably overall can do a pretty good job at calculating. I'd say yes.

M: So, is that sort of what you were thinking when you were completing
the survey?

R: Yeah. I mean, I still had, like, OK.

M: Sort of taking them at their word?

R: Yeah.

M: And so that, you know, not being predictable perfectly, you wouldn't
say that affected your responses? Or you'd say that you are satisfied?

R: Yes. Because I'm personally taking — because I'm not, you know, a
fisherman or an — I’m environmentally challenged on some issues. I'm
assuming if you're a scientist and you are doing studies, I'm taking you
at your word. I still don't think that anyone's capable of complete
accuracy in this matter, but I think it affected — I guess it did
affect my answers because I think that taking them that they can do it
pretty decently.  [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #5, pp.3]

Interpretation of Information by Respondents

Eggs and Larvae versus Adult Fish

Participants generally understood that CWIS primary affects “young
fish” which may eventually develop into adult fish. Many participants
stated that the graphic on Page 2 of the survey (“How Fish are
Affected by Water Intake”) helped them understand how CWIS impacts
fish and how it differentially affects eggs, juvenile, and adult fish.
The draft survey was also revised to further clarify the graphic with
arrows linking it to supporting text. Many participants showed an
understanding of the meaning of “young fish” and the relationship
between young fish and adult fish. However, comments by some
participants also revealed that they may have been somewhat confused
about what “young fish” includes. It generally appears that any such
confusion did not prevent respondents from being confident in their
selections in choice questions.

M: What does juvenile fish mean to you?

R: The kids. [laughter] [Several respondents agreed.]

R: It’s like the fish [inaudible/crosstalk]. They don’t know
anything.

R: I was thinking more fish is going to get through the screen if
they’re smaller. The smaller, the more eggs and the more fish you’re
going to lose.  [Charlotte, NC, 9/8/10, pp.8]

***

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

[…]

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

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

R: I like the arrows.  Large fish are easier to kill.  The arrow points
to a larger adult fish.  Juvenile fish and eggs it points to juvenile
fish and eggs.  [Philadelphia, PA, 9/23/10, pp.10]

***

R: The survey did a good job of stressing the importance even though
that the numbers don’t reflect, you know, if you understand what I'm
saying.

M: We are.  I'm sorry, go on.

R: Well, we mentioned this before, but still young eggs and fish are
important to – it gives you some information on whether – so it did
sway just, you know, have some effect on how I answer questions, but an
egg is an egg which grows to an adult, so these help you decide
somewhat, but then I did get lost with the, you know, you don't know how
many gizzard chad or – you know, I don't know if I'm —  [St. Louis,
MO, 8/4/10, pp.21].

***

R: […] "Fish saved for a year."

M: Well let's talk about that one for a little bit.  What was your
impression of what that meant?  What did you think might be confusing
about it?

R: Like the current score for the northeast coastal waters is zero.
[inaudible].  So little or no fish are being saved for a year because
there's no policies in place?  I was a little bit confused on that.  So
that one I read a few times.  Then I kind of said re-read this other
stuff maybe [inaudible] first will make sense.

M: So is it the language that you think is confusing?

R: Yeah.  It's talking about young fish lost per year.  So basically
saying—I mean, I'm reading this a few times.  I guess it's trying to
talk about the younger fish?  What does that mean to be young fish?
What is the criteria for young fish is one of the questions I had.  Is
that the number that the EPA set as [inaudible]?  Is that—like, I
don't know [inaudible]

M: So that's something you thought about when you were doing the survey,
the young fish part?

R: Yeah.  I mean, I notice it's in bold.  So I, you know, it's in bold I
mean, it's important.  Reduction of the young fish lost.  What does that
mean, young fish?  When you say fish I mean, gee you have so many
different types of fish.  Commercial fisherman, then the other types of
fish.  And the EPA has different standards of what could be caught and
what size and so forth.  And to me that was just way too vague and too
broad.

M: So were you trying to think about different species?

R: Yeah.

M: So you feel like you understood—I know you said you re-read it a
few times.  Did you feel like you understood that fish saved effect well
enough when you got to the different policy questions, when you had that
column sitting there?  Did you feel like your understanding was good
enough that you read it a couple of times or—

R: After I read it a few times and going through some of these other
type of topics here, the commercial fish or fish populations.  Then once
that's seen together, the solutions in the fall pages, then it started
making a little more sense.  [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview
#1, pp.5]

***

M: […] Again, these are all very good comments.  Other kind of general
comments on parts of the survey that were clear or that you found
unclear or just general reactions to the survey.

R: I just thought it could be more in-depth.  Like, it just seemed very
vague.  All the background material from page 1 to 7, I thought it could
be more like how they would be implemented and how exactly – One thing
it never addresses that I was kind of wondering about, it addresses
small fish but never eggs and, you know, which one would be more – and
the actual percentages.  I think that would be more beneficial to me.
[Bethesda, MD, 9/8/10, pp.3]

***

M: I'm going to ask a few questions again just based on the information
in the survey, and I apologize if they seem simple, but again it's
important that, you know, that we understand what people are reading
when they read the – a survey talked about saving small fish and fish
eggs.  So when you were thinking about how the – how this works, how
were you thinking that that would affect adult fish or why affect adult
fish?

R: So you mean small fish eggs?

M: Yeah.

R: How would that affect adult fish?

M: Yeah.

R: Well you're not going to have adult fish if there are no fish eggs
[laughter].  [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10, pp.19]

***

M: So you think — so we mentioned small fish and fish eggs in the
survey. Did you find anything about that confusing? Or how that can
affect the population?

R: I would think that killing off eggs and babies would dramatically
reduce the population. I mean, it says even bigger fish can be caught in
it, but killing off the future fish, so, yeah, I think that's very
important.

M: But, did you find that confusing at all?

R: No.

M: Any of the language associated with that?

R: No. I thought it was actually, you know, pretty good.  [East
Providence, 8/12/10, Interview #5, pp.14]

Interpretation of Ecological Scores

Participants generally understood the meaning of the ecological scores
and differences between ecological scores. Multiple respondents
commented on the complexity of the scores, but fewer respondents
indicated that the complexity prevented them from understanding the
scores or from providing meaningful responses. The draft survey was
revised to reduce the detail regarding the ecological scores to prevent
respondents from being confused or overwhelmed. With this information
excluded, participants still appeared to understand the concept being
addressed. This revision also reduces the potential for participants to
focus on measures within the aquatic ecosystem score which are not
affected by the policy options presented in the choice questions (e.g.,
fish tissue contamination). A few participants suggested the
“commercial fish sustainability” score used in the initial draft
survey may be confusing. The draft survey was revised to describe
commercial fishing impacts in terms of a “commercial fish
populations” and participants generally understood the difference
between “commercial fish population” and “fish populations (all
fish)”. See Section   REF _Ref283114849 \r \h  2.1.3  for additional
discussion specific to the “fish saved per year” score.

Participants indicated that it was useful to have the effects specified
separately within the choice questions. Many participants expressed
preferences among the effects, while others said they considered all
effects. Some other respondents focused on the effect exhibiting the
largest changes under the policy options. The draft survey was revised,
changing the order in which ecological effects were presented in the
choice questions in order to reduce the potential for participants to
focus excessively on the “fish saved per year” score when choosing
between policy options or to suggest that it is more important than
other scores.

Participants generally appeared to have some understanding of how the
ecological scores interact and this influenced their responses. Also,
participants generally understood that not all effects will necessarily
improve with an increase in “fish saved per year”. Some
participants’ responses indicated that the choice questions would have
been more difficult if some effects were to go up and others down within
the same policy option. Some others indicated that they still could have
answered the questions.

M: I’m gonna follow up on a number of these things.  Other just kind
of initial thoughts.

R: I kind of agree on page 7 where it first kind of stated like it gave
me what it means in terms of each box.  Sometimes I definitely had to
read that more than once to really get it in my head.  Like, all right,
this is what I need to understand what this means, this means, this
means and this means and how it’s gonna relate to the question I know
I’m gonna be asked.  So, I definitely had to read those boxes a few
times.  It wasn’t that it was hard to understand.  It was just like
you said it was a little maybe complex the way it was written out.  You
had to like, yeah, just had to almost double check.  Do I get this?  All
right.

M: How do other people feel about the general complexity?  And, I mean,
you just made the comment that it was complex but not necessarily hard
to understand.  Is that something that other people agree with?  I mean,
there was another comment there was complex and that made it frustrating
I think was what you commented.  What are other people’s thoughts on
the complexity and whether that made it hard or not hard to understand?

R: Well, I think it’s a pretty complex issue.  And then like I guess
it had to be scaled down so the average person can understand it.
[Philadelphia, PA, 9/23/10, pp.2]

***

M: Was there any information on this page that you just didn’t use,
and it may be different for different people?  Did you look at all the
information that was here?

R: Mm-hmm.

M: Did you feel like you had sufficient information on each of these
attributes?  In other words, were there any of these that you really
felt like you needed more information in order to answer this question?

R: It would have been nice to know how the condition of the aquatic
ecosystem would have been improved besides just a numerical value.

R: And actually add a qualification to that in what ways it will be
improved.  And the first two pages it doesn’t address the ecosystem
really at all.  Besides fish, does it mean any other, you know,
environmental effects or is it simply just fish?

M: What were you imagining when you saw that “condition of aquatic
ecosystems”?  What were you thinking was happening when that changed?

R: I personally thought everything from pollution to the fish to just
everything.  It’s an ecosystem.  Literally comprises everything as a
whole.

M: Is that what the rest of you were thinking?

R: Right down to dissolved oxygen content.  Perhaps the dead zone in the
Chesapeake Bay.  [Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10, pp.8]

***

M: So if you were going to explain to me based on what’s in the survey
in simple terms what the aquatic ecosystem score meant to you when you
were answering these questions, could you explain that? How would you
explain it?

R: It’s just 48 out of 100. To me, that doesn’t seem to be very big.
Same thing with the fish population. 37 out of 100, that’s awful.
What’s going on? But then, I don’t know, it doesn’t make sense to
me why commercial fish is at 65.

M: When you were looking at, say, differences between commercial fish
sustainability and fish population, all fish, was it just that—Were
you just looking at the numbers, or were you thinking about the
differences between commercial fish and all the other fish? In other
words, did it matter to you that these were talking about different
effects, or was it just that—

R: You have to go back and look at the previous pages. There’s another
page, this one here, that explains those other two items. Again, those
are a little bit confusing. The commercial fish thing is a little bit
confusing. The fish population score, that’s the total number.
That’s pretty good, but commercial fishing sustainability score,
that’s—I was reading through that a couple of times. [East
Providence, RI, 7/21/10, pp.14]

***

M: What about moving down, and I’d like to eventually get to question
four, but let’s stay on page seven for a minute, moving down to
commercial fish populations. Could you explain to me how you interpreted
that effect, again, what that just meant to you, what you were thinking,
for example when you saw effect on commercial fish populations in the
sample question and question four, and also when it was described here,
what did you think that meant, in your own mind?

R: Perhaps preventing overfishing by commercial fishermen.

R: What will end up at the supermarket. Commercial fish populations,
how’s this going to affect us, [inaudible].

R: Would that be specifically the fish that are more generally used as
food for people versus some of these other fish that are just fish, and
aside from the fact that they’re God’s creatures, I don’t know why
that should be – unless they’re used for eating up waste and stuff
like that – but then again, I don’t know – but they would be less
important in my opinion than fish that you use for food.  [Waltham, MA,
7/19/10, pp.5]

***

R: So, actually related to that I’d like to turn back.  Let’s
actually look at question 5.  It’s on page 13.  So, was it useful to
you, I mean, in this question we talk about commercial fish populations
vs. all fish populations.  Was that useful to have those split out like
that?

R: Which one?

M: Here at the top we show the question shows the effects on commercial
fish populations on the top line.  Then down below it says fish
populations all fish.  Was it useful to have those effects split out
like that?

R: To me it was.  The fact that you gave the statistics for both types
influenced my answers.  If you just said fish in general, I might answer
a different way.

R: I’d say, yes, that it is good that it’s separated because kind of
what this gentleman is saying.  I think if people are looking at this
and you just have one fish population, they – it’s good that they
can actually think in terms of both.  Because if they just have one
number and people didn’t know if you were referencing fish that
actually affect them and fish that don’t, I do think people would vote
differently.

R: Me personally it didn’t make a difference because again I thought
of the interdependence of the fish.  You know the big fish eat little
fish.  Maybe the big fish only or the commercial type fish but those
fish depend on the other fish.  They’re not consumed by humans.

R: Sure.  And when you looked at that say commercial fish populations
line, what kind of fish were you thinking of?

R: The fish I eat.  I was really concerned [inaudible] [crosstalk].

R: The fish that were mentioned.

R: [inaudible]

R: Striped bass, cod, things like that that they had mentioned.  I
can’t remember what things it was, but they had mentioned certain fish
that’s sustainable for us.  I was thinking more along those lines.

R: I was thinking flounder, haddock and cod.

R: And when you saw that all the fish population all fish, what kind of
things were you thinking about then?

R: Krill, sea robins.  [Philadelphia, PA, 9/23/10, pp.12]

***

M: […] Was it useful – People, a couple folks have said that they
paid attention to fish saved per year.  At least one person said that
condition of aquatic ecosystems was important.  Do you find it useful to
have all these different effects described:  commercial fish
populations, fish populations of all fish, fish saved per year?  Was it
useful to have those things all split out like that?

R: Yes.

M: One yes I heard.

R: Well, I mean just to me the commercial fish populations I don’t –
didn’t affect me.

M: Are you saying that you just didn’t feel that that affected you or
that the information –

R: For me, it was just the cost, the condition of aquatic ecosystems and
the fish saved per year.  That’s all I looked at.

M: How about other folks?  Was it useful to have these different effects
spelled out or not?

R: I thought so.

M: You thought so?

R: Yeah.

R: Yeah.  [Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10, pp.7]

***

M: Yeah, question 4.  It’s on page 11, the first of the questions with
this big table on it.  Sorry, I’m jumping around a little bit.  How
did you answer it?  How did you decide how to answer it?

R: For me, what Louis said before when I saw the dollar amounts, it
seemed relatively inconsequential, and then when I compared A and B,
they’re virtually the same statistics except on fish saved per year,
where there were a lot more fish saved.  It’s like, hey, for twelve
more dollars a year saves 0.3 billion more fish?  So, I selected Option
B.

R: That’s how I felt.

M: How about the rest of you?  How did you –

R: Exactly the same way.  Looking at our families and our kids and our
grandkids.  For twelve dollars a year, it’s a no-brainer.

R: For me, it was conditions of the aquatic ecosystem which was the
primary – Not so much as how much is there but the ecosystem.
[Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10, pp.6]

***

M: Let’s – and as long as we’re talking about the scores, why
don’t we – let’s turn to Question 4.  It’s on Page 11.  Could
you tell me what you voted for and how you decided or why you decided to
answer that way?

R: I voted for Option B.  I think the most striking thing on the page,
or option, was – or statistic, was the 50% and the 1.4 billion fish
saved.  So, that alone helped with my decision.  Then looking down, some
of them are not as much of a difference.  But I’m all for trying to
save as many as we can.  [laughter] So –

M: Were you – when you were answering these questions and you said
that – you know, obviously, the fish saved per year, that had a larger
effect and some of the other ones you mentioned had smaller effects.
Was it useful to you to have the different effects laid out like this on
the page?

R: It was.  I think that some of them that are – and I know that on
one of the other pages, they – some of the percentages stayed the same
on a couple of them.  Those didn’t make me think any deeper into the
decision.  It was more the ones that were – had a larger difference.
But, I mean, I read all of them and all of it was taken into
consideration; but the closer ones, not as much.

M: And when you say, “the closer ones not as much,” why is that?
Was it just because they were closer, or some other reason?

R: That’s a good one.  Well, like the fish population for all fish in
three to five years, 40%, and 43% without human influence, that just
didn’t strike me as a deal-breaker one way or another.  [East
Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #6, pp.2]

***

M: So what did you choose?

R: What option did I choose? I went with B because I saw that was a
higher percentage of fish saved.

R: I did too. I went with B, and I agree. [crosstalk] If everybody kicks
in that is willing to, then we can save more [inaudible]

M: Great. What about the rest of you? How did you decide what to answer?

R: Same way. It’s either two or three dollars, and you’re saving
twice as much fish for an extra buck, come on. [East Providence, RI,
7/21/10, pp.11]

***

M: […] Question 5 where you have the moving from fish saved in the
status quo from zero percent to 75 percent is quite a large change.  And
then commercial fish changing from 43 to 47, a much smaller change.
Could you explain what that meant to you?

R: Well, I mean, I—yes, I think so.  I think I can say that that the
effect on the overall commercial fish population is not going to be as
large as the effect on all—of well, what they say fish saved per year.
 These fish saved per year are simply the fish that were being lost,
like the eggs and the fry that are killed by the hot water—by the
heated water or the ones that get caught in the filters.  Those
are—many of those will die anyway because they’ll be eaten by
others, so again, I was not so concerned with that fish saved per year.
Because to me, the ecosystem is going to—this is all going to work
itself out in the ecosystem.  I was much more concerned about these
upper two and the overall condition of the ecosystem.

M: Would it have mattered to you which order these were on the page, do
you think?

R: No.  No.  I think it would have—no.  It doesn’t matter.  Because,
you know, I think I was a little bit—I don’t think I just looked at
the top thing.

M: All right.  Just different people think differently.

R: It’s true.  I don’t always vote for the first guy on the ballot.
Because his name begins with A. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview
#2, pp.4]

***

M: Well, there's actually two things there that I'd like to get at.  The
idea, and we've only got 90 minutes and so far there are but 1,000
things I want to explore more, but the first thing somebody brought up
is that if you look at fish saved, there's a fairly large it seems, you
know, 25 %, 50 %, so it's fairly large, and then if you look at effects
on say the condition of the aquatic ecosystems, it's much smaller.
Someone mentioned that.  How – when – you can see the same thing for
commercial fish populations.  How did you interpret that, you know, when
you saw that?  What – how did you understand that or [inaudible] you
explain what you thought was going on here?

R: Fish are only part of it, this ecosystem.  You got plants, you got
ocean [inaudible] all sorts of life so that's why they – it's a
different [inaudible] percentage is because fish are only a part of it.
[St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10, pp.11]

***

R: For some reason, it was on page 12 that the last bullet stood out to
me because I felt like up until that point in the survey, my opinion was
guided by the numbers and the facts.  Then it was saying, saving more
fish does not necessarily mean that all the effects will improve. That
swayed me a little.

M: How are you guided that it is going to happen?

R: I was being guided by the fact that I assumed that the higher the
number, the more fish you save automatically the better.

R: I was thinking of that too. [Charlotte, NC, 9/8/10, pp.2]

***

R: That question over here where it says, on page 12, “Saving more
fish does not necessarily mean that all effects will improve.”  If you
take a look at all three charts, saving more fish, everything else is
better.  It doesn’t – One doesn’t follow the other.

M: Did that effect how you answered it, or was that just something you
noticed as  being –

R: Certainly.  I looked at the charts and I said I’m getting more
bounce for the bucks in every one.

[…]

R: If others went down and saving the fish went up, that could have
changed some answers.

M: How would you have interpreted that, if that happened, if “fish
saved” went up but other things went down?  Would that have been
confusing to you or do you feel you could have been able to answer the
question fairly if that had happened?

R: If the “fish saved” went down and the ecosystem went down that
would be confusing.

M: Imagine that say we save some fish, 25 or 75% say in question 5, but
imagine that some of these other things went down, like “condition of
aquatic ecosystems” got worse.  Would that have made the question
confusing to you?

R: Yeah.

M: Yeah?  You think it would have? How about the rest of you?  Would
that have made the question confusing?

R: You spell it out right on page 12, it does not necessarily affect
everything else.

R: I would just assume that there would be more fish swimming around
breathing the oxygen and going to the bathroom and changing the cycle
there and if they had that problem they’d have to fish more.

R: I don’t think it would have been more confusing.  It would have
made me think more about my answer because I would have had to really
weigh the different things.  [Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10, pp.13]

***

M: And weighted, could you explain a little bit more?

R: The order, the order.  The order of importance.  The graph.

M: Let me ask —

R: Like we can actually jump, and I'm not saying everyone, but I did it,
one would not [inaudible] but jump to conclusions, this is the most
important thing, because it's right on top.  I suppose that –

M: What if we put that at the bottom?

R: Pardon me?

R: What if we had put fish saved per year at the bottom?

R: At the very bottom?

M: Well, you know, lower down on the page instead of being up at the
top, we put it —?

R: What is the most important issue in all of this?  The condition of
the aquatic ecosystems, at least in my opinion.  Shouldn't that be
number one?

M: But let me ask the rest, what was the most important issue?  When you
were looking at all these things, what was the most important of these
different attributes here?  Fish saved, commercial fish, fish
populations, condition of the aquatic ecosystem, the cost, what were you
thinking in your mind was the most important?

R: The condition of the aquatic ecosystem for me, but then I really took
it a step further and just thought the condition of the ecosystem.  Not
just aquatic.

M: What about the rest of you?

R: Pertaining to this particular survey, mine was commercial fish
population, and increase in cost [laughter].

M: That's fair.  [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10, pp.14]

Importance of Program Details

Participant understanding of program details based on the survey was
sufficient for them to provide meaningful responses to the choice
questions. Many participants expressed that graphics and charts within
the survey were helpful for illustrating differences between
technologies and potential policy programs. Generally responses from
participants indicated that they understood that policy options would
include a combination of closed cycle and filters. Some participants
indicated that they would have liked to have been provided more detail
regarding the combination of technologies that would be applied under
policy options. The draft survey was revised based on participant
feedback to clarify that new policies could use a combination of closed
cycle and advanced filters. Overall, feedback from participants
indicated that these details might allow they to make a slightly more
informed decision but are unlikely to affect their policy choices.

R: […] These options require a different mix of technologies in
different areas.  It doesn’t really address how they’re different.

M: Do you think that would have affected your answers if the questions
had specified this particular mix of technologies?

R: Possibly.

M: Could you explain how or why that would have affected you?

R:  I don’t know exactly.  If they had actually addressed the
technologies more in the introduction, I think then if they include them
later on that could definitely affect how I would have picked.  But
without knowing anything more about the technologies, that would be just
a meaningless [inaudible].

M: How about the rest of you?  There have been a couple comments about
the technologies.  Do you think it would have been useful to know
exactly which technologies were being applied or wouldn’t that have
mattered to you in terms of how you voted for questions 4 through 6?

R: I assumed it would be a combination of the two.

M: Was that what the rest of you assumed or did you assume something
different?

R: I thought it was a combination.  [Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10, pp.12]

***

R: I thought the questions were a little vague in the sense of it would
require a different mix of techniques or whatever and without really
getting and how would you know what they were and how you know how that
affects?  Just looking at the end price or result.

R: I read the top part and that’s part of the reason why I went for
option A also.  Just because it said you know this different mix of
filters and cooling cycles you don’t know what the end result may be
by using this different mix.  That’s part of it I think.

M: So, when you were answering this question, were you answering it
based on the numbers that were here?  Or were you answering it based on
things that maybe weren’t here kind of things that were in the
background?

R: Both.  Like each time I read when I went to question 5, I had in mind
this is a different set of cooling and filters.  So, you know that was
in the back of my mind also when I was looking at the numbers.

R: So, is that something that you think would have made a difference to
how you would answer?  For example, if we’d given specific say
technological details about cooling towers and advanced filters and
things like that, is that something that would have do you think helped
you give better answers?

R: A slightly more informed answer.  [Philadelphia, PA, 9/23/10, pp.6]

***

M: All right.  And other than the numbers, the effects that were here on
the page, would it really matter to you the specific technology that was
required to get there?  For example, whether it were filters or
closed-cycle cooling, once you knew what the numbers were?

R: No.

M: All right.

R: Not unless you’re a bogus group that talks about, you know, like
– I don’t think that – being somebody that didn’t have to look
for an extended amount of time, I don’t think that would matter. [East
Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #6, pp.8]

***

M: So would you say that the details of the specific programs were
important? Like, for example the technologies that were being used? Or
the specific —

R: Yes.

M: You'd say that those were important?

R: Yes.

M: And would you say that the details of the changes within the options
we showed you were important your decision?

R: Yes, I do.  [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #5, pp.13]

***

M: Actually, let me ask – kind of draw from that and ask the rest of
you, when you saw these things changing, why did you think – what was
happening, for example, option A, what in general was happening, why did
you think these numbers were changing, in other words?

R: I thought they had different technologies for each option.

M: How about –

R: Assumptions. If this happened then – option A, option B –
they’re just assumptions. If this were done, they were hoping to get a
50% increase, et cetera, et cetera.

M: But when you say “if this were done,” what were you thinking
“this” was?

R: The measures taken in controlling the factories and the –

R: If you pay this much, this is what happens.

R: Controlling the industries that are creating the problems, I always
took it back to that. That’s what I thought the preface was, maybe
I’m wrong.  [Waltham, MA, 7/29/10, p.11]

***

M: So when you thought about the programs that were presented in the
survey, the different policies, did you feel like the details were
really important?  I mean, the details of the changes and the details of
what those changes meant.

R: I would like to have seen more information on those two options,
which I guess one would be the enclosed system and the other being the
filter system.  I'd like to have seen more information on that.  Like,
who is going to build it?  Who is going to maintain?  How is it going to
be checked?  Who is going to, you know, who is going to be overseer.  Is
that the EPA and how often?  But, you know, all these type of questions.
 And obviously not as much if you're going to do that.  And what are the
costs to those companies are going to be.  Is it really going to affect
my business?  Is it going to be to the point where we're forcing these
companies in New England to put these filter systems or enclosed systems
in, and it's going to drive these businesses out of this area and go to
different areas.  [inaudible] hate that.  I mean, losing jobs and so
forth.  [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #1, pp.14]

The Warm Glow Effect

Many participants indicated that while they were concerned about the
environment in general, their answers were based on the specific effects
presented in the survey. Comments from some participants that their
policy choices were based primarily on “fish saved per year” suggest
that they felt fish were worth saving for their own sake to some degree.
While participants’ responses indicated that they consider increasing
the “fish saved per year” score a good thing but they generally did
not express a strong response to fish losses specifically. However, a
few participants stated that while they were making decisions based on
the effects presented within the survey, their choices were based at
least partially on a desire to help the environment in general.

Some participants indicated that it was difficult to choose the status
quo after reading the introductory information and some others indicated
that they thought that “they could do a thing” given the relatively
low household cost. A few respondents indicated that they were inclined
to support environmental causes and would like “to do a good thing”
but still considered the cost and effects under the policy options.

M: I'd like to push on and again I apologize.  I go back to things
'cause I write notes and I want to make sure to kind of revisit

[…]

R: That's a lot of money for some people.

R: But that's your choice, what they spend their money on.

R: I'm tired of spending money on government stuff myself, you know.
Every time you turn around, they want more.

R: I don't think that's true.

R: The other thing about the survey on people in general is – forgive
me – [inaudible] what I'm saying is – or what I'd like to say is
that it's pretty difficult to become emotional with fish.  If we're
talking about puppy dogs, everyone would be scrambling to fill this out.
 I don't know if people really give a hoot about how many fish are
saved.

R: I care because I like to eat it.  [laughter]  [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10,
pp.10]

***

M: […]  Were the specific effects important to you when you were
answering?  Or were you answering just because maybe you want to do your
part or do the right thing or something like that?

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

R: I have to admit, I voted generally for the higher plan until we got
to question 6, where the condition of the ecosystem didn’t change.
So, I voted for the 24 dollar one.  Not because – I mean if the
ecosystem had improved, the 72, I would have gone that way, but since
there was no change and that was the main thing that I was looking at.

M: Let’s turn to question 6.  Is everyone there?  This is a different
question.  Could other folks tell me how you decided to answer that
question?

R: I did the same as Leah.

R: I also, yes.

R: To save 400 million fish for such a small amount.

[…]

R: If you put a zero behind each one of those numbers, I’d have to
think about it very harder than, you know, 24 dollars a year.  So, I
don’t go out to eat twice.

M: When other folks were looking at the money, were you thinking about,
for example, what that 24 dollars would really mean in terms of what’s
it worth to you or what you might not be able to do with it?

R: Not for 24 dollars, but 240 dollars I would.

R: I agree.  With 24 dollars, that’s, you know, you can easily spend
that, but 240 dollars, that does mean a lot more to a lot more people.
[Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10, p.11]

***

M: Sometimes when looking at questions like this and again it’s a
similar question but not quite exactly the same.  You might, I mean, one
way that one might look at this question is to answer and say, if I vote
for option A, I’m gonna get a certain change in commercial fish, a
certain change in fish population, a certain change in fish safety.  And
I suppose another way that one might look at it is, well, I want to do a
good thing.  I want to do the right thing.  And you know it doesn’t
really matter to me exactly what’s going on.  I just you know I want
to do my part.  You know I want to do a good thing.  Which would you say
are either of those – do either of those describe what you were doing?
 Or which is closer to what you were doing when you answered these
questions?

R: Mine was like, yeah, if we can do something to help as long as the
price is right, then do it.  And at first I just kind of glanced through
the numbers.  And then I really looked I thought, well, there’s really
not much effect until – but there is a big effect here.  We’re
saving to me it looks like a large number of fish.  And I was expecting
the economic price to be a whole lot higher.  And I thought, well, for
$3 a month or $2 a month, yeah, that’s worth it.  If it was much
higher, I would probably have looked at it and said you know I’d be
more inclined to keep the status quo.  [Philadelphia, PA, 9/23/10,
pp.15]

***

M: […] As long as you mentioned pricing, when you were looking at
these dollar amounts, were you taking those seriously? Were you thinking
of those as dollars that you would really have to pay?

R: Yeah.

R: I was wondering how the increases would filter down. I knew I was
going to pay them. I was just thinking about how it was going to filter
down to us. How do they arrive at the cost? Is it—Obviously, if an
industry needs to refurbish their cooling system, they’re going to
have a cost. Yes, they’re going to add to the price of their products.
All these systems, that’s all I was going—To me, it seemed cheap. 36
dollars seemed pretty cheap if you’re going to do this across the New
England region. I thought maybe they missed something. I don’t know.
That’s my thought.

R: Most people see this, they’re going to check off the least amount
to owe. [crosstalk] We’re sitting here saying we’re going to check
this because we know the environment stuff, but most people don’t even
recycle, you know what I mean?

R:  I feel if it’s going to benefit everyone and be better for the
economy, I’m OK with paying a little bit more.

R: [inaudible]

M: When you looked at those dollar amounts, were you thinking about how
that would affect what you could afford, what you could buy, things like
that?

R: You look at some people that spend money on cigarettes that are not
good for you, whereas five dollars a month, I think, is going to
something that’s going to be good for us.

R: I look at it like a donation. If it was a capital campaign of some
sort, would I donate to save fish? Yes, I would. I would pay 36
[crosstalk] I would pay 36 bucks.  [East Providence, 7/21/10, pp.12]

***

M: What do you think about your confidence in answering the survey and
did you feel that the survey was pushing you to answer it?

R: I thought the difference between these levels were sort of nominal.
They’re talking about zero dollars versus $6.00 a month. I think in my
case that for six bucks it’s something that’s well worth it. I tend
to say, why not? It’d be worth doing. I saw it being a very nominal
cost for the benefit you’re getting.  [Charlotte, NC, 9/8/10, pp.4]

Survey Scenario and Respondent Decision-making

Decision Scenario

Participants understood the choice task correctly and generally believed
that the survey decision scenario was clear. Most indicated that they
followed the survey’s instruction to evaluate each policy question on
its own and did not compare policy options across pages. A small
minority of participants stated that they did look page across the
choice questions when completing the participants looked back across
pages but these participants generally indicated that this was to help
them better understand. When probed it was clear that they were
answering the choice questions on their own.

M: So were you comparing them across this or across different pages?

R: No, across this page.

R: I was comparing across pages.

R: I did too.

R: I did too.

R: But I did look back, not to compare, but I did look back just to see
how I answered just because I wanted to be consistent in my answers and
my thinking was like I just want to make sure that I'm thinking about
this right and being consistent.  So I don't know that I compared, I
just wanted to make – I think it helped me understand.

M: Well let me ask, when you were looking at – and this goes I think
for everybody, when you look at each question, were you answering it in
a sense on its own —

R: Yeah, I did.

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

R: No, on its own.

R: On its own.

R: On its own.  [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10, pp.7]

***

M: Just moving back to the, kind of between different questions issue,
when you were looking – let’s just look at questions four, five, and
six for now, the regional questions. Did you feel that – when you were
answering them – would you say that you were answering them
independently as each question?

R: [crosstalk]

R: I did, because I was looking at the percentage, it wasn’t much of a
difference from beginning to end.

M: When you’re saying – which question were you looking at now?

R: Well, all of them. When I answered all of them, I was looking at them
percentage-wise, but when I got to eight I was looking at price-wise,
dear God, definitely no. Especially when it’s no longer just the
coastal northeast, it’s the whole United States that’s being
affected.  [Waltham, MA, 7/29/10, pp.15]

***

M: When you were answering this question, and I'm spending, you know, a
little more time on Question 4 because it's a little more complex than
some of the other questions.  Were you looking at all these different
effects and fish saved per year and commercial fish and fish
populations, or did you find yourself considering each of those effects
separately?  Did you look at one and not the other?  How were – when
you were actually going through and deciding what to answer, how did you
– what was going on in your head?

R: I looked at each – considered each.

R: I looked at each, but the most important is the total fish saved per
year.

R: [inaudible] a variety of [inaudible] was more important than another
[inaudible] I looked at them all, [inaudible] three bucks, sure, save a
fish for three bucks.  [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10, pp.8]

***

M: These different effects, we were talking about some of them. We were
just talking about the commercial fish sustainability and the fish
population. Were you looking at all of those when deciding how to
answer, or were there certain things that you didn’t look at?

R: I looked at the big zero dollars. That’s all I wanted to see.

M: That’s fair. How about the rest of you? Another way, I guess, of
asking this is, did you use all the information that was here, or were
there some pieces of information that you just didn’t really look at?

R: I looked at it all.

M: Were all these things at least somewhat important to you? Did you
consider all of them?

R: I think the commercial fish sustainability is going to be a big one.
We all want to see zero, but if we crush the commercial fishing
industry, that’s less [inaudible] If you look at it as a whole, their
catch limits are going down. [inaudible]  [East Providence, RI, 7/21/10,
pp.12]

Survey Realism

Participants were generally willing to accept the information presented
in the survey at face value. There were some objections regarding the
information presented in the survey, and for the most part these
objections were related to a perceived insufficiency of information. An
objection was raised in early focus groups regarding the basis for
values presented in the survey and why it did not list specific
information sources. While participants generally suspected the numbers
were based on government data, some respondents expressed that listing
sources would add credibility. A statement listing organizations which
contributed data was added to Page 1 and this appeared to resolve much
of these concerns. Overall, participants appeared to approach the
numbers and consider them as if they were real when choosing between
policy options.

M: Would it have been useful to have that information, where the numbers
came from?

R: Yes.

R: Yes, it would.

R: Yeah.

R: [crosstalk]

R: Some degree of credibility to it, rather than just an arbitrary
number that somebody in school [inaudible].

R: You have to list your sources, like “Where did you get these
numbers from?” anybody that does a presentation in any class or
whatever, you have to put your sources like what journal, whoever said
it, what year did it come from, all that stuff.  [Waltham, MA, 7/29/10,
pp.10]

***

M: Would it have mattered to you if these numbers were different?

R: Well, it might have—I guess it might have—if they were more
dramatic, perhaps it might have, you know, made me look a little harder,
you know, maybe, I guess if—maybe I would have been even more
skeptical.  I’m not sure.  But I think if the numbers were more
dramatic, that may have swayed me to think that they were maybe a little
more valid, you know, even though I can’t believe them.  You know, but
how can anybody even measure a 1 or 2 percent change, especially when
you consider—sure you can do it for a year, you know, but how can
you—to do something like that long-term and what other factors have
entered in the meantime, so who knows what is going on.  You know what
I’m saying?

M: So after, you know, again after what you just said, did you answer
the question based on the numbers that were here or not?

R: I think I answered the question based on that sure I would like to
improve things.  I certainly wasn’t going to say stick with the status
quo because I don’t think we’re doing things very well.  On the
other hand, I’m—you know, I’m not so naïve to think that we’re
going to make great inroads with just minor changes. […]  [East
Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #2, pp.2]

***

M: […] did you think the cost of the programs were realistic based on
what you were getting out of it? I know you voted yes for some policy
options, but did you really think about, you know, whether those costs
seemed realistic relative to, you know, other things that you pay for,
or whatever kinds of regulations might cost?

R: I mean they were specified. A lot of the times you don't get that,
you know the specifics on an average. I’m assuming that was an average
of this is what, per household — I didn't think it was that much. I
mean, I do feel strongly enough that we do need to help the environment
in all aspects, and I feel a lot of people feel like that, but they also
think that cost at this time in the economy — people just don't have
it. And it’s unfortunate. It's gonna make a difference in the way they
vote, I personally think.  [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #5,
pp.12]

***

M: Unless there are any other, are there any other general comments at
all?

R: Yes, one, zero to 100 is rather confusing, so I just –

R: I agree on that one.

R: The way it’s stated in some scenarios is rather [inaudible]. And
then you’ve got a situation where your fish, say there’s no score,
and then you’ve got a score of maybe 43. Where’s the relevance in
those scores? How accurate or – what’s the basis for that score, and
how is that determined in some general sense? Is that 100% realistic?
Because those scores are going to have to do with what I’m going to be
willing to pay. So if it’s a random score and they’re just guessing,
“Oh, it’ll be 50% [inaudible] 43%,” what does that mean?

R: Yeah, it goes from 43 to 45, is that statistically significant to
whatever we’re paying as a whole population?  [Waltham, MA, 7/29/10,
pp.4]

***

M: What was going through your mind about; you got one very large change
and then a bunch of small ones, did that make sense to you?

R: It made sense to me. [One respondent agreed.] It explains to you on
the side here what the percentage is about. All population in this
percentage is going to be smaller because there is a lot more fish than
[inaudible].

R: I see the 1% or the 2% as, that’s just 1% or 2%. I’ll either just
kind of gaze in the pasture; use that to confirm my answer to the new
one.

R: I refer it as these just being things that we just can’t prevent
like they said, 100% if we didn’t have any influence on it, this is
what will happen. That’s going to happen and then at commercial,
you’re going to have commercial fish. I thought that those areas were
just, those would be realistic because there’s not much you really can
do about those but you can do a lot about the cooling system in saving
the fish.  [Charlotte, NC, 9/8/10, pp.6]

***

M: So did you sort of think of these as being real policy options when
you were doing it?  Did you treat it like you were—the information you
were providing would be used by EPA?

R: Yeah.  I like to think so.

M: And did it seem—they seemed like realistic type choices?  Anything
stand out to you as not being realistic?

R: I mean, you kind of—you like to think the EPA is straightforward
and [inaudible] they all have their own agenda.  I mean, you always hear
about commercial fishermen complaining and whining.  Not whining, you
know, arguing about the regulations that's placed upon them as not
realistic and so forth.  That kind of played into my mind as hopefully
the EPA is listening to the concerns and so forth that also look into
the other [inaudible] can't all go fishing in our waters and so forth.
What is the best policy to go forth [inaudible] and so forth.  [East
Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #1, pp.11]

***

M: We’ll call them question attributes.  Would you have wanted to have
more information on any of them, or were any of them too unclear?  Did
– you wanted to really know something more?  Or did you feel like you
had enough information on each of these to make a reasonable vote?

R: I think that there was enough information.

M: Did you think of this as being a realistic choice when you were
answering it?

R: Yeah.  [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #6, pp.9]

Hypothetical Bias

Participants took the survey questions seriously and indicated that they
thought that their choices would actually influence policy. They thought
that their responses would be used by the government to make policy
decisions. Some took the mere development of the survey as an indication
that the government would be using their input to make policy decisions
and that their response was important. Many participants were confident
when asked whether their choices would be different if they knew the
vote was binding. Some participants expressed mixed impressions of why
EPA had developed the survey and how their responses would be used for
decision making. Overall, participants thought that their votes were
important. Participants also indicated that they thought of the “cost
line” in the choice questions as real costs that they household may
have to pay if the policy option was enacted. See Section   REF
_Ref283115760 \r \h  2.4.1  for discussion of focus group results
related to budget constraints.

M: Did you think the government would use this to help improve the
policy, do you think that your answers would matter?

R: I do. [One respondent agreed.]

R: It says here that your answer will help the government decide which
policies will be    inactive, unless that’s a lie. [laughter]

R: Or they wouldn’t be doing this survey.

R: Offered their time and money into doing all this.

R: It’s just like with the smokestacks that put out the CO2, that have
special filters and all that. The government regulates how much you can
put out. That’s going to be the same thing with this. They’re going
to regulate how many fish you can suck in to your filters and kill. This
is just trying to give us some benefits of not killing as many of the
fish. That’s the one thing; it doesn’t really say what does this
mean. Does this mean the government is doing this and decides to make
more rules for these plants or are we doing this to give the plant some
idea of what we’d accept?

M: When you were answering this survey, why did you think that EPA was
doing it?

R: It’s about regulation on filters.

M: How did you interpret why EPA was asking these questions?

R: Because they wanted to do something. Even like going back to your
earlier question about, with my permission, I think with current
administration and everything, it would matter. Something would get
done, but it varies according to who’s in office and who’s making
the policies.

R: I just assumed the EPA is trying to see how many allies they have.

R: They even want to...

R: Who would vote in their favor before they go to wherever they need to
go. [One respondent agreed.]  [Charlotte, NC, 9/8/10, pp.11]

***

M: So you know that these questions are hypothetical?  Do you feel like
your answers would have been different if you knew with certainty that
you were going to have to pay that amount rather than just being a
survey right now?  I mean, if you—

R: No.  It would have been the same actually.  It would be nice if we
had this type of—these type of if you want to call if a valid
questions on the next election, you know, instead of supporting some
legal [inaudible] for bragging [inaudible] you or I or some new building
for you or I or some new cleaning facility that's going to filter our
waters or whatever, clean our waters.  That would be something that I'd
be willing to invest some support and so forth.

M: So if it was a referendum, I think you would have answered similarly?

R: Definitely. […]  [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #1,
pp.11]

***

M: Going back to question 4, imagine that you actually saw this and it
was a binding vote that you saw, say a referendum or, you know you were
actually making a decision that would influence what the government did,
would you vote the same way?

R: Yes.

R: Yes, but I would hope that I would have done a lot more research
beforehand to answer those questions that I had.  [Bethesda, MD,
8/18/10, pp.9]

***

M: So, would you say, I mean, even though this is hypothetical and we're
not asking you to pay the money as you walk out the door — would you
say that you thought about it as if it was real money that you actually
pay?

R: Yes, I did. I mean, that's kind of how I took it in the beginning
when, like, I'm gonna make these decisions is that they are true, they
are real, and what would I decide if I had to make a decision.

M: So you were thinking about these might be things that actually happen
in the future?

R: Yes.

[…]

M: And would you say that you, when you're answering the survey, did you
think that the results might actually be used by the government? I mean
did you think that your vote was important?

R: Yes.

M: Did you think that affected the way you answered?

R: No, I mean the person — the type of person that I am I'm an answer
as honestly, so one way or the other, I still think it's important.
That's why I'm being here asking this. You gotta be honest one way or
the other, so it would be nice if it made a difference, but I'm still
gonna be honest. [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #5, pp.13]

***

M: And so if you – you know, if this were – instead of being just a
survey that we’re answering today, if this were, say, a real binding
vote and, you know, you – this was – say you were in a voting booth
and someone saw a question like this.  Would you have voted the same
way, do you think, if real money – you know, real money would be on
the line?

R: Definitely.  [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #6, pp.3]

***

M: What I'd like to do – I have a whole 10 minutes left and there's
lots and lots of questions that I would love to ask, but I'd just like
to ask a few questions that I have on my list that I wanted to make sure
to ask.  When you were answering this survey, I mean, we're obviously
testing the survey today, but based on how you looked at the survey, did
you consider that the results might actually be used by say EPA or the
government in deciding what to do?

R: Yes.

R: Mm-hmm.

R: Mm-hmm.

M: And so when you were answering that, I mean, were you taking the
question seriously, I guess?

R: Yes.

M: So most people are nodding.  And, you know, a little while ago the
– some various discussions about a couple people commented that well,
this tends to focus a lot on fish, and there were some other comments
about kind of broader effects on ecosystems – when you were voting on
this, were the details important to you?  Were the numbers important to
you?  For this question?

R: For the national one.

R: Yeah.  Any percentage matters, even just one %.  And I want to – on
page 17, the last question, [inaudible] to preserve fish and the
ecosystem's future generations, I think that the whole [inaudible] thing
should elaborate on that because it would hook more people.  Some people
just don't get that it's [inaudible] ecosystem.  [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10,
pp.18]

***

R: Were you thinking about it like this is you know $2 out of my pocket,
if I vote for this?

R: Yeah.

R: Yeah.

R: Absolutely.

R: [inaudible]

M: And you know one thing about the survey is you know it’s just a
survey question.  I mean, if you check the box, it’s not like someone
actually comes and takes $2 from you or depending on what you vote.  Do
you think you know if this were a binding vote, I mean, if you were in a
voting booth and you were being asked to check a box and you know this
was actually gonna go into effect if enough people voted for it.  Would
you have voted the same way do you think?

R: If it looked just like this?

M: Yeah.  Assume you got exactly the same, I mean, aside from the other
things we’ve been talking about.  Imagine you had the same thing but
instead of being a paper survey imagine this were something that this is
a binding vote.  And it’s you know it’s gonna affect regulations on
the spot.  Do you think you’d have answered the same way?

R: If I believed that it was gonna affect regulations, I think I would
voted the same exact way.  If I was unsure it was gonna change anything,
I definitely would vote different.

M: So, in other words and please correct me if I’m wrong, but if you
were saying that if this was correct and if you were sure that this was
gonna do what it said it was gonna do, then you would vote the same way
that you just did.

R: Correct.

R: I just wanted to be clear.  How about other folks would you have
voted the same way you know if this were a binding vote you know?

R: Yes.

R: Yeah.

M: Yeah?

R: Yes. [Philadelphia, PA, 9/23/10, pp.8]

***

M: If you had seen this in an actual voting booth, do you think you
would have voted the same way?

R: Mm-hmm [affirmative].

R: Yes. This almost forces you to vote yes or no instead of this middle,
where you say you somewhat agree or whatever that option was.
[Charlotte, NC, 9/8/10, p.3]

***

M: When you were answering the survey and stated that all of this may be
enacted by the government, you said that in the real world it would work
differently. Did you think that this was just for research purposes, and
that it’s not the real policy?

R: Yeah, I did. I still do [laughter].

M: What makes you think that?

R: Because it’s the first I’m hearing about it. I didn’t hear –
I mean,

M: What if you didn’t hear about it?

R: If I didn’t know this is – if I didn’t hear anything about this
with the government going on – I hadn’t heard about this. So to
think that this is actually going to happen is one thing, but because I
never heard of this – the cooling water affecting the fish, and the
government and all that. I just assumed that no, it wasn’t going to
happen.

M: What would you like to see in the survey to help you to understand
that that maybe a policy?

R: I don’t think it has to do with survey. I think it’s more the
public knowledge, and if it was advertising more, with the news and what
have you, newspapers and all that. As opposed to actually putting out a
survey. That’s my opinion.

M: So you think that the fact that it’s not advertised in the
newspapers –

R: Yeah, absolutely. I’m thinking something, too, to do with the
contact [inaudible]. You could do a survey on it. [inaudible] You
wouldn’t have to put on it that this is an actual, real survey. I
think it’s just – you can advertise, you can put them out
[inaudible] on the news and things like that.  [East Providence, RI,
8/12/10, Interview #4, pp.8]

Participant Confidence and Certainty

Some participants felt very certain about their answers. Some others
expressed confidence but thought that additional information might
improve their confidence or impact their choices. A few participants
indicated that a specific piece of information, such as job losses,
might improve their confidence. The vast majority indicated that they
were neutral or confident in their responses to Question 8, with those
lacking confidence as a small minority. Among participants indicating a
lack of confidence, a lack of information was typically cited as the
primary reason rather than confusion regarding the survey format or
decision scenarios. When asked, many participants tended to agree that
they would vote the same way if in a “voting booth” or if questions
were part of a referendum. A few participants agreed but caveated their
response somewhat, hoping that they would have done additional research
prior to answering.

M: But let me ask you with regard to that – I want to spend some more
time on the specifics of this question, but at the end of the day, how
confident did you feel on your – with your answers to say, Question 4
and Question 5, the choice questions like this?

R: I didn't feel at all confident —

M: You didn't feel at all confid —?

R: — so I just put "No policy" on everything, 'cause I don't feel like
I have enough information to – I mean the amount of money per month
– I don't have anything to justify it.  I don't feel like it's – I
know how big the problem is, so I know how much money it would be worth
spending on it, I guess.

M: I'd like to follow up on that, so don't let me forget about – how
did other people feel?

R: Based on the data you provided us [inaudible] on the data in the
survey.

M: How about other folks – I have a mix of – I'm seeing some nodding
heads, is that confident or not confident?

R: Confident.

R: That's what I said based on what I had I feel confident.  If I would
be provided more information maybe my answers would be different.

M: That's fair.

R: Confident.

R: Yeah.

R: Yeah, I'm pretty much confident.  [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10, pp.8]

***

Before I get there, though, I guess I’d like to ask how did you feel
about your answers?  Did you feel confident about the answers you
provided in the survey?

R: No.

M: No?

R: I mean, I felt like – Generally, I just felt like OK, I think that
all species are important, and sixty dollars a year is not that much to
spend for that.  Let me just put that out there.  I just kind of
generalized it in my head, just did it kind of quickly at a certain
point.  So, I don’t feel like I really analyzed it and went over it in
my head.

M: How about the rest of you?  Would you say you felt confident about
your answers?  Not confident?

R: To be really more confident, I would need more information besides,
“Oh, we’re going to use the recycling water and different filters in
some sort of combination”.

R: This is not something many of us think about on a daily basis.

R: Yeah.

R: And I’d want to know if there are any job losses related to this.
[Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10, pp.3]

***

M: Did you feel that you were being pushed to answer in a certain way by
the questions?

R: No, uh-uh [negative].

R: I didn’t felt like I was pushed a certain way, but I wasn’t
confident in my answers. I just answered the best that I thought that I
could in the information that was given. If I had taken a test, I feel
like I would fail. [laughter]

R: It almost makes you answer about your feeling and not after you
analyzed something.

M: What do you think about your confidence in answering the survey and
did you feel that the survey was pushing you to answer it?

R: I thought the difference between these levels were sort of nominal.
They’re talking about zero dollars versus $6.00 a month. I think in my
case that for six bucks it’s something that’s well worth it. I tend
to say, why not? It’d be worth doing. I saw it being a very nominal
cost for the benefit you’re getting.

[…]

M: Did you feel confident in your answers?

R: I feel confident. I think the whole point of this is not to give us
all the details that we need to know about exactly what they’re going
to do but maybe to get the feel of the public as far as how much we’re
willing to give to protect our recreational and our fish and their
population. I wasn’t so much concerned about having to know. I got the
feeling they just wanted to know how much it was, how far I’m willing
to go to protect that. I feel like this, if we sit back and don’t
protect it, it’s going to be too late at some point.  [Charlotte, NC,
9/8/10, pp.4]

***

M: […] In general, moving on from the information, in terms of
overall, how confident did you feel you about your answers to the survey
in general?

R: Not confident at all.

M: Not confident?

R: Uninformed.

M: When you say uninformed, other than that, are there other reasons why
you did not feel confident? Or can you explain why you didn’t feel
confident?

R: To me, it was just because I don’t think there was enough
information to answer those questions. Questions six and eight,
[inaudible] we know what the two options were. Either you’re going to
use screens or you’re just going to keep circulating the same water.
You’re asking me to choose two other options that I have no idea what
they’re doing, how they’re preventing with the program. How can I
answer a question on something that I don’t even know what the whole
program—

M: What are some other reactions to how confident or not confident you
felt about the answers you gave?

R: Like you said at the beginning, there’s no right or wrong answer to
those. So you can be confident that you made a choice. [crosstalk]

R: I was talking in my answer [crosstalk] I was looking at the options
to choose, so with the information I was given, with my choices, I’m
comfortable with what I put down.  [East Providence, RI, 7/21/10, pp.5]

***

M: Going back to question 4, imagine that you actually saw this and it
was a binding vote that you saw, say a referendum or, you know you were
actually making a decision that would influence what the government did,
would you vote the same way?

R: Yes.

R: Yes, but I would hope that I would have done a lot more research
beforehand to answer those questions that I had. [Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10,
pp.9]

Scope Tests

Participants’ responses provide some evidence that the utility
participants gain from saving fish increases when more fish are saved,
but at a declining rate. Many participants indicated that they would be
willing to pay more money to save additional fish. However, some
participants who were willing to pay some money to avert some fish
losses (Option A) were not willing to pay additional money to avert
additional losses (Option B). Some valued increases in fish saved but
were unwilling to bear greater cost without significant increases in
other ecological effects. One participant stated this was because he
would rather get some improvement while saving some money.

M: Yeah, question 4.  It’s on page 11, the first of the questions with
this big table on it.  Sorry, I’m jumping around a little bit.  How
did you answer it?  How did you decide how to answer it?

R: For me, what Louis said before when I saw the dollar amounts, it
seemed relatively inconsequential, and then when I compared A and B,
they’re virtually the same statistics except on fish saved per year,
where there were a lot more fish saved.  It’s like, hey, for twelve
more dollars a year saves 0.3 billion more fish?  So, I selected Option
B.

R: That’s how I felt.

M: How about the rest of you?  How did you –

R: Exactly the same way.  Looking at our families and our kids and our
grandkids.  For twelve dollars a year, it’s a no-brainer.  [Bethesda,
MD, 8/18/10, pp.6]

***

M: And you felt that you were able to answer the question given the way
you were thinking about the numbers as the result of studies or educated
guesses?  When you were answering question 4, and question 5 and 6, what
I’ll call “the choice questions”, were you focusing mainly on the
things that were on the page here, “effects on fish”, and were you
thinking of that when you were choosing?  Or were you answering just
because maybe you wanted to do the right thing?  Were the specific
effects important to you when you were answering?  Or were you answering
just because maybe you want to do your part or do the right thing or
something like that?

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

R: I have to admit, I voted generally for the higher plan until we got
to question 6, where the condition of the ecosystem didn’t change.
So, I voted for the 24 dollar one.  Not because – I mean if the
ecosystem had improved, the 72, I would have gone that way, but since
there was no change and that was the main thing that I was looking at.
[Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10, pp.11]

***

M: Could I just ask how did you decide how to answer this question 4?
Anybody?

[…]

R: I actually went based on what everyone else is saying I assume
everybody went with option B.  I actually went with option A and only
because as much as it seems like a tiny bit of money and it’s only a
dollar difference, we really don’t know the overall effect of this
option in terms of granted, yes, it’s saving 50% more fish.  But at
the same time we don’t know the other effects of this policy.  So, I
went with the safer route in terms of saving a little bit of money but
also still improving the problem.  I feel like if after the first couple
years it showed improvement, then I could see maybe going with option B
in trying to increase, if we see that we’re actually meeting the goals
that are here.  Does that make sense?  I don’t know.  [Philadelphia,
PA, 9/23/10, pp.4]

Budget Issues

Budget Constraints

Most participants considered their budget when choosing between specific
policy options and some stated that household cost was the most
important factor in their decision. Even though some respondents stated
that they did not focus on the cost of the proposed policy option, their
comments and responses to follow-up questions generally revealed that
they simply didn’t view the household cost amounts under the policy
options as significant relative to their personal budget constraints.
Another participant indicated that household cost wasn’t his primary
focus when choosing between policies because of the importance of the
issue. Some participants indicated that they would have to think harder
about budget trade-off if the amounts were higher. Others indicated that
they were evaluating the cost effectiveness of options based on changes
in the ecological scores. The presentation of household cost in terms of
both monthly and annual amounts appeared to help respondents to
realistically compare increases to their household budget, with some
choosing to focus on monthly amounts and others on annual cost. Overall,
participants approached the questions as if the household cost amounts
would actually come out of their pocket.

M: Could I just ask how did you decide how to answer this question 4?
Anybody?

R: I like looked at that thing pretty much and just said you know how
much fish were saved and ultimately from the bottom just increased the
cost of household.

M: How about other thoughts?

R: Basically the same thing where the cost that it would cost.  It’s
almost negligible that $3 or $2 a month [inaudible] just ‘cause you
know a day so.  It wouldn’t affect me too much.  [Philadelphia, PA,
9/23/10, pp.4]

***

M: OK, so you voted for option A?  Other folks voted for option B?  Did
anybody vote for no policy?  If this dollar amount had been high enough,
would some folks have voted for no policy?

R: If which dollar amount?

M: For example, imagine that instead of 72 dollars, that had been 372
dollars.  I’m just making that number up.  Would that have caused
anybody to vote for no policy?

R: As opposed to 24 dollars?

M: Yes.  In other words, if the cost had been substantially higher than
what was listed here, would people have changed their votes?

R: Depending on the value.

R: Depending upon what’s on B.  If 24 stays on B.

M: Good point.  I guess I was asking imagine that both of the costs on A
and B went up significantly.

R: If you put a zero behind each one of those numbers, I’d have to
think about it very harder than, you know, 24 dollars a year.  So, I
don’t go out to eat twice.

M: When other folks were looking at the money, were you thinking about,
for example, what that 24 dollars would really mean in terms of what’s
it worth to you or what you might not be able to do with it?

R: Not for 24 dollars, but 240 dollars I would.

R: I agree.  With 24 dollars, that’s, you know, you can easily spend
that, but 240 dollars, that does mean a lot more to a lot more people.
[Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10, pp.11]

***

M: So what did you select for an answer on that one?

R: The first option, the 10%.

M: 1-10%?

R: Yeah.

M: Do you mind talking about what you were reasoning for that?

R: It's my personal situation at this time, many-wise. That's the only
reason, because if I was working at my old job making the money that I
was making, I would probably have chose a higher amount. That's the only
reason.

M: So would you say that you were more willing to pay for changes that
were in the Northeast US as compared to other areas of the country in
general?

R: No, I'm saying I can't pay more.

M: You're saying you can’t pay more.

R: Yes, I mean my financial situation at this time.

M: So you care about them, you just —

R: Yes, yes. I mean if I had to vote on it based on what the cost would
be, that would be something that's severe to me at this moment, but if I
was still working at my old job, then it wouldn't affect me because was
make a very good money and it's still important, but I could afford the
higher increase to pay.

M: So it sounds like from what you said previously you were really
thinking about the amount of money and sort of the trade-offs, like
thinking about in terms of the budget, would you say that's true?

R: Yes. I mean, I know it's important and if necessary, and I think we
all should be able to pay to help it — to improve it for our future,
but I'm just saying in my particular, you know, where I'm at in my life
right now, that’s what I would be willing to pay if I had a choice —
if I was given a choice as far as — again, if the situation was
different, I still think it's just as important, but I'd be able to pay
more. I'd be able to give more.  [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10,
Interview #5, pp.12]

***

M: […] Could you tell me, looking at question four, how you decided
– how you answered and how you decided what to answer? In other words,
how did you answer that question?

R: I voted for option B.

R: So did I.

M: Could you tell me why you chose to -- ?

R: Because the fish saved per year doubled under this. And relatively,
there was only a 2% difference – differential in the condition of
aquatic ecosystems, and the cost per month came out to only $3 per
month, which I feel is very affordable.  [Waltham, MA, 7/29/10, pp.6]

***

M: So is it fair to say that the cost to your household was the most
important factor in your –

R: Yeah. Absolutely.

M: Let’s look at question seven, page 15.

R: Actually, I would like to change this one, because I put [inaudible]
– can I change that?

M: Sure, yeah.

R: What I don’t understand because it’s not coming out of my
paycheck and it’s something you want to have sympathy for what’s
going on, and you want to do something about it, it’s fine. But when
you find out it’s coming out of your paycheck, no. It’s totally
different. 15.

M: How did you respond to this question?

R: Questions 4 to 6, I put the cost to my household was too high. The
problems created by private facilities, they should fix it without
passing on the cost to consumers.

M: So these are the most important factors.  [East Providence, RI,
8/12/10, Interview #4, pp.8]

***

R: I mean, are these realistic expectations?  Like the policy would only
– ‘cause to me going from 43% to 44% really isn’t that big of a
deal.  But with the fish saved to me looks huge.  And then like and also
$2 per month to me like, well, that’s no big deal.  So, it almost
seems slanted that we don’t hear – $2 per month doesn’t seem like
a whole lot of money.  So, you almost feel guilty like 2 bucks a month,
I’ll save some fish.

M: Now when you say slanted, what could you say a little bit more?

R: Maybe we don’t hear how come – why don’t the industry have
these screenings?  Why don’t they do – you know what is the cost to
them?  So, it says you know we have this problem.  And I almost felt,
well, $2 per month.  I’ll do that.  It’s no big deal.
[Philadelphia, PA, 9/23/10, pp.4]

***

M: Would you say that when you were answering this question you were
really paying close attention to the specific numbers that were on the
page?

R: Specific?  I think that I looked at all of the numbers and kind of
looked across the board and looked individually at all three numbers in
each section.  But I think that the decision was really mostly based on
not just fish saved per year; the cost didn’t really have much
influence at all.  That’s a tough one.  I don’t know.

M: When you say, “the cost didn’t have much influence at all,” why
was that?

R: Because I think it’s super-important.  So if it’s something
that’s going to affect my kid’s kids down the line or something like
that, then that’s something that I could buy into and invest being
passionate about that.  [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #6,
pp.3]

****

M: So how did you vote for question eight, then?

R: I voted no.

R: I voted no.

R: I shut it down.

R: Yeah.

R: Why would we pay a dollar more per month with no changes affecting
three of the four categories, so the rest of the country – so we’re
regulating what? For what reason, why are we regulating these people to
pay more for no improvement?  [Waltham, MA, 7/29/10, pp.13]

***

M: So generally speaking how would you say the monetary costs the
options, how do you think that weighed into your decision making when
you were answering the survey?  Did all the costs seem reasonable?  Did
some of them seem too high?  Was that sort of the last thing you
considered?  Just kind of put that out there.

R: The cost I mean, it's a tough time.  Everyone is going to save a
penny here and there.  And obviously if your costs are more than some is
going to repay, that's going to affect some of the decision to want to
support an initiative.  But like to me the costs are reasonable, five
dollars per month.  I mean, most people don't think twice about spending
three dollars on a Starbucks coffee blah, blah, blah, and they do every
day.  But to send five bucks a month and we see, you know, it's
presented to us after a year the benefits of what this five dollars per
month is doing, then you're not—to me that cost won't be a factor.

M: Were you thinking about things that you might have to give up for you
to spend that money?

R: No.  I was actually thinking about things that we would gain by
spending that money, you know, healthier waters.  And that gives us so
much when we don't give back which is kind of sad.  Everyone keep taking
from the oceans and lakes.  We're just—we're not doing a very good job
maintaining and taking care of it.

M: So you know that these questions are hypothetical?  Do you feel like
your answers would have been different if you knew with certainty that
you were going to have to pay that amount rather than just being a
survey right now?  I mean, if you—

R: No.  It would have been the same actually. […]  [East Providence,
RI, 8/12/10, Interview #1, pp.11]

***

M: I’m sorry, I’m being confusing. You commented that if you put
question eight first, you would have answered everything else
differently.

R: I may have, I may have. I mean, I’m not positively sure, but it
definitely – being at the end, made me say no.

M: So I guess my question is, is that just because question eight was
different from the others ones, in that it –

R: It was significantly different, especially the cost factor.

R: Cost factor, yeah.

R: Mm-hmm, seemed higher. So after a while you don’t even look at the
numbers, you just look at the price, like how much [inaudible].
[Waltham, MA, 7/29/10, pp.14]

***

M: Now let me ask you – a couple times we've come back to the
[inaudible] – when you were answering this question, were you really
thinking of these dollar figures – were you thinking of these where,
"OK, what would it really mean to pay say $2 a month or $3 a month?"

R: Mm-hmm.

M: I mean, were you thinking about this like real money, the kind of
money —?

R: Oh, yeah.  Every dollar counts.

R: It's not a lot of money, when you got so many different regulations
from so many different things, and they hit you for everything,
[inaudible][laughter] —

R: Right, everything's going up.

R: And so, you know, it's just not – it's not so much the fish that I
was thinking about, it's everything else that have to go along with the
fish, you know, so, you know, and like I said, any time you start
getting into people's money, I mean, you know, when you look at the
overall effect, we do need the fish, you know, and for more than one
reason.  But I believe everybody looked at that part, you know.  [St.
Louis, MO, 8/4/10, pp.10]

Payment Vehicle

Participants understood that selecting Options A or B would result in
increased costs to their household. They also generally understood that
costs to industry would be passed on to consumers. Some participants
that received early draft survey versions expressed confusion regarding
how these costs would be manifested. The draft survey was revised to
improve clarity regarding how these costs would be passed to consumers
by adding a clause on Page 1 stating that goods and services with costs
would include “electricity and common household products”. The
definition of “cost per year” on Page 7 was also revised to include
“services” purchased by consumers. These revisions appeared to
reduce the potential for respondent confusion when evaluating policy
options.

A few respondents expressed that companies should be bearing the costs,
rather than consumers. However, there was a general understanding among
most participants that consumers would ultimately bear the cost. Also,
only one participant indicated in Question 7 that this issue was the
reason for selecting “No Policy” for all choice questions.

M: What – did you take a particular message on that from what you
read?  I apologize, I'm going to answer a lot of your questions with
questions.

R: I don't know, just that the comparison of, you know, many are lost.

R: To me, I don't feel like it's – what I don't understand from the
survey is how this particular specific problem that would be fixed with
the regulation fits into the fish loss as a whole.  Because if it says
like – like I circled the things in here that said like, "A third of
the fish loss is from commercial and recreational fisherman."  And then,
"two-thirds are from – are part of the food web."  So I don't
understand what this piece fits in.  'Cause from my understanding of it,
the corporations you're talking about are like power companies and
electric companies.  So my thought process is that the household stuff
is being passed down to consumers from the cost of the added regulation
they have.  So, if it's not just fishing causing it or something, then
– like I just don't see what part of the problem that specific thing
regulation fixes.  So that's why I had a difficulty understanding the
survey.  [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10, pp.4]

***

M: Other just general thoughts before we delve into specific pages and
issues?

R: I personally would have liked more peripheral information, not just
relating to the cost and the fish.  Examples – so for – should I
expand on that or —?

M: Sure.  You know, it'd be useful to know what you mean by peripheral.

R: From my perspective, I want to know how – well, first of all how
the estimates on cost are reached.  Cost per household – is this only
relate to the purchase or consumption of fish and seafood?  Or is that
going to be a consumer cost or a tax?  How many facilities are going to
be affected?  Sorry.

M: No, that's fine.  I mean, I, you know, again I'm very purposefully
not answering them because I want to listen to what you have to say.  At
the end if you'd like specific answers I will answer the ones that I can
answer.  [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10, pp.3]

***

R: Is there some reason they’re only showing our coast? That’s
another thing I really didn’t understand.

R: [inaudible/crosstalk]

R: I understand that but then these other questions about saving ocean
populations and stuff. How come they’re only talking about this little
area of the country? Are we the only ones that our taxes are going to go
up, this $25.00, $50.00 and $30.00?

M: Would you have preferred to see a survey that addressed a policy that
affected the entire country instead of just one region of the country?

R: I would have. It would have made me feel better about my answers
because this looks like they’re just asking us to pay the price for
everybody.  [Charlotte, NC, 9/8/10, pp.8]

***

M: Other kind of general thoughts? We’re going to explore some of
these issue definitely in a little more depth, but before we go on.

R: Instead of passing these charges to us, why aren’t they passing
them to these companies that are [inaudible] or that are using the water
for – at least the majority of the cost, not maybe fully, but – the
ones that are responsible.

R: But then they pass that cost on to us.

R: Exactly.

R: I mean, that’s a great idea, but ultimately it’s all us consumers
that ultimately pay for everything.

R: Yeah, but I mean – I don’t know, this is still a new law, maybe
they can still tweak it here and there, I don’t know.  [Waltham, MA,
7/29/10, pp.3]

***

M: Sorry, I'm just trying to find one point here. There was a statement
in there where we said, you know, all those policies produce fish losses
that they would increase the cost of producing many goods and services
and for these costs to be passed on to consumers like you, did you think
about that sentence at all? I mean, did that — did you think about
what was causing the costs, or anything like that? Or were you thinking
about your household costs?

R: Well, yeah. I took that into consideration, but as far as what the
cause of the costs would be, would be, I took from this, the cooling
systems, the change. Some of them, they said, have them already. Some of
them have to be changed. Some of them have to have them, and they don't.
I am assuming that was the cost that we would pay, eventually.

M: Sure. Actually, let's flip to page 6. I want to be able to look at
it.

R: That's OK.

M: Right at the top there, read that if you would. So, would you say
that bothered you at all, if it was passed on to you? Or —

R: No, I was concerned with it again for personal reasons, but anytime
there is improvement like that, companies are going to pass it on to the
consumer. It's expected. We're not happy about it [laughter], but it's
expected. Yes, I mean it didn't —

M: It didn't bother you when you were answering questions?

R: No. I would rather it didn't, but it does. It's a reality.  [East
Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #5, pp.14]

***

M: So now, onto the con side, did you think of any cons potentially of
voting for option A or option B compared to the current situation?

R: Just money.

[crosstalk]

R: The cost – actually, there’s a big difference between just the
Northeast and then when you go to the United States, it’s – why is
it so much more per month? I mean – yeah, per month.  [Waltham, MA,
7/29/10, pp.13]

***

M: Would it be more helpful to say explicitly that it will count toward
your electric bill –

R: Absolutely.

M: Absolutely?

R: Oh yeah.

M: Would it make a difference to your response?

R: Absolutely.

M: How?

R: I’d be ticked off right away, saying “Help me now, I really
don’t care how much”, it goes high enough right now and it’s
ridiculous and I think – you’re talking about products that you can
buy, you can avoid that. Because of what – you’re going to have to
pay the electric bill. You can’t get around that, they’d finally
shut it off. But I’d be ticked off. I would be ticked off.

M: Why would you be ticked off?

R: Because it’s another income - it’s another cost, and a way the
jobs are nowadays, the society, and everything, it’s very costly.
Everything’s very costly. And it’s just to actually heat your home
and electricity and everything to pay for a home, it adds up. Especially
in the summer. You’ve got the A/C going on, and central air, or
filters for your pool, what have you, it adds up. It’s tight enough
now. If that was from the get-go on my electric bill, then I wouldn’t
be like – you feel bad in a way but yet, it’s costing us.  [East
Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #4, pp.3]

***

M: Let me skip back actually.  If you [inaudible]—on page 6 we talked
about—right down at the bottom.  Actually at the top here.  It says
"While these policies reduce fish losses they would also increase the
cost of producing the end goods and services.  These costs would be
passed on to consumers like you."  Is that something you noticed when
you were [crosstalk]

R: Yeah.  Good and services—what do you mean?  What are goods and
services?  That's the question I have for that.  What goods it's going
to be.  Increase in services.  You mean services, you mean what,
higher—the EPA, we would have to pay them more or increase that
government agencies because we then need more federal funding is
that—that's what I was thinking about.  As far as goods, what goods
are they talking about?  Are the fish going to be more expensive to buy
when you go to the fish market or fishmonger or whatever.  And I didn't
know what goods and what services would that increase.

M: So you didn't have any necessarily a particular thought that these
costs would be passed on to consumers like you?  Did you—

R: I mean, eventually yeah.  If it's a government agency thing, that's
always going to be passed on to consumers or to the taxpayer and so
forth.

M: So you didn't have any real strong reaction to that?

R: No.  I mean, as long as it's done for all the good reasons and
[inaudible] be five dollars a month.  That's all it could be.  [East
Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #1, pp.15]

Respondent Motivations

Motivations for Protecting Fish

Participants cited a variety of reasons for wanting to protect fish.
Some participants indicated that they wanted improvements in effects
either for sake of employment or because of their own consumption. Some
participants wanted to maintain recreational opportunities. Some other
participants indicated that they were interested in the role that fish
losses and the policy options play within the environment rather than
consumptive uses and a number of participants indicated that they wanted
to preserve fish populations for future generations. Most participants
cared equally about fresh and saltwater fish or considered this
distinction as of little importance when choosing between policy
options. Some participants also indicated that they were motivated by
concerns regarding household costs and the state of the economy.

M: What's that?

[…]

R: I'm tired of spending money on government stuff myself, you know.
Every time you turn around, they want more.

R: I don't think that's true.

R: The other thing about the survey on people in general is – forgive
me – [inaudible] what I'm saying is – or what I'd like to say is
that it's pretty difficult to become emotional with fish.  If we're
talking about puppy dogs, everyone would be scrambling to fill this out.
 I don't know if people really give a hoot about how many fish are
saved.

R: I care because I like to eat it.  [laughter]  [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10,
pp.10]

***

M: Well, let me put it into – ‘cause we’re speaking about pro
versus con language. What would you see, just in simple terms, as kind
of the pros of, the benefits of say voting for option A or option B
here, in your own mind?

R: Preserving fisheries and the fish. I don’t have any children, but
there are other people that do, and you certainly want to have a future,
whether it’s fishing and/or commercial fishing for eating, and it’s
more than people that eat, there are a lot of animals that eat the first
that are caught, too. The byproducts of what we don’t eat, the bones
and the heads and whatnot, that gets ground up and goes to cattle, I’m
sure.

M: And what about the rest of you? Other thoughts on what kind of the
pros or the benefits for voting for one of these options might be?

R: Well, I suppose that the population obviously continues to grow,
therefore what we have now isn’t necessarily going to be enough in the
future, so therefore you have to do something to try to protect and
preserve that, but it’s supply and demand, I suppose.

R: And also, you have to look at the employment factor. This industry
employs a lot of people, and if you start losing fish population,
you’re going to lose a lot more jobs.

M: Now when you say “this industry,” which –

R: The fishing industry.  [Waltham, MA, 7/29/10, pp.12]

***

M: Well, what I’d like to do is just ask you, and again we’re on the
page where it says, “This survey is similar to a public vote,” page
seven. What did you think about when you were looking at these different
effects, fish saved, commercial fish populations, when you were looking
at those numbers?

R: In the back of your mind, you have to keep – consider your
children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, is there gonna be enough
fish and food for them? So it’s not just us, it’s perpetuating the
food chain.

R: And the recreational chain, too. I mean, my husband’s an avid
fisherman, and –

R: I used to do it.

R: Thinking back on when you were a child, particularly [inaudible]
fisher fishing with women, but you know, those are fond memories, and
you take the fish away and then that goes away too.  [Waltham, MA,
7/29/10, pp.4]

***

M: So were you thinking about other issues when you're completing the
survey at all?

R: [inaudible] go through the survey I was thinking about tourism in
Rhode Island, and take New England [inaudible], we are a very tourist
area.  One of the big reasons because we're an ocean state.  We're so
close to the beaches, and we have beautiful beaches and waterfronts and
so forth.  And that's being depleted.  Our ecosystems are being damaged,
and no tourist wants to go to an area where it's polluted.  No tourists
are going, you know, get a hotel room next to a lake or whatever that
smells of rotting whatever, you know, fish or a beach front area that's
damaged.  So that definitely plays into my mind.  And, you know, I love
snorkeling, and I love being outdoors especially.  I'm a beach guy so
that plays heavily into my influence.  I don't think we do enough for
our ecosystems [inaudible].

M: So you were pretty much focused on the aquatic ecosystems and fish
and things like that?

R: Yes.

M: Were you thinking about—well it mentions public safety, education,
health.  Were you thinking about other things that government spends
money on or regulates?

R: I mean, we do and I think we do enough if not—and some people
obviously do too much with those other topics like education
[inaudible].  And you know, me personally, I'd like to see
more—spending more and more effort and time on the ecosystems and so
forth.  [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #1, pp.3]

***

M: So were you thinking about any particular type of fish when you're
going through these questions?

R: No. I'm not a fisherman, so. I used to be. My brother used to take me
a lot. And I'm not a big seafood eater. I mean I do here and there. As
far as fish go, but the environment is more of what I was kind of
interested in what I was called on this is how it affects the
environment, the water and everything that goes on.  [East Providence,
RI, 8/12/10, Interview #5, pp.9]

***

M: And so, when you were answering say for on question 4 through 6, were
you thinking you were affecting just the northeast or the whole country?

R: Just the northeast.

[…]

R: I was thinking more fresh water.  I was thinking the industrial
northeast all these plants along these rivers.  I see it driving along
the Schuylkill.  I see, you see plants, if they’re operational anymore
along the Schuylkill.  And just the other day I could see water spewing
out into the Schuylkill and I just thought that doesn’t look very
good.  So, my whole focus was the industrial northeast rivers and
streams.  It didn’t even occur to me about the ocean and fresh vs.
salt water.

R: To me it made no difference because the waterways are interrelated.
The Delaware River becomes the Delaware Bay.  The Schuylkill River goes
into the Delaware and the Delaware Bay goes into the Atlantic Ocean.

M: How about other folks?

R: I don’t think it would make a difference.

R: It’d been nice to [inaudible].

R: It wouldn’t have made a difference for me. [Philadelphia, PA,
9/23/10, pp.18]

***

M: So, I want to just ask in general you know when you go back to the
choice questions 4, 5 and 6 when you’re voting for things, it sounds
like a number of people at least you know voted you know either for
option A or option B.  Why is it – could you explain why you’d be
willing to vote for something?  Why would you vote for that?  Why is it
important to you to support a program like that?  What’s going through
your head?

R: The sustainability of life was going through my head.  I have
children.  Thinking of my children.  Thinking about what kind of world
they’re gonna have.  And you know from there their kids and just
everybody in general.

M: What about other folks?

R: I felt the same thing like he said but I was thinking of my threshold
for tolerance, too.

M: Threshold for tolerance of?

R: Spending more money.

R: I was thinking actually I wasn’t thinking at the time I answered
but thinking through it the BP oil spill and how companies can destroy
the environment and again I like to do some fishing.  I’m going out
this weekend probably.  And just thinking about my children and actually
my children’s children that we should be careful what we do so that
there’s like he said sustainability for future generations.

R: When you were answering, was it – there have been a couple comments
about fish that you use and fish that you don’t use.  When you were
voting, was it primarily about things that you use?  Or were other
things also important?

R: I think the waterways in general for me anything.

R: I think my overall thought was just the environment in general again
just saving it, keeping it as clean as we can.  So, when I was thinking
of the fish even though it was nice to see them separated, I was really
thinking of both the environment as a whole.  [Philadelphia, PA,
9/23/10, pp.14]

***

R: Let me ask a question.  I want to know, you know, if this is relative
to what we’re talking about.  Would it make any difference if it would
have been saltwater fish or freshwater fish?

M: Would it make a difference to you, do you think?

R: Right.  More freshwater fish than saltwater fish, I would think so.

M: Would that have affected the way that you answered the survey?

R: I believe so.  [Bethesda, MD, 8/18/10]

***

M: Do you agree that it would have been easier if it had been all
cooling water intakes and fresh and salt water instead of trying to look
at just one or the other?

R: Honestly, even just looking at it, I was looking at it and we’re
going to save a fish. My effect was more on the household income, like
around $40.00 is the price point. The $3.00 a month isn’t anything. I
was like, okay, $2.00 as opposed to $3.00 and you can save 50 million
more fish.

R: It would be $36.00 and $3.00 a month

R: If they were to give this survey in good terms, everybody would be
picking this column, the good one.

R: Right now, like she said on the boat, $2.00 is a lot of money if you
don’t have any money. [One respondent agreed.]

R: I was thinking about long term for my children, their children.

R: That’s more how I kind of answered it.  [Charlotte, NC, 9/8/10,
pp.6]

***

M: Turning, then, I guess, to question two, which is this page right
here, could you tell me how you reacted to that question, how you
answered it?

R: Almost all of it was important. I’m not a big aquatic—I’m not a
fisherman or anything like that, so to me that was the only one that was
somewhat important. The rest of them, reducing my cost, is very
important.

R: Why would they put reducing taxes as a questions in here? I mean,
I’m just asking. Is that just a trick question?

M: I’m going to not answer that. [crosstalk] I’ll happily answer
anything after we’re done.

R: It’s just kind of weird to have that thrown in.

R: The only thing I wasn’t sure was the homeland security link. I feel
like that one’s kind of thrown in.

R: That’s the same thing as reducing taxes. Does that pertain to what
we’re talking about here? I don’t know.

R: I put not important on both. Where are the control questions?
[crosstalk]

R: We live on the water, so I’m concerned about all of it. I have
children that are in the water, and so very important.  [East
Providence, RI, 7/21/10, pp.6]

***

M: Let me follow up on that, because a couple of folks have talked about
the information in the survey. You said that you could have used more
information. What did you think about the information that was in the
survey?

R: The information that’s in there was good, and it was pretty easy to
understand. The wording wasn’t too complex or anything like that, but
I don’t know if it gave me enough information to answer the questions.
That’s the only thing. Maybe I need some more. [inaudible] First thing
I always thought of. The way the economy’s going and everything, I
think it’s important to maintain industries. Granted, we’re going to
hammer them with a lot of cost. Even though you’re going to save the
ecology, everything else is going to go down the tubes. Other things are
going to be [inaudible]. So that’s important to me.  [East Providence,
RI, 7/21/10, pp.3]

Fish Losses versus Fish Populations and Ecosystems Condition

Participants’ choices and statements implied different opinions about
whether changes in fish mortality were of importance without large
increases in the long-term fish population or the condition of aquatic
ecosystems. Some participants stated that they choose a policy option
because of the difference in fish saved. Comments from some of these
participants indicate that they want to avoid losses because they place
some values on fish in their own right. Some other participants
indicated that effects on populations or ecosystem condition were most
important, and that they felt uncomfortable spending money to prevent
fish mortality if there was uncertainty in whether it would improve
these effects. Generally participants understood that in most cases the
amount of fish saved is small relative to the total fish population.

M: Could you tell me, what was the process that went through your mind
when you were answering question four? How did you decide what to
answer? You mentioned what was going through your mind. What about the
rest of you? How did you decide what box to check?

R: [inaudible] more fish, and the commercial fish sustainability.

M: So what did you choose?

R: What option did I choose? I went with B because I saw that was a
higher percentage of fish saved.

R: I did too. I went with B, and I agree. [crosstalk] If everybody kicks
in that is willing to, then we can save more [inaudible]  [East
Providence, RI, 7/21/10, pp.11]

***

M: Let’s – and as long as we’re talking about the scores, why
don’t we – let’s turn to Question 4.  It’s on Page 11.  Could
you tell me what you voted for and how you decided or why you decided to
answer that way?

R: I voted for Option B.  I think the most striking thing on the page,
or option, was – or statistic, was the 50% and the 1.4 billion fish
saved.  So, that alone helped with my decision.  Then looking down, some
of them are not as much of a difference.  But I’m all for trying to
save as many as we can.  [laughter] So –

M: Were you – when you were answering these questions and you said
that – you know, obviously, the fish saved per year, that had a larger
effect and some of the other ones you mentioned had smaller effects.
Was it useful to you to have the different effects laid out like this on
the page?

R: It was.  I think that some of them that are – and I know that on
one of the other pages, they – some of the percentages stayed the same
on a couple of them.  Those didn’t make me think any deeper into the
decision.  It was more the ones that were – had a larger difference.
But, I mean, I read all of them and all of it was taken into
consideration; but the closer ones, not as much.

M: And when you say, “the closer ones not as much,” why is that?
Was it just because they were closer, or some other reason?

R: That’s a good one.  Well, like the fish population for all fish in
three to five years, 40%, and 43% without human influence, that just
didn’t strike me as a deal-breaker one way or another.  [East
Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #6, pp.2]

***

R: I have to admit, I voted generally for the higher plan until we got
to question 6, where the condition of the ecosystem didn’t change.
So, I voted for the 24 dollar one.  Not because – I mean if the
ecosystem had improved, the 72, I would have gone that way, but since
there was no change and that was the main thing that I was looking at.

M: Let’s turn to question 6.  Is everyone there?  This is a different
question.  Could other folks tell me how you decided to answer that
question?

R: I did the same as Leah.

R: I also, yes.

R: To save 400 million fish for such a small amount.

M: So, which one did everyone vote for?

R: Fish saved.

R: I did option B.

R: Option B.

R: Option B.

M: OK, so you voted for option A?  Other folks voted for option B?  Did
anybody vote for no policy?  If this dollar amount had been high enough,
would some folks have voted for no policy?  […]  [Bethesda, MD,
8/18/10, pp.11]

***

M: But let me ask the rest, what was the most important issue?  When you
were looking at all these things, what was the most important of these
different attributes here?  Fish saved, commercial fish, fish
populations, condition of the aquatic ecosystem, the cost, what were you
thinking in your mind was the most important?

[…]

R: Pertaining to this particular survey, mine was commercial fish
population, and increase in cost [laughter].

M: That's fair.

R: But see everything else follows the condition of the aquatic
ecosystem.  Commerc – what I'm saying is the commercial fish
population hinges upon the condition of the aquatic ecosystem, as does
the fish population, as does – it all follows that condition.

R: And it does seem like – 'cause it's, you know, kind of written in
small print underneath it – all you do, and kind of, you know, and
you're just reading through it and scanning it and trying to get done
with it, all you can read is fish saved per year.  50 %, sweet, awesome,
I'll vote for it, you know, so, but, you know, if it was like you were
really looking at the changes the condition of the ecosystems and fish
population, you know, it's – I just – I think it's kind of
misunderstand the first [inaudible].  [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10, pp.15]

***

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

R: I guess probably a pretty small part.

R: I watched this show on some history channel or something; they shot a
boat that’s up in Alaska in the Bering Sea. They’re fishing for the
fish that McDonald’s has for the fish Filet-O-Fish. They catch it with
a net that’s 10 miles long. They haul this in and it’s bigger than
this building when they pulled it on to the ship. They got to have 200
million fish inside of that net when they pulled it in because they were
like this big. They’re catching this many fish every time they go out
there and make Filet-O-Fish. [laughter]  [Charlotte, NC, 9/8/10, pp.7]

Government Regulation

A limited number of participants expressed general concern regarding
more or less government regulation, but these concerns did not prevent
participants from providing meaningful responses to choice questions.
Some participants indicated that they were concerned about additional
government regulations or the ability of the government to regulate
effectively. However, these concerns were typically general and not tied
to specific aspects of the policy options presented in the survey.
Question 1 of the draft survey was revised based on participant feedback
in order to eliminate confusion regarding its meaning or the purposes of
inquiring about respondent preferences regarding government regulation.
Only one participant among all seven focus group sessions selected “I
don’t trust government to fix the problem” in Question 7 as the
reason for choosing “No Policy” for choice questions. This suggests
that participants’ general preferences regarding government regulation
are unlikely to result in a large number of protest responses. While
respondents may have preferences for more or less government regulation
(as addressed in Question 1 of the current draft survey), focus group
results suggest that these preferences would not prevent respondents
from providing meaningful responses to the choice questions.

R: You know, following up on that, you asked if there were any cons,
negatives, and other than price, there really was one in my mind, and
that is government, which is getting bigger and bigger and bigger, and
I’m very much in favor of smaller government, so that clearly was an
issue as I was reading this –

R: Get rid of Congress.

R: Yeah, well, November second isn’t that far away.  [Waltham, MA,
7/29/10, pp.15]

***

M: Other than what we’ve already discussed, were there particular
types of information that you think might have affected how you answered
this question?

R: I think most of us don’t trust the government today.  I think had
there been some comments about from the manufacturers and industrial
users, it may have been a little more effective.

M: When you say “effective”, could you explain a little bit more
what you mean by that?

R: I mean coming from the government, that’s like the IRS.  “I’m
from the IRS.  I’m here to help you.”  The same thing like this.
Most of us don’t believe it.  I think there’s a basic distrust of
government agencies.

M: When the rest of you were answering the survey, were you thinking
about similar sorts of things or not?

R: The only thing I was thinking, and I know I’m being repetitive on
this, is what would the job effect be?

R: That would be very similar to having a manufacturers.  If they’re
looking at it the same way, it would be one thing, but if they’re
looking at it – “Hey, if you’re going to regulate me too much,
I’m closing up my door.”

R: I was just wondering about the ultimate effect.  It wasn’t so much
just jobs, but this is just looking at the going government policy and
it always has a multiple effect, just like the ecocycle, or the
ecosystems.  It’s a tangled web of life we live.  [Bethesda, MD,
8/18/10, pp.9]

***

M: I'd like to push on and again I apologize.  I go back to things
'cause I write notes and I want to make sure to kind of revisit –

[…]

R: I'm tired of spending money on government stuff myself, you know.
Every time you turn around, they want more.

R: I don't think that's true.  [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10, pp.10]

***

M: So I guess then the—what I’d like to ask is:  When you were
answering these questions, say Question 4, where did you think these
numbers came from?

R: Well, I mean, I think they’re somebody’s calculations of, you
know, somebody’s assessments or estimates of, you know, of what, you
know, doing A is going to do to the system but like I said, you know, I
think that’s—you know, they could be great numbers.  They could be
absolutely excellent, but I don’t have a lot of—first of all, I
don’t have a lot of faith in the government about anything at
[inaudible], and you know, and certain, you know, skeptical about the
numbers.

M: So is it fair to say you viewed these numbers, whether in Question 4,
5, as being pretty uncertain?

R: Yeah.  [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #2, pp.3]

***

M: So when you were answering the questions, were you thinking about how
much money you might already be spending on the environment, you know,
and the government might be spending on the environment?

R: No.

M: So, you just kind of consider these policies on their own?

R: Yeah, I mean, again, I think because of my lack of knowledge as far
as these issues, specifically fishing. I know I keep certain fish and
family members fish, and I know businesses and all that, but I thought
it was very interesting.  [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #5,
pp.15]

***

M: Well, I mean, you know – that's actually a good question.  When you
all were looking at that, were you thinking of government regulations in
the context of the survey and fish and – upon so were you thinking
about government regulations more broadly on everything?

R:  I think it's supposed to be assumed it's supposed to be about –
but I think he has a point, but I mean —

R: Well, I was trying to say that in a survey why won't people see
govern – I got to tell you, when I see government regulation it's the
first thing that popped – I mean I knew it was talking about this
survey, I'm just telling you right now, the word government regulations
and society that [inaudible] goes along with them.  Means a lot.

M: Fair enough.

R: The phrase could be changed.

R: The phrase, right.  If you changed –

[crosstalk]

M: So either way regardless it sounds like there's some concerns with
that Part 5 and we will certainly look at that.

R: Now, most times when government involves itself in some – it's
who's going to have to pay for it.  That's – I don't care what they
– do I have to pay for this or not?  That's what it – 'cause it
affects a lot of people, you know, and you start messing with people's
income [inaudible].  [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10, pp.6]

Cause of Losses

For some participants, the specific cause of losses was important. Some
participants indicated that fish losses by human activities were more
important than fish losses attributable to natural causes, mainly
because man-made losses can be changed. Another respondent’s suggested
that the cause of losses is important because of the relevance to the
policies evaluated in the survey. Other participants had mixed opinions
about whether fish losses caused by human activities are more important
that fish losses due to natural causes.

M: And when you were thinking about fish saved per year and such, did it
matter to you why they were lost in the first place?

R: Why or how?

M: How, why, I mean, you know —

R: [inaudible]

M: Did that affect your answer?  I mean if we had said we're talking
about fish that are lost to natural causes like hurricanes, would that
have – would you have answered differently do you think?  Or —?

R: Mm-hmm.

R: Yeah.

R: Well sure.

R: [inaudible] some other non-natural cause, it wouldn't make any
difference.  It's just fish lost.  [inaudible].

M: Is that the way with the folks we're looking at – that the primary
thing you were thinking about was the effects on the fish and the
ecosystems and it wasn't the specific cause that was important?  Or was
the specific cause important?

R: Specific cause is the issue that comes [inaudible] in my opinion.

M: So this – so for you the specific reason why the fish were lost was
relevant in terms of the answers you gave before?

R: Right.

R: Well I think it would have been addressed in the very beginning if it
wasn't important.  I mean, it just would've not addressed it or it
would've said well, it could be because of hurricanes or —

R: [inaudible]

R: Tsunamis, or – I mean, other non-man-made problems.

R: There's nothing we can do about natural causes.  There is something
we can do about the opposite.

R: This is a sample [inaudible] here.  Does this cost money?

M: Got to do it.

R: I mean, we know what the problem is, it's very out – it's outlined
what the problem is.  It can be fixed.  It just costs money to do it.
And who's going to pay for it?  So, you know, it's a shame that it comes
down to that, but that's what it, you know, it's about.  [St. Louis, MO,
8/4/10, pp.19]

***

M: Did you think it mattered how the fish were being lost? So we were
talking about cooling water here. Do you think it mattered that they
were lost by that means as compared to natural causes or any other way?

R: No, I mean doing this survey it was brought to my attention. I really
didn't think about it previously. I know fish are lost by other means,
but I wasn't thinking anything other than what I was looking at.

M: So you weren't thinking about other types of policies that might
affect the fish, so you work considering just what was in front of you?

R: No.  [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #5, pp.14]

***

M: What was going through your mind about; you got one very large change
and then a bunch of small ones, did that make sense to you?

[…]

R: I refer it as these just being things that we just can’t prevent
like they said, 100% if we didn’t have any influence on it, this is
what will happen. That’s going to happen and then at commercial,
you’re going to have commercial fish. I thought that those areas were
just, those would be realistic because there’s not much you really can
do about those but you can do a lot about the cooling system in saving
the fish.  [Charlotte, NC, 9/8/10, pp.6]

Geographic Concerns

Many participants indicated that they value protecting regional
populations of fish more than they valued fishery resources outside of
their region and participants tended to interpret the regions correctly.
However, the inclusion of both regional and national questions within a
single draft survey was confusing to many participants while
consequently adding additional length to the survey. Many respondents
appeared to be thrown off by the change in scope and some other
respondents were confused about the reasons for differences in costs
between regional and national programs. Some others thought that people
in other regions should bear the costs of changes in their own region.
This issue led to the exclusion of the national questions from the
regional surveys. Based on these comments, choice questions addressing
national policies were excluded from the regional surveys in favor of a
separate national survey questionnaire.

Some participants indicated that the specific facility locations within
the region were important. Still other participants found the specific
facility locations to be unimportant or did not notice their locations.
Participants’ feedback also indicated that it was unnecessary to make
a distinction between saltwater and freshwater facilities within a given
region, and that including both improves understanding of total effects
within the region. Participants’ comments did not suggest that it was
important for their choices to know manufacturer versus generator
locations and this distinction caused confusion among some participants
when included within the map on Page 2 of draft survey versions. The map
was therefore revised to show “all facilities” in order to reduce
the potential for confusion among respondents.

M: If this had been a survey that in addition to dealing with you know
just the northeast the green area here, imagine that this had been a
survey where the green area was the entire United States so here and you
know everywhere else Oregon and California, Florida, whatever.  Would
you have thought about the survey the same way?  Or would you have
thought about it differently?

R: I thought about it differently.

M: Could you explain a little bit?

R: Just like the gentleman said here about the condition in the Gulf and
everything that happened with the oil drilling and things that’s going
on with that that has an effect on the ecosystem even more so than this
would.  This is killing they’re saying a billion fish a year.  How
many fish did we lose when the oil spill in that?  You know if they had
a big [inaudible], this would ever happen in my opinion.  I may be wrong
but I think it did.  So, it would make a big different when you’re
talking about the whole country ‘cause you got to think about
everyone.  And maybe fishing is you know as you go further up northeast
Main and Connecticut, you might get you know a little bit more.  It’s
colder water.  There’s more fishing as far as for commercial for the
rest of the country to use.  So, you know you go down south you know in
the Gulf of Mexico you’ll see more commercial fishing for us to use.
Here people commercial fish but normally they’re fishing for
themselves.  There’s not a lot that’s going on right on the Jersey
shore where it’s worried about feeding the whole country whereas in
other places there will be.

R: It didn’t really – I honestly looked at it the opposite.  I think
in the back of my mind I was already thinking of the U.S. as a whole.
Because even though I only saw this chunk we all know it’s a
nationwide problem.  So, in the back of my mind I’m thinking, oh, wow.
 This affects just the northeast this much.  Imagine how much it’s
affecting the rest of the U.S.  So, I think in the back of my mind I was
already assuming that it was a nationwide problem to begin with.  And we
were just kind of narrowing in on the northeast.  We all know there’s
generators and manufacturers all over the country.  And they’re
probably all using the same – not all of them.  But many of them are
probably using the same sort of technology.  So, I assumed this was just
a chunk of the bigger problem.

M: And so, when you were answering say for on question 4 through 6, were
you thinking you were affecting just the northeast or the whole country?

R: Just the northeast.

R: I like the map.  To me I can relate better to it because I know those
waterways just by living up here, the Chesapeake, the Delaware Bay, up
by New York.  So, I can relate to those rivers and inlets.  But if they
were like down in Georgia and southeast, I wouldn’t know those
waterways.

R: Well, we don’t have too much time left.  And so, there’s just two
quick questions that I’d like to ask ‘cause they’re on my list.
This survey talks about fresh and salt water so kind of all waters on
the map we’re talking about.  Would it have been helpful to you if it
had split out fresh and salt water effects.  Here’s the effects in
fresh water.  Here’s the effects on salt water.  Or was it OK the way
it was kind of mixing those effects into one survey?  What do you think?

R: I was thinking more fresh water.  I was thinking the industrial
northeast all these plants along these rivers.  I see it driving along
the Schuylkill.  I see, you see plants, if they’re operational anymore
along the Schuylkill.  And just the other day I could see water spewing
out into the Schuylkill and I just thought that doesn’t look very
good.  So, my whole focus was the industrial northeast rivers and
streams.  It didn’t even occur to me about the ocean and fresh vs.
salt water.

R: To me it made no difference because the waterways are interrelated.
The Delaware River becomes the Delaware Bay.  The Schuylkill River goes
into the Delaware and the Delaware Bay goes into the Atlantic Ocean.

M: How about other folks?

R: I don’t think it would make a difference.

R: It’d been nice to [inaudible].

R: It wouldn’t have made a difference for me.  [Philadelphia, PA,
9/23/10, pp.18]

***

R: I think the way the survey was set up is an issue, because if I was
to put that question in the front, my answers would be completely
different.

M: Could you explain why?

R: Well, because I wouldn’t know that the cost with a smaller
population would be a lot less. I’ll be thinking on a national basis,
start now, and then I would think, “Well, you know, maybe six dollars
is not that much.”

R: Then you go back to there and you say, “Wait a minute, I got to
cross off this -”  [Waltham, MA, 7/29/10, pp.14]

***

M: Question 8.  We’re bouncing around.  Could you explain how you
interpret that question and how you answered it?

R: Yeah, that one gave me a little [inaudible], but I answered toward
the bottom there that I would be willing to pay between 101 and 200
percent more if the policies affected the entire United States.  Quite
frankly, I didn’t really understand that—I mean I didn’t
really—I’m not sure I really thought that the concept, because if
you’re spreading this out over the entire United States and everybody
is paying, then the cost should be less, and—but I also agree that I
would have paid more if I were assured that—if I could be assured that
there would be significant changes or significant beneficial effects.