1
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
REQUEST
EPA
ICR
Number
2178.01
Market­
based
Stormwater
Management
in
the
Shepherd
Creek
Watershed
in
Cincinnati,
Ohio.

September,
2005
Sustainable
Environments
Branch
Sustainable
Technology
Division
National
Risk
Management
Research
Laboratory
Office
of
Research
and
Development
The
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
PART
A
OF
THE
SUPPORTING
STATEMENT
...............................................................................
3
SECTION
1.
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION.................................
3
1.
(
a)
Title
of
the
Information
Collection
.....................................................................................
3
1.
(
b)
Short
Characterization
/
Abstract:.......................................................................................
3
SECTION
2.
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION......................................................
4
2.
(
a)
Need
/
Authority
for
the
Collection.....................................................................................
4
2.
(
b)
Practical
Utility
/
Users
of
the
Data
....................................................................................
5
SECTION
3.
NONDUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA......................................................................................................................................
5
3.
(
a)
Nonduplication.
..................................................................................................................
5
3.
(
b)
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submissions
to
OMB
................................................
6
3.
(
c)
Consultations......................................................................................................................
6
(
i)
Federal
Register
Announcement..........................................
Error!
Bookmark
not
defined.
(
ii)
Consultations
.....................................................................
Error!
Bookmark
not
defined.
3.
(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection....................................................................................
6
3.
(
e)
General
Guidelines
.............................................................................................................
6
3.
(
f)
Confidentiality....................................................................................................................
6
3.
(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
............................................................................................................
7
SECTION
4.
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED.
.........................
7
4.
(
a)
Respondents
.......................................................................................................................
7
4.
(
b)
Information
Requested
.......................................................................................................
7
(
i)
Data
items,
including
record
keeping
requirements..............................................................
7
(
ii)
Respondent
Activities
........................................................................................................
7
SECTION
5.
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
 
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT.
.......................................................
8
5.
(
a)
Agency
Activities
...............................................................................................................
8
5.
(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
.........................................................................
8
5.
(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility.......................................................................................................
8
5.
(
d)
Collection
Schedule............................................................................................................
8
SECTION
6.
ESTIMATING
THE
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
THE
COLLECTION.......................
9
6.
(
a)
Respondent
Burden
............................................................................................................
9
2
6.
(
b)
Respondent
Costs...............................................................................................................
9
(
i)
Labor
Costs.........................................................................................................................
9
(
ii)
Capital
and
Operations
and
Maintenance
Costs
..................................................................
9
(
iii)
Capital
/
Start­
up
vs.
Operating
and
Maintenance
(
O&
M)
Costs........................................
9
(
iv)
Annualizing
Capital
Costs.
................................................................................................
9
6.
(
c)
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
....................................................................................................
9
6.
(
d)
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
...................................................
9
6.
(
e)
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs...............................................................................
10
(
i)
Respondents
Tally.............................................................................................................
10
(
ii)
Agency
Tally
...................................................................................................................
10
6.
(
f)
Reasons
for
Change
in
Burden
..........................................................................................
10
6.
(
g)
Burden
Statement
.............................................................................................................
10
PART
B
OF
THE
SUPPORTING
STATEMENT
.............................................................................
11
SECTION
1.
SURVEY
OBJECTIVES,
KEY
VARIABLES,
AND
OTHER
PRELIMINARIES
...
11
1.
(
a)
Survey
Objectives.............................................................................................................
11
1.
(
b)
Key
Variables...................................................................................................................
11
1.
(
c)
Statistical
Approach..........................................................................................................
12
1.
(
d)
Feasibility
........................................................................................................................
12
SECTION
2.
SURVEY
DESIGN..................................................................................................
12
2.
(
a)
Target
Population
and
Coverage
.......................................................................................
12
2.
(
b)
Sample
Design
.................................................................................................................
13
(
i)
Sampling
Frames
..............................................................................................................
13
(
ii)
Sample
Size
.....................................................................................................................
13
(
iii)
Stratification
Variables....................................................................................................
13
(
iv)
Sampling
Method............................................................................................................
13
(
v)
Multi­
stage
Sampling
.......................................................................................................
13
2.
(
c)
Precision
Requirements
....................................................................................................
13
(
i)
Precision
Targets...............................................................................................................
13
(
ii)
Nonsampling
Error...........................................................................................................
13
2.
(
d)
Experimental
Design
........................................................................................................
14
(
i)
Instruction
text
for
experiments.........................................................................................
14
(
ii)
Code
for
scenarios
and
users'
decisions............................................................................
18
2.
(
e)
Questionnaire
Text
...........................................................................................................
21
(
i)
General
questions..............................................................................................................
21
(
ii)
Demographic
Questions
...................................................................................................
22
(
iii)
Questions
related
to
the
opportunity
cost
of
stormwater
easements..................................
22
3
PART
A
OF
THE
SUPPORTING
STATEMENT
SECTION
1.
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
1.
(
a)
Title
of
the
Information
Collection
Market­
based
Stormwater
Management
in
the
Shepherd
Creek
Watershed
in
Cincinnati,
Ohio.

[
PLEASE
NOTE:
A
Privacy
Impact
Assessment
(
PIA)
will
be
submitted
to
OMB
separately
for
this
collection
of
information.]

1.
(
b)
Short
Characterization
/
Abstract:

The
Sustainable
Technology
Division
(
STD)
of
the
National
Risk
Management
Research
Laboratory
(
NRMRL)
in
the
Office
of
Research
and
Development
(
ORD)
of
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
is
proposing
to
conduct
a
survey
of
individual
property
owners
in
the
Shepherd
Creek
watershed
in
Cincinnati,
OH.
The
survey
will
elicit
how
residents
value
the
voluntary
adoption
of
onsite
best
management
practices
as
part
of
a
comprehensive
stormwater
runoff
control
policy.
The
focus
will
be
on
estimating
the
minimum
payment
required
to
induce
individual
landowners
to
devote
a
portion
of
their
property
to
runoff
reducing
best
management
practices.

This
data
collection
is
motivated
by
the
current
stormwater
related
problems
within
the
United
States
in
general,
and
in
the
greater
Cincinnati
metropolitan
area
in
particular.
Urban
and
suburban
development
changes
the
natural
landscape
making
it
more
impervious
to
rain
and
snow.
The
resulting
stormwater
runoff
is
one
of
the
most
significant
contributors
to
water
quality
degradation
in
the
United
States
through
larger
and
more
frequent
floods,
increased
erosion
of
stream
beds
and
banks,
disruption
of
natural
habitat
in
receiving
waters,
and
increased
pollution
loadings
of
metals,
toxics,
and
nutrients.
Precipitation
falls
over
large
geographic
areas,
and
the
resulting
runoff
will
flow
across
a
myriad
of
parcels
with
varying
land
uses,
which
are,
in
turn,
under
the
control
of
numerous
property
owners.
Perhaps
in
reaction
to
these
conditions,
stormwater
control
policies
have
concentrated
on
solutions
that
build
centralized
capacity
to
direct
and
hold
excess
runoff
within
the
storm
sewer
system.
An
alternative
approach
to
stormwater
control
would
be
to
develop
a
decentralized
approach
that
disperses
runoff
detention
throughout
the
watershed,
thus
reducing
runoff
before
it
reaches
the
sewer
system.
This
approach
promises
both
hydrological
benefits
of
reducing
the
in­
stream
damages
that
will
continue
to
occur
in
a
centralized
system,
as
well
as
potential
cost­
savings
in
terms
of
meeting
environmental
quality
standards.

Although
the
installation,
operation,
and
maintenance
costs
for
best
management
practices
are
relatively
well
known,
these
are
only
a
portion
of
the
total
costs
of
adoption.
The
opportunity
costs
(
e.
g.:
the
costs
of
partial
loss
of
use
of
property)
associated
with
BMP
adoption
are
privately
held
by
individual
landowners,
and
can
potentially
comprise
the
largest
share
of
total
abatement
adoption
costs.
To
better
understand
the
economic
potential
of
a
voluntary
and
decentralized
runoff
control
program,
it
is
necessary
to
assess
the
opportunity
costs
associated
with
best
management
practice
adoption.
The
proposed
survey
provides
a
means
of
gathering
this
information.
4
The
survey
will
be
conducted
using
six
(
6)
groups
of
ten
(
10)
residential
landowners
from
the
Shepherd
Creek
watershed.
Participation
will
be
completely
voluntary.
Residents
who
wish
to
participate
in
the
study
will
be
identified
and
recruited
through
a
liaison
from
the
Hamilton
County
Soil
and
Water
Conservation
District,
who
is
familiar
with
the
community.
The
survey
will
be
conducted
using
a
computer
simulated
uniform­
price,
sequential
auction
for
the
procurement
of
best
management
practices.
Participants
will
be
presented
with
a
selection
of
best
management
practices
that
are
feasible
for
use
on
their
actual
parcel.
Information
regarding
how
each
BMP
will
perform
on
their
specific
parcel,
as
well
as
the
installation,
operation,
and
maintenance
costs
will
be
provided.
The
auction
is
designed
to
compensate
residents
for
their
costs
of
adopting
best
management
practices
on
their
property.
Participants
who
wish
to
adopt
BMPs
will
submit
bids
that
consist
of
the
size
and
type
of
the
BMPs
and
the
minimum
compensation
that
they
require.
The
goal
is
to
pay
those
landowners
who
adopt
the
most
effective
best
management
practices
at
the
lowest
price.
A
uniformprice
auction
is
employed
because
of
its
theoretical
"
truth­
revelation"
properties.
The
optimal
bidding
strategy
in
a
uniform­
price
auction
is
to
bid
the
actual
cost
of
BMP
adoption.
Survey
results
will
then
be
used
to
estimate
the
minimum
payments
required
to
achieve
control
stormwater
runoff
through
onsite
best
management
practices.

The
total
number
of
participants
is
60.
The
cost
to
participants
will
be
their
time,
at
a
total
of
120
hours.
Participants
will
be
compensated
for
their
participation
at
a
minimum
rate
of
$
24.95
per
hour.
An
additional
bonus
amount
of
compensation
will
vary
with
their
performance
in
the
auction.
This
is
a
commonly
accepted
practice
used
in
experimental
economics,
in
order
to
overcome
hypothetical
survey
bias.
Data
will
be
stored
on
US
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
computer
files
that
protect
respondent
confidentiality.
Summary
results
will
be
made
available
to
the
public.

SECTION
2.
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
2.
(
a)
Need
/
Authority
for
the
Collection
The
Federal
Water
Pollution
Control
Act
("
Clean
Water
Act")
Section
104
(
33
U.
S.
C.
1254),
subsection
(
a)(
1)
directs
the
EPA
to
"
in
cooperation
with
other
Federal,
State,
and
local
agencies,
conduct
and
promote
the
coordination
and
acceleration
of,
research,
investigations,
experiments,
training,
demonstrations,
surveys,
and
studies
relating
to
the
causes,
effects,
extent,
prevention,
reduction,
and
elimination
of
pollution"
and
subsection
(
a)(
6)
states
in
part
that
EPA
"
initiate
and
promote
the
coordination
and
acceleration
of
research
designed
to
develop
the
most
effective
practicable
tools
and
techniques
for
measuring
the
social
and
economic
costs
and
benefits
of
activities
which
are
subject
to
regulation
under
this
chapter."
Under
the
National
Pollutant
Elimination
Discharge
program
(
33
U.
S.
C.
1342),
municipal
separate
sewer
systems
(
MS4s)
must
implement
six
control
measures
that
include
(
1)
public
education
and
outreach
on
stormwater
impacts
and
(
2)
public
participation.
The
information
collected
as
a
part
of
this
study
will
involve
both
and
so
will
assist
the
local
community
in
evaluating
and
using
the
most
effective
and
practicable
tools
and
techniques
for
meeting
Clean
Water
Act
requirements.

The
study
for
which
this
information
collection
will
be
used
is
being
conducted
in
compliance
with
the
Government
Performance
and
Results
Act
(
GPRA)
under
EPA
GPRA
Goal
#
8­­
Science,
Improved
5
Understanding
of
Environmental
Risks
and
Greater
Innovation
to
Address
Environmental
Problems;
the
Office
of
Research
and
Development,
National
Risk
Management
Research
Laboratory's
Annual
Performance
Goal
(
APG)
#
5­­
Environmental
Systems
Management:
"
Deliver
to
local
and
state
governmental
agencies
for
their
use,
methods
and
models
for
evaluating
conservation
and
restoration
of
ecosystems
based
on
market
incentives,
GIS
modeling,
hydrologic
models
and
legal
constraints;"
and
its
Annual
Performance
Measure
(
APM)
#
16­­"
Deliver
economics
methodology
using
tradable
credit
market
system
for
impervious
surfaces
to
cost­
effectively
reduce
combined
sewer
over­
flows
in
urban
areas
so
EPA
Regions
can
minimize
risk
from
sewer­
contaminated
water."
Though
this
information
is
not
required
by
any
Agency
decision
and
will
be
primarily
of
use
to
the
research
community
and
state
and
local
planners,
within
EPA
this
work
supports
(
64
Federal
Register
68722,
68736,
Dec.
8,
1999):
"
An
MS4
is
required
to
implement
six
control
measures
under
its
NPDES
permit:
(
1)
public
education
and
outreach
on
stormwater
impacts;
(
2)
public
involvement/
participation;
(
3)
illicit
discharge
detection
and
elimination;
(
4)
construction
site
stormwater
runoff
control;
(
5)
post­
construction
stormwater
management
in
new
development
and
redevelopment;
and
(
6)
pollution
prevention/
good
housekeeping
for
municipal
operations.

2.
(
b)
Practical
Utility
/
Users
of
the
Data
The
primary
users
of
the
data
will
be
the
residents
and
landowners
within
the
Shepherd
Creek
watershed.
Various
public
entities
in
charge
of
stormwater
runoff,
such
as
the
Municipal
Stormwater
District,
can
use
data
results
to
meet
current
regulatory
obligations
regarding
stormwater
control.
Multiple
municipalities
facing
stormwater
runoff
and
combined
sewer
overflow
problems
can
benefit
from
a
better
understanding
of
best
management
adoption
costs.
A
third
set
of
end
users
is
researchers
and
practitioners
who
want
to
investigate
similar
topics
in
other
localities,
either
on
a
stand­
alone
basis
or
as
part
of
an
integrated
assessment.
Based
on
the
description
of
the
survey
development
and
implementation
process,
and
on
the
results
reported,
others
may
adapt
the
experimental
auction
and
survey
for
their
own
use.
Data
results
will
also
be
available
for
researchers
and
practitioners.

SECTION
3.
NONDUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
3.
(
a)
Nonduplication.
Two
related
articles
were
identified.
The
first
 
"
Controlling
Stormwater
Runoff
with
Tradable
Allowances
for
Impervious
Surfaces"
by
Hale
Thurston,
Haynes
Goddard,
David
Szlag,
and
Beth
Lemberg,
published
in
Journal
of
Water
Resources
Planning
and
Management,
Sept/
Oct
2003,
pp.
409­
418.
 
describes
work
conducted
earlier
by
members
of
the
EPA
research
team
(
Thurston
and
Goddard).
The
second
 
"
A
laboratory
study
of
auctions
for
reducing
non­
point
source
pollution"
by
Timothy
N.
Cason,
Lata
Gangadharan
and
Charlotte
Duke,
published
in
Journal
of
Environmental
Economics
and
Management,
Volume
46,
Issue
3,
November
2003,
Pages
446­
471
 
describes
an
experimental
auction
used
to
value
rural
landowner's
adoption
of
best
management
practices
for
nonpoint
source
pollution
reductions
in
rural
Australia.
Though
the
experimental
protocol
described
in
this
article
is
similar
to
what
we
propose,
the
research
focus
was
not
related.
6
The
following
databases
were
reviewed
and
contained
no
related
references:
Government
Information
Locator
Service
(
GILS);
Federal
R&
D
Project
summaries,
including
DOE
R&
D
Project
Summaries
database,
NIH
CRISP
Database,
and
NSF
Awards
database;
Center
for
Research
Libraries;
EBSCO
Online
Citations;
Proquest
digital
dissertations;
Columbia
earthscape;
Cambridge
Scientific
abstracts;
Information
Science
Abstracts
Plus
(
1966­
2000/
06);
ERIC
ISA
Subset
(
1966­
2000/
06);
Philosopher's
Index
(
1940­
2000/
09);
Social
Sciences
Abstracts
2/
83­
10/
00;
Biological
and
Agricultural
Index
7/
83­
10/
00;
ISA
1966­
2000/
03;
MLA
Directory
of
Periodicals
2000/
08;
MLA
Bibliography
1963­
1990;
MLA
Bibliography
1991­
2000/
11;
EconLit
1969­
2000/
11;
Applied
Science
and
Technology
Abstracts
10/
83­
12/
95;
Applied
Science
and
Technology
Abstracts
1/
96­
10/
0;
PAIS
(
Public
Affairs
Information
Service);
GPO;
Catalog
of
U.
S.
Government
Publications
(
CGP);
and
GOVBOT.

3.
(
b)
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submissions
to
OMB
EPA
/
ORD
/
GCRP
published
a
Federal
Register
Announcement
on
Wednesday,
July
13,
2005,
Vol.
70,
No.
133
pp.
40329­
40330.
No
public
comments
were
received.

3.
(
c)
Consultations
EPA
has
undertaken
a
number
of
consultations
in
developing
this
project
including
academic
experts,
intra­
agency
staff
and
key
stake
holders.
US
EPA
has
a
broad
range
of
researchers
included
on
the
research
team
(
Drs.
Mayer,
Shuster,
Stewart,
Taylor,
Thurston).
Multiple
meetings
of
the
Shepherd
Creek
Occasional
Meeting
group
have
taken
place,
which
include
Mr.
Dale
Eicher
of
State
of
Ohio
Environmental
Proteciton
Agency,
Ms.
Holly
Utrata­
Halcomb
of
the
Hamilton
County
Soil
and
Water
Conservation
District,
Mr.
Martin
Umberg
and
Mr.
Wes
Wimmer
of
the
Hamilton
County
Metropolitan
Sewer
District,
Mr.
Jim
Godby,
Mr.
Tim
Gilday
of
the
Hamilton
County
Engineers
Office,
Dr.
Suzie
Greenhalgh
Senior
Economist
World
Resources,
Dr.
John
Braden,
University
of
Illinois.

3.
(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
Not
applicable;
this
is
a
one­
time
data
collection
activity.

3.
(
e)
General
Guidelines
This
ICR
conforms
to
OMB's
general
guidelines
for
the
collection
of
information
described
in
the
ICR
Handbook.

3.
(
f)
Confidentiality
Files
containing
personal
identifiers
will
not
be
stored
alongside
files
with
individual
responses.
Confidentiality
will
be
carefully
protected,
even
though
disclosure
of
human
subjects'
responses
outside
the
research
team
would
not
place
the
respondents
at
risk
of
criminal
or
civil
liability
or
be
damaging
to
their
financial
standing,
employability,
or
reputation.
Once
a
subject
has
completed
the
experimental
auction
and
survey,
it
will
not
be
possible
to
link
response
data
with
information
such
as
7
name
and
address.
Working
data
will
be
stored
on
computers
in
secure
data
files
available
only
to
the
EPA
research
team
members
working
on
the
experimental
auction
and
survey
project.
Files
with
participants'
names,
mailing
addresses
and
phone
numbers
will
be
stored
separately
under
lock
and
key,
and
will
not
be
part
of
working
data
files.
Remaining
hard
copy
files
will
have
no
personal
or
organizational
identifiers.
Through
these
mechanisms,
confidentiality
of
subjects
who
agree
to
participate
in
the
survey
is
assured.

3.
(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
The
experimental
auction
and
survey
does
not
include
any
questions
regarding
sexual
behavior
or
attitudes,
religious
beliefs,
or
other
matters
usually
considered
private.
In
the
survey
portion,
the
penultimate
question
asks
participants
to
indicate
which
of
several
broad
ranges
their
annual
family
income
fits
within;
such
categorical
(
rather
than
specific,
which
would
be
considered
private)
information
often
is
requested
(
as
in
this
case)
so
that
the
group
of
sample
respondents
can
be
compared
with
the
target
population.
Response
to
this
and
all
questions
in
the
survey
is
strictly
voluntary.

SECTION
4.
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED.

4.
(
a)
Respondents
The
proposed
information
collection
targets
private
landowners
who
are
residents
of
the
Mt.
Airy
community
of
Cincinnati,
OH.
A
random
and
representative
sample
of
the
total
440
residences
will
be
identified
and
recruited
through
the
assistance
of
the
Hamilton
County
Soil
and
Water
Conservation
Service
(
SWCS).
The
SWCS
has
extensive
experience
within
the
community.
Respondents
will
be
household
decision­
makers
who
are
18
years
of
age
or
older.
The
SWCS
recruiting
respondents
will
make
it
clear
that
participation
is
voluntary.

4.
(
b)
Information
Requested
(
i)
Data
items,
including
record
keeping
requirements
The
full
text
of
the
experimental
auction
and
survey
is
attached
at
the
end
of
this
document
and
discussed
in
detail
in
Part
B
of
this
Supporting
Statement.
This
survey
seeks
to
gauge
personal
opinions
and
as
such
should
not
require
respondents
to
search
existing
records
or
to
reformat
information
to
submit
to
the
Agency.
There
will
be
no
public
record
keeping
activities
under
this
ICR.
(
ii)
Respondent
Activities
Respondents
will
be
asked
to
listen
to
a
short
presentation
regarding
the
hydrological
effects
of
stormwater
runoff,
and
the
use
of
small
scale
best
management
practices
to
control
runoff.
Respondents
will
then
be
asked
to
participate
in
a
hypothetical
auction
in
which
they
can
request
payment
in
exchange
for
adoption
of
best
management
practices
on
their
property.
Finally,
the
participants
answer
a
brief
exiting
questionnaire.
8
SECTION
5.
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
 
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT.

5.
(
a)
Agency
Activities
The
EPA
will
develop
the
experimental
auction
and
survey,
conduct
the
experimental
auction
and
survey
(
or
arrange
for
its
conduct
through
a
subcontractor),
and
compile
and
store
the
data,
analyze
survey
findings,
and
produce
summary
reports.

5.
(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
In
collecting
and
analyzing
the
information
associated
with
this
ICR,
the
EPA
will
follow
a
number
of
procedures
for
collection
and
management
of
the
data.
 
Data
quality
will
be
ensured
via
adequate
training
and
supervision
of
data
collectors.
 
Reliability
of
computer
programs
will
be
verified
with
test
data
prior
to
use.
 
Computer
data­
coders
will
be
adequately
trained
and
supervised.
 
Data
input
will
be
stored
on
both
secured
hard
drives
and
on
another
medium
such
as
floppy
disk
or
CD
ROM.
Data
shared
across
EPA
investigators
will
be
shared
on
an
access­
protected,
dedicated
website.
 
Public
access
to
the
final
reports
will
be
made
available
via
the
EPA/
NRMRL
website.
Final
reports
will
disclose
only
aggregated,
anonymous
data.

5.
(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
The
proposed
survey
is
targeted
at
individual
households
in
the
Mt.
Airy
community
of
Cincinnati,
OH.
No
significant
economic
impact
will
be
imposed
on
any
participant.

5.
(
d)
Collection
Schedule
Upon
OMB
approval,
EPA
will
initiate
the
information
collection,
and
will
complete
the
following
tasks:
 
Pre­
test
the
experimental
auction
software
using
six
groups
of
ten
undergraduate
students
recruited
from
the
University
of
Cincinnati.
(
One
month
after
OMB
approval)
 
Arrange
with
SWC
to
begin
recruitment
of
private
landowners
for
participation
in
the
study.
(
Three
months
after
OMB
approval)
 
Conduct
data
collection
session
using
the
experimental
auction
and
survey
(
Five
months
after
OMB
approval)
 
Make
summary
data
tables
and
analysis
available
to
the
public
three
months
after
completion
of
the
data
collection
(
Ten
months
after
OMB
approval).
9
SECTION
6.
ESTIMATING
THE
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
THE
COLLECTION.

6.
(
a)
Respondent
Burden
It
is
estimated
that
there
will
be
60
participants
in
the
experimental
auctions
and
survey
of
resident
landowners
in
the
Mt.
Airy
community
of
Cincinnati,
OH.
EPA
estimates
that
each
participant
will
spend
a
maximum
of
two
hours
during
the
experimental
auction
and
survey
session.
This
includes
time
spent
listening
to
an
introductory
information
presentation
(
20
minutes),
the
experimental
auction
(
85
minutes),
and
an
exiting
survey
(
15
minutes).
The
EPA
estimates
the
total
response
burden
of
120
hours
(
2
hours
each
participant
x
60
participants).
The
current
burden
estimates
are
based
on
the
researchers'
experience
and
consultation
with
several
of
the
experts
listed
in
Section
3.(
c)
above.
Interviewers
conducting
the
pretests
will
record
the
amount
of
time
taken
for
administration
of
the
experimental
auction
and
survey,
to
confirm
or
modify
these
estimates.
The
burden
estimates
for
the
surveys
reflect
a
one­
time
expenditure,
so
they
are
equal
to
annual
expenditures
during
the
single
year
that
the
survey
is
conducted.

6.
(
b)
Respondent
Costs
(
i)
Labor
Costs
Wage
estimates
are
based
on
the
"
Employer
Cost
for
Employment
Compensation"
(
Bureau
of
Labor
and
Statistics
USDL:
04­
1105,
March
2004).
Labor
costs
are
estimated
at
$
24.95
per
hour
(
average
total
compensation
[
inclusive
of
benefits]
for
all
civilian
workers).
Burden
activities
include
only
a
few
steps:
reading
or
listening
to
instructions,
reading
or
listening
to
survey
questions,
responding
to
survey
questions.
(
ii)
Capital
and
Operations
and
Maintenance
Costs
No
capital
expenditures
are
needed
by
the
respondent
to
complete
the
survey.
(
iii)
Capital
/
Start­
up
vs.
Operating
and
Maintenance
(
O&
M)
Costs
Only
incidental
operating
and
maintenance
costs
are
associated
with
the
completion
and
analysis
of
the
surveys,
including:
maintenance
of
computer
files
($
500).
Other
than
these
rather
small
expenses,
no
operating
and
maintenance
costs
(
ongoing
non­
wage
expenditures)
are
anticipated
to
complete
the
survey.

(
iv)
Annualizing
Capital
Costs.
Not
applicable.
There
are
no
capital
costs.

6.
(
c)
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
To
perform
the
activities
described
in
section
5
(
a),
GCRP
estimates
that
two
federal
employee
at
the
GS­.
13­
01
level
will
be
needed,
at
an
annual
pay
rate
of
$
72,385.
This
estimate
is
based
on
the
2004
GS
annual
pay
schedule
for
Cincinnati,
OH.
EPA
estimates
that
the
two
federal
employees
each
will
work
25%
of
his
time
on
this
project
during
the
six
month
life
of
the
experiment
or
approximately
(
72,385
x
2)*(
6/
12)*(.
5)
for
an
estimated
cost
to
manage
this
project
of
$
36,193.
The
survey
will
be
conducted
by
the
HCSWCD,
with
no
funding.
The
software
for
the
experiment
was
written
through
order
number
4C­
R121­
NAEX
with
Department
of
Hydrology
and
Water
Resources,
University
of
Arizona,
Tucson
,
AZ
for
$
17,100.
Total
agency
costs
$
17,
100
+
$
36,193
=
$
53,293
6.
(
d)
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
EPA
estimates
that
60
respondents
will
voluntarily
participate
in
the
experiments
at
a
total
burden
of
120
hours
and
a
total
cost
of
$
2,994.
10
6.
(
e)
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
(
i)
Respondents
Tally
TOTAL
$
2,994
(
ii)
Agency
Tally
TOTAL
$
53,293
6.
(
f)
Reasons
for
Change
in
Burden
The
surveys
are
a
one­
time
data
collection
activity,
therefore,
this
section
is
not
applicable.

6.
(
g)
Burden
Statement
The
annual
public
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden
for
this
collection
of
information
is
estimated
to
average
2
hours
per
response,
as
a
one­
time
burden.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.

To
comment
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques,
EPA
has
established
a
public
docket
for
this
ICR
under
Docket
ID
No.
ORD­
2005­
0003,
which
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Office
of
Research
and
Development
(
ORD)
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Office
of
Research
and
Development
Docket
is
(
202)
566­
1752.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA
Dockets
(
EDOCKET)
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
Use
EDOCKET
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
"
search,"
then
key
in
the
docket
ID
number
identified
above.
Also,
you
can
send
comments
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Office
for
EPA.
Please
include
the
EPA
Docket
ID
No.
(
ORD­
2005­
0003)
in
any
correspondence.
11
PART
B
OF
THE
SUPPORTING
STATEMENT
SECTION
1.
SURVEY
OBJECTIVES,
KEY
VARIABLES,
AND
OTHER
PRELIMINARIES
1.
(
a)
Survey
Objectives
Questionnaire
responses
are
designed
to
provide
answers
to
the
following
questions:
Question
1.
How
do
residents
within
the
Shepherd
Creek
Watershed
rate
the
relative
importance
of
typical
quality­
of­
life
characteristics?
Question
2.
How
do
these
residents
value
improvements
in
stormwater
runoff
control
in
Shepherd
Creek?
Question
3.
What
change
in
property
value
do
these
residents
assign
to
the
conversion
of
a
portion
of
their
yard
to
a
best
management
practice,
such
as
a
rain
garden?
Question
4.
What
form
of
land
use
policy
instrument
(
mandatory
or
voluntary)
do
residents
see
as
most
appropriate
for
stormwater
runoff
control
from
private
property?
Question
5.
Do
residents
think
it
is
more
likely
than
not
that
the
Shepherd
Creek
watershed
will
experience
damaging
stormwater
runoff
in
the
next
5
or
25
years?
Question
7.
How
do
responses
to
the
above
questions
vary
by
length
of
residence
and
location
within
the
watershed
(
e.
g.,
within
more
vulnerable
areas
compared
with
outside
the
most
vulnerable
areas),
and
by
standard
socio­
economic
measures
such
as
employment
status,
age
category
and
income
category?
Question
8.
What
are
the
residents'
judgments
about
specified
trade­
offs
among
quality­
of­
life
characteristics
such
as
habitat
for
wildlife,
stream
ecology,
public
health,
drinking
water
quality,
flood
risk,
restrictions
on
land
development,
and
local
taxes?

1.
(
b)
Key
Variables
Key
variables
for
the
survey
of
residents
include
quality­
of­
life
characteristics,
especially
habitat
for
wildlife,
stream
ecology,
public
health,
drinking
water
quality,
flood
risk,
restrictions
on
land
development,
and
local
taxes
and
fees.
Additional
key
variables
for
the
survey
of
residents
include:
 
Expectations
about
the
level
of
commercial
and
residential
development
over
the
next
5
and
25
years
 
Whether
this
development
can
be
done
without
harming
the
overall
natural
environment
 
Current
assessment
of
water
quality
in
Shepherd's
Creek
 
Level
of
involvement
within
any
environmental
organizations
and/
or
activities
 
Age
category
of
respondent
 
Employment
status
of
respondent
 
General
income
category
of
respondent
 
Length
of
residence
in
the
Mt.
Airy
community
in
Cincinnati,
OH
12
1.
(
c)
Statistical
Approach
The
U.
S.
Environmental
Agency
is
interested
in
promoting
the
use
of
market
mechanisms
as
incentives
for
environmentally
sound
water
pollution
reduction
policies.
This
work
is
exploring
the
use
of
tradable
allowances
as
a
coordinating
mechanism
for
controlling
stormwater
runoff
from
urban
and
urbanizing
areas.
Before
actual
implementation
of
the
program
can
take
place,
a
"
calibration"
needs
to
be
done
to
give
a
benchmark
for
payments
and
to
anticipate
stakeholder
behaviors,
this
is
often
done
with
experimental
economics
programs.
To
this
end
we
require
the
development
of
an
experimental
auction
that
will
allow
for
several
stakeholders
to
participate
in
an
interactive
experimental
economics
exercise
through
networked
laptop
computers.
The
exercise
will
prompt
participants
to
make
choices
based
on
several
cost
and
benefit
scenarios
dealing
with
best
management
practices
(
BMP)
for
stormwater
runoff
control.
The
information
gleaned
from
the
experimental
data
will
be
used
to
inform
a
subsequent
effort
involving
auctions
at
a
watershed
level.
The
experiment
is
designed
to
elicit
the
privately
held
values
of
landowners
regarding
the
adoption
of
stormwater
runoff
reducing
best
management
practices
on
their
actual
property.
The
auction
will
simulate
a
uniformprice
sequential
auction
for
the
procurement
of
best
management
practices
(
BMPs)
in
Shepherd
Creek.
A
uniform­
price
auction
is
employed
because
of
its
theoretical
"
truth­
revelation"
properties,
(
i.
e.,
the
optimal
bidding
strategy
is
to
bid
the
true
value
of
BMP
adoption).
A
sequential
bidding
format
is
adopted
to
accommodate
the
benefits
of
learning­
by­
doing.
To
accomplish
this
the
expected
performance
of
feasible
site­
specific
BMPs,
as
well
as
the
associated
installation,
operation,
and
maintenance
costs,
must
be
provided
to
the
participants
within
the
simulation.

1.
(
d)
Feasibility
Participants
are
not
expected
to
face
obstacles
in
completing
the
experimental
auction
and
survey.
Several
steps
have
been
taken
to
facilitate
participation.
The
instructions
will
stress
that
most
questions
ask
about
their
perceptions
or
judgments,
so
that
there
are
no
right
or
wrong
answers.
Pre­
testing
the
instruments
will
have
ensured
that
respondents
understand
the
words
used
and
can
answer
the
questions
asked.
The
questionnaires
will
be
able
to
accept
a
code
for
a
"
don't
know"
response
to
any
given
question.
The
relatively
few
questions
of
fact
should
be
quite
straight­
forward
(
e.
g.,
for
residents:
How
long
have
you
lived
in
this
area?
Are
you
presently
employed?
Which
of
the
following
age
groups
are
you
in?,
etc.).
Sufficient
funds
are
available
to
complete
the
study
as
designed.
In
the
absence
of
sufficient
funds,
the
sample
size
might
have
to
be
reduced,
diminishing
the
value
of
the
data
for
answering
the
research
questions
and
reporting
back
to
the
citizens
and
organizations
of
the
Shepherd
Creek
Watershed.

SECTION
2.
SURVEY
DESIGN
2.
(
a)
Target
Population
and
Coverage
The
target
population
is
residents
who
own
private
property
in
the
Mt.
Airy
community
of
Cincinnati.
OH.
This
provides
coverage
of
the
majority
of
private
property
parcels
existing
within
the
study
area
13
of
the
Shepherd
Creek
watershed,
who
have
well­
formed
preferences
about
(
and
a
strong
interest
in)
its
quality
of
life.

2.
(
b)
Sample
Design
(
i)
Sampling
Frames
We
will
obtain
the
sampling
frame
for
our
study
from
the
HCSWCD
which
has
experience
in
contacting
and
recruiting
local
participants
for
such
studies.
The
study
sample
will
be
a
randomly
chosen,
representative
sample
of
the
440
resident
landowners
that
make
up
the
Mt.
Airy
community
of
Cincinnati,
OH.

(
ii)
Sample
Size
Sixty
homeowners
will
participate.

(
iii)
Stratification
Variables
Not
applicable.

(
iv)
Sampling
Method
Residents
of
the
Mount
Airy
area
of
Cincinnati,
OH,
will
be
chosen
at
random
by
the
HCSWCD
and
offered
the
opportunity
to
participate
in
the
auction.

(
v)
Multi­
stage
Sampling
Not
applicable
2.
(
c)
Precision
Requirements
(
i)
Precision
Targets
As
discussed
in
section
2.2.(
b)
above,
decisions
about
sample
size
were
made
partly
on
the
basis
of
desired
precision.
That
discussion
indicates
that
we
expect
to
be
95%
confident
that
our
estimates
for
key
variables
will
be
within
about
5%
of
the
"
true"
values
of
these
(
unknown)
parameters.
This
level
of
precision
will
be
ample
for
the
research
needs:
to
determine
how
residents
think
about
interrelationships
for
the
characteristics
related
to
their
quality
of
life
and
their
trade­
offs
among
them.
(
ii)
Nonsampling
Error.
If
non­
respondents
have
significantly
different
opinions
compared
with
respondents,
the
survey
will
be
biased
in
underestimating
the
opinions
of
non­
respondents.
We
shall
pretest
the
instruments
to
examine
for
potential
wording
that
might
bias
participants
during
the
experimental
auction
and/
or
survey.
Aggregate
responses
to
the
socio­
economic
questions
asked
of
residents
will
be
compared
with
census
data,
enabling
judgment
about
whether
the
respondents
differ
from
the
rest
of
the
Mt.
Airy
population.
If
so,
weighting
can
be
used
so
that
the
results
more
accurately
reflect
the
county.
14
2.
(
d)
Experimental
Design
(
i)
Instruction
text
for
experiments
Screen
#
1
Informed
Consent
INFORMED
CONSENT
You
are
invited
to
participate
in
a
research
study.
Your
participation
is
entirely
voluntary.
You
may
refuse
to
participate
at
any
time
without
penalty
or
loss
of
any
benefit
to
which
you
are
entitled.

BURDEN
STATEMENT
OMB
Control
No.
20XX­
XXXX
Approval
expires
XX/
XX/
XX
The
public
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden
for
this
collection
of
information
is
estimated
to
average
2
hours
per
response.
Send
comments
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
through
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques
to
the
Director,
Collection
Strategies
Division,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
2822T),
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460.
Include
the
OMB
control
number
in
any
correspondence.
Do
not
send
the
completed
survey
to
this
address.

INFORMATION
This
is
an
experiment
in
the
economics
of
decision­
making.
If
you
choose
to
participate
you
will
be
making
decisions
in
response
to
information
that
is
provided
by
the
persons
running
the
experiment.
The
experiment
may
last
as
long
as
90
minutes.
You
will
earn
a
participation
payment
of
$
XXX
for
arriving
at
the
scheduled
time;
you
are
guaranteed
this
payment.
Beyond
this,
you
will
earn
money
based
on
the
decisions
that
you
make
during
the
experiment,
but
you
can
expect
to
earn
between
$
XX
and
$
YY
in
total.
These
decisions
and
the
earnings
you
receive
as
a
result
of
your
decisions
will
be
confidential.
You
will
receive
your
earnings
in
cash
at
the
end
of
the
session.

At
the
beginning
of
the
session
the
person
running
the
experiment
will
describe
the
specific
instructions
which
will
include
a
full
description
of
the
tasks,
how
payoffs
are
earned,
and
the
length
of
time
for
the
session.
After
the
person
running
the
experiment
has
explained
the
specific
instructions
for
the
session,
you
are
free
to
continue
or
withdraw
at
that
point.
At
any
time
during
the
experiment,
you
are
free
to
stop
participating
and
to
leave
the
experiment.
If
you
do
discontinue
participation,
you
still
earn
the
participation
payment.
We
do
ask
that
you
do
not
disrupt
the
other
participants
if
you
choose
to
leave
before
the
end.

The
information
in
the
study
records
will
be
kept
confidential.
Your
name
and
social
security
number
will
be
provided
to
the
Accounting
Office
for
payment.
This
information
WILL
NOT
be
reported
to
the
IRS
unless
your
total
earnings
exceed
$
400,
which
is
extremely
unlikely.
Data
will
be
stored
securely
and
will
be
made
available
only
to
persons
conducting
the
study
unless
you
specifically
give
permission
in
writing
to
do
otherwise.
Consent
forms
and
any
coded
payment
information
will
be
15
stored
separately
from
the
data.
No
reference
will
be
made
in
oral
or
written
reports
which
could
link
you
in
any
way
to
the
study.
When
the
study
is
completed
all
records
of
your
participation
except
for
this
consent
form
and
a
computerized
data
set
stripped
of
all
identifying
information
will
be
destroyed.
You
will
receive
a
copy
of
this
consent
form.

If
you
have
any
questions
concerning
the
market
experiments
or
this
research
you
may
contact:
Professor
Steven
Stewart
of
University
of
Arizona
at
520­
626­
3892.
If
you
have
questions
about
your
rights
as
a
participant,
contact
the
Compliance
Section
of
the
Office
of
Research
at
974­
3466.
If
you
have
any
additional
questions
about
your
rights
as
a
research
subject
you
may
also
contact
the
Chair,
ORAU/
ORNL
Institutional
Review
Board
at
576­
1725.

Screen
#
2
Background
on
Raingardens
as
a
means
of
controlling
stowmwater
A
"
rain
garden"
is
a
garden
that
is
designed
to
allow
rain
and
snowmelt
to
seep
naturally
into
the
ground
instead
of
running
off
into
the
stormwater
sewer
system.
Rain
gardens
have
a
slight
indentation
in
the
center
to
increase
the
collection
of
rain
water,
and
they
are
planted
with
hearty
native
species
that
do
not
require
chemical
fertilizers
or
pesticides.
They
are
most
effective
when
located
in
the
path
of
stormwater
runoff
from
impervious
surfaces
such
as
driveways,
patios,
and
under
gutters.
The
benefits
provided
by
rain
gardens
extend
far
beyond
their
natural
beauty
and
their
ability
to
attract
birds
and
butterflies.
They
also
work
to
reduce
flooding,
reduce
pollution
in
local
streams
and
rivers,
and
recharge
underground
aquifers.

EPA/
City
of
Cincinnati
is
studying
a
new
way
to
control
runoff
of
stormwater
in
the
Shepherd
Creek
watershed.
This
new
method
involves
the
use
of
"
raingardens."
A
Raingardens
is
a
site­
constructed
basin
made
of
rocks,
sand,
and
vegetation.
Some
examples
of
raingardens
are
pictured
on
the
page.
We
have
asked
you
here
today
to
figure
out
how
much
of
a
lease
payment
that
you
and
other
residents
of
the
area
would
require
in
order
to
determine
whether
the
raingardens
are
a
cost­
effective
alternative
for
controlling
stormwater.
The
City
would
lease
a
portion
of
your
land
on
which
it
would
build
a
raingarden
and
perform
all
maintenance
on
it
for
each
three­
year
lease
that
you
agree
to.

Screen
#
3
Background
on
Stormwater
Control
The
standard
way
of
controlling
runoff
from
developed
neighborhoods
is
through
a
centralized
stormwater
sewer
system.
This
includes
the
construction
of
an
underground
system
of
drainage
pipes
and
collection
areas,
as
well
as
the
acquisition
of
land
to
build
large
retention
ponds
to
slow
water
down
and
allow
some
of
it
to
percolate
to
the
soil,
and
redirect
the
rest.
As
urban
and
suburban
areas
grow,
there
is
a
corresponding
need
to
expand
these
systems
to
avoid
problems
of
flooding,
pollution,
and
combined
sewer
overflows.
Expanding
the
standard
system
can
be
very
expensive
and
would
require
access
to
large
parcels
of
lands
and
the
construction
of
diversion
devices
that
must
be
paid
for
with
public
funds.
Alternatively,
an
approach
that
encourages
the
adoption
of
small
rain
gardens
by
many
property
owners
could
provide
the
same
level
of
runoff
control
at
a
much
lower
cost
to
the
municipality
because
it
would
not
involve
the
purchase
of
large
tracts
of
land
or
the
construction
of
diversion
canals,
weirs,
etc.
Instead
the
City
is
proposing
to
lease
small
portions
of
land
from
many
willing
individual
property
owners
and
construct
small
rain
gardens
in
their
front
or
back
yards.
16
[
plus
pictures
depicting
stormwater
problems]

Screen
#
4
 
Experiment
Instructions
We
will
ask
you
to
play
several
rounds
of
an
experiment
in
which
we
ask
you
about
the
payment
you
would
require
in
order
to
allow
the
City
to
install
a
raingarden
on
your
property.
This
is
the
screen
that
you
will
see
throughout
much
of
the
experiment.
The
map
on
the
lower
right
is
a
map
of
properties
in
your
neighborhood
(
1).
The
top
center
box
(
2)
(
stormwater
fee
version
will
have
slightly
different
description)
gives
you
information
about
the
total
amount
of
stormwater
coming
from
your
neighborhood
that
needs
to
be
controlled
as
well
as
the
amount
that
comes
from
your
property.
The
box
in
the
lower
right
(
3)
is
where
you
tell
us
how
much
you
would
be
willing
to
accept
as
compensation
for
allowing
the
City
to
build
a
raingarden
on
your
property.
Depending
on
the
size
of
your
lot,
there
may
be
several
feasible
raingarden
sizes.
After
each
round,
the
upper
left
box
(
4)
will
remind
you
of
the
results
of
the
prior
round's
activities
[
plus
screen
shot
of
experiment
screens,
with
callouts
to
specific
areas
of
screen]

Screen
#
5
 
Instructions
for
practice
rounds
We
will
play
two
practice
rounds
so
that
you
can
learn
how
the
experiment
works
To
begin,
think
about
how
much
you
would
be
willing
to
accept
as
compensation
to
allow
the
City
to
install
a
raingarden
on
your
property
for
a
minimum
of
three
years.
Select
whether
you
would
allow
a
small,
medium,
large,
or
no
raingarden
at
all
on
your
property,
submit
your
offer
in
the
box
provided,
and
click
on
the
"
submit
offer"
button.
After
the
other
players'
offers
have
been
received,
you
will
see
a
screen
that
shows
whether
your
offer
was
accepted
as
well
as
the
number
of
other
offers
accepted.
17
Screen
6
[
PARCEL
OWNER
INFORMATION
BOX]

[
SELECT
RAINGARDE
N
SIZE
&
OFFER
FOR
YEAR
2004]
[
LAST
YEAR'S
ACTIVITY
BOX]

[
MAP]
[
ACCOUNT
ACTIVITY
BOX]
18
(
ii)
Code
for
scenarios
and
users'
decisions
[
LAST
YEAR'S
ACTIVITY
BOX]
+
MESSAGE
WHEN
USER
STARTS
EXPERIMENT
Offer
acceptance
and
previous
round
summaries
will
be
reported
here
after
first
round
completion.

+
MESSAGE
IF
USER
DOES
NOT
SELECT
A
RAINGARDEN
You
DID
NOT
select
a
raingarden
for
this
year.

In
Year
2004
the
results
of
all
the
transactions
in
your
neighborhood
were:
Total
neighborhood
reduction:
0.67%
Number
of
users
who
have
chosen
to
have
raingardens
installed
on
their
property
1
of
2
Highest
winning
offer,
Small
$
0.00
Highest
winning
offer,
Medium
$
600.00
Highest
winning
offer,
Large
$
0.00
+
MESSAGE
IF
USER
SELECTS
A
RAINGARDEN
Congratulations!
Your
offer
of
$
100.00/
year
for
a
small
raingarden
HAS
BEEN
ACCEPTED.

In
Year
2004
the
results
of
all
the
transactions
in
your
neighborhood
were:
Total
neighborhood
reduction:
1.33%
Number
of
users
who
have
chosen
to
have
raingardens
installed
on
their
property
2
of
2
Highest
winning
offer,
Small
$
100.00
Highest
winning
offer,
Medium
$
600.00
Highest
winning
offer,
Large
$
0.00
+
NEXT
ROUND
MESSAGE
IF
USER
SELECTED
A
RAINGARDEN
You
got
a
(
Small/
Medium/
Large)
raingarden
for
$_______.
Your
contract
was
for
2
years.
We
are
in
Year
2005
and
you
will
play
again
until
Year
2007.

In
Year
2004
the
results
of
all
the
transactions
in
your
neighborhood
were:
Total
neighborhood
reduction:
1.33%
Number
of
users
who
have
chosen
to
have
raingardens
installed
on
their
property
2
of
2
Highest
winning
offer,
Small
$
100.00
Highest
winning
offer,
Medium
$
600.00
Highest
winning
offer,
Large
$
0.00
+
NEXT
ROUND
MESSAGE
IF
USER
DID
NOT
SELECT
A
RAINGARDEN
You
didn't
get
a
raingarden
for
Year
2004
In
Year
2004
the
results
of
all
the
transactions
in
your
neighborhood
were:
Total
neighborhood
reduction:
0.67%
Number
of
users
who
have
chosen
to
have
raingardens
installed
on
their
property
1
of
2
Highest
winning
offer,
Small
$
0.00
19
Highest
winning
offer,
Medium
$
600.00
Highest
winning
offer,
Large
$
0.00
[
PARCEL
OWNER
INFORMATION
BOX]
+
THIS
INFO
IS
THE
SAME
IN
ALL
THE
SCREENS
Parcel
Owner
Information:
Name:
Steve
Stewart
Address:
2201
N
Sunset
Blvd
Parcel:
009
Neighborhood
Runoff:
30,000
af
Your
Parcel
Contribution:
1,000
af
[
ACCOUNT
ACTIVITY
BOX]
ACCOUNT
ACTIVITY
Activity
for
last
year
Balance
N/
A
N/
A
$
100.00
all
rounds
account
activity
[
LINK]

[
SELECT
RAINGARDEN
SIZE
&
OFFER
FOR
YEAR
2004]
+
MESSAGE
WHEN
USER
CAN
MAKE
AN
OFFER
SELECT
RAINGARDEN
SIZE
&
OFFER
FOR
YEAR
______
Select
the
size
of
raingarden
you
would
be
willing
to
have
installed
on
your
property.
Select
the
minimum
payment
you
would
be
willing
to
accept
to
have
that
raingarden
installed.
Select
Raingarden
Size
Runoff
Savings
0
None
200
Small
400
Medium
600
Large
I
would
accept
a
yearly
offer
of
$
_______

(
CONTINUE
>
BUTTON)

+
ALERT
MESSAGE
IF
USER
DOES
NOT
SELECT
A
RAINGARDEN
You
have
decided
not
to
get
a
raingarden
for
this
year.
Do
you
want
to
proceed
with
this
selection?

+
ALERT
MESSAGE
IF
USER
CANCELS
HIS
SELECTION
Please
make
the
necessary
changes
to
your
offer
20
+
ALERT
MESSAGE
IF
USER
ENTERS
AN
INVALID
NUMBER
IN
THE
OFFER
AMOUNT
BOX
Please
enter
a
numeric
value
greater
than
zero
as
your
yearly
offer.

+
ALERT
MESSAGE
IF
USER
MAKES
AN
OFFER
You
are
making
an
offer
to
accept
$
______
dollars
yearly
for
______
years.
Do
you
want
to
proceed
with
this
selection?

+
MESSAGE
AFTER
A
USER
HAS
FINISHED
A
ROUND
You
have
finished
Year
2004!

PLEASE
WAIT
HERE
UNTIL
THE
MODERATOR
INDICATES
YOU
CAN
CONTINUE.

Click
here
when
the
moderator
indicates
that
you
can
start
the
next
round
+
MESSAGE
WHEN
USER
HAS
AN
ACTIVE
CONTRACT
YOU
HAVE
AN
ACTIVE
CONTRACT
(
Year
2005)

You
will
not
play
this
year.

You
are
in
year
2
of
a
2
year
lease.

After
you
have
reviewed
this
screen
click
"
Continue
>"
an
wait
for
the
rest
of
the
users
to
finish
this
round.

(
CONTINUE
>
BUTTON)

[
LAST
SCREEN]
+
MESSAGE
AFTER
USERS
FINISH
EXPERIMENT
 
go
on
to
survey
You
have
completed
this
experiment.

We
appreciate
your
participation.
21
2.
(
e)
Questionnaire
Text
(
i)
General
questions
Question
1.
How
do
residents
within
the
Shepherd
Creek
Watershed
rate
the
relative
importance
of
typical
quality­
of­
life
characteristics?

Using
a
scale
where
1
=
unimportant
2
=
somewhat
important,
3
=
important,
4
=
very
important,
5
=
extremely
important,
please
rate
the
following
characteristics
of
household
landscaping
Areas
covered
with
grass
Flower
gardens
Vegetable
gardens
Areas
covered
with
hard
landscaping
 
rocks,
bricks,
etc
Water
features
Question
2.
How
do
these
residents
value
improvements
in
stormwater
runoff
control
in
Shepherd
Creek?

Have
you
been
impacted
by
stormwater
events?
If
so,
how?
(
check
all
that
apply)
Flooding
of
home
Flooding
of
car
Auto
accidents
Traffic
delays
due
to
flooding
Disruption
to
utilities
(
water,
sewer,
electricity,
gas,
etc)

Question
3.
What
change
in
property
value
do
these
residents
assign
to
the
conversion
of
a
portion
of
their
yard
to
a
best
management
practice,
such
as
a
rain
garden?

Q:
Positive,
no
change,
or
negative,
then
dollar
or
percentage
change?

How
do
you
think
that
the
value
of
your
property
would
change
if
you
agreed
to
have
a
raingarden
like
the
ones
depicted
in
the
experiment
installed
on
your
property?
Increase,
stay
the
same,
decrease
If
you
believe
your
property
value
would
change,
by
how
much
(
report
in
dollars
or
percentage
change.

How
do
you
think
that
the
value
of
your
property
would
change
if
you
AND
OTHER
PROPERTY
OWNERS
IN
YOUR
NEIGHBORHOOD
agreed
to
have
a
raingarden
like
the
ones
depicted
in
the
experiment
installed
on
your
property?
Increase,
stay
the
same,
decrease
22
If
you
believe
your
property
value
would
change,
by
how
much
(
report
in
dollars
or
percentage
change.

Question
4.
What
form
of
land
use
policy
instrument
do
(
mandatory
or
voluntary)
do
residents
see
as
most
appropriate
for
stormwater
runoff
control
from
private
property?

The
method
of
stormwater
control
that
we
have
discussed
so
far
is
based
on
voluntary
participation
by
property
owners
in
the
watershed.
Do
you
believe
that
voluntary
methods
are
acceptable
or
would
you
prefer
a
system
of
mandatory
participation
by
all
property
owners?

Question
5.
Do
residents
think
it
is
more
likely
than
not
that
the
Shepherd
Creek
watershed
will
experience
damaging
stormwater
runoff
in
the
next
5
or
25
years?

Question
6.
How
do
responses
to
the
above
questions
vary
by
length
of
residence
and
location
within
the
watershed
(
e.
g.,
within
more
vulnerable
areas
compared
with
outside
the
most
vulnerable
areas),
and
by
standard
socio­
economic
measures
such
as
employment
status,
age
category
and
income
category?

(
ii)
Demographic
Questions
Including
yourself,
how
many
people
live
in
your
household.
Open
response
What
is
the
age
category
of
the
head
of
household?
18­
25,
26­
35,
36­
45,
46­
55,
56­
65,
66­
75,
76­
85,
above
85
How
would
you
describe
the
employment
situation
of
the
main
breadwinner
in
the
household?
Retired
Partially
retired
Working
full
time
in
chosen
occupation
Working
full
time
in
a
temporaty
occupation
Working
part
time
unemployed
Household
income
Categorical
<
10,000,
10000­
20000,
etc
How
long
have
you
lived
at
your
current
address?
Open
response
(
iii)
Questions
related
to
the
opportunity
cost
of
stormwater
easements
How
likely
is
it
that
you
will
move
or
sell
your
house
in
the
next
five
years?
1=
will
not
move
,
2=
very
unlikely
to
move,
3unlikely
to
move 
etc.
23
Do
you
have
plans
for
additions
to
your
property
that
would
be
compromised
if
you
were
to
install
a
raingarden?

Question
7.
What
are
the
residents'
judgments
about
specified
trade­
offs
among
quality­
of­
life
characteristics
such
as
habitat
for
wildlife,
stream
ecology,
public
health,
drinking
water
quality,
flood
risk,
restrictions
on
land
development,
and
local
taxes?
