1
Supporting
Statement
for
a
Request
for
OMB
Review
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
OMB
Control
Number:
TBD
Part
A
Section
1.
Identification
of
the
Information
Collection
1(
a)
Title
of
the
Information
Collection
"
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey"

1(
b)
Short
Characterization/
Abstract
This
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
is
for
a
pilot
survey
being
conducted
by
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
(
EPA)
National
Center
for
Environmental
Economics
(
NCEE).
The
purpose
of
the
pilot
survey
is
to
conduct
research
on
and
test
various
aspects
of
a
computerized
stated
preference
survey
designed
to
estimate
willingness
to
pay
for
water
quality
improvements
in
coastal
waters.
Specifically,
we
will:
$
test
the
quality
and
effectiveness
of
the
computerized
survey
instrument
in
yielding
robust
estimates
for
both
use
and
non­
use
values
of
improvements
to
coastal
water
quality
$
test
the
effect
of
the
use
of
color
in
computerized
survey
instruments
$
test
the
appropriateness
of
the
design
values
used
in
the
choice
questions
$
test
the
effect
of
a
$
5
incentive
on
the
response
rate
$
test
the
effectiveness
of
the
survey
administration
mode
for
periodic,
panel
surveys,
and
$
test
the
effectiveness
of
the
survey
administration
mode
for
environmental
surveys.

The
subject
of
the
survey
was
chosen
for
a
variety
of
reasons.
First,
at
this
time,
no
suitable
information
exists
that
will
allow
the
estimation
of
the
benefits
of
statewide
or
national
changes
in
coastal
water
quality.
Existing
studies
focus
on
estimating
recreational
(
use)
values
for
very
specific
reaches
of
coastal
waters,
thus
limiting
the
use
of
the
resulting
estimates
for
benefit
transfer
and
ignoring
non­
use
values
completely
(
e.
g.,
Parsons
et
al.
(
2000)
and
Koaru,
1995).
Second,
the
results
of
this
survey
will
complement
those
from
an
ongoing
freshwater
quality
survey
(
USEPA,
2000).
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
2
Currently,
States,
tribes,
and
other
jurisdictions
measure
water
quality
by
determining
if
water
bodies
are
clean
enough
to
support
basic
uses,
such
as
swimming,
fishing,
and
aquatic
life.
In
keeping
with
these
definitions
of
water
quality,
the
survey
will
provide
estimates
of
willingness
to
pay
(
WTP)
for
more
fishable
and
swimmable
coastal
and
estuarine
waters
as
well
as
healthier
marine
and
estuarine
aquatic
environments.
In
the
valuation
portion
of
the
survey,
respondents
will
be
asked
a
series
of
five
questions
in
which
they
are
asked
to
compare
two
programs
with
the
status
quo.
The
programs
each
affect
water
quality
for
the
various
uses
in
different
ways
and
cost
varying
amounts
to
implement.
Analysis
of
the
resulting
data
will
yield
WTP
estimates
for
improvements
to
each
of
the
attributes.

Further
development
of
the
survey
cannot
be
completed
without
a
pilot
survey.
The
pilot
survey
will
take
place
in
California
using
the
computerized
survey
instrument
described
in
more
detail
in
section
4
of
this
ICR.
The
survey
instrument
is
specific
to
the
state
of
California
and,
depending
upon
the
results
of
the
pilot
survey,
may
be
used
to
estimate
willingness
to
pay
for
water
quality
improvements
for
the
three
specific
uses
noted
above.
Once
the
pilot
survey
is
complete
and
EPA
is
convinced
of
the
adequacy
of
the
questionnaire,
EPA's
National
Center
for
Environmental
Economics
hopes
to
develop
parallel
versions
of
the
survey
instrument
for
the
remaining
20
coastal
states
in
the
contiguous
United
States
as
well
as
a
version
for
inland
states.
The
coastal
state
versions
of
the
survey
will
elicit
resident's
willingness
to
pay
for
coastal
water
improvements
within
the
respondent's
home
state.
The
inland
version
of
the
survey
will
elicit
willingness
to
pay
for
coastal
water
improvements
generally.
Together
these
data
will
provide
valuable
information
to
estimate
improvements
to
coastal
waters
that
may
improve
the
quality
of
cost­
benefit
analyses
and
decision­
making
at
EPA.

The
pilot
survey
is
designed
to
collect
information
using
Knowledge
Networks,
a
survey
research
firm
with
a
pre­
recruited
panel
of
individuals
throughout
the
United
States
who
complete
surveys
using
WebTV.
We
are
requesting
permission
to
conduct
a
pilot
survey
of
600
respondents
in
California
It
should
be
noted,
however,
that
no
expectations
have
been
formed
regarding
the
administration
mode
for
future
pilots
or
surveys
using
this
or
parallel
survey
instruments.
While
we
expect
to
continue
using
a
self­
administered
computerized
format,
we
plan
to
explore
alternative
modes
of
administration.

The
only
burden
imposed
by
the
pilot
survey
on
respondents
will
be
the
time
required
to
complete
the
survey.
Based
upon
a
limited
number
of
cognitive
pretest
interviews,
the
survey
developers
estimate
that
this
will
involve
an
average
of
30
minutes
per
respondents.
With
a
total
of
600
respondents
for
the
pilot
survey
this
involves
a
total
of
150
hours.
Based
on
an
average
hourly
rate
of
$
22.15
(
including
employer
costs
of
all
employee
benefits),
the
survey
developers
expect
that
the
average
per­
respondent
cost
for
the
pilot
survey
will
be
$
11.08
and
the
corresponding
one­
time
total
cost
to
all
respondents
will
be
$
6645.00.
This
information
collection
does
not
involve
any
special
equipment,
thus,
respondents
will
not
incur
any
capital
or
operation
and
maintenance
(
O&
M)
costs.
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
3
Responses
to
the
pilot
survey
will
be
voluntary.
Typically,
panel
members
are
free
to
choose
whether
or
not
to
respond
to
any
particular
survey
as
long
as
they
meet
survey
quotas
set
in
their
agreement
with
the
research
firm.
The
survey
will
fully
conform
to
federal
regulations
 
specifically
the
Privacy
Act
of
1974
(
5
U.
S.
C.
552a),
the
Hawkins­
Stafford
Amendments
of
1988
(
P.
L
100­
297),
and
the
Computer
Security
Act
of
1987.

The
pilot
survey
data
will
be
collected
and
stored
electronically
by
the
survey
research
firm,
and
all
identifying
information
will
be
removed
by
the
survey
research
firm
prior
to
transfer
to
EPA.
EPA
will
perform
all
data
analyses
used
to
determine
the
efficacy
of
this
survey
instrument
for
estimating
the
values
associated
with
improved
coastal
water
quality.

Section
2.
Need
for
and
Use
of
the
Collection
2(
a)
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection
The
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
Office
of
Water
is
responsible
for
regulating
and
monitoring
national
water
quality.
In
order
to
make
sound
policy
decisions,
policy
makers
need
information
on
the
benefits,
costs,
and
other
effects
of
alternative
options
for
addressing
environmental
problems.

A
number
of
federal
agencies,
including
EPA,
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration
and
the
Department
of
Commerce,
have
developed
programs
to
protect
coastal
areas
and
control
water
pollution.
These
efforts
have
resulted
in
a
dramatic
reduction
in
water
pollution.
Despite
these
efforts,
however,
water
pollution
problems
persist.
Water
pollution
continues
to
negatively
affect
not
only
the
coastal
area
aquatic
environments,
but
also
quality
of
human
life
by
reducing
recreational
opportunities,
undermining
local
economic
prosperity,
and
threatening
public
health.
Future
water
policies
may
focus
on
additional
efforts
to
improve
coastal
areas
and
these
new
efforts
will
require
new
funds
to
implement.
These
additional
cleanup
efforts
will
cost
money.
To
assess
the
net
benefits
of
the
incremental
improvements
associated
with
these
new
projects,
estimates
of
the
public's
willingness
to
pay
for
incremental
improvements
in
coastal
water
are
needed.

To
assess
benefits
of
current
policies
affecting
fresh
water
quality,
estimates
of
the
public's
willingness
to
pay
for
improvements
in
fresh
water
quality
typically
rely
on
Mitchell
and
Carson
(
1993).
That
study,
however,
does
not
estimate
values
for
saltwater
(
coastal)
areas.
In
fact,
no
studies
currently
exist
that
provide
a
comprehensive
national
assessment
of
willingness
to
pay
for
water
quality
improvements
in
coastal
areas.
The
lack
of
estimates
of
the
benefits
of
improvements
to
coastal
waters
makes
designing
effective
policies
to
remedy
these
problems
particularly
difficult.
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
4
The
purpose
of
this
pilot
survey
is
to
test
various
aspects
of
a
stated
preference
survey
designed
to
estimate
willingness
to
pay
for
water
quality
improvements
in
coastal
waters.
The
results
from
this
pilot
survey
may
be
used
to
develop
a
full
set
of
surveys
to
be
administered
throughout
coastal
states.
Such
surveys
would
provide
estimates
of
willingness
to
pay
for
coastal
water
quality
improvements
that,
in
turn,
could
potentially
inform
policy
decisions.
While
the
purpose
of
the
pilot
is
not
to
estimate
values
for
use
in
policy,
the
pilot
survey
is
a
necessary
step
toward
achieving
this
goal
with
future
survey
instruments.

This
data
collection
is
conducted
for
research
purposes;
there
are
no
legal
requirements.
The
survey
will
fully
conform
to
federal
regulations
 
specifically
the
Privacy
Act
of
1974
(
5
U.
S.
C.
552a),
the
Hawkins­
Stafford
Amendments
of
1988
(
P.
L
100­
297),
and
the
Computer
Security
Act
of
1987.

2(
b)
Practical
Utility/
Users
of
the
Data
The
Office
of
Water
is
conducting
a
series
of
research
projects
whose
results,
when
combined,
will
attempt
to
reflect
the
national
picture
of
current
water
quality
conditions
and
the
public's
willingness
to
pay
for
improvements.
One
of
the
modeling
projects,
the
National
Coastal
Model
(
NCM)
will
examine
pollution
loadings
and
their
physical
effects
on
estuarine
and
coastal
waters
of
the
United
States.
As
the
NCM
is
developed,
estimates
of
the
public's
willingness
to
pay
to
improve
these
areas
will
be
needed.
This
pilot
survey
is
focused
on
beginning
to
fill
this
gap
by
testing
a
survey
instrument
designed
to
estimate
the
willingness
to
pay
of
residents
of
coastal
states
for
more
fishable
and
swimmable
coastal
waters
and
healthier
marine
and
estuarine
aquatic
environments.
The
coastal
valuation
component
of
this
pilot
survey
will
value
changes
in
the
percentage
of
number
of
miles
of
coastal
areas
that
permit
fish
consumption,
allow
swimming,
and/
or
have
healthy
aquatic
environments.
The
National
Water
Quality
Inventory
Report
to
Congress
(
305(
b)
report)
will
be
used
to
establish
the
current
(
baseline)
levels
of
water
quality
in
these
areas.
The
pilot
survey
will
incorporate
respondents'
values
for
pollution
alleviation
within
the
context
of
improvements
to
those
areas
where
water
quality
and
the
presence
of
contaminants
restricts
uses.
In
addition
to
anticipated
use
values,
non­
use
values
can
also
be
inferred
from
the
WTP
values
given
by
respondents
who
report
a
value
for
water
quality
change
but
do
not
expect
to
participate
in
any
of
the
uses
that
would
be
affected
by
these
changes.

Further
development
of
the
survey
cannot
be
completed
without
a
pilot
survey.
The
pilot
survey
will
take
place
in
California
generating
data
from
600
households
using
the
computerized
survey
instrument
described
in
more
detail
in
Section
4
of
this
ICR.
Provided
the
survey
instrument
is
found
to
be
of
high
quality
and
the
resulting
estimates
robust,
the
willingness
to
pay
values
emerging
from
future
surveys
of
this
sort
administered
in
coastal
states
could
be
used
to
value
coastal
water
improvements
predicted
from
the
NCM
described
above.
The
pilot
survey
will
provide
critical
information
on
the
survey
instruments'
quality
including
information
on
respondents'
ability
to
understand
and
interpret
the
supporting
materials
incorporated
into
the
survey
and
their
ability
to
successfully
complete
the
series
of
choice
questions
designed
to
reveal
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
5
the
value
they
place
on
various
types
and
levels
of
improvement
in
coastal
water
quality.
The
pilot
survey
will
also
provide
critical
information
on
the
effect
of
panel
respondents
for
EPA
staff
will
use
the
pilot
survey
results
to
determine
whether
a
full­
scale
multi­
state
study
is
feasible
and,
if
so,
what
changes
or
revisions
should
be
made
to
the
questionnaire,
supporting
materials
and/
or
mode
of
administration
to
produce
the
best
data
possible.
EPA
staff
will
also
use
the
results
of
the
survey
to
answer
some
of
the
additional
research
questions
noted
in
1(
b)
above.

Section
3.
Nonduplication,
Consultations,
and
Other
Collection
Criteria
3(
a)
Nonduplication
While
some
research
has
been
done
assessing
the
representativeness
of
the
Knowledge
Networks
panel,
to
our
knowledge,
no
research
exists
regarding
this
issue
and
lengthy
environmental
valuation
surveys.
While
claims
have
been
made
that
respondents
to
Knowledge
Networks
surveys
generally
mimic
the
general
population
of
the
United
States,
no
research
has
been
done
to
confirm
whether
this
holds
true
for
environmental
valuation
surveys.
These
types
of
surveys
are
generally
longer
and
more
complex
than
the
typical
Knowledge
Networks
survey
Regarding
the
subject
of
the
survey,
a
thorough
literature
review
was
conducted
prior
to
development
of
the
survey
instrument.
No
existing
studies
were
found
that
provide
a
comprehensive
national
assessment
of
willingness
to
pay
for
improved
water
quality
in
coastal
(
saltwater)
areas
water
quality,
and
no
site­
specific
study
has
jointly
estimated
both
use
and
nonuse
values
for
swimming,
fish
consumption,
and
support
of
diverse
aquatic
life.
Additionally,
the
survey's
peer
review
panel,
which
is
described
in
more
detail
below,
was
asked
whether
or
not
they
were
aware
of
the
availability
of
similar
information
exists;
all
answers
to
this
question
confirmed
that
no
such
information
exists.

One
ongoing
survey,
the
2000
National
Survey
on
Recreation
and
the
Environment
(
NSRE),
may
provide
some
limited
valuation
estimates
for
water
quality
improvements.
However,
it
is
not
a
substitute
for
our
survey
effort
because
it
cannot
address
the
economic
value
of
significant
changes
in
coastal
water
quality
in
a
state
as
a
whole.
The
NSRE
does
not
provide
information
on
non­
use
values;
furthermore
given
the
limited
number
of
respondents
per
state
to
the
saltwater
modules
it
is
not
even
clear
that
the
NSRE
survey
can
be
used
to
provide
use
values
by
relating
recreation
choices
with
the
diversity
of
quality
conditions
at
the
time
the
respondents
actually
used
these
resources.
Still,
the
NSRE
does
provide
detailed
information
on
recreation
choices
made
by
respondents
and
may
provide
useful
comparisons
with
the
data
emerging
from
our
data
collection
efforts.
The
feasibility
of
linking
data
from
the
NSRE
on
a
respondent's
most
recent
saltwater
recreation
trip
with
data
from
the
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
is
being
explored.
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
6
More
specifically,
four
features
distinguish
the
information
provided
by
the
proposed
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey.
First,
it
will
collect
information
on
both
the
use
and
non­
use
benefits
associated
with
coastal
water
quality
improvements.
The
non­
use
component
for
coastal
water
quality
is
not
apparent
in
the
literature.
Second,
while
the
2000
NSRE
survey
contains
some
information
about
the
use
of
coastal
areas,
for
the
results
to
be
effectively
used
to
measure
the
benefits
for
improvements
in
coastal
water
quality,
sufficient
variation
in
coastal
water
quality
conditions
would
be
necessary
to
isolate
their
impact
on
recreationists'
decisions
about
where
to
engage
in
coastal
recreation.
The
status
of
the
water
quality
data
by
specific
locations
is
unknown,
since
they
were
not
collected
as
part
of
the
NSRE.
Third,
the
format
of
the
questions
in
the
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
will
provide
data
to
estimate
benefits
for
statewide
improvements
in
coastal
water
quality
rather
than
estimation
of
values
for
site­
specific
improvements
at
the
locations
used
by
respondents.
Fourth,
the
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
distinguishes
between
different
support
services
provided
by
coastal
water
quality
improvements
­­
recreational
swimming,
fish
and
shellfish
consumption,
and
habitat­
related
effects.

3(
b)
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
An
announcement
of
a
public
comment
period
for
this
initial
ICR
was
made
in
the
Federal
Register
on
June
28,
2002
(
Volume
67,
Number
125).
See
Appendix
1
for
a
copy
of
this
Federal
Register
notice.

3(
c)
Consultations
Considerable
effort
has
been
taken
to
consult
with
persons
outside
the
agency
on
a
regular
basis
throughout
the
design
and
testing
of
this
survey
instrument.
A
panel
of
4
nationally
known
experts
was
convened
early
in
the
project
to
provide
periodic
reviews
and
advice
concerning
the
project.
Three
of
the
panel
members
are
experts
in
economic
valuation
and
contingent
valuation
surveys
and
one
panel
member
is
a
nationally
recognized
expert
in
survey
design.
This
panel
has
provided
formal
input,
in
the
form
of
in­
person
meetings
and
written
comments,
on
ten
different
occasions.
Advice
was
sought
on
all
aspects
of
the
project,
including
survey
design
and
data
analysis.
The
panel
reached
a
consensus
that
the
design
and
procedures
warranted
proceeding
at
each
stage
in
the
design
process.
The
expert
peer
review
panel
acknowledges
that
there
are
no
other
data
or
research
available
that
can
be
used
to
effectively
address
the
study
objectives.
This
peer
review
panel
is
in
agreement
that
the
survey
wording
and
directions
are
clear
and
direct,
and
that
the
survey
instrument
is
ready
to
be
pilot­
tested
in
the
state
of
California.

The
peer
review
panel
consists
of
the
following
persons:

Dr.
Kevin
Boyle
is
the
Libra
Professor
of
Environmental
Economics
in
the
Department
of
Resource
Economics
and
Policy
at
the
University
of
Maine­­(
207)
581­
3163.
Dr.
Boyle's
primary
research
focus
is
on
methods
to
estimate
nonmarket
values.
In
particular,
he
has
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
7
published
in
peer­
reviewed
journals
on
the
topics
of
the
estimation
of
nonmarket
values
for
water
quality,
the
use
of
conjoint
analysis
to
estimate
nonmarket
values,
and
the
use
of
survey
research
to
implement
nonmarket
valuation
studies.
He
has
also
served
as
an
Associate
Editor
of
the
Journal
of
Environmental
Economics
and
Management,
which
is
the
leading
journal
for
the
economic
study
of
natural
resources
and
environmental
quality.

Dr.
George
Parsons
is
an
Associate
Professor
of
Economics
and
Marine
Policy
at
the
University
of
Delaware­­
(
302)
831­
6891.
Dr.
Parsons
specializes
in
environmental
economics
with
an
emphasis
on
valuing
environmental
goods.
He
has
published
on
the
subject
in
leading
journals
in
the
field
including
the
Journal
of
Environmental
Economics
and
Management,
Land
Economics,
and
the
American
Journal
of
Agricultural
Economics.
Dr.
Parson's
research
often
focuses
on
coastal
and
marine
resources,
and
he
has
also
participated
in
numerous
EPA
and
NOAA­
sponsored
projects.

Dr.
V.
Kerry
Smith
is
a
Distinguished
Professor
of
Agricultural
and
Resource
Economics
at
North
Carolina
State
University­­(
919)
513­
3761.
He
also
serves
as
Director
of
the
Center
for
Environmental
and
Resource
Economics
Policy
(
CENREP).
For
the
past
30
years,
Dr.
Smith
has
designed
and
managed
several
surveys
intended
to
collect
stated
preference
information
in
support
of
research
and
ultimately
policy;
participated
directly
in
litigation­
related
stated
preference
survey
research;
and
advised
others
on
the
structure
of
questionnaires,
design
and
analysis
for
surveys.

Dr.
Don
Dillman
is
the
Thomas
S.
Foley
Distinguished
Professor
of
Government
and
Public
Policy
in
the
Departments
of
Sociology
and
Rural
Sociology,
and
Deputy
Director
for
Research
and
Development
in
the
Social
and
Economic
Sciences
Research
Center
(
SESRC)
at
Washington
State
University­­(
509)
334­
1141.
He
is
recognized
internationally
as
a
major
contributor
to
the
development
of
modern
mail
and
telephone
survey
methods.
In
1991
he
was
appointed
(
under
the
Intergovernmental
Personnel
Act)
as
the
senior
survey
methodologist
in
the
Office
of
the
Director,
U.
S.
Bureau
of
the
Census,
a
position
he
held
until
1995,
where
he
provided
leadership
for
the
development
of
new
questionnaire
designs
and
procedures
for
the
2000
Decennial
Census
and
other
government
surveys.
This
and
related
work
on
other
federal
agency
surveys
led
to
his
receiving
the
Roger
Herriot
Award
for
innovation
in
federal
statistics
in
September
2000.
He
has
also
served
as
a
consultant
to
the
Energy
Information
Administration
for
the
redesign
of
several
surveys
and
is
currently
working
in
a
similar
capacity
for
the
National
Science
Foundation's
Division
of
Science
Resource
Studies.
Many
of
his
experiences
in
government
survey
redesign
are
summarized
in
his
new
book,
Mail
and
Internet
Surveys:
The
Tailored
Design
Method.

In
addition
to
the
Peer
Review
panel,
consultants
from
PA
Government
Services
Inc.
and
Dr.
Joel
Huber
assisted
in
the
survey
design.

Ms.
Pam
Rathbun
(
Principal
Consultant)
and
Dr.
Robert
Baumgartner
(
Managing
Consultant)
of
PA
Government
Services
Inc.
((
608)
827­
7820)
have
assisted
EPA
staff
with
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
8
identifying
and
recruiting
a
peer
review
panel,
researching
the
feasibility
of
conducting
the
survey
using
different
methods
(
phone,
mail,
WebTV),
and
survey
design.
Both
Ms.
Rathbun
and
Dr.
Baumgartner
have
been
designing
and
conducting
mail,
telephone
and
Internet
surveys
for
over
two
decades,
and
are
nationally
known
for
their
expertise
in
this
area.

Dr.
Joel
Huber
is
a
Professor
of
Marketing
and
Dean
for
the
MBA
Program,
Fuqua
School
of
Business,
Duke
University­­
(
919)
660­
7785.
Dr.
Huber
provided
input
to
EPA
staff
on
the
design
of
the
choice
questions.
Dr.
Huber
has
been
at
Fuqua
for
21
years.
Before
becoming
Dean
he
was
faculty
coordinator
for
the
Weekend
Executive
MBA
program
and
taught
Marketing
Management,
Marketing
Strategy,
and
Marketing
of
High
Technology.
He
has
taught
at
the
business
schools
at
Penn,
Purdue
and
Columbia,
and
received
his
Ph.
D.
and
MBA
from
the
Wharton
School
of
the
University
of
Pennsylvania
and
his
BA
from
Princeton
University.
His
research
centers
around
three
different
areas:
assessing
the
relative
effectiveness
of
different
ways
to
measure
demand,
the
ways
consumers
selectively
search
for
information,
and
computerbased
methods
that
help
people
make
decisions
about
which
they
will
be
most
satisfied.
In
addition
to
discussions
with
the
peer
review
panel,
PA
staff
and
Dr.
Huber,
as
part
of
the
finalization
of
the
survey
design,
protocol
interviews
of
different
versions
of
the
survey
instrument
were
conducted
with
2
small
groups
of
Knowledge
Network's
panel
members
to
test
the
clarity
of
the
questionnaire.

3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
This
is
a
one­
time
data
collection
exercise
for
the
respondent.

3(
e)
General
Guidelines
This
collection
does
not
violate
any
of
OMB's
general
guidelines
for
information
collections.

Information
will
be
collected
according
to
the
guidelines
in
5
CFR
1320.
Respondents
will
be
asked
to
fill
out
only
one
survey
and
their
responses
to
the
survey
as
well
as
their
participation
in
Knowledge
Networks
panel
is
voluntary.
There
will
be
no
need
for
respondents
to
maintain
records
or
submit
documents
or
proprietary
trade
secrets.
There
will
be
complete
protection
of
any
demographic
information
collection
from
respondents­­
names,
phone
numbers
and
addresses
will
not
be
associated
with
responses.
While
a
statistical
study,
the
data
will
produced
estimates
that
can
be
generalized
to
the
universe
of
the
study
(
for
more
information
see
Part
B
of
this
Supporting
Statement).

EPA
has
developed
EPA
Information
Quality
Guidelines
(
2002)
to
ensure
the
utility,
objectivity
and
integrity
of
information
that
is
disseminated
by
the
Agency.
It
is
EPA's
intention
that
collection
of
information
under
this
ICR
will
result
in
information
that
will
be
collected,
maintained,
and
used
in
ways
consistent
with
both
the
EPA
Information
Quality
Guidelines
(
2002)
and
the
OMB
Information
Quality
Guidelines
(
2002).
EPA
intends
to
conduct
a
pre­
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
9
dissemination
review
when
the
Agency
prepares
to
disseminate
information
collected
under
this
ICR.

Since
the
information
identified
in
this
ICR
has
not
yet
been
collected
and
disseminated,
there
is
currently
no
dissemination
of
information
to
which
the
Guidelines
would
apply.
However,
the
study
has
been
designed
with
the
goals
of
the
Guidelines
in
mind.
Utility
of
the
information
is
implicit
in
the
importance
of
the
research
questions
being
investigated.
Though
the
information
collection
will
not
involve
sensitive
information,
integrity
of
the
information
is
ensured
by
the
confidentiality
protocols
developed
in
the
sampling
design
and
the
review
and
approval
of
the
Institutional
Review
Board
at
Research
Triangle
Institute
(
see
Section
3(
f)
of
this
Supporting
Statement).
Moreover,
any
access
to
information
resulting
from
this
collection
will
be
through
read­
only
channels.
Finally,
the
survey
instrument
has
been
subjected
to
review
by
subject
experts,
ensuring
objectivity
of
the
information.
The
investigators
have
designed
this
study
with
the
intent
to
publish
the
results
in
appropriate
outlets
such
as
peer­
reviewed
academic
or
professional
journals.
Consistent
with
standard
policies
for
most
such
publications,
the
survey
data
will
be
made
available
to
readers
upon
request,
with
accompanying
documentation
of
the
dataset,
reproductions
of
the
survey
instrument,
and
any
statistical
code
with
which
the
data
is
analyzed.
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
10
3(
f)
Confidentiality
The
pilot
survey
will
fully
conform
to
federal
regulations
 
specifically
the
Privacy
Act
of
1974
(
5
U.
S.
C.
552a),
the
Hawkins­
Stafford
Amendments
of
1988
(
P.
L
100­
297),
and
the
Computer
Security
Act
of
1987.
Knowledge
Network's
(
the
WebTV
contractor)
panel
members
have
already
agreed
to
complete
surveys
on
a
variety
of
topics
on
a
regular
basis.
Prior
to
agreeing
to
become
a
panel
member,
these
prospective
respondents
were
informed
that
their
participation
in
each
survey
is
voluntary,
and
that
their
identities
will
be
kept
confidential
by
Knowledge
Networks
and
not
associated
with
their
responses.
EPA
or
no
other
agency
will
have
access
to
the
names
of
panel
members.
No
identifying
information
will
be
included
in
the
final
pilot
survey
data
provided
to
EPA.

3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
There
are
no
questions
on
sexual
behavior
and
attitudes,
religious
beliefs,
and
other
matters
that
are
commonly
considered
private
or
sensitive
in
this
pilot
survey
instrument.
Answers
to
standard
demographic
questions
(
i.
e.,
age,
income)
are
already
contained
in
the
Knowledge
Networks
panel
database
and
can
be
linked
to
survey
responses
without
collecting
this
information
a
second
time.
Therefore,
respondents
will
not
be
asked
to
complete
the
full
battery
of
standard
demographic
questions
for
this
pilot
survey.

Section
4.
The
Respondents
and
the
Information
Requested
4(
a)
Respondents/
SIC
Codes
The
following
is
a
list
of
respondents
affected
by
the
manifest
information
requirements
covered
under
this
ICR:

­
Individuals
participating
in
Knowledge
Network's
WebTV
panel
who
live
in
the
State
of
California
4(
b)
Information
Requested
(
i)
Data
items,
including
recordkeeping
requirements
Reporting
Items.
Respondents
will
be
asked
to
fill
out
a
one­
time
questionnaire.
The
text
of
the
survey
instrument
appears
in
Appendix
2.
The
questionnaire
is
divided
into
four
sections.
The
initial
section
provides
respondents
with
a
definition
of
coastal
waters
and
a
detailed
description
of
the
different
types
of
coastal
waters.
Respondents'
familiarity
and
use
of
each
type
of
coastal
water
is
assessed
in
this
initial
section
of
the
questionnaire.
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
11
The
second
section
evaluates
respondents'
familiarity
with
pollution
sources
and
their
perceptions
of
coastal
water
quality
in
California.
This
section
also
defines
the
water
quality
rating
system
used
by
federal
and
state
governments
and
provides
information
on
the
rating
for
three
defined
uses
(
swimming,
production
of
fish
and
shellfish
safe
for
human
consumption,
and
support
of
diverse
aquatic
life),
and
compares
ratings
of
California's
coastal
waters
to
other
states'
ratings.
This
information
is
provided
to
ensure
that
all
respondents
operate
from
the
same
knowledge
base
when
completing
the
subsequent
choice
questions
and
that
the
information
base
is
as
accurate
as
possible.

The
third
section
includes
a
number
of
choice
questions
designed
to
yield
information
on
respondents'
preferences
and
willingness
to
pay
for
various
types
of
programs
to
improve
coastal
water
quality.
Each
respondent
is
asked
to
answer
five
choice
questions
comparing
two
hypothetical
programs
with
different
attributes
to
the
status
quo.
Respondents
are
asked
to
select
which
of
the
two
programs
if
either
they
prefer.
Questions
are
designed
such
that
respondents
need
only
concentrate
on
two
attributes
at
one
time.

The
final
section
of
the
survey
instrument
includes
a
few
standard
demographic
questions
not
previously
collected
by
Knowledge
Networks,
as
well
as
questions
from
the
"
Panel
Study
of
Income
Dynamics
(
PSID)".
The
questions
in
this
section
will
be
used
to
evaluate
the
representativeness
of
the
sample
of
respondents,
to
identify
differences
in
preferences
and
willingness
to
pay
for
different
groups
of
respondents,
and
to
help
explain
these
differences,
based
on
differences
in
characteristics
of
the
respondents.
It
should
be
noted,
however,
that
the
number
of
demographic
questions
asked
has
been
reduced
due
to
the
availability
of
much
respondent
characteristic
data
from
Knowledge
Networks.

Recordkeeping
Items.
Respondents
will
be
asked
to
fill
out
only
one
survey
and
their
response
to
the
survey
(
and
their
participation
in
Knowledge
Networks
panel)
is
voluntary.
There
will
be
no
need
for
respondents
to
maintain
records
or
submit
documents
or
proprietary
trade
secrets.
There
will
be
complete
protection
of
any
demographic
information
collection
from
respondents­­
names,
phone
numbers
and
addresses
will
not
be
associated
with
responses.

(
ii)
Respondent
Activities
A
randomly
selected
subset
of
Knowledge
Networks
panel
members
residing
in
California
will
receive
an
email
notifying
them
of
the
survey.
These
respondents
are
then
asked
to
complete
the
WebTV
questionnaire
within
a
specified
number
of
days
using
the
equipment
provided
at
the
time
of
their
enrollment
into
the
panel.
All
responses
are
voluntary.
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
12
Section
5.
The
Information
Collected
 
Agency
Activities,
Collection
Methodology,
and
Information
Management
5(
a)
Agency
Activities
Agency
activities
associated
with
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters­­
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
consist
of
the
following:

­
Implement
pilot
survey
using
Knowledge
Networks
and
their
WebTV
panel
­
Analyze
the
data
­
Store
the
data
­
Disseminate
findings
to
EPA
and
other
interested
parties
via
reports
and
presentations
5(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
The
data
collection
for
this
project
will
be
conducted
with
a
sample
of
the
California
residents
using
an
online
survey
administered
with
WebTV
technology.
The
sample
of
respondents
for
the
pilot
survey
will
be
drawn
from
a
panel
of
potential
respondents
maintained
by
Knowledge
Networks.
Panel
members
have
been
recruited
from
across
the
nation
using
a
Random
Digit
Dial
telephone
recruitment
process
to
build
a
panel
representative
of
the
households
and
populations
of
each
state.
Knowledge
Networks
has
provided
all
panel
members
with
WebTV
and
Internet
connectivity,
as
well
as
individual
email
accounts
for
each
panel
member.
All
participating
households
receive
identical
hardware
regardless
of
whether
or
not
they
previously
had
computer
access
to
the
Internet.
All
surveys
are
administered
via
the
WebTV
apparatus.
In
addition,
panel
members
receive
technical
and
survey
phone
support,
and
online
technical
support
seven
days
a
week.
Panel
members
have
already
agreed
to
participate
in
periodic
surveys
during
the
time
they
remain
on
the
panel.

Since
the
composition
of
panel
households
is
known,
a
within­
household
random
selection
of
an
adult
household
member
can
occur.
Sampled
panel
members
will
receive
(
via
email)
an
invitation
to
complete
the
survey,
as
well
as
several
reminders
if
they
fail
to
do
so
in
a
timely
fashion.
This
method
of
informing
panel
members
of
a
survey
is
typical
Knowledge
Networks
protocol.

The
WebTV
approach
to
implementing
the
pilot
survey
will
increase
data
quality
and
collection
efficiency
in
several
ways.
First,
because
respondents
view
the
survey
on
their
television
screens,
we
are
able
to
include
meaningful
high­
quality
graphics
in
the
survey
instrument
to
convey
important
information.
These
graphics
as
well
as
the
text
portions
of
the
survey
instrument
can
make
use
of
color
to
help
convey
the
information
and
hold
respondent
interest.
With
other
modes
of
administration,
the
delivery
of
high
quality
graphics
to
a
representative
sample
is
simply
not
possible.
In
the
case
of
typical
Internet­
delivered
surveys
administered
on
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
13
home
computers,
use
of
color
graphics
is
possible;
however,
access
to
a
truly
representative
sample
is
not.
Furthermore,
while
the
graphics
and
color
could
be
presented
to
households
using
a
mail
survey,
this
is
not
possible
using
computer
assisted
telephone
interview
(
CATI)
technology.
The
use
of
television
screens
to
view
the
questionnaire
also
facilitates
the
careful
reading
of
the
questions
since
television
screens
tend
to
be
larger
than
computer
monitors
and
since
the
size
of
the
graphics
and
text
will
appear
larger
than
if
printed
on
paper.

Second,
use
of
the
WebTV
technology
alleviates
scheduling
burdens
and
their
associated
costs
that
often
accompany
telephone
and
in­
person
surveys.
Using
WebTV
allows
respondents
to
complete
the
survey
at
their
convenience.

Third,
by
using
WebTV
technology,
the
skip
patterns
in
the
pilot
survey
are
automated
so
respondents
will
never
encounter
and
inadvertently
answer
questions
that
are
not
relevant
for
them.
Automated
skip
patterns
increase
the
efficiency
of
the
data
collection
process
by
reducing
the
amount
of
time
required
to
take
the
survey
and
by
simplifying
the
data
cleaning
process.
While
this
could
be
accomplished
using
a
CATI
telephone
survey,
this
cannot
be
done
in
a
mail
survey.

Fourth,
using
WebTV
technology
allows
the
random
assignment
of
"
program­
choice"
questions
across
all
panel
members.
It
also
allows
for
randomization
of
choices
presented
in
list
format
within
the
"
list"
questions
in
the
survey.
While
this
randomization
could
be
accomplished
with
Computer
Assisted
Telephone
Interviewing
(
CATI)
technology,
the
amount
of
information
contained
in
some
parts
of
the
survey
(
i.
e.,
the
explanations
leading
up
to
questions)
as
well
as
the
information
contained
in
the
graphics,
would
be
enormously
difficult
and
burdensome
to
communicate
by
telephone.

Fifth,
because
all
surveys
using
the
WebTV
technology
are
self­
administered,
the
potential
of
interviewer
bias
is
eliminated.

Finally,
WebTV
technology
allows
for
the
electronic
submission
of
responses,
which
increases
collection
efficiency
by
minimizing
both
the
amount
of
time
that
the
survey
is
in
the
field
and
potential
data
entry
errors
from
having
to
data
enter
off
of
hard­
copy
forms.

The
data
from
the
pilot
survey
will
be
stored
by
Knowledge
Networks
and
transmitted
to
EPA
after
adding
additional,
pre­
collected,
demographic
information.
Knowledge
Networks
will
remove
all
identifying
information
from
the
dataset
prior
to
submission
to
EPA.
EPA
will
review
the
electronic
data
for
each
completed
questionnaire
and
the
debriefing
questions
to
ensure
that
the
questionnaire
was
completed
and
that
the
respondent
understood
the
exercise.
The
data
will
be
stored
in
an
SPSS
data
file
on
Agency
desktop
computers.
The
public
will
not
have
access
to
the
dataset
or
any
individual
records.
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
14
5(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
No
information
will
be
collected
from
small
businesses
or
small
organizations
or
small
governmental
jurisdictions
as
a
result
of
this
information
collection.
The
pilot
survey
will
be
administered
to
a
sample
of
California
residents
who
are
part
of
the
Knowledge
Networks
panel.

5(
d)
Collection
Schedule
The
proposed
timeline
for
the
data
collection
is
as
follows.
This
is
a
one­
time
data
collection
exercise.
The
questionnaire
is
finalized
and
programmed
for
WebTV.
Thus,
data
collection
can
commence
immediately
upon
approval
to
do
so.

Task:
Date:
Select
sample
of
panel
members
Day
1
Post
electronic
survey
for
completion
Day
4
Electronically
distribute
invitation
to
complete
survey
Day
4
Send
reminder
request
to
complete
survey
to
nonrespondents
Day
8
Send
final
reminder
request
to
complete
survey
to
nonrespondents
Day
12
Cut­
off
data
collection
Day
18
Provide
data
set
(
after
removal
of
identifying
information)
to
EPA
Day
24
Section
6.
Estimating
the
Burden
and
Cost
of
the
Collection
6(
a)
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
6(
b)
Estimating
Respondent
Costs
The
proposed
pilot
survey
will
take
advantage
of
an
existing,
pre­
recruited
panel
of
respondents.
Thus,
the
only
burden
imposed
by
the
pilot
survey
on
respondents
will
be
the
time
required
to
complete
the
survey.
Based
upon
pretest
interviews
and
debriefings
with
respondents,
the
survey
developers
estimate
that
this
will
involve
an
average
of
30
minutes
per
respondents.
With
a
total
of
600
respondents
for
the
pilot
survey
this
involves
a
total
of
300
hours.
Based
on
an
average
hourly
rate
of
$
22.151
(
including
employer
costs
of
all
employee
benefits),
the
survey
developers
expect
that
the
average
per­
respondent
cost
for
the
pilot
survey
will
be
$
11.08
and
the
1
Hourly
rate
from
"
Total
compensation,
all
workers,
all
civilian,
2001",
U.
S.
Department
of
Labor,
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics,
Employer
Costs
for
Employee
Compensation.
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
15
corresponding
one­
time
total
cost
to
all
respondents
will
be
$
6645.00.
Since
this
information
collection
is
voluntary
and
does
not
involve
any
special
equipment,
respondents
will
not
incur
any
capital
or
operation
and
maintenance
(
O&
M)
costs.

Average
Annual
Respondent
Burden
and
Costs
Hours
and
Costs
Per
Respondent
Total
Hours
and
Cost
Respon.
$
22.15/
hour
Respon.
Hours/
Year
Labor
Cost/
Year
Capital/
Startup
Cost
O&
M
Cost
Number
of
Respon.
Total
Hours/
Year
Total
Cost/
Year
Complete
the
WebTV
questionnaire
$
22.15
.5
$
11.08
$
0
$
0
600
300
$
6645
6(
c)
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
Average
Annual
Agency
Burden
and
Costs
Hours
and
Costs
Per
Respondent
Total
Hours
and
Cost
EPA
$
53.82/
Hour
Survey
Researcher
$
20.16/
Hour
Computer
$
42.38/
Hour
Capital/
Startup
Cost
O&
M
Cost
Number
of
Respon.
Total
Hours/
Year
Total
Cost/
Year
Implement
pilot
survey
(
contractor)
­­
.13
.27
$
40.00
­­
600
120
$
32,438
Implement
pilot
survey
.03
­­
­­
­­
­­
600
20
$
1,076
Analyze
data
.26
­­
­­
­­
­­
600
160
$
8,611
Store
data
.02
­­
­­
­­
­­
600
12
$
646
Disseminate
findings
.20
­­
­­
­­
­­
600
120
$
6,458
Total
0.51
.13
.27
$
40.00
­­
600
432
$
49,229
Survey
implementation
will
be
conducted
through
a
contractor.
We
estimate
that
the
capital/
startup
costs
will
be
approximately
$
24,000
and
expect
that
contractors
will
devote
a
total
of
approximately
120
hours
to
implementation.
We
expect
that
EPA
staff
will
devote
some
time
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
16
to
implementation
and
will
devote
larger
amounts
of
time
to
analyzing
and
disseminating
the
results
of
the
pilot
survey.
Based
on
the
2002
GS
pay
schedule,
we
estimate
an
average
hourly
labor
cost
of
$
53.82
for
staff
involved
with
the
survey.
This
was
found
by
taking
hourly
compensation
estimates
for
GS
14
workers
in
the
DC
metropolitan
area
and
multiplying
by
the
standard
benefits
multiplication
factor
of
1.6.
In
order
to
estimate
contractor
hourly
labor
costs,
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics'
2000
National
Occupational
Employment
and
Wage
Estimates
was
utilized.
Two
occupational
categories
were
utilized
 
survey
researchers
and
computer
and
mathematical
occupations.
Hourly
estimates
were
also
multiplied
by
the
standard
benefits
multiplication
factor
of
1.6.
(
See
http://
www.
bls.
gov/
oes/
2000/
oes_
19Li.
htm
and
http://
www.
bls.
gov/
oes/
2000/
oes_
15Co.
htm.)

6(
d)
Estimating
the
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
Cost
We
expect
completed
surveys
from
600
respondents.

6(
e)
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Cost
Tables
(
i)
Respondent
Tally
Total
Estimated
Respondent
Burden
and
Cost
Summary
Number
of
Respondents
Number
of
Activities
Total
Hours
Per
Year
Total
Labor
Cost
Per
Year
Total
Annual
Capital
Costs
Total
Annual
O&
M
Complete
the
WebTV
questionnaire
600
600
300
$
6645
$
0
$
0
(
ii)
Agency
Tally
Total
Estimated
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
Summary
Number
of
Respondents
Number
of
Activitie
s
Total
Hours
Per
Year
Total
Capital/
Startup
Cost
Per
Year
Total
Labor
Cost
Per
Year
Total
Annual
Cost
Complete
the
WebTV
questionnaire
600
600
432
$
24,000
$
25,229
$
49,229
6(
f)
Reason
for
Change
in
Burden
Not
applicable.
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
17
6(
g)
Burden
Statement
The
annual
public
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden
for
this
collection
of
information
is
estimated
to
average
0.5
hours
per
response.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.

To
comment
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques,
EPA
has
established
a
public
docket
for
this
ICR
under
Docket
ID
No.
OEI­
2002­
0011,
which
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
OEI
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
OEI
Docket
is
(
202)
566­
1752.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA
Dockets
(
EDOCKET)
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
Use
EDOCKET
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
"
search,"
then
key
in
the
docket
ID
number
identified
above.
Also,
you
can
send
comments
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Office
for
EPA.
Please
include
the
EPA
Docket
ID
No.
(
OEI­
2002­
0011)
in
any
correspondence.
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
18
Part
B
Section
1:
Survey
Objectives,
Key
Variables
and
Other
Preliminaries
1(
a)
Survey
Objectives
The
subject
of
this
Information
Collection
Request
is
a
pilot
survey
eliciting
values
for
improvements
to
coastal
water
quality.
Specifically,
the
pilot
survey
will
focus
on
eliciting
values
from
residents
of
California
for
more
fishable
and
swimmable
coastal
waters
in
their
state
as
well
as
healthier
marine
and
estuarine
aquatic
environments.
This
pilot
survey
has
several
objectives:

$
to
test
the
quality
and
effectiveness
of
the
computerized
survey
instrument
in
yielding
robust
estimates
for
both
use
and
non­
use
values
of
improvements
to
coastal
water
quality
$
to
test
the
effect
of
the
use
of
color
in
computerized
survey
instruments
$
to
test
the
appropriateness
of
the
design
values
used
in
the
choice
questions
$
to
test
the
effect
of
a
$
5
incentive
on
the
response
rate
$
to
test
the
effectiveness
of
the
survey
administration
mode
for
periodic,
panel
surveys
$
to
test
the
effectiveness
of
the
survey
administration
mode
for
environmental
surveys
1(
b)
Key
Variables
The
key
variables
to
be
collected
in
the
pilot
survey
are
the
choices
of
programs
preferred
by
the
respondents.
These
choices
will
be
the
primary
dependent
variables
in
our
analysis.
Variables
from
other
sections
of
the
survey
will
be
used
to
help
assess
the
robustness
of
the
values
and
the
overall
quality
of
the
survey
instrument.

To
test
the
quality
of
the
survey
instrument
we
will
perform
several
types
of
tests.
First,
we
will
perform
an
internal
validity
test.
Specifically,
we
will
explain
respondent
program
choices
using
reported
information
on
coastal
water
recreation,
perceptions
of
coastal
water
quality,
and
sociodemographic
variables,
examining
the
data
for
unexpected
results.
Key
variables
for
this
test
will
include
those
variables
capturing
respondents'
experiences
with
and
uses
of
coastal
water,
proximity
of
respondents'
homes
to
coastal
water,
respondents'
perceptions
of
water
quality
and
causes
of
coastal
water
pollution,
as
well
as
standard
demographic
variables
such
as
income,
education
and
gender.
Although
the
effect
of
some
of
these
variables
may
not
be
straightforward,
we
expect
that
willingness
to
pay
for
coastal
water
improvements
will
increase
with
income,
proximity
of
residence
to
coastal
waters
and
frequency
of
recreational
use
of
coastal
waters.
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
19
Second,
we
will
examine
survey
results
for
scenario
rejection
and
protest
votes
as
further
tests
of
survey
quality.
For
the
first
100
respondents,
we
will
pose
an
open­
ended
follow­
up
question
asking
respondents
to
briefly
describe
why
they
made
the
choice
they
did.
Using
the
open­
ended
responses,
we
will
then
derive
a
multiple­
choice
follow­
up
question
for
the
remaining
respondents.
Respondents
who
reject
the
scenario
will
indicate
that
they
do
not
believe
the
changes
will
take
place
or
that
they
do
not
believe
their
taxes
should
increase.
Using
the
responses
to
these
follow­
up
questions,
we
will
examine
the
data
for
systematic
bias.
If
a
large
proportion
of
respondents
reject
the
scenario,
we
will
need
to
re­
examine
the
survey
design
and
find
ways
to
make
the
scenarios
more
believable.

To
test
the
effect
of
the
use
of
color
in
survey
instruments,
we
will
administer
the
survey
instrument
using
a
split
sample
approach
in
which
the
use
of
color
is
varied
in
one
version
of
the
survey
instrument
compared
to
the
other.
Computerized
surveys,
whether
administered
via
the
internet
or
on
a
desktop
or
laptop
computer
in
a
closed
system,
have
become
increasingly
popular.
One
advantage
of
computerized
surveys
is
the
ability
to
use
color
to
help
convey
meaning
or
emphasis
in
a
survey
instrument.
Color
can
also
be
used
to
help
keep
the
interest
of
the
respondent.
In
our
survey
instrument,
we
have
employed
color
in
the
choice
questions
to
help
facilitate
the
task
at
hand.
Program
characteristics
are
displayed
in
a
tabular
format
with
each
column
displaying
the
characteristics
of
a
particular
program
using
colored
text.
The
responses
in
the
question
itself
are
then
color­
coded
to
match
the
color
used
in
the
table.
While
we
believe
color­
coding
the
characteristics
and
the
responses
make
the
task
easier
for
the
respondent,
we
are
concerned
that
we
are
inadvertently
conveying
information
to
the
respondent
about
the
programs
(
even
if
subliminally).
Little
research
is
currently
available
about
the
effects
of
various
colors
survey
responses.
By
using
a
split
sample
approach,
we
intend
to
examine
whether
the
choice
of
color
has
a
statistically
significant
effect
on
program
choice.

To
test
the
appropriateness
of
the
design
values,
we
will
carefully
inspect
the
responses
to
the
choice
questions
as
well
as
the
follow­
up
questions
for
the
first
100
respondents.
The
follow­
up
questions
query
respondents
about
the
motivations
behind
their
choices.
If,
for
instance,
respondents
indicate
an
unwillingness
to
select
any
program
due
to
the
high
cost
of
the
programs,
we
will
know
that
the
bid
values
have
been
set
too
high.
On
the
other
hand,
if
no
respondents
indicate
an
unwillingness
to
select
a
program
due
to
high
cost,
this
is
an
indication
that
the
bid
values
may
have
been
set
too
low.
Using
the
responses
to
the
first
100
completed
surveys,
we
will
determine
if
the
bid
values
should
be
altered
in
any
way.

We
will
test
the
effect
of
a
$
5
incentive
for
completion
of
the
pilot
survey
by
splitting
our
sample
into
two
groups
 
those
offered
the
incentive
and
those
not
made
the
offer.
Using
an
indicator
variable
to
track
in
which
group
each
respondent
falls,
we
will
test
the
effect
of
the
$
5
incentive
on
response
rates.

We
will
test
the
effectiveness
of
the
survey
mode
by
comparing
the
results
of
well­
vetted
surveys
to
those
obtained
using
our
survey
instrument.
Our
survey
instrument
includes
standard
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
20
demographic
questions,
as
well
as
questions
reproduced
from
two
well­
vetted
survey
instruments
­­
the
Panel
Study
of
Income
Dynamics
(
PSID)
and
the
National
Survey
on
Recreation
and
the
Environment
(
NSRE).
Both
the
PSID
and
the
NSRE
surveys
are
administered
by
telephone
using
random
digit
dialing.
Responses
to
these
common
questions
will
be
used
to
help
evaluate
the
effect
of
survey
mode
on
the
results
and
to
help
identify
potential
differences
in
the
resulting
samples.

We
will
also
test
the
quality
of
the
resulting
survey
data
by
testing
for
non­
response
bias.
To
do
this,
we
will
obtain
demographic
data
for
all
potential
respondents
in
the
Knowledge
Networks
Panel
to
whom
the
pilot
survey
is
sent.
We
will
then
test
for
systematic
bias
by
comparing
the
non­
responders
with
those
completing
the
pilot
survey.

1(
c)
Statistical
Approach
The
questionnaire
that
will
be
used
in
the
pilot
survey
is
designed
to
elicit
California
residents=
willingness
to
pay
for
improvements
to
coastal
water.
The
most
cost­
effective
way
to
collect
this
information
involves
the
use
of
a
statistical
approach.
While
a
census
approach
would
provide
more
complete
information,
such
an
approach
is
prohibitively
expensive
and
not
necessary
or
practical
for
a
pilot
survey.

Knowledge
Networks,
Inc.
(
1360
Willow
Rd.,
Suite
101,
Menlo
Park,
CA
94025­
1516)
will
administer
the
pilot
survey
and
will
be
responsible
for:

$
programming
the
computer­
based
survey
for
the
WebTV
environment;
$
recruiting
respondents
for
the
pilot
survey
(
from
its
previously
recruited
WebTV
panel);
$
sending
reminders
and
providing
general
user
support;
$
collecting
and
tabulating
the
pilot
survey
data;
and
$
delivering
the
completed
pilot
survey
and
supporting
demographic
data
to
EPA.

1(
d)
Feasibility
To
ensure
the
feasibility
of
the
proposed
data
collection,
research
team
members
have
carefully
tested
the
survey
instrument.
The
survey
instrument
has
also
been
externally
reviewed
by
a
panel
of
experts
throughout
the
design
process
(
see
Section
3(
c)
of
Part
A).
The
computerized
survey
to
be
used
in
the
pilot
survey
has
been
revised
to
address
issues
that
arose
during
these
processes.
Protocol
interviews
were
held
with
a
limited
number
of
Knowledge
Networks
panel
members
utilizing
the
WebTV
technology.
One
purpose
of
the
protocol
interviews
was
to
verify
that
the
computerized
survey
instrument
functioned
as
expected
and
that
data
collected
from
the
completed
surveys
was
in
the
desired
form
for
analysis.
Should
participants
have
problems
with
the
WebTV
technology
while
completing
the
pilot
survey,
Knowledge
Networks
will
provide
technical
support
to
its
panel
members.
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
21
As
discussed
above,
the
purposes
of
the
pilot
survey
are
to
test
the
quality
of
the
survey
instrument,
the
effect
of
the
use
of
color
in
a
survey
instrument,
the
appropriateness
of
the
design
values
and
the
effectiveness
of
a
$
5.00
incentive
on
the
response
rate.
We
believe
it
is
feasible
to
meet
these
objectives
with
completed
responses
from
600
Knowledge
Networks
panel
members
and
believe
the
funding
for
this
project
is
adequate.

Section
2:
Survey
Design
2(
a)
Target
Population
and
Coverage
The
target
population
for
the
pilot
survey
consists
of
adult
residents
of
California.
Coverage
for
this
pilot
survey
will
focus
on
Knowledge
Networks
panel
members
residing
in
California.
We
have
selected
California
as
an
appropriate
starting
point
to
test
the
survey
instrument,
since
the
Knowledge
Networks
panel
is
easily
accessible
and
large
enough
to
accommodate
a
statewide
pilot
survey
of
this
size.
No
decisions
have
been
made
regarding
the
mode
of
administration
of
future
surveys
or
pilot
tests
of
this
instrument
except
to
note
that
we
anticipate
using
a
selfadministered
computerized
format.

2(
b)
Sample
Design
2(
b)(
i)
Sampling
Frame
The
sampling
frame
for
the
pilot
survey
will
be
Knowledge
Network=
s
panel
members
residing
in
California.

Briefly,
Knowledge
Network=
s
panel
recruitment
utilizes
a
probability­
based
random
digit
dialing
(
RDD)
sample
of
all
10
digit
telephone
numbers
in
the
United
States.
Households
that
do
not
have
a
telephone
are
not
covered
(
approximately
6
percent
of
U.
S.
households),
nor
are
households
in
areas
where
Web­
TV
is
not
available
(
approximately
6
percent
of
U.
S.
households).
Confirmed
disconnected
numbers,
non­
residential
numbers
and
numbers
outside
of
the
Internet
Service
Provider=
s
range
are
excluded.
A
mailing
(
including
a
letter
and
incentive)
is
then
sent
to
all
numbers
for
which
a
valid
address
can
be
found.
These
numbers
are
also
sent
to
a
telephone
interviewing
organization
for
recruitment.
A
random
50
percent
sub­
sample
of
the
unmatched
numbers
is
also
included
in
the
final
sample
sent
for
recruitment.
All
households
recruited
into
the
Knowledge
Networks
panel
are
provided
with
WebTV
hardware
free
of
charge.
More
detailed
information
on
Knowledge
Networks=
panel
recruitment
methodology
is
available
at
http://
www.
knowledgenetworks.
com/
ganp/
safe/
surveymethod.
html#
recruit.
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
22
2(
b)(
ii)
Sample
Size
The
intended
number
of
completed
surveys
for
this
pilot
survey
is
600.
Based
upon
information
from
Knowledge
Networks
and
an
expected
response
rate
of
75
percent,
we
expect
our
initial
sample
to
be
approximately
800.
This
sampling
plan
is
feasible
within
the
project=
s
budget,
and
will
provide
enough
observations
to
conduct
initial
statistical
analyses
of
the
data.
Information
from
the
pilot
survey
will
allow
us
to
make
adjustments,
if
necessary,
to
the
structure
of
the
choice
questions
and
to
pre­
code
answers
to
some
of
the
debriefing
questions.

2(
b)(
iii)
Stratification
Variables
Stratification
within
the
pilot
survey
sample
is
solely
due
to
design
elements
within
the
survey
instrument
and
is
not
based
on
survey
sampling.
The
sampling
of
potential
respondents
from
the
Knowledge
Networks
panel
residing
in
California
will
be
conducted
on
a
random
basis.

Several
aspects
of
the
questionnaire
design
will
be
randomly
varied
across
respondents
to
test
for
their
effects
on
respondents'
choices
of
programs
and
willingness
to
pay
for
improvements
to
coastal
waters,
however.
The
survey
instrument
will
be
administered
in
such
a
way
so
that
approximately
equal
numbers
of
respondents
will
fall
into
each
group,
resulting
in
a
stratified
sample.
For
instance,
respondents
will
receive
one
of
twelve
sets
of
five
choice
questions,
designed
with
the
assistance
of
Joel
Huber,
Duke
University.
This
design
will
allow
us
to
test
for
scope
effects
as
well
as
estimating
willingness
to
pay
for
coastal
water
improvements.
Also,
to
test
for
the
effects
of
the
$
5
incentive
on
the
response
rate,
approximately
half
of
the
initial
sample
of
400
respondents
will
be
offered
the
incentive.
The
other
half
will
not.
Finally,
we
intend
to
use
a
split
sample
approach
to
test
for
the
effects
of
color
choice
in
the
survey
instrument
on
responses.

2(
b)(
iv)
Sampling
Method
The
sample
will
be
drawn
from
the
Knowledge
Networks
panel
using
a
stratified
probabilities
proportional
to
size
(
PPS)
design
in
which
the
measures
of
"
size"
are
essentially
poststratification
weights
that
make
the
panel
resemble
the
California
population
along
the
following
socio­
demographic
dimensions:
gender,
age,
race/
ethnicity,
region,
metropolitan
status,
and
education.
These
measures
also
include
adjustments
for
sources
of
unequal
probabilities
of
selection
in
the
panel
creation
state.
These
sources
include
multiple
telephone
lines
per
household,
some
geographic
oversampling,
and
subsampling
of
households
without
an
address
match,
which
are
mostly
unlisted
numbers.

2(
b)(
v)
Multi­
Stage
Sampling
We
will
not
use
any
multi­
stage
sampling
for
this
survey.
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
23
2(
c)
Precision
Requirements
2(
c)(
i)
Precision
Targets
Some
objectives
of
the
California
pilot
survey
are
to
test
the
performance
of
the
survey
instrument
generally
and
to
develop
preliminary
statistical
estimates.
The
Atrue@
value
of
people=
s
willingness
to
pay
for
improvements
to
coastal
waters
is
not
known.
Hence,
it
is
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
to
predict
precision.
We
will,
in
addition,
conduct
internal
validity
tests
of
the
survey
instrument
as
described
in
section
B
1(
b).

2(
c)(
ii)
Nonsampling
Error
Nonsampling
errors
arise
in
any
survey,
whether
from
a
census­
based
survey
or
from
a
statistical
survey.
The
most
general
categories
of
nonsampling
error
are
coverage
error,
nonresponse
error,
response
error,
processing
error,
and
estimation
error.
Knowledge
Network=
s
panel
recruitment
methodology
may
lead
to
some
nonsampling
error.
For
example,
there
may
be
some
demographic
biases
from
the
exclusion
of
households
without
telephones
and
in
areas
out
of
range
of
the
Internet
Service
Provider.
It
is
likely
that
these
biases
are
small
(
and
perhaps
smaller
than
for
other
modes
of
administration)
for
a
variety
of
reasons
including
that
Knowledge
Networks
provides
WebTV
hardware
to
all
panel
households.
Furthermore,
Knowledge
Networks
calculates
post­
stratification
weights
based
upon
Census
data.
The
table
below
compares
the
Knowledge
Networks
panel
to
the
Current
Population
Survey
for
selected
demographic
variables.
With
a
few
minor
exceptions,
the
Knowledge
Networks
panel
is
quite
representative.
The
average
absolute
difference
between
the
U.
S.
Census
and
currently
active
panel
members
is
0.002
or
two
tenths
of
1
percentage
point.
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
24
Table
B1:
Knowledge
Networks
Panel
Demographic
Characteristics
Compared
to
the
U.
S.
Census
Characteristics
U.
S.
Census
(
CPS,
January
2002)
All
Profiled
Members
Active
Members
Government
SubPanel
(
5,000
HHs)
Gender
Male
48.0%
48.0%
47.9%
47.2%
Female
52.0%
52.0%
52.1%
52.8%
Age
18­
29
21.7%
21.6%
21.3%
16.3%
30­
44
31.1%
31.1%
31.0%
29.4%
45­
59
25.8%
27.0%
27.0%
28.7%
60+
21.4%
20.3%
20.7%
25.6%
Race/
Ethnicity
White
72.7%
72.8%
72.9%
75.4%
Black
11.6%
11.5%
11.4%
9.6%
Other
4.7%
4.8%
4.8%
4.7%
Hispanic
10.9%
10.9%
10.9%
10.3%
Education
Less
than
HS
16.7%
16.7%
16.7%
15.4%

High
School
32.3%
32.3%
32.3%
32.4%

Some
college
27.1%
27.0%
27.0%
25.9%

College
24.0%
24.0%
24.0%
26.3%
Region
Northeast
19.1%
19.3%
19.2%
22.0%
Midwest
22.8%
22.7%
22.9%
18.0%
South
35.6%
35.4%
35.3%
35.5%
West
22.6%
22.6%
22.6%
24.5%
*
CPS
data
are
weighted.
KN
data
are
weighted
by
panel
design
weights
and
raking
variables
employed
for
survey
sampling.

Source
:
Knowledge
Networks,
Inc.
(
2002b)

2(
d)
Questionnaire
Design
The
survey
instrument
for
the
pilot
survey,
including
instructions
to
respondents,
appears
in
Appendix
2.

The
questionnaire
is
divided
into
four
sections.
The
initial
section
provides
respondents
with
a
definition
of
coastal
waters
and
a
detailed
description
of
the
different
types
of
coastal
waters.
Respondents'
familiarity
and
use
of
each
type
of
coastal
water
is
assessed
in
this
initial
section
of
the
questionnaire.
Questions
on
recreation
activities
in
and
around
coastal
waters
mimic
those
found
in
the
National
Survey
on
Recreation
and
the
Environment.
The
responses
to
these
questions
will
enable
us
to
distinguish
between
"
users"
and
"
non­
users"
of
coastal
waters,
thus
allowing
estimation
of
use
and
non­
use
values
for
coastal
water
improvements.
Respondents,
who
report
recreating
in
coastal
waters,
are
thought
to
hold
a
different
value
for
improvements
to
coastal
waters
than
those
who
do
not
recreate
in
these
areas.
In
addition,
the
NSRE
questions
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
25
replicated
in
our
survey
will
allow
us
to
conduct
a
direct
comparison
of
responses
collected
in
our
pilot
survey
to
those
collected
from
California
residents
in
the
NSRE
via
telephone.
This
will
provide
added
information
regarding
the
effects
of
the
mode
of
administration
on
responses
to
environmental
surveys.
The
second
section
evaluates
respondents'
familiarity
with
pollution
sources
and
their
perceptions
of
coastal
water
quality
in
California.
Perceptions
of
the
sources
of
water
quality
may
help
explain
respondents'
willingness
to
pay
for
water
quality
improvements.
For
example,
those
respondents
who
feel
industries
are
the
primary
cause
of
coastal
water
pollution
may
be
less
likely
to
express
a
willingness
to
pay
for
the
improvements,
preferring
instead
to
have
industry
take
the
responsibility
for
the
funding
of
additional
programs.
To
reduce
potential
bias
associated
with
this
question,
the
order
of
the
various
polluting
entities
is
provided
in
a
random
order
to
respondents.

The
second
section
also
defines
the
water
quality
rating
system
used
by
federal
and
state
governments
and
provides
information
on
the
rating
for
three
defined
uses
(
swimming,
production
of
fish
and
shellfish
safe
for
human
consumption,
and
support
of
diverse
aquatic
life),
and
compares
ratings
of
California's
coastal
waters
to
other
states'
ratings.
This
information
is
provided
to
ensure
that
all
respondents
operate
from
the
same
knowledge
base
when
completing
the
subsequent
choice
questions
and
that
the
information
base
is
as
accurate
as
possible.

The
third
section
includes
a
number
of
choice
questions
designed
to
yield
information
on
respondents'
preferences
and
willingness
to
pay
for
various
types
of
programs
to
improve
coastal
water
quality.
Each
respondent
is
asked
to
answer
five
choice
questions
comparing
two
hypothetical
programs
with
different
attributes
to
the
status
quo.
Characteristics
of
each
program
as
well
as
the
status
quo
are
presented
in
tabular
form,
with
each
column
displaying
the
characteristics
of
a
given
program
using
colored
text.
The
information
provided
in
each
column
for
a
particular
program,
as
well
as
the
response
corresponding
to
that
program
beneath
the
table,
are
displayed
using
the
same
color.
Using
color
in
this
way
should
help
the
respondents
distinguish
between
the
three
choices
they
face
in
each
choice
question.
Respondents
are
asked
to
select
which
of
the
two
programs
if
either
they
prefer.
Questions
are
designed
such
that
respondents
need
only
concentrate
on
two
attributes
at
one
time.
Some
respondents
will
be
offered
a
choice
of
programs
where
one
clearly
dominates
the
other.
All
respondents
will
be
asked
follow­
up
questions
after
each
program
choice
question
indicating
why
they
responded
in
the
manner
they
did.
Based
on
the
responses
to
both
the
dominated
choice
questions
and
the
follow
up
questions,
we
will
be
able
to
gauge
respondent
comprehension
and
whether
or
not
the
structure
of
the
choice
questions
is
adequate.
In
addition,
the
responses
to
these
questions
will
form
the
basis
of
the
subsequent
analyses
of
respondent
willingness
to
pay
for
coastal
water
improvements.
Because
we
plan
to
administer
the
survey
using
a
split
sample
approach
with
different
color­
order
used
for
the
choice
questions
in
each
split,
we
will
be
able
to
test
for
the
effect
of
color
choice
on
responses.

The
final
section
of
the
survey
includes
standard
demographic
questions,
as
well
as
questions
from
the
Panel
Study
of
Income
Dynamics
(
PSID).
The
questions
in
this
section
will
be
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
26
combined
with
respondent
characteristic
data
collected
previously
by
Knowledge
Networks.
This
combined
information
will
be
used
to
evaluate
the
effect
of
survey
administration
mode
on
responses
as
described
in
section
B
1(
b).
In
addition,
the
demographic
variables
will
be
used
to
identify
differences
in
preferences
and
willingness
to
pay
for
respondents
with
different
characteristics.

Section
3:
Pretests
and
Pilot
Tests
The
survey
instrument
has
been
in
development
since
1998
with
input
from
focus
group
discussions,
protocol
interviews
using
Apen
and
paper@
versions
of
the
survey
instrument
as
well
as
the
computerized
version,
and
discussions
with
our
peer­
review
panel
of
experts.
Results
from
initial
protocol
interviews
using
the
hard
copy
questionnaire
emphasized
the
burden
placed
on
respondents
due
to
skip
pattern
complexity
and
difficulty
in
conveying
necessary
information
in
standard
black
and
white
print
forms.
To
reduce
the
burden
on
respondents,
we
developed
a
computerized
version
of
the
survey
allowing
respondents
to
automatically
skip
portions
of
the
survey
that
do
not
pertain
to
them
and
allowing
the
conveyance
of
information
using
colorenhanced
graphics
and
text.

3(
a)
Protocol
interviews
using
computerized
questionnaire
As
discussed
previously,
we
intend
to
have
the
pilot
survey
administered
by
Knowledge
Networks
to
a
randomly
selected
sample
of
their
web­
enabled
panel.
In
anticipation
of
using
this
mode
of
administration,
we
conducted
protocol
interviews
with
approximately
16
of
Knowledge
Network=
s
panel
members
using
two
versions
of
the
survey.
The
versions
differed
in
the
amount
of
preliminary
information
provided,
the
number
of
questions
asked,
and
the
design
values
used
in
the
choice
questions.
Each
version
was
administered
to
8
individuals.
Although
Knowledge
Networks
panel
members
generally
complete
surveys
using
WebTV
in
the
comfort
of
their
own
homes,
Knowledge
Networks
panel
members
were
invited
to
participate
in
protocol
sessions
at
a
centralized
facility
located
in
Menlo
Park,
California.
Each
participant
completed
a
survey
at
this
facility
as
they
would
at
home,
using
similar
equipment
(
television
screen
and
remote
keyboard).
This
was
followed
by
a
one­
on­
one
debriefing
session
with
a
research
team
member
during
which
the
survey
instrument
was
discussed
at
length.
Respondents
generally
were
able
to
complete
the
survey
in
25­
30
minutes,
depending
on
the
version
received.
Respondents
reported
no
difficulty
in
understanding
the
choice
questions
and
reported
that
the
color­
enhanced
graphics
and
text
were
helpful.
We
were,
however,
able
to
identify
several
sections
of
the
survey
that
required
improvement.

In
addition
to
minor
wording
changes,
several
alterations
were
made
to
the
survey
as
a
result
of
the
protocol
interviews.
First,
we
eliminated
an
initial
series
of
questions
that
asked
respondents=
opinions
concerning
a
variety
of
state
issues
or
problems.
It
was
initially
thought
that
these
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
27
questions
would
provide
a
good
warm­
up
for
respondents
and
that
it
would
help
respondents
focus
on
issues
in
their
state
that
they
found
important.
Most
respondents
receiving
these
questions
in
the
protocol
interviews
found
them
difficult
and
time
consuming.
Since
these
questions
did
not
provide
information
vital
to
the
analysis
of
the
remaining
questions,
we
decided
to
remove
them
from
the
questionnaire,
thereby
reducing
the
time
necessary
to
complete
the
survey
by
several
minutes.

Another
area
of
the
survey
that
needed
improvement
concerned
the
coastal
water
quality
information
provided
on
states
other
than
California
for
comparison
purposes.
Some
information,
found
to
be
incorrect
and
misleading,
has
since
been
corrected.
In
addition,
we
adjusted
the
order
in
which
the
information
was
presented
for
states
that
do
not
report
water
quality
information
to
avoid
confusion.

3(
b)
Pilot
Test
The
purpose
of
this
ICR
is
to
gain
approval
for
a
pilot
survey
using
the
computerized
survey
instrument.
Knowledge
Networks
has
a
sizable
panel
enrolled
in
California
enabling
us
to
conduct
a
pilot
survey
in
that
state
resulting
in
600
completed
interviews.
We
expect
that
data
collection
would
be
completed
within
one
month
of
approval
and
that
the
analysis
of
the
pilot
survey
results
would
be
completed
within
four
additional
months.

Among
the
main
purposes
of
the
pilot
survey
are
to
test
of
the
quality
of
the
survey
instrument,
the
effect
of
the
color
use
in
survey
instruments,
the
appropriateness
of
the
design
values
used
in
the
choice
questions,
as
well
as
the
effect
of
a
small
monetary
incentive
on
response
rates
as
noted
in
section
1(
a).

As
described
above,
respondents
are
presented
with
a
series
of
five
color­
coded
questions
in
which
they
are
asked
to
select
between
two
programs
to
improve
coastal
water
quality.
In
each
choice
set,
respondents
are
also
able
to
select
the
status
quo,
should
they
find
neither
of
the
two
programs
satisfactory.
Each
of
the
two
programs
has
an
associated
household
tax
increase
to
cover
the
cost
of
implementation.
Information
regarding
water
quality
across
three
use
definitions
(
swimming,
production
of
fish
and
shellfish
deemed
safe
for
human
consumption,
and
the
support
of
diverse
aquatic
life)
under
each
program,
including
the
status
quo,
is
provided
in
tabular
format
together
with
the
cost
to
each
household
for
each
program.
The
programs
differ,
not
only
in
the
level
of
household
tax,
but
the
degree
to
which
they
improve
water
quality
across
the
three
use
definitions.
The
questions
are
structured
in
such
a
way
so
as
to
facilitate
comparison
between
the
programs
with
at
most
two
water
quality
attributes
varying
at
different
levels
across
the
two
new
programs
being
introduced.
In
some
instances,
however,
respondents
are
asked
to
choose
between
two
programs
that
offer
varying
magnitudes
of
uniform
changes
across
uses
(
see
Appendix
3
for
more
information
about
the
structure
of
the
choice
questions).
Each
of
every
respondent=
s
five
responses
will
be
treated
as
a
separate
observation.
Currently,
we
intend
to
administer
12
versions
of
the
choice
questions
that
together
allow
the
estimating
of
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
28
willingness
to
pay
values
by
use.
The
initial
design
values
for
our
choice
questions
appear
in
Appendix
3.
The
pilot
survey
will
allow
us
to
test
whether
these
values
are
properly
set
allowing
greater
precision
in
our
resulting
willingness
to
pay
estimates.

Because
we
intend
to
administer
the
survey
using
a
split
sample
approach
where
the
survey
instruments
will
differ
with
respect
to
the
use
of
color
in
the
choice
questions,
we
will
also
be
able
to
test
if
color
choice
effects
responses.

At
the
encouragement
of
our
peer
review
panel,
we
have
incorporated
questions
into
our
survey
instrument
that
have
been
asked
in
well­
vetted
survey
instruments
for
direct
comparison:
the
National
Survey
on
Recreation
and
the
Environment
and
the
Panel
Study
of
Income
Dynamics.
The
NSRE
is
a
general
population
survey
on
environmental
and
recreational
issues
while
the
PSID
is
a
longitudinal
survey
on
employment
behavior
administered
to
previously
enrolled
panel
members.
Using
the
responses
to
these
common
questions,
we
will
be
able
to
explore
whether
the
mode
of
administration
selected
for
this
pilot
survey
introduces
systematic
response
differences.
To
the
extent
that
responses
to
these
questions
differ
from
the
results
of
these
wellknown
surveys,
we
will
be
able
to
explore
whether
the
use
of
population
weighting
procedures
can
be
used
to
"
correct"
the
data.

Extensive
research
has
been
conducted
that
shows
that
the
use
of
monetary
incentives
increases
the
response
rate
and
data
quality
for
mail
surveys.
We
plan
to
test
the
effectiveness
of
monetary
incentives
in
the
pilot
survey
in
California
to
determine
whether
monetary
incentives
have
the
same
impact
on
response
rate
and
quality
for
WebTV
respondents
for
an
on­
line
survey
as
they
do
for
mail
surveys.
The
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
averages
30
minutes
to
complete.
While
not
long
compared
to
a
standard
nonmarket
valuation
survey
or
any
well­
designed
survey
for
policy
analysis,
it
is
longer
than
the
surveys
typically
implemented
by
Knowledge
Networks
using
the
WebTV
format.
When
persons
agree
to
be
a
panel
member,
Knowledge
Networks
assures
them
the
surveys
will
typically
last
no
longer
than
10
minutes.
Thus,
for
the
pilot
survey
in
California,
we
will
test
whether
a
$
5
prepaid
monetary
incentive
(
vs.
no
incentive)
will
increase
response
rates
and
improve
data
quality.
One
half
of
the
sample
will
be
offered
the
monetary
incentive;
while
the
other
half
of
the
sample
will
not
be
offered
an
incentive.
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
29
Section
4:
Collection
Methods
and
Follow­
up
4(
a)
Collection
Methods
The
pilot
survey
will
be
administered
by
Knowledge
Networks
to
a
randomly
selected
sample
of
their
panel
members
residing
in
California,
resulting
in
600
completed
interviews.
The
pilot
survey
will
be
administered
using
WebTV
technology
in
which
the
internet
is
accessed
using
a
single
phone
line
and
an
ordinary
household
television
set.
Additional
hardware
required
for
accessing
the
internet
is
provided
to
each
participating
household
by
Knowledge
Networks,
allowing
participation
by
any
recruited
household
with
a
phone
line
and
TV.
This
mode
of
administration
has
a
number
of
advantages
including:
reduced
respondent
burden,
increased
use
of
color
enhanced
text
and
graphics
to
more
readily
convey
important
information,
reduced
cost,
increased
reliability
of
data,
and
increased
speed
of
data
collection.

Reduced
Respondent
Burden.
Respondent
burden
will
be
reduced
using
this
mode
of
administration
compared
to
other
modes
for
several
reasons
including
added
convenience,
enhanced
clarity,
and
increased
simplicity.
Respondents
are
randomly
selected
from
the
Knowledge
Networks
panel
to
participate
in
the
survey.
Once
selected,
respondents
are
sent
an
invitation
to
complete
the
questionnaire.
Respondents
who
elect
to
complete
the
questionnaire
do
so
at
a
time
that
is
convenient
for
them
in
the
comfort
and
privacy
of
their
own
home.
The
questionnaires
are
completely
self­
administered
so
that
no
pre­
arranged
time
must
be
scheduled
for
the
interview
and
no
travel
to
a
centralized
facility
is
required.
In
addition,
by
using
a
computerized
version
of
the
survey
instrument,
respondents
only
see
questions
meant
for
them.
Gone
are
the
confusing
skip
patterns
respondents
are
required
to
navigate
when
hard
copy
surveys
are
administered.

Clarity
is
enhanced
with
this
mode
of
administration
since
it
allows
for
the
use
of
more
color
graphics
and
color­
enhanced
text.
This
in
turn
contributes
to
the
clarity
of
the
information
presented
and
can
make
the
survey
experience
more
enjoyable
and
interesting
for
the
respondent.

The
use
of
television
screens
to
view
the
questionnaire
also
facilitates
reading
of
the
questions
since
television
screens
tend
to
be
larger
then
computer
monitors
and
since
the
size
of
the
graphics
and
text
will
appear
larger
than
if
printed
on
paper.

The
process
of
completing
a
questionnaire
is
greatly
simplified
with
this
mode
of
administration
as
well.
Completed
questionnaires
are
transmitted
electronically
with
the
push
of
a
button.
No
extra
effort
is
required
from
the
respondent
to
submit
the
completed
questionnaire.
To
the
extent
that
their
panel
members
encounter
difficulties
with
the
WebTV
equipment,
internet
connections,
or
survey­
taking
process,
Knowledge
Networks
provides
technical
support
and
assistance
to
their
panel
members
on
demand.
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
30
Increased
Use
of
Color
and
Graphics.
This
mode
of
administration
facilitates
the
use
of
color
graphics
and
text
to
convey
important
information.
Color
television
screens
are
used
as
monitors
for
the
computerized
survey
instrument.
Not
only
can
more
sophisticated
graphics
be
used
as
a
result
but,
when
used
strategically,
color
can
also
be
used
to
add
emphasis
and
highlight
key
points
in
the
text.
With
other
modes
of
administration,
the
delivery
of
high
quality
graphics
to
a
representative
sample
is
simply
not
possible.
In
the
case
of
typical
internet­
delivered
surveys
administered
on
home
computers,
use
of
color
graphics
is
possible;
however,
access
to
a
truly
representative
sample
is
not.
Furthermore,
while
the
graphics
and
color
could
be
presented
to
households
using
a
mail
survey,
this
is
not
possible
using
computer
assisted
telephone
interview
(
CATI)
technology.

Reduced
Cost.
This
mode
of
administration
provides
an
efficient
and
cost­
effective
means
for
administering
surveys.
Although
the
hardware
costs
and
costs
of
internet
access
provided
to
the
Knowledge
Networks
panel
members
are
not
typical
costs
borne
by
other
modes
of
administration,
these
panel
maintenance
costs
are
spread
across
clients
rather
than
borne
by
a
single
group.
Besides,
these
additional
costs
are
outweighed
by
the
cost
reductions
in
other
areas.
Because
Knowledge
Networks
panel
members
have
agreed
to
participate
in
surveys
once
a
week
in
exchange
for
free
internet
access
and
the
occasional
incentive,
this
reduces
recruitment
costs
for
any
individual
survey.
Sample
selections
are
made
from
a
generally
cooperative
group
of
individuals.
In
addition,
because
surveys
are
self­
administered
and
transmitted
via
the
internet,
interview
costs
are
greatly
reduced.
No
interviewers
need
be
hired
and
trained,
and
no
postal
fees
or
telephone
costs
need
be
incurred.
Finally,
the
electronic
transmission
of
survey
responses
also
eliminates
the
costs
associated
with
data
entry.

Increased
Reliability.
To
ensure
the
reliability
and
consistency
of
the
survey
administration
and
data
collection
process,
all
Knowledge
Networks
panel
members
are
provided
with
the
same
Microsoft
MSN7
TV
or
WebTV
equipment
upon
enrollment
into
the
panel.
All
households
are
provided
with
the
same
hardware
even
if
they
already
have
a
computer
at
home
or
otherwise
have
internet
access.
In
addition,
because
all
surveys
are
self­
administered
via
the
internet,
the
concern
over
interviewer
bias
is
eliminated.
As
interviews
are
completed,
response
data
are
electronically
transmitted
and
collected
in
a
data
base
reducing
the
possibility
of
data
entry
errors.

Increased
Speed
of
Data
Collection.
Data
collection
and
delivery
rates
are
substantially
improved
using
an
on­
line
panel
compared
with
other
modes
of
administration.
According
to
Dennis
(
2001),
median
elapsed
time
between
receipt
of
the
invitation
to
participate
in
a
survey
and
completion
of
the
interview
is
approximately
3
days.
After
eight
days
of
elapsed
time
approximately
75
percent
of
expected
Acompletes@
are
obtained.
A
field
period
of
one
to
two
weeks
for
most
surveys
will
allow
acceptable
response
rates
and
will
minimize
non­
response
bias.
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
31
Once
completed
interviews
have
been
received
from
respondents,
little
additional
data
preparation
is
required.
Responses
are
downloaded
to
the
data
set
as
interviews
are
completed.
Compared
to
other
modes
of
administration,
data
collection
and
delivery
can
be
accomplished
in
weeks
rather
than
months.

It
should
be
noted
that
some
of
the
advantages
listed
above,
such
as
enhanced
use
of
color
and
graphics,
are
common
to
other
methods
of
administering
computerized
survey
instruments.

4(
b)
Survey
Response
and
Follow­
up
Overall
response
rates
for
surveys
administered
by
Knowledge
Networks,
as
with
any
panel
survey,
generally
appear
lower
than
those
administered
using
other
modes
of
administration.
This
is
because
non­
response
is
introduced
in
a
number
of
stages,
including
recruitment
into
the
panel
as
well
as
response
to
any
individual
survey.
The
methodology
for
calculating
cumulative
response
rates
and
each
response
rate
component
needed
has
been
reported
and
described
in
detail
in
Wiebe
et
al.
(
2001)
and
updated
in
"
Statistical
and
Methodological
Update"
(
Knowledge
Networks
2002b).
The
discussion
from
the
latter
document
is
reproduced
below.

STAGE
1:
RDD
PANEL
RECRUITMENT
The
rate
used
for
calculating
the
response
rate
for
households
recruited
by
Random
Digit
Dialing
(
list­
assisted
sampling
of
1+
directory­
listed
telephone
banks)
is
AAPOR
Response
Rate
No.
3,
the
response
rate
formula
approved
by
the
American
Association
for
Public
Opinion
Research.
The
definition
of
an
RDD
recruited
household
is
that
an
adult
in
the
household
agrees
to
join
the
panel
and
accept
delivery
of
the
WebTV
on
behalf
of
the
household.

When
disposition­
level
information
was
not
available
for
the
calculation
of
an
AAPOR
Response
Rate
No.
3,
the
AAPOR
Cooperation
Rate
was
substituted.
All
pending
and
final
refusals,
including
"
hang
ups
during
introduction,"
were
assumed
to
be
refusals
in
eligible
households
in
this
calculation.

Averaging
across
all
the
RDD
panel
recruitment
replicates,
the
AAPOR
response
rate
for
recruitment
is
36%
when
the
entire
panel
is
eligible
for
survey
selection
(
i.
e.,
"
All­
Panel
Surveys").
When
RDD
panel
recruitment
replicates
having
higher
response
rates
are
oversampled,
with
all
RDD
replicates
having
a
non­
zero
probability
of
selection,
the
response
rate
is
52%.
This
is
called
the
Government
SubPanel
panel
recruitment
response
rate.
At
present,
there
are
over
5,000
households
in
the
Government
SubPanel.

STAGE
2:
CONNECTION
RATE
This
is
the
number
of
households
connecting
their
WebTVs
divided
by
the
number
of
RDD
recruited
households.
The
definition
of
a
connected
WebTV
is
that
a
panel
member
in
the
household
completed
a
survey
using
the
WebTV.
Averaging
across
all
panel
cohorts,
the
current
installation
rate
is
67%.
Averaging
across
all
panel
cohorts
to
date,
72%
of
connected
households
are
active
on
the
panel
six
months
after
connecting
the
WebTV,
57%
after
12
months,
and
40%
after
24
months.

STAGE
3:
PROFILE
COMPLETION
RATE.
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
32
This
is
the
number
of
households
where
an
adult
has
completed
a
demographic
profile
survey
divided
by
the
number
of
connected
households
(
as
defined
in
Stage
2).
Averaging
across
all
panel
cohorts,
the
current
profile
completion
rate
is
98%.

STAGE
4:
POST­
PROFILE
RETENTION
RATE.
This
is
the
number
of
households
having
an
adult
currently
active
and
eligible
for
Internet
surveys
divided
by
the
number
of
households
having
a
profiled
adult
panel
member
(
as
defined
in
Stage
3).
Averaging
across
all
panel
cohorts,
the
post­
profile
retention
rate
is
currently
47%.

STAGE
5:
SURVEY
COMPLETION
RATE.
This
is
the
completion
rate
for
surveys
administered
via
the
Internet
using
the
Knowledge
Networks
methodology.
The
response
rate
varies
by
subject
type,
questionnaire
length,
and
by
length
of
the
field
period.
This
response
rate
ranges
between
75
 
85%.

Definitions
for
other
terms
are
as
follows:

RETENTION
RATE:
The
retention
rate
is
the
number
of
households
having
an
adult
currently
active
and
eligible
for
Internet
surveys
divided
by
the
number
of
panel
households
recruited
by
RDD
(
Stage
1).
Averaging
across
all
panel
cohorts,
the
retention
rate
is
currently
31%.
The
rate
is
29%
for
the
Government
SubPanel
of
5,000
households.

PANEL
RESPONSE
RATE:
This
is
the
response
rate
for
a
survey
prior
to
the
stage
of
drawing
the
sample,
that
is,
the
product
of
Stages
1,
2,
3,
and
4.

THE
CUMULATIVE
RESPONSE
RATE:
The
cumulative
response
rate
is
the
product
of
Stages
1,
2,
3,
4,
and
5.
For
longitudinal
studies
where
there
is
a
baseline
survey
and
one
or
more
followup
surveys,
the
survey
completion
rate
for
each
followup
survey
is
also
factored
into
the
multiplication.

WEIGHTED
RESPONSE
RATE
(
WITH
NRFUS):
This
is
the
cumulative
weighted
response
rate
where
nonresponse
followup
surveys
(
NRFUS)
are
conducted
with
a
random
sample
of
nonrespondents
from
Stages
1­
5
or
a
subset
of
Stages
1­
5.
In
the
standard
treatment,
telephone
interviews
using
the
same
instrument
as
the
Stage
5
survey,
with
wording
changes
appropriate
for
the
telephone
mode
of
data
collection,
are
administered
to
random
samples
of
Stage
1­
5
nonrespondents.

The
weighted
response
rate
is
calculated
as
follows:

1.
Estimate
the
cumulative
response
rate,
as
described
above.
2.
Add
to
the
cumulative
response
rate
the
product
of
the
weight
and
NRFUS
response
rate
for
each
Stage
1­
5,
where
the
weight
is
defined
as
that
Stage's
share
of
the
population.

More
generally,
the
approach
of
using
nonresponse
follow­
up
survey
(
NRFUS)
interviews
for
adjusting
statistical
estimates
is
described
in
Cochran
(
pp.
370­
374).
2
2
W.
G.
Cochran,
1977,
Applied
Sampling
NY:
Wiley
&
Sons.
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
33
The
table
below
provides
the
data
for
each
stage
of
response
and
for
summary
response
statistics.
There
are
two
columns,
the
first
for
"
All­
Panel
Surveys"
which
is
applied
to
surveys
where
all
panel
cohorts
are
sampled
with
equal
probability,
and
the
second
for
the
Government
SubPanel
which
is
applied
to
surveys
where
panel
cohorts
from
RDD
replicates
with
high
response
rates
are
oversampled.

The
below
summary
table
on
response
rates
assumes
that
the
Stage
4
Post­
Profile
Retention
Rate
should
be
included
in
the
calculation
of
the
cumulative
response
rate.
However,
some
researchers
in
reviewing
the
Knowledge
Networks
methodology
have
based
their
evaluation
on
Stages
1­
3
(
omitting
Stage
4)
and
particularly
on
Stage
5
as
a
result
of
KN's
use
of
its
survey
sampling
protocol,
which
attempts
to
correct
for
sample
bias
introduced
during
Stages
1­
4.
Please
see
above
the
description
of
the
survey
sampling
protocol
for
addressing
sample
bias
and
Attachment
C
for
analysis
of
the
panel
attrition
and
survey
response.
The
cumulative
unadjusted
response
rate,
when
omitting
Stage
4,
is
19%
for
All­
Panel
Surveys
and
29%
for
the
surveys
based
on
the
KN
Government
SubPanel.

Response
Rates
for
Knowledge
Networks
Panel
Surveys
Rate
Components
All­
Panel
Surveys
KN
Government
SubPanel
(
5,000
HHs)
Stage
1
Panel
Recruitment
36%
52%
Stage
2
Connected
67%
70%
Stage
3
Profile
98%
98%
Stage
4
Post­
Profile
Retention
47%
42%
Stage
5
Survey
Completion
80%
80%
Retention
Rate
31%
29%
Panel
Response
Rate
11%
15%
Cumulative
Unadjusted
Rate
9%
12%
Weighted
Response
Rate
(
With
NRFUS)
40%
46%

Cumulative
response
rates
calculated
using
the
methodology
above
generally
range
between
25
to
55
percent
and
in
part
depend
on
the
saliency
of
the
survey
topic
as
well
as
the
budget
and
requirements
of
the
customer.
Surveys
with
full
telephone
non­
response
follow­
up
has
at
times
resulted
in
response
rates
greater
than
55
percent
(
Knowledge
Networks,
2002).
The
survey
response
rate,
however,
is
the
measure
that
is
most
in
keeping
with
the
OMB­
specified
completion
rate
of
75
percent.
The
survey
response
rate,
as
noted
above,
is
the
rate
at
which
panel
members,
invited
to
participate
in
a
particular
survey,
actually
complete
the
survey
within
the
customer
specified
time­
frame.
Survey
response
rates
are
on
average
77
percent
according
to
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
34
Dennis
(
2001)
and
can
reach
as
high
as
85
percent
or
more
depending
on
the
topic,
length
of
field
time,
and
follow­
up
measures
employed.

As
noted
in
section
4,
because
the
coastal
survey
is
rather
long
in
comparison
with
typical
surveys
administered
by
Knowledge
Networks,
we
intend
to
test
whether
providing
a
small
monetary
incentive
to
respondents
will
substantially
increase
response
rate.

Section
5:
Analyzing
and
Reporting
Survey
Results
5(
a)
Data
Preparation.
The
survey
data
will
be
collected
by
Knowledge
Networks,
Inc.
in
keeping
with
the
data
collection
and
quality
assurance
procedures
described
in
section
5(
b)
of
Part
A.
Knowledge
Networks
will
deliver
the
complete
database
of
the
survey
responses
in
a
spreadsheet
format.
Each
row
will
contain
an
observation.
That
is,
it
will
contain
responses
made
by
an
individual
respondent.
To
keep
the
respondents=
identifications
confidential,
each
respondent
will
be
assigned
a
unique
number
in
the
data
base.
Columns
in
the
database
will
contain
the
responses
to
each
question
as
well
as
a
questionnaire
version
number.
The
survey
responses
will
be
augmented
with
selected
socio­
demographic
and
other
information
collected
routinely
by
Knowledge
Networks.
A
list
of
the
variables
available
and
those
we
have
tentatively
selected
for
inclusion
in
the
database
appear
in
Appendix
4.

In
addition
to
the
survey
and
supplemental
data,
Knowledge
Networks
will
provide
EPA
with
a
data
dictionary,
coding
sheet,
and
field
report.
The
data
dictionary
and
coding
sheet
will
ensure
that
response
categories
for
the
variables
can
be
mapped
back
to
the
questionnaire
and
that
proper
definitions
of
the
variables
are
used
in
the
subsequent
analysis.
The
field
report
will
document
the
sampling
and
data
collection
procedures
used
for
the
project.

Prior
to
the
conduct
of
the
protocol
interviews,
members
of
the
research
team
and
the
peer
review
panel
examined
the
electronic
questionnaire
thoroughly
in
order
to
identify
and
facilitate
the
correction
of
programming
errors
that
could
cause
problems
in
the
proper
transmittal
of
data.
The
protocol
interviews
provided
another
opportunity
to
test
that
the
data
transmittal
process
was
functioning
properly.
No
programming
errors
or
other
technical
difficulties
were
reported
at
that
time.
To
the
extent
that
additional
changes
are
made
to
the
questionnaire
prior
to
administration
of
the
survey,
the
research
team
will
go
through
the
survey
multiple
times
fabricating
responses
to
ensure
that
the
program
is
functioning
correctly.
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
35
5(
b)
Analysis
In
choice
experiments
such
as
ours,
individuals
are
typically
asked
to
choose
from
alternatives
with
varying
attributes
from
a
choice
set.
In
making
their
selections,
respondents
weigh
the
importance
of
the
different
attributes
and
implicitly
trade
one
characteristic
for
another,
selecting
the
alternative
that
provides
them
with
the
greatest
utility.
The
probability
of
choosing
any
specific
alternative
can
then
be
modeled
straightforwardly
using
standard
random
utility
models.

Consider
the
following
representation
of
an
individual=
s
utility
associated
with
program
i:

i
i
i
x
U
 
 
+
=
(
1)

where
xi
is
a
vector
of
explanatory
variables,
including
program
attributes,
cost
of
the
program
and
other
individual
characteristics.
Effects
of
unobserved
variables
are
captured
by
 i,
a
random
term
distributed
as
iid
extreme
value
(
weibull).
A
decision
maker
will
choose
program
i
from
his
choice
set
J
if
that
alternative
provides
greater
utility
than
the
other
two
alternatives:
Ui
>
Uj
for
all
j 
i.

The
probability
that
an
individual
chooses
program
i
from
set
J
is
given
by:

  
=

J
j
j
i
x
x
i
)
exp(
)
exp(
)
Pr(
 
 
(
2)

where
the
numerator
is
the
exponential
of
the
utility
associated
with
program
i
and
the
denominator
is
the
sum,
over
all
programs
in
the
choice
set,
of
the
exponential
utility
associated
with
each
possible
program.
These
probabilities
are
then
entered
in
a
standard
likelihood
function
of
the
following
form:

 
 
=
=
=
J
j
jn
N
n
jn
L
1
1
Pr
 
(
3)

where
 in
=
1
(
for
i 
J)
if
individual
n
selects
program
i
and
=
0
otherwise.
Parameters
are
selected
so
as
to
maximize
L.

One
advantage
of
choice
experiments
such
as
ours
relative
to
traditional
contingent
valuation
is
that
they
allow
researchers
to
infer
the
value
of
the
specific
attributes
in
addition
to
situational
changes.
Random
utility
models
do
not
allow
direct
estimation
of
the
value
of
particular
attributes;
rather,
the
researcher
must
estimate
the
probability
that
a
specific
alternative
will
be
selected
and
can
then
infer
the
value
of
the
various
characteristics
using
the
estimation
results.
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
36
Once
estimated,
the
model
results
can
be
used
to
estimate
welfare
changes
associated
with
the
improvement
or
decline
of
specific
attributes.

5(
c)
Reporting
Results
Survey
results
will
be
reported
in
a
series
of
working
papers
published
by
EPA=
s
National
Center
for
Environmental
Economics.
The
NCEE
Working
Paper
Series
is
publicly
accessible
via
the
NCEE
web
page
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
economic).
Versions
of
these
papers
may
also
be
submitted
for
publication
in
peer­
reviewed
academic
and
policy
journals.
Presentations
of
the
results
will
be
made
to
EPA
staff
and
to
other
interested
agencies
at
workshops
and
seminars.
In
addition,
presentations
of
the
results
may
be
made
at
various
academic
conferences
and
workshops.

References:

Carson,
Richard
T.
and
Robert
Cameron
Mitchell
(
1993),
"
The
Benefits
of
National
Water
Quality
Improvements:
A
Contingent
Valuation
Study,"
Water
Resources
Research,
vol.
29,
no.
7,
pp.
2445­
2454.

Cochran,
W.
G.
(
1977),
Applied
Sampling
NY:
Wiley
&
Sons.

Dennis,
J.
Michael
(
2001),
"
Response
Timing
and
Coverage
of
Non­
Internet
Households:
Data
Quality
in
an
Internet
Enabled
Panel,"
paper
presented
at
the
2001
Conference
of
the
American
Association
for
Public
Opinion
Research,
Montreal,
Canada,
May
18,
2001.
(
http://
www.
knowledgenetworks.
com/
ganp/
safe/
aapor%
202001%
20Dennis.
pdf).

Knowledge
Networks
(
2002a),
AResearch
for
Government,
Academic
and
Non­
Profit
Organizations:
Survey
Methodology,@
July
25,
2002.
(
http://
www.
knowledgenetworks.
com/
ganp/
safe/
surveymethod.
html#
response).

Knowledge
Networks
(
2002b),
"
Statistical
and
Methodological
Update,"
August
9,
2002.

Koaru,
Y.
(
1995),
"
Measuring
Marine
Recreation
Benefits
of
Water
Quality
Improvements
by
the
Nested
Random
Utility
Model,"
Resource
and
Energy
Economics,
77,
141­
151.

Parsons,
George,
D.
Matthew
Massey,
and
Theodore
Tomasi
(
2000),
"
Familiar
and
Favorite
Sites
in
a
Random
Utility
Model
of
Beach
Recreation,"
Marine
Resource
Economics,
14:
299­
315.

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Water
(
1998),
ANational
Water
Quality
Inventory:
1998
Report
to
Congress
(
305(
b)
report)@,
EPA
841­
R­
00­
001.
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
305b/
98report/).
ICR:
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
 
A
Pilot
Study
of
A
Coastal
Water
Valuation
Survey
37
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
2002),
"
Guidelines
to
Ensure
and
Maximize
the
Quality
of
Information
Disseminated
by
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency,"
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oei/
qualityguidelines/
EPA­
OEI­
IQG­
FINAL­
10.2.
pdf.

U.
S.
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
2002),
"
Guidelines
for
Ensuring
and
Maximizing
the
Quality,
Objectivity,
Utility,
and
Integrity
of
Information
Disseminated
by
Federal
Agencies,"
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oei/
qualityguidelines/
fr22fe02­
117.
pdf.

Wiebe,
Elizabeth
F.,
Joe
Eyerman,
and
John
Loft
(
2001),
AEvaluating
Nonresponse
in
a
Web­
Enabled
Survey
on
Health
and
Aging,@
paper
presented
at
the
2001
Conference
of
the
American
Association
for
Public
Opinion
Research,
Montreal
Canada,
May
17­
20,
(
http://
www.
knowledgenetworks.
com/
ganp/
safe/
aapor%
202001%
20nonresponse.
pdf).
38
Appendix
1:

Federal
Register
Notice
Federal
Register
Environmental
Documents
Recent
Additions
|
Contact
Us
|
Search:
EPA
Home
>
Federal
Register
>
FR
Years
>
FR
Months
>
FR
Days
>
FR
Daily
>
Agency
Information
Collection
Activities:
Proposed
Collection;
Comment
Request;
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
Agency
Information
Collection
Activities:
Proposed
Collection;
Comment
Request;
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
[
Federal

Register:

June

28,

2002

(
Volume

67,

Number

125)]
[
Notices]
[
Page

43592­
43594]
From

the

Federal

Register

Online

via

GPO

Access

[
wais.
access.
gpo.
gov]
[
DOCID:
fr28jn02­
48]

=======================================================================
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY
[
FRL­
7239­
4]

Agency

Information

Collection

Activities:

Proposed

Collection;

Comment

Request;

Estimating

the

Value

of

Improvements

to

Coastal

Waters
AGENCY:

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(
EPA).
ACTION:

Notice.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

SUMMARY:

In

compliance

with

the

Paperwork

Reduction

Act

(
44

U.
S.
C.

3501

et

seq.),

this

document

announces

that

EPA

is

planning

to

submit

the

following

proposed

Information

Collection

Request

(
ICR)

to

the

Office

of

Management

and

Budget

(
OMB):

Estimating

the

Value

of

Improvements

to

Coastal

Waters

[
EPA

ICR#
2083.01].

Before

submitting

the

ICR

to

OMB

for

review

and

approval,

EPA

is

soliciting

comments

on

specific

aspects

of

the

proposed

information

collection

as

described

below.

DATES:

Comments

must

be

submitted

on

or

before

August

27,

2002.

ADDRESSES:

Dr.

Nicole

Owens,

National

Center

for

Environmental

Economics,

US

EPA,

Mail

Code

1809T,

1200

Pennsylvania

Avenue,

NW,

Washington,

DC

20460.

Interested

parties

may

obtain

a

copy

of

the

ICR

without

charge

by

contacting

Dr.

Owens

at

202­
566­
2297

or

owens.
nicole@
epa.
gov.

FOR

FURTHER

INFORMATION

CONTACT:

Dr.

Nathalie

Simon

at

202­
566­
2299

or

simon.
nathalie@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION:

Affected

entities:

Entities

potentially

affected

by

this

action

are

those

individuals

who

are

contacted

and

voluntarily

agree

to

participate

in

the

survey.

Individuals

are

contacted

from

an

established

panel

of

respondents

who

have

been

randomly

recruited

from

the

general

public

by

Knowledge

Networks,

Inc.

Respondents

have

agreed

to

participate

in

periodic

surveys

administered

by

Knowledge

Networks,

Inc.




Title:

Estimating

the

Value

of

Improvements

to

Coastal

Waters

(
EPA

ICR#
2083.01).




Abstract:

The

purpose

of

this

study

is

to

estimate

willingness

to

pay

(
WTP)

for

water

quality

improvements

in

coastal

waters.

The

United

States

Environmental

Protection

Agency's

Office

of

Water

is

responsible

1
of
5
8/
5/
2002
2:
49
PM
EPA:
Federal
Register:
Agency
Information
...
he
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
cgi­
bin/
epaprintonly.
cg
for

regulating

and

monitoring

national

water

quality.

In

order

to

make

sound

policy

decisions,

policy

makers

need

information

on

the

benefits,

costs,

and

other

effects

of

alternative

options

for

addressing

environmental

problems.

In

the

case

of

policies

affecting

water

quality,

estimates

of

the

public's

WTP

for

improvements

in

fresh

water

quality

generally

begin

with

estimates

provided

by

Mitchell

and

Carson

(
1993);

however,

this

study

does

not

address

salt

water

areas.




The

coasts

and

estuaries

comprise

a

substantial

part

of

our

national

resource

base;

these

coastal

areas

are

depended

upon

for

the

aesthetic,

economic,

ecosystem,

and

recreational

services

they

provide.

However,

coastal

areas

are

also

the

most

highly

developed

and

populated

areas

in

the

nation.

These

areas

are

home

to

more

than

53%

of

the

nation's

population.

As

coastal

population

has

increased,

the

environmental

quality

of

some

of

these

areas

has

declined

or

is

threatened.

Because

serious

water

pollution

problems

exist

in

some

of

these

areas,

many

future

water

policies

will

likely

focus

on

coastal

areas.

The

lack

of

estimates

of

the

benefits

of

improvements

to

these

areas

makes

designing

effective

policies

to

remedy

these

problems

particularly

difficult.




This

study

will

estimate

WTP

for

water

quality

improvements

in

coastal

waters

using

a

stated

preference

survey.

Currently,

States,

tribes,

and

other

jurisdictions

measure

water

quality

by

determining

if

water

bodies

are

clean

enough

to

support

basic

uses,

such

as

swimming,

fishing,

and

aquatic

life

support.

In

keeping

with

these

definitions

of

water

quality,

the

study

will

estimate

WTP

for

more

fishable

and

swimmable

coastal

and

estuarine

waters

as

well

as

healthier

marine

and

estuarine

aquatic

environments.

Respondents

will

be

asked

a

series

of

five

questions

in

which

they

compare

two

programs

with

the

status

quo.

The

programs

each

affect

water

quality

for

the

various

uses

in

different

ways

and

cost

varying

amounts

to

implement.

Analysis

of

the

resulting

data

will

yield

WTP

estimates

for

improvements

to

each

of

the

attributes.




Further

development

of

the

survey

cannot

be

completed

without

a

pilot

survey.

The

pilot

survey

will

take

place

in

California

using

the

survey

instrument

described

in

more

detail

below.

The

survey

instrument

is

specific

to

the

state

of

California

and

will

be

used

to

estimate

WTP

for

water

quality

improvements

for

three

specific

uses:

swimming,

production

of

fish

and

shellfish

safe

for

human

consumption,

and

support

of

diverse

aquatic

life.

Once

the

pilot

survey

is

complete

and

EPA

is

confident

of

the

adequacy

of

the

questionnaire,

EPA

hopes

to

develop

parallel

versions

of

the

survey

instrument

for

the

remaining

20

coastal

states

in

the

contiguous

United

States

as

well

as

a

version

for

inland

states.

The

coastal

state

versions

of

the

survey

will

elicit

resident's

WTP

for

coastal

water

improvements

within

the

state.

The

inland

version

of

the

survey

will

elicit

WTP

for

coastal

water

improvements

generally.

While

these

surveys

will

not

be

able

to

gauge

WTP

of

coastal

state

residents

for

improvements

outside

of

their

state

of

residence,

it

is

anticipated

that

the

information

gathered

from

these

surveys

will

nevertheless

provide

potentially

useful

information

for

benefits

analysis.




The

questionnaire

for

the

California

coastal

survey

is

comprised

of

four

distinct

parts:

an

introductory

section,

a

section

focusing

specifically

on

California's

coastal

waters,

a

section

containing

the

choice

questions,

and

finally

a

section

containing

standard

questions

about

labor

market

activity.
a.

Part

1:

Introduction




The

first

section

of

the

survey

provides

respondents

with

background

information

on

coastal

waters

and

their

uses.

Following

a

welcome

statement,

the

respondent

is

provided

with

a

concise

definition

of

coastal

waters

and
[[
Page

43593]]

a

detailed

description

of

their

natural,

commercial

and

recreational

uses

in

simple

tabular

form.

This

table

is

followed

by

a

map

highlighting

all

of

the

coastal

states

in

the

48

contiguous

states

in

the

U.
S.

The

respondent's

familiarity

with

coastal

waters

is

then

2
of
5
8/
5/
2002
2:
49
PM
EPA:
Federal
Register:
Agency
Information
...
he
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
cgi­
bin/
epaprintonly.
cg
gauged

through

a

series

of

questions

about

recent

trips

to

coastal

waters

and

water

recreation

activities.

A

number

of

these

questions

are

borrowed

from

the

National

Survey

on

Recreation,

allowing

direct

comparison

of

results.

Similar

information

is

collected

for

freshwater

recreation

activities.
b.

Part

2:

California's

Coastal

Waters




This

section

delves

into

a

respondent's

familiarity

with

pollution

sources

as

well

as

his

perception

of

California's

coastal

water

quality.

In

addition,

it

defines

and

describes

the

three

use

categories:

swimming,

production

of

fish

and

shellfish

that

are

safe

for

human

consumption,

and

support

of

diverse

aquatic

life

(
including

fish,

shellfish,

plants,

mammals,

birds,

etc.

that

live

near

aquatic

environments).

The

water

quality

rating

system

used

by

federal

and

state

governments

is

then

described

to

the

respondents

and

information

is

given

on

the

ratings

California's

coastal

waters

have

received

for

the

three

defined

uses.

Information

on

California's

coastal

waters

is

provided

in

pie

charts.

The

information

provided

is

taken

directly

from

The

National

Water

Quality

Inventory

Report

to

Congress

(
305(
b)

report).




Comparisons

of

California's

water

quality

by

use

with

that

of

other

coastal

states

is

provided

in

a

series

of

three

bar

charts­­
one

for

each

use­­

showing

the

ranking

of

states

by

reported

water

quality

level.
c.

Part

3:

Choice

Questions




The

third

part

of

the

questionnaire

is

comprised

of

the

choice

questions.

Respondents

are

presented

with

a

series

of

five

questions

in

which

they

are

asked

to

select

between

two

programs

to

improve

coastal

water

quality.

In

each

choice

set,

respondents

are

also

able

to

select

the

status

quo,

should

they

find

neither

of

the

two

programs

satisfactory.

Each

of

the

two

programs

has

an

associated

household

tax

increase

to

cover

the

cost

of

implementation.




Information

regarding

water

quality

across

three

use

definitions

(
swimming,

production

of

fish

and

shellfish

deemed

safe

for

human

consumption,

and

the

support

of

diverse

aquatic

life)

under

each

program,

including

the

status

quo,

is

provided

in

tabular

format

together

with

the

cost

to

each

household

for

each

program.

Color

is

used

in

the

table

to

help

respondents

distinguish

between

the

three

alternatives.

The

programs

differ

not

only

in

the

level

of

household

tax,

but

also

in

the

degree

to

which

they

improve

water

quality

across

the

three

use

definitions.




The

questions

are

structured

in

such

a

way

as

to

facilitate

comparison

between

the

programs

with

at

most

two

water

quality

attributes

varying

at

different

levels

across

the

two

new

programs

being

introduced.

In

some

instances,

however,

respondents

are

asked

to

choose

between

two

programs

that

offer

varying

magnitudes

of

uniform

changes

across

uses.
d.

Part

4:

Labor

Market

Activity

and

Demographic

Information




The

fourth

and

final

section

of

the

survey

is

comprised

not

only

of

demographic

questions

but

also

a

series

of

questions

borrowed

from

the

standard

 
 
Panel

Study

of

Income

Dynamics

(
PSID),''

an

ongoing

survey

examining

trends

in

employment

and

income.

Many

of

these

questions

ask

specifically

about

the

respondents'

labor

market

activity

as

well

as

that

of

spouses.

It

is

our

intention

to

directly

compare

the

responses

of

the

PSID

questions

from

the

Knowledge

Networks

sample

to

those

from

the

original

PSID

responses

to

determine

if

in

fact

they

are

similar.

In

so

doing,

we

will

be

able

to

confirm

the

representativeness

of

our

survey

sample

to

the

population

in

California.




The

series

of

demographic

questions

required

in

our

survey

instrument

is

reduced

due

to

the

availability

of

this

information

from

Knowledge

Networks.

As

noted

above,

Knowledge

Networks

collects

and

routinely

updates

standard

demographic

information

on

each

panel

member

and

makes

this

information

available

to

its

clients.

This

reduces

the

burden

on

the

panel

members

and

shortens

the

length

of

the

survey.




The

pilot

study

will

be

conducted

using

300

respondents.

The

survey

is

designed

to

collect

information

through

an

established

panel

of

respondents

using

WebTV

as

the

mode

of

administration.

The

data

will

be

collected

and

stored

electronically

by

the

survey

research

firm.

Based

3
of
5
8/
5/
2002
2:
49
PM
EPA:
Federal
Register:
Agency
Information
...
he
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
cgi­
bin/
epaprintonly.
cg
on

previous

experience

and

a

limited

number

of

cognitive

pretest

interviews,

it

is

estimated

that

each

survey

will

take

approximately

30

minutes

to

complete.




Responses

to

the

survey

will

be

voluntary.

Typically,

panel

members

are

free

to

choose

whether

or

not

to

respond

to

any

particular

survey

as

long

as

they

meet

survey

quotas

set

in

their

agreement

with

the

research

firm.

The

survey

will

fully

conform

to

federal

regulations­­
specifically

the

Privacy

Act

of

1974

(
5

U.
S.
C.

552a),

the

Hawkins­
Stafford

Amendments

of

1988

(
Pub.

L.

100­
297),

and

the

Computer

Security

Act

of

1987.




An

agency

may

not

conduct

or

sponsor,

and

a

person

is

not

required

to

respond

to,

a

collection

of

information

unless

it

displays

a

currently

valid

OMB

control

number.

The

OMB

control

numbers

for

EPA's

regulations

are

listed

in

40

CFR

part

9

and

48

CFR

Chapter

15.




The

EPA

would

like

to

solicit

comments

to:




(
i)

Evaluate

whether

the

proposed

collection

of

information

is

necessary

for

the

proper

performance

of

the

functions

of

the

agency,

including

whether

the

information

will

have

practical

utility;




(
ii)

Evaluate

the

accuracy

of

the

agency's

estimate

of

the

burden

of

the

proposed

collection

of

information,

including

the

validity

of

the

methodology

and

assumptions

used;




(
iii)

Enhance

the

quality,

utility,

and

clarity

of

the

information

to

be

collected;

and




(
iv)

Minimize

the

burden

of

the

collection

of

information

on

those

who

are

to

respond,

including

through

the

use

of

appropriate

automated

electronic,

mechanical,

or

other

technological

collection

techniques

or

other

forms

of

information

technology,

e.
g.,

permitting

electronic

submission

of

responses.




Burden

Statement:

The

proposed

pilot

survey

will

take

advantage

of

an

existing,

pre­
recruited

panel

of

respondents.

Thus,

the

only

burden

imposed

by

the

pilot

survey

on

respondents

will

be

the

time

required

to

complete

the

survey.

Based

upon

pretest

interviews,

the

survey

developers

estimate

that

this

will

involve

an

average

of

30

minutes

per

respondents.

With

a

total

of

300

respondents

for

the

pilot

survey

this

involves

a

total

of

150

hours.

Based

on

an

average

hourly

rate

of

$
22.15

(
including

employer

costs

of

all

employee

benefits),

the

survey

developers

expect

that

the

average

per­
respondent

cost

for

the

pilot

survey

will

be

$
11.08

and

the

corresponding

one­
time

total

cost

to

all

respondents

will

be

$
3324.00.

Since

this

information

collection

is

voluntary

and

does

not

involve

any

special

equipment,

respondents

will

not

incur

any

capital

or

operation

and

maintenance

(
O&
M)

costs.




Burden

means

the

total

time,

effort,

or

financial

resources

expended

by

persons

to

generate,

maintain,

retain,

or

disclose

or

provide

information

to

or

for

a

Federal

agency.

This

includes

the

time

needed

to

review

instructions;

develop,

acquire,

install,

and

utilize

technology

and

systems

for

the

purposes

of

collecting,

validating,

and

verifying
[[
Page

43594]]

information,

processing

and

maintaining

information,

and

disclosing

and

providing

information;

adjust

the

existing

ways

to

comply

with

any

previously

applicable

instructions

and

requirements;

train

personnel

to

be

able

to

respond

to

a

collection

of

information;

search

data

sources;

complete

and

review

the

collection

of

information;

and

transmit

or

otherwise

disclose

the

information.





Dated:

June

12,

2002.
Al

McGartland,
Office

Director,

National

Center

for

Environmental

Economics,

Office

of

Policy,

Economics

and

Innovation.
[
FR

Doc.

02­
16359

Filed

6­
27­
02;

8:
45

am]
BILLING

CODE

6560­
50­
P
4
of
5
8/
5/
2002
2:
49
PM
EPA:
Federal
Register:
Agency
Information
...
he
Value
of
Improvements
to
Coastal
Waters
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
cgi­
bin/
epaprintonly.
cg
43
Appendix
2:

Coastal
Water
Quality
Valuation
Survey
44
California
Survey
Thank
you
for
agreeing
to
help
us
by
completing
this
survey.
This
survey
asks
for
your
opinions
about
coastal
waters
in
California.
Your
opinions
and
those
of
others
completing
this
survey
are
very
important
and
may
be
used
to
help
prioritize
programs
that
may
affect
your
local
area.
There
are
no
right
or
wrong
answers;
we
are
simply
interested
in
your
opinions
and
your
experiences.

OMB
Approval
No:
xx­
xx
Approval
Expires
mm/
dd/
yy
The
information
collected
in
this
survey
will
be
used
by
policy
makers
at
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
Office
of
Water
to
make
decisions
on
the
benefits,
costs,
and
other
effects
of
alternative
options
for
addressing
coastal
water
improvements.
Your
participation
in
the
survey
is
voluntary,
and
your
name
and
individual
answers
are
confidential­­
all
survey
responses
will
be
combined
and
reported
in
the
aggregate.
This
survey
should
take
about
20­
30
minutes
to
complete.
45
We'd
like
to
start
by
giving
you
some
information
about
coastal
waters
and
asking
about
your
experiences.
By
coastal
waters
we
mean
the
shallow
salt
waters
within
two
miles
of
shorelines
of
oceans,
bays,
seas,
or
gulfs
including
the
areas
where
freshwater
rivers
mix
with
saltwater.

The
next
screen
contains
more
information
about
coastal
waters.

More
Information
on
Coastal
Waters:

Coastal
waters
may
have:
shallow
waters,
marshes,
sandy
beaches,
mud
and
sand
flats,
rocky
shores,
oyster
reefs,
river
deltas,
tidal
pools,
sea
grass
beds
and
swamps.

Natural
uses
include:
food,
shelter
and
breeding
grounds
for
many
fish,
shellfish,
mammals
and
shorebirds.

Recreational
uses
include:
boating,
fishing,
shell­
fishing,
swimming,
snorkeling
and
birdwatching

Commercial
uses
include:
ports
and
marinas
supporting
shipping
and
industrial
uses;
breeding
grounds
for
some
commercial
fish
and
shellfish.

Examples
of
coastal
waters
are:
the
water
along
Chesapeake
Bay,
Clearwater
Beach
(
Florida),
Ocean
City
(
Maryland),
Venice
Beach
(
California),
Galveston
Bay,
Puget
Sound,
San
Francisco
Bay,
Tampa
Bay
and
lots
of
smaller
bays
and
inlets
where
freshwaters
and
saltwaters
mix.
46
Of
the
48
contiguous
states
in
the
US,
21
have
coastal
waters.
These
states
are
shown
in
yellow
on
the
map.

Q1
In
the
past
12
months,
have
you
visited
any
coastal
waters
for
recreation
or
pleasure
in
one
or
more
of
the
21
coastal
states
shown
on
the
map?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Yes
(
skip
to
Q3)

No

Don't
know
(
skip
to
Q5)

Q2
Have
you
ever
visited
any
coastal
waters
in
any
of
the
21
coastal
states
shown
on
the
map?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Yes

No
(
skip
to
Q5)

Don't
know
(
skip
to
Q5)

Q3
Does
your
household
own
a
boat
that
is
used
primarily
on
coastal
waters?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Yes

No
(
skip
to
Q5)

Don't
know
(
skip
to
Q5)
47
Q4
For
which
activity
do
you
use
your
boat
the
most
on
coastal
waters?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Recreational
fishing

Recreational
boating

Commercial
fishing

Chartered
boat
rides

Chartered
fishing
trips

Other
(
please
specify
___________________________________)

Don't
know
Q5
How
often
do
you
eat
seafood?
(
select
one
answer
only)


More
than
3
times
per
week

2­
3
times
per
week

1
time
per
week

2­
3
times
per
month

1
time
per
month

Less
than
once
per
month

Never
(
skip
to
Q8)

Don't
know
(
skip
to
Q8)

Q6
About
how
much
money
per
month
do
you
spend
on
seafood
that
you
personally
eat?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Less
than
$
5

Between
$
5
and
$
9.99

Between
$
10
and
$
19.99

Between
$
20
and
$
29.99

Between
$
30
and
$
39.99

Between
$
40
and
$
49.99

More
than
$
50

Don't
know
Q7
Does
any
of
the
seafood
you
eat
come
from
California
waters?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Yes

No

Don't
know
Q8
Have
you
ever
heard
about
fish
advisories
that
limit
the
amount
of
coastal
fish
or
shellfish
from
California
that
one
should
eat
because
of
pollution?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Yes

No

Don't
know
48
Q9
If
Q1
=
No
or
Don't
know,
skip
to
instructions
before
Q9h
The
next
few
questions
are
about
your
coastal
water
recreation
activities
over
the
last
year.
During
the
last
12
months,
on
how
many
different
days
did
you
personally
participate
in
each
of
the
following
activities?
(
select
one
answer
from
each
row
in
the
grid)
(
Randomize
order)

Number
of
Different
Days
in
the
Last
12
Months
0
days
1­
2
days
3­
5
days
6­
10
days
11­
20
days
More
than
20
days
Don't
recall
number
of
days
a.
Fish
in
coastal
waters?
(
up
to
2
miles
from
shore)







If
a
>
0
then
ask:
How
many
of
these
days
were
single­
day
trips
in
California?







If
single
day
trips
in
California
>
0
then
ask:
Thinking
about
your
most
recent
single­
day
fishing
trip
to
coastal
water
in
California,
what
was
the
name
of
the
coastal
fishing
site
you
visited
on
this
most
recent
trip?
Name_________

What
is
the
name
of
the
city
or
town
closest
to
(
Name)?
City/
Town_______________

About
how
many
miles
is
(
Name)
from
your
home?
Miles
___________

About
how
long
did
it
take
you
to
get
from
your
home
to
(
Name)?
Hours
_____
Minutes
_______

(
if
a>
0,
then
ask)
Did
you
eat
any
of
the
fish
you
caught
on
this
trip?

Yes

No,
didn't
eat
any
fish

No,
didn't
catch
any
fish

Don't
know
49
Number
of
Different
Days
in
the
Last
12
Months
0
days
1­
2
days
3­
5
days
6­
10
days
11­
20
days
More
than
20
days
Don't
recall
number
of
days
b.
deep­
sea
fish
(
more
than
2
miles
from
shore)?







If
b>
0
then
ask:
How
many
of
these
days
were
single­
day
trips
in
California?







c.
boat
or
sail
on
coastal
waters?







If
c>
0
then
ask:
How
many
of
these
days
were
single­
day
trips
in
California?







If
single
day
trips
in
California
>
0
then
ask:
Thinking
about
your
most
recent
single­
day
boating
trip
to
coastal
water
in
California,
what
was
the
name
of
the
coastal
boating
site
you
visited
on
this
most
recent
trip?
Name_________

What
is
the
name
of
the
city
or
town
closest
to
(
Name)?
City/
Town_______________

About
how
many
miles
is
(
Name)
from
your
home?
Miles
___________

About
how
long
did
it
take
you
to
get
from
your
home
to
(
Name)?

Hours
_____
Minutes
_______

d.
visit
a
beach
on
coastal
waters
for
any
outdoor
recreation
activities?







If
d>
0
then
ask:
How
many
of
these
days
were
single­
day
trips
in
California?







50
Number
of
Different
Days
in
the
Last
12
Months
0
days
1­
2
days
3­
5
days
6­
10
days
11­
20
days
More
than
20
days
Don't
recall
number
of
days
e.
swim
in
coastal
waters?







If
e>
0
then
ask:
How
many
of
these
days
were
single­
day
trips
in
California?







If
single
day
trips
in
California
>
0
then
ask:
Thinking
about
your
most
recent
single­
day
swimming
trip
to
coastal
water
in
California,
what
was
the
name
of
the
coastal
swimming
site
you
visited
on
this
most
recent
trip?
Name_________

What
is
the
name
of
the
city
or
town
closest
to
(
Name)?
City/
Town_______________

About
how
many
miles
is
(
Name)
from
your
home?
Miles
___________

About
how
long
did
it
take
you
to
get
from
your
home
to
(
Name)?

Hours
_____
Minutes
_______

f.
observe
wildlife
near
coastal
waters?







If
f>
0
then
ask:
How
many
of
these
days
were
singleday
trips
in
California?







51
Q9g
[
ask
only
if
Q1
=
1]
Thinking
about
the
number
of
days
you
spent
participating
in
each
of
the
coastal
water
activities
we
asked
about,
would
you
say
that
this
was
a
normal
recreational
year
for
you?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Yes
(
skip
to
instructions
before
Q9h)

No

Don't
know
(
skip
to
instructions
before
Q9h)

Briefly
explain
why
the
past
12
months
were
not
a
normal
recreational
year
for
you?
__________________________________________________________________

This
next
set
of
questions
asks
about
freshwater
recreation
activities.
By
"
freshwater"
we
mean
waters
in
inland
lakes,
ponds,
rivers,
streams,
etc.,
excluding
areas
where
freshwaters
and
saltwaters
mix.

During
the
last
12
months,
on
how
many
different
days
did
you
personally
participate
in
each
of
the
following
activities?
(
select
one
answer
from
each
row
in
the
grid)
(
Randomize
order)

0
days
1­
2
days
3­
5
days
6­
10
days
11­
20
days
More
than
20
days
Don't
recall
number
of
days
h.
fish
in
a
freshwater
lake,
pond,
river
or
stream?







i.
boat
or
sail
on
a
freshwater
lake,
pond,
river
or
stream?







j.
visit
a
beach
on
a
freshwater
body
for
any
outdoor
recreation
activities?







k.
swim
in
a
freshwater
lake,
pond,
river
or
stream?







l.
observe
wildlife
near
a
freshwater
lake,
pond,
river,
or
stream?







52
Now
we
would
like
to
ask
you
about
coastal
waters
in
California.
Here
is
a
map
showing
the
California
coast.

Q10
Is
your
primary
residence
located
within
10
miles
of
coastal
waters?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Yes

No

Don't
know
Q11
Aside
from
your
primary
residence,
does
your
household
own
any
property
within
10
miles
of
coastal
waters?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Yes

No
(
skip
to
Q13)

Don't
know
(
skip
to
Q13)
53
Q12
What
other
type
of
coastal
property
does
your
household
own?(
select
all
that
apply)


Residential,
single
family
home

Residential,
condominium
­­
one
unit

Residential,
condominium
­­
multiple
units

Residential,
apartment
building

Commercial

Don't
know
Q13
How
long
have
you
lived
in
California?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Less
than
1
year

1­
5
years

6­
10
years

11­
20
years

Over
20
years

Don't
know
Q14
The
next
question
is
about
problems
that
may
be
affecting
coastal
waters
in
California.
Please
rate
the
seriousness
of
each
problem
by
selecting
a
number
from
1
to
5,
with
1
meaning
"
not
at
all
serious"
and
5
meaning
"
very
serious."
(
select
one
answer
from
each
row
in
the
grid)
(
Randomize
order)

How
would
you
rate
the
seriousness
of
each
of
the
following
problems
in
California
in
terms
of
its
impact
on
coastal
waters?
Not
at
all
Serious
1
2
3
4
Very
Serious
5
Don't
know
pesticide
and
fertilizer
runoff
from
farm
areas






discharges
and
overflows
from
sewage
treatment
plants






discharges
from
oil
refineries
and
other
industrial
waste






seepage
of
waste
from
landfills






storm
water
runoff
from
roads
and
highways






pollution
from
commercial
shipping
(
including
oil
and
chemical
spills)






pollution
from
recreational
boats
(
including
oil
and
gasoline
spills
and
debris)






litter
and
other
debris






animal
waste
runoff
from
farms
and
ranches






beach
erosion






other
(
please
specify___________________)






54
Q15
Most
coastal
water
pollution
comes
from
one
or
more
of
the
following
sources.
Which
one
of
these
do
you
believe
is
the
largest
source
of
coastal
water
pollution
in
California?
(
select
one
answer
only)
(
Randomize
order)


Agriculture
sources
including
runoff
of
crop
fertilizers
and
pesticides,
runoff
of
animal
waste
from
fields
and
pastures,
and
overflows
from
animal
waste
storage
areas.


Industry
sources
including
overflows
from
sewage
treatment
plants,
discharges
from
industrial
processes,
absorption
of
waste
into
the
soil
at
landfills,
accidents,
and
spills.


Household
sources
including
runoff
of
automobile
grease
and
oil,
runoff
of
lawn
fertilizers
and
pesticides,
overflows
from
septic
systems,
runoff
of
paints
and
chemicals,
and
absorption
of
waste
into
the
soil
at
landfills.


Don't
know
Q16
Now,
we
would
like
to
ask
you
about
coastal
waters
in
California.

Would
you
say
that
in
the
last
five
years
California's
coastal
waters
have
gotten
cleaner,
stayed
the
same,
or
gotten
dirtier?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Gotten
cleaner
in
the
last
five
years

Stayed
the
same
in
the
last
five
years

Gotten
dirtier
in
the
last
five
years

Don't
know
Q17
Which
one
of
the
following
is
your
main
source
of
information
on
the
condition
of
California's
coastal
waters?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Newspapers

Magazines

Television
broadcast
news

Internet

Personal
experience

Friends
and
family
55
The
federal
government
and
states
use
information
on
pollution
concentrations
to
rate
the
quality
of
coastal
waters
for
different
uses.

Coastal
water
is
rated
as
"
good"
or
"
not
good"
based
on
its
ability
to
support
the
following
three
uses:
·
recreational
swimming
·
the
production
of
fish
and
shellfish
that
are
safe
for
people
to
eat
·
the
ability
to
support
a
large
number
of
different
kinds
of
fish,
birds,
mammals
and
plants.

The
following
describes
what
it
means
for
water
to
be
"
good"
for
each
use.

 
Recreational
swimming:
If
water
is
"
good"
for
recreational
swimming
it
means
that
it
is
free
from
the
types
of
pollutants
that
make
people
sick
(
stomach
illnesses,
earaches,
rashes
or
infections,
and
in
rare
cases
long­
term
health
effects)
when
they
go
swimming.
In
other
words,
if
water
is
rated
"
good"
for
swimming,
people
can
swim
in
the
water
without
risk
of
illness.

 
Fish
and
shellfish
safe
for
eating:
If
water
is
rated
"
good"
for
fish
and
shellfish
consumption
it
means
that
the
fish
are
free
from
contamination
that
can
make
people
sick.
Some
types
of
pollutants
build
up
in
the
bodies
of
some
fish
and
shellfish
and
can
cause
stomach
illnesses
and
other
health
problems
in
people.

 
Large
number
of
different
kinds
of
fish,
birds,
mammals
and
plants:
If
water
is
rated
"
good"
for
supporting
large
numbers
of
different
kinds
of
life,
it
means
that
the
water
is
free
from
the
types
of
pollutants
that
keep
many
fish,
birds,
mammals
and
plants
from
living
in
water.
In
other
words,
"
good"
water
allows
a
greater
number
of
different
kinds
of
fish
and
aquatic
life
to
thrive.

For
each
of
the
uses
above,
water
is
considered
"
not
good"
if
it
fails
to
support
the
use
some
of
the
time
because
of
pollution.
56
The
pie
charts
below
show
the
percent
of
California
coastal
waters
that,
on
average,
is
"
good"
and
"
not
good"
for
each
of
the
three
uses.

Swimming
Production
of
fish
and
shellfish
that
are
safe
to
eat
Supports
a
large
number
of
different
kinds
of
fish,
birds,
mammals
and
plants
Q18
For
which
of
the
three
uses
we
just
described
is
water
quality
the
most
important
to
you?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Recreational
swimming

Fish
and
shellfish
safe
for
eating

Large
number
of
different
kinds
of
fish,
birds,
mammals,
and
plants

Don't
know
Good
64%

Not
Good
36%
Good
42%
Not
Good
58%

Good
52%
Not
Good
48%
57
This
chart
shows,
on
average,
how
the
water
quality
of
California's
coastal
waters
compare
to
the
water
quality
of
other
states
for
Swimming:
Percent
of
Coastal
Waters
Where
Water
Quality
is
"
Good"
for
Swimming
42%
42%
69%
70%
73%
87%
87%
92%
94%
95%
97%
98%
98%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

0%

10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%

100%
CA
DE
MA
LA
FL
NC
MS
SC
NY
RI
CT
VA
NJ
WA
GA
TX
ME
MD
NH
OR
AL
Numbers
are
a
best
representation
of
the
monitoring
information
available
from
the
individual
states.
58
This
chart
shows,
on
average,
how
the
water
quality
of
California's
coastal
waters
compare
to
the
water
quality
of
other
states
for
the
Production
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
that
are
safe
to
eat:

Percent
of
Coastal
Waters
Where
Water
Quality
is"
Good"
for
Fish
and
Shellfish
Consumption
0%
0%
2%
5%
34%
55%
61%
63%
64%
64%
65%
67%
69%
73%
76%
87%
87%
91%
93%
94%
97%

0%

10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%

100%
MA
NH
DE
OR
CT
FL
TX
NJ
WA
CA
MS
RI
SC
AL
GA
ME
NC
NY
LA
MD
VA
Numbers
are
a
best
representation
of
the
monitoring
information
available
from
the
individual
states.
59
This
chart
shows,
on
average,
how
the
water
quality
of
California's
coastal
waters
compare
to
the
water
quality
of
other
states
for
supporting
large
numbers
of
different
kinds
of
fish,
birds,
mammals
and
plants:

Percent
of
Coastal
Waters
Where
Water
Quality
is"
Good"
for
Supporting
Aquatic
Life
3%
8%
33%
39%
48%
52%
60%
66%
69%
73%
85%
87%
88%
92%
99%
100%
100%
100%

92%

55%

0%

10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%

100%
DE
LA
WA
MD
RI
CA
MA
CT
SC
NJ
FL
VA
NC
GA
MS
TX
NY
NH
ME
AL
OR
(
no
data)

Numbers
are
a
best
representation
of
the
monitoring
information
available
from
the
individual
states.
60
Now
we
would
like
to
know
whether
or
not
you
would
support
a
program
that
increases
the
percent
of
California's
coastal
waters
that
are
"
good"
for
swimming,
eating
fish
and
shellfish,
and
supporting
a
large
number
of
different
kinds
of
wildlife.

Currently,
taxes
on
households,
industries,
and
agriculture
as
well
as
fines
on
agriculture
and
industry
pay
for
the
programs
that
support
current
water
quality.
If
nothing
more
is
done,
the
quality
of
coastal
waters
will
remain
about
the
same.

To
improve
the
quality
of
the
water,
new
programs
will
be
needed
as
well
as
new
funds
to
pay
for
them.

On
the
next
several
screens,
we
will
give
you
information
on
programs
that
improve
California's
coastal
waters.
You
will
be
asked
to
compare
two
programs
at
a
time
with
the
present
conditions
and
to
select
which
program,
if
any,
you
prefer.

The
table
on
the
next
screen
shows
the
percent
of
coastal
waters
that
will
improve
under
each
of
two
new
programs
and
the
taxes
required
from
each
household
to
fund
the
new
programs.

As
you
make
your
choice,
please
keep
in
mind
the
following:
·
Even
though
each
program
improves
coastal
waters
in
different
ways,
both
would
take
three
years
before
the
improved
water
returns
to
"
good."
·
Neither
program
would
improve
the
quality
of
freshwater
lakes
and
rivers
or
coastal
waters
in
other
states
where
swimming
and
fishing
may
take
place
or
where
a
healthy
aquatic
environment
may
exist.
·
Selecting
a
program
means
that
your
household
would
have
less
money
to
spend
on
other
things.
·
It
is
already
possible
in
some
places
in
California
to
swim
in
and
eat
the
fish
from
the
same
coastal
waters.
These
same
waters
in
some
cases
may
also
support
a
healthy
aquatic
environment.

Your
Three
Choices
and
How
They
Would
Affect
the
Quality
of
California's
Coastal
Waters
Percent
of
California's
Coastal
Waters
Rated
as
"
Good"

Present
Conditions
Program
1
(
Conditions
after
3
years)
Program
2
(
Conditions
after
3
years)
Swimming
42%
of
miles
are
good
_%
gain
to
__%
good
_%
gain
to
__%
good
Fish
and
shellfish
safe
for
eating
64%
of
miles
are
good
_%
gain
to
__%
good
_%
gain
to
__%
good
Habitat
to
support
a
large
number
of
different
kinds
of
fish,
birds,
mammals
and
plants
52%
of
miles
are
good
_%
gain
to
__%
good
_%
gain
to
__%
good
Yearly
Tax
Change
for
your
household
(
permanent
tax)
No
Increase
in
Taxes
Your
taxes
increase
by
$___
per
year
Your
taxes
increase
by
$___
per
year
61
Q19
Which
one
of
the
options
listed
in
the
table
above
would
you
choose?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Present
Conditions:
No
change
in
your
taxes,
and
the
percent
of
coastal
water
that
is
"
good"
for
each
purpose
stays
the
same
as
it
is
now

Program
1:
Your
taxes
increase
by
$___
[
fill
with
program
1
amount]
per
year
to
get
the
improvements
shown
under
this
program

Program
2:
Your
taxes
increase
by
$___
[
fill
with
program
2
amount]
per
year
to
get
the
improvements
shown
under
this
program

Don't
know
FOR
THE
FIRST
25
RESPONDENTS,
THE
FOLLOWING
OPEN­
ENDED
QUESTION
WILL
BE
ASKED
AFTER
EACH
CHOICE
QUESTION.
AFTER
WE
HAVE
ANSWERS
FROM
25
PEOPLE,
WE'LL
CODE
A
MULTIPLE­
CHOICE
QUESTION.

Q19b.
Please
take
a
moment
to
tell
us
why
you
chose
the
option
you
did.

_______________________________________________________________________________

The
screen
before
the
next
choice
questions
should
read:

Now
consider
two
different
programs
 
programs
3
and
4.
As
before,
the
table
on
the
next
screen
shows
the
percent
of
coastal
waters
that
will
improve
under
each
new
program
and
the
taxes
required
from
each
household
to
fund
the
new
programs.

As
you
make
your
choice,
please
keep
in
mind
the
following:
·
Even
though
each
program
improves
coastal
waters
in
different
ways,
both
would
take
three
years
before
the
improved
water
returns
to
"
good."
·
Neither
program
would
improve
the
quality
of
freshwater
lakes
and
rivers
or
coastal
waters
in
other
states
where
swimming
and
fishing
may
take
place
or
where
a
healthy
aquatic
environment
may
exist.
·
Selecting
a
program
means
that
your
household
would
have
less
money
to
spend
on
other
things.
·
It
is
already
possible
in
some
places
in
California
to
swim
in
and
eat
the
fish
from
the
same
coastal
waters.
These
same
waters
in
some
cases
may
also
support
a
healthy
aquatic
environment.
62
The
screen
before
the
third
choice
questions
should
read:

Now
consider
two
different
programs
 
programs
5
and
6.
As
before,
the
table
on
the
next
screen
shows
the
percent
of
coastal
waters
that
will
improve
under
each
new
program
and
the
taxes
required
from
each
household
to
fund
the
new
programs.

As
you
make
your
choice,
please
keep
in
mind
the
following:
·
Even
though
each
program
improves
coastal
waters
in
different
ways,
both
would
take
three
years
before
the
improved
water
returns
to
"
good."
·
Neither
program
would
improve
the
quality
of
freshwater
lakes
and
rivers
or
coastal
waters
in
other
states
where
swimming
and
fishing
may
take
place
or
where
a
healthy
aquatic
environment
may
exist.
·
Selecting
a
program
means
that
your
household
would
have
less
money
to
spend
on
other
things.
·
It
is
already
possible
in
some
places
in
California
to
swim
in
and
eat
the
fish
from
the
same
coastal
waters.
These
same
waters
in
some
cases
may
also
support
a
healthy
aquatic
environment.

The
screen
before
the
fourth
choice
questions
should
read:

Now
consider
two
different
programs
 
programs
7
and
8.
As
before,
the
table
on
the
next
screen
shows
the
percent
of
coastal
waters
that
will
improve
under
each
new
program
and
the
taxes
required
from
each
household
to
fund
the
new
programs.

As
you
make
your
choice,
please
keep
in
mind
the
following:
·
Even
though
each
program
improves
coastal
waters
in
different
ways,
both
would
take
three
years
before
the
improved
water
returns
to
"
good."
·
Neither
program
would
improve
the
quality
of
freshwater
lakes
and
rivers
or
coastal
waters
in
other
states
where
swimming
and
fishing
may
take
place
or
where
a
healthy
aquatic
environment
may
exist.
·
Selecting
a
program
means
that
your
household
would
have
less
money
to
spend
on
other
things.
·
It
is
already
possible
in
some
places
in
California
to
swim
in
and
eat
the
fish
from
the
same
coastal
waters.
These
same
waters
in
some
cases
may
also
support
a
healthy
aquatic
environment.
63
The
screen
before
the
last
choice
question
should
read:

Now
consider
two
final
programs
 
programs
9
and
10.
As
before,
the
table
on
the
next
screen
shows
the
percent
of
coastal
waters
that
will
improve
under
each
program
and
the
taxes
required
from
each
household
to
fund
the
new
programs.

As
you
make
your
choice,
please
keep
in
mind
the
following:
·
Even
though
each
program
improves
coastal
waters
in
different
ways,
both
would
take
three
years
before
the
improved
water
returns
to
"
good."
·
Neither
program
would
improve
the
quality
of
freshwater
lakes
and
rivers
or
coastal
waters
in
other
states
where
swimming
and
fishing
may
take
place
or
where
a
healthy
aquatic
environment
may
exist.
·
Selecting
a
program
means
that
your
household
would
have
less
money
to
spend
on
other
things.
·
It
is
already
possible
in
some
places
in
California
to
swim
in
and
eat
the
fish
from
the
same
coastal
waters.
These
same
waters
in
some
cases
may
also
support
a
healthy
aquatic
environment.

See
attached
excel
spreadsheet
for
tax
and
percent
changes
for
all
versions.

Q20a
In
the
last
few
questions
we
asked
you
to
consider
different
programs
that
would
improve
coastal
water
quality.
Did
you
think
the
improvements
would
take
place
in
a
specific
part
of
California?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Yes
(
please
let
us
know
where
you
thought
the
improvements
would
take
place___)

No
(
skip
to
Q21a)

Don't
Know
(
skip
to
Q21a)

Q20b
Why
did
you
think
the
improvements
would
take
place
here?

_______________________________________________________________

Q20c
Would
you
have
answered
differently
if
the
improvements
were
to
take
place
somewhere
else
in
California?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Yes

No

Don't
Know
Q21a
In
the
questions
that
asked
you
to
consider
different
programs
that
would
improve
coastal
water
quality
suppose
that
we
told
you
that
all
improvements
in
swimming
would
take
place
in
"
bays,"
"
estuaries,"
or
"
inlets"
rather
than
in
California's
ocean
waters
directly.
Do
you
think
you
would
have
answered
these
questions
differently?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Yes

No
(
skip
to
Q22)

Don't
Know
(
skip
to
Q22)

Q21b
Please
take
a
moment
to
tell
us
why?

_______________________________________________________________
64
We
would
now
like
to
learn
a
little
bit
more
about
you
and
your
household.
This
last
set
of
questions
is
for
background
purposes
only.
We
would
like
to
remind
you
that
all
information
you
provide
will
be
confidential,
and
your
name
will
not
be
associated
with
any
responses
in
this
survey.

Q22
Are
you
a
member
of
an
environmental,
conservation
or
outdoor
sporting
organization?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Yes

No

Don't
know
Q23
Which
of
the
following
best
describes
your
current
employment
status?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Employed
full
time

Employed
part
time

Temporarily
laid
off
(
skip
to
Q30)

On
sick
or
maternity
leave

Currently
unemployed
(
skip
to
Q30)

Retired
(
skip
to
Q31)

Disabled
(
permanently
or
temporarily)
(
skip
to
Q31)

Full­
time
home
keeper
(
skip
to
Q31)

Student
(
skip
to
Q31)

Other
(
skip
to
Q31)

Don't
know
(
skip
to
Q31)

Q24
Do
you
have
more
than
one
job?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Yes

No

Don't
know
Q25
On
your
main
job,
who
are
you
employed
by?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Employed
by
someone
else
only

Self­
employed
and
employed
by
someone
else

Self­
employed
only

Don't
know
Q26
Thinking
about
your
main
job,
what
type
of
company
do
you
currently
work
for?
(
select
one
answer
only)


The
federal
government

The
state
government

Local
government

Private
non­
government

Other
(
please
specify
_______________________)
65
Q27
Is
your
main
current
job
covered
by
a
union
contract?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Yes

No

Don't
know
Q28
Thinking
about
your
main
job,
which
of
the
following
best
describes
how
you
are
paid?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Salaried

Paid
by
the
hour

Earning
a
salary
plus
tips

Earning
hourly
wages
plus
tips

Earning
a
salary
plus
commission

Earning
hourly
wages
plus
commission

Other

Don't
know
Q29
Thinking
about
your
main
job,
if
you
were
to
work
more
hours
than
usual
during
some
week,
would
you
get
paid
for
those
extra
hours
of
work?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Yes

No

Don't
know
Q30
Have
you
been
looking
for
another
job
during
the
past
four
weeks?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Yes

No

Don't
know
Q31
Which
of
the
following
best
describes
your
marital
status?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Married

Living
with
someone
(
END)

Divorced
(
END)

Separated
(
END)

Widowed
(
END)

Never
Married
(
END)

If
Q31=
married
then
continue
Else
go
to
Q40
66
Q32
Which
of
the
following
best
describes
your
spouses
employment
status?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Employed
full
time

Employed
part
time

Temporarily
laid
off
(
Go
to
Q39)

On
sick
or
maternity
leave

Currently
unemployed
(
Go
to
Q39)

Retired
(
END)

Disabled
(
permanently
or
temporarily)
(
END)

Full­
time
home
keeper
(
END)

Student
(
END)

Other
(
END)

Don't
know
(
END)

Q33
Does
your
spouse
have
more
than
one
job?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Yes

No

Don't
know
Q34
On
his
or
her
main
job,
by
whom
is
your
spouse
employed
by?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Employed
by
someone
else
only

Self­
employed
and
employed
by
someone
else

Self­
employed
only

Don't
know
Q35
Thinking
about
your
spouse's
main
job,
what
type
of
company
does
your
spouse
work
for?
(
select
one
answer
only)


The
federal
government

The
state
government

Local
government

Private
non­
government

Other
(
please
specify_______________________)

Don't
know
Q36
Is
the
current
main
job
of
your
spouse
covered
by
a
union
contract?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Yes

No

Don't
know
67
Q37
Thinking
about
your
spouse's
main
job,
which
of
the
following
best
describes
how
your
spouse
is
paid?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Salaried

Paid
by
the
hour

Earning
a
salary
plus
tips

Earning
hourly
wages
plus
tips

Earning
a
salary
plus
commission

Earning
hourly
wages
plus
commission

Other

Don't
know
Q38
Thinking
about
your
spouse
main
job,
if
your
spouse
were
to
work
more
hours
than
usual
during
some
week,
would
your
spouse
get
paid
for
those
extra
hours
of
work?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Yes

No

Don't
know
Q39
Has
your
spouse
been
looking
for
another
job
during
the
past
four
weeks?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Yes

No

Don't
know
Q40
How
many
people
in
your
household
contributed
to
your
income
in
2001?

___________
Number
of
people
68
Standard
Knowledge
Networks
Questions
Do
you
have
any
comments
on
the
survey
in
general?

_____________________________________________________________________________

Thinking
about
the
survey
in
general,
how
satisfied
were
you
with
the
experience?
(
select
one
answer
only)


Very
satisfied

Somewhat
satisfied

Neither
satisfied
nor
dissatisfied

Somewhat
dissatisfied

Very
dissatisfied
What
did
you
think
about
the
length
of
this
survey?
(
select
one
answer
only)

Very
short
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Very
long










When
we
asked
you
to
choose
between
different
programs
for
improving
the
water
quality
of
California's
coastal
waters,
was
there
anything
about
the
questions
or
descriptions
that
seemed
confusing?


Yes­

What
was
confusing?
__________________________________________________

No
When
we
asked
you
to
choose
between
different
programs
for
improving
the
water
quality
of
California's
coastal
waters,
did
the
programs
and
their
impacts
seem
believable?


Yes

No­

Why
not?
__________________________________________________

Thank
You!!
We
appreciate
your
help
with
this
important
study.
Please
feel
free
to
share
any
comments
you
have
about
this
survey
or
the
topic
of
water
quality.

Standard
Demographic
Questions
already
collected
by
Knowledge
Networks
(
will
NOT
be
asked
in
the
survey)

Five
digit
zip
code
for
primary
residence
69
Gender
1
Male
2
Female
Number
of
people
in
household
in
the
following
age
categories
____
6
years
and
under
____
7
­
18
years
____
19
­
64
years
____
65
years
and
older
Respondent
age
1
18­
24
years
2
25­
34
years
3
35­
44
years
4
45­
54
years
5
55­
64
years
6
65
years
or
more
Highest
level
of
education
respondent
completed
1
Less
than
high
school
2
Some
high
school
3
High
school
graduate
or
equivalent
4
Some
college
5
Associate
degree
6
Bachelor's
degree
7
Master's
degree
8
Professional
degree
9
Doctorate
degree
Respondent
of
Spanish,
Hispanic,
or
Latino
descent
1
No,
I
am
not
2
Yes,
I
am
3
Decline
to
answer
Respondent
race
1
White
2
Black/
African­
American
3
American
Indian
or
Alaska
Native
4
Asian/
Pacific
Islander
5
Other
 
(
please
specify
_______________)
6
Decline
to
answer
70
The
next
question
is
about
the
total
income
of
your
household
for
last
year.
Please
include
your
income
PLUS
the
income
of
all
members
living
in
your
household
(
including
cohabiting
partners
and
armed
forces
members
living
at
home).
Please
count
income
BEFORE
TAXES,
including
income
from
all
sources
(
such
as
wages,
salaries,
net
income
from
a
business,
dividends,
and
Social
Security,
pensions,
or
retirement
benefits).

Total
household
income
in
2001
before
taxes
1
Less
than
$
5,000
2
$
5,000
to
$
7,499
3
$
7,500
to
$
9,999
4
$
10,000
to
$
12,499
5
$
12,500
to
$
14,999
6
$
15,000
to
$
19,999
7
$
20,000
to
$
24,999
8
$
25,000
to
$
29,999
9
$
30,000
to
$
34,999
10
$
35,000
to
$
39,999
11
$
40,000
to
$
49,999
12
$
50,000
to
$
59,999
13
$
60,000
to
$
74,999
14
$
75,000
to
$
84,999
15
$
85,000
to
$
99,999
16
$
100,000
to
$
124,999
17
$
125,000
or
more
71
Appendix
3:
Choice
Set
Design
The
table
below
provides
the
design
values
used
in
the
choice
questions.
Each
respondent
is
asked
a
series
of
5
questions
in
which
they
are
asked
to
choose
between
the
status
quo
and
2
new
programs
that
would
affect
coastal
water
quality
in
different
ways.
A
total
of
12
versions
of
the
choice
question
set
are
presented
below.

Yearly
Tax
Change
Swimming
Fish
and
shellfish
safe
to
eat
Large
number
of
different
fish,
birds,
etc.
Version
1
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
1
$
180
10%
gain
to
52%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
10%
gain
to
62%
good
Program
2
$
120
5%
gain
to
47%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
3
$
240
0%
gain
to
42%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Program
4
$
240
5%
gain
to
47%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
5
$
240
10%
gain
to
52%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Program
6
$
180
10%
gain
to
52%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
7
$
60
0%
gain
to
42%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
10%
gain
to
62%
good
Program
8
$
60
10%
gain
to
52%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
9
$
180
10%
gain
to
52%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Program
10
$
120
10%
gain
to
52%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Version
2
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
1
$
180
5%
gain
to
5%
gain
to
69%
5%
gain
to
57%
good
72
47%
good
good
Program
2
$
60
0%
gain
to
42%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
3
$
180
5%
gain
to
47%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Program
4
$
60
5%
gain
to
47%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
5
$
60
0%
gain
to
42%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
10%
gain
to
62%
good
Program
6
$
60
10%
gain
to
52%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
7
$
240
0%
gain
to
42%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Program
8
$
240
5%
gain
to
47%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
9
$
240
10%
gain
to
52%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
10%
gain
to
62%
good
Program
10
$
60
10%
gain
to
52%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Version
3
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
1
$
180
5%
gain
to
47%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Program
2
$
60
0%
gain
to
42%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
3
$
60
5%
gain
to
47%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
10%
gain
to
62%
good
Program
4
$
60
5%
gain
to
47%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
5
$
180
10%
gain
to
52%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Program
6
$
60
10%
gain
to
52%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Present
­
42%
of
miles
64%
of
miles
are
52%
of
miles
are
good
73
Conditions
are
good
good
Program
7
$
180
0%
gain
to
42%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Program
8
$
240
0%
gain
to
42%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
10%
gain
to
62%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
9
$
240
5%
gain
to
47%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Program
10
$
240
0%
gain
to
42%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Version
4
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
1
$
180
10%
gain
to
52%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
10%
gain
to
62%
good
Program
2
$
60
5%
gain
to
47%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
3
$
60
5%
gain
to
47%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Program
4
$
120
10%
gain
to
52%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
5
$
180
0%
gain
to
42%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Program
6
$
180
5%
gain
to
47%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
7
$
120
0%
gain
to
42%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Program
8
$
120
0%
gain
to
42%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
9
$
240
5%
gain
to
47%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
10%
gain
to
62%
good
Program
10
$
240
5%
gain
to
47%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Version
5
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
74
Program
1
$
120
5%
gain
to
47%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Program
2
$
240
10%
gain
to
52%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
10%
gain
to
62%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
3
$
180
10%
gain
to
52%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Program
4
$
240
10%
gain
to
52%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
5
$
120
0%
gain
to
42%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Program
6
$
120
0%
gain
to
42%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
10%
gain
to
62%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
7
$
180
0%
gain
to
42%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
10%
gain
to
62%
good
Program
8
$
180
10%
gain
to
52%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
9
$
60
5%
gain
to
47%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
10%
gain
to
62%
good
Program
10
$
60
10%
gain
to
52%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Version
6
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
1
$
120
10%
gain
to
52%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
10%
gain
to
62%
good
Program
2
$
60
5%
gain
to
47%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
3
$
180
5%
gain
to
47%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Program
4
$
180
5%
gain
to
47%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
10%
gain
to
62%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
5
$
240
10%
gain
to
52%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Program
6
$
180
10%
gain
to
52%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
75
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
7
$
120
0%
gain
to
42%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Program
8
$
120
0%
gain
to
42%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
10%
gain
to
62%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
9
$
60
5%
gain
to
47%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
10%
gain
to
62%
good
Program
10
$
60
10%
gain
to
52%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Version
7
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
1
$
120
5%
gain
to
47%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Program
2
$
60
0%
gain
to
42%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
3
$
240
5%
gain
to
47%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Program
4
$
120
5%
gain
to
47%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
5
$
240
10%
gain
to
52%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Program
6
$
240
10%
gain
to
52%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
7
$
120
5%
gain
to
47%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
10%
gain
to
62%
good
Program
8
$
120
5%
gain
to
47%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
9
$
180
10%
gain
to
52%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Program
10
$
180
10%
gain
to
52%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Version
8
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
1
$
120
10%
gain
to
10%
gain
to
74%
10%
gain
to
62%
good
76
52%
good
good
Program
2
$
60
5%
gain
to
47%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
3
$
240
5%
gain
to
47%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Program
4
$
120
5%
gain
to
47%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
5
$
240
0%
gain
to
42%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
10%
gain
to
62%
good
Program
6
$
180
0%
gain
to
42%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
7
$
120
5%
gain
to
47%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
10%
gain
to
62%
good
Program
8
$
120
10%
gain
to
52%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
9
$
180
0%
gain
to
42%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
10%
gain
to
62%
good
Program
10
$
120
0%
gain
to
42%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Version
9
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
1
$
120
10%
gain
to
52%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
10%
gain
to
62%
good
Program
2
$
60
5%
gain
to
47%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
3
$
240
10%
gain
to
52%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Program
4
$
120
5%
gain
to
47%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
5
$
180
0%
gain
to
42%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Program
6
$
120
0%
gain
to
42%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Present
­
42%
of
miles
64%
of
miles
are
52%
of
miles
are
good
77
Conditions
are
good
good
Program
7
$
240
0%
gain
to
42%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
10%
gain
to
62%
good
Program
8
$
180
0%
gain
to
42%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
9
$
120
5%
gain
to
47%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Program
10
$
60
5%
gain
to
47%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Version
10
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
1
$
240
5%
gain
to
47%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Program
2
$
60
0%
gain
to
42%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
3
$
120
10%
gain
to
52%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Program
4
$
120
5%
gain
to
47%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
5
$
240
0%
gain
to
42%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Program
6
$
180
0%
gain
to
42%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
7
$
180
5%
gain
to
47%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
10%
gain
to
62%
good
Program
8
$
120
5%
gain
to
47%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
9
$
60
0%
gain
to
42%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
10%
gain
to
62%
good
Program
10
$
60
0%
gain
to
42%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Version
11
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
1
$
240
5%
gain
to
47%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
78
Program
2
$
60
0%
gain
to
42%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
3
$
60
5%
gain
to
47%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
10%
gain
to
62%
good
Program
4
$
60
5%
gain
to
47%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
5
$
60
0%
gain
to
42%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Program
6
$
60
0%
gain
to
42%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
10%
gain
to
62%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
7
$
240
5%
gain
to
47%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
10%
gain
to
62%
good
Program
8
$
180
5%
gain
to
47%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
9
$
180
5%
gain
to
47%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
10%
gain
to
62%
good
Program
10
$
120
5%
gain
to
47%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Version
12
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
1
$
240
10%
gain
to
52%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
10%
gain
to
62%
good
Program
2
$
60
5%
gain
to
47%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
3
$
60
0%
gain
to
42%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Program
4
$
120
5%
gain
to
47%
good
5%
gain
to
69%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
5
$
240
10%
gain
to
52%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Program
6
$
180
10%
gain
to
52%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
79
Program
7
$
60
0%
gain
to
42%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Program
8
$
60
5%
gain
to
47%
good
10%
gain
to
74%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
Present
Conditions
­
42%
of
miles
are
good
64%
of
miles
are
good
52%
of
miles
are
good
Program
9
$
180
10%
gain
to
52%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
5%
gain
to
57%
good
Program
10
$
120
10%
gain
to
52%
good
0%
gain
to
64%
good
0%
gain
to
52%
good
80
Appendix
4:
Demographic
Information
Provide
by
Knowledge
Networks
Information
below
reproduced
from
Knowledge
Networks
Research
Note
A
Knowledge
Networks
Profile
Information
on
Panel
Members,
January
2002"

Member
Profile
information
is
updated
annually
for
all
core
data
elements
except
those
that
are
regarded
as
fixed
(
such
as
date
of
birth,
sex,
race,
and
ethnicity).
The
updating
process
enables
Knowledge
Networks
to
identify
changes
in
household
composition,
income,
major
consumer
purchases,
health
status,
media
consumption,
and
other
life
activities.
A
set
of
the
most
frequently
requested
demographic
variables
is
appended
to
every
custom
data
set.

Frequently
requested
demographic
variables:

1.
Gender
2.
Age
(
actual
age)
3.
Age
(
categorized)
4.
Race
/
Hispanic
ethnicity
(
separately
and
combined)
5.
Household
ethnicity
6.
Marital
status
7.
Education
(
highest
level
attained)
8.
Employment
status
9.
Head
of
household
indicator
10.
Ownership
of
living
quarters
11.
Housing
type
12.
Household
income
in
last
calendar
year
13.
Household
size
14.
Number
of
household
members
by
age
groups
15.
Internet
usage
prior
to
receiving
MSN
TV
16.
Number
of
computers
or
laptops
in
the
household
17.
Number
of
computers
connected
to
the
Internet
18.
State
of
residence
19.
Census
Region
(
4
and
9
Regions)
20.
Metropolitan
Statistical
Area
(
MSA)
21.
Designated
Market
Area
(
DMA)
81
Question
wording
and
response
categories
for
key
variables
parallel
that
used
by
the
U.
S.
Census
Bureau
in
its
Current
Population
Survey.
