INFORMATION
COLLECTION
REQUEST
EPA
ICR
No.
1914.01
W.
Kip
Viscusi,
Harvard
University
and
Joel
Huber,
Duke
University
Valuing
Inland
Water
Quality
Improvements
February
18,
2000
February
2000
i
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
PART
A
OF
THE
SUPPORTING
STATEMENT
.....................................................................
1
1.
Identification
of
the
Information
Collection
....................................................................
1
1(
a)
Title
of
the
Information
Collection
.................................................................................
1
1(
b)
Short
Characterization
(
Abstract)
...................................................................................
1
2.
Need
For
and
Use
of
the
Collection
................................................................................
2
2(
a)
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection
..................................................................................
2
2(
b)
Practical
Utility/
Users
of
the
Data
..................................................................................
3
3.
Nonduplication,
Consultations,
and
Other
Collection
Criteria
.........................................
3
3(
a)
Nonduplication
..............................................................................................................
3
3(
b)
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
..............................................
5
3(
c)
Consultations
.................................................................................................................
5
3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
................................................................................
5
3(
e)
General
Guidelines
.........................................................................................................
6
3(
f)
Confidentiality
................................................................................................................
6
3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
........................................................................................................
7
4.
The
Respondents
and
the
Information
Requested
...........................................................
7
4(
a)
Respondents/
SIC
...........................................................................................................
7
4(
b)
Information
Requested
...................................................................................................
7
(
I)
Data
items,
including
record
keeping
requirements
.........................................................
7
(
II)
Respondent
activities
...................................................................................................
16
5.
The
Information
Collected
­
Agency
Activities,
Collection,
Methodology
and
Information
February
2000
ii
Management
............................................................................................................................
17
5(
a)
Agency
Activities
.........................................................................................................
17
5(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Information
Management
................................................
17
5(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
.................................................................................................
18
5(
d)
Collection
Schedule
.....................................................................................................
18
6.
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
and
Cost
of
Collection
.................................................
19
6(
a)
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
....................................................................................
19
6(
b)
Estimating
Respondent
Costs
.......................................................................................
19
6(
c)
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Costs
...........................................................................
20
6(
d)
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
Costs
..............................................................
20
6(
e)
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
..........................................................................
20
6(
f)
Reasons
For
Change
In
Burden
....................................................................................
20
6(
g)
Burden
Statement
........................................................................................................
21
PART
B
OF
THE
SUPPORTING
STATEMENT
...................................................................
22
1.
Survey
Objectives,
Key
Variables,
and
Other
Preliminaries
...........................................
22
1(
a)
Survey
Objectives
........................................................................................................
22
1(
b)
Key
Variables
...............................................................................................................
22
1(
c)
Statistical
Approach
.....................................................................................................
22
1(
d)
Feasibility
.....................................................................................................................
23
2.
Survey
Design
..............................................................................................................
23
2(
a)
Target
Population
and
Coverage
..................................................................................
23
2(
b)
Sampling
Design
..........................................................................................................
23
(
I)
Sampling
Frames
..........................................................................................................
23
(
II)
Sample
Sizes
................................................................................................................
24
February
2000
iii
(
III)
Stratification
Variables
.................................................................................................
24
(
IV)
Sampling
Method
.........................................................................................................
24
(
V)
Multi­
Stage
Sampling
...................................................................................................
25
2(
c)
Precision
Requirements
................................................................................................
25
(
I)
Precision
Targets
.......................................................................................................
25
(
II)
NonSampling
Errors
....................................................................................................
26
2(
d)
Questionnaire
Design
...................................................................................................
26
3.
Pretests
and
Pilot
Tests
................................................................................................
27
4.
Collection
Methods
and
Follow­
up
...............................................................................
27
4(
a)
Collection
Methods
......................................................................................................
27
4(
b)
Survey
Response
and
Follow­
Up
..................................................................................
27
5.
Analyzing
and
Reporting
Survey
Results
......................................................................
28
5(
a)
Data
Preparation
..........................................................................................................
28
5(
b)
Analysis
.......................................................................................................................
28
5(
c)
Reporting
Results
.........................................................................................................
29
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment
1
Federal
Register
Notice
...................................................................................
30
Attachment
2
Full
Text
of
Survey
..........................................................................................
35
Attachment
3
Pilot
Study
Report
...........................................................................................
98
Attachment
4
Pilot
Study
Report
Exhibits
...........................................................................
126
Attachment
5
Tri­
TAC
/
CASA
comments
..........................................................................
188
Attachment
6
Responses
to
Tri­
TAC
/
CASA
comments
.....................................................
194
Attachment
7
TVA
comments
.............................................................................................
197
February
2000
iv
Attachment
8
Responses
to
TVA
comments
........................................................................
198
LIST
OF
TABLES
Table
A1.
Reviewers
................................................................................................................
5
Table
A2.
Duration
of
Questionnaire
Activities
......................................................................
18
Table
A3.
Total
Estimated
Bottom
Line
Burden
and
Cost
Summary
.......................................
20
February
2000
1
PART
A
OF
THE
SUPPORTING
STATEMENT
1.
Identification
of
the
Information
Collection
1(
a)
Title
of
the
Information
Collection
Valuing
Inland
Water
Quality
Improvements
1(
b)
Short
Characterization
(
Abstract)

Researchers
at
Harvard
and
Duke
Universities
propose
to
develop
economic
benefit
values
for
water
quality
improvements
for
lakes,
rivers,
and
streams.
These
estimates
are
of
substantial
academic
interest
since
past
studies
have
been
based
on
a
water
quality
ladder,
which
is
not
a
scientifically
valid
construct
for
assessing
water
quality.
This
project
will
explore
how
valuations
are
affected
by
use
of
the
current
EPA
approach
of
specifying
different
dimensions
of
water
quality
such
as
swimming,

fishing,
and
broader
aquatic
ecological
effects.
The
findings
will
be
pertinent
to
economists
studying
water
quality
changes,
particularly
with
respect
to
the
task
of
assessing
benefit
values
for
water
quality
policies.

We
request
approval
from
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
to
implement
a
computer
assisted
questionnaire.
We
will
use
data
collected
with
the
survey
in
determining
the
value
of
water
quality
improvements
to
households
in
the
United
States,
to
better
understand
the
public's
perceptions
and
attitudes
about
inland
surface
water
quality,
and
to
improve
knowledge
of
water
quality
issues
and
survey
methodology.
We
plan
to
recruit
subjects
randomly
across
the
United
States
through
telephone
recruiting.
Subjects
will
be
asked
to
complete
a
computer
survey
from
a
disk,
which
will
be
mailed
to
them.
Subjects
without
convenient
access
to
a
personal
computer
will
be
referred
to
a
national
commercial
facility
with
computer
access
nearest
their
home
for
the
purpose
February
2000
2
of
completing
the
survey.
Subjects
will
return
the
survey
disk
by
mail
when
completed.
Participation
in
the
survey
is
voluntary.
We
intend
to
administer
the
survey
to
2,800
persons
in
a
nationwide
sample.

Data
were
collected
in
a
pilot
survey
from
households
in
North
Carolina
(
Charlotte,
Cary,
and
the
Research
Triangle
Park
areas)
and
Colorado
(
Denver
and
Colorado
Springs
areas).
The
survey
established
preliminary
benefit
values
for
improvements
in
water
quality.
These
were
calculated
based
on
responses
to
paired
comparisons
involving
water
quality
changes
and
cost­
of­
living
levels
for
regions
to
which
the
respondent
might
move.
Overall,
348
respondents
averaged
approximately
a
$
20
value
per
unit
increase
in
the
water
quality
level.
With
a
larger
national
sample,
refinement
of
this
calculation
will
be
possible
with
respect
to
the
regional
and
demographic
differences
of
subjects.

The
total
national
burden
estimate
for
all
parts
of
the
questionnaire
process
is
3,150
hours.
The
burden
estimates
are
based
on
administration
of
2,800
questionnaires.
The
total
respondent
cost
estimate
is
$
41,517.

2.
Need
For
and
Use
of
the
Collection
2(
a)
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection
This
project
is
being
undertaken
pursuant
to
Sections
104
and
105
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
dealing
with
research.
This
research
project
is
exploring
how
water
quality
valuations
are
affected
by
use
of
the
current
EPA
approach
of
surveying
lakes
and
streams
for
attainment
of
water
quality
levels
and
specifying
different
dimensions
of
water
quality
such
as
swimming,
fishing,
and
broader
aquatic
ecological
effects.
Understanding
how
these
levels
of
water
quality,
surveyed
regularly
and
published
in
the
EPA
Water
Quality
Inventory,
relate
to
the
values
of
water
quality
held
by
the
public
will
be
useful
in
determining
whether
the
benefits
of
government
action
to
improve
water
quality
or
to
prevent
water
quality
degradation
are
commensurate
with
the
costs
associated
with
such
actions.
February
2000
3
Although
the
findings
will
be
primarily
of
use
to
the
research
community
and
state
and
local
regulatory
agencies
dealing
with
water
quality,
they
are
also
expected
to
be
useful
to
EPA
in
preparing
improved
estimates
of
the
economic
benefits
of
improved
inland
surface
water
quality
as
required
under
Executive
Order
12866.

2(
b)
Practical
Utility/
Users
of
the
Data
The
findings
of
this
project
will
be
pertinent
to
economists
and
policy
analysts
studying
water
quality
changes,
particularly
with
respect
to
the
task
of
assessing
benefit
values
for
water
quality
policies.

These
estimates
are
of
substantial
academic
interest
since
past
studies
have
been
based
on
a
water
quality
ladder,
which
is
not
a
scientifically
valid
construct
for
assessing
water
quality,
nor
does
it
correspond
with
current
government
data
collection
methods.
The
methodology
the
researchers
are
developing
should
be
useful
to
economists
and
regulators
concerned
with
cost­
benefit
assessments.

The
innovative
computer
model
they
use
will
also
be
a
benefit
to
future
researchers
undertaking
surveys.
Due
to
the
innovative
nature
of
the
research,
the
researchers
may
need
to
incorporate
information
and
make
other
adjustments
to
the
survey
instrument
as
a
result
of
their
proposed
pretesting
to
assure
that
the
survey
is
as
clear
as
possible
to
respondents
and
provides
as
accurate
a
measure
of
water
quality
benefits
as
possible.

3.
Non­
duplication,
Consultations,
and
Other
Collection
Criteria
3(
a)
Non­
duplication
There
have
been
many
surveys
attempting
to
estimate
values
of
various
aspects
of
water
quality
preservation
or
improvement
for
various
parts
of
the
United
States,
but
no
previous
work
has
determined
values
using
both
designated
uses
attainment
goals
and
the
measurement
scheme
used
by
the
EPA's
inventory
of
water
quality
attainment.
Matching
water
quality
values
to
the
EPA's
own
measurement
methodology
will
better
enable
policy
makers
and
academics
to
gauge
the
cost
February
2000
4
effectiveness
of
policies
to
improve
water
quality
as
well
as
allowing
cost
benefit
analysis
of
aggregate
water
quality
improvements
on
a
year­
by­
year
basis.

The
most
closely
comparable
study
to
what
the
survey
authors
propose
is
a
survey
by
Mitchell
and
Carson
(
The
Value
of
Clean
Water:
The
Public's
Willingness
to
Pay
for
Boatable,
Fishable,
and
Swimmable
Quality
Water;
Water
Resources
Research;
July,
1993;
pp2445­
54),
which
estimates
aggregate
benefits
of
achieving
swimmable
water
from
a
baseline
of
non­
boatable
water
to
be
$
29.2
billion
per
year
(
1990
dollars).
Household
willingness
to
pay
is
$
280
per
year
(
1983
dollars).

However,
this
study's
methodology
can
not
be
used
with
data
available
from
the
EPA
which
describes
levels
of
water
quality
attainment
and
the
improvements
in
water
quality
over
time
contained
therein.

A
study
by
Tay
and
McCarthy
(
Benefits
of
Improved
Water
Quality:
A
Discrete
Choice
Analysis
of
Freshwater
Recreational
Demands;
Environment
and
Planning
A;
Oct.
1994;
pp1625­
38)
estimate
a
per­
trip
welfare
gain
for
a
one
percent
reduction
in
all
pollutants
of
64.5
cents
per
trip
(
numbers
from
a
1985
study
from
Indiana).
Again,
this
data
is
not
useful
in
conjunction
with
available
data
on
actual
quality
levels.

Other
studies
available
have
this
same
problem
and
are
often
done
for
a
limited
geographical
area
or
a
specific
water
body
which
impair
their
ability
to
be
generalized
to
nationwide
or
even
statewide
effects,
which
again,
is
how
government
data
is
presented
in
the
EPA's
semi­
annual
Water
Quality
Inventory.

3(
b)
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
In
accordance
with
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.),
EPA
published
a
notice
in
the
Federal
Register
on
November
12,
1999
announcing
that
the
water
quality
survey
questionnaire
was
available
for
public
comment.
A
copy
of
the
Federal
Register
notice
is
attached
at
the
end
of
this
document.
February
2000
5
The
survey
authors
and
EPA
received
more
than
ten
requests
for
the
survey
after
the
Federal
Register
notice
was
published.
In
addition
to
a
general
comment
praising
the
survey
design,
EPA
received
two
sets
of
comments
to
the
survey
design.
Those
comments
and
our
responses
are
attached
at
the
end
of
this
document.

3(
c)
Consultations
We
have
engaged
in
consultations
with
reviewers
from
both
academia
and
the
EPA,
as
well
as
input
from
subjects
at
several
points
in
the
process
of
constructing
this
survey.
After
developing
the
survey
methodology
and
constructing
the
first
version
of
the
pilot
survey
instrument,
walk
through
pre­
tests
were
conducted
with
about
ten
subjects
at
a
marketing
firm
in
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC.
Input
from
these
subjects
as
well
as
comments
solicited
from
peer
reviewers
and
the
EPA
were
used
to
refine
the
questionnaire
for
the
first
major
pre­
test
on
106
subjects
in
RTP.
After
further
work
on
the
questionnaire
and
assuring
that
the
instrument
produced
useable
data,
the
full
pilot
was
conducted
on
a
sample
of
300
more
subjects
in
Cary,
NC;
Charlotte
NC;
Denver,
CO;
and
Colorado
Springs,

CO.
Using
this
sample
plus
the
106
RTP
subjects,
the
survey
authors
compiled
the
pilot
report
(
attached
at
the
end
of
this
document).
Reviews
of
this
report
were
solicited
from
three
external
reviewers
plus
two
other
reviewers
solicited
by
EPA.
These
reviews
prompted
another
walk
through
pre­
test
with
about
20
subjects
in
RTP
and
further
changes
to
the
survey
instrument
before
pretesting
of
the
national
survey.

The
following
table
shows
the
reviewers
solicited
to
review
the
pilot
survey
report.

Table
A1.
Reviewers
Reviewer
Organization
Telephone
Richard
Bishop
University
of
Wisconsin
(
608)
262­
8966
Jon
A.
Krosnick
Ohio
State
University
(
614)
292­
3496
David
Schkade
University
of
Texas
(
512)
471­
5297
Elizabeth
McClelland,
Nicole
Owens,
and
Elizabeth
David
OP/
OEE/
EED
External
Review
Solicited
by
EPA
Anonymous
February
2000
6
3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
The
questionnaire
is
a
one­
time
data
collection
activity.
Therefore,
completion
of
this
section
is
not
necessary.

3(
e)
General
Guidelines
The
questionnaire
does
not
violate
any
of
the
general
guidelines
described
in
the
ICR
Handbook.

3(
f)
Confidentiality
Personal
identifying
information
is
not
recorded
with
survey
data.
Once
a
subject
has
completed
the
survey,
it
is
not
possible
to
link
response
data
with
information
such
as
name
or
address.
Thus
confidentiality
of
subjects
who
agree
to
take
the
survey
is
assured.

3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
No
sensitive
questions
pertaining
to
private
or
personal
information,
such
as
sexual
behavior
or
religious
beliefs,
are
being
asked
in
the
questionnaire.
Therefore,
completion
of
this
section
is
unnecessary.

4.
The
Respondents
and
the
Information
Requested
February
2000
7
4(
a)
Respondents
We
will
recruit
subjects
through
a
marketing
firm.
The
firm
recruits
subjects
by
nationwide
telephone
recruiting.
The
household
member
over
18
years
of
age
with
the
most
recent
birthday
is
recruited
to
take
a
computer
survey
either
at
home,
at
some
other
convenient
location
where
the
subject
has
access
to
a
computer,
or
at
a
nationwide
commercial
facility
which
offers
computer
access,
for
which
subjects
will
be
compensated.
The
marketing
firm
will
make
clear
that
participation
is
voluntary
and
all
subjects
will
be
compensated.

4(
b)
Information
Requested
(
I)
Data
items,
including
record
keeping
requirements
The
following
screening
questionnaire
given
to
subjects
when
they
are
recruited
by
telephone
is
comprised
of
the
following
questions:

Good
morning
/
afternoon
I'm
________
from
Consumer
Pulse,
calling
on
behalf
of
researchers
at
Harvard
University
Duke
University
and
the
United
States
Government.
Today
we
are
talking
to
a
cross
section
of
people
in
your
area
regarding
their
views
about
some
important
issues,
and
would
like
to
include
your
household's
opinions.
I
can
assure
you
I
am
not
selling
anything,
and
this
will
only
take
about
3
minutes
of
your
time.
First
of
all
Y
(
GO
RIGHT
TO
SCREENER
QA.)

A.
To
make
sure
every
member
of
your
household
has
an
equally
likely
chance
of
being
asked
to
participate
in
our
survey,
may
I
please
speak
to
the
person
in
your
household
who
is
18
years
of
age,
or
older
and
who
has
had
the
MOST
RECENT
birthday?

IF
THIS
PERSON
IS
NOT
AVAILABLE,
FIND
OUT
THEIR
NAME
(
IF
POSSIBLE),
AND
ARRANGE
FOR
A
CALLBACK.

IF
AVAILABLE
NOW,
REPEAT
INTRODUCTION
AND
THEN,
CONTINUE:
B.
Into
which
of
the
following
groups
does
your
age
fall?

1.
18­
24
4.
45­
54
2.
25­
34
5.
55­
64
February
2000
8
3.
35­
44
6.
65
and
over
C.
In
general,
how
concerned
would
you
say
you
are
with
issues
impacting
the
environment,
such
as
pollution,
ozone
depletion,
and
water
quality?
Would
you
say
you
are
Y
1.
Very
concerned
2.
Somewhat
concerned
3.
Not
very
concerned
4.
Not
at
all
concerned
D.
We
are
in
the
process
of
conducting
a
national
marketing
research
study
where
we
would
ask
you
to
complete
an
additional
30
minute
interview,
for
which
we
will
pay
you
for
your
time.
Because
we
are
seeking
a
certain
number
of
responses
in
each
region
of
the
country,
and
your
household
has
been
selected
to
represent
your
area,
it
is
very
important
to
us
that
we
include
your
opinion.
Can
we
count
on
your
input
for
this
important
research
study?

IF
REFUSED,
THANK,
TERMINATE,
TALLY.
OTHERWISE,
CONTINUE:

Because
we
are
trying
to
complete
a
large
number
of
surveys
in
a
very
short
time,
we
are
using
a
computerized
interview
to
assist
us
in
collecting
this
information.

E.
First
of
all,
do
you
have
access
to
a
DOS
or
Windows
based,
IBM
compatible
PC
at
your
work,
or
home?
1.
Yes
(
SKIP
TO
H)
2.
No
F.
Do
you
have
a
neighbor/
friend
who
owns
an
IBM
compatible
PC
who
would
allow
you
use
their
computer
for
this
interview?
We
would
also
send
you
a
small
gift
to
give
to
them
if
they
would
be
willing.

1.
Yes
(
TRY
TO
GET
COMMITMENT
&
SKIP
TO
I)
2.
No
3.
Not
sure
(
DO
NOT
READ,
ARRANGE
CB
IF
NECESSARY)

IF
NO
TO
BOTH:
G.
Don't
worry,
you
can
still
help!
We've
have
also
made
arrangements
with
Kinko's
copy
shops,
to
allow
you
to
go
to
one
of
their
locations
in
your
area
and
conduct
the
interview
on
one
of
their
PC's.
So
that
I
may
determine
the
nearest
location,
what
is
your
zip
code?
(
INTERVIEWER:
DETERMINE
NEAREST
STORES(
s)
There
is
a
shop
at:
_________
would
this
be
a
convenient
location
for
you?

1.
Yes
(
SKIP
TO
J)
2.
No
(
READ
OFF
OTHER
LOCATIONS)
February
2000
9
H.
INVITE
FOR
PC
OWNERS:
We
frequently
conduct
these
types
of
surveys
to
get
a
better
understanding
of
what
people
like
yourself
find
important,
and
what
issues
may
concern
you.
Your
responses
will
allow
us
to
gauge
a
general
climate
regarding
environmental
issues
among
persons
all
across
the
United
States.

We
would
mail
you
a
diskette
to
be
used
on
your
PC.
You
can
complete
the
survey
at
your
convenience
and
then
return
it
to
us
in
a
postage
paid
envelope,
which
will
be
included
in
your
packet.

The
survey
will
take
about
30
minutes.
All
your
answers
will
be
kept
confidential
and,
as
a
small
token
of
our
appreciation,
upon
receipt
of
your
completed
survey
diskette,
we
will
mail
you
a
check
for
$
20.

Can
we
count
on
you
to
participate
in
our
survey?
1.
Yes
(
GO
TO
VERIFICATION
SCREEN)
2.
No
(
THANK,
TALLY
&
TERMINATE)
February
2000
10
I.
INVITE
FOR
PC
ACCESSORS:
We
frequently
conduct
these
types
of
surveys
to
get
a
better
understanding
of
what
people
like
yourself
find
important,
and
what
issues
may
concern
you.
Your
responses
will
allow
us
to
gauge
a
general
climate
regarding
environmental
issues
among
persons
all
across
the
United
States.

We
would
mail
you
a
diskette
to
be
used
on
your
friend/
neighbor's
PC.
You
can
complete
the
survey
at
your
convenience
and
then
return
it
to
us
in
a
postage
paid
envelope,
which
will
be
included
in
your
packet.

The
survey
will
take
about
30
minutes.
All
of
your
answers
will
be
kept
confidential
and,
as
a
small
token
of
our
appreciation,
upon
receipt
of
your
completed
survey
diskette,
we
will
mail
you
a
check
for
$
20
and
also
$
10
for
your
friend,
for
lending
you
the
PC.

Can
we
count
on
you
to
participate
in
our
survey?
1.
Yes
(
GO
TO
VERIFICATION
SCREEN)
2.
No
(
THANK,
TALLY
&
TERMINATE)

J.
INVITE
FOR
KINKO'S:
We
frequently
conduct
these
types
of
surveys
to
get
a
better
understanding
of
what
people
like
yourself
find
important,
and
what
issues
may
concern
you.
Your
responses
will
allow
us
to
gauge
a
general
climate
regarding
environmental
issues
among
persons
all
across
the
United
States.

We
would
mail
you
a
diskette
and
a
certificate
for
free
computer
usage
at
the
Kinko's
location
of
your
choice.
The
survey
is
simple
to
start
and
complete,
and
easy
to
use
directions
will
be
included
in
the
packet.
You
can
complete
the
survey
at
your
convenience
and
then
return
it
to
us
in
a
postage
paid
envelope,
which
will
be
included
in
your
packet.

The
survey
will
take
about
30
minutes.
All
your
answers
will
be
kept
confidential
and,
as
a
small
token
of
our
appreciation,
upon
receipt
of
your
completed
survey
diskette,
we
will
mail
you
a
check
for
$
40.

Can
we
count
on
you
to
participate
in
our
survey?
1.
Yes
(
GO
TO
VERIFICATION
SCREEN)
2.
No
(
THANK,
TALLY
&
TERMINATE)

I'd
like
to
mail
you
the
survey
diskette
along
with
instructions
on
how
to
take
the
survey,
as
well
as
an
800
number
to
call
if
you
have
questions
or
problems.

May
I
please
verify
your
name,
address
and
phone
number?

Name:
______________________________________________________________
February
2000
11
Address:
____________________________________________________________
City:
___________________________________
ST:
______
Zip:
______________

Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time
and
look
for
the
materials
to
arrive
within
one
week.

The
following
is
an
outline
of
the
major
sections
of
the
computer
survey.

1.
Lake/
river
usage.
This
section
of
the
survey
ascertains
whether
the
respondent
has
used
lakes,
rivers,
and
streams
recently
and
also
obtains
information
regarding
the
character
of
the
use.

For
example,
has
the
respondent
engaged
in
fishing
or
swimming?
If
yes,
how
often?
The
primary
purpose
of
these
questions
is
to
encourage
the
respondent
to
think
about
the
value
of
these
activities
in
such
a
way
that
will
motivate
the
later
choices.

2.
Question
format
explanation.
This
section
of
the
survey
introduces
the
format
of
most
survey
questions
that
will
follow.
Thus,
the
intent
of
this
section
is
to
provide
a
general
introduction
to
the
character
of
the
tradeoffs
that
will
be
faced,
but
will
not
include
specific
questions
to
ascertain
the
cost
of
living­
water
quality
tradeoff
values.

3.
Cost
of
living
versus
water
quality.
This
is
the
key
section
of
the
survey
that
is
designed
to
ascertain
the
rate
of
tradeoff
between
increases
in
cost
of
living
and
water
quality
improvements.

The
structure
of
this
section
utilizes
a
sequence
of
paired
comparisons
until
a
point
of
indifference
has
been
achieved.

4.
Lake
quality
versus
river
quality.
This
section
of
the
survey
determines
the
individual's
rate
of
tradeoff
between
lake
and
river
water
quality
improvement.
Using
these
results
it
will
be
possible
to
ascertain
the
relative
benefit
assessment
for
water
quality
improvements
for
these
two
different
classes
of
water
bodies.
As
in
the
case
of
the
cost­
of­
living
water
quality
tradeoffs,
this
section
of
the
survey
as
well
as
subsequent
sections
will
utilize
a
series
of
paired
comparisons
until
a
point
of
indifference
has
been
achieved.

5.
Water
uses
tradeoff.
In
this
section,
the
respondent
determines
relative
tradeoffs
for
swimming,
aquatic
environment,
and
fishing
by
choosing
one
of
three
sets
of
water
quality
levels
for
the
three
uses.
February
2000
12
Aesthetic
properties,
smelliness
and
cloudiness.
Even
if
water
quality
meets
a
particular
level
based
on
the
EPA
criteria,
individuals
may
also
be
sensitive
to
other
attributes.
The
two
attributes
considered
were
the
smelliness
and
cloudiness
of
water.
In
each
case,
the
survey
determines
the
rate
of
tradeoff
between
cost
of
living
and
water
quality
improvements
in
regions
that
differ
in
smelliness
and
cloudiness.
These
results
also
may
be
instructive
with
respect
to
identifying
different
demographic
groups
who
place
greater
weight
on
these
aspects
of
water
quality
that
are
not
currently
part
of
EPA's
criteria.

Source
of
pollution.
Respondents
may
not
care
simply
about
the
overall
level
of
water
quality
as
it
has
been
affected
by
pollutants,
but
also
about
the
nature
of
the
pollution
that
causes
the
decrease
in
water
quality.
A
pollution
component
of
particular
interest
is
industrial
toxic
wastes.
Are
people
more
fearful
of
the
decreases
in
water
quality
caused
by
toxic
waste
as
opposed
to
conventional
pollutants?
The
section
of
the
survey
addresses
this
issue
by
assessing
rates
of
tradeoff
between
pollution
due
to
agricultural
wastes
and
pollution
due
to
industrial
toxic
wastes.

Cost
of
living
versus
water
quality
referendum.
Previous
tradeoffs
considered
thus
far
are
based
on
a
series
of
choices
among
paired
alternatives.
Here
the
survey
authors
adopt
a
referendum
approach
to
assessing
the
value
of
water
quality.
In
particular,
individuals
are
asked
to
determine
whether
they
support
a
policy
referendum
in
which
there
will
be
some
associated
cost
as
well
as
an
associated
water
quality
improvement.
Asking
the
water
quality
valuation
question
in
this
alternative
way
will
provide
a
valuable
consistency
test
on
the
results
above
for
section
three
of
this
survey
in
which
the
cost
of
living
versus
water
quality
tradeoff
has
been
elicited
through
paired
comparisons.

Non­
use
values
are
also
determined
in
this
section
by
describing
to
some
subjects
an
improvement
in
their
region
and
to
others
an
improvement
in
two
regions.

9.
Demographics.
This
section
of
the
survey
obtains
detailed
information
regarding
the
demographic
characteristics
of
the
respondents.
These
characteristics
are
of
interest
for
a
variety
of
reasons.
First,
analyzing
the
demographic
characteristics
is
useful
in
testing
whether
the
respondent
group
is
representative
of
the
population
in
the
same
area.
Second,
analyzing
the
characteristics
of
the
respondents
also
is
helpful
in
analyzing
how
various
responses
to
questions,
such
as
the
valuation
of
water
quality,
vary
with
demographic
characteristics.
Based
on
a
regression
analysis
of
these
February
2000
13
valuations
in
conjunction
with
information
on
demographic
characteristics,
one
could
project
water
quality
valuation
from
a
sampled
population
to
a
broader
population.

The
materials
sent
to
the
subjects
by
mail
consist
of:

The
following
greeting
is
sent
with
the
survey
diskette:

Hello,
and
welcome
to
our
survey
on
water
quality.

This
survey
was
put
together
by
researchers
at
Harvard
University
Duke
University
to
help
the
United
States
Government
understand
your
views
on
the
quality
of
lakes
and
rivers
in
your
region.

Thank
you
for
taking
part
in
this
research.
We
hope
that
you
will
find
this
survey
interesting.

For
most
of
the
questions
in
this
survey,
there
are
no
right
or
wrong
answers.
We
are
just
trying
to
get
your
opinions.

If
you
are
unsure
of
what
to
do
during
a
question,
there
will
usually
be
some
instructions
at
the
bottom
of
the
screen.

You
should
expect
the
survey
to
take
about
30
minutes
to
complete.

How
to
start
If
you
are
using
Windows,
you
can
start
the
survey
this
way:

1.
Turn
your
computer
on.
2.
Place
the
survey
diskette
into
the
disk
drive
of
your
computer.
3.
Push
the
"
Start"
button
on
the
left
side
of
the
toolbar
at
the
bottom
of
your
screen,
and
select
"
Run"
from
the
list
of
options
provided.
4.
Type
"
a:
start"
and
press
enter.
The
survey
will
start.

If
you
are
using
DOS,
you
can
start
the
survey
this
way:

1.
Turn
your
computer
on.
2.
Place
the
survey
diskette
into
the
disk
drive
of
your
computer.
3.
Type
"
a:"
and
press
enter.
4.
Type
"
start"
and
press
enter.
The
survey
will
start.
February
2000
14
If
you
have
problems
If
you
cannot
get
the
survey
program
to
work,
or
if
you
experience
problems
of
any
kind,
do
not
hesitate
to
call.
Our
toll­
free
number
is
(
800)
284­
1245.
Please
ask
for
assistance
with
the
Water
Quality
Survey.

When
you
have
finished
the
survey:

When
you
have
finished
the
survey,
please
remove
the
survey
diskette
from
the
disk
drive
of
your
computer
and
return
it
in
the
postage­
paid
diskette
mailer
provided.

Receiving
your
honorarium:

Please
verify
the
name
and
address
information
as
they
appear
on
the
enclosed
address
card.
If
all
information
is
correct,
it
is
not
necessary
to
return
the
card.
If
any
information
needs
to
be
changed,
please
do
so
on
the
card
and
return
it
along
with
the
diskette
in
the
mailer
provided.

Thank
you
for
your
participation
in
this
important
research
study
and
remember,

Y
O
U
R
O
P
I
N
I
O
N
C
O
U
N
T
S
!!!

These
instructions
are
sent
if
the
subject
does
not
have
access
to
a
computer:

If
you
plan
to
complete
this
survey
at
a
Kinko's
location
near
you,
please
take
the
enclosed
check
and
give
it
to
the
Kinko's
employee
as
payment
for
using
their
computer.
Please
also
take
the
instruction
page,
in
case
you
need
to
ask
the
employee
for
assistance
with
beginning
the
interview.

If
perhaps
you
have
thought
of
someone
who
would
let
you
use
their
computer
to
complete
this
survey,
and
you
no
longer
need
to
use
the
computer
at
Kinko's,
please
return
this
check
in
the
postage­
paid
diskette
mailer,
when
you
return
your
completed
survey
diskette.

The
following
is
the
address
confirmation
card
to
ensure
correct
payment:

WATER
QUALITY
SURVEY
Unless
you
specify
differently,
we
will
mail
your
check
to:

«
newname
»
February
2000
15
«
ADD
»
«
CITY
»
,
«
ST
»
«
ZIP
»
«
RESPID
»
*
IF
THIS
INFORMATION
IS
NOT
CORRECT,
PLEASE
WRITE
IN
THE
NEW
INFORMATION
AND
RETURN
THIS
CARD
WITH
THE
DISKETTE
IN
THE
POSTAGE­
PAID
DISKETTE
MAILER
PROVIDED.

Diskette
returned
on:
_______/_______
1999
If
you
do
not
receive
your
check
within
2
weeks
from
the
date
you
mail
the
diskette
back,
please
call
(
800)
284­
1245.

The
following
is
the
script
used
for
reminder
calls
if
subjects
are
tardy
in
returning
their
survey
diskette.

Basic
Reminder
Script
for
Water
Quality
Issues
Study
Hello,
may
I
please
speak
to
(
CONTACT
NAME
FROM
CALL
SHEET).
This
is
_____________
from
Consumer
Pulse
and
I'm
calling
regarding
the
Water
Quality
Survey
for
Harvard
University,
Duke
University,
and
the
United
States
Government
that
you
agreed
to
participate
in.
We
mailed
you
a
diskette,
and
some
other
survey
materials
on
(
INSERT
DATE
FROM
CALL
SHEET)
and
have
not
yet
received
your
completed
interview.
Could
you
take
a
few
moments
today
to
complete
the
survey
and
drop
it
in
the
mail?

(
IF
NOT):
Your
survey
is
vitally
needed
in
order
for
the
EPA
to
realize
what
concerns
you
and
others
like
you
may
have
with
regard
to
Water
Quality.
When
may
we
expect
your
completed
survey?

ALSO
OFFER:
If
you
any
assistance
with
starting
the
interview
or
completing
the
survey
please
feel
free
to
call
us
at
800
284­
1245,
just
ask
for
assistance
with
the
Water
Quality
computerized
interview.

Thank
you
and
have
a
nice
day/
evening
(
AS
APPROPRIATE
FOR
THE
TIME
CALLED).
February
2000
16
For
an
ANSWERING
MACHINE:

Hello,
this
call
is
for
(
CONTACT
NAME
FROM
CALL
SHEET).
This
is
_______________
calling
from
Consumer
Pulse
on
behalf
of
researchers
at
Harvard
University,
Duke
University
and
the
United
States
Government.
I'm
calling
regarding
the
Water
Quality
Survey
that
you
agreed
to
participate
in.
We
mailed
you
a
diskette,
and
some
survey
materials
on
(
INSERT
DATE
FROM
CALL
SHEET)
and
have
not
yet
received
your
completed
interview.
Your
survey
is
vitally
needed
in
order
for
the
EPA
to
realize
what
concerns
you
and
others
like
you
may
have
with
regard
to
Water
Quality.
I'd
like
to
ask
that
you
please
take
a
few
minutes
today
to
answer
the
survey
questions
and
drop
the
completed
survey
in
the
mail.
If
you
need
any
assistance
with
starting
the
interview
or
completing
the
survey
please
feel
free
to
call
us
at
800
284­
1245,
just
ask
for
assistance
with
the
Water
Quality
computerized
interview.

Thank
you
and
have
a
nice
day/
evening
(
AS
APPROPRIATE
FOR
THE
TIME
CALLED).

The
full
text
of
the
survey
diskette
is
attached
at
the
end
of
this
document.

(
II)
Respondent
activities
We
expect
respondents
to
engage
in
the
following
activities
to
complete
the
questionnaire
and
return
it
to
EPA:

Review
instructions
Travel
to
survey
location
if
no
computer
in
home
Take
the
computerized
survey
Mail
the
completed
questionnaire
A
typical
subject
will
be
recruited
by
phone
to
take
the
survey
(
about
10
minutes).
The
subject
will
receive
survey
materials
in
the
mail,
including
a
survey
diskette.
If
the
subject
does
not
have
a
computer
in
the
home,
the
subject
will
travel
to
a
location
where
a
computer
is
available,
either
the
home
of
a
friend
(
about
15
minutes
round
trip)
or
a
national
commercial
facility
with
computers
available
(
about
30
to
60
minutes
round
trip).
The
subject
will
complete
the
survey
(
about
30
February
2000
17
minutes)
and
mail
the
completed
survey
disk
in
a
provided
stamped
and
addressed
envelope
(
about
10
minutes).

5.
The
Information
Collected
­
Agency
Activities,
Collection,
Methodology
and
Information
Management
5(
a)
Agency
Activities
This
project
is
being
undertaken
by
academic
researchers
at
Harvard
and
Duke
Universities,
funded
by
an
EPA
grant
to
Harvard
University
for
the
purpose
of
carrying
out
and
analyzing
the
results
of
the
proposed
survey.
The
purpose
of
the
project
is
to
undertake
new
research
on
the
valuation
of
improvements
in
inland
water
quality.
Earlier
stages
of
the
project
were
funded
by
an
EPA
cooperative
agreement
with
Duke
University.

5(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Information
Management
As
stated
previously,
the
targeted
universe
is
members
of
households
in
the
United
States
at
least
18
years
of
age
with
the
most
recent
birthday
in
their
household.
If
pre­
testing
indicates
that
particular
demographic
groups
are
under­
represented
in
the
recruiting
process,
the
survey
authors
will
take
measures
to
recruit
those
demographic
groups
more
heavily
to
help
ensure
that
the
ultimate
samples
are
representative
of
the
diversity
of
households
in
the
United
States.

Upon
receipt
of
completed
questionnaires,
the
survey
authors
will
compile
responses
into
an
analysis
database
as
done
in
the
pilot
survey
and,
again
as
done
in
the
pilot
survey,
develop
a
regression
model
for
valuation
of
water
quality
based
upon
demographic
and
water
use
characteristics.

5(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
February
2000
18
The
survey
will
be
administered
to
individuals,
who
will
be
compensated
for
their
time
and
effort,
so
completion
of
this
section
is
not
necessary.

5(
d)
Collection
Schedule
Table
A2.
Duration
of
Questionnaire
Activities
Activity
Duration
of
Each
Activity
(
in
days)
Total
Elapsed
Time
Period
for
Project
(
in
days)

Following
OMB
Approval
Subjects
Recruited
60
60
Questionnaire
Mailed
3
63
Subjects
Reminded
if
Necessary
14
77
Receive
Questionnaire
Responses
30
107
Data
Entry
of
Questionnaire
Responses
14
121
February
2000
19
6.
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
and
Cost
of
Collection
6(
a)
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
The
questionnaire
will
require
subjects
to
devote
time
in
order
to
complete
the
survey
task.
The
total
national
burden
estimate
for
all
parts
of
the
questionnaire
process
is
3,150
hours.
The
burden
estimates
are
based
on
administration
of
2,800
questionnaires.
The
survey
authors
estimate
that
each
subject
will
require,
on
average,
10
minutes
to
respond
to
the
phone
recruiting
process,
30
minutes
to
complete
the
survey
and
another
10
minutes
to
mail
the
completed
survey
disk
in
a
provided
envelope.
The
survey
authors
estimate
that
as
many
as
half
of
the
sample
may
not
have
access
to
a
personal
computer
in
the
home.
For
these
subjects,
an
additional
15
minutes
are
estimated
if
using
a
neighbor's
computer,
or
an
additional
30
to
60
minutes
round
trip
to
a
national
commercial
facility
with
computer
access
if
necessary.
Survey
completion
times
are
estimated
from
the
pilot
survey,
but
all
numbers
may
be
revised
based
upon
information
from
pre­
tests
of
the
national
survey.
The
burden
estimates
of
the
national
survey
reflect
a
one­
time
expenditure,
so
they
are
equal
to
annual
expenditures
during
the
single
year
that
the
survey
is
conducted.

6(
b)
Estimating
Respondent
Costs
For
subjects
who
complete
the
survey
on
their
own
computer,
the
survey
authors
expect
costs
to
subjects
of
about
$
11.00
per
subject
based
on
a
total
expected
time
of
50
minutes
to
complete
the
survey
at
an
average
wage
of
$
13.18
per
hour.
If
the
subject
must
use
the
computer
of
a
friend
or
neighbor,
the
survey
authors
expect
additional
costs
of
about
$
3.30
per
subject.
If
the
subject
must
use
a
national
commercial
facility
with
computer
access,
the
survey
authors
expect
additional
costs
of
about
$
10.00
per
subject.
February
2000
20
6(
c)
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Costs
This
project
is
being
undertaken
by
academic
researchers
with
support
from
an
EPA
grant
to
Harvard
University
of
$
589,183.
The
purpose
of
the
project
is
to
undertake
new
research
on
the
valuation
of
improvements
in
inland
water
quality.
EPA
staff
time
will
be
minimal
since
it
will
be
limited
to
that
involved
in
handling
the
ICR
and
reviewing
the
draft
final
report
by
the
EPA
Project
Officer
and
several
staff
reviewers.

6(
d)
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
Costs
We
expect
respondent
burden
costs
to
total
at
$
41,517.00
based
upon
the
3150
total
hours
described
in
6(
a)
at
a
wage
rate
of
$
13.18
per
hour.

6(
e)
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
Table
A3.
Total
Estimated
Bottom
Line
Burden
and
Cost
Summary
Total
Burden
(
in
hours)
Total
Costs
(
in
dollars)
Respondents
3,150
41,517.00
6(
f)
Reasons
For
Change
In
Burden
The
questionnaire
is
a
one­
time
data
collection
activity.
Therefore,
completion
of
this
section
is
not
necessary.
February
2000
21
6(
g)
Burden
Statement
We
estimate
that
the
public
reporting
and
record
keeping
burden
of
its
questionnaire
will
average
between
50
minutes
and
110
minutes
per
respondent
(
i.
e.,
a
total
of
3150
hours
of
burden
divided
among
an
anticipated
2800
respondents).
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.
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
Part
9
and
48
CFR
Chapter
15.

Send
comments
on
the
need
form
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
through
the
use
of
automated
collection,
to
the
Director,
Collection
Strategies
Division,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
2822),
401
M
St.,
SW,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460;
and
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20503,
Attention:

Desk
Officer
for
EPA.
February
2000
22
PART
B
OF
THE
SUPPORTING
STATEMENT
1.
Survey
Objectives,
Key
Variables,
and
Other
Preliminaries
1(
a)
Survey
Objectives
Questionnaire
responses
will
provide
estimates
of
economic
benefits
for
water
quality
improvements
for
lakes,
rivers,
and
streams
to
households
in
the
United
States.
Secondary
questions
include
how
this
valuation
differs
between
lakes
and
rivers,
depends
on
aesthetic
properties
of
water,
source
of
pollution,
the
relative
valuation
of
individual
uses
of
water,
and
how
valuation
estimates
vary
by
demographic
characteristics.

1(
b)
Key
Variables
Key
variables
in
the
survey
include
a
primary
measure
of
water
quality
value;
a
second
measure
of
water
quality
value
late
in
the
survey
to
confirm
the
value;
a
determination
of
lake
vs.
river
preference;
a
measure
of
use
preference
for
fishing,
swimming,
and
aquatic
environment;
a
measure
of
how
the
aesthetic
properties
of
smelliness
and
cloudiness
affect
water
quality
value;
a
measure
of
how
the
primary
source
of
pollution
affects
water
quality
value;
variables
describing
how
and
whether
subjects
use
recreational
water;
and
various
demographic
variables.

1(
c)
Statistical
Approach
A
statistically
designed
sample
survey
is
necessary
to
achieve
the
objectives,
in
particular,
to
ensure
that
the
resulting
inferences
and
analyses
are
as
statistically
unbiased
and
as
precise
as
is
practicable.

A
census
approach
is
impractical
for
reasons
of
the
enormous
expense
necessary
to
get
a
response
from
every
household
in
the
United
States.
On
the
other
hand,
an
anecdotal
approach
is
not
rigorous
enough
to
provide
a
useful
estimate
of
national
water
quality
value.
February
2000
23
Consumer
Pulse
(
725
South
Adams,
Suite
265,
Birmingham,
MI
48009),
will
conduct
the
recruiting,

distribution
and
collection
of
survey
materials,
the
set­
up
and
operation
of
a
help
line,
and
reminder
calls
for
tardy
responses.

1(
d)
Feasibility
The
survey
instrument
has
been
repeatedly
pre­
tested,
undergone
a
pilot
study,
and
been
subject
to
review
by
reviewers
in
academia
and
government.
The
survey
authors
believe
the
survey
instrument
is
capable
of
generating
useful
data,
which
the
pilot
report
has
already
demonstrated.

We
have
expended
considerable
effort,
with
the
help
of
external
reviewers
and
subjects,
to
ensure
that
the
questions
in
the
survey
are
as
simple
and
easy
to
understand
as
the
survey
task
allows.

2.
Survey
Design
2(
a)
Target
Population
and
Coverage
The
target
population
for
this
survey
is
households
in
the
United
States.
Subjects
will
be
recruited
from
households
in
the
top
150
Metropolitan
Statistical
Areas
in
the
United
States.
If
data
show
that
certain
demographics
are
under­
represented
as
compared
to
the
United
States
population
overall,

rural
populations
for
example,
the
survey
authors
will
return
to
the
field
and
recruit
additional
subjects
from
those
demographics.

2(
b)
Sampling
Design
(
I)
Sampling
Frames
The
sampling
design
involves
recruiting
from
households
in
the
top
150
Metropolitan
Statistical
Areas
in
the
United
States,
whose
phone
numbers
will
be
acquired
by
the
marketing
firm
that
will
February
2000
24
handle
recruiting
for
the
survey.
Meeting
the
sample­
size
targets
for
the
survey
will
require
mailing
questionnaires
to
about
3,000
households.
Recruiting
will
be
done
from
a
single
sample
of
households
in
the
top
150
MSAs
in
the
United
States.
Additional
recruiting
may
be
undertaken
if
pre­
testing
demonstrates
under­
representation
of
certain
demographic
groups.

(
II)
Sample
Sizes
Intended
sample
sizes
are
2800
households
in
the
United
States,
of
which
800
may
be
pretests.

These
sample
sizes
stem
from
funding
constraints
and
the
need
for
a
sample
large
enough
to
achieve
a
stable
regression
model
that
includes
demographic
characteristics.

(
III)
Stratification
Variables
The
survey
will
get
demographic
variables
from
subjects
in
the
survey
including
age,
gender,
income,

and
education,
as
well
as
information
about
whether
and
how
often
they
recreate
at
lakes
and
rivers.

In
addition,
it
will
take
zip
code
information
in
order
to
identify
whether
subjects
live
in
a
region
with
plentiful
or
scarce
surface
water.

(
IV)
Sampling
Method
Telephone
recruiting
of
households
in
the
150
largest
MSAs
in
the
United
States
is
the
method
used
to
sample
the
population
of
households
in
the
United
States.
If
the
survey
authors
find
that
this
method
under­
represents
certain
demographic
groups,
the
survey
authors
will
recruit
again
emphasizing
those
groups.
February
2000
25
(
V)
Multi­
Stage
Sampling
We
do
not
believe
that
multi­
stage
sampling
will
be
necessary.
If
a
demographic
group,
rural
households
for
example,
is
under­
represented,
those
carrying
out
the
survey
will
recruit
from
telephone
exchanges
with
higher
concentrations
of
that
demographic
group,
from
rural
areas
in
this
example.

2(
c)
Precision
Requirements
(
I)
Precision
Targets
The
researchers
performed
detailed
statistical
analyses
to
demonstrated
the
statistical
significance
of
the
estimates
in
their
pilot
report.
However,
their
objective
is
not
simply
to
estimate
a
particular
set
of
parameters,
rather
to
obtain
reliable
regression
equations
to
project
water
quality
benefits
for
a
wide
variety
of
regions
and
water
quality
situations.
The
survey
authors
believe
that
they
have
sufficient
sample
size
to
guarantee
statistical
significance
at
95%
confidence
for
their
main
variables
of
interest,
however
it
is
desirable
to
expand
the
sample
as
much
as
possible
given
the
available
budget.
To
obtain
diverse
regional
info
needed
to
have
as
refined
a
regression
equation
as
possible.

The
following
examples
give
a
sense
of
the
level
of
precision,
assuming
that
there
is
a
national
sample
of
2,000
and
a
total
sample
including
pretests
of
2,800.
Consider
first
the
estimates
of
the
willingness
to
pay
value
per
unit
increase
in
water
quality
based
on
the
EPA
water
quality
ratings.
The
pretest
results
indicate
a
mean
value
of
22.36
and
a
standard
deviation
of
22.47
of
the
dollar
value
per
unit
increase
in
water
quality.
The
95%
confidence
interval
based
on
a
sample
size
of
2,000
with
these
parameter
values
will
be
22.36
+
or
­
0.985.
Thus,
values
will
be
estimated
within
+
or
­
$
1
dollar
of
the
unit
value,
which
is
just
under
5%
of
the
total
water
quality
unit
value.

Suppose
instead
that
it
is
desirable
to
estimate
values
for
water
quality
by
region
and
that
there
are
4
equally
sized
regions.
With
a
sample
size
of
500
per
region,
the
estimated
water
quality
values
will
have
a
95%
confidence
interval
around
the
mean
of
22.36
+
or
­
1.97.
Thus,
shrinking
the
subsamples
February
2000
26
to
one­
fourth
of
the
full
sample
size
roughly
doubles
the
size
of
the
confidence
interval
around
the
mean.

Various
other
parameters
in
the
study
will
also
be
of
interest.
For
example,
what
is
the
relative
value
of
improving
water
quality
for
lakes
versus
rivers
and
streams?
Pretests
suggest
that
a
2.10%
in
improved
river
quality
would
be
equivalent
to
a
1%
improvement
in
lake
quality,
with
a
standard
deviation
of
2.77.
With
a
sample
of
2,000
the
95%
confidence
interval
will
be
2.10
+
or
­
0.12,
and
for
regional
sample
sizes
of
500
that
explore
regional
differences
the
95%
confidence
interval
will
be
2.10
+
or
­
0.24.

Numerous
other
parameters
are
also
of
policy
interest,
but
these
illustrations
indicate
the
type
of
precision
that
will
be
achieved
with
the
proposed
sample
sizes.

(
II)
Non­
Sampling
Errors
Pre­
testing
will
determine
the
extent
to
which
non­
response
is
a
problem,
but
since
the
survey
authors
will
construct
a
regression
model
using
demographic
characteristics
as
dependent
variables,
the
survey
authors
will
be
able
to
test
whether
there
are
significant
differences
in
responses
for
those
who
are
"
harder
to
interview"
compared
to
those
who
are
otherwise
over­
represented
in
the
survey
sample.

2(
d)
Questionnaire
Design
The
explanation
of
each
section
of
the
survey
was
discussed
in
section
4(
b)
of
Part
A
of
the
Supporting
Statement.

The
question
format
of
this
survey
is
an
iterative
choice
process.
Subjects
are
presented
with
an
initial
tradeoff
choice,
then,
based
upon
their
choice,
are
asked
progressively
more
difficult
questions
until
the
subject
achieves
an
acceptable
level
of
detail
or
until
the
subject
reaches
a
point
of
indifference
between
the
choices
offered.
The
survey
authors
feel
this
method
is
the
best
way
to
February
2000
27
approach
a
difficult
survey
task
which
must
ask
subjects
to
determine
the
value
non­
market
goods
which
they
probably
do
not
consider
often.

3.
Pretests
and
Pilot
Tests
Several
rounds
of
pre­
tests
were
conducted
leading
up
to
a
pilot
survey
and
report.
Limited
pre­
tests
to
the
national
survey
are
underway,
with
more
extensive
pre­
tests
expected
after
OMB
approval
of
the
ICR.
Analysis
of
the
pilot
survey
is
attached
at
the
end
of
this
document.

4.
Collection
Methods
and
Follow­
up
4(
a)
Collection
Methods
The
survey
will
be
distributed
with
a
postage
paid
return
envelope
in
which
the
survey
diskette
may
be
returned
upon
completion.
Subjects
will
be
compensated
for
their
time
and
effort,
at
a
level
determined
on
whether
they
must
travel
to
a
national
commercial
facility
with
computer
access.

4(
b)
Survey
Response
and
Follow­
Up
The
researchers
expect
a
response
rate
of
about
70%.
Reminder
calls
will
be
placed
to
subjects
who
are
tardy
in
returning
their
completed
survey
diskette.
No
follow­
up
to
the
survey
will
be
undertaken
due
to
their
confidentiality
measures.
The
cost
estimates
are
based
on
an
initial
stipend
to
respondents
of
$
20,
which
is
the
minimum
amount
that
the
survey
authors
envision.
Thus,
the
estimates
are
for
the
maximum
sample
size
and
the
maximum
time
burden
that
could
occur
for
the
population.
This
kind
of
survey
breaks
new
ground
in
terms
of
its
computer
methodology,
and
part
of
the
information
to
be
generated
by
the
study
is
how
people
respond
to
different
levels
of
incentives.
The
pre­
test
phase
of
the
study
will
include
an
analysis
of
how
people
respond
to
payments
ranging
from
$
20
to
$
100.
The
survey
authors
will
analyze
the
responses
in
the
pretest
phase
to
determine
the
extent
to
February
2000
28
which
the
monetary
incentive
affects
the
demographic
characteristics
of
the
sample,
the
character
of
the
water
quality
valuation
responses,
and
the
ability
of
the
survey
to
reach
their
objective
of
a
70
percent
response
rate
from
the
sample.
Based
on
these
findings
and
an
assessment
of
the
tradeoffs
involving
sample
selection
biases
and
cost,
the
researchers
will
then
proceed
with
the
national
sample
using
the
optimal
payment
mechanism
approach,
which
will
be
selected
by
the
researchers
in
consultation
with
reviewers
and
officials
at
the
US
EPA.

5.
Analyzing
and
Reporting
Survey
Results
5(
a)
Data
Preparation
Data
from
the
survey
diskettes
will
be
transferred
to
a
statistical
analysis
package
for
analysis.
This
process
did
not
create
any
problems
in
the
pilot
survey,
and
the
researchers
will
use
the
same
personnel
for
this
process
in
the
national
survey.
The
researchers
have
also
preserved
tests
for
irrational
or
inattentive
responses
that
were
used
in
the
pilot
survey.

5(
b)
Analysis
The
data
will
follow
roughly
the
same
analysis
as
the
pilot
survey,
which
is
contained
in
the
pilot
report
at
the
end
of
this
document.

5(
c)
Reporting
Results
Survey
results
will
be
made
available
in
the
same
way
as
the
pilot,
through
a
report
describing
analysis
and
results.
February
2000
29
Attachment
1:
Federal
Register
Notice
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
Agency
Information
Collection
Activities:
Proposed
Collection;
Comment
Request;
Valuing
Inland
Water
Quality
Improvements
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):

Valuing
Inland
Water
Quality
Improvements
(
ICR
number
1914.01).
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
January
11,
2000.

ADDRESSES:
Dr.
Alan
Carlin,
Office
of
Policy
and
Reinvention,
Mail
Code
2172,
U.
S.

Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Washington,
DC
20460,
e­
mail
Carlin.
alan@
epa.
gov,
phone
202­
260­
5499,
FAX
202­
260­
7875.
The
survey
as
it
will
be
received
by
subjects
can
be
obtained
without
charge
by
mailing
or
e­
mailing
a
request
to
Jason
Bell
listed
below.
Be
sure
to
include
name,
address,
telephone
number,
e­
mail
if
available,
and
delivery
preference
(
diskette
by
mail,

or
e­
mail
delivery
of
the
survey).
A
file
containing
the
survey
can
also
be
downloaded
from
the
following
Website
under
What=
s
New:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
economics.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Jason
Bell,
Fuqua
School
of
Business,
Duke
University,
Durham,
NC
27708­
0120,
phone
919­
681­
4843,
fax
919­
684­
8742,
e­
mail
jbb@
acpub.
duke.
edu.
February
2000
30
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

Affected
entities:
Entities
potentially
affected
by
this
action
are
individuals
who
agree
to
participate
in
the
survey.
Participation
is
voluntary
and
subjects
will
be
compensated
for
their
time
and
effort.
Recruiting
will
be
done
by
Consumer
Pulse,
in
a
manner
described
in
the
abstract
below.

Title:
Valuing
Inland
Water
Quality
Improvements
(
EPA
ICR
number
1914.01)

Abstract:
The
purpose
of
this
project
is
to
develop
economic
benefit
values
for
water
quality
improvements
for
lakes,
rivers,
and
streams.
These
estimates
are
of
substantial
academic
interest
since
past
studies
have
been
based
on
a
water
quality
ladder,
which
is
believed
not
to
be
as
scientifically
valid
a
construct
for
assessing
water
quality.
The
estimates
may
also
be
useful
to
the
Agency
in
complying
with
the
requirements
of
Executive
Order
12866
requiring
cost­
benefit
analysis
of
major
Federal
regulations.
This
project
will
explore
how
valuations
are
affected
by
use
of
the
current
EPA
approach
of
specifying
different
dimensions
of
water
quality
such
as
swimming,

fishing,
and
broader
aquatic
ecological
effects.
The
findings
will
be
pertinent
to
economists
studying
water
quality
changes,
particularly
with
respect
to
the
task
of
assessing
benefit
values
for
water
quality
policies.
The
researchers
will
use
data
collected
with
the
survey
in
determining
the
value
of
water
quality
improvements
to
households
in
the
United
States.
The
researchers
plan
to
recruit
subjects
randomly
across
the
United
States
through
telephone
recruiting.
Subjects
will
be
asked
to
complete
a
computer
survey
from
a
disk,
which
will
be
mailed
to
them.
Subjects
without
convenient
access
to
a
personal
computer
will
be
referred
to
a
national
commercial
facility
with
computer
access
nearest
their
home
for
the
purpose
of
completing
the
survey.
Subjects
will
return
the
survey
disk
by
mail
when
completed.
Participation
in
the
survey
is
voluntary.

Respondents
will
have
to
expend
time,
effort,
and
in
many
cases
travel
expense
to
participate
in
February
2000
31
the
study.
Avoiding
bias
in
the
sample
towards
individuals
and
groups
who
can
more
easily
take
the
survey
is
an
important
concern.
As
a
result,
the
researchers
will
compensate
subjects
for
their
time
(
and
travel
if
necessary)
to
avoid
the
selection
bias
that
might
otherwise
result.
This
survey
is
innovative
both
in
terms
of
the
survey
methodology
and
the
substantive
economic
focus.
On
both
of
these
dimensions
the
survey
is
breaking
new
ground.
To
maximize
the
research
value
of
the
survey,
the
researchers
will
proceed
iteratively.
The
version
of
the
survey
available
now
will
undergo
at
least
two
pre­
tests
after
OMB
approves
the
ICR.
These
pretests
will
be
designed
to
identify
programming
complications
arising
from
the
nature
of
the
survey,
as
well
as
survey
questions
that
can
be
refined
to
promote
greater
clarity
and
convergence
in
the
iterative
choice
process
used.
The
final
structure
of
the
survey
will
depend
on
how
people
respond
to
the
draft
questions.
For
example,
on
any
initial
pairwise
choice
question,
the
researchers
seek
to
present
an
initial
tradeoff
where
half
of
subjects
to
choose
each
alternative,
in
order
to
maximize
convergence
on
tradeoff
rates
in
the
least
possible
number
of
iterative
questions.
After
the
pretests
are
completed,
recruiting
will
proceed
as
described
above.
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.
We
solicit
comment
on
all
aspects
of
the
questionnaire,

and
specifically
solicit
comment
on
the
following
issues:

(
i)
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)
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)
The
quality,
utility,
and
clarity
of
the
information
to
be
collected;
and
February
2000
32
(
iv)
Minimization
of
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
total
national
burden
estimate
for
all
parts
of
the
questionnaire
process
is
3170
hours.
It
should
be
emphasized,
however,
that
this
is
extremely
uncertain
given
the
new
proposed
approach
to
be
used
and
the
highly
experimental
nature
of
the
survey.
The
burden
estimates
are
based
on
administration
of
2800
completed
questionnaires
and
an
assumed
response
rate
of
70
percent.
The
researchers
estimate
that
each
subject
will
require,
on
average,

one
minute
to
refuse
to
participate
in
the
phone
recruiting
process,
10
minutes
to
respond
favorably
to
the
phone
recruiting
process,
30
minutes
to
complete
the
survey,
and
another
10
minutes
to
mail
the
completed
survey
disk
in
a
provided
envelope.
The
researchers
estimate
that
as
many
as
half
of
the
sample
may
not
have
access
to
a
personal
computer
in
the
home
or
at
work.
For
these
subjects,
an
additional
15
minutes
are
estimated
if
using
a
neighbor's
computer
(
assumed
to
be
one­
sixth
of
the
completed
sample),
or
an
additional
30
to
60
minutes
round
trip
to
a
national
commercial
facility
with
computer
access
if
necessary
(
assumed
to
be
one­
third
of
the
completed
sample).
Given
these
assumptions,
the
total
burden
for
the
survey
in
terms
of
participant
time
(
3170
hours)
valued
at
$
13.18
(
the
average
hourly
earnings
for
May
1999
according
to
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics)
is
estimated
to
be
$
41,781
prior
to
the
payment
of
the
proposed
compensation.
We
stress
again
that
participation
by
subjects
in
the
survey
is
voluntary
and
that
subjects
will
be
compensated
for
their
time
and
effort.
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
February
2000
33
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.

Dated:
________________
__________________________________
Brett
Snyder
,
Director,
Economy
and
Environment
Division
February
2000
34
Attachment
2:
Full
Test
of
Survey
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
pad1
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Press
any
key
to
begin
the
survey
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
hello
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Hello,
and
welcome
to
our
survey
on
the
value
of
water
quality.

This
survey
was
put
together
by
researchers
to
help
the
government
understand
your
views
on
the
the
value
of
water
quality
in
the
lakes
and
rivers
of
your
region.

Thanks
for
taking
part
in
this
research.
We
hope
that
you
will
find
this
survey
interesting.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
hello2
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
For
most
of
the
questions
in
this
survey,
there
are
no
right
or
wrong
answers.
We
are
just
trying
to
get
your
opinions.

If
you
are
unsure
of
what
to
do
during
a
question,
there
will
usually
be
some
instructions
at
the
bottom
of
the
screen.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
hello3
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
The
questions
in
this
survey
will
have
a
number
of
choices.

To
show
what
a
typical
question
might
look
like,
try
answering
this
one.

How
is
the
weather
today?

1.
Good
2.
Not
so
good
To
answer
a
question,
press
the
number
on
the
keyboard
that
is
the
same
as
the
number
to
the
left
of
your
choice.
February
2000
35
Do
not
use
the
enter
key,
it
is
not
necessary
for
most
questions.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
howdo3
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
If
you
answer
a
question
and
then
decide
that
you
would
have
rather
given
another
answer,
you
can
press
the
ESC
key
to
back
up
to
the
previous
question.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
locale
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Which
of
the
following
best
describes
where
you
live
now?

1.
City
2.
Suburbs
3.
Small
Town
4.
Country
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
fam1
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
How
many
members
of
your
family
(
spouse,
children,
parents,
or
other
relatives)
currently
live
in
your
home,
including
yourself?

1.
One
2.
Two
3.
Three
4.
Four
5.
Five
6.
Six
or
more
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
fam2a
(
Only
asked
if
fam1=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
For
the
rest
of
this
survey,
when
a
question
refers
to
your
family
or
members
of
your
family
who
live
in
your
home,
think
of
it
as
referring
only
to
you.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
fam2b
(
Only
asked
if
fam1>
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
For
the
rest
of
this
survey,
when
a
question
refers
to
you,

think
of
it
as
referring
to
you
and
the
members
of
your
family
who
currently
live
in
your
home.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
February
2000
36
use0
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
This
survey
will
deal
only
with
fresh
water
bodies.
Oceans
or
other
salt
water
will
not
be
included.

We
will
ask
you
questions
about
how
you
value
lakes
and
rivers
near
where
you
live.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
use1
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
When
we
say
lake
in
this
survey,
we
mean
any
standing
body
of
fresh
water,
including
natural
lakes,
ponds,
and
reservoirs
created
by
damming
rivers.
A
lake
in
your
region
is
any
lake
within
125
miles
of
your
home,
that
is,
within
a
2­
hour
drive
or
so.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
use1x
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
When
we
say
river
in
this
survey,
we
mean
any
flowing
body
of
water
fed
by
runoff
from
rain
or
snow.
This
includes
rivers,

creeks,
and
any
other
streams.
A
river
in
your
region
is
any
river
within
125
miles
of
your
home,
that
is,
within
a
2­
hour
drive
or
so.

Now
we
would
like
to
ask
you
some
questions
about
how
you
use
lakes
and
rivers
in
your
region.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
use1a
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Lake
and
River
Use
Questions
Have
you
(
including
family
members
who
live
in
your
home)
visited
a
lake
or
river
the
last
12
months,
in
your
region
or
elsewhere?

1.
Yes
2.
No
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
If
use1a=
2
then
this
next
section
is
skipped,
all
the
way
to
use1c
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
use1b1
February
2000
37
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Which
of
the
following
have
you
(
including
family
members
who
live
in
your
home)
done
in
the
last
12
months
while
visiting
a
lake
or
river?

Have
you
been
fishing
at
a
lake
or
river?

1.
Yes
2.
No
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
use1b2
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Have
you
been
swimming
in
a
lake
or
river?

1.
Yes
2.
No
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
use1b3
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Have
you
been
hunting
at
a
lake
or
river?

1.
Yes
2.
No
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
use1b4
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Have
you
been
hiking
at
a
lake
or
river?

1.
Yes
2.
No
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
use1b5
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Have
you
been
camping
at
a
lake
or
river?

1.
Yes
2.
No
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
use1b6
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Have
you
been
boating
or
rafting
in
a
lake
or
river?

1.
Yes
2.
No
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
use1b7
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Have
you
been
picnicking
at
a
lake
or
river
1.
Yes
2.
No
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
use1b8
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Have
you
done
any
wildlife
observation
at
a
lake
or
river
1.
Yes
2.
No
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
use1c
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
How
often
in
the
last
12
months
have
you
noticed
a
view
of
a
lake
or
river?
February
2000
38
1.
Never
2.
Rarely
3.
Sometimes
4.
Often
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
ufish
(
Only
if
use1b1=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
How
many
times
in
the
last
12
months
have
you
been
fishing
at
a
lake
or
river?

1.
One
time
2.
Two
times
3.
Three
times
4.
Four
times
5.
Five
or
more
times
6.
Not
Sure
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
ufish2
(
Only
if
use1b1=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
When
you
catch
fish
in
a
lake
or
river,
how
often
do
you
eat
the
fish
that
are
large
enough
to
eat?

1.
Never
2.
Sometimes
3.
Often
4.
Always
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
uswim
(
Only
if
use1b2=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
How
many
times
in
the
last
12
months
have
you
been
swimming
in
a
lake
or
river?

1.
One
time
2.
Two
times
3.
Three
times
4.
Four
times
5.
Five
or
more
times
February
2000
39
6.
Not
Sure
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
learn1
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Many
of
the
questions
in
this
survey
will
present
information
in
a
table,
and
then
ask
you
a
question
about
your
preference
between
different
choices.

Look
at
this
table
which
describes
two
possible
dinner
choices
and
the
prices
of
the
dinners,
then
press
any
key
and
we
will
explain
what
the
table
is
trying
to
say.

1.
Dinner
1
2.
Dinner
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Dinners
Type
of
Sit
Down
Fast
Food
Restaurant
Restaurant
Restaurant
Price
$
10
$
5
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
learn2
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
The
choices
for
this
table
are
shown
in
columns.
Each
column
describes
a
dinner.
The
first
column
describes
Dinner
1,
which
would
be
eaten
at
a
sit
down
restaurant
and
costs
$
10.

1.
Dinner
1
Type
of
Sit
Down
Restaurant
Restaurant
Price
$
10
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
learn3
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
The
second
column
describes
Dinner
2,
which
would
be
eaten
at
a
fast
food
restaurant
and
costs
$
5.

2.
Dinner
2
Type
of
Fast
Food
Restaurant
Restaurant
Price
$
5
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
learn4
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
The
third
column
does
not
describe
any
of
the
dinners.
February
2000
40
This
column
is
presented
because
for
some
questions
you
may
like
the
choices
offered
equally
well.
In
this
case,
you
would
not
prefer
one
over
the
other.

3.
No
Preference
Between
Dinners
Type
of
Restaurant
Price
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
learn5
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Let's
look
at
the
entire
question
again.

The
choice
offered
is
between
a
more
expensive
dinner
at
a
sit
down
restaurant
compared
to
a
less
expensive
dinner
at
a
fast
food
restaurant.
The
No
Preference
choice
is
offered
if
you
would
like
either
one.

Try
answering
the
question
by
choosing
one
of
the
Dinners.

1.
Dinner
1
2.
Dinner
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Dinners
Type
of
Sit
Down
Fast
Food
Restaurant
Restaurant
Restaurant
Price
$
10
$
5
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
learn6p
(
Only
if
learn5=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Your
answer
indicated
that
you
would
prefer
the
more
expensive
dinner
at
a
sit
down
restaurant.

If
that
is
not
what
you
meant,
you
can
press
the
ESC
key
to
go
back
and
answer
the
question
the
way
you
meant
to.

If
this
was
the
dinner
you
preferred,
press
any
other
key
to
continue.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
learn6a
(
Only
if
learn5=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Some
questions
will
look
similar
to
previous
questions,
but
will
have
different
values
for
one
of
the
choices.
For
instance,
in
February
2000
41
the
previous
question
you
chose
between
a
$
10
dinner
at
a
sit
down
restaurant
and
a
$
5
dinner
at
a
fast
food
restaurant.
The
next
question
will
ask
you
to
choose
between
a
$
15
sit
down
dinner
and
a
$
5
fast
food
dinner.
Which
dinner
would
you
prefer?

1.
Dinner
1
2.
Dinner
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Dinners
Type
of
Sit
Down
Fast
Food
Restaurant
Restaurant
Restaurant
Price
$
10
$
5
$
15
New
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
learn7p
(
Only
if
learn5=
2)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Your
answer
indicated
that
you
would
prefer
the
less
expensive
dinner
at
a
fast
food
restaurant.

If
that
is
not
what
you
meant,
you
can
press
the
ESC
key
to
go
back
and
answer
the
question
the
way
you
meant
to.

If
this
was
the
dinner
you
preferred,
press
any
other
key
to
continue.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
learn7a
(
Only
if
learn5=
2)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Some
questions
will
look
similar
to
previous
questions,
but
will
have
different
values
for
one
of
the
choices.
For
instance,
in
the
previous
question
you
chose
between
a
$
10
dinner
at
a
sit
down
restaurant
and
a
$
5
dinner
at
a
fast
food
restaurant.
The
next
question
will
ask
you
to
choose
between
a
$
10
sit
down
dinner
and
a
$
8
fast
food
dinner.
Which
dinner
would
you
prefer?

1.
Dinner
1
2.
Dinner
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Dinners
Type
of
Sit
Down
Fast
Food
Restaurant
Restaurant
Restaurant
Price
$
10
$
5
$
8
New
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
February
2000
42
learn8p
(
Only
if
learn5=
3)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Your
answer
indicated
that
you
do
not
prefer
either
dinner
over
the
other.

If
that
is
not
what
you
meant,
you
can
press
the
ESC
key
to
go
back
and
answer
the
question
the
way
you
meant
to.

If
this
was
the
dinner
you
preferred,
press
any
other
key
to
continue.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
learn8a
(
Only
if
learn5=
3)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Some
questions
will
look
similar
to
previous
questions,
but
will
have
different
values
for
one
of
the
choices.
For
instance,
in
the
previous
question
you
chose
between
a
$
10
dinner
at
a
sit
down
restaurant
and
a
$
5
dinner
at
a
fast
food
restaurant.
The
next
question
will
ask
you
to
choose
between
a
$
10
sit
down
dinner
and
a
$
8
fast
food
dinner.
Which
dinner
would
you
prefer?

1.
Dinner
1
2.
Dinner
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Dinners
Type
of
Sit
Down
Fast
Food
Restaurant
Restaurant
Restaurant
Price
$
10
$
5
$
8
New
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
goodluck
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
The
previous
questions
asked
you
what
sort
of
dinner
you
might
choose.
Questions
later
in
the
survey
will
ask
you
to
make
choices
based
on
concepts
less
familiar
to
you
than
dinner
and
restaurants.

Keep
in
mind
the
format
of
the
questions
you
just
answered,

take
your
time
to
read
the
definitions,
and
remember
that
you
can
use
the
ESC
key
to
go
backwards
in
the
survey.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
imagine
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
February
2000
43
Many
of
the
questions
which
follow
will
ask
you
to
imagine
that
you
(
including
family
members
who
live
in
your
home)
are
planning
to
move
to
another
region.

The
regions
where
you
might
move
differ
from
the
one
where
you
now
live
in
only
two
ways:

*
The
cost
of
living
in
the
region,
and
*
The
quality
of
water
in
the
region.

In
all
other
ways,
they
are
much
like
where
you
live
now.

For
example,
the
regions
have
the
same
number
of
lakes
and
rivers
as
where
you
live
now.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
imag2
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
To
help
you
answer
the
next
questions,
we
will
give
you
some
information
that
will
help
you
to
understand
what
we
mean
by
*
Cost
of
Living
and
*
Water
Quality.

Press
any
key
to
learn
about
Cost
of
Living
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
defcol
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Cost
of
Living
For
purposes
of
this
survey,
the
cost
of
living
is
defined
as
the
amount
of
money
that
your
family
spends
each
year
for
things
like
food,
clothing,
and
rent
or
mortgage.

When
we
say
that
a
region
has
a
higher
cost
of
living,
we
mean
that
each
year
you
would
have
to
spend
more
for
these
items
overall.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
col0
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
How
concerned
would
you
be
if
your
family's
cost
of
living
February
2000
44
went
up
$
200
per
year?
(
This
would
mean
that
items
like
food,

clothing,
and
rent
or
mortgage
would
cost
a
total
of
$
200
more
each
year
than
they
do
now.)
This
might
mean
an
increase
of
$
2
per
week
for
food
(
or
$
104
per
year)
and
$
8
per
month
more
for
housing
(
or
another
$
96
per
year).

1.
Not
at
all
concerned
2.
A
little
concerned
3.
Somewhat
concerned
4.
Very
concerned
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
col1
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Try
answering
this
sample
question
to
make
sure
we
explained
Cost
of
Living
clearly.

Imagine
that
you
must
move
to
another
region
of
the
country.

You
have
narrowed
your
choices
down
to
two.
Both
regions
have
a
higher
cost
of
living
than
where
you
live
now,
but
are
alike
in
all
other
ways.

Which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Increase
$
100
$
350
In
Annual
More
More
Cost
of
Living
Expensive
Expensive
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
bad1
(
Only
if
col1=
2)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
The
question
was
not
clear.

You
chose
to
move
to
the
region
with
a
higher
cost
of
living.

You
could
have
chosen
a
region
with
a
lower
cost
of
living
that
is
alike
in
all
other
ways.

To
change
your
answer,
press
any
key
and
we
will
ask
the
question
again.
February
2000
45
If
you
do
not
want
to
change
your
answer,
press
the
'
9'
key.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
good1
(
Only
if
col1=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
The
Region
you
chose,
Region
1,
has
a
lower
annual
cost
of
living
than
Region
2.

Now
we
would
like
to
explain
what
we
mean
by
water
quality.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
bad2
(
only
if
col1=
3)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
You
indicated
that
you
have
no
preference
between
two
regions
whose
only
difference
is
that
it
is
more
expensive
to
live
in
one
of
them.

Are
you
sure
that
you
don't
care
whether
you
would
move
to
a
region
where
it
is
more
expensive
to
live?
After
all,
you
could
move
to
a
region
with
a
lower
cost
of
living
that
is
alike
in
all
other
ways.

1.
Yes,
I'm
sure
that
I
have
no
preference.

2.
No,
I'm
not
sure.
Ask
the
cost
of
living
question
again.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
defwat0
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Water
Quality
Some
questions
will
ask
you
to
choose
between
regions
that
differ
in
terms
of
the
quality
of
the
water
in
either
lakes
or
rivers
in
the
regions.

The
government
rates
water
quality
as
either
*
Good
or
*
Not
Good.

Water
quality
is
Good
if
the
water
in
a
lake
or
river
is
safe
for
all
uses.

Water
quality
is
Not
Good
if
a
lake
or
river
is
polluted
or
unsafe
to
use.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
February
2000
46
defwat1
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
More
specifically,

Water
quality
is
Good
if
the
lake
or
river
*
Is
a
safe
place
to
swim,

*
Has
fish
that
are
safe
to
eat,
and
*
Supports
many
plants,
fish,
and
other
aquatic
life.

Water
quality
is
Not
Good
if
the
lake
or
river
*
Is
an
unsafe
place
to
swim
due
to
pollution,

*
Has
fish
that
are
unsafe
to
eat,
or
*
Supports
only
a
small
number
of
plants,
fish
and
other
aquatic
life.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
defwat1a
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
This
survey
will
not
ask
you
about
drinking
water.

Drinking
water
is
treated
by
water
treatment
plants
to
ensure
safety.

Water
treatment
cannot
be
done
for
the
dimensions
described
on
the
previous
screen,
since
these
dimensions
involve
visiting
a
lake
or
river
instead
of
treating
a
limited
amount
of
water
taken
from
the
lake
or
river.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
defwat2
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
We
will
talk
about
water
quality
for
more
than
one
lake
or
river.

The
questions
will
include
all
the
lakes
or
rivers
in
the
region.

This
means
all
lakes
and
rivers
within
a
2­
hour
drive
or
so
of
your
home,
in
other
words,
within
125
miles.

The
entire
country
could
be
split
into
about
70
regions
of
this
size.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
defwat3
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
February
2000
47
We
define
the
quality
of
the
water
in
the
lakes
and
rivers
of
a
region
by
the
percent
of
the
total
acres
of
lakes
or
miles
of
rivers
in
the
region
which
have
good
water
quality.

For
example,
let's
say
a
region
has
several
rivers,
running
a
total
of
100
miles
in
the
region.

If
pollution
causes
50
of
those
miles
to
have
water
quality
that
is
not
good,
leaving
50
miles
with
good
water
quality,
then
we
would
call
the
water
quality
for
rivers
in
that
region
50%
good.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
defwat3b
(
Only
half
of
the
subjects
are
asked
this
question)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
In
the
United
States,
the
overall
level
of
water
quality
for
lakes
and
rivers
is
65%
Good.

What
would
you
believe
about
the
quality
of
lakes
and
rivers
in
your
region?

1.
Water
Quality
in
my
region
is
Lower
than
65%
Good.

2.
Water
Quality
in
my
region
is
About
the
Same
as
the
Nation
Overall.

3.
Water
Quality
in
my
region
is
Higher
than
65%
Good.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
defwat4
(
1/
3
of
subjects
get
a
range
of
50%
to
65%
Good
Water
Quality
1/
3
of
subjects
get
a
range
of
25%
to
40%
Good
Water
Quality
1/
3
of
subjects
get
a
range
of
75%
to
90%
Good
Water
Quality)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Try
this
sample
question
about
water
quality.

Imagine
again
that
you
must
move
to
another
region
of
the
country.

You
have
narrowed
your
choices
down
to
two
regions.
They
differ
in
only
one
way,
the
quality
of
the
water
in
the
regions.
They
even
have
the
same
number
of
acres
of
lakes
and
miles
of
rivers
within
2
hours
or
so
of
where
you
would
live.
Which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Percent
of
Lake
Acres
and
River
Miles
With
February
2000
48
Good
Water
50%
65%
Quality
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
bad3
(
Only
if
defwat4=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
The
question
was
not
clear.

You
chose
to
move
to
the
region
with
worse
water
quality.

You
could
have
chosen
a
region
with
better
water
quality
that
is
alike
in
all
other
ways.

To
change
your
answer,
press
any
key
and
we
will
ask
the
question
again.

If
you
do
not
want
to
change
your
answer,
press
the
'
9'
key.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
good3
(
Only
if
defwat4=
2)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
The
Region
you
chose,
Region
2,
has
better
water
quality
than
Region
1.

Next
will
be
a
sample
question
that
combines
water
quality
and
cost
of
living.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
bad4
(
Only
if
defwat4=
3)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
You
indicated
that
you
have
no
preference
between
two
regions
whose
only
difference
is
that
one
has
better
water
quality
than
the
other.

Are
you
sure
that
you
don't
care
whether
you
would
move
to
a
region
where
a
lower
proportion
of
lakes
and
rivers
are
safe
and
clean
when
you
could
move
to
a
region
with
more
rivers
that
are
safe
and
clean
that
is
alike
in
all
other
ways?

1.
Yes,
I'm
sure
that
I
have
no
preference
2.
No,
I'm
not
sure,
ask
the
water
quality
question
again
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
colrem
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
We
would
like
to
ask
you
one
more
sample
question
to
make
sure
February
2000
49
we
explained
both
cost
of
living
and
water
quality
clearly.

Remember,
the
cost
of
living
is
the
amount
of
money
that
your
family
spends
each
year
for
things
like
food,
clothing,
and
rent
or
mortgage.

Also
remember
that
water
quality
in
a
region
is
the
percent
of
the
total
acres
of
lakes
and
miles
of
rivers
in
the
region
which
are
safe
for
swimming,
fishing,
and
have
a
healthy
environment.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
lask
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Cost
of
Living
and
Water
Quality
Questions
This
sample
question
combines
the
two
ideas
explained
earlier.

Remember
that
these
regions
are
the
same
in
all
other
ways,

including
the
number
of
lakes
and
rivers
near
your
home.

Which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Increase
in
$
350
$
100
Annual
Cost
More
More
Of
Living
Expensive
Expensive
Percent
of
Lake
Acres
and
50%
65%
River
Miles
With
Good
Water
Quality
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
lbad
(
Only
if
lask=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
The
question
was
not
clear.

You
chose
to
move
to
the
region
with
worse
water
quality
and
a
higher
cost
of
living.

You
could
have
chosen
a
region
with
better
water
quality
and
a
lower
cost
of
living
that
is
alike
in
all
other
ways.

To
change
your
answer,
press
any
key
and
we
will
ask
the
question
again.
February
2000
50
If
you
do
not
want
to
change
your
answer,
press
the
'
9'
key.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
lgood
(
Only
if
lask=
2)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
The
Region
you
chose,
Region
2,
has
better
water
quality
and
a
lower
annual
cost
of
living
than
Region
1.

Now
we
would
like
to
ask
some
more
questions
like
these,
but
whose
answers
depend
more
on
how
you
value
water
quality
and
cost
of
living
differences.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
lbad2
(
Only
if
lask=
3)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
You
indicated
that
you
have
no
preference
between
two
regions
whose
only
difference
is
that
one
has
a
lower
cost
of
living
and
better
water
quality
than
the
other.

Are
you
sure
that
you
don't
care
whether
you
would
move
to
a
region
where
it
is
more
expensive
to
live
and
where
a
lower
proportion
of
lakes
and
rivers
are
safe
and
clean?
After
all,

you
could
move
to
a
region
with
a
lower
cost
of
living
and
where
more
lakes
and
rivers
are
clean
that
is
alike
in
all
other
ways.

1.
Yes,
I'm
sure
that
I
have
no
preference.

2.
No,
I'm
not
sure,
ask
the
question
again.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
aska
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
We
would
like
to
ask
you
some
more
questions
like
these.
However,
in
these
questions,
one
region
will
have
a
lower
annual
cost
of
living
and
the
other
will
have
higher
water
quality.

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Increase
in
$
100
$
350
Annual
Cost
More
More
Of
Living
Expensive
Expensive
Percent
of
Lake
50%
65%
Acres
and
River
Good
Good
February
2000
51
Miles
With
Good
Water
Water
Water
Quality
Quality
Quality
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
If
aska=
3
then
the
survey
skips
to
lrdef)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
askb
(
Only
if
aska=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
Region
1,
the
region
with
a
lower
cost
of
living,
had
an
annual
cost
of
living
$
200
higher
instead
of
$
100
higher.

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Increase
in
$
100
$
350
Annual
Cost
$
200
New
Of
Living
Percent
of
Lake
50%
65%
Acres
and
River
Miles
With
Good
Water
Quality
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
If
askb=
3
then
the
survey
skips
to
lrdef)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
askc
(
Only
if
aska=
2)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
Region
2,
the
region
with
better
water
quality,
had
60%

of
lake
acres
and
river
miles
with
good
water
quality
instead
of
65%
of
lake
acres
and
river
miles
with
good
water
quality?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Increase
in
$
100
$
350
Annual
Cost
Of
Living
Percent
of
Lake
50%
65%
Acres
and
River
60%
New
Miles
With
Good
Water
Quality
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
If
askc=
3
then
the
survey
skips
to
lrdef)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
askd
(
Only
if
askb=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
Region
1,
the
region
with
a
lower
cost
of
living,
had
an
annual
cost
of
living
$
250
higher
instead
of
$
200
higher.
February
2000
52
Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Increase
in
$
100
$
350
Annual
Cost
$
200
Of
Living
$
250
New
Percent
of
Lake
50%
65%
Acres
and
River
Miles
With
Good
Water
Quality
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
If
askd=
3
then
the
survey
skips
to
lrdef)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
aske
(
Only
if
askb=
2)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
Region
1,
the
region
with
a
lower
cost
of
living,
had
an
annual
cost
of
living
$
150
higher
instead
of
$
200
higher.

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Increase
in
$
100
$
350
Annual
Cost
$
200
Of
Living
$
150
New
Percent
of
Lake
50%
65%
Acres
and
River
Miles
With
Good
Water
Quality
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
If
aske=
3
then
the
survey
skips
to
lrdef)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
askf
(
Only
if
askc=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
Region
2,
the
region
with
better
water
quality,
had
62%

of
lake
acres
and
river
miles
with
good
water
quality
instead
of
60%
of
lake
acres
and
river
miles
with
good
water
quality?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Increase
in
$
100
$
350
Annual
Cost
February
2000
53
Of
Living
Percent
of
Lake
50%
65%
Acres
and
River
60%
Miles
With
Good
62%
New
Water
Quality
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
If
askf=
3
then
the
survey
skips
to
lrdef)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
askg
(
Only
if
askc=
2)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
Region
2,
the
region
with
better
water
quality,
had
55%

of
lake
acres
and
river
miles
with
good
water
quality
instead
of
60%
of
lake
acres
and
river
miles
with
good
water
quality?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Increase
in
$
100
$
350
Annual
Cost
Of
Living
Percent
of
Lake
50%
65%
Acres
and
River
60%
Miles
With
Good
55%
New
Water
Quality
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
If
askg=
3
then
the
survey
skips
to
lrdef)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
askh
(
Only
if
askd=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
Region
1,
the
region
with
a
lower
cost
of
living,
had
an
annual
cost
of
living
$
300
higher
instead
of
$
250
higher.

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Increase
in
$
100
$
350
Annual
Cost
$
200
Of
Living
$
250
$
300
New
Percent
of
Lake
50%
65%
Acres
and
River
Miles
With
Good
Water
Quality
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
If
askh=
3
then
the
survey
skips
to
lrdef)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
February
2000
54
aski
(
Only
if
askh=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
Region
1,
the
region
with
a
lower
cost
of
living,
had
an
annual
cost
of
living
$
350
higher
instead
of
$
300
higher.

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Increase
in
$
100
$
350
Annual
Cost
$
200
Of
Living
$
250
$
300
$
350
New
Percent
of
Lake
50%
65%
Acres
and
River
Miles
With
Good
Water
Quality
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
aibad1
(
Only
if
aski=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
You
chose
to
move
to
the
region
with
worse
water
quality.

You
could
have
chosen
a
region
with
better
water
quality
that
is
alike
in
all
other
ways.

Are
you
sure
you
would
prefer
a
region
with
worse
water
quality
when
you
could
move
to
a
region
with
better
water
quality?

1.
Yes,
I'm
sure
that
I
prefer
the
region
with
worse
water
quality
2.
No,
I'm
not
sure,
ask
the
question
again
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
aibad3
(
Only
if
ask1=
3)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
You
indicated
that
you
have
no
preference
between
two
regions
whose
only
difference
is
that
one
has
better
water
quality
than
the
other.

Are
you
sure
that
you
don't
care
whether
you
would
move
to
a
region
where
a
lower
proportion
of
lakes
and
rivers
are
safe
and
clean
when
you
could
move
to
a
region
with
more
rivers
that
are
safe
and
clean
that
is
alike
in
all
other
ways?
February
2000
55
1.
Yes,
I'm
sure
that
I
have
no
preference
2.
No,
I'm
not
sure,
ask
the
question
again
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
askj
(
Only
if
askg=
2)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
Region
2,
the
region
with
better
water
quality,
had
50%

of
lake
acres
and
river
miles
with
good
water
quality
instead
of
55%
of
lake
acres
and
river
miles
with
good
water
quality?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Increase
in
$
100
$
350
Annual
Cost
Of
Living
Percent
of
Lake
50%
65%
Acres
and
River
60%
Miles
With
Good
55%
Water
Quality
50%
New
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
ajbad2
(
Only
if
askj=
2)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
You
chose
to
move
to
the
region
with
a
higher
cost
of
living.

You
could
have
chosen
a
region
with
a
higher
cost
of
living
that
is
alike
in
all
other
ways.

Are
you
sure
you
would
prefer
a
region
with
a
higher
cost
of
living
when
you
could
move
to
a
region
with
a
lower
cost
of
living?

1.
Yes,
I'm
sure
that
I
prefer
the
region
with
higher
cost
of
living
2.
No,
I'm
not
sure,
ask
the
question
again
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
ajbad3
(
Only
if
askj=
3)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
You
indicated
that
you
have
no
preference
between
two
regions
whose
only
difference
is
that
one
has
a
lower
cost
of
living
than
the
other.

Are
you
sure
that
you
don't
care
whether
you
would
move
to
a
region
where
it
is
more
expensive
to
live
when
you
could
move
to
February
2000
56
a
region
where
it
is
less
expensive
to
live
that
is
alike
in
all
other
ways?

1.
Yes,
I'm
sure
that
I
have
no
preference
2.
No,
I'm
not
sure,
ask
the
question
again
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
lrdef
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Differences
in
Water
Quality
Between
Lakes
and
Rivers
Some
questions
in
this
survey
have
asked
you
to
choose
between
regions
based
on
water
quality
for
both
lakes
and
rivers.

Now,
we
would
like
to
ask
you
some
questions
that
ask
you
to
choose
between
regions
based
upon
water
quality
differences
where
lakes
have
a
different
level
of
water
quality
than
rivers.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
lrpref
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Which
is
more
important
to
you?

1.
Good
water
quality
for
lakes
2.
Good
water
quality
for
rivers
3.
Both
are
equally
important
to
me
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
lrask0
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Which
of
the
two
regions
below
would
you
choose
if
you
had
to
move
to
one
of
them?
Remember
that
both
regions
are
alike
in
all
other
ways
to
where
you
live
now,
including
the
number
of
lake
acres
and
river
miles
in
your
region.

Which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Percent
of
river
50%
75%
Miles
With
Good
Good
Good
Water
Quality
River
River
Quality
Quality
February
2000
57
Percent
of
lake
75%
50%
Acres
With
Good
Good
Good
Water
Quality
Lake
Lake
Quality
Quality
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
If
lrask0=
3
then
the
survey
skips
to
defuse1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
lrask1
(
Only
if
lrask0=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
the
region
with
better
water
quality
for
lakes
had
a
lower
percentage
of
lakes
with
good
water
quality?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Percent
of
river
50%
75%
Miles
With
Good
Water
Quality
Percent
of
lake
75%
50%
Acres
With
Good
65%
New
Water
Quality
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
If
lrask1=
3
then
the
survey
skips
to
defuse1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
lrask2
(
Only
if
lrask0=
2)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
the
region
with
better
water
quality
for
rivers
had
a
lower
percentage
of
rivers
with
good
water
quality?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Percent
of
river
50%
75%
Miles
With
Good
65%
New
Water
Quality
Percent
of
lake
75%
50%
Acres
With
Good
Water
Quality
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
If
lrask2=
3
then
the
survey
skips
to
defuse1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
lrask3
(
Only
if
lrask1=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
the
region
with
better
water
quality
for
lakes
had
a
February
2000
58
lower
percentage
of
lakes
with
good
water
quality?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Percent
of
river
50%
75%
Miles
With
Good
Water
Quality
Percent
of
lake
75%
50%
Acres
With
Good
65%
Water
Quality
55%
New
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
If
lrask3=
3
then
the
survey
skips
to
defuse1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
lrask4
(
Only
if
lrask1=
2)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
the
region
with
better
water
quality
for
lakes
had
a
higher
percentage
of
lakes
with
good
water
quality?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Percent
of
river
50%
75%
Miles
With
Good
Water
Quality
Percent
of
lake
75%
50%
Acres
With
Good
65%
Water
Quality
70%
New
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
If
lrask4=
3
then
the
survey
skips
to
defuse1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
lrask5
(
Only
if
lrask2=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
the
region
with
better
water
quality
for
rivers
had
a
higher
percentage
of
rivers
with
good
water
quality?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Percent
of
river
50%
75%
February
2000
59
Miles
With
Good
65%
Water
Quality
70%
New
Percent
of
lake
75%
50%
Acres
With
Good
Good
Quality
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
If
lrask5=
3
then
the
survey
skips
to
defuse1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
lrask6
(
Only
if
lrask2=
2)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
the
region
with
better
water
quality
for
rivers
had
a
lower
percentage
of
rivers
with
good
water
quality?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Percent
of
river
50%
75%
Miles
With
Good
65%
Water
Quality
55%
New
Percent
of
lake
75%
50%
Acres
With
Good
Water
Quality
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
If
lrask6=
3
then
the
survey
skips
to
defuse1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
lrask7
(
Only
if
lrask3=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
the
region
with
better
water
quality
for
lakes
had
a
lower
percentage
of
lakes
with
good
water
quality?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Percent
of
river
50%
75%
Miles
With
Good
Water
Quality
Percent
of
lake
75%
50%
Acres
With
Good
65%
Water
Quality
55%
50%
New
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
lr7bad1
(
Only
if
lrask7=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
February
2000
60
You
chose
to
move
to
the
region
with
worse
water
quality
for
lakes.

You
could
have
chosen
a
region
with
better
water
quality
for
lakes
that
is
alike
in
all
other
ways.

Are
you
sure
that
you
would
prefer
a
region
where
a
lower
proportion
of
lakes
are
safe
and
clean
when
you
could
move
to
a
region
with
more
lakes
that
are
safe
and
clean
that
is
alike
in
all
other
ways?

1.
Yes,
I'm
sure
that
I
prefer
the
region
with
worse
lake
quality
2.
No,
I'm
not
sure,
ask
the
question
again
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
lr7bad3
(
Only
if
lrask7=
3)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
You
indicated
that
you
have
no
preference
between
two
regions
whose
only
difference
is
that
one
has
better
water
quality
for
lakes
than
the
other.

Are
you
sure
that
you
don't
care
whether
you
would
move
to
a
region
where
a
lower
proportion
of
lakes
are
safe
and
clean?

After
all,
you
could
move
to
a
region
with
more
lakes
that
are
safe
and
clean
that
is
alike
in
all
other
ways.

1.
Yes,
I'm
sure
that
I
have
no
preference
2.
No,
I'm
not
sure,
ask
the
question
again
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
lrask8
(
Only
if
lrask6=
2)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
the
region
with
better
water
quality
for
rivers
had
a
lower
percentage
of
rivers
with
good
water
quality?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Percent
of
river
50%
75%
Miles
With
Good
65%
Water
Quality
55%
February
2000
61
50%
New
Percent
of
lake
75%
50%
Acres
With
Good
Water
Quality
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
lr8bad2
(
Only
if
lrask8=
2)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
You
chose
to
move
to
the
region
with
worse
water
quality
for
rivers.

You
could
have
chosen
a
region
with
better
water
quality
for
rivers
that
is
alike
in
all
other
ways.

Are
you
sure
that
you
would
prefer
a
region
where
a
lower
proportion
of
rivers
are
safe
and
clean
when
you
could
move
to
a
region
with
more
rivers
that
are
safe
and
clean
that
is
alike
in
all
other
ways?

1.
Yes,
I'm
sure
that
I
prefer
the
region
with
worse
river
quality
2.
No,
I'm
not
sure,
ask
the
question
again
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
lr8bad3
(
Only
if
lrask8=
3)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
You
indicated
that
you
have
no
preference
between
two
regions
whose
only
difference
is
that
one
has
better
water
quality
for
rivers
than
the
other.

Are
you
sure
that
you
don't
care
whether
you
would
move
to
a
region
where
a
lower
proportion
of
rivers
are
safe
and
clean?

After
all,
you
could
move
to
a
region
with
more
rivers
that
are
safe
and
clean
that
is
alike
in
all
other
ways.

1.
Yes,
I'm
sure
that
I
have
no
preference
2.
No,
I'm
not
sure,
ask
the
question
again
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
defuse1
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Water
Quality
Uses
It
is
possible
for
a
lake
or
river
to
have
good
quality
for
one
use,
but
not
for
other
uses.
This
means
that
a
single
region
can
February
2000
62
have
different
levels
of
water
quality
for
different
uses
or
dimensions
of
water
quality.

Some
of
the
questions
in
this
survey
will
ask
you
about
three
dimensions
of
the
quality
of
lakes
and
rivers:

*
Whether
the
lake
or
river
has
fish
that
are
safe
to
eat,

*
Whether
the
lake
or
river
is
a
safe
place
to
swim,
and
*
Whether
the
lake
or
river
has
a
healthy
aquatic
environment.

Press
any
key
to
learn
more
about
these
categories
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
defuse2
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Fish
Consumption
A
lake
or
river
is
good
for
fish
consumption
if
fish
caught
in
the
lake
or
river
are
safe
for
you
to
eat.

A
lake
or
river
is
not
good
for
fish
consumption
if
fish
caught
in
the
lake
or
river
are
not
safe
for
you
to
eat.

How
important
is
it
to
you
that
lakes
and
rivers
in
your
region
be
good
for
fish
consumption?

1.
Not
at
all
important
2.
Somewhat
important
3.
Quite
important
4.
Very
important
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
defuse3
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Swimming
A
lake
or
river
is
good
for
swimming
if
prolonged
contact
with
the
water
in
the
lake
or
river
will
not
make
you
sick.

A
lake
or
river
is
not
good
for
swimming
if
prolonged
contact
with
the
water
can
make
you
sick.

How
important
is
it
to
you
that
lakes
and
rivers
in
your
region
be
good
for
swimming?
February
2000
63
1.
Not
at
all
important
2.
Somewhat
important
3.
Quite
important
4.
Very
important
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
defuse4
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Aquatic
Environment
The
aquatic
environment
is
good
if
the
lake
or
river
supports
many
plants,
fish,
and
other
aquatic
life.

The
aquatic
environment
is
not
good
if
the
lake
or
river
supports
only
a
small
number
plants,
fish,
and
other
aquatic
life,
or
cannot
support
some
kinds
of
aquatic
life
at
all.

How
important
is
it
to
you
that
lakes
and
rivers
in
your
region
have
a
good
aquatic
environment?

1.
Not
at
all
important
2.
Somewhat
important
3.
Quite
important
4.
Very
important
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
defuse6
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Because
a
region
has
more
than
one
lake
and
river,
these
three
dimensions
of
water
quality
will
be
described
in
terms
of
percent
good.

For
example,
if
all
the
acres
of
lakes
and
miles
of
rivers
in
a
region
are
good
for
swimming
and
if
half
have
a
good
aquatic
environment,
then
that
region
could
be
described
like
this:

Percent
of
Water
With
Good
Quality:

Swimming:
100%

Aquatic
Environment:
50%
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
ask1
(
The
survey
is
split
into
four
groups,
differing
in
the
percentages
presented
in
the
questions)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
February
2000
64
Imagine
again
that
you
must
move
to
another
region
of
the
country.

You
have
narrowed
your
choices
to
the
regions
below.
They
differ
only
in
the
level
of
water
quality
for
each
of
three
uses
of
water.

Which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
Region
3
Fish
Safe
to
Eat
50%
Good
25%
Good
75%
Good
Swimming
25%
Good
75%
Good
50%
Good
Aquatic
75%
Good
50%
Good
25%
Good
Environment
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
ask2
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Imagine
again
that
you
must
move
to
another
region
of
the
country.

You
have
narrowed
your
choices
to
the
regions
below.
They
differ
only
in
the
level
of
water
quality
for
each
of
three
uses
of
water.

Which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
Region
3
Fish
Safe
to
Eat
50%
Good
75%
Good
25%
Good
Swimming
25%
Good
50%
Good
25%
Good
Aquatic
50%
Good
25%
Good
75%
Good
Environment
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
ask3
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Imagine
again
that
you
must
move
to
another
region
of
the
country.

You
have
narrowed
your
choices
to
the
regions
below.
They
differ
only
in
the
level
of
water
quality
for
each
of
three
uses
of
water.

Which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
Region
3
Fish
Safe
to
Eat
50%
Good
25%
Good
75%
Good
February
2000
65
Swimming
50%
Good
50%
Good
25%
Good
Aquatic
50%
Good
75%
Good
25%
Good
Environment
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
ask4
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Imagine
again
that
you
must
move
to
another
region
of
the
country.

You
have
narrowed
your
choices
to
the
regions
below.
They
differ
only
in
the
level
of
water
quality
for
each
of
three
uses
of
water.

Which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
Region
3
Fish
Safe
to
Eat
25%
Good
75%
Good
50%
Good
Swimming
50%
Good
25%
Good
25%
Good
Aquatic
50%
Good
25%
Good
50%
Good
Environment
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
aest0
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Other
aspects
of
water
quality
do
not
affect
whether
a
lake
or
river
is
safe
to
use,
but
may
affect
your
enjoyment
of
activities
there.

Two
such
aspects
are
whether
the
water
in
the
lake
or
river
is:

*
Smelly,
meaning
that
the
water
in
the
lake
or
river
has
an
unpleasant
odor,
even
though
it
is
otherwise
good.

*
Cloudy,
meaning
that
the
water
in
the
lake
or
river
is
dark
brown
from
sediment,
green
from
algae,
or
is
colored
or
murky
for
any
other
reason,
even
though
it
is
otherwise
good.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
impsmell
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
How
important
is
it
to
you
that
water
in
lakes
and
rivers
not
be
smelly?

1.
Not
at
all
important
2.
Somewhat
important
February
2000
66
3.
Quite
important
4.
Very
important
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
impcldy
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
How
important
is
it
to
you
that
water
in
lakes
and
rivers
not
be
cloudy?

1.
Not
at
all
important
2.
Somewhat
important
3.
Quite
important
4.
Very
important
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
aest1
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Imagine
again
that
you
must
move
to
another
region
of
the
country.

You
have
narrowed
your
choice
to
two
regions.
They
differ
in
cost
of
living
and
whether
water
in
the
region
is
smelly
and
cloudy.
Both
regions
have
50%
Good
Water
Quality.
Which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Cost
of
$
200
$
100
Living
Per
Year
Per
Year
Increase
Aesthetic
No
Smell
Smelly
Water
Qualities
Clear
Cloudy
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
aest2
(
Only
if
aest1=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
Region
1,
the
region
with
water
that
is
clear
and
not
smelly,
had
a
cost
of
living
increase
of
$
300
per
year
(
rather
than
$
200
in
the
previous
question)?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Cost
of
$
200
$
100
Living
$
300
Increase
February
2000
67
Aesthetic
No
Smell
Smelly
Water
Qualities
Clear
Cloudy
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
aest3
(
Only
if
aest1=
2)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
Region
1,
the
region
with
water
that
is
clear
and
not
smelly,
had
a
cost
of
living
increase
of
$
150
per
year
(
rather
than
$
200
in
the
previous
question)?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Cost
of
$
200
$
100
Living
$
150
Increase
Aesthetic
No
Smell
Smelly
Water
Qualities
Clear
Cloudy
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
aest4
(
Only
if
aest2=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
Region
1,
the
region
with
water
that
is
clear
and
not
smelly,
had
a
cost
of
living
increase
of
$
400
per
year
(
rather
than
$
300
in
the
previous
question)?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Cost
of
$
200
$
100
Living
$
300
Increase
$
400
Aesthetic
No
Smell
Smelly
Water
Qualities
Clear
Cloudy
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
aest5
(
Only
if
aest2=
2)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
Region
1,
the
region
with
water
that
is
clear
and
not
smelly,
had
a
cost
of
living
increase
of
$
250
per
year
(
rather
than
$
300
in
the
previous
question)?
February
2000
68
Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Cost
of
$
200
$
100
Living
$
300
Increase
$
250
Aesthetic
No
Smell
Smelly
Water
Qualities
Clear
Cloudy
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
aest6
(
Only
if
aest3=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
Region
1,
the
region
with
water
that
is
clear
and
not
smelly,
had
a
cost
of
living
increase
of
$
175
per
year
(
rather
than
$
150
in
the
previous
question)?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Cost
of
$
200
$
100
Living
$
150
Increase
$
175
Aesthetic
No
Smell
Smelly
Water
Qualities
Clear
Cloudy
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
aest7
(
Only
if
aest3=
2)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
Region
1,
the
region
with
water
that
is
clear
and
not
smelly,
had
a
cost
of
living
increase
of
$
125
per
year
(
rather
than
$
150
in
the
previous
question)?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Cost
of
$
200
$
100
Living
$
150
Increase
$
125
Aesthetic
No
Smell
Smelly
February
2000
69
Water
Qualities
Clear
Cloudy
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
aest8
(
Only
if
aest4=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
Region
1,
the
region
with
water
that
is
clear
and
not
smelly,
had
a
cost
of
living
increase
of
$
500
per
year
(
rather
than
$
400
in
the
previous
question)?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Cost
of
$
200
$
100
Living
$
300
Increase
$
400
$
500
Aesthetic
No
Smell
Smelly
Water
Qualities
Clear
Cloudy
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
aest9
(
Only
if
aest7=
2)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
Region
1,
the
region
with
water
that
is
clear
and
not
smelly,
had
a
cost
of
living
increase
of
$
100
per
year
(
rather
than
$
125
in
the
previous
question)?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Cost
of
$
200
$
100
Living
$
150
Increase
$
125
$
100
Aesthetic
No
Smell
Smelly
Water
Qualities
Clear
Cloudy
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
source0
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Sources
of
Pollution
Pollution
in
lakes
and
rivers
that
hurts
water
quality
can
come
from
different
sources.
We
will
talk
about
two
sources
of
pollution:
February
2000
70
*
Animal
Wastes,
where
rain
runoff
from
animal
holding
areas
on
farms
can
wash
animal
wastes
into
lakes
and
rivers.

*
Industrial
Toxic
Wastes,
where
toxic
chemicals
from
businesses
pollute
lakes
and
rivers.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
source1
(
Subjects
are
only
asked
either
the
source
set
or
the
sourceb
set)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
We
would
like
to
ask
you
some
questions
about
how
you
feel
about
sources
of
pollution
and
water
quality.
Keep
in
mind
that
these
regions
are
the
same
in
all
other
ways,
including
the
number
of
acres
of
lakes
and
miles
of
rivers
near
your
home.
The
regions
are
not
different
in
the
types
of
industries
in
the
regions,
just
the
ones
polluting
lakes
and
rivers.
Which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Percent
of
Water
75%
75%
With
Good
Quality:
Good
Good
Water
Water
Quality
Quality
Source
of
Animal
Industrial
Pollution
for
Wastes
Toxic
Lakes
and
Rivers
Wastes
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
If
source1=
3
then
the
survey
skips
to
opennew)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
source2
(
Only
if
source1=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
the
animal
waste
pollution
in
Region
1
caused
a
lower
percentage
of
lakes
and
rivers
in
that
region
to
have
good
water
quality?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Percent
of
Water
75%
75%
With
Good
Quality
60%
New
Source
of
Animal
Industrial
Pollution
for
Wastes
Toxic
February
2000
71
Lakes
and
Rivers
Wastes
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
If
source2=
3
then
the
survey
skips
to
dbag)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
source3
(
Only
if
source1=
2)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
the
industrial
toxic
waste
pollution
in
Region
2
caused
a
lower
percentage
of
lakes
and
rivers
in
that
region
to
have
good
water
quality?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Percent
of
Water
75%
75%
With
Good
Quality
60%
New
Source
of
Animal
Industrial
Pollution
for
Wastes
Toxic
Lakes
and
Rivers
Wastes
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
If
source3=
3
then
the
survey
skips
to
dbsrct)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
source4
(
Only
if
source2=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
the
animal
waste
pollution
in
Region
1
caused
a
lower
percentage
of
lakes
and
rivers
in
that
region
to
have
good
water
quality?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Percent
of
Water
75%
75%
With
Good
Quality
60%
45%
New
Source
of
Animal
Industrial
Pollution
for
Wastes
Toxic
Lakes
and
Rivers
Wastes
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
If
source4=
3
then
the
survey
skips
to
dbag)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
source5
(
Only
if
source2=
2)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
the
animal
waste
pollution
in
Region
1
caused
a
lower
percentage
of
lakes
and
rivers
in
that
region
to
have
good
February
2000
72
water
quality?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Percent
of
Water
75%
75%
With
Good
Quality
60%
65%
New
Source
of
Animal
Industrial
Pollution
for
Wastes
Toxic
Lakes
and
Rivers
Wastes
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
If
source5=
3
then
the
survey
skips
to
dbag)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
source6
(
Only
if
source3=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
the
industrial
toxic
waste
pollution
in
Region
2
caused
a
lower
percentage
of
lakes
and
rivers
in
that
region
to
have
good
water
quality?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Percent
of
Water
75%
75%
With
Good
Quality
60%
65%
New
Source
of
Animal
Industrial
Pollution
for
Wastes
Toxic
Lakes
and
Rivers
Wastes
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
If
source6=
3
then
the
survey
skips
to
dbsrct)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
source7
(
Only
if
source3=
2)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
the
industrial
toxic
waste
pollution
in
Region
2
did
not
cause
such
a
low
percentage
of
lakes
and
rivers
in
that
region
to
have
good
water
quality?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
February
2000
73
Percent
of
Water
75%
75%
With
Good
Quality
60%
45%
New
Source
of
Animal
Industrial
Pollution
for
Wastes
Toxic
Lakes
and
Rivers
Wastes
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
If
source7=
3
then
the
survey
skips
to
dbsrct)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
source8
(
Only
if
source4=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
the
animal
waste
pollution
in
Region
1
caused
a
lower
percentage
of
lakes
and
rivers
in
that
region
to
have
good
water
quality?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Percent
of
Water
75%
75%
With
Good
Quality
60%
45%
30%
New
Source
of
Animal
Industrial
Pollution
for
Wastes
Toxic
Lakes
and
Rivers
Wastes
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
If
source8=
3
then
the
survey
skips
to
dbag)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
sourceb1
(
Subjects
are
only
asked
either
the
source
set
or
the
sourceb
set)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
We
would
like
to
ask
you
some
questions
about
how
you
feel
about
sources
of
pollution
and
water
quality.
Keep
in
mind
that
these
regions
are
the
same
in
all
other
ways,
including
the
number
of
acres
of
lakes
and
miles
of
rivers
near
your
home.
The
regions
are
not
different
in
the
types
of
industries
in
the
regions,
just
the
ones
polluting
lakes
and
rivers.
Which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Percent
of
Water
50%
50%
With
Good
Quality:
Good
Good
Water
Water
Quality
Quality
Source
of
Animal
Industrial
Pollution
for
Wastes
Toxic
February
2000
74
Lakes
and
Rivers
Wastes
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
If
sourceb1=
3
then
the
survey
skips
to
opennew)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
sourceb2
(
Only
if
sourceb1=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
the
Region
2,
the
region
with
industrial
toxic
waste
pollution,
had
a
higher
percentage
of
lakes
and
rivers
with
good
water
quality?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Percent
of
Water
50%
50%
With
Good
Quality
65%
New
Source
of
Animal
Industrial
Pollution
for
Wastes
Toxic
Lakes
and
Rivers
Wastes
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
If
sourceb2=
3
then
the
survey
skips
to
dbag)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
sourceb3
(
Only
if
sourceb1=
2)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
the
Region
1,
the
region
with
animal
waste
pollution,
had
a
higher
percentage
of
lakes
and
rivers
with
good
water
quality?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Percent
of
Water
50%
50%
With
Good
Quality
65%
New
Source
of
Animal
Industrial
Pollution
for
Wastes
Toxic
Lakes
and
Rivers
Wastes
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
If
sourceb3=
3
then
the
survey
skips
to
dbsrct)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
sourceb4
(
Only
if
sourceb2=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
the
Region
2,
the
region
with
industrial
toxic
waste
pollution,
had
a
higher
percentage
of
lakes
and
rivers
with
February
2000
75
good
water
quality?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Percent
of
Water
50%
50%
With
Good
Quality
65%
80%
New
Source
of
Animal
Industrial
Pollution
for
Wastes
Toxic
Lakes
and
Rivers
Wastes
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
If
sourceb4=
3
then
the
survey
skips
to
dbag)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
sourceb5
(
Only
if
source2b=
2)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
the
Region
2,
the
region
with
industrial
toxic
waste
pollution,
had
a
higher
percentage
of
lakes
and
rivers
with
good
water
quality?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Percent
of
Water
50%
50%
With
Good
Quality
65%
60%
New
Source
of
Animal
Industrial
Pollution
for
Wastes
Toxic
Lakes
and
Rivers
Wastes
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
If
sourceb5=
3
then
the
survey
skips
to
dbag)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
sourceb6
(
Only
if
source3b=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
the
Region
1,
the
region
with
animal
waste
pollution,
had
a
higher
percentage
of
lakes
and
rivers
with
good
water
quality?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
February
2000
76
Percent
of
Water
50%
50%
With
Good
Quality
65%
60%
New
Source
of
Animal
Industrial
Pollution
for
Wastes
Toxic
Lakes
and
Rivers
Wastes
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
If
sourceb6=
3
then
the
survey
skips
to
dbsrct)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
sourceb7
(
Only
if
sourceb3=
2)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
the
Region
1,
the
region
with
animal
waste
pollution,
had
a
higher
percentage
of
lakes
and
rivers
with
good
water
quality?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Percent
of
Water
50%
50%
With
Good
Quality
65%
80%
New
Source
of
Animal
Industrial
Pollution
for
Wastes
Toxic
Lakes
and
Rivers
Wastes
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
If
sourceb7=
3
then
the
survey
skips
to
dbsrct)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
sourceb8
(
Only
if
sourceb4=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
if
the
Region
2,
the
region
with
industrial
toxic
waste
pollution,
had
a
higher
percentage
of
lakes
and
rivers
with
good
water
quality?

Now
which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Percent
of
Water
50%
50%
With
Good
Quality
65%
80%
95%
New
Source
of
Animal
Industrial
Pollution
for
Wastes
Toxic
Lakes
and
Rivers
Wastes
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
February
2000
77
(
If
sourceb8=
3
then
the
survey
skips
to
dbag)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
dbsrct2
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Your
responses
to
the
previous
questions
show
that
you
place
a
higher
value
on
reducing
toxic
chemical
pollutants.

We
would
like
to
know
why.

Do
you
believe
that
toxic
chemical
wastes
pose
a
greater
health
risk
than
agricultural
wastes?

1.
Yes
2.
No
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
Subjects
who
are
asked
the
above
question
now
skip
to
opennew)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
dbag
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Your
responses
to
the
previous
questions
show
that
you
place
a
higher
value
on
reducing
animal
waste
pollutants.

We
would
like
to
know
why.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
dbag2
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Your
responses
to
the
previous
questions
show
that
you
place
a
higher
value
on
reducing
animal
waste
pollutants.

We
would
like
to
know
why.

Do
you
believe
that
animal
wastes
pose
a
greater
health
risk
than
toxic
chemical
wastes?

1.
Yes
2.
No
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Open1
(
1/
3
of
subjects
get
a
range
of
50%
to
65%
Good
Water
Quality
1/
3
of
subjects
get
a
range
of
25%
to
40%
Good
Water
Quality
1/
3
of
subjects
get
a
range
of
75%
to
90%
Good
Water
Quality)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Yes
/
No
Policy
Questions
Imagine
again
that
you
have
recently
moved
to
another
region
of
the
country,
where
water
quality
is
50%
Good.

Imagine
that
the
government
is
considering
a
policy
that
would
increase
water
quality
in
your
region
from
50%
Good
to
65%
Good.

The
policy
would
also
improve
water
in
a
region
downstream
from
February
2000
78
you
by
15%,
though
you
do
not
think
you
will
visit
that
region.

This
policy,
through
additional
taxes,
would
increase
your
cost
of
living
by
$
250
per
year.

Would
you
be
in
favor
of
this
policy?

1.
Yes
2.
No
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Open2
(
Only
if
Open1=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Let's
consider
this
policy
question
again
Imagine
again
that
you
have
recently
moved
to
another
region
of
the
country,
where
water
quality
is
50%
Good.

Imagine
that
the
government
is
considering
a
policy
that
would
increase
water
quality
in
your
region
from
50%
Good
to
65%
Good.

The
policy
would
also
improve
water
in
a
region
downstream
from
you
by
15%,
though
you
do
not
think
you
will
visit
that
region.

This
policy,
through
additional
taxes,
would
increase
your
cost
of
living
by
$
350
per
year
(
rather
than
$
250
in
the
previous
question).

Would
you
be
in
favor
of
this
policy?

1.
Yes
2.
No
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Open3
(
Only
if
Open1=
2)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Let's
consider
this
policy
question
again
Imagine
again
that
you
have
recently
moved
to
another
region
of
the
country,
where
water
quality
is
50%
Good.

Imagine
that
the
government
is
considering
a
policy
that
would
increase
water
quality
in
your
region
from
50%
Good
to
65%
Good.

The
policy
would
also
improve
water
in
a
region
downstream
from
you
by
15%,
though
you
do
not
think
you
will
visit
that
region.

This
policy,
through
additional
taxes,
would
increase
your
cost
of
living
by
$
150
per
year
(
rather
than
$
250
in
the
previous
question).
February
2000
79
Would
you
be
in
favor
of
this
policy?

1.
Yes
2.
No
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Open4
(
Only
if
Open2=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Let's
consider
this
policy
question
again
Imagine
again
that
you
have
recently
moved
to
another
region
of
the
country,
where
water
quality
is
50%
Good.

Imagine
that
the
government
is
considering
a
policy
that
would
increase
water
quality
in
your
region
from
50%
Good
to
65%
Good.

The
policy
would
also
improve
water
in
a
region
downstream
from
you
by
15%,
though
you
do
not
think
you
will
visit
that
region.

This
policy,
through
additional
taxes,
would
increase
your
cost
of
living
by
$
500
per
year
(
rather
than
$
350
in
the
previous
question).

Would
you
be
in
favor
of
this
policy?

1.
Yes
2.
No
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Open5
(
Only
if
Open2=
2)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Let's
consider
this
policy
question
again
Imagine
again
that
you
have
recently
moved
to
another
region
of
the
country,
where
water
quality
is
50%
Good.

Imagine
that
the
government
is
considering
a
policy
that
would
increase
water
quality
in
your
region
from
50%
Good
to
65%
Good.

The
policy
would
also
improve
water
in
a
region
downstream
from
you
by
15%,
though
you
do
not
think
you
will
visit
that
region.

This
policy,
through
additional
taxes,
would
increase
your
cost
of
living
by
$
300
per
year
(
rather
than
$
350
in
the
previous
question).

Would
you
be
in
favor
of
this
policy?

1.
Yes
2.
No
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Open6
(
Only
if
Open3=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
February
2000
80
Let's
consider
this
policy
question
again
Imagine
again
that
you
have
recently
moved
to
another
region
of
the
country,
where
water
quality
is
50%
Good.

Imagine
that
the
government
is
considering
a
policy
that
would
increase
water
quality
in
your
region
from
50%
Good
to
65%
Good.

The
policy
would
also
improve
water
in
a
region
downstream
from
you
by
15%,
though
you
do
not
think
you
will
visit
that
region.

This
policy,
through
additional
taxes,
would
increase
your
cost
of
living
by
$
200
per
year
(
rather
than
$
150
in
the
previous
question).

Would
you
be
in
favor
of
this
policy?

1.
Yes
2.
No
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Open7
(
Only
if
Open3=
2)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Let's
consider
this
policy
question
again
Imagine
again
that
you
have
recently
moved
to
another
region
of
the
country,
where
water
quality
is
50%
Good.

Imagine
that
the
government
is
considering
a
policy
that
would
increase
water
quality
in
your
region
from
50%
Good
to
65%
Good.

The
policy
would
also
improve
water
in
a
region
downstream
from
you
by
15%,
though
you
do
not
think
you
will
visit
that
region.

This
policy,
through
additional
taxes,
would
increase
your
cost
of
living
by
$
100
per
year
(
rather
than
$
150
in
the
previous
question).

Would
you
be
in
favor
of
this
policy?

1.
Yes
2.
No
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Open8
(
Only
if
Open4=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Let's
consider
this
policy
question
again
Imagine
again
that
you
have
recently
moved
to
another
region
of
the
country,
where
water
quality
is
50%
Good.
February
2000
81
Imagine
that
the
government
is
considering
a
policy
that
would
increase
water
quality
in
your
region
from
50%
Good
to
65%
Good.

The
policy
would
also
improve
water
in
a
region
downstream
from
you
by
15%,
though
you
do
not
think
you
will
visit
that
region.

This
policy,
through
additional
taxes,
would
increase
your
cost
of
living
by
$
750
per
year
(
rather
than
$
500
in
the
previous
question).

Would
you
be
in
favor
of
this
policy?

1.
Yes
2.
No
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Open9
(
Only
if
Open7=
2)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Let's
consider
this
policy
question
again
Imagine
again
that
you
have
recently
moved
to
another
region
of
the
country,
where
water
quality
is
50%
Good.

Imagine
that
the
government
is
considering
a
policy
that
would
increase
water
quality
in
your
region
from
50%
Good
to
65%
Good.

The
policy
would
also
improve
water
in
a
region
downstream
from
you
by
15%,
though
you
do
not
think
you
will
visit
that
region.

This
policy,
through
additional
taxes,
would
increase
your
cost
of
living
by
$
50
per
year
(
rather
than
$
100
in
the
previous
question).

Would
you
be
in
favor
of
this
policy?

1.
Yes
2.
No
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
demog0
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
That
is
all
the
questions
we
will
ask
you
about
water
quality.

We
would
like
to
ask
you
some
final
questions
about
yourself.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
demog1
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Are
you
male
or
female?

1.
Male
2.
Female
February
2000
82
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
demog2
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Are
you
married?

1.
Yes
2.
No
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
demog3
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Which
racial
or
ethnic
background
best
describes
you?

1.
White
2.
African
American
3.
Hispanic
4.
Asian
or
Pacific
Islander
5.
Other
6.
I
prefer
not
to
answer
this
question
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
demog4
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
is
your
age?

1.
18
­
25
years
old
2.
26
­
35
years
old
3.
36
­
45
years
old
4.
46
­
55
years
old
5.
56
­
65
years
old
6.
Over
65
years
old
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
demog5
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
is
the
highest
level
of
education
that
you
have
completed?

1.
8th
grade
or
less
2.
9th
­
12th
grade
3.
High
school
graduate
4.
13
­
15
years
(
some
post­
high
school
education)

5.
College
graduate
February
2000
83
6.
Some
post­
college
education
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
demog6a
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
We
would
like
to
ask
you
some
questions
about
your
employment
status.

Are
you
currently
employed?

1.
Yes
2.
No
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
demog6b
(
Only
if
demog6a=
1)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Is
that
full
or
part
time
employment
1.
Full
time
2.
Part
time
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
demog6c
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
We
would
like
to
ask
you
some
questions
about
your
employment
status.

Are
you
retired?

1.
Yes
2.
No
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
demog6d
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Are
you
a
full­
time
student?

1.
Yes
2.
No
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
demog6e
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Are
you
a
full­
time
homemaker?

1.
Yes
2.
No
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
demog7
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
was
your
total
family
income
last
year?

1.
$
0
­
$
5,000
2.
$
5,000
­
$
10,000
3.
$
10,000
­
$
15,000
4.
$
15,000
­
$
20,000
5.
$
20,000
­
$
30,000
6.
$
30,000
­
$
50,000
7.
$
50,000
­
$
100,000
8.
More
than
$
100,000
February
2000
84
9.
I
prefer
not
to
answer
this
question
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
zipq
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
What
is
your
five
digit
Zip
Code?

Type
your
Zip
Code
then
press
the
enter
key
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Envorg
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Environmental
Defense
Fund
Greenpeace
National
Audubon
Society
National
Wildlife
Federation
Nature
Conservancy
Natural
Resources
Defense
Council
Sierra
Club
Are
you
a
member
of
any
of
the
above
organizations?

1.
Yes
2.
No
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Pret1
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Where
did
you
take
the
survey?

1.
On
my
own
computer
at
home
2.
On
my
work
computer
at
work
3.
On
a
neighbor's
or
friend's
computer
4.
At
a
Kinko's
near
my
home
5.
None
of
these
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Pret2
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Did
you
have
any
problems
using
the
diskette
to
run
the
survey
program?

1.
Yes
2.
No
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Pret3
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
February
2000
85
How
did
you
feel
about
the
length
of
the
survey?

1.
Shorter
than
I
expected
2.
About
the
right
length
3.
Longer
than
I
expected
4.
Too
long
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Pret4
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Did
you
have
any
problem
understanding
any
of
the
questions
in
the
survey?

1.
Many
questions
were
unclear
or
confusing
2.
A
few
questions
were
unclear
or
confusing
3.
The
questions
were
clear
and
understandable
4.
Some
questions
seemed
overly
simple
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
endq
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
You
have
reached
the
end
of
the
survey.
Thank
you
for
participating
in
our
survey
on
water
quality.
Your
answers
and
the
answers
of
other
survey
takers
will
be
used
to
help
the
government
understand
how
you
and
others
value
water
quality.

Please
remember
to
place
the
survey
disk
in
the
return
envelope
and
put
it
in
the
mail.

Press
any
key
to
end
the
survey.

Press
any
key
and
the
survey
will
end
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
February
2000
86
Attachment
3:
Pilot
Study
Report
DRAFT
28
May,
1998
THE
VALUE
OF
CLEAN
LAKES,
RIVERS,
AND
STREAMS:

THE
ITERATIVE
CHOICE
APPROACH*

by
JOEL
HUBER
Duke
University
WESLEY
A.
MAGAT
Duke
University
and
W.
KIP
VISCUSI
Project
Manager,
Harvard
University
With
the
assistance
of
JASON
BELL
Computer
programmer,
Duke
University
BARUCH
FISCHHOFF
Psychologist,
Carnegie­
Mellon
University
Preliminary
Draft
Report:
DO
NOT
CITE
February
2000
87
THE
VALUE
OF
CLEAN
LAKES,
RIVERS,
AND
STREAMS:

THE
ITERATIVE
CHOICE
APPROACH
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1.
The
purpose
of
this
study
was
to
establish
benefit
values
for
water
quality
improvements
for
lakes,
rivers,
and
streams.
These
values
were
intended
to
be
relevant
to
EPA
policy
evaluations.
Results
reported
here
are
for
a
pre­
test
as
a
prelude
to
a
larger
national
study.

2.
Previous
water
quality
benefits
assessments
have
utilized
the
water
quality
ladder
as
the
reference
point.
However,

the
hierarchical
ranking
that
all
water
that
is
drinkable
is
swimmable,
and
that
all
water
that
is
swimmable
is
fishable,

is
not
valid.
Moreover,
it
does
not
correspond
to
the
water
quality
rating
systems
used
in
the
National
Water
Quality
Inventory,
which
is
the
framework
used
for
this
study.

3.
The
National
Water
Quality
Inventory
defines
water
quality
in
terms
of
the
percent
of
water
in
a
state
that
is
good
for
fishing,
swimming,
or
aquatic
life.

4.
The
structure
of
the
survey
instrument
that
we
developed
involved
the
use
of
an
interactive
computer
survey
consequently
requiring
the
use
of
in­
person
interviews.
Two
approaches
were
evaluated
in
this
study.
Phase
1
used
a
random
telephone
approach
to
contact
potential
survey
participants,
who
then
took
the
survey
at
a
central
location.

Phase
2
utilized
mall
intercepts.

5.
The
pre­
test
site
for
the
Phase
1
central
location
interviews
was
Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina.
For
the
mall
intercepts
the
sites
were
Cary,
NC;
Charlotte,
NC;
Denver,
CO;
and
Colorado
Springs,
CO.

6.
The
survey
established
benefit
values
for
improvements
in
water
quality.
These
were
calculated
based
on
responses
to
paired
comparisons
involving
water
quality
changes
and
cost­
of­
living
levels
for
regions
to
which
the
respondent
might
move.
Overall,
respondents
averaged
approximately
a
$
20
value
per
unit
increase
in
the
water
quality
level.

There
is
not
a
strong
variation
in
this
valuation
by
locale.

7.
The
water
quality
valuations
also
were
linear
with
respect
to
the
baseline
water
quality.
Thus,
they
were
not
sensitive
as
to
whether
the
initial
water
quality
level
was
low,
medium,
or
high.

8.
As
a
cross
check
on
the
paired
comparison
approach,
the
survey
also
incorporated
a
referendum
question
near
the
end
of
the
survey.
The
referendum
responses
yielded
similar
results.
Analyses
of
the
various
quartiles
of
the
paired
comparison
valuations
indicate
that
the
referendum
values
are
strongly
correlated
with
these
amounts.

9.
The
survey
also
elicited
the
relative
valuation
of
improvements
in
the
water
quality
of
lakes
as
opposed
to
rivers
and
streams.
Lakes
have
the
higher
relative
value
among
the
respondents
in
terms
of
the
mean
effect.

10.
Individuals
may
also
value
water
quality
attributes
beyond
simply
the
overall
EPA
water
quality
rating.
The
attributes
for
which
the
respondents
were
willing
to
pay
an
additional
amount
to
reduce
these
attributes
included
February
2000
88
whether
the
water
was
smelly,
cloudy,
or
polluted
by
toxic
chemicals.

11.
In
addition
to
these
use
values,
this
survey
also
explored
the
non­
use
value
that
respondents
attach
to
improvements
in
water
quality
in
regions
where
they
do
not
live.
These
values
were
quite
substantial
on
the
order
of
half
of
the
value
of
the
use
benefit
amount.

12.
The
survey
also
explored
the
relative
valuations
of
water
quality
for
different
dimensions.
Swimming
had
the
highest
value,
followed
by
valuation
of
the
aquatic
environment,
with
the
lowest
valuation
being
water
quality
for
fishing.
February
2000
89
This
report
summarizes
the
research
findings
to
date
on
our
EPA
supported
research
project
directed
at
establishing
the
economic
value
of
improvements
in
the
water
quality
of
lakes,
rivers,
and
streams.
This
is
a
preliminary
report
on
our
results
from
the
pilot
project
phase
and
does
not
report
national
estimates
valid
for
benefit
assessment.
While
the
sample
size
is
reasonably
extensive,
it
is
not
a
national
random
sample.
Without
a
national
study,
we
do
not
recommend
that
these
results
be
used
to
place
dollar
values
on
water­
quality
benefits
for
policy
purposes.

The
sections
in
the
report
below
outline
the
research
task,
the
research
approach,
and
the
findings
of
our
study.
The
general
methodology
used
to
obtain
valuations
is
in
the
spirit
of
the
literature
on
contingent
valuation
and
environmental
benefit
surveys
more
generally.
However,
we
believe
that
the
approach
we
have
devised
is
distinctive
in
that
we
construct
individual
preferences
based
on
the
individual
attributes
involved.
Thus,
our
hope
is
that
this
research
will
be
of
methodological
as
well
as
substantive
interest.

I.
The
Research
Task
The
overall
focus
of
this
study
was
on
developing
values
for
improvements
in
water
quality
for
lakes,
rivers,
and
streams.
Thus,
water
quality
changes
for
estuaries,
oceans,
groundwater,
and
other
excluded
categories
are
not
part
of
the
focus
of
the
study.

The
policy­
oriented
nature
of
our
analysis
dictated
much
of
the
overall
structure
of
the
research
approach.
The
overall
objective
was
to
develop
benefit
values
that
could
be
used
in
conjunction
with
the
water
quality
data
used
by
the
EPA
to
assess
the
benefits
of
changes
in
water
quality.
So
that
these
results
would
be
operational
for
the
EPA
it
was
important
that
the
EPA
data
structure
be
used
as
the
frame
of
reference.

Previous
studies
had
used
a
water
quality
ladder
as
an
index
of
different
levels
of
water
quality.
Exhibit
1
presents
a
representative
water
quality
ladder
modeled
after
that
used
by
Mitchell
and
Carson
in
their
contingent
valuation
study
of
the
quality
of
fresh
water.
Water
quality
rankings
are
on
an
ordinal
scale
from
zero
to
ten.
At
the
top
of
the
scale
is
drinkable
water
that
is
safe
to
drink
and
for
all
other
uses
listed
below.
The
components
of
the
water
quality
hierarchy
are:
water
that
is
swimmable,
water
that
is
fishable,
water
that
is
boatable,
and
water
that
is
not
safe
for
any
February
2000
90
of
these
uses.
This
water
quality
hierarchy
captured
the
previous
EPA
scientific
understanding
of
different
levels
of
water
quality.

At
this
juncture
it
is
also
worth
noting
that
this
water
quality
ladder
formulation
also
has
attractive
properties
from
a
survey
standpoint.
By
using
a
single
ladder,
gradations
in
water
quality
can
be
converted
into
a
single
dimension.
The
cognitive
difficulties
for
respondents
in
terms
of
the
thinking
about
water
quality
consequently
will
be
less
than
if
they
have
to
consider
a
multi­
dimensional
good
in
which
each
of
the
attributes
may
change
independently
of
one
another.

One
drawback
of
using
the
water
quality
ladder
are
that
the
ordinal
quality
ranking
may
not
have
cardinal
significance.

However,
even
it
that
problem
is
avoided
the
ladder
becomes
strictly
inappropriate
if
the
implied
hierarchical
ranking
may
not
in
fact
hold.

The
basic
assumption
of
the
water
quality
ladder
is
that
all
water
that
is
drinkable
is
also
swimmable,
that
all
water
that
is
swimmable
is
also
fishable,
and
that
all
water
that
is
fishable
is
also
boatable.
Exhibit
2
shows
that
this
relationship
does
not
hold
based
on
actual
data
pertaining
to
the
water
quality
ladder
reference
points
using
water
quality
information
from
the
U.
S.
EPA's
Water
Quality
Inventory.
These
results
are
for
the
nation
as
a
whole,
and
the
statistics
vary
by
state.
Consider
first
the
values
for
lakes.
Overall,
85
percent
of
the
water
is
drinkable
but
only
79
percent
is
swimmable,
violating
the
ladder
hierarchy.
Similarly,
82
percent
of
the
water
is
fishable,
which
is
below
the
amount
of
water
that
is
drinkable.
The
hierarchy
also
fails
to
hold
for
rivers,
for
which
87
percent
of
the
water
is
boatable
and
95
percent
of
the
water
is
fishable.

The
failure
for
the
water
quality
rankings
to
adhere
to
the
water
quality
ladder
structure
is
even
more
pronounced
when
considering
individual
state
data.
Of
the
28
states
with
lake
data
for
both
fishing
and
swimming,
18
of
the
states
(
or
64
percent)
do
not
obey
the
hierarchy
in
the
water
quality
ladder.
Similarly,
of
the
29
states
with
river
data
for
both
fishing
and
swimming,
15
of
them
(
or
52
percent)
do
not
obey
the
water
quality
ladder.
Adherence
to
the
water
quality
ladder
is
consequently
the
exception
rather
than
the
rule.

In
recognition
of
these
and
other
deficiencies
of
the
single
dimensional
ranking
of
water
quality,
EPA
has
developed
several
dimensions
of
water
quality
to
reflect
these
different
characteristics.
Our
survey
design
uses
the
following
three
dimensions
of
water
quality:
February
2000
91
1.
Aquatic
life
support
The
water
body
supports
many
plants,
fish,
and
other
aquatic
life.

2.
Fish
consumption
Fish
caught
in
the
water
body
are
safe
to
eat.

3.
Primary
contact
recreation­
swimming.

Prolonged
contact
with
the
water
in
the
water
body
will
not
cause
illness.

Within
these
three
categories,
each
state's
water
has
a
particular
score
that
reflects
the
percentage
of
water
that
meets
the
water
quality
standards
with
respect
to
that
particular
dimension.
Thus,
the
quality
of
the
water
with
respect
to
fish
consumption,
aquatic
life
support,
and
swimming
receive
independent
rankings
with
respect
to
each
of
these
dimensions
as
opposed
to
combining
the
rankings
in
terms
of
a
composite
index
of
overall
water
quality.

Exhibit
3
illustrates
a
page
of
water
quality
inventory
data
for
one
particular
state.
EPA
has
similar
information
for
other
states
that
can
be
used
in
projecting
benefit
levels
associated
with
changes
in
the
water
quality
index
values
with
respect
to
each
of
the
quality
dimensions.
It
is
noteworthy
that
because
the
rating
of
each
dimension
is
presented
with
respect
to
the
percent
of
water
that
meets
certain
quality
levels,
the
quantitative
scores
do
in
fact
have
quantitative
significance
and
are
not
simply
qualitative
rankings.
The
valuation
task
requires,
however,
that
some
kind
of
metric
be
constructed
to
both
establish
tradeoffs
across
the
water
quality
dimensions
as
well
as
tradeoffs
between
improved
water
quality
and
money.
Thus,
the
cognitive
task
that
will
be
posed
in
our
survey
will
be
much
more
complex
than
would
be
encountered
using
a
single
water
quality
metric.
The
advantage
of
this
more
complex
structure
is
that
it
is
related
both
to
our
current
understanding
of
the
scientific
structure
of
the
problem
and
to
EPA's
valuation
needs.

II.
General
Survey
Approach
As
in
contingent
valuation
studies,
the
survey
approach
that
we
use
involves
individual
interviews
regarding
hypothetical
choices
involving
economic
and
environmental
commodities.
However,
the
overall
structure
we
utilize
is
more
abstract
than
in
traditional
contingent
valuation.
Under
the
standard
approach,
the
respondent
considers
a
February
2000
92
detailed
characterization
of
some
environmental
good
for
which
the
respondent
is
asked
to
pay
some
amount
to
improve
its
quality.
Our
approach
instead
is
to
determine
individual
preferences
based
on
the
valuation
of
underlying
attributes.

To
reduce
the
cognitive
demands
of
the
task,
the
survey
structure
establishes
a
valuation
of
each
of
the
component
attributes
of
water
quality,
determines
these
tradeoff
values,
and
also
assesses
the
overall
conversion
of
the
water
quality
component
improvements
into
a
dollar
valuation
of
water
quality
more
generally.
Although
this
analysis
begins
with
an
assumption
of
linearity
in
terms
of
the
valuation
of
any
particular
attribute,
we
test
this
assumption
in
a
variety
of
ways.
The
key
aspect
of
the
survey
structure
is
that
respondents
will
consider
moves
to
a
hypothetical
location
for
which
different
components
of
the
choice
will
be
varied.
This
method
contrasts
with
the
need
for
elaborate
detail
required
in
a
conventional
contingent
valuation
approach
The
key
structure
of
this
study
is
based
on
an
interactive
computer
survey
in
which
respondents
considered
a
task
in
which
they
could
move
to
one
of
two
different
locations.
These
locations
differed
in
terms
of
water
quality
dimensions
and
cost
of
living.
The
computer
then
framed
subsequent
choices
until
the
respondent
reached
the
point
of
indifference.
This
approach
established
both
their
tradeoff
rates
across
water
quality
dimensions
as
well
as
their
tradeoff
rate
between
improved
water
quality
and
money.
The
details
of
the
survey
will
be
considered
much
more
extensively
below.
February
2000
93
A.
Simplifying
the
Task
Our
survey
design
considered
three
dimensions
of
water
quality
described
in
the
National
Water
Quality
Inventory.

These
dimensions
are
the
ones
most
commonly
reported
in
the
water
quality
inventory
state
data.
Because
of
the
different
aspects
addressed
by
these
attributes,
subjects
can
understand
that
EPA
can
influence
water
quality
in
different
ways
by
considering
each
of
these
dimensions
in
turn.
The
three
dimensions
of
water
quality
included
were
aquatic
life
support,
fish
consumption,
and
primary
contact
recreation­
swimming,
while
the
excluded
water
quality
category
was
drinking
water
supply.
We
explicitly
excluded
drinking
water
from
the
study
because
even
though
it
is
a
use
that
is
often
considered
when
people
think
of
water
being
safe
or
unsafe,
it
is
outside
the
scope
of
our
survey
design.
From
a
policy
standpoint,
drinking
water
is
distinct
since
it
can
be
removed
from
a
lake
or
river
and
treated
before
consumption.
Unlike
other
uses,
it
is
also
a
more
easily
replaceable
use
(
through
bottled
water)
than
the
visit­
related
uses.

For
each
of
these
water
quality
dimensions,
EPA
rates
the
water
quality
along
five
different
qualitative
scales
in
terms
of
the
level
of
water
quality.
For
convenience,
and
to
assist
respondent
understanding,
we
combine
the
highest
two
quality
rating
categories
as
indicating
that
the
water
is
"
Good."
Under
the
EPA
criteria,
water
meeting
this
standard
is
safe
to
use
for
the
specified
use.
The
three
lower
water
quality
categories
we
label
as
"
Not
Good."
Under
the
EPA
rating
system,
the
water
body
is
unsafe
in
some
way
if
it
is
in
this
category.
In
terms
of
the
state
data
table
presented
in
Exhibit
3,
Good
combines
the
first
two
columns,
and
Not
Good
combines
the
remaining
three
columns
of
data.

Our
survey
design
uses
the
National
Water
Quality
Inventory
data
only
as
it
pertains
to
lakes
and
rivers.
In
the
first
parts
of
the
survey,
we
combine
these
water
quality
ratings
by
presenting
lakes
and
rivers
as
having
the
same
level
of
water
quality
in
the
survey
questions.
Later,
we
include
a
separate
set
of
questions
within
the
structure
of
the
survey
instrument
to
differentiate
an
individual's
preferences
between
lake
and
river
water
quality.
February
2000
94
B.
Survey
Design
Ideally
a
survey
should
elicit
values
of
some
standardized
water
quality
improvement.
This
change
in
water
quality
should
not
be
specific
to
the
individual
respondent
in
a
way
that
cannot
be
generalized
to
obtain
national
water
quality
benefit
values.
In
some
respects,
this
approach
is
similar
to
placing
all
subjects
within
the
context
of
John
Rawls'

original
position.
Each
subject
will
be
moving
to
a
hypothetical
new
region
without
the
specific
water
quality
and
availability
attributes
of
the
person's
current
residence.

To
avoid
the
difficulties
arising
from
very
local
water
characteristics,
our
survey
asks
subjects
to
imagine
that
they
are
moving
to
a
different
region.
Moving
to
another
region
prevents
undue
focus
on
individual
local
water
bodies
and
permits
subjects
to
consider
improvements
for
a
large,
well­
defined
area
rather
than
for
their
own
specific
neighborhood
alone.
Subjects
may
of
course
differ
in
terms
of
their
valuation
of
water
quality,
and
this
valuation
may
also
depend
on
their
current
availability
of
water.
As
a
result,
the
survey
instructs
subjects
that
they
will
move
to
an
area
that
has
the
same
volume
of
lakes
and
rivers
as
where
they
live
now.
Thus,
the
valuations
that
are
elicited
should
be
reflective
of
any
regional
influences
to
the
extent
that
they
are
consequential,
but
they
will
do
so
in
a
manner
that
is
highly
structured.
Notice,
it
also
should
not
elicit
responses
that
relate
to
a
personal
circumstance­
for
example
whether
they
currently
live
right
next
to
a
lake
or
a
river.

The
survey
also
defines
what
is
meant
by
a
region,
which
is
the
area
within
two
hours'
drive
of
the
subject's
home.

To
better
envision
what
a
region
entails,
and
the
extent
of
local
lakes
and
rivers,
each
subject
receives
a
map
showing
their
state,
the
lakes
and
rivers
in
the
state,
with
a
circle
defining
the
two­
hour
region
(
see
Exhibits
5
and
6).

Exhibit
4
presents
a
representative
cost­
of­
living
water
quality
tradeoff
question.
Subjects
considered
two
possible
regions
to
which
they
could
move,
each
of
which
is
characterized
by
the
increase
in
the
annual
cost
of
living
and
the
percent
of
lake
acres
and
river
miles
in
that
region
with
good
water
quality.
Respondents
then
considered
a
series
of
such
paired
comparisons
until
they
reach
a
point
of
indifference.
This
result
of
this
exercise
is
that
it
establishes
a
value
of
water
quality
for
each
respondent
in
terms
of
the
dollar
increase
in
cost
of
living
that
they
are
willing
to
incur
per
one
percent
improvement
in
water
quality.
This
value
of
increasing
percent
good
by
1%
will
be
the
principal
measure
of
water
quality
changes.
The
value
can
be
derived
using
a
straightforward
calculation
based
on
two
February
2000
95
equilibrating
regions,
each
of
which
has
an
associated
cost
of
living
and
percent
of
lake
acres
and
river
miles
with
good
water
quality.
In
the
example
shown
in
Exhibit
4,
let
us
suppose
that
subjects
are
indifferent
between
these
two
regions.
This
means
they
are
indifferent
to
incurring
an
additional
$
150
for
a
15
percent
improvement
in
water
quality.

Then
each
one
percent
improvement
in
water
quality
has
a
value
of
$
10.

A
noteworthy
characteristic
of
the
survey
approach
is
that
it
involves
a
series
of
binary
choices
instead
of
an
openended
willingness­
to­
pay
format.
This
iterative
choice
structure
permits
subjects
to
determine
their
value
for
water
quality
by
choosing
which
of
two
options
that
they
see
as
more
reasonable.
A
more
open­
ended
format
would
ask
subjects
to
put
a
value
on
a
good
that
has
just
been
defined
for
them
recently
and
would
be
a
more
formidable
task.

Each
survey
question
includes
two
different
regional
choices
as
well
as
a
no
preference
option.
The
choices
define
a
level
of
tradeoff
between
money
and
water
quality.
The
subject's
response
demonstrates
an
upper
or
lower
bound
for
the
subject's
value
of
water
quality
at
the
level
of
tradeoff.

The
questions
then
iterate
based
on
the
subject's
initial
response
to
either
increase
or
decrease
the
level
of
tradeoff
between
money
and
water
quality.
This
iteration
continues
until
the
subject's
answers
provide
both
and
upper
and
lower
bounds
on
their
value
of
water
quality
or
until
their
answer
reaches
an
extreme
high
or
low
value.
If
an
extreme
is
reached,
this
survey
tests
the
subject's
understanding
with
a
dominated
choice
question­
where
one
alternative
is
better
on
both
cost
of
living
and
water
quality.
Subjects
who
fail
this
dominated
choice
question
will
be
the
focus
of
a
separate
analysis
below
as
part
of
the
consistency
checks
to
ensure
the
reliability
of
the
study
data.

The
features
of
this
choice
approach
continue
throughout
the
survey.
Subjects
always
make
choices
that
are
restricted
to
two
different
dimensions.
While
one
could
envision
multiple
dimensions,
and
it
would
be
valuable
to
ask
questions
about
multiple
dimensions,
such
questions
would
exceed
individuals'
cognitive
capabilities.
The
study
considers
changes
in
cost
of
living,
water
quality
for
lakes
and
rivers,
water
quality
for
each
of
the
three
different
uses,
variations
in
water
quality
depending
on
whether
the
water
is
cloudy,
smelly,
or
the
result
of
toxic
pollutants,
as
well
as
the
role
of
nonuse
value.
In
each
case,
to
prevent
the
task
from
exceeding
their
cognitive
limitations,
the
survey
approach
asks
for
choices
among
alternatives
that
differ
on
two
dimensions.
A
noteworthy
feature
of
the
survey
is
that
subjects
also
do
not
consider
new
domains
of
choice
without
extensive
preparation.
The
survey
defines
new
concepts
with
which
February
2000
96
the
subjects
may
be
unfamiliar.
In
addition,
the
survey
includes
training
questions
throughout
the
survey
instrument
to
ensure
that
subjects
understand
the
concepts
being
utilized
in
the
survey.

The
regional
exhibits
considered
by
the
survey
respondents
consisted
of
maps
for
the
two
states
in
which
the
interviews
were
held,
North
Carolina
and
Colorado.
Exhibit
5
is
the
map
showing
one
of
the
North
Carolina
regions
of
interest
and
Exhibit
6
is
the
map
for
one
of
the
Colorado
regions.
Whereas
the
rest
of
the
survey
was
undertaken
entirely
using
an
interactive
computer
program
approach,
the
maps
were
hardcopy
exhibits
that
were
handed
to
the
subjects
as
part
of
the
survey
task.
These
maps
were
considerably
larger
than
is
shown
in
Exhibits
5
and
6
and
the
maps
were
also
in
color,
with
blue
indicating
pertinent
water
bodies.

The
manner
in
which
respondents
proceeded
through
the
iterative
series
of
choices
is
reflected
in
the
decision
tree
presented
in
Exhibit
7.
This
tree
indicates
how
respondents
move
through
a
series
of
questions
based
on
their
earlier
answers
to
the
survey
questions.
As
can
be
seen,
respondents
who
value
water
quality
by
more
(
or
less)
than
is
indicated
by
the
initial
valuation
of
subsequently
pushed
into
situations
in
which
there
is
a
greater
(
or
lower)
valuation
of
water
implied
by
the
choice
question.
Once
the
respondent
hits
the
extreme
at
either
the
high
or
low
end,
there
is
a
dominated
choice
question
included
in
the
survey
to
ascertain
whether
the
subject
has
become
lax
in
attending
to
the
survey
task.
People
who
fail
this
test
we
label
as
"
inconsistent"
and
do
not
include
them
in
the
statistical
analysis.

C.
Survey
Contents
The
survey
consisted
of
ten
different
sections.
By
subdividing
the
survey
task
into
different
substantive
units,

respondents
could
be
engaged
in
a
particular
valuation
task
and
their
responses
could
be
elicited
with
respect
to
a
specific
tradeoff,
avoiding
the
complicating
influences
of
multiple
dimensions
that
otherwise
might
be
at
stake.

1.
Lake/
river
usage.
This
section
of
the
survey
ascertains
whether
the
respondent
has
used
lakes,
rivers,

and
streams
recently
and
also
obtains
information
regarding
the
character
of
the
use.
For
example,
has
the
respondent
engaged
in
fishing
or
swimming?
If
yes,
how
often?
The
primary
purpose
of
these
questions
is
to
encourage
the
respondent
to
think
about
the
value
of
these
activities
in
such
a
way
that
will
motivate
the
later
choices.

2.
Question
format
explanation.
This
section
of
the
survey
introduces
the
format
of
most
survey
questions
that
will
follow.
Thus,
the
intent
of
this
section
is
to
provide
a
general
introduction
to
the
character
of
the
tradeoffs
February
2000
97
that
will
be
faced,
but
will
not
include
specific
questions
to
ascertain
the
cost
of
living­
water
quality
tradeoff
values.

3.
Cost
of
living
versus
water
quality.
This
is
the
key
section
of
the
survey
that
is
designed
to
ascertain
the
rate
of
tradeoff
between
increases
in
cost
of
living
and
water
quality
improvements.
The
structure
of
this
section
utilizes
a
sequence
of
paired
comparisons
until
a
point
of
indifference
has
been
achieved.

4.
Lake
quality
versus
river
quality.
This
section
of
the
survey
determines
the
individual's
rate
of
tradeoff
between
lake
and
river
water
quality
improvement.
Using
these
results
it
will
be
possible
to
ascertain
the
relative
benefit
assessment
for
water
quality
improvements
for
these
two
different
classes
of
water
bodies.
As
in
the
case
of
the
cost­
of­
living
water
quality
tradeoffs,
this
section
of
the
survey
as
well
as
subsequent
sections
will
utilize
a
series
of
paired
comparisons
until
a
point
of
indifference
has
been
achieved.

5.
Water
uses
tradeoff.
In
this
section,
the
respondent
determines
relative
tradeoffs
for
swimming,
aquatic
environment,
and
fishing
in
three
paired
comparisons,
i.
e.,
swimming
versus
aquatic
environment,
swimming
versus
fishing,
and
fishing
versus
aquatic
environment.

6.
Source
of
pollution.
Respondents
may
not
care
simply
about
the
overall
level
of
water
quality
as
it
has
been
affected
by
pollutants,
but
also
about
the
nature
of
the
pollution
that
causes
the
decrease
in
water
quality.
A
pollution
component
of
particular
interest
is
industrial
toxic
wastes.
Are
people
more
fearful
of
the
decreases
in
water
quality
caused
by
toxic
waste
as
opposed
to
conventional
pollutants?
The
section
of
the
survey
addresses
this
issue
by
assessing
rates
of
tradeoff
between
pollution
due
to
agricultural
wastes
and
pollution
due
to
industrial
toxic
wastes.

7.
Nonuse
values.
A
major
and
controversial
benefit
component
in
environmental
policy
areas
is
the
nonuse
value
that
should
be
placed
on
environmental
improvements.
If,
for
example,
the
respondent
is
never
likely
to
visit
a
particular
region
in
which
a
water
quality
improvement
will
occur,
is
there
nevertheless
an
economic
benefit
to
the
individual
from
improving
the
water
quality?
To
explore
this
issue
this
section
examines
the
rate
of
tradeoff
between
water
quality
improvements
in
the
person's
own
region
versus
water
quality
improvements
in
a
region
which
the
respondent
will
not
visit.
Moreover,
this
section
also
analyzes
the
potential
for
evaluation
of
water
quality
based
on
February
2000
98
the
probability
that
the
respondent
will
visit
another
region,
which
can
be
viewed
as
a
form
of
economic
option
value.

8.
Aesthetic
properties,
smelliness
and
cloudiness.
Even
if
water
quality
meets
a
particular
level
based
on
the
EPA
criteria,
individuals
may
also
be
sensitive
to
other
attributes.
The
two
attributes
considered
were
the
smelliness
and
cloudiness
of
water.
In
each
case,
the
survey
determines
the
rate
of
tradeoff
between
that
attribute
and
water
quality
improvements
more
generally.
These
results
also
may
be
instructive
with
respect
to
identifying
different
demographic
groups
who
place
greater
weight
on
these
aspects
of
water
quality
that
are
not
currently
part
of
EPA's
criteria.
.

9.
Cost
of
living
versus
water
quality
referendum.
All
previous
tradeoffs
considered
thus
far
are
based
on
a
series
of
choices
among
paired
alternatives.
Here
we
adopt
a
referendum
approach
to
assessing
the
value
of
water
quality.
In
particular,
individuals
are
asked
to
determine
whether
they
support
a
policy
referendum
in
which
there
will
be
some
associated
cost
as
well
as
an
associated
water
quality
improvement.
Asking
the
water
quality
valuation
question
in
this
alternative
way
will
provide
a
valuable
consistency
test
on
the
results
above
for
section
three
of
this
survey
in
which
the
cost
of
living
versus
water
quality
tradeoff
has
been
elicited
through
paired
comparisons.

10.
Demographics.
This
section
of
the
survey
obtains
detailed
information
regarding
the
demographic
characteristics
of
the
respondents.
These
characteristics
are
of
interest
for
a
variety
of
reasons.
First,
analyzing
the
demographic
characteristics
is
useful
in
testing
whether
the
respondent
group
is
representative
of
the
population
in
the
same
area.
Second,
analyzing
the
characteristics
of
the
respondents
also
is
helpful
in
analyzing
how
various
responses
to
questions,
such
as
the
valuation
of
water
quality,
vary
with
demographic
characteristics.
Based
on
a
regression
analysis
of
these
valuations
in
conjunction
with
information
on
demographic
characteristics,
one
could
project
water
quality
valuation
from
a
sampled
population
to
a
broader
population.
February
2000
99
D.
Recruiting
and
Survey
Format
The
survey
consisted
of
two
different
phases.
Phase
one
of
the
survey
involved
bringing
respondents
to
a
central
location
after
making
phone
contact
with
them.
This
phase
is
useful
in
obtaining
insight
into
the
potential
limitations
of
this
method
of
recruiting
subjects.
Phase
two
involves
the
use
of
a
series
of
mall
intercepts.
This
is
a
lower­
cost
method
of
recruiting
subjects
than
paying
respondents
to
come
to
a
central
location
but
one
which,
as
it
turned
out,

also
yielded
a
much
more
representative
sample
and
more
reliable
responses.

Exhibits
8
and
10
compare
the
demographics
of
the
those
who
participated
in
Phase
1
to
those
of
the
area.
As
is
clear,

the
process
resulted
in
strong
oversampling
of
highly
educated
people,
older
people,
and
non­
minorities.
The
discussion
of
the
sampling
process
will
clarify
how
these
biases
occurred.

The
implementation
of
the
Phase
1
portion
of
the
survey
took
place
from
August
13,
1997
to
August
29,
1997.
The
incentive
of
$
15
was
offered
to
respondents
for
taking
the
survey
at
a
central
location.
Four
callers
from
a
North
Carolina
marketing
research
firm
recruited
respondents
using
a
list
of
1,000
phone
numbers
from
a
10
mile
radius
around
the
interview
location.
They
placed
2,211
calls
to
these
numbers,
and
144
people
agreed
to
take
part
in
the
survey.
Of
this
group,
106
showed
up
to
the
survey
location
and
completed
the
survey
The
callers
described
a
process
by
which
about
one­
third
of
the
calls
placed
actually
reached
a
person.
The
remainder
either
reached
answering
machines,
disconnected
numbers,
or
there
was
no
answer
to
the
call.
Of
the
one­
third
of
the
calls
that
were
successful
in
reaching
an
individual,
about
one
in
five
people
answering
the
phone
agreed
to
take
the
survey.
Most
people
called
accepted
screening
questions.
Callers
were
of
the
opinion
that
since
it
was
mentioned
that
the
survey
was
for
EPA,
most
people
were
agreeable
to
answer
the
questions.

The
people
who
refused
to
take
the
survey
gave
a
variety
of
reasons.
The
reasons
most
often
mentioned
were
time
conflicts,
distance
to
the
survey
location,
traffic
in
the
central
location
area,
or
just
a
thank
you
saying
that
they
were
not
interested.
Time
conflicts
often
included
the
fact
that
a
school
semester
started
around
the
pre­
test
period
for
college­
age
people
and
parents
of
children.
Presumably
the
time
conflicts
associated
with
the
new
school
schedule,

less
free
time,
and
for
the
college
aged
not
knowing
exactly
what
their
schedule
would
be
were
reasons
for
many
of
the
school­
related
conflicts.
Some
of
the
time
conflicts
were
reduced
by
the
availability
of
evening
and
weekend
times
February
2000
100
to
take
the
survey.

The
central
location
used
for
the
survey
was
at
the
marketing
research
firm,
which
is
located
in
the
Research
Triangle
Park
area.
This
area
is
close
to
major
arteries
and
centrally
located
with
respect
to
Chapel
Hill,
Durham,
Raleigh,
and
Cary,
N.
C.
However,
it
is
not
in
an
urban
location,
and,
as
a
result,
is
not
as
convenient
to
access
as
would
be,
for
example,
a
shopping
mall.
Mentioning
the
Research
Triangle
Park
location
may
have
caused
some
people
to
decline
because
of
the
distance
of
the
travel,
but
others
felt
that
it
added
some
legitimacy
to
the
offer
to
participate
in
this
study.

It
should
be
noted
that
the
Research
Triangle
Park
area
includes
many
high
technology
corporate
operations
as
well
as
research
offices
of
the
U.
S.
EPA.
This
mix
may
have
in
part
contributed
to
the
above­
average
education
level
of
the
respondents.

A
possible
problem
in
recruiting
subjects
is
that
people
often
refused
to
participate
in
the
survey
on
the
grounds
that
since
they
do
not
use
recreational
water
they
would
not
have
any
reason
to
take
the
survey.
This
difficulty
may
require
a
change
in
the
call
sheet
and
encouragement
by
callers
for
participation
even
if
this
is
the
case.
If
this
difficulty
were
to
occur
for
the
main
survey,
not
simply
this
pilot,
the
result
would
be
that
we
would
have
a
value
for
water
quality
that
overstates
the
value
for
the
nation
overall
to
the
extent
that
the
non­
respondents
have
a
lower
valuation.

The
screening
for
participating
in
this
study
required
that
the
subject
be
over
age
18
and
have
a
high
school
diploma.

Very
few
people
were
disqualified
by
the
screening
questions.
None
of
the
callers
recalled
having
disqualified
anyone
though
data
show
that
one
person
was
disqualified
for
being
under
18,
and
7
more
were
disqualified
for
not
having
a
high
school
diploma.
There
seem
to
be
no
major
difficulties
with
respect
to
educational
group
in
terms
of
the
ability
to
take
the
survey,
so
that
the
high
school
diploma
requirement
may
be
removed
in
the
main
survey.
A
few
respondents
disqualified
themselves
as
being
EPA
employees,
and
one
disqualified
himself
because
he
was
a
state
park
ranger.

Callers
were
unsure
whether
such
facts
should
disqualify
people,
and
there
is
a
need
for
guidance
to
be
given
to
the
callers
when
undertaking
the
main
survey.
Also,
it
was
apparently
inconsistent
on
the
call
sheet
whether
the
qualifying
age
was
18
or
21.
Other
caller
observations
were
that
people
in
the
sample
seemed
older
than
they
had
expected
to
reach,
and
this
may
reflect
the
types
of
people
who
were
at
home
to
answer
phones
during
the
calling
hours
of
6:
00
p.
m.
to
9:
00
p.
m.
February
2000
101
Once
people
agreed
to
be
respondents,
they
scheduled
a
time
to
take
the
survey.
The
first
week
saw
many
no­
shows,

and
the
callers
generally
called
back
to
reschedule.
After
the
first
week,
the
marketing
firm
sent
confirmation
letters
with
an
enclosed
map
and
this
effort
seemed
to
increase
the
response
rate.
Weekend
times
had
a
higher
no­
show
rate
than
week­
day
times,
which
the
marketing
researchers
did
not
find
surprising.

There
were
a
few
cases
of
self­
referrals,
meaning
that
the
respondents
had
someone
else
take
the
survey
instead
of
themselves.
When
this
happened,
it
was
either
a
spouse
or
in
one
case
a
daughter,
but
in
all
cases
from
the
same
household.
This
happened
a
total
of
eight
times
out
of
100
and
was
not
a
significant
problem.

Phase
two
of
the
study
utilized
a
series
of
mall
intercepts
in
Cary,
NC
(
49
interviews),
Charlotte,
NC
(
53
interviews),

Denver,
CO
(
100
interviews),
and
Colorado
Springs,
CO
(
101
interviews).
These
interviews
took
place
from
January
27,
1998
to
February
6,
1998.
The
incentive
provided
to
respondents
was
$
10.

Obtaining
a
sample
of
respondents
with
mall
intercepts
posed
much
fewer
difficulties
than
did
the
phone­
central
location
approach.
Respondents
could
be
recruited
at
the
time
when
they
would
take
the
survey
so
there
was
not
the
problem
of
no­
shows,
etc.
In
the
discussion
below
we
will
compare
detailed
information
concerning
the
demographic
breakdown
of
the
people
at
each
of
locations
as
well
as
for
the
central
location,
showing
that
the
mall
intercepts
proved
to
be
much
more
representative
of
the
local
population
than
did
the
phone­
central
location
approach.
Since
the
central
location
in
the
Phase
1
study
was
closely
related
to
a
population
area
with
an
extremely
high
density
of,
for
example,

Ph.
D.
scientists,
the
high
education
of
the
Phase
1
sample
may
be
representative
of
the
extremely
localized
survey
area.

However,
it
is
not
representative
of
the
entire
county
or
region
more
generally.
Other
researchers
who
have
undertaken
phone­
central
location
surveys
in
North
Carolina
have
had
a
similar
experience
in
attracting
respondents
who
have
what
appear
to
be
above­
average
education
levels.
The
cost
per
completed
interview
was
considerably
less
for
mall
intercepts.
Section
III
describes
the
sample
characteristics
in
detail.

E.
Survey
Changes
Between
Phases
Shifting
from
Phase
1
to
Phase
2
involved
not
only
a
shift
in
survey
methodology
but
also
a
refinement
in
many
of
the
survey
questions.
The
most
important
change
is
that
we
attempted
to
alter
the
format
of
the
first
question
in
each
set
so
that
there
would
be
closer
to
a
50­
50
split
in
terms
of
the
respondents
taking
either
an
increase
or
a
decrease
in,
for
February
2000
102
example,
the
value
of
water
quality.
At
the
Research
Triangle
Park
location,
for
example,
81
percent
of
the
respondents
chose
a
higher
water
quality
given
the
cost
of
living
increase
in
that
area.
After
the
initial
tradeoff
question
was
revised
for
Phase
2
the
percentage
of
respondents
choosing
the
higher
water
quality
level
after
the
first
question
was
59
percent.

We
adopted
a
similar
approach
throughout
the
survey,
altering
the
initial
set
of
choices
used
to
derive
the
tradeoff
in
a
manner
so
that
roughly
half
the
respondents
will
choose
more
of
the
good
and
half
the
respondents
will
choose
less
of
it
given
the
specified
tradeoff
level.

III.
Sample
Characteristics
The
demographic
breakdowns
for
the
full
sample
as
well
as
for
each
component
of
the
sample
appear
in
Exhibit
8.

As
was
indicated
above,
the
Research
Triangle
Park
(
RTP)
sample
tends
to
be
much
more
highly
educated
than
were
the
samples
at
the
various
mall
intercept
locations.
Overall,
the
mall
intercepts
in
particular
appear
to
be
more
successful
in
recruiting
a
more
diverse
population
group.

Some
of
the
demographic
characteristics
vary
in
the
expected
fashion.
There
is
greater
representation
among
black
respondents
for
the
North
Carolina
samples,
and
more
representation
of
Hispanic
respondents
in
Colorado.
The
environmental
membership
and
water
usage
responses
also
indicate
that
this
sample
does
not
include
an
overwhelming
concentration
of
individuals
who
are
active
environmentalists.

Exhibit
9
presents
the
consistent
sample,
which
consists
of
the
people
who
give
a
dominated
response
once
they
hit
such
a
corner
position.
The
characteristics
of
the
consistent
sample
closely
parallel
those
of
the
full
sample
in
Exhibit
8.

We
are
presenting
the
consistent
sample
results
here
in
detail,
however,
because
they
will
be
the
focus
of
the
subsequent
analysis
of
the
responses.
The
findings
for
the
full
sample
are
very
similar.

Exhibit
10
presents
the
census
demographics
that
will
serve
as
the
reference
point
for
each
of
the
areas.
As
can
be
seen,
Cary
and
Raleigh
have
a
much
higher
proportion
of
college­
educated
adults
than
North
Carolina
overall,
as
does
Chapel
Hill
(
not
shown).
In
the
analysis
below,
we
will
use
a
dummy
code
to
take
out
any
effect
of
a
particular
location
that
is
not
accounted
for
by
the
demographic
variables.
February
2000
103
IV.
Cost
of
Living
versus
Water
Quality
Tradeoffs
Summarizing,
the
key
aspects
of
the
methodology
we
are
espousing,
which
will
be
described
in
detail
below
are:

1.
Importance
of
getting
respondents
to
think
about
the
impact
of
the
attributes
on
their
lives
2.
Iterative
paired
choices
3.
Choices
pit
one
attribute
against
another
4.
Attributes
are
balanced
in
the
sense
that
approximately
half
the
respondents
should
choose
either
alternative
in
the
first
iteration
5.
Include
consistency
tasks
and
delete
those
respondents
who
do
not
respond
consistently
The
main
focus
of
the
survey
was
to
obtain
an
estimate
of
an
individual's
tradeoff
between
money
and
improvements
in
water
quality.
Although
later
questions
are
directed
at
nuances
in
this
valuation,
such
as
differences
in
the
valuation
of
water
quality
improvements
that
affect
swimming
as
opposed
to
fishing,
the
first
overall
tradeoff
of
concern­
and
the
one
that
will
drive
any
overall
benefit­
assessment­
will
be
how
respondents
value
water
quality
generally.
The
next
sections
detail
how
this
valuation
is
achieved.

Exhibit
11
presents
the
text
of
a
sample
cost
of
living
survey
question.
The
survey
defines
what
the
term
cost
of
living
is
and
attempts
to
engage
the
respondent
in
thinking
about
the
importance
of
cost
of
living
within
the
context
of
their
overall
household
expenditures.
After
establishing
this
framework,
the
survey
then
confronts
the
respondent
with
a
regional
choice
in
which
there
is
clear
dominance,
as
both
regions
are
otherwise
alike
except
for
a
difference
in
their
cost
of
living.
In
the
case
that
the
respondent
does
choose
the
low
cost
of
living
area,
the
explanation
included
in
Exhibit
11
is
provided,
and
the
dominated
question
is
repeated.
Otherwise,
the
respondent
to
the
section
defining
water
quality.

Exhibit
12
shifts
the
focus
from
defining
what
we
mean
by
cost
of
living
to
defining
water
quality.
This
question
indicates
that
water
quality
may
differ
across
regions
and
that
water
quality
may
either
be
"
Good"
or
"
Not
Good,"

where
the
survey
defines
what
it
means
for
water
quality
to
be
Good
or
Not
Good.
This
section
of
the
survey
also
clarifies
that
drinking
water
is
specifically
excluded
and
defines
what
is
meant
by
the
size
of
the
region
and
the
percent
change
in
water
quality.
The
respondent
then
considers
a
simple
regional
choice
question
where
the
regions
differ
only
February
2000
104
in
terms
of
water
quality.
Once
again,
the
first
choice
is
deliberately
a
dominated
choice,
and
individuals
failing
to
choose
correctly
will
be
given
the
explanation
that
corrects
their
error
and
then
repeats
the
question.
Exhibit
13
shows
the
question
in
which
respondents
now
have
to
trade
off
both
cost
of
living
as
well
as
water
quality.
Within
the
context
of
this
sample
question
there
is
a
clearcut
dominant
choice,
as
Region
2
is
less
expensive
in
terms
of
the
increased
cost
of
living
and
has
a
higher
percentage
of
water
that
is
of
Good
quality.
Individuals
failing
to
recognize
the
dominated
choice
and
answer
the
question
correctly
will
once
again
be
taken
through
the
loop
that
explains
the
error
in
their
answers.
These
dominated
questions
serve
both
to
give
the
respondents
easy
questions
as
they
begin,
and
to
give
extra
training
to
those
who
do
not
understand.

At
the
bottom
of
Exhibit
13
we
present
a
tradeoff
question
that
does
not
involve
a
dominant
choice.
Depending
on
the
respondents
answer
to
the
question,
the
subsequent
tradeoffs
considered
by
the
respondent
will
be
either
higher
or
lower
than
in
the
initial
tradeoff
situation.

Exhibit
14
presents
the
overall
statistics
summarizing
the
water
quality
cost­
of­
living
tradeoffs.
For
all
the
samples
as
a
group,
respondents
were
willing
to
pay
an
additional
$
22.40
per
one
percent
increase
in
the
level
of
water
quality.

These
amounts
ranged
from
a
low
value
of
$
20.10
for
Colorado
Springs
to
a
high
of
$
28.50
for
Charlotte.
The
median
responses
were
much
more
tightly
clustered
and
lower
than
the
values
of
the
means.
With
the
exception
of
Cary
and
Charlotte,
the
median
values
are
ranged
from
$
11.30
to
$
13.60
for
each
one
percentage
point
increase.
The
fact
that
the
mean
values
are
roughly
twice
as
high
as
the
medians
suggests
that
the
distribution
of
the
valuation
of
water
quality
is
skewed
by
some
respondents
having
extremely
high
values
for
water
quality.
At
this
overall
simple
statistic
level,

RTP
does
not
appear
to
be
an
outlier
even
though
the
sample
methodology
used
and
the
structure
of
the
survey
differed
somewhat
for
that
sample
site.

The
structure
of
the
survey
that
was
used
to
generate
these
valuation
statistics
is
indicated
in
the
decision
tree
sketched
in
Exhibit
15.
That
tree
indicates
the
branching
of
the
survey
based
on
the
individuals'
responses
to
each
of
the
cost­

ofliving
tradeoff
questions.
The
three
columns
indicate
the
three
potential
answer
choices.
The
top
row
indicates
the
implicit
tradeoff
value
associated
with
the
answer
choice.
The
bottom
row
indicates
the
percentage
of
the
sample
choosing
the
answer
choice.
Bold
values
indicate
endpoints
of
the
decision
tree.
As
is
indicated,
respondents
who
February
2000
105
persistently
undervalue
or
overvalue
water
quality
based
on
the
choice
offered
continually
confront
more
extreme
choices
until
ultimately
they
face
a
dominated
decision
at
the
tip
of
the
tree.
Respondents
who
pick
the
dominated
choice
are
those
who
are
not
included
in
our
consistent
sample
since
they
do
not
appear
to
be
attending
to
the
survey
task
with
the
desired
level
of
diligence.
Imposing
this
consistency
test
on
the
survey
results
represents
a
more
stringent
rationality
test
than
is
typically
found
in
environmental
valuation
surveys.

The
regression
results
that
analyzed
the
determinants
of
the
valuations
of
cost­
of­
living
and
water
quality
appear
in
Exhibit
16.
The
dependent
variable
is
the
total
dollars
of
cost
of
living
increase
that
the
respondent
is
willing
to
incur
in
return
for
an
increase
in
the
water
quality
level
of
one
percentage
point.
The
first
set
of
regression
results
in
Exhibit
16
includes
RTP
respondents
in
the
sample,
and
the
second
set
of
results
excludes
this
sample
group.
In
each
case,

separate
dummy
variables
are
included
to
reflect
the
particular
survey
location.
The
only
such
variable
of
consequence
is
that
for
RTP,
which
may
reflect
both
the
differences
in
the
character
of
the
sample
as
well
as
differences
in
the
structure
of
the
survey.
Controlling
for
other
factors,
RTP
respondents
are
willing
to
spend
roughly
$
7
less
per
unit
change
in
water
quality
than
the
other
survey
locations.

A
noteworthy
aspect
of
the
results
is
that
there
is
not
strong
variation
in
the
responses
based
on
region.
However,
the
omitted
category
Colorado
Springs,
does
not
differ
significantly
in
terms
of
the
level
of
the
response
from
any
of
the
other
cities.
As
indicated
above,
the
only
significant
difference
is
that
reflected
by
RTP.
From
the
standpoint
of
subsequent
survey
design,
this
finding
suggests
that
there
may
not
be
stark
differences
across
regions
in
the
valuation
of
water
quality
other
than
those
that
are
reflected
in
the
demographic
variables
included
in
the
equation.
If
this
lack
of
variation
occurs
more
generally,
then
it
implies
that
there
need
not
be
as
many
regional
sites
for
the
subsequent
national
survey
as
would
be
required
if
water
quality
valuations
differed
starkly
from
region
to
region.

Of
the
other
variables
in
the
equation,
several
are
consequential,
with
the
effects
tending
to
be
fairly
consistent
across
the
two
different
sets
of
results
in
Exhibit
16.
For
concreteness,
let
us
focus
on
the
findings
in
the
sample
excluding
the
RTP
respondents.
Overall,
the
non­
white,
non­
black
minorities
tend
to
have
slightly
lower
valuations
than
did
the
other
groups.
Age
is
consequential,
as
the
valuation
of
water
quality
rises
with
age
but
then
declines
with
the
square
of
age.
This
non­
linearity
implies
that
water
quality
valuation
is
strongly
related
to
the
respondent's
age,
which
is
an
February
2000
106
effect
that
will
carry
over
to
many
of
the
other
findings
below.

The
variables
intended
to
capture
the
environmental
orientation
of
the
respondent
were
not
particularly
influential.

An
important
variable
that
had
a
consistent
impact
on
water
valuation
and
was
consistently
significant
was
whether
the
respondent
had
visited
a
lake
or
river
in
the
last
twelve
months.
Respondents
who
met
this
test
valued
improvements
in
water
quality
at
roughly
$
8
more
per
unit
increase
in
the
water
quality
level.

Analyzing
the
determinants
of
water
quality
valuation
in
terms
of
a
value
per
unit
of
water
quality
may
not
be
fully
reflective
of
the
character
of
individual
preferences
if
these
valuations
differ
depending
on
the
level
of
water
quality.

If,
for
example,
water
quality
has
a
higher
value
when
it
is
very
bad
then
do
improvements
in
water
quality
when
the
value
of
water
quality
is
quite
high,
then
we
would
want
to
recognize
this
non­
linearity
when
establishing
benefit
values.
The
survey
can
potentially
incorporate
such
non­
linearities
into
the
analysis,
though
doing
so
would
ultimately
complicate
any
benefit
assessment
figures.
As
a
result,
it
is
important
to
test
whether
there
are
any
statistically
significant
non­
linearities
in
the
value
of
water
quality
depending
on
the
initial
water
quality
level.

Exhibit
17
provides
two
panels
of
information
pertaining
to
these
non­
linearity
tests.
Panel
A
presents
overall
mean
statistics
based
on
three
different
initial
water
quality
levels.
Respondents
who
considered
low
water
quality
levels
were
confronted
with
choices
in
which
the
initial
levels
of
Good
water
quality
ranged
from
25
to
40
percent.
A
second
group
of
respondents
considered
middle
water
quality
levels
ranging
from
50
to
65
percent
,
and
a
final
group
saw
water
quality
levels
from
75
to
90
percent.
The
mean
valuation
per
unit
of
water
quality
ranges
from
$
20
to
$
25
across
these
categories,
but
the
there
is
no
clearcut
pattern.
For
example,
water
quality
valuation
is
not
a
steadily
increasing
function
of
the
level
of
the
initial
water
quality.

To
test
for
such
a
possibility
more
explicitly,
Panel
B
of
Exhibit
17
includes
a
regression
analysis
in
which
the
lower
bound
of
the
water
quality
level
considered
by
a
respondent
is
presented
as
a
variable
with
a
value
of
25,
50,
or
75.

Once
again,
there
is
no
evidence
of
any
statistically
significant
non­
linearity
in
the
water
quality
valuation.
Whether
the
starting
point,
in
terms
of
the
water
quality
level
is
low,
medium,
or
high
does
not
seem
to
be
consequential
in
terms
of
how
it
affects
the
overall
valuation
amount.
This
linearity
is
an
advantage
because
it
suggests
that
water
February
2000
107
quality
can
be
evaluated
by
only
testing
one
initial
level.
We
caution
against
generalizing
about
this
promising
finding
until
it
is
replicated
in
a
larger
study.

Testing
for
such
a
starting
point
bias
is
not
the
norm
in
contingent
valuation
studies,
though
it
is
a
desirable
practice.

If
there
had
been
significant
variation,
it
would
not
necessarily
be
an
indication
of
a
flawed
survey
instrument,
but
it
would
indicate
that
attempts
to
use
the
results
of
the
study
for
policy
purposes
would
need
to
recognize
the
initial
water
quality
level
of
the
policy
region
in
question
before
assigning
benefit
values.

V.
Referendum
Version
of
the
Cost
of
Living­
Water
Quality
Tradeoff
The
last
section
of
this
survey,
before
eliciting
the
demographic
information,
included
a
referendum
version
of
the
cost
of
living­
water
quality
tradeoff.
The
referendum
question
was
asked
only
following
around
five
minutes
of
questions
that
elaborated
on
the
value
of
components
of
water
quality.
The
purpose
of
separating
the
referendum
from
the
paired
comparison
regional
choice
was
to
decrease
the
chance
that
respondents
would
attempt
to
simply
mimic
their
answers
to
their
earlier
questions
when
answering
the
referendum
version.

Exhibit
18
presents
the
initial
referendum
policy
choice.
In
the
referendum
question
,
the
respondent
first
moves
to
another
region
and
is
informed
of
the
region's
level
of
water
quality.
The
respondent
must
then
face
a
choice
of
whether
a
government
policy
will
increase
the
quality
of
water
by
a
certain
amount,
where
this
policy
improvement
would
be
paid
for
by
additional
taxes.
The
respondent
then
indicates
whether
he
or
she
is
in
favor
of
this
water
quality
improvement
policy.
If
the
answer
is
"
Yes
(
No)"
then
the
respondent
considers
subsequent
pairwise
comparisons
that
increase
(
decrease)
the
relative
dollar
value
of
water
quality
improvement.

The
results
of
the
referendum
approach
in
many
respects
are
quite
similar
to
those
found
with
the
pairwise
regional
choice
questions.
Exhibit
19
summarizes
the
mean
and
median
responses
for
each
of
the
sample
groups.
The
mean
referendum
response
has
a
low
value
of
$
13
per
unit
increase
in
water
quality
for
the
RTP
site,
but
otherwise
is
closely
clustered
in
the
$
20.50
per
unit
to
$
27
per
unit
range.
For
the
median
responses,
the
RTP
group
once
again
tends
to
be
an
outlier,
though
to
less
of
an
extent
than
for
the
mean
responses.
As
in
the
earlier
results,
the
distribution
of
the
valuation
of
water
quality
is
skewed,
with
some
respondents
having
particularly
high
values
for
water
quality,
leading
February
2000
108
the
mean
value
to
exceed
the
median
in
every
case.
In
some
instances,
however,
the
mean
and
median
valuations
are
relatively
close
so
that
there
is
less
of
a
disparity
in
the
mean
and
median
responses
for
the
referendum
version
of
the
question
than
there
was
for
the
regional
choice
pairwise
comparison.

Exhibit
20
reports
the
regression
analysis
using
as
the
dependent
variable
water
quality
valuation
based
on
the
referendum
questions.
Results
appear
for
both
the
sample
including
all
survey
locations
as
well
as
for
the
sample
excluding
RTP.
These
results
only
pertain
to
the
sample
of
consistent
respondents
so
that
the
findings
in
Exhibit
20
closely
parallel
in
terms
of
their
substantive
content
the
results
in
Exhibit
16.
Once
again,
the
non­
white,
non­
black
minority
members
of
the
sample
tend
to
have
a
lower
value
for
water
quality.
Although
the
age
variable
is
not
significant,
the
squared
valued
of
age
is,
indicating
that
the
value
of
water
quality
tends
to
diminish
with
age.
Unlike
the
cost­
of­
living
tradeoff
questions,
there
is
no
significant
effect
of
visiting
a
lake
or
river
on
the
referendum
response.

While
the
respondents'
answers
to
the
cost
of
living
and
referendum
questions
were
not
identical,
they
were
nevertheless
related.
Exhibit
21
presents
different
quartiles
for
the
cost
of
living­
water
quality
tradeoff
valuation.
For
each
tradeoff
information
is
included
with
respect
to
the
mean
level
of
the
valuation
implied
by
the
referendum
question.
As
is
indicated,
this
value
is
a
steadily
increasing
function
of
the
pairwise
regional
choice
valuation
response.

The
referendum
value
for
the
lowest
cost­
of
living
regional
choice
quartile
was
$
12.89
per
unit
increase
in
water
quality,
and
this
amount
increases
to
a
high
of
$
26.73
for
the
fourth
quartile.

VI.
Other
Choice
Dimensions
The
survey
distinguished
not
only
the
valuation
of
overall
water
quality,
but
also
sought
to
assess
how
these
valuations
depended
on
the
particular
water
body
whose
quality
was
affected
as
well
as
the
character
of
the
change.
The
four
different
aspects
of
water
and
its
quality
that
were
analyzed
were
the
following:
lakes
versus
rivers,
cloudy
versus
not
cloudy,
smelly
versus
not
smelly,
and
toxic
pollutants
versus
agricultural
wastes.
These
dimensions
of
choice
should
be
distinguished
from
water
quality
uses,
e.
g.,
swimming,
which
are
separate
dimensions
of
water
quality
that
will
be
discussed
below.
February
2000
109
Exhibit
22
presents
the
survey
text
for
the
comparison
between
lakes
and
rivers.
Subjects
first
considered
general
questions
to
engage
them
in
thinking
about
the
water
quality
for
lakes
and
rivers.
They
then
considered
a
sample
question
dealing
with
lake
and
river
quality
in
which
one
region
was
dominant.
After
completing
this
dominance
question,
they
then
considered
a
series
of
actual
choices
between
regions,
where
the
regions
differed
in
their
relative
quality
of
lakes
and
rivers.
For
example,
for
the
case
in
Exhibit
22
Region
2
has
a
higher
percentage
of
river
miles
with
Good
water
quality,
whereas
Region
1
has
a
higher
percentage
of
lake
acres
with
Good
water
quality.

Exhibit
23
summarizes
the
aesthetic
properties
of
the
water
that
will
be
explored,
notably
whether
the
water
is
smelly
or
cloudy.
The
questions
ask
the
respondent
how
important
these
dimension
are
and
then
poses
the
kind
of
tradeoff
that
will
be
explored
in
further
detail
throughout
the
analysis
of
aesthetic
water
quality
attributes.
In
particular,
how
much
of
a
tradeoff
are
people
willing
to
make
between
the
percent
of
Good
water
quality
which
is
smelly
and
the
percent
of
Good
water
quality
without
smell.
Respondents
similarly
will
consider
tradeoffs
involving
whether
the
water
is
cloudy,
where
once
again
whether
the
water
is
cloudy
or
smelly
does
not
affect
the
water
quality
rating,
only
the
aesthetic
characteristics
of
the
water.

To
assess
whether
the
source
of
the
pollution
is
consequential
in
affecting
individuals'
valuations,
a
series
of
questions
explored
whether
respondents
valued
pollution
stemming
from
agricultural
waste
differently
from
pollution
from
industrial
toxic
wastes.
Exhibit
24
describes
the
different
sources
of
pollution
and
presents
the
initial
tradeoff
question.

The
overall
EPA
rating
of
water
quality
begins
as
the
same
irrespective
of
the
source
of
the
pollution.
The
task
for
the
respondent
is
whether
pollution
arising
from
toxic
chemicals
that
gives
rise
to
the
same
percent
of
water
with
Good
quality
is
as
valuable
as
to
clean
up
as
pollution
arising
from
agricultural
wastes
from
farms.
Once
again,
respondents
faced
a
series
of
tradeoffs
designed
to
ascertain
their
point
of
indifference
between
the
two
types
of
pollution.

The
tradeoff
results
for
the
different
aspects
of
water
quality
indicate
that
the
various
dimensions
of
choice
regarding
water
quality
improvements
are
often
influential
in
determining
the
overall
benefit
value.
Exhibit
25
presents
the
overall
valuation
of
lake
water
quality
relative
to
river
water
quality.
Although
the
median
respondent
viewed
water
quality
improvements
in
lakes
and
rivers
as
being
equivalent,
the
mean
valuation
was
that
lake
water
quality
was
February
2000
110
roughly
twice
as
valuable
as
improvements
in
river
water
quality.
These
mean
responses
range
from
a
low
value
of
1.7
in
Cary,
NC
to
a
high
of
2.41
in
Colorado
Springs,
CO.

The
character
of
the
water
in
terms
of
its
aesthetic
characteristics
are
also
influential.
For
the
full
sample
as
is
shown
in
Exhibit
26,
respondents
are
indifferent
to
a
1.0
percent
increase
in
the
percentage
of
water
with
Good
quality
that
is
not
smelly
and
a
3.6
percent
improvement
in
water
quality
that
is
smelly.
Similarly,
respondents
shown
in
Exhibit
27
believe
that
a
1.0
percent
increase
in
the
percentage
of
water
with
Good
quality
that
is
not
cloudy
is
equivalent
to
a
2.79
percent
improvement
in
water
quality
that
is
cloudy.
The
source
of
the
pollution
is
particularly
influential,
as
it
is
shown
in
Exhibit
28.
At
the
initial
water
quality
levels
faced
by
respondents,
individuals
in
the
sample
are
willing
to
have
a
water
quality
level
that
is
17
percent
lower
if
the
pollution
is
caused
by
agricultural
wastes
rather
than
by
industrial
toxic
wastes.

Although
there
is
no
strong
theoretical
basis
for
believing
that
any
particular
demographic
factors
should
be
influential
in
affecting
these
preferences
for
water
quality
dimensions,
some
systematic
effects
are
observed.
As
is
indicated
in
the
regression
results
in
Exhibit
29
for
lake
water
quality
versus
river
water
quality,
women
and
non­
white,
non­
black
minority
respondents
value
lakes
more
highly,
as
do
the
very
old
respondents
and
the
more
affluent
respondents.
The
analysis
of
smelly
water
quality
in
Exhibit
30
similarly
indicates
that
the
female
and
non­
white,
non­
black
minority
respondents
value
smelly
water
quality
more
highly.
It
is
noteworthy
that
members
of
environmental
organizations
are
significantly
less
concerned
about
smelly
water
quality
than
good
water
quality
overall.
This
result
is
consistent
with
their
more
fundamental
concern
with
the
overall
quality
of
the
environment
rather
than
more
superficial
aesthetic
properties.
In
the
case
of
the
cloudy
water
analysis
in
Exhibit
31,
however,
the
environmental
organization
membership
effect
falls
just
short
of
statistical
significance.
The
main
influences
are
that
the
two
categories
of
minority
respondents
value
reductions
in
the
cloudiness
of
water
more
highly
than
improvements
in
water
quality
overall,
which
may
indicate
a
distrust
of
scientific
assessments
of
the
water
quality
levels,
compared
with
that
which
they
can
see.

The
analysis
of
the
greater
concern
for
producers
of
industrial
toxic
wastes
is
shown
in
Exhibit
32.
Concern
for
industrial
toxic
wastes
more
likely
to
be
held
by
black
respondents
and
more
likely
to
be
held
by
those
who
have
visited
lakes
or
rivers
in
the
last
twelve
months
(
regression
analyses
for
the
sample
excluding
RTP).
February
2000
111
VII.
Non­
Use
Benefit
Values
The
benefits
that
individuals
derive
from
improvements
in
water
quality
stem
from
the
fact
that
water
quality
affects
how
they
might
use
the
water,
for
example,
for
recreational
purposes
such
as
fishing.
There
may
also
be
a
benefit
that
people
derive
from
improvements
in
water
quality
even
if
they
will
not
use
the
water.
Non­
use
benefit
values
have
been
among
the
most
controversial
topics
in
the
literature
on
contingent
valuation.
One
of
the
fundamental
difficulties
in
ascertaining
the
non­
use
benefit
value
is
developing
a
survey
structure
that
does
in
fact
isolate
true
non­
use,
as
opposed
to
some
probabilistic
possibility
of
use
or
option
value
that
the
resource
might
have.
Our
survey
approach
in
which
individuals
move
from
a
region
where
water
quality
is
improved
or
some
other
hypothetical
regions
where
they
do
not
live
might
experience
a
water
quality
improvement
potentially
overcomes
many
of
the
traditional
shortcomings
in
the
way
in
which
this
issue
has
been
approached.
Nevertheless,
we
regard
this
examination
of
non­
use
benefits
as
very
much
exploratory
in
nature
given
the
difficulty
of
capturing
this
benefit
component.

Exhibit
33
presents
a
policy
choice
question
in
which
individuals
can
improve
water
quality
in
their
region
or
a
region
of
the
same
size,
but
which
they
will
never
visit.
The
tradeoff
question
is
consequently
posed
in
terms
of
what
water
quality
improvement
in
their
current
region
is
equivalent
to
a
water
quality
improvement
in
this
region
they
will
not
visit.
Subsequent
questions
alter
the
choice
by
permitting
the
potential
for
probabilistic
use.
In
the
version
of
the
survey
question
appearing
in
this
exhibit,
the
respondent
will
be
making
one
out
of
every
ten
trips
that
might
be
taken
to
a
lake
or
river
using
this
water
in
the
other
region.
Exhibit
34
shows
a
question
that
half
respondents
saw
that
suggests
the
respondent
will
use
this
other
region
for
one
out
of
three
visits.

Exhibit
35
summarizes
the
valuation
results.
In
the
situations
in
which
there
is
either
no
chance
of
visiting
the
other
region
or
a
small
probability,
such
as
10
percent,
respondents
need
a
0.51
percent
improvement
in
the
water
quality
in
their
own
region
to
be
equivalent
to
a
1.0
percent
improvement
in
the
water
quality
in
the
other
region.
However,

if
the
probability
rises
to
a
33
percent
chance
of
using
the
other
region,
then
improvements
in
the
water
quality
in
the
other
region
rise
to
59
percent
as
valuable
as
improvements
in
their
home
region.
Indeed,
even
in
the
extreme
case
February
2000
112
in
which
there
is
no
prospect
of
use
of
the
water
in
the
other
region,
subjects
are
willing
to
sacrifice
substantial
improvements
in
the
water
quality
in
their
home
region
to
make
the
environment
better
elsewhere.

Exhibit
36
presents
regression
results
for
non­
use
benefits
when
there
is
no
chance
for
visiting
the
other
region.
In
all
cases
the
demographic
factors
were
not
particularly
influential,
with
the
exception
of
household
income.
The
more
affluent
respondents
are
more
willing
to
support
water
quality
in
another
region
as
compared
to
improvements
in
water
quality
for
their
home
region.

VIII.
Uses­
Dimensions
of
Water
Quality
The
final
aspect
of
the
study
is
an
exploration
of
the
valuation
of
the
different
uses
of
the
water
quality­
swimming,

aquatic
uses,
and
fishing.
In
this
case
the
task
was
to
establish
relative
values
for
each
of
these
uses.
For
example,
do
respondents
value
improvements
in
the
water
quality
index
for
fishing
more
highly
than
improvements
in
aquatic
water
quality
measures?

Exhibit
37
summarizes
the
different
uses
of
water
and
their
characteristics.
In
it
the
survey
text
informs
the
respondent
of
what
we
mean
by
these
different
categories.
For
example,
water
that
is
good
for
fishing
is
rated
Good
"
if
fish
caught
in
the
lake
or
river
are
safe
to
eat,"
whereas
a
Good
aquatic
environment
implies
that
"
the
lake
or
river
supports
many
plants,
fish,
and
other
aquatic
life."
The
survey
then
introduces
how
each
of
these
components
of
water
quality
is
rated,

which
is
in
terms
of
its
percent
Good
in
the
region.
Since
the
respondents
have
already
dealt
with
percent
Good
ratings
in
detail
by
the
time
they
consider
these
tradeoffs,
they
should
be
better
able
to
handle
the
additional
dimensions
of
choice.
The
structure
of
the
survey
considers
a
sequence
of
pairwise
comparisons
in
which
respondents
trade
off
swimming
versus
aquatic
water
quality
improvements,
swimming
versus
fishing
water
quality
improvements,
and
aquatic
versus
fishing.
Because
of
the
nature
in
which
the
series
of
pairwise
comparisons
are
chained,
it
is
possible
to
determine
whether
respondents
display
the
appropriate
transitivity
with
respect
to
their
water
quality
valuation
responses.
Overall,
only
46
of
the
348
respondents­
or
13.2
percent­
displayed
inconsistent
responses
to
the
different
sets
of
pairwise
comparison
valuations.
If
the
subjects
had
been
answering
the
survey
randomly,
one
would
have
expected
52
percent
of
the
respondents
to
be
inconsistent
for
the
three
uses
in
some
way.
February
2000
113
To
convey
the
implications
of
the
relative
valuations
of
water
quality,
a
useful
index
is
the
percent
of
overall
water
quality
improvement
that
should
be
allocated
to
each
of
the
three
dimensions.
These
statistics
clearly
indicate
the
relative
quantitative
importance
of
the
water
quality
uses.
As
is
shown
in
Exhibit
39,
swimmable
water
quality
accounts
for
35
percent
of
the
overall
benefit
value,
aquatic
water
quality
is
the
second
most
highly
valued
at
31.8
percent,
and
fishable
water
quality
has
the
lowest
valuation­
28.4
percent
of
water
quality.

In
terms
of
the
demographic
factors
affecting
these
valuations,
Exhibit
13
reporting
of
the
regression
results
indicates
that
swimmable
water
quality
is
less
highly
valued
by
environmental
group
members
and
by
people
who
have
visited
lakes
and
rivers
in
the
last
twelve
months.
However,
large
households
tend
to
value
swimming
more
highly,
as
one
would
expect
for
families
with
children.
The
aquatic
and
the
fishable
water
quality
valuations
were
not
strongly
influenced
by
any
of
the
demographic
characteristics.

REFERENCES
Mitchell,
Robert
Cameron,
and
Richard
T.
Carson,
Using
Surveys
to
Value
Public
Goods:
The
Contingent
Valuation
Method,
Washington:
Resources
for
the
Future,
1989.

Mitchell,
Robert
Cameron,
and
Richard
T.
Carson
(
1993).
"
The
Value
of
Clean
Water:
The
Public's
Willingness
to
Pay
for
Boatable,
Fishable,
and
Swimmable
Quality
Water,"
Water
Resources
Research,
29(
7),
2445­
2454.

Smith,
V.
Cary,
and
William
H.
Desvousges,
Measuring
Water
Quality
Benefits,
Boston:
Kluwer
Academic
Publishers,
1986.
February
2000
114
Attachment
4:
Pilot
Study
Report
Exhibits
February
2000
115
Exhibit
1:
The
Water
Quality
Ladder
Best
PossibleWater
Quality
10
Drinkable
Water
is
Suitable
for
Drinking
7
Swimmable
Water
is
Suitable
for
Swimming
5
Fishable
Water
is
Suitable
for
Fishing
2
Boatable
Water
is
Suitable
for
Boating
0
Water
is
Not
Suitable
for
Any
Use
Worst
Possible
Water
Quality
February
2000
116
Exhibit
2:
Water
Quality
Ratings
Pertinent
to
the
Water
Quality
Ladder
Water
Quality
Ladder
Feature
National
Value
for
Lakes
National
Value
for
Rivers
Drinkable
85%
69%

Swimmable
79%
73%

Fishable
82%
95%

Boatable
86%
87%
February
2000
117
Exhibit
3:
Water
Quality
Inventory
State
Page
Individual
Use
Support
in
California
Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Poor
Designated
Use
Fully
Threatened
Partially
Not
Not
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Attainable
Rivers
and
Streams
(
Total
Miles
=
211,513)
Miles
Assessed
12,567
30
2
66
2
0
Aquatic
Environment
4,253
63
6
27
4
0
Edible
Fish
5,449
52
5
41
2
0
Swimming
Lakes
(
Total
Acres
=
1,672,684)
February
2000
118
Acres
Assessed
489,982
31
0
68
0
0
Aquatic
Environment
239,194
38
0
62
0
0
Edible
Fish
328,517
35
0
65
0
0
Swimming
February
2000
119
Exhibit
4:
Representative
Cost
of
Living
Water
Quality
Tradeoff
Task
The
basic
measure
we
use
for
the
value
of
water
quality
is
$
per
1%
improvement
in
water
quality.
This
is
calculated
by
offering
subjects
two
choices
which
differ
in
the
level
of
water
quality
and
cost
of
living.

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Increase
in
$
100
$
250
Annual
Cost
More
More
Of
Living
Expensive
Expensive
Percent
of
Lake
50%
65%
Acres
and
River
Miles
With
Good
Water
Quality
February
2000
120
Exhibit
5:
Map
of
North
Carolina
February
2000
121
Exhibit
6:
Map
of
Colorado
February
2000
122
February
2000
123
February
2000
124
Exhibit
7:
Study
Decision
Tree
1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Increase
in
$
100
$
250
Annual
Cost
More
More
Of
Living
Expensive
Expensive
Percent
of
Lake
50%
65%

Acres
and
River
Miles
With
Good
Water
Quality
If
Region
1
If
Region
2
$
150
$
250
$
100
$
250
50%
65%
50%
60%

If
Region
1
If
Region
2
If
Region
1
If
Region
2
$
200
$
250
$
125
$
250
$
100
$
250
$
100
$
250
50%
65%
50%
65%
50%
62%
50%
55%

If
Region
1
If
Region
2
$
225
$
250
$
100
$
250
50%
65%
50%
50%

If
Region
1
$
250
$
250
50%
65%
February
2000
125
Exhibit
9:
Sample
Characteristics,
The
Full
Sample
Colorado
Springs
Denver
Cary
Charlotte
RTP
N=
101
N=
100
N=
49
N=
53
N=
106
Mean
(
Std
Dev)
Mean
(
Std
Dev)
Mean
(
Std
Dev)
Mean
(
Std
Dev)
Mean
(
Std
Dev)

Race:
White
68.3
61
65.3
79.2
73.6
Race:
Black
8.9
22
18.4
13.2
11.3
Race:
Nonwhite,
Nonblack
22.8
17
16.3
7.5
15.1
High
School
Diploma
93.1
84
98
92.5
98.2
College
Diploma
26.7
23
42.9
33.9
75.5
Employed
71.3
76
73.5
90.6
71.7
Employed
Full
time
57.4
62
61.2
79.2
54.7
Retired
11.9
14
6.1
5.7
16
Full
time
Student
6.9
2
12.2
3.8
9.4
Full
time
Homemaker
17.8
18
14.3
7.5
14.2
Live
in
Urban
Area
74.3
57
48
64.2
36.8
Live
in
Suburban
Area
16.8
39
34
22.6
58.5
Live
in
Rural
Area
8.9
4
16
13.2
4.7
M
e
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
n
Environmental
Organization
5
8
6.1
9.4
17.9
Live
in
State
of
Study
Site
98
99
95.9
94.3
100
Gender,
Female
39.6
49
71.4
52.8
52.8
Married
41.6
37
32
50.9
63.2
Age
34.15
13.46
36.91
14.18
30.91
10.79
37.78
14.36
43.06
13.59
Years
of
Education
13.94
2.26
13.5
2.1
14.8
1.9
14
2.2
16.24
2.1
Household
Family
Income
28,620
23,110
32,194
24,926
42,955
29,136
35,700
24,908
54,475
27,509
February
2000
126
Time
to
Complete
Study,
in
Minutes
28.3
9.79
22.82
10.57
24.03
7.69
26.06
13.42
32.58
11.01
Number
of
Family
Members
in
Household
2.51
1.47
2.66
1.48
2.38
1.32
2.58
1.28
2.54
1.24
February
2000
127
Exhibit
10:
Sample
Characteristics,
The
Consistent
Sample
Colorado
Springs
Denver
Cary
Charlotte
RTP
N=
74
N=
80
N=
44
N=
44
N=
106
Mean
(
Std
Dev)
Mean
(
Std
Dev)
Mean
(
Std
Dev)
Mean
(
Std
Dev)
Mean
(
Std
Dev)

Race:
White
68.9
63.8
65.9
81.8
73.6
Race:
Black
6.8
18.8
15.9
11.4
11.3
Race:
Nonwhite,
Nonblack
24.3
17.5
18.2
6.8
15.1
High
School
Diploma
93.2
88.7
97.7
97.7
98.2
College
Diploma
23
27.6
40.9
38.6
75.5
Employed
68.9
73.8
72.7
93.2
71.7
Employed
Full
time
58.1
62.5
61.4
79.5
54.7
Retired
9.5
13.8
4.5
4.5
16
Full
time
Student
4.1
2.5
13.6
2.3
9.4
Full
time
Homemaker
18.9
20
13.6
6.8
14.2
Live
in
Urban
Area
75.7
58.8
50
65.9
36.8
Live
in
Suburban
Area
13.5
36.3
38.6
25
58.5
Live
in
Rural
Area
10.8
5
11.4
9.1
4.7
M
e
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
n
Environmental
Organization
4.1
10
6.8
11.4
17.9
Live
in
State
of
Study
Site
98.6
100
97.7
95.5
100
Gender,
Female
36.5
55
72.7
54.5
52.8
Married
44.6
36.3
27.3
52.3
63.2
Age
33.31
13.28
36.99
14.32
30.41
10.42
37.86
15.24
43.06
13.59
Years
of
Education
13.88
2.12
13.74
2.11
14.7
1.82
14.34
2.16
16.24
2.1
Household
Family
Income
28,204
21,104
34,810
25,791
40,385
28,380
38,110
25,136
54,475
27,509
February
2000
128
Time
to
Complete
Study,
in
Minutes
28.2
10.12
23.25
10.1
23.97
7.59
25.17
13.83
32.58
11.01
Number
of
Family
Members
in
Household
2.55
1.42
2.66
1.53
2.34
1.33
2.59
1.23
2.55
1.24
February
2000
129
Exhibit
11:
Census
Demographics
USA
Colorado
North
Carolina
Colorado
Springs
Denver
Cary
Charlotte
Raleigh
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Race,
White
80.29
88.19
75.56
85.9
72.11
89.78
65.51
69.18
Race,
Black
12.06
4.04
21.97
7.02
12.84
5.51
31.78
27.58
Race,
Nonwhite,
Nonblack
7.65
7.77
2.47
7.08
15.05
4.71
2.61
3.24
High
School
Diploma
75.2
84.4
70
87.8
79.2
94.9
81
86.6
College
Diploma
20.3
27
17.4
27.5
29
48.8
28.4
40.6
Unemployment
Rate
6.7
5
5.8
5.9
5.4
2.4
5
4.1
Gender,
Female
51.3
50.5
51.5
51
51.3
50.6
52.5
51.5
Age
(
Median)
31.1
33.9
31.2
32.1
30.3
Income
(
Median)
30,056
30,140
26,647
28,928
25,106
46,259
31,873
32,451
Family
Size
2.63
2.51
2.54
2.49
2.17
2.59
2.45
2.26
February
2000
130
Exhibit
12:
Cost
of
Living
Task
Text
===========================================================================
Cost
of
Living
For
purposes
of
this
survey,
the
cost
of
living
is
defined
as
the
amount
of
money
that
your
family
spends
each
year
for
things
like
food,
clothing,
and
rent
or
mortgage.

When
we
say
that
a
region
has
a
higher
cost
of
living,
we
mean
that
each
year
you
would
have
to
spend
more
for
these
items
overall.
===========================================================================
How
concerned
would
you
be
if
your
family's
cost
of
living
suddenly
went
up
$
200
per
year?
(
This
would
mean
that
items
like
food,
clothing,
and
rent
or
mortgage
would
cost
a
total
of
$
200
more
each
year
than
they
do
now.)
This
might
mean
an
increase
of
$
2
per
week
for
food
(
or
$
104
per
year)
and
$
8
per
month
more
for
housing
(
or
another
$
96
per
year).

1.
Not
at
all
concerned
2.
A
little
concerned
3.
Somewhat
concerned
4.
Very
concerned
===========================================================================
Try
answering
this
sample
question
to
make
sure
we
explained
Cost
of
Living
clearly.

Imagine
that
you
must
move
to
another
region
of
the
country.
You
have
narrowed
your
choices
down
to
two.
Both
regions
have
a
higher
cost
of
living
than
where
you
live
now,
but
are
alike
in
all
other
ways.

Which
region
would
you
prefer?
1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Increase
$
100
$
250
In
Annual
More
More
Cost
of
Living
Expensive
Expensive
===========================================================================
The
question
was
not
clear.

You
chose
to
move
to
the
region
with
a
higher
cost
of
living.
You
could
have
chosen
a
region
with
a
lower
cost
of
living
that
is
alike
in
all
other
ways.

To
change
your
answer,
press
any
key
and
we
will
ask
the
question
again.

Otherwise,
please
tell
the
interviewer
you
do
not
want
to
change
your
answer.
===========================================================================
You
indicated
that
you
have
no
preference
between
two
regions
whose
only
difference
is
that
it
is
more
expensive
to
live
in
one
of
them.

Are
you
sure
that
you
don't
care
whether
you
would
move
to
a
region
where
it
is
more
expensive
to
live?
After
all,
you
could
move
to
a
region
with
a
lower
cost
of
living
that
is
alike
in
all
other
ways.

1.
Yes,
I'm
sure
that
I
have
no
preference.
2.
No,
I'm
not
sure.
Ask
the
cost
of
living
question
again.
===========================================================================
February
2000
131
The
Region
you
chose,
Region
1,
has
a
lower
annual
cost
of
living
than
Region
2.
February
2000
132
Exhibit
13:
Water
Quality
Task
Text
===========================================================================
Water
Quality
Some
questions
will
ask
you
to
choose
between
regions
that
differ
in
terms
of
the
quality
of
the
water
in
either
lakes
or
rivers
in
the
regions.
The
government
rates
water
quality
as
either
*
Good
or
*
Not
Good.
Water
quality
is
Good
if
the
water
in
a
lake
or
river
is
safe
for
all
uses.
Water
quality
is
Not
Good
if
a
lake
or
river
is
polluted
or
unsafe
to
use.
===========================================================================
More
specifically,
Water
quality
is
Good
if
the
lake
or
river
*
Is
a
safe
place
to
swim,
*
Has
fish
that
are
safe
to
eat,
and
*
Supports
many
plants,
fish,
and
other
aquatic
life.

Water
quality
is
Not
Good
if
the
lake
or
river
*
Is
an
unsafe
place
to
swim
due
to
pollution,
*
Has
fish
that
are
unsafe
to
eat,
and
*
Supports
only
a
small
number
of
plants,
fish
and
other
aquatic
life.
===========================================================================
This
survey
will
not
ask
you
about
drinking
water.

Drinking
water
is
treated
by
water
treatment
plants
to
ensure
safety.

Water
treatment
cannot
be
done
for
the
dimensions
described
on
the
previous
screen,
since
these
dimensions
involve
visiting
a
lake
or
river
instead
of
treating
a
limited
amount
of
water
taken
from
the
lake
or
river.
===========================================================================
We
will
talk
about
water
quality
for
more
than
one
lake
or
river.

The
questions
will
include
all
the
lakes
or
rivers
in
the
region.
This
means
all
lakes
and
rivers
within
a
2­
hour
drive
or
so
of
your
home,
in
other
words,
within
125
miles.
===========================================================================
We
define
the
quality
of
the
water
in
the
lakes
and
rivers
of
a
region
by
the
percent
of
the
total
acres
of
lakes
or
miles
of
rivers
in
the
region
which
have
good
water
quality.

For
example,
let's
say
a
region
has
several
rivers,
running
a
total
of
100
miles
in
the
region.

If
pollution
causes
50
of
those
miles
to
have
water
quality
that
is
not
good,
leaving
50
miles
with
good
water
quality,
then
we
would
call
the
water
quality
for
rivers
in
that
region
50%
good.
===========================================================================
Try
this
sample
question
about
water
quality.
Imagine
again
that
you
must
move
to
another
region
of
the
country.
You
have
narrowed
your
choices
down
to
two
regions.
They
differ
in
only
one
way,
the
quality
of
the
water
in
the
regions.
They
even
have
the
same
number
of
acres
of
lakes
and
miles
of
rivers
within
2
hours
or
so
of
where
you
would
live.
Which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
February
2000
133
Percent
of
Lake
Acres
and
River
Miles
With
Good
Water
50%
65%
Quality
===========================================================================
The
question
was
not
clear.

You
chose
to
move
to
the
region
with
worse
water
quality.

You
could
have
chosen
a
region
with
better
water
quality
that
is
alike
in
all
other
ways.

To
change
your
answer,
press
any
key
and
we
will
ask
the
question
again.

Otherwise,
please
tell
the
interviewer
you
do
not
want
to
change
your
answer.
===========================================================================
The
Region
you
chose,
Region
2,
has
better
water
quality
than
Region
1.

Next
will
be
a
sample
question
that
combines
water
quality
and
cost
of
living.
===========================================================================
You
indicated
that
you
have
no
preference
between
two
regions
whose
only
difference
is
that
one
has
better
water
quality
than
the
other.

Are
you
sure
that
you
don't
care
whether
you
would
move
to
a
region
where
a
lower
proportion
of
lakes
and
rivers
are
safe
and
clean
when
you
could
move
to
a
region
with
more
rivers
that
are
safe
and
clean
that
is
alike
in
all
other
ways?

1.
Yes,
I'm
sure
that
I
have
no
preference
2.
No,
I'm
not
sure,
ask
the
water
quality
question
again
===========================================================================
February
2000
134
Exhibit
14:
Water
Quality
­
Cost
of
Living
Sample
Task
===========================================================================
We
would
like
to
ask
you
one
more
sample
question
to
make
sure
we
explained
both
cost
of
living
and
water
quality
clearly.

Remember,
the
cost
of
living
is
the
amount
of
money
that
your
family
spends
each
year
for
things
like
food,
clothing,
and
rent
or
mortgage.

Also
remember
that
water
quality
in
a
region
is
the
percent
of
the
total
acres
of
lakes
and
miles
of
rivers
in
the
region
which
are
safe
for
swimming,
fishing,
and
have
a
healthy
environment.
===========================================================================
Cost
of
Living
and
Water
Quality
Questions
This
sample
question
combines
the
two
ideas
explained
earlier.
Now
how
would
you
choose
between
regions
that
differ
in
both
the
quality
of
the
water
in
the
regions
and
their
annual
cost
of
living?
Which
region
would
you
prefer?
1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Increase
in
$
250
$
100
Annual
Cost
More
More
Of
Living
Expensive
Expensive
Percent
of
Lake
Acres
and
50%
65%
River
Miles
With
Good
Water
Quality
===========================================================================
The
question
was
not
clear.

You
chose
to
move
to
the
region
with
worse
water
quality
and
a
higher
cost
of
living.

You
could
have
chosen
a
region
with
better
water
quality
and
a
lower
cost
of
living
that
is
alike
in
all
other
ways.

To
change
your
answer,
press
any
key
and
we
will
ask
the
question
again.

Otherwise,
please
tell
the
interviewer
you
do
not
want
to
change
your
answer.
===========================================================================
The
Region
you
chose,
Region
2,
has
better
water
quality
and
a
lower
annual
cost
of
living
than
Region
1.

Now
we
would
like
to
ask
some
more
questions
like
these,
but
whose
answers
depend
more
on
how
you
value
water
quality
and
cost
of
living
differences.
===========================================================================
You
indicated
that
you
have
no
preference
between
two
regions
whose
only
difference
is
that
one
has
a
lower
cost
of
living
and
better
water
quality
than
the
other.

Are
you
sure
that
you
don't
care
whether
you
would
move
to
a
region
where
it
is
more
expensive
to
live
and
where
a
lower
proportion
of
lakes
and
rivers
are
safe
and
clean?
After
all,
you
could
move
to
a
region
with
a
lower
cost
of
living
and
where
more
lakes
and
rivers
are
clean
that
is
alike
in
all
other
ways.

1.
Yes,
I'm
sure
that
I
have
no
preference.
2.
No,
I'm
not
sure,
ask
the
question
again.
===========================================================================
February
2000
135
We
would
like
to
ask
you
some
more
questions
like
these.
However,
in
these
questions,
one
region
will
have
higher
water
quality
and
the
other
will
have
a
lower
annual
cost
of
living.
Remember
that
these
regions
are
the
same
in
all
other
ways,
including
the
number
of
lakes
and
rivers
near
your
home.
Which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Increase
in
$
100
$
250
Annual
Cost
More
More
Of
Living
Expensive
Expensive
Percent
of
Lake
50%
65%
Acres
and
River
Miles
With
Good
Water
Quality
===========================================================================
February
2000
136
Exhibit
15:
Overall
Cost
of
Living
­
Water
Quality
Tradeoff
Values
Cost
of
Living
vs.
Water
Quality
Level.
(
Units
are
$
per
1%
Improvement
in
Water
Quality)

N
Mean
StDev
Median
All
348
22.4
22.5
13.3
Cary
44
24.0
20.8
18.8
Charlotte
44
28.5
23.9
22.5
Colorado
Spr.
74
20.1
20.0
11.3
Denver
80
22.4
22.1
13.6
RTP
106
20.7
24.2
13.3
RTP
Excluded
242
23.1
21.7
13.6
February
2000
137
Exhibit
16:
Regression
Estimates
for
Cost
of
Living
Value
for
Water
Quality
Dependent
Variable:
Cost
of
Living
vs.
Water
Quality
Level.
(
Units
are
$
per
1%
Improvement
in
Water
Quality)

Higher
value
means
willing
to
pay
more
for
water
quality
improvement
Parameter
Standard
Variable
Estimate
Error
INTERCEP
­
2.42
6.76
*
Gender:
Female
4.33
2.43
*
Race:
Black
­
6.07
3.70
***
Race:
Nonwhite,
Nonblack
­
8.45
3.25
***
Age
0.46
0.12
***
Age
Squared
­
Mean
Age
­
0.02
0.006
Household
Family
Income
x
10,000
0.54
0.51
Income
Data
Missing
­
3.23
5.72
Employment:
Full
Time
0.857
2.62
Member
of
an
Environmental
Organization
­
2.25
3.83
*
Visited
Lake
or
River
in
Last
12
Months
7.44
3.88
Number
of
Family
Members
in
Household
­
0.37
0.92
Survey
Location:
Denver
0.58
3.60
Survey
Location:
Charlotte
5.17
4.21
Survey
Location:
Cary
3.28
4.28
*
Survey
Location:
Research
Triangle
Park
­
6.88
3.62
Time
in
Minutes
to
Complete
Conjoint
Study
0.15
0.12
N
348
F
Value
3.435
R­
square
0.1424
Dependent
Variable:
Cost
of
Living
vs.
Water
Quality
Level.
(
Units
are
$
per
1%
Improvement
in
Water
Quality)

Higher
value
means
willing
to
pay
more
for
water
quality
improvement
Parameter
Standard
Variable
Estimate
Error
INTERCEP
­
8.16
7.51
Gender:
Female
4.39
2.79
Race:
Black
­
2.93
4.10
***
Race:
Nonwhite,
Nonblack
­
8.95
3.61
***
Age
0.38
0.13
**
Age
Squared
­
Mean
Age
­
0.01
0.01
**
Household
Family
Income
x
10,000
1.3
0.59
Income
Data
Missing
­
3.64
6.48
Employment:
Full
Time
3.20
3.00
Member
of
an
Environmental
Organization
­
2.58
5.05
**
Visited
Lake
or
River
in
Last
12
Months
7.86
3.93
Number
of
Family
Members
in
Household
0.04
0.99
Survey
Location:
Denver
0.20
3.43
February
2000
138
Survey
Location:
Charlotte
4.37
4.02
Survey
Location:
Cary
2.55
4.12
*
Time
in
Minutes
to
Complete
Survey
0.25
0.14
N
242
F
Value
3.692
R­
square
0.1968
February
2000
139
Exhibit
17:
Cost
of
Living
Valuation
of
Water
Quality
Linearity
Tests
A.
Simple
Statistics
Cost
of
Living
vs.
Water
Quality
Level.
N
Mean
StDev
Median
Low
Water
Quality
Levels
(
25%­
40%)
82
24.79
22.11
13.64
Middle
Water
Quality
Levels
(
50%­
65%,
RTP)
106
20.70
24.24
13.33
Middle
Water
Quality
Levels
(
50%­
65%)
79
24.13
21.07
22.5
High
Water
Quality
Levels
(
75%­
90%)
81
20.36
21.77
10
This
test
indicates
that
willingness
to
pay
is
higher
when
water
quality
is
low
(
25­
40),
and
lower
when
water
quality
is
high
(
75­
90)

B.
Regression
Results
Dependent
Variable:
Cost
of
Living
vs.
Water
Quality
Level.
(
Units
are
$
per
1%
Improvement
in
Water
Quality)

Higher
value
means
willing
to
pay
more
for
water
quality
improvement
Value
for
Variable
Low,
Middle,
or
High
Water
Quality
reflects
the
lower
bound
of
water
quality
in
the
tradeoff
questions.
Values
are
either
25%,
50%
or
75%.

Parameter
Standard
Variable
Estimate
Error
INTERCEP
1.87
7.52
Low,
Middle,
or
High
Water
Quality
­
0.087
0.067
*
Gender:
Female
4.25
2.43
Race:
Black
­
5.97
3.70
***
Race:
Nonwhite,
Nonblack
­
8.45
3.25
***
Age
0.45
0.12
***
Age
Squared
­
Mean
Age
­
0.02
0.006
Household
Family
Income
x
10,000
0.56
0.51
Income
Data
Missing
­
2.89
5.72
Employment:
Full
Time
0.84
2.62
Member
of
an
Environmental
Organization
­
2.05
3.83
**
Visited
Lake
or
River
in
Last
12
Months
7.62
3.88
Number
of
Family
Members
in
Household
­
0.36
0.92
Survey
Location:
Denver
0.75
3.60
Survey
Location:
Charlotte
5.10
4.21
Survey
Location:
Cary
3.24
4.28
*
Survey
Location:
Research
Triangle
Park
­
6.87
3.62
Time
in
Minutes
to
Complete
Survey
0.14
0.12
February
2000
140
N
348
F
Value
3.339
R­
square
0.1468
Dependent
Variable:
Cost
of
Living
vs.
Water
Quality
Level.
Higher
value
means
willing
to
pay
more
for
water
quality
improvement
(
Units
are
$
per
1%
Improvement
in
Water
Quality)

Value
for
Variable
Low,
Middle,
or
High
Water
Quality
reflects
the
lower
bound
of
water
quality
in
the
tradeoff
questions.
Values
are
either
25%,
50%
or
75%.
Parameter
Standard
Variable
Estimate
Error
INTERCEP
­
3.61
8.13
Low,
Medium,
or
High
Water
Quality
­
0.09
0.06
Gender:
Female
4.23
2.79
Race:
Black
­
2.82
4.09
***
Race:
Nonwhite,
Nonblack
­
9.16
3.60
***
Age
0.38
0.13
**
Age
Squared
­
Mean
Age
­
0.015
0.007
**
Household
Family
Income
x
10,000
1.37
0.59
Income
Data
Missing
­
3.15
6.47
Employment:
Full
Time
3.18
2.99
Member
of
an
Environmental
Organization
­
2.18
5.05
**
Visited
Lake
or
River
in
Last
12
Months
8.07
3.92
Number
of
Family
Members
in
Household
0.06
0.99
Survey
Location:
Denver
0.36
3.42
Survey
Location:
Charlotte
4.26
4.01
Survey
Location:
Cary
2.51
4.11
*
Time
in
Minutes
to
Complete
Survey
0.24
0.14
N
242
F
Value
3.609
R­
square
0.2042
February
2000
141
Exhibit
18:
Sample
Referendum
Water
Quality
Task
======================================================================
Yes
/
No
Policy
Questions
Imagine
again
that
you
have
recently
moved
to
another
region
of
the
country,
where
water
quality
is
50%
Good.

Imagine
that
the
government
is
considering
a
policy
that
would
increase
water
quality
in
your
region
from
50%
Good
to
65%
Good.

This
policy,
through
additional
taxes,
would
increase
your
cost
of
living
by
$
150
per
year.

======================================================================
Imagine
again
that
you
have
recently
moved
to
another
region
of
the
country,
where
water
quality
is
50%
Good.

Imagine
that
the
government
is
considering
a
policy
that
would
increase
water
quality
in
your
region
from
50%
Good
to
65%
Good.

This
policy,
through
additional
taxes,
would
increase
your
cost
of
living
by
$
150
per
year.

Would
you
be
in
favor
of
this
policy?
1.
Yes
2.
No
======================================================================
February
2000
142
Exhibit
19:
Overall
Referendum
Water
Quality
Tradeoff
Values
Cost
of
Living
vs.
Water
Quality
Level,
policy
choice
question
(
Units
are
$
per
1%
Improvement
in
Water
Quality)

Sample
N
Mean
StDev
Median
All
348
20.5
18.0
18.6
Cary
44
27.0
20.8
22.5
Charlotte
44
22.5
20.4
15.0
Colorado
Spr.
74
22.0
19.8
18.3
Denver
80
24.2
20.9
22.5
RTP
106
13.0
5.7
12.0
RTP
Excluded
242
23.7
20.4
22.5
February
2000
143
Exhibit
20:
Regression
Estimates
for
Referendum
Water
Quality
Values
Dependent
Variable:
Cost
of
Living
vs.
Water
Quality
Level,
policy
choice
question
(
Units
are
$
per
1%
Improvement
in
Water
Quality)

Higher
value
means
willing
to
pay
more
for
water
quality
improvement
Parameter
Standard
Variable
Estimate
Error
***
INTERCEP
20.02
5.43
Gender:
Female
0.06
1.95
Race:
Black
­
2.47
2.97
*
Race:
Nonwhite,
Nonblack
­
4.65
2.61
Age
0.03
0.10
**
Age
Squared
­
Mean
Age
­
0.011
0.0049
Household
Family
Income
x
10,000
0.17
0.41
Income
Data
Missing
­
1.32
4.59
Employment:
Full
Time
0.85
2.10
Member
of
an
Environmental
Organization
2.47
3.08
Visited
Lake
or
River
in
Last
12
Months
0.09
3.12
**
Number
of
Family
Members
in
Household
­
1.45
0.74
Survey
Location:
Denver
3.23
2.89
Survey
Location:
Charlotte
0.33
3.38
Survey
Location:
Cary
5.17
3.44
***
Survey
Location:
Research
Triangle
Park
­
11.13
2.91
***
Time
in
Minutes
to
Complete
Study
0.25
0.10
N
348
F
Value
3.238
R­
square
0.1353
Dependent
Variable:
Cost
of
Living
vs.
Water
Quality
Level,
policy
choice
question
(
Units
are
$
per
1%
Improvement
in
Water
Quality)

Higher
value
means
willing
to
pay
more
for
water
quality
improvement
Parameter
Standard
Variable
Estimate
Error
**
INTERCEP
15.80
7.54
Gender:
Female
0.32
2.81
Race:
Black
­
2.41
4.12
*
Race:
Nonwhite,
Nonblack
­
6.15
3.62
Age
0.06
0.13
**
Age
Squared
­
Mean
Age
­
0.014
0.0070
Household
Family
Income
x
10,000
0.19
0.60
Income
Data
Missing
0.41
6.51
Employment:
Full
Time
2.71
3.01
Member
of
an
Environmental
Organization
6.63
5.07
Visited
Lake
or
River
in
Last
12
Months
­
1.09
3.94
Number
of
Family
Members
in
Household
­
1.35
0.99
Survey
Location:
Denver
3.31
3.44
February
2000
144
Survey
Location:
Charlotte
­
0.42
4.04
Survey
Location:
Cary
5.20
4.14
***
Time
in
Minutes
to
Complete
Study
0.37
0.14
N
242
F
Value
1.439
R­
square
0.0872
February
2000
145
Exhibit
21:
Comparison
of
Cost
of
Living
Tradeoff
and
Referendum
Values
Cost
of
Living
vs.
Water
Quality
Level.
(
Units
are
$
per
1%
Improvement
in
Water
Quality)

N
Mean
StDev
Median
All
348
22.4
22.5
13.3
Cary
44
24.0
20.8
18.8
Charlotte
44
28.5
23.9
22.5
Colorado
Spr.
74
20.1
20.0
11.3
Denver
80
22.4
22.1
13.6
RTP
106
20.7
24.2
13.3
RTP
Excluded
242
23.1
21.7
13.6
Cost
of
Living
vs.
Water
Quality
Level,
policy
choice
question
(
Units
are
$
per
1%
Improvement
in
Water
Quality)

N
Mean
StDev
Median
All
348
20.5
18.0
18.6
Cary
44
27.0
20.8
22.5
Charlotte
44
22.5
20.4
15.0
Colorado
Spr.
74
22.0
19.8
18.3
Denver
80
24.2
20.9
22.5
RTP
106
13.0
5.7
12.0
RTP
Excluded
242
23.7
20.4
22.5
The
values
for
Cost
of
Living
vs.
Water
Quality
Level
were
sorted
by
ascending
value,
and
split
into
four
quartiles.
Each
of
these
quartiles
were
then
compared
to
the
corresponding
Cost
of
Living
vs.
Water
Quality
Level,
policy
choice
question
for
the
observations
within
that
quartile.

Cost
of
Living
vs.
Water
Quality
Level,
policy
choice
question
(
Units
are
$
per
1%
Improvement
in
Water
Quality)
Policy
Choice
N
Mean
Std
Dev
Min
Max
Cost
of
Living
vs.
Water
Quality
Level,
1st
Quartile
87
12.89
10.57
0.83
80
Cost
of
Living
vs.
Water
Quality
Level,
2nd
Quartile
87
20.08
18.49
0.83
80
Cost
of
Living
vs.
Water
Quality
Level,
3rd
Quartile
87
22.24
15.18
0.83
80
Cost
of
Living
vs.
Water
Quality
Level,
4th
Quartile
87
26.73
22.78
0.83
80
February
2000
146
Exhibit
22:
Sample
Lakes
and
Rivers
Task
=============================================================================
Differences
in
Water
Quality
Between
Lakes
and
Rivers
Some
questions
in
this
survey
have
asked
you
to
choose
between
regions
based
on
water
quality
for
both
lakes
and
rivers.

Now,
we
would
like
to
ask
you
some
questions
that
ask
you
to
choose
between
regions
based
upon
water
quality
differences
where
lakes
have
a
different
level
of
water
quality
than
rivers.

=============================================================================
Which
is
more
important
to
you?

1.
Good
water
quality
for
lakes
2.
Good
water
quality
for
rivers
3.
Both
are
equally
important
to
me
=============================================================================
Try
this
sample
question
about
lake
and
river
water
quality.
Which
of
the
two
regions
below
would
you
choose
if
you
had
to
move
to
one
of
them?
Remember
that
both
regions
are
alike
in
all
other
ways
to
where
you
live
now,
including
the
number
of
lake
acres
and
river
miles
in
your
region.
Which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Percent
of
river
Miles
With
Good
50%
75%
Water
Quality
Percent
of
lake
Acres
With
Good
50%
75%
Water
Quality
=============================================================================
The
question
was
not
clear.

You
chose
to
move
to
the
region
with
worse
water
quality
for
both
lakes
and
rivers.

You
could
have
chosen
a
region
with
better
water
quality
for
both
lakes
and
rivers
that
is
alike
in
all
other
ways.

To
change
your
answer,
press
any
key
and
we
will
ask
the
question
again.

Otherwise,
please
tell
the
interviewer
you
do
not
want
to
change
your
answer.
=============================================================================
The
Region
you
chose,
Region
2,
has
better
water
quality
than
Region
1
for
both
lakes
and
rivers.

Now
we
would
like
to
ask
some
more
questions
like
these,
but
whose
answers
depend
more
on
how
you
value
water
quality
differences
between
lakes
and
rivers.
=============================================================================
You
indicated
that
you
have
no
preference
between
two
regions
whose
only
difference
is
that
one
has
better
water
quality
for
both
lakes
and
rivers
than
the
other.

Are
you
sure
that
you
don't
care
whether
you
would
move
to
a
region
where
a
lower
proportion
of
lakes
and
rivers
are
safe
and
clean.
After
all,
you
could
move
to
a
region
with
more
lakes
and
February
2000
147
rivers
that
are
safe
and
clean
that
is
alike
in
all
other
ways.

1.
Yes,
I'm
sure
that
I
have
no
preference
2.
No,
I'm
not
sure,
ask
the
question
again
=============================================================================
Now
we
would
like
to
ask
you
some
more
questions
like
these.
However,
in
the
next
questions,
one
region
will
have
a
higher
level
of
water
quality
for
rivers,
and
the
other
will
have
a
higher
level
of
water
quality
for
lakes.
Which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Percent
of
river
50%
75%
Miles
With
Good
Water
Quality
Percent
of
lake
75%
50%
Acres
With
Good
Water
Quality
=============================================================================
February
2000
148
Exhibit
23:
Sample
Aesthetic
Properties
Task
=============================================================================
Aesthetic
Properties
Other
aspects
of
water
quality
for
lakes
and
rivers
do
not
affect
whether
the
water
is
safe
to
use,
but
may
affect
your
enjoyment
of
activities
at
a
lake
or
river.

Two
such
aspects
are
whether
the
water
in
the
lake
or
river
is:

*
Smelly,
meaning
that
the
water
in
the
lake
or
river
has
an
unpleasant
odor,
even
though
it
is
otherwise
good.

*
Cloudy,
meaning
that
the
water
in
the
lake
or
river
is
dark
brown
from
sediment,
green
from
algae,
or
is
colored
or
murky
for
any
other
reason,
even
though
it
is
otherwise
good.

=============================================================================
How
important
is
it
to
you
that
water
in
lakes
and
rivers
not
be
smelly?

1.
Not
at
all
important
2.
Somewhat
important
3.
Quite
important
4.
Very
important
=============================================================================
Imagine
that
you
have
moved
to
a
region
where
50%
of
lakes
acres
and
river
miles
have
Good
Quality
and
are
not
Smelly,
and
the
other
50%
do
not
have
Good
Quality
and
are
Smelly.
Suppose
you
had
to
decide
between
two
government
policies
that
improve
the
quality
of
the
50%
of
water
that
does
not
have
Good
Quality
and
is
Smelly.

*
Policy
1
increases
the
percent
of
water
with
Good
Quality,
but
the
water
improved
remains
Smelly.

*
Policy
2
increases
the
percent
of
water
with
Good
Quality
and
removes
any
Smell,
but
does
so
on
fewer
lakes
and
rivers
than
Policy
1.

=============================================================================
Imagine
that
you
have
moved
to
a
region
where
50%
of
lakes
acres
and
river
miles
have
Good
Quality
and
are
not
Smelly,
and
the
other
50%
do
not
have
Good
Quality
and
are
Smelly.
Which
policy
would
you
prefer?

Aspect
of
1.
Policy
1
2.
Policy
2
3.
No
Preference
Water
Improved
Between
Policies
%
Good
Quality
25%
15%
Improvement
Improvement
%
Without
Smell
0%
15%
Improvement
Improvement
=============================================================================
Those
are
all
the
questions
we
will
ask
about
smelly
water.

Now
the
questions
will
ask
you
about
how
you
feel
about
cloudy
water
and
water
quality
for
lakes
and
rivers.

=============================================================================
How
important
is
it
to
you
that
water
in
lakes
and
rivers
February
2000
149
not
be
cloudy?

1.
Not
at
all
important
2.
Somewhat
important
3.
Quite
important
4.
Very
important
=============================================================================
Imagine
that
you
have
moved
to
a
region
where
50%
of
lakes
acres
and
river
miles
have
Good
Quality
and
are
not
Cloudy,
and
the
other
50%
do
not
have
Good
Quality
and
are
Cloudy.
Suppose
you
had
to
decide
between
two
government
policies
that
would
improve
the
quality
of
the
50%
of
water
that
does
not
have
Good
Quality
and
is
Cloudy.

*
Policy
1
increases
the
percent
of
water
with
Good
Quality,
but
the
water
improved
remains
Cloudy.

*
Policy
2
increases
the
percent
of
water
with
Good
Quality
and
removes
any
Cloudiness,
but
does
so
on
fewer
lakes
and
rivers
than
Policy
1.

=============================================================================
Imagine
that
you
have
moved
to
a
region
where
50%
of
lakes
acres
and
river
miles
have
Good
Quality
and
are
not
Cloudy,
and
the
other
50%
do
not
have
Good
Quality
and
are
Cloudy.
Which
policy
would
you
prefer?

Aspect
of
1.
Policy
1
2.
Policy
2
3.
No
Preference
Water
Improved
Between
Policies
%
Good
Quality
25%
15%
Improvement
Improvement
%
With
Clear
Water
0%
15%
Improvement
Improvement
=============================================================================
February
2000
150
Exhibit
24:
Sample
Sources
of
Pollution
Task
=============================================================================
Sources
of
Pollution
Pollution
in
lakes
and
rivers
that
hurts
water
quality
can
come
from
different
sources.
We
will
talk
about
two
sources
of
pollution:

*
Animal
Wastes,
where
rain
runoff
from
animal
holding
areas
on
farms
can
wash
animal
wastes
into
lakes
and
rivers.

*
Industrial
Toxic
Wastes,
where
toxic
chemicals
from
businesses
pollute
lakes
and
rivers.

=============================================================================
We
would
like
to
ask
you
some
questions
about
how
you
feel
about
sources
of
pollution
and
water
quality.
Keep
in
mind
that
these
regions
are
the
same
in
all
other
ways,
including
the
number
of
acres
of
lakes
and
miles
of
rivers
near
your
home.
The
regions
are
not
different
in
the
types
of
industries
in
the
regions,
just
the
ones
polluting
lakes
and
rivers.
Which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Percent
of
Water
75%
75%
With
Good
Quality:

Source
of
Animal
Industrial
Pollution
for
Wastes
Toxic
Lakes
and
Rivers
Wastes
=============================================================================
February
2000
151
Exhibit
25:
Lake
Quality
Versus
River
Quality
Summary
Statistics
Lake
Water
Quality
vs.
River
Water
Quality.
(
Units
are
%
Improvement
in
River
Quality
necessary
to
forego
1%
Improvement
in
Lake
Quality)

N
Mean
StDev
Median
All
346
2.10
2.77
1
Cary
44
1.70
2.44
1
Charlotte
44
1.96
2.77
1
Colorado
Spr.
74
2.41
3.36
1
Denver
80
2.16
2.88
1
RTP
104
2.05
2.34
1
RTP
Excluded
242
2.12
2.94
1
February
2000
152
Exhibit
26:
Smelly
Water
Quality
Summary
Statistics
Smelly
Water
vs.
Overall
Water
Quality
Level.
(
Units
are
%
Improvement
in
Water
Quality
for
water
that
is
Smelly
necessary
to
forego
1%
Improvement
in
Water
Quality
that
is
Not
Smelly)
N
Mean
StDev
Median
All
348
3.66
3.23
2.14
Cary
44
3.74
3.19
2.17
Charlotte
44
4.75
3.83
3.75
Colorado
Spr.
74
3.60
3.42
1.85
Denver
80
4.51
3.76
3.13
RTP
106
2.58
1.85
1.92
RTP
Excluded
242
4.14
3.58
2.17
February
2000
153
Exhibit
27:
Cloudy
Water
Quality
Summary
Statistics
Cloudy
Water
vs.
Overall
Water
Quality
Level.
(
Units
are
%
Improvement
in
Water
Quality
for
water
that
is
Cloudy
necessary
to
forego
1%
Improvement
in
Water
Quality
that
is
Not
Cloudy)

N
Mean
StDev
Median
All
348
2.79
2.89
1.67
Cary
44
2.67
2.55
1.67
Charlotte
44
3.34
3.34
1.73
Colorado
Spr.
74
3.06
2.98
1.67
Denver
80
3.97
3.56
2.05
RTP
106
1.82
1.58
1
RTP
Excluded
242
3.34
3.20
1.79
February
2000
154
Exhibit
28:
Toxic
Water
Quality
Summary
Statistics
Source
of
Water
Pollution.
(
Units
are
%
Difference
in
Water
Quality
at
which
Subjects
are
indifferent
between
Agricultural
Waste
or
Industrial
Toxic
Waste
as
the
source
of
pollution
in
their
region.
A
Negative
number
indicates
the
subject
is
willing
to
incur
a
decrease
in
overall
water
quality
to
have
pollution
caused
by
Agricultural
Waste
instead
of
Industrial
Toxic
Waste.
A
Positive
number
indicates
the
subject
is
willing
to
incur
a
decrease
in
overall
water
quality
to
have
pollution
caused
by
Industrial
Toxic
Waste
instead
of
Agricultural
Waste.)

N
Mean
StDev
Median
All
348
­
17.0
20.9
­
13.0
Cary
44
­
16.7
20.6
­
11.5
Charlotte
44
­
22.9
21.9
­
23.0
Colorado
Spr.
74
­
22.1
20.1
­
23.0
Denver
80
­
18.1
22.0
­
23.0
RTP
106
­
10.2
18.6
0
RTP
Excluded
242
­
19.9
21.2
­
23.0
February
2000
155
Exhibit
29:
Lake
Versus
River
Quality
Regression
Results
Dependent
Variable:
Lake
Water
Quality
vs.
River
Water
Quality.
(
Units
are
%
Improvement
in
River
Quality
necessary
to
forego
1%
Improvement
in
Lake
Quality)
Higher
value
means
greater
preference
for
lake
water
quality
Parameter
Standard
Variable
Estimate
Error
INTERCEP
0.39
0.87
***
Gender:
Female
0.78
0.31
Race:
Black
0.37
0.48
**
Race:
Nonwhite,
Nonblack
0.81
0.42
Age
0.01
0.02
**
Age
Squared
­
Mean
Age
0.0018
0.00078
**
Household
Family
Income
x
10,000
0.14
0.065
Income
Data
Missing
0.48
0.75
Employment:
Full
Time
0.01
0.34
Member
of
an
Environmental
Organization
­
0.15
0.49
*
Visited
Lake
or
River
in
Last
12
Months
0.87
0.50
Number
of
Family
Members
in
Household
0.03
0.12
Survey
Location:
Denver
­
0.58
0.46
Survey
Location:
Charlotte
­
0.72
0.54
**
Survey
Location:
Cary
­
1.11
0.55
**
Survey
Location:
Research
Triangle
Park
­
0.93
0.46
Time
in
Minutes
to
Complete
Survey
­
0.01
0.015
N
346
F
Value
1.805
R­
square
0.0807
Dependent
Variable:
Lake
Water
Quality
vs.
River
Water
Quality.
(
Units
are
%
Improvement
in
River
Quality
necessary
to
forego
1%
Improvement
in
Lake
Quality)
Higher
value
means
greater
preference
for
lake
water
quality
Parameter
Standard
Variable
Estimate
Error
INTERCEP
­
0.25
1.07
**
Gender:
Female
0.94
0.40
Race:
Black
0.63
0.59
Race:
Nonwhite,
Nonblack
0.70
0.52
Age
0.01
0.02
**
Age
Squared
­
Mean
Age
0.0024
0.0010
***
Household
Family
Income
x
10,000
0.22
0.085
Income
Data
Missing
0.74
0.93
Employment:
Full
Time
0.15
0.43
Member
of
an
Environmental
Organization
­
0.09
0.72
Visited
Lake
or
River
in
Last
12
Months
0.85
0.56
Number
of
Family
Members
in
Household
0.04
0.14
Survey
Location:
Denver
­
0.72
0.49
Survey
Location:
Charlotte
­
0.91
0.57
**
Survey
Location:
Cary
­
1.25
0.59
February
2000
156
Time
in
Minutes
to
Complete
Survey
­
0.01
0.02
N
242
F
Value
1.846
R­
square
0.1092
February
2000
157
Exhibit
30:
Smelly
Water
Quality
Regression
Results
Dependent
Variable:
Smelly
Water
vs.
Overall
Water
Quality
Level.
(
Units
are
%
Improvement
in
Water
Quality
for
water
that
is
Smelly
necessary
to
forego
1%
Improvement
in
Water
Quality
that
is
Not
Smelly)
Higher
value
means
more
willing
to
give
up
overall
water
quality
for
water
that
is
Not
smelly
Parameter
Standard
Variable
Estimate
Error
***
INTERCEP
3.06
0.98
**
Gender:
Female
0.69
0.35
Race:
Black
0.83
0.54
*
Race:
Nonwhite,
Nonblack
0.82
0.47
Age
0.003
0.02
Age
Squared
­
Mean
Age
­
0.00017
0.00089
Household
Family
Income
x
10,000
0.017
0.074
Income
Data
Missing
0.91
0.83
Employment:
Full
Time
0.34
0.38
**
Member
of
an
Environmental
Organization
­
1.15
0.56
Visited
Lake
or
River
in
Last
12
Months
­
0.12
0.57
Number
of
Family
Members
in
Household
0.19
0.13
Survey
Location:
Denver
0.66
0.52
*
Survey
Location:
Charlotte
1.01
0.61
Survey
Location:
Cary
­
0.26
0.62
*
Survey
Location:
Research
Triangle
Park
­
0.90
0.53
Time
in
Minutes
to
Complete
Survey
­
0.02
0.02
N
348
F
Value
2.872
R­
square
0.1219
Dependent
Variable:
Smelly
Water
vs.
Overall
Water
Quality
Level.
(
Units
are
%
Improvement
in
Water
Quality
for
water
that
is
Smelly
necessary
to
forego
1%
Improvement
in
Water
Quality
that
is
Not
Smelly)
Higher
value
means
more
willing
to
give
up
overall
water
quality
for
water
that
is
Not
smelly
Parameter
Standard
Variable
Estimate
Error
***
INTERCEP
3.37
1.32
*
Gender:
Female
0.90
0.49
Race:
Black
0.72
0.72
Race:
Nonwhite,
Nonblack
0.81
0.64
Age
­
0.002
0.02
Age
Squared
­
Mean
Age
0.000049
0.0012
Household
Family
Income
x
10,000
0.033
0.10
Income
Data
Missing
1.75
1.14
Employment:
Full
Time
0.14
0.53
**
Member
of
an
Environmental
Organization
­
2.02
0.89
Visited
Lake
or
River
in
Last
12
Months
­
0.10
0.69
Number
of
Family
Members
in
Household
0.19
0.17
Survey
Location:
Denver
0.69
0.60
February
2000
158
Survey
Location:
Charlotte
1.05
0.71
Survey
Location:
Cary
­
0.40
0.73
Time
in
Minutes
to
Complete
Survey
­
0.03
0.02
N
242
F
Value
1.453
R­
square
0.0880
February
2000
159
Exhibit
31:
Cloudy
Water
Quality
Regression
Results
Dependent
Variable:
Cloudy
Water
vs.
Overall
Water
Quality
Level.
(
Units
are
%
Improvement
in
Water
Quality
for
water
that
is
Cloudy
necessary
to
forego
1%
Improvement
in
Water
Quality
that
is
not
Cloudy)
Higher
value
means
more
willing
to
give
up
overall
water
quality
for
water
that
is
not
cloudy
Parameter
Standard
Variable
Estimate
Error
***
INTERCEP
2.42
0.86
Gender:
Female
0.03
0.31
***
Race:
Black
2.17
0.47
***
Race:
Nonwhite,
Nonblack
1.13
0.41
Age
0.02
0.02
Age
Squared
­
Mean
Age
­
0.0010
0.00078
Household
Family
Income
x
10,000
­
0.0098
0.065
Income
Data
Missing
­
0.07
0.73
Employment:
Full
Time
0.06
0.33
Member
of
an
Environmental
Organization
­
0.72
0.49
Visited
Lake
or
River
in
Last
12
Months
0.15
0.49
Number
of
Family
Members
in
Household
0.05
0.12
Survey
Location:
Denver
0.62
0.46
Survey
Location:
Charlotte
0.32
0.53
Survey
Location:
Cary
­
0.55
0.54
***
Survey
Location:
Research
Triangle
Park
­
1.21
0.46
Time
in
Minutes
to
Complete
Survey
­
0.02
0.02
N
348
F
Value
4.089
R­
square
0.1650
Dependent
Variable:
Cloudy
Water
vs.
Overall
Water
Quality
Level.
(
Units
are
%
Improvement
in
Water
Quality
for
water
that
is
Cloudy
necessary
to
forego
1%
Improvement
in
Water
Quality
that
is
not
Cloudy)
Higher
value
means
more
willing
to
give
up
overall
water
quality
for
water
that
is
not
cloudy
Parameter
Standard
Variable
Estimate
Error
***
INTERCEP
2.95
1.17
Gender:
Female
­
0.09
0.43
***
Race:
Black
2.23
0.64
*
Race:
Nonwhite,
Nonblack
0.98
0.56
Age
0.03
0.02
Age
Squared
­
Mean
Age
­
0.0010
0.0011
Household
Family
Income
x
10,000
­
0.046
0.092
Income
Data
Missing
0.16
1.01
Employment:
Full
Time
­
0.10
0.47
Member
of
an
Environmental
Organization
­
1.06
0.78
Visited
Lake
or
River
in
Last
12
Months
0.22
0.61
Number
of
Family
Members
in
Household
0.08
0.15
Survey
Location:
Denver
0.56
0.53
February
2000
160
Survey
Location:
Charlotte
0.31
0.62
Survey
Location:
Cary
­
0.55
0.64
*
Time
in
Minutes
to
Complete
Survey
­
0.04
0.02
N
242
F
Value
1.893
R­
square
0.1116
February
2000
161
Exhibit
32:
Toxic
Source
Water
Quality
Regression
Results
Dependent
Variable:
Source
of
Water
Pollution.
(
Units
are
%
Difference
in
Water
Quality
at
which
Subjects
are
indifferent
between
Agricultural
Waste
or
Industrial
Toxic
Waste
as
the
source
of
pollution
in
their
region.
A
Negative
number
indicates
the
subject
is
willing
to
incur
a
decrease
in
overall
water
quality
to
have
pollution
caused
by
Agricultural
Waste
instead
of
Industrial
Toxic
Waste.
A
Positive
number
indicates
the
subject
is
willing
to
incur
a
decrease
in
overall
water
quality
to
have
pollution
caused
by
Industrial
Toxic
Waste
instead
of
Agricultural
Waste.)
Higher
value
means
greater
preference
for
industrial
toxic
waste
rather
than
agricultural
waste
Parameter
Standard
Variable
Estimate
Error
***
INTERCEP
­
23.40
6.49
*
Gender:
Female
­
3.80
2.33
Race:
Black
4.59
3.55
Race:
Nonwhite,
Nonblack
­
0.87
3.12
*
Age
0.21
0.11
Age
Squared
­
Mean
Age
­
0.0037
0.0059
Household
Family
Income
x
10,000
­
0.70
0.49
Income
Data
Missing
­
2.97
5.49
Employment:
Full
Time
­
2.26
2.51
Member
of
an
Environmental
Organization
2.86
3.68
Visited
Lake
or
River
in
Last
12
Months
4.24
3.72
Number
of
Family
Members
in
Household
­
0.19
0.88
Survey
Location:
Denver
3.07
3.45
Survey
Location:
Charlotte
­
0.73
4.04
*
Survey
Location:
Cary
6.86
4.11
***
Survey
Location:
Research
Triangle
Park
11.69
3.48
Time
in
Minutes
to
Complete
Survey
­
0.13
0.11
N
348
F
Value
2.008
R­
square
0.0885
Dependent
Variable:
Source
of
Water
Pollution.
(
Units
are
%
Difference
in
Water
Quality
at
which
Subjects
are
indifferent
between
Agricultural
Waste
or
Industrial
Toxic
Waste
as
the
source
of
pollution
in
their
region.
A
Negative
number
indicates
the
subject
is
willing
to
incur
a
decrease
in
overall
water
quality
to
have
pollution
caused
by
Agricultural
Waste
instead
of
Industrial
Toxic
Waste.
A
Positive
number
indicates
the
subject
is
willing
to
incur
a
decrease
in
overall
water
quality
to
have
pollution
caused
by
Industrial
Toxic
Waste
instead
of
Agricultural
Waste.)
Higher
value
means
greater
preference
for
industrial
toxic
waste
rather
than
agricultural
waste
Parameter
Standard
Variable
Estimate
Error
***
INTERCEP
­
29.28
7.92
Gender:
Female
­
1.91
2.95
**
Race:
Black
10.49
4.32
Race:
Nonwhite,
Nonblack
3.34
3.80
Age
0.16
0.13
February
2000
162
Age
Squared
­
Mean
Age
­
0.0018
0.0074
*
Household
Family
Income
x
10,000
­
1.0
0.63
Income
Data
Missing
­
3.11
6.84
Employment:
Full
Time
­
1.93
3.17
Member
of
an
Environmental
Organization
0.84
5.33
*
Visited
Lake
or
River
in
Last
12
Months
6.82
4.14
Number
of
Family
Members
in
Household
0.34
1.04
Survey
Location:
Denver
3.23
3.62
Survey
Location:
Charlotte
0.26
4.24
Survey
Location:
Cary
6.59
4.35
Time
in
Minutes
to
Complete
Survey
­
0.04
0.14
N
242
F
Value
1.092
R­
square
0.0676
February
2000
163
Exhibit
33:
Sample
Nonuse
Valuation
Task
=============================================================================
Policy
Choice
Questions
For
the
next
questions,
imagine
that
you
have
recently
moved
to
another
region
as
suggested
in
previous
questions,
and
that
the
government
is
considering
two
policies
to
improve
water
quality.

One
policy
would
improve
the
water
quality
of
lakes
and
rivers
in
the
region
where
you
have
moved.

The
other
would
improve
the
water
quality
of
lakes
and
rivers
in
another
region
of
the
country,
about
the
same
size
as
your
region.
(
There
are
about
70
regions
of
this
size
in
the
country)

=============================================================================
Imagine
also
that
you
will
never
visit
any
lake
or
river
in
the
other
region.

The
policies
will
differ
in
that:

*
Policy
1
will
improve
water
quality
in
your
region
by
10%,
but
will
not
improve
the
other
region
at
all,
while
*
Policy
2
will
improve
water
quality
in
the
other
region
by
25%,
but
will
not
improve
your
region
at
all.

=============================================================================
Here
are
the
two
policies.

Which
policy
would
you
prefer?

1.
Policy
1
2.
Policy
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Policies
Change
in
Percent
of
Water
With
Good
Quality:

Your
Region
+
10%
No
Change
(
All
Visits
to
Improvement
Lakes
and
Rivers)

Other
Region
No
Change
+
25%
(
Will
Never
Visit
Improvement
Lakes
or
Rivers)

=============================================================================
February
2000
164
Exhibit
34:
Sample
Probabilistic
Use
Valuation
Task
=============================================================================
Now
imagine
that,
instead
of
having
no
chance
of
ever
visiting
a
lake
or
river
in
the
other
region,
imagine
that
for
one
of
every
ten
trips
you
might
take
to
a
lake
or
river,
you
would
visit
a
lake
or
river
in
the
other
region.

We
would
like
to
ask
you
the
same
types
of
questions
as
we
did
before,
with
this
one
difference.

=============================================================================
Imagine
that
you
have
recently
moved
to
another
region
of
the
country,
and
that
the
government
is
considering
policies
to
improve
water
quality
in
your
region
or
in
another
region.
Which
policy
would
you
prefer?

1.
Policy
1
2.
Policy
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Policies
Change
in
Percent
of
Water
With
Good
Quality:

Your
Region
+
10%
No
Change
(
9
of
10
Visits
to
Improvement
Lakes
and
Rivers)

Other
Region
No
Change
+
25%
(
1
of
10
Visits
to
Improvement
Lakes
and
Rivers)

=============================================================================
Now
imagine
that,
instead
of
having
no
chance
of
ever
visiting
a
lake
or
river
in
the
other
region,
imagine
that
for
one
out
of
three
trips
you
might
take
to
a
lake
or
river,
you
would
visit
a
lake
or
river
in
the
other
region.

We
would
like
to
ask
you
the
same
types
of
questions
as
we
did
before,
with
this
one
difference.

=============================================================================
Imagine
that
you
have
recently
moved
to
another
region
of
the
country,
and
that
the
government
is
considering
policies
to
improve
water
quality
in
your
region
or
in
another
region.
Which
policy
would
you
prefer?

1.
Policy
1
2.
Policy
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Policies
Change
in
Percent
of
Water
With
Good
Quality:

Your
Region
+
10%
No
Change
(
2
of
3
Visits
to
Improvement
Lakes
and
Rivers)

Other
Region
No
Change
+
25%
(
1
of
3
Visits
to
Improvement
Lakes
and
Rivers)

=============================================================================
February
2000
165
Exhibit
35:
Summary
Nonuse
Valuation
Summary
Statistics
A.
Home
Region
Water
Quality
vs.
Other
Region
Water
Quality,
(
Never
Visit)

(
Units
are
%
Improvement
in
Home
Region
Water
Quality
necessary
to
forego
1%
Improvement
in
Other
Region
Water
Quality)
N
Mean
StDev
Median
All
348
0.50
0.46
0.40
Cary
44
0.45
0.30
0.40
Charlotte
44
0.49
0.60
0.26
Colorado
Spr.
74
0.57
0.55
0.40
Denver
80
0.48
0.57
0.36
RTP
106
0.50
0.26
0.46
RTP
Excluded
242
0.51
0.53
0.38
B.
Home
Region
Water
Quality
vs.
Other
Region
Water
Quality
(
10%
of
Visits)

(
Units
are
%
Improvement
in
Home
Region
Water
Quality
necessary
to
forego
1%
Improvement
in
Other
Region
Water
Quality)

N
Mean
StDev
Median
All
173
0.51
0.45
0.40
Cary
21
0.54
0.27
0.45
Charlotte
21
0.42
0.56
0.20
Colorado
Spr.
37
0.58
0.52
0.58
Denver
42
0.48
0.55
0.31
RTP
52
0.51
0.27
0.54
RTP
Excluded
121
0.51
0.51
0.40
C.
Home
Region
Water
Quality
vs.
Other
Region
Water
Quality
(
30%
of
Visits)

(
Units
are
%
Improvement
in
Home
Region
Water
Quality
necessary
to
forego
1%
Improvement
in
Other
Region
Water
Quality)

N
Mean
StDev
Median
All
121
0.59
0.49
0.45
Cary
23
0.57
0.27
0.58
Charlotte
23
0.55
0.54
0.40
Colorado
Spr.
37
0.58
0.56
0.40
Denver
38
0.62
0.51
0.52
D.
Home
Region
Water
Quality
vs.
Other
Region
Water
Quality
(
1%
of
Visits)
February
2000
166
(
Units
are
%
Improvement
in
Home
Region
Water
Quality
necessary
to
forego
1%
Improvement
in
Other
Region
Water
Quality)

N
Mean
StDev
Median
RTP
54
0.55
0.31
0.54
February
2000
167
Exhibit
36:
Nonuse
Valuation
Regression
Results
Dependent
Variable:
Home
Region
Water
Quality
vs.
Other
Region
Water
Quality,
0%
Chance
Visit.
(
Units
are
%
Improvement
in
Home
Region
Water
Quality
necessary
to
forego
1%
Improvement
in
Other
Region
Water
Quality)
Higher
value
means
more
willing
to
improve
water
quality
in
other
region
rather
than
home
region
Parameter
Standard
Variable
Estimate
Error
***
INTERCEP
0.45
0.15
Gender:
Female
0.03
0.05
Race:
Black
­
0.08
0.08
Race:
Nonwhite,
Nonblack
­
0.03
0.07
Age
0.004
0.003
Age
Squared
­
Mean
Age
­
0.00017
0.00013
***
Household
Family
Income
x
10,000
­
0.028
0.011
Income
Data
Missing
­
0.07
0.12
Employment:
Full
Time
­
0.03
0.06
Member
of
an
Environmental
Organization
0.07
0.08
Visited
Lake
or
River
in
Last
12
Months
0.12
0.08
Number
of
Family
Members
in
Household
0.01
0.02
Survey
Location:
Denver
­
0.08
0.08
Survey
Location:
Charlotte
­
0.06
0.09
Survey
Location:
Cary
­
0.10
0.09
Survey
Location:
Research
Triangle
Park
­
0.06
0.08
Time
in
Minutes
to
Complete
Survey
0.00002
0.003
N
348
F
Value
0.898
R­
square
0.0416
Dependent
Variable:
Home
Region
Water
Quality
vs.
Other
Region
Water
Quality,
0%
Chance
Visit.
(
Units
are
%
Improvement
in
Home
Region
Water
Quality
necessary
to
forego
1%
Improvement
in
Other
Region
Water
Quality)
Higher
value
means
more
willing
to
improve
water
quality
in
other
region
rather
than
home
region
Parameter
Standard
Variable
Estimate
Error
**
INTERCEP
0.41
0.20
Gender:
Female
0.02
0.07
Race:
Black
­
0.14
0.11
Race:
Nonwhite,
Nonblack
­
0.01
0.10
*
Age
0.01
0.003
Age
Squared
­
Mean
Age
­
0.00029
0.00018
**
Household
Family
Income
x
10,000
­
0.037
0.016
Income
Data
Missing
­
0.07
0.17
Employment:
Full
Time
­
0.01
0.08
Member
of
an
Environmental
Organization
0.15
0.13
Visited
Lake
or
River
in
Last
12
Months
0.12
0.10
Number
of
Family
Members
in
Household
0.01
0.03
Survey
Location:
Denver
­
0.08
0.09
February
2000
168
Survey
Location:
Charlotte
­
0.06
0.11
Survey
Location:
Cary
­
0.08
0.11
Time
in
Minutes
to
Complete
Survey
0.0002
0.004
N
242
F
Value
0.860
R­
square
0.0540
February
2000
169
Exhibit
37:
Sample
Water
Quality
Uses
Task
===========================================================================
Water
Quality
Uses
It
is
possible
for
a
lake
or
river
to
have
good
quality
for
one
use,
but
not
for
other
uses.
This
means
that
a
single
region
can
have
different
levels
of
water
quality
for
different
uses
or
dimensions
of
water
quality.
Some
of
the
questions
in
this
survey
will
ask
you
about
three
dimensions
of
the
quality
of
lakes
and
rivers:

*
Whether
the
lake
or
river
has
fish
that
are
safe
to
eat,
*
Whether
the
lake
or
river
is
a
safe
place
to
swim,
and
*
Whether
the
lake
or
river
has
a
healthy
aquatic
environment.

Press
any
key
to
learn
more
about
these
categories
===========================================================================
Fishing
A
lake
or
river
is
good
for
fishing
if
fish
caught
in
the
lake
or
river
are
safe
for
you
to
eat.
A
lake
or
river
is
not
good
for
fishing
if
fish
caught
in
the
lake
or
river
are
not
safe
for
you
to
eat.
How
important
is
it
to
you
that
lakes
and
rivers
in
your
region
be
good
for
fishing?

1.
Not
at
all
important
2.
Somewhat
important
3.
Quite
important
4.
Very
important
===========================================================================
Swimming
A
lake
or
river
is
good
for
swimming
if
prolonged
contact
with
the
water
in
the
lake
or
river
will
not
make
you
sick.
A
lake
or
river
is
not
good
for
swimming
if
prolonged
contact
with
the
water
can
make
you
sick.
How
important
is
it
to
you
that
lakes
and
rivers
in
your
region
be
good
for
swimming?

1.
Not
at
all
important
2.
Somewhat
important
3.
Quite
important
4.
Very
important
===========================================================================
Aquatic
Environment
The
aquatic
environment
is
good
if
the
lake
or
river
supports
many
plants,
fish,
and
other
aquatic
life.
The
aquatic
environment
is
not
good
if
the
lake
or
river
supports
only
a
small
number
plants,
fish,
and
other
aquatic
life,
or
cannot
support
some
kinds
of
aquatic
life
at
all.

How
important
is
it
to
you
that
lakes
and
rivers
in
your
region
have
a
good
aquatic
environment?

1.
Not
at
all
important
2.
Somewhat
important
3.
Quite
important
4.
Very
important
February
2000
170
===========================================================================
If
you
need
to
review
the
definitions
for
the
water
quality
dimensions
just
described,
you
can
open
the
folder
next
to
the
computer
and
find
the
page
labeled
Water
Quality
Definitions.

If
you
do
not
find
this
page,
or
if
there
is
no
folder
next
to
the
computer,
please
ask
the
interviewer
for
help.

===========================================================================
Because
a
region
has
more
than
one
lake
and
river,
these
three
dimensions
of
water
quality
will
be
described
in
terms
of
percent
good.

For
example,
if
all
the
acres
of
lakes
and
miles
of
rivers
in
a
region
are
good
for
swimming
and
if
half
have
a
good
aquatic
environment,
then
that
region
could
be
described
like
this:

Percent
of
Water
With
Good
Quality:

Swimming:
100%

Aquatic
Environment:
50%

===========================================================================
Try
answering
this
sample
question
to
make
sure
we
explained
water
quality
for
the
three
water
quality
dimensions
clearly.
How
would
you
choose
between
regions
that
differ
in
two
dimensions
of
water
quality,
but
are
otherwise
alike?
Which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Percent
of
Water
With
Good
Quality:
Swimming:
50%
75%

Aquatic
Environment:
50%
60%

===========================================================================
The
question
was
not
clear.

You
chose
to
move
to
the
region
with
worse
water
quality
for
each
of
the
listed
dimensions.

You
could
have
chosen
a
region
with
better
water
quality
for
those
dimensions
that
is
alike
in
all
other
ways.

To
change
your
answer,
press
any
key
and
we
will
ask
the
question
again.

Otherwise,
please
tell
the
interviewer
you
do
not
want
to
change
your
answer.

===========================================================================
The
Region
you
chose,
Region
2,
has
better
water
quality
than
Region
1
for
both
swimming
and
the
quality
of
the
aquatic
environment.

Now
we
would
like
to
ask
some
more
questions
like
these,
but
whose
answers
depend
more
on
how
you
value
water
quality
for
different
dimensions.

===========================================================================
February
2000
171
You
indicated
that
you
have
no
preference
between
two
regions
whose
only
difference
is
that
one
has
a
better
water
quality
for
the
listed
dimensions.

Are
you
sure
that
you
don't
care
whether
you
would
move
to
a
region
with
better
water
quality
for
the
listed
dimensions
when
you
could
move
to
a
region
with
better
water
quality
for
the
listed
dimensions
that
is
alike
in
all
other
ways?

1.
Yes,
I'm
sure
that
I
have
no
preference
2.
No,
I'm
not
sure,
ask
the
question
again
===========================================================================
The
next
questions
will
have
one
region
with
better
water
quality
for
swimming,
and
the
other
will
have
a
better
aquatic
environment.
Keep
in
mind
that
the
regions
are
the
same
in
all
other
ways,
including
the
number
of
acres
of
lakes
and
miles
of
rivers
in
the
region
and
both
regions
are
50%
good
for
fishing.
Which
region
would
you
prefer?

1.
Region
1
2.
Region
2
3.
No
Preference
Between
Regions
Percent
of
Water
With
Good
Quality:

Swimming:
50%
30%

Aquatic
Environment:
50%
70%

===========================================================================
February
2000
172
Exhibit
38:
Summary
Water
Quality
Use
Valuation
Results
A.
Portion
of
Water
Quality
Improvement
That
Should
Improve
Swimmable
Water
Quality.

All
348
35.3%
0.20
33.3%
Cary
44
38.3%
0.20
39.9%
Charlotte
44
35.2%
0.22
32.6%
Colorado
Spr.
74
34.4%
0.19
33.3%
Denver
80
36.2%
0.20
24.1%
RTP
106
33.8%
0.21
31.2%
RTP
Excluded
242
35.9%
0.20
33.5%

B.
Portion
of
Water
Quality
Improvement
That
Should
Improve
Water
Quality
for
Aquatic
Environment.

N
Mean
StDev
Median
All
348
31.8%
0.20
26.7%
Cary
44
30.6%
0.21
26.4%
Charlotte
44
29.5%
0.20
24.2%
Colorado
Spr.
74
29.7%
0.20
25.0%
Denver
80
30.1%
0.18
26.6%
RTP
106
35.9%
0.21
33.3%
RTP
Excluded
242
29.9%
0.20
25.0%

C.
Portion
of
Water
Quality
Improvement
That
Should
Improve
Fishable
Water
Quality.

N
Mean
StDev
Median
All
348
28.4%
0.18
23.8%
Cary
44
27.9%
0.19
23.2%
Charlotte
44
29.7%
0.19
24.2%
Colorado
Spr.
74
30.7%
0.20
26.7%
Denver
80
28.8%
0.19
24.7%
RTP
106
26.3%
0.16
23.1%
RTP
Excluded
242
29.4%
0.19
24.7%
February
2000
173
Exhibit
39:
Swimmable
Water
Use
Valuation
Regression
Results
Dependent
Variable:
Source
of
Water
Pollution.
Higher
value
means
greater
preference
for
industrial
toxic
waste
rather
than
agricultural
waste
Parameter
Standard
Variable
Estimate
Error
***
INTERCEP
0.42
0.06
Gender:
Female
0.01
0.02
Race:
Black
­
0.03
0.03
Race:
Nonwhite,
Nonblack
­
0.01
0.03
Age
0.0004
0.001
Age
Squared
­
Mean
Age
0.000042
0.000058
Household
Family
Income
x
10,000
0.0050
0.0048
Income
Data
Missing
­
0.06
0.05
Employment:
Full
Time
0.0004
0.02
**
Member
of
an
Environmental
Organization
­
0.07
0.04
**
Visited
Lake
or
River
in
Last
12
Months
­
0.09
0.04
**
Number
of
Family
Members
in
Household
0.02
0.01
Survey
Location:
Denver
0.01
0.03
Survey
Location:
Charlotte
0.00003
0.04
Survey
Location:
Cary
0.04
0.04
Survey
Location:
Research
Triangle
Park
0.01
0.03
*
Time
in
Minutes
to
Complete
Survey
­
0.002
0.001
N
348
F
Value
1.737
R­
square
0.0775
Dependent
Variable:
Source
of
Water
Pollution.
Higher
value
means
greater
preference
for
industrial
toxic
waste
rather
than
agricultural
waste
Parameter
Standard
Variable
Estimate
Error
***
INTERCEP
0.44
0.07
Gender:
Female
0.01
0.03
Race:
Black
­
0.02
0.04
Race:
Nonwhite,
Nonblack
0.001
0.04
Age
0.0003
0.001
Age
Squared
­
Mean
Age
0.000019
0.000068
Household
Family
Income
x
10,000
0.0037
0.0058
Income
Data
Missing
­
0.04
0.06
Employment:
Full
Time
­
0.04
0.03
**
Member
of
an
Environmental
Organization
­
0.10
0.05
**
Visited
Lake
or
River
in
Last
12
Months
­
0.08
0.04
**
Number
of
Family
Members
in
Household
0.02
0.01
Survey
Location:
Denver
0.005
0.03
Survey
Location:
Charlotte
0.01
0.04
Survey
Location:
Cary
0.04
0.04
**
Time
in
Minutes
to
Complete
Survey
­
0.003
0.001
February
2000
174
N
242
F
Value
1.800
R­
square
0.1067
February
2000
175
Attachment
5:
Tri­
TAC/
CASA
Comments
Tri­
TAC
Jointly
Sponsored
by:
League
of
California
Cities
California
Association
of
Sanitation
Agencies
California
Water
Environment
Association
CASA
California
Association
of
Sanitation
Agencies
Reply
to:
Sharon
N.
Green
Sanitation
Districts
of
Los
Angeles
County
P.
O.
Box
4998
Whittier,
CA
90607
(
562)
699­
7411,
x­
2503
January
11,
2000
Dr.
Alan
Carlin
Office
of
Policy
and
Reinvention,
Mail
Code
2172
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Washington,
D.
C.
20460
Delivered
via
electronic
mail:

Dear
Dr.
Carlin:

SUBJECT:
COMMENTS
ON
PROPOSED
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
FOR
VALUING
INLAND
WATER
QUALITY
IMPROVEMENTS
(
ICR
NO.
1914.01)
(
64
FED.
REG.
61632)

I
am
writing
on
behalf
of
Tri­
TAC
and
the
California
Association
of
Sanitation
Agencies
(
CASA),
California­
based
organizations
comprised
of
local
public
agencies
responsible
for
wastewater
collection,
treatment,
disposal
and
reclamation.
Tri­
TAC
is
an
advisory
group
including
representatives
of
CASA,
the
California
Water
Environment
Association,
and
the
League
of
California
Cities.
CASA's
membership
includes
87
agencies
responsible
for
the
operation
of
publicly
owned
treatment
works.
Collectively,
the
constituent
agencies
of
Tri­
TAC
and
CASA
serve
most
of
the
sewered
population
of
California.

Enclosed
are
Tri­
TAC's
comments
on
the
proposed
information
collection
for
valuing
inland
water
quality
improvements.
Tri­
TAC
supports
EPA's
efforts
to
obtain
better
estimates
related
to
the
economic
benefits
of
improved
water
quality,
since
currently
the
lack
of
adequate
information
on
the
benefits
of
improved
water
quality
poses
a
major
barrier
to
analyzing
whether
the
costs
of
stricter
water
quality
regulations
are
justified
by
the
benefits.
In
addition
to
the
stated
intention
for
the
survey
to
provide
information
to
EPA
for
the
purposes
of
compliance
with
Executive
Order
12866
and
for
academic
use,
EPA
should
be
aware
that
such
estimates
are
also
likely
to
be
used
by
States
in
analyzing
the
benefits
of
proposed
changes
in
water
quality
standards,
as
well
as
by
interested
parties
such
as
environmental
groups
to
justify
the
tightening
of
water
quality
regulations.
As
such,
it
is
extremely
important
that
the
survey
be
as
rigorous
as
possible
to
provide
valid
estimates
for
such
use.
February
2000
176
The
enclosed
comments
were
prepared
for
Tri­
TAC
by
M.
Cubed,
a
consulting
firm
specializing
in
resource
economics
and
public
policy
analysis.
Based
on
this
analysis,
we
have
major
concerns
about
the
rigor
and
usefulness
of
the
theoretical
benefit
estimates
that
will
be
generated
by
the
proposed
survey.
The
Federal
Register
notice
requests
comments
on
the
quality,
utility,
and
clarity
of
the
information
to
be
collected.
We
believe
that
the
survey
as
presently
structured
will
not
yield
highquality
information
that
can
be
used
with
confidence
for
the
stated
purposes,
and
therefore
recommend
that
EPA
not
proceed
with
this
survey
unless
it
is
revised
substantially.
Our
specific
concerns
are
contained
in
Attachment
1.

Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
proposed
information
collection
valuing
inland
water
quality
benefits.
If
you
have
any
questions
about
our
comments,
please
contact
Sharon
Green
at
the
address
indicated
above.

Sincerely,

Phil
Bobel,
Chair
Tri­
TAC
Roberta
Larson,
Director
of
Legal
and
Regulatory
Affairs
California
Association
of
Sanitation
Agencies
February
2000
177
ATTACHMENT
Tri­
TAC
Comments
on
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
(
USEPA)
Proposed
Survey
to
Value
Inland
Water
Quality
Improvements
January
10,
2000
developed
by
M.
Cubed
Developing
better
information
and
insight
into
the
value
of
water
quality
improvements
to
the
public,
particularly
from
a
marginal
benefit
and
cost
perspective,
would
assist
policy­
makers
and
analysts
in
creating
useful
information
with
which
to
develop
cost­
effective
water
quality
policies.
That
is,
if
regulators
knew
with
certainty
that
for
a
particular
increment
of
cost
a
specific
increment
of
improved
quality
would
be
obtained,
knowledge
of
whether
or
not
the
public
believes
this
costquality
trade­
off
to
be
worthwhile
would
helpfully
inform
policy
decisions.
In
this
respect
USEPA's
attempt
to
increase
and
enhance
this
type
of
information
should
be
commended.

Many
methods
are
available
to
place
a
value
on
water
quality
improvements,
all
of
which
have
their
strengths
and
weaknesses,
and
all
of
which
require
different
resource
levels
to
implement.
Surveys
are
perhaps
the
least­
expensive
strategy
to
obtain
this
information.
However,
because
of
the
difficulty
of
devising
and
implementing
effective
instruments,
the
use
of
surveys
are
also
a
technique
which
can
frequently
result
in
useless
or
misleading
data.

It
is
extremely
difficult
to
obtain
thoughtful
responses
from
surveys,
particularly
those
attempting
to
investigate
complex
and
unfamiliar
issues.
Although
USEPA's
survey
instrument
has
some
notable
strengths,
it
is
questionable
whether
the
survey
in
its
current
form
will
result
in
robust
insights
into
the
value
the
public
places
on
water
quality
improvements.
This
is
chiefly
because
participants
may
find
a
large
number
of
the
survey
questions
to
be
confusing,
and
as
a
result
their
responses
may
not
truly
reflect
their
attitudes.
Further,
many
of
the
questions
could
act
to
bias
participants
towards
placing
a
higher
value
on
water
quality
than
their
actual
willingness
to
pay
for
improvements.

M.
Cubed
offers
the
following
comments
and
recommendations
to
revise
the
survey
so
that
it
will
yield
useful
information.

(
1)
The
survey
introduction
should
be
clear
and
comprehensive.
The
survey
is
introduced
as
being
about
"
water
quality,"
rather
than
about
how
individuals
"
value
water
quality,"
or
what
the
respondent
is
"
willing
to
pay"
for
improvements
in
water
quality.
The
existing
set­
up
fails
to
establish
the
cost­
quality
trade­
off
which
the
survey
ultimately
hopes
to
probe.

(
2)
The
survey
should
either
examine
specific
or
conceptual
attitudes
towards
bodies
of
waters.
The
survey
starts
by
telling
respondents
that
it
will
ask
how
they
"
value"
the
"
lakes
and
rivers
near
where
you
live."
As
a
result
of
this
prompting,
it
is
likely
that
participants
will
visualize
the
attachment
they
have
to
the
water
bodies
near
them,
and
may
even
use
these
places
as
reference
points
throughout
the
survey.
This
attachment
to
particular
water
bodies
may
be
true
even
if
the
respondent
infrequently
"
stopped
what
they
were
dong
to
look
at
a
view
of
a
lake
or
river"
(
i.
e.,
participants
may
have
a
historical
relationship
with
their
local
body
of
water
even
if
they
rarely
pay
any
conscious
attention
to
it).
The
existence
of
a
specific
personal
attachment
is
likely
to
induce
a
different
sense
of
value
than
one
for
a
lake
or
river
that
has
never
seen,
and
is
not
even
February
2000
178
identified.

As
the
instrument
continues
the
respondent
is
moved
from
the
particular
to
the
general.
Survey
respondents
are
ultimately
asked
how
they
value
unnamed,
conceptual
bodies
of
water,
with
which
they
may
have
no
relationship.
Although
the
questions
revolve
around
rivers
and
lakes
near
where
the
participant
will
theoretically
live,
this
approach
does
not
fully
ameliorate
the
different
values
individuals
may
place
on
water
bodies
they
currently
know
and
imaginary
places
they
could
ultimately
live
near.
The
instrument's
mixing
of
the
known
with
the
unknown
may
not
result
in
accurate
valuations.
Likewise,
respondents
may
picture
different
quantities
and
types
of
bodies
of
water,
which
may
make
it
difficult
to
calculate
average
willingness
to
pay
for
some
mythical
"
typical"
body
of
water.

(
3)
The
survey
should
provide
clearer
examples
of
value/
cost
trade­
offs.
The
survey
attempts
to
probe
two
complex
variables
­­
value,
which
is
composed
of
the
worth
an
individual
places
on
the
characteristics
of
an
experience
or
thing;
and
cost,
which
though
more
absolute
than
value,
tends
to
be
relative
to
other
factors
(
e.
g.,
income,
other
costs).
In
this
vein
the
comparisons
between
a
"
sit
down"
and
"
fast
food"
restaurant
may
not
serve
to
elicit
the
responses
or
reasoning
that
USEPA
is
attempting
to
engender.

An
implicit
assumption
is
made
that
a
sit
down
dinner
is
inherently
more
valuable
than
a
fast
food
meal,
even
though
many
Americans
may
prefer
fast
food
in
general,
and
may
make
a
judgement
about
the
value
(
e.
g.,
characteristics)
of
differently
priced
sit
down
meals
that
would
serve
to
bias
their
decisions,
or
at
least
make
it
difficult
to
interpret
the
results
uniformly.
That
is,
participants
may
view
a
$
10
sit
down
meal
as
equivalent
in
characteristics
to
$
5
worth
of
fast
food,
but
just
more
slowly
eaten.
Likewise,
the
survey
defines
the
restaurants
as
"
more"
or
"
less"
"
expensive,"
rather
than
"
cost
more
or
less"
or
even
"
offer
a
more
or
less
enjoyable
dining
experience."
The
latter
definition
could
tend
to
encourage
respondents
to
focus
on
expense
as
opposed
to
any
other
characteristics
of
the
meal.

(
4)
The
link
between
water
quality
improvements
and
associated
costs
should
be
clearer.
It
is
unclear
whether
respondents
would
view
questions
about
the
general
"
cost
of
living"
in
an
area
as
similar
to
questions
which
probe
participants'
attitudes
towards
paying
taxes
to
improve
water
quality.
That
is,
cost
of
living
may
be
seen
as
something
over
which
respondents
have
little
control
­
financing
improved
water
quality
is
lumped
together
with
higher
food
or
housing
prices.
If
the
questions
were
framed
as
willingness
to
pay
higher
taxes
or
fees,
they
may
engender
different
responses.
USEPA
seems
to
understand
this
distinction,
as
taxes
are
mentioned
at
the
end
of
the
instrument.

Likewise,
differences
in
cost
of
living
may
be
inherently
linked
with
peoples'
understanding
of
value.
That
is,
it
may
be
generally
understood
that
cost
of
living
is
higher
in
desirable
or
densely
populated
places
(
e.
g.,
San
Francisco
Bay
Area;
New
York
City)
than
in
less
attractive
or
populated
places.
As
a
result,
despite
the
instrument's
admonishment
that
the
places
under
question
are
the
same,
respondents
may
not
believe
this
to
be
the
case.

(
5)
Survey
questions
should
be
sensitive
to
the
role
of
time.
For
example,
responses
to
"
sudden"
increases
in
costs
of
living
may
reflect
attitudes
towards
suddenness,
rather
than
to
cost
increases.
That
is,
people's
willingness
to
pay
for
anything
may
be
higher
if
the
cost
increases
are
predictable
February
2000
179
and
gradual.

(
6)
USEPA
should
be
careful
about
what
information
is
presented
by
the
instrument.
For
example,
the
instrument
states
that
"
in
the
United
States,
the
overall
level
of
water
quality
for
lakes
and
rivers
is
65%
Good."
The
purpose
of
providing
this
information
is
unclear,
and
by
stating
a
percentage
the
instrument
will
almost
certainly
bias
responses.
That
is,
respondents
will
likely
be
influenced
by
the
statement
that
on
average
bodies
of
water
are
65
percent
"
good,"
and
may,
as
a
result,
want
their
responses
to
reflect
above
average,
or
at
least
average,
water
quality.
This
may
result
in
different
answers
than
if,
for
example,
the
statement
was
that
most
lakes
and
rivers
have
"
good"
water
quality,
with
some
having
extremely
poor
quality.

(
7)
The
instrument's
attempts
to
ascertain
marginal
willingness
to
pay
may
not
be
effective.
In
general
the
survey
questions
are
abstract,
which
may
encourage
participants
to
likewise
treat
their
valuations
abstractly
(
e.
g.,
imaginary
improvements
in
imaginary
rivers
can
be
paid
with
imaginary
money).
In
this
vein
little
information
is
provided
about
the
differences
between
lakes
and
rivers,
and
no
questions
are
posed
which
may
provide
insight
into
why
a
respondent
might
value
improved
water
quality
in
one
type
of
water
body
more
than
another.
In
addition,
a
large
quantity
of
percentages
and
dollar
amounts
are
introduced,
and
in
many
cases
the
difference
between
the
numbers
are
small
and
may
be
difficult
to
understand
(
e.
g.,
will
the
survey
respondents
be
able
to
accurately
quantify
the
difference
between
60
and
62
percent?
What
does
such
a
small
increase
in
the
quality
of
a
purely
hypothetical
body
of
water
mean?).
Taken
together
this
approach
is
confusing,
and
may
act
to
degrade
the
seriousness
with
which
respondents
treat
the
survey.

(
8)
The
instrument
inquiries
about
sophisticated
trade­
offs
may
be
ineffective
and
unnecessary.
Respondents
are
asked
to
make
complicated
quality
trade­
offs
between
different
water
uses
(
i.
e.,
fishing,
swimming,
and
aquatic).
Because
of
the
complexity
of
the
choices,
it
seems
likely
that
participants
will
choose
a
leading
indicator
to
dominant
their
selections.
As
a
result,
it
is
unclear
what
useful
information
will
be
derived
from
this
series
of
questions
which
could
not
be
teased
out
of
the
survey
through
alternative
analyses
(
e.
g.,
examining
respondents
choice
of
water­
based
activities
as
compared
with
their
valuations).

Likewise,
it
is
unclear
why
questions
about
individuals'
preferences
related
to
pollution
sources
are
included
in
the
instrument.
It
seems
more
likely
that
the
resulting
responses
will
have
more
to
do
with
participants
attitudes
towards
the
word
"
toxic"
than
provide
any
thoughtful
information.
In
this
same
vein,
the
question,
which
is
similarly
asked
of
agricultural
wastes
would
seem
to
inherently
encourage
a
positive
response:

Do
you
believe
that
in
regions
polluted
by
toxic
chemical
wastes,
even
water
rated
by
the
government
as
having
good
quality
may
be
dangerous
because
of
the
possibility
of
toxic
chemical
pollution?

(
9)
Extraneous
questions
should
be
eliminated.
For
the
purpose
of
valuing
water
quality
improvements,
why
does
it
matter
whether
the
respondent
is
male
or
female?
Married?
Why
are
some
environmental
organizations
named
and
not
others,
and
why
are
no
non­
environmentally
focused
organizations
identified
(
e.
g.,
business
groups).
What
is
the
point
of
these
questions?
February
2000
180
Attachment
6:
Responses
to
Tri­
TAC/
CASA
Comments
The
following
are
our
responses
to
comments
on
the
water
quality
survey
provided
by
Tri­
TAC
and
the
California
Association
of
Sanitation
Agencies
(
CASA).
The
original
comments
can
be
found
in
Attachment
5.
Although
Tri­
TAC
interprets
the
M.
Cubed
comments
as
cause
to
not
proceed
with
the
survey
without
substantial
revision,
we
have
directly
addressed
some
of
the
comments,
and
clarified
why
the
rest
of
the
comments
are
not
relevant
to
this
study.
EPA
concurs.

1.
The
survey
introduction
should
be
clear
and
comprehensive.

The
survey
is
introduced
as
being
about
"
views
on
water
quality,"
rather
than
"
water
quality"
itself.
Great
care
is
later
taken
to
introduce
the
tradeoffs
respondents
are
being
asked
to
make.
In
addition,
the
tradeoffs
respondents
are
asked
to
make
are
not
between
cost
and
quality,
but
between
cost
of
living
and
water
quality.
We
will
examine
the
survey
text
to
try
to
better
connect
water
quality
improvements
to
cost
of
living
increases,
but
it
is
difficult
to
do
this
without
mentioning
specific
payment
mechanisms
inappropriately
in
this
section
of
the
survey.
The
early
section
of
the
survey
which
asks
respondents
about
water
use
generally
is
intended
to
engage
respondents
and
get
them
thinking
about
how
they
do
or
could
use
lakes
and
rivers,
so
as
to
better
equip
them
to
assign
their
informed
value
to
lake
and
river
water
quality
improvement.

2.
The
survey
should
either
examine
specific
or
conceptual
attitudes
towards
bodies
of
water.

Attitudes
towards
lakes
and
rivers
come,
in
part,
from
respondents'
actual
experiences
with
them.
As
such,
initial
questions
in
the
survey
deal
with
actual
uses
of
lakes
and
rivers.
To
avoid
any
undue
influence
of
what
respondents
know
or
feel
about
familiar
lakes
and
rivers,
their
quality,
or
usability,
the
hypothetical
move
to
another
region
format
is
used.
Moreover,
respondents'
zip
codes
are
collected
and
provide
a
means
to
test
the
hypothesis
that
respondents
use
the
quality
of
nearby
waters
as
a
reference
point
(
e.
g.,
for
the
question
that
asks
about
an
improvement
to
90%
from
a
hypothetical
75%,
the
test
is
whether
or
not
willingness
to
pay
is
better
predicted
by
substituting
the
actual
rating
of
waters
within
two
hours
of
respondent's
zip
code).

3.
The
survey
should
provide
clearer
examples
of
value/
cost
tradeoffs.

The
survey
does
not
ask
respondents
to
make
value/
cost
tradeoff.
Respondents
are
asked
to
make
cost
of
living/
water
quality
tradeoff.
This
information
is
then
used
to
determine
value.
Furthermore,
the
"
sit
down"
and
"
fast
food"
restaurant
example
(
where
cost
is
noted)
is
merely
used
as
an
example
to
introduce
the
format
in
which
questions
will
be
asked
and
was
chosen
because
the
idea
of
visiting
restaurants
is
familiar
to
most
respondents.
This
is
a
practice
question
not
used
to
value
water
quality.
This
question
set
was
pretested
and
respondents
did
not
seem
to
have
difficulty
with
either
the
concept
or
the
question.

4.
The
link
between
water
quality
improvements
and
associated
costs
should
be
clearer.

We
agree
that
the
word
"
tax"
could
elicit
a
negative
response
independent
of
the
question
asked,
which
is
why
we
chose
a
more
neutral
cost
of
living
metric.
We
included
tax
later
to
test
this
difference.
The
tradeoffs
that
respondents
are
asked
to
make
are
clearly
stated
as
being
between
two
February
2000
181
places
that
are
the
same
in
every
way
except
for
cost
of
living
and
water
quality,
and
not
between
Des
Moines/
lower
cost
of
living
and
San
Francisco/
higher
cost
of
living.
We
do
not
believe
that
the
cost
of
living
differences
of
less
than
$
300
annually
reflect
the
magnitude
of
location
effects
mentioned
in
these
comments.

5.
Survey
questions
should
be
sensitive
to
the
role
of
time.

We
will
remove
the
term
"
suddenly"
from
the
survey.

6.
US
EPA
should
be
careful
about
what
information
is
presented
by
the
instrument.

One
half
of
respondents
are
given
the
information
that
"
in
the
United
States,
the
overall
level
of
water
quality
for
lakes
and
rivers
is
65%
good."
This
same
set
of
respondents
is
then
asked
"
What
would
you
believe
about
the
quality
of
lakes
and
rivers
in
your
region?"
This
information
will
be
used
to
test
whether
reference
points
(
i.
e.,
beliefs
about
how
local
water
quality
compares
to
the
national
average)
affects
the
values
being
explored
in
the
survey.
Moreover,
the
information
presented
in
the
survey
correctly
reflects
the
nationwide
level
for
water
quality
as
presented
by
the
EPA
Water
Quality
Inventory.

7.
The
instrument's
attempts
to
ascertain
marginal
willingness
to
pay
may
not
be
effective.

The
very
small
changes
in
water
quality
mentioned
here
are
in
question
iterations
where
respondents
are
very
close
to
indifference,
so
no
large
effects
are
likely.
In
the
example
mentioned,
the
maximum
effect
is
a
$
4
per
year
swing
in
water
quality
valuation.
The
survey
uses
hypothetical
moves
and
unfamiliar
water
bodies
to
avoid
unanticipated
focus
on
specific
water
bodies
which
could
unduly
affect
respondents'
valuations.
The
attributes
of
water
quality
that
we
wish
to
test
are
too
complex
and
unfamiliar
to
respondents
to
use
CV
effectively,
and
this
method
breaks
the
task
into
understandable
chunks.
Attachments
3
and
4
demonstrate
application
of
the
methodology
for
estimating
marginal
willingness
to
pay
for
water
quality
improvements
based
on
responses
to
pilot
study
questions.

8.
The
instrument
inquiries
about
sophisticated
tradeoff
may
be
ineffective
and
unnecessary.

EPA
requested
and
gathers
data
on
individual
uses
(
fish
consumption,
supporting
aquatic
environments,
and
swimming).
The
purpose
of
the
survey
is
to
develop
economic
benefit
values
for
water
quality
improvements
for
lakes,
rivers
and
streams
by
individual
use.
An
alternative
analysis
may
provide
more
detailed
information,
but
only
at
the
expense
of
project
cost
and
respondent
burden.

9.
Extraneous
questions
should
be
eliminated.

We
collect
demographic
information
at
the
end
of
the
survey
in
order
to
run
regressions
and
projections
of
water
quality
valuations
to
populations
not
necessarily
represented
in
the
survey
sample
and
to
see
if
the
survey
is
representative
once
done.
We
tried
to
include
as
many
environmental
organizations
as
were
reasonable,
and
tried
to
include
the
major
ones.
Business
and
industry
groups
were
not
explored
because
we
did
not
consider
them
to
be
predictive
of
water
quality
valuation
in
the
same
sense
that
environmental
membership
might
be.
February
2000
182
February
2000
183
Attachment
7:
TVA
Comments
To
All
Whom
It
Concerns:

The
Tennessee
Valley
Authority
(
TVA),
a
U.
S.
Government­
owned
public
power
producer
with
water
resource
management
responsibilities,
appreciates
the
opportunity
to
review
this
Notice,
and
supports
the
development
of
a
survey
instrument
to
develop
economic
benefit
values
for
water
quality
improvements.
We
asked
one
of
our
water
quality
program
managers
and
the
environmental
coordinator
for
our
economic
development
programs
to
review
the
proposed
survey,
and
offer
the
following
comments
based
on
their
review
of
that
survey.

1.
The
proposed
survey
is
more
comprehensive
than
many
we've
seen,
provoking
thought
about
a
number
of
aspects
of
water
quality
/
water
resources.
It
also
prompted
one's
thinking
about
how
much
water
quality
is
worth.

2.
We
are
uncertain
about
the
availability
of
empirical
research
reports
or
data
comparing
actions
of
survey
respondents
to
their
survey
answers.
We
would
encourage
EPA
to
address
this
in
the
reports
releasing
survey
results.

3.
EPA
might
consider
asking
respondents
a
question
about
their
relative
valuation
of
water
quality
versus
other
environmental
attributes
(
e.
g.,
air
quality).

4.
We
believe
that
it
will
take
most
people
closer
to
an
hour
to
complete
the
survey
(
versus
the
30
minute
estimate
provided),
particularly
if
they
attempt
to
go
back
and
review
or
modify
an
answer
­­
the
process
for
which
is
slow
if
one
has
to
go
back
several
questions.
The
survey
does
seem
to
be
cleverly
designed
to
help
respondents
reconsider
answers
which
appear
contradictory.

5.
We
recommend
that
small
towns
be
added
as
a
locality
choice
(
In
addition
to
city,
suburb,
country).

6.
We
recommend
that
the
Great
Lakes
be
identified
separately
from
other
lakes
and
reservoirs
(
due
to
significant
differences
in
size,
water
quality
history,
uses,
and
stakeholder
expectations).

7.
We
recommend
consideration
of
the
addition
of
a
middle
category
between
'
stopping
to
view
a
river
or
lake'
and
the
no
notice
category
(
for
those
who
notice
/
view
/
value,
but
don't
necessarily
stop
what
they
are
doing).

Again,
TVA
appreciates
the
opportunity
to
comment
of
this
Notice.
If
you
or
your
staff
have
questions
regarding
these
comments,
please
contact
Jim
Wright
(
Sr.
Water
Regulatory
Specialist)
at
(
865)
632­
8104,
or
jrwhright@
tva.
gov,
or
my
at
(
423)
751­
3742,
or
jwshipp@
tva.
gov.

Sincerely,
John
W.
Shipp,
Jr.
General
Manager
Environmental
Policy
and
Planning
February
2000
184
Attachment
8:
Responses
to
TVA
Comments
The
following
are
our
responses
to
comments
on
the
water
quality
survey
provided
by
the
Tennessee
Valley
Authority
(
TVA).
Those
comments
are
included
as
the
previous
attachment.

1.
We
appreciate
the
comment.
We
worked
very
hard
and
considered
many
methods
to
evaluate
water
quality
to
arrive
at
this
survey
instrument.

2.
We
found
quite
a
few
studies
attempting
to
value
water
quality,
mostly
for
specific
regions.
The
estimates
varied
widely,
depending
on
the
facet
of
water
quality
studied
and
the
method
used
to
estimate
the
value.
As
part
of
this
survey
we
will
also
obtain
information
on
water
uses
by
respondents
which
potentially
can
be
matched
to
other
data
EPA
might
have.

3.
In
past
surveys
we
have
valued
air
quality
relative
to
accident
safety,
which
is
a
metric
for
which
there
is
a
well
known
dollar
value.
To
do
the
air
quality
comparison
effectively
we
would
have
to
provide
detailed
information
to
respondents
so
that
they
could
think
sensibly
about
air
quality
dimensions.
This
would
have
been
interesting,
but
the
survey
already
has
many
dimensions
of
interest
to
value
with
respect
to
water
quality
and
is
already
long.
The
sensitivity
test
we
do
perform
is
using
the
referendum
approach
rather
than
the
regional
choice
approach.

4.
Data
from
our
pretests
show
that
some
respondents
do
take
longer
to
complete
the
survey.
The
slowest
25%
of
respondents
completed
the
survey
in
an
average
of
42
minutes.
The
overall
average
completion
time
was
under
28
minutes
and
the
median
respondent
completed
the
survey
in
under
26
minutes.
We
will
compensate
respondents
for
their
participation,
which
is
voluntary.

5.
Though
we
try
to
use
census
designations
for
most
of
our
demographic
questions,
we
did
find
that
subjects
have
difficulty
classifying
whether
they
were
in
urban,
suburban,
or
rural
settings.
We
will
add
this
designation
to
the
survey.

6.
We
do
not
identify
any
particular
water
bodies
in
the
survey.
However,
we
do
know
the
zip
code
of
the
respondents
as
well
as
their
current
water
uses
so
that
we
can
explore
differences
in
valuation
for
people
living
in
the
Great
Lakes
regions.

7.
We
will
include
this
distinction
in
the
survey
question.
