VALUING DRINKING WATER RISK REDUCTIONS USING
THE CONTINGENT VALUATION METHOD: A METHODOLOGICAL
STUDY OF RISKS FROM THM AND GIARDIA
by
Robert Cameron Mitchell
Resources for t lie- Future
1616 P. St. NV
Washington, D.C. 20036
and
Richard T. Carson
Department of Economics
University of California San Diego
La Jolla, California 92093
Cooperative Agreement CR810466-01-6
Project Officer
George Parsons
Office of Policy Analysis
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Resources for the Future
Washington, D.C. 20036
-------
VALUING DRINKING WATER RISK REDUCTIONS
USING THE CONTINGENT VALUATION METHOD:
A METHODOLOGICAL STUDY OF RISKS FROM
THH AND GIARDIA
by
Robert Cameron KitchrlJ
Resources for the Future
1616 P. St. NW
Washington, D.C. 200%
Eichaid T. Carson
Department of Economics
University of California-San Diego
La Io.Ua, California 92093
Cooperative A^ieement CR810A66 -01-6
Project. Officer
George Parsons
Office of Policy Analysis
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Resources for the Future
Washing!on, D.C. 20036
-------
ABSTRACT
This study develops contingent valuation methods for measuring the
benefits of mortality arid morbidity drinking water risk reductions. The major
effort was devoted to developing and testing an survey instrument to measure
the value o 1: low level risk reduct ions in communi ly vatc:i systems from
trihalome t 1 nines (THMs). The study';; Hist phase involved a program of
qualitative work, including in-depth interviews and focus groups, conducted in
southern Illinois, an area which suffers from excess THMs in drinking water
supplies. The report provides in its appendices full documentation of the
outcomes of this phase of the study.
On the basis of this effort a draft instrument was prepared which featured
a risk, laddei designed especially foi tills study in addition to other device-
aimed at communicating THM risks in an in person interview. This instrument,
was admini stei f.'d to a sample of ?. W people in Herri n, Illinois. An
experimental design was employed to test for question order and metric bias.
The questionnaire worked well, on the whole, as judged by the experimental
results, the interviewers' comments, and the empiricial findings. Chapters 4
and 5 present the findings which include various estimates ot the value of a
statistical life which are implied by there data-
The. final chapter presents the tesults of a preliminary effort to develop
a contingent valuation instrument suitable for measuring the benefits of a
Giardia prevention program in San Francisco. The approach described there
features a phone survey which simulates a referendum vote on whether San
Francisco should install the equipment necessary to guarantee protection
against the chance of an outbreak of giardiasis. In contrast to the Herrin
study, where the amounts were obtained in an open ended question format, the
San Francisco .study has respondents lespond to a take it or - leave it format,
which obtains scvnal points on t hc= i respondent's demand curvp by means of u
follovup question. The instrument has not yet been used in the field.
ii
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract ii
PART 1. VALUING THM RISK REDUCTIONS 1
]. INTRODUCTION 1
THE RESEARCH PROBLEM 1
CV SURVEYS AND THE BENEFITS OF IMPROVED DRINKING WATER
QUALITY 5
TRIUALOMETHANE RISKS 6
FIELD SITE 7
2. INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH .... .............. 11
INSTRUMENT DESIGN GOALS 11
DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY 12
Focus Groups 13
In- Depth Interviews . 15
FINDINGS ........................................ ...... 16
3. THE INSTRUMENT 28
OVERVIEW OF THE INSTRUMENT .... 29
KEY DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ................................. 30
The Institutional Context 30
Potential Biases 31
COMMUNICATING LOW LEVEL RISKS 38
Mortality Risks
Drinking Water Risks 42
The Risk Ladder -'ib
THE REFERENDUM ELICITATION FORMAT 5?
Contingencies - 52
The fc! I ici tation Questions 55
THE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN 56
/i. INITIAL FINDINGS 59
The; Sample 5^
Assessment of Conditions in Herrin 61
Wi1lingness-to-Pay for THM Risk Reductions............. 63
Test for Question Order and Metric Bias ............... 68
Position Bias 70
Conclusion 74
5. ESTIMATING THE VALUE OF A STATISTICAL LIFE ................ 76
ESTIMATES BASED ON MEAN AND MEDIAN VALUES.................. 76
ESTIMATES BASED ON GROUPED DATA .......... 78
Estimates Based on Individual Observations............. 85
Concluding Remarks. 97
PART IT. VALUING GIARDIA RISK REDUCTIONS. 101
6. DEVELOPING A CONTINGENT VALUATION INSTRUMENT TO VALUE
MORBIDITY RISK REDUCTIONS 101
-------
filARDIA LAMBL1A. 102
VALUING MORBIDITY RISKS 104
FOCUS GROUPS, ............. 1(15
TELEPHONE SURVEY 108
THE INSTRUMENT. 109
Referenda Format 110
Amenity Description.................................... 112
CONCLUSION....... ...................................... lib
Rrff'I I.j.7
Append ice.1;
A. Transcript of Carbondale and Marion Focus Groups A -1
B . ik-'iiin I ns t. rumen t Review - 1
C. Hon in Instrument C I
D. Distribution of WTP Responses for Herrin Study ............ 0-1
F.- Heir in Interviewer Debriefing K 1
!•'. Ti
-------
No t ice
This document is a preliminary draft. It has not
been formally released by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and should not at this stage be
construed to represent Agency policy. It is being
circulated for comments on its technical merit and
policy implications.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Part I of this report consists of five chapters which present the
findings of our study on valuing drinking water mortality risk reductions.
The research effort involved conducting research to develop and test a
contingent valuation instrument to measure the benefits of reducing risks from
trihal.omethane (THM) contamination. We conducted the research in southern
Illinois including a CV survey administered to 230 people :.n Herrin, Illinois
in June-July, 3985. Tn this chapter we discuss the purpose of the study, the
methodological issues involved in using the contingent valuation method to
measure low level mortality risk benefits, and describe the study site. The
next chapter describes the approaches we used to develop and test the CV
instrument which included the use of focus groups and in-depth interviews with
representative respondents, A key component of the instrument which emerged
from this process was a new type of risk ladder used as a visual aid to convey
comparative risk. levels. Chapter 3 describes the survey instrument which
resulted from these efforts. Chapter A presents the initial empirical
findings from the Herrin study. Chapter 5 uses the data presented in chapter
A to estimate the value(s) of a statistical life which is the typical summary
measure presented in studies of the economic value of low-level risk
reduc tions.
THE RESEARCH PROBLEM
The problem posed to society by redvicable low-level mortality risks is a
difficult one. Although lowering mortality risks is a desirable goal, it is
less certain that society should spend the money to reduce every type of .Lov-
1
-------
level risk to a nr-gl igible level. In t.he first place, the levels of
contamination a i c - so low that it is often difficult to measure them with
reasonable oer I airily. Second, the risks posed by given I eve I s of
contamination are even more uncertain as they typically are based on
extrapolations from animal models and faint tracings measured in human
epidimeological studies. Third, the large number of mortality risks and the
finite funds available to reduce these risks raises questions of allocative
efficiency. A1 (hough human lives ai v involved, consider at ions of benefits v.\..
cost seem particularly applicable to policy decisions about these kinds of
r i sks.
Measuring the benefits of low-level risk reductions poses a number of
difficult methodological issues. Jti this study we explore the possibility of
using the contingent valuation method to value one type of low-level risk,
contamination of drinking water supplies by trihal0methan.es or THMs. The
contingent valuation (CV) method, uses survey research techniques to pose a
scenario involving an environmental amenity on the has i s of which respondents
express theii willingness to pay lm specified levels of the amenity. Its
name comes from the expectation thai the respondents' WTP amounts are
contingent upon the information presented in the scenario. For example, the
values given in a CV study of air visibility benefits which uses a utility
bill payment vehicle are contingent upon that particular vehicle and may
differ if another payment vehicle in used.
In a leport piepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Office of Drinking Water, Temple, Barker-, and Sloanc < 190^) assess the
relative merit of live benefit measurement methodologies: community
willingness to pay, human capital, medical and indirect costs avoided,
implicit value, and individual willingness to pay which includes CV surveys or
market studies. When it is not possible to directly purchase risk reductions
in the market place, the available measures for measuring willingness-to pay
for risk reductions are known as hedonic pricing (ftdelman and Grilliches
1961); Thalei and Kosen 1974), the household production {unci ion approach
(Becker 1965; Hot i 19/5), and the CV method.
Use of the hedonic pricing technique in this context assumes that one of
the characteristics of a good is a risk level. For example, hedonic price
studies of work-related risk assume that one of the reasons jobs pay different
wage rates is that they have different risks associated with them and studies
2
-------
of air pollution health risks assume that one of tne reasons that housing
prices differ within an area is due to variations in air pollution health
risk. The hedonic pricing technique is not suitable for valuing drinking
water risk reductions, where there is little or no within-city variance in the
risk levels.
The household production function approach assumes that households
combine purchase goods and household labor to produce services such as risk
1
reductions from which the household receives direct utility. With respect to
THMs, the household could reduce its current level of risk by the installation
of a household filtration system or by switching to bottled water. Use of the
household production technique to determine willingness-to-pay to reduce TliM
concentrations would require awareness by every household head of the level of
risk posed by different levels of the contaminant. This is an assumption
which will rarely be met when dealing with a low-level infrequently publicized
environmental contaminant. Indeed, our research found that despite having
been the recipient of government-mandated notices and newspaper publicity
about excess THM levels (above the EPA standard) in their town's drinking
water, civic-minded citizens in two southern Illinois towns could hardly
recall the notices, much less describe the risks posed by the THMs.
As noted by Temple, Barker, and Sloane, the advantages of the CV method
lies in its flexibility, its consistency with standard welfare economic theory
(Freeman, 1979; Just, Bueth, and Schmitz, 1.982), and its ability to measure a
wide range important types of benefits. The major drawback to the use of the
CV method to measure drinking water benefits, according to their report
(Temple, Barker, and Sloane, 1982: 5), is the lack, of sufficient evidence that.
the possible biases introduced by the use of a hypothetical decision context
can be overcome. Since publication of this report, however, considerable
2
research on the CV method has been reported which addresses this issue
although it has not been directly applied to drinking water issues. The
1. Applications of the household production approach (e.g., travel cost
analysis) typically rely primarily on purchased goods. Blomquist (1979),
however, has used this technique to value risk reduction based on the use
of seat belts.
2. See Cummings et a.l . (1986) and Mitchell arid Carson (forthcoming) for
reviews of this research.
3
-------
present study i.? intended to addicss this diawback by exploring the degree to
which the CV technique can be used to value drinking water benefits.
In order to be credible, a CV study must overcome a variety of threats to
the study's validity and reliability (Mitchell ,iml Carson, lot tlicoming). fu
ordei to produce iufonnation about benefits which meets the icquirements of.
economic theory, CV surveys require respondents to assimilate a body of
information — the scenario — about the valuation situation and to base their
willingness to pay on this hypothetical situation. Such an unfamiliar and
demanding situation eioates an incentive tor the respondents to minimize the
effort involved in doteimining ihoii value lot the good. One effort
minimizing strategy is to base their valuations on extraneous factors such as
features of the scenario which are intended to be value-neutral. Another is
to give token willingness-to-pay (OTP) amounts in order to avoid anticipated
3
censuie by the inl ei viewerLow level risk teductions, as we shall see, pose
special problems in this regald bu t the techniques developed (or this study
suggest that ways can be devised to address these issues which show
considerable promise.
The literature on the contingent valuation method recently has been
reviewed by Gumming; ct__al. (19fI6) and by us (Mitchell and Caison,
forthcoming). Likewise, Smith, Desvousges, and Freeman (1985) have reviewed
the literature on economic behavior and risk changes. We will not, therefore,
review these literatures here. The standard theoretical propositions about
the j e I at ionshi;) between willingness to pay and risk-reduction are based on
exported utility theory (Jones I.oe, 19/4; 19/(S; Cook and Graham, 1977;
Veinstein, Shepard, and Pliskin, 1980).^ More recently Hachina (1983a) has
developed a nonexpec ted utility framework for understanding individual
behavior toward tisk. Standard expected utility theory and the broader
none;-; pec ted utility theory are likely to provide similar act omits some ol the
simple iisk-WTP relationships. We anticipate that nonexpec ted utility theory,
3. A considerable body of literature in the social psychological dimensions
of decision making and in survey research techniques affirms these
propensities (Tversky and Kahneman, 1981; Rossi, Wright, and Anderson,
1983; Gregory 1985).
4. This extends to more general approaches based on state-dependent utility
functions (Kami, Schmeidlei , and Vind, 1983).
4
-------
as i! becomes more developed, will supplant the current expected utility
theory results for the more complex relationships between willingness-to-pay,
risk-reduction, and the value of statistical life. Consequently, the
experimental design lot this study was developed along the Line of a genotal
response-surface estimation. The design also incorporates features which
allow us to test for the presence or absence of several survey research
response biases which have the potential to distort our findings.
CV SURVEYS AND 1'HF. BHNKFJTS OF IMPROVED DRINK INC WATER QUALITY
The Temple, Barker, and Sloane (1982) report identifies three recipients
of the benefits of reduced mortality: individuals, family, and society and two
types of benefits: psychologiesI anil monetary. The moneta»y benefit is
measured in part by the amount ol consumption ail individual would enjoy as a
result ol a prolonged life whet ea:, the psychological component includes the
well-being associated with a decrease in the risk of premature mortality.
According to Temple, Barker, and Sloane, the CV method adequately measures
individual and f ,nr i : > benefits, hut not those thai accrue 10 society. This
view assumes that individuals do not hold any value for others beyond their
family when they value risk reduction measures which affect both their family
and others. Except for the possibility that avoided medical costs covered by
insurance do not enter into people's valuation in a CV survey, our view is
that CV studies aic well suited to measuring societal bene!its. it is oui
experience that, ever; without being reminded, individuals' tend to include
these benefits, at least when they value community reductions in THM risks.
This was demonstrated in our preliminary research tor this study when we
explored whether a household water treatment device might be a more credible
method ni risk reduction than community treatment. Respondent reactions to
this proposal cleat Iy indicated that, ("or a given level ol i Lsk reduction,
many people would pay more for a community-wide treatment program than they
would reductions accomplished by the household device. When asked why, these
people explicitly cited the protection accorded others by a community-wide
progt a in as an import ant reason lot their different values. The values given
in this study therefore include both individual, family, and community
benefits.
5
-------
TRIHALOMETHANE RISKS
Trihalomethanes or THMs are the most ubiquitous and, generally speaking,
the synthetic organic chemical found in the highest concentrations in U.S.
drinking water. THMs are formed when the chlorine used to disinfect raw
drinking water supplies reacts with humic substances already present in the
water (Gulp, 1984). Surface water; supplies, particularly those drawn from
relatively shallow water bodies, pose the greatest problem, especially in the
summer months.
In 1979, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency determined that THMs
pose a human health risk^ and set a maximum contaminant level (MCI.) of 0.10
mg/L total trihalomethanes (Gulp, 1984: Appendix A)^ for community water
systems that add disinfectant to the treatment process (Cotruvo, 1981). In
selecting the level for the MCL, EPA balanced public health benefits from the
use of chlorine to produce biologically safe water against the cancer risks
posed by low levels of THMs. Joseph Cotruvo (1981), the former director of
EPA's criteria and standards division of the Office of Drinking Water, labeled
the MCL as a "feasible" rather than "absolutely safe" level of protection.
According to Crouch et al. (1983), under some conditions the risk posed by
water just meeting the THM standard poses an annual risk more than 30 percent
greater than the 1 in 1,000,000 level which is usually regarded as the
"acceptable" level by EPA in setting standards.
The specific amenity we value in this study is reductions in the risk of
getting cancer from THM contamination of their drinking water. The reductions
occur by reducing THM levels in a local drinking water supply from various
5. In the absence of definitive human epidemiological studies, THMs, on the
basis of animal studies, are considered to pose "potential" carcinogenic
risks to humans.
6. In setting this MCL, EPA concluded that it would be inappropriate at the
time to distinguish between chloroform and other THMs. As a family of
compounds, chlorinated and brominated THMs are similar in chemical
composition and are formed concurrently during the chlorination of
drinking water; the available treatment methods would simultaneously
reduce them all (Cotruvo, 1981: 269; Gulp, 1984).
6
-------
levels above the MCL down to the level of risk assaciated with the current EPA
THM standard. These risk reductions in the present lower the chance of dying
from THM induced cancer death twenty years or so from now.
Measuring this amenity in a CV study poses difficult methodological
challenges. Generally speaking, the more knowledgeable people are about the
good to be valued in a CV study, the easier it is to accurately communicate
the proposed improvements to the respondents. Our a priori assumptions were
that people would not be very knowledgeable about THMs and the risks they
pose. Indeed, there seemed to be good reasons to believe that some
respondents would be misinformed on this subject. First, understanding the
problem requires a basic grasp of the purification process used by the local
water company. Otherwise, respondents might not understand She tradeoff
between THM risks and the risks of drinking improperly purified water.
Second, THMs themselves are likely to be unfamiliar to many respondents who
might therefore confuse them with other contaminants which also possess long
scientific names and short acronyms such as the PCBs. Third, the risks posed
by the levels of THM contamination which typically occur are very low-level:
down to .04 deaths per 100,000. Research has shown that people have
difficulty understanding abstract risk levels and that they tend to exaggerate
low level risks (Fischholl, Slovic, and Lichtenstein, 1981, 1982; Slovic,
Fischhoff, and Lichtenstein, 1982; Covello, 1983). Some CV researchers faced
with this problem have chosen to sidestep it by valuing days of illness
(Loehman, et al., 1979) or a risk reduction regulation (Burness, Cummings,
Mehr, and Walbert, 1983) instead o£ specific levels of reduced risk. Efforts
to develop ways to communicate risk, reduction in surveys are still in their
infancy (e.g. Smith, Desvousges, and Freeman, 1985) and largely unvalidated.
Fourth, we anticipated difficulties associated with other aspects of the risk
such as its latent nalure - death would occur several decades after exposure;
and its emotional character — the cause of death is cancer.
FIELD SITE
Although CV surveys arc necessarily hypothetical, the degree to which
they are viewed as realistic, plausible, and credible by respondents may be
enhanced in various ways. This consideration influenced us to conduct this
study in an area, southern Illinois, where local water companies had
/
-------
experienced difficulty in meeting the EPA THM standards.7 ¥e worked in three
communities. Hoii in, Illinois, the commun i ty where wo conducted the CV
survey, is loo,"Hod in Williamson County, Illinois. Neathy nrc Marion and
Carbondale, the two towns where we conducted our focus groups and preliminary
interviews. Mar ion, population 15,000, is the site of a large federal
penitentary and Carbondale, 14 miles to the west with a population of about
20,000 people, is the home of Southern Illinois University. Carbondale and
Marion, like most of the communities in this area, obtain their water supplies
from relatively shallov lakes whose hnmic content in the summer months
interacts with I lie chlorine used in theii treatment piocess to produce levels
of THMs which, in recent years, have been shown to exceed the EPA Maximum
Contaminant Level (HCL) of 0,1 mg/L. Between 1982 and 1985 Carbondale
exceeded the standard six times with THM amounts above the MCI, ranging from
.007 mg/L to ,165 mg/L, Marion, during the same period, exceeded the standard
during each measurement period by .011 mg/L to .142 mg/L.
A provision of the Safe Drinking Water Act mandates public notification
whenever a community exceeds drinking water HCL's foi ,my contaminant. Tiif1
regulations require community water system owners or operators to provide
written notification about the violation to users via water bills or other
direct nailing and to publish a notice in a newspaper serving the area for
three consecutive days within fourteen days ol learning of the violation. In
addition, the system must also provide information about the violation to
radio and television stations within seven days. Thanks to these procedures,
consumers in Mai inn and Carbondale-' have leceivcd multiple individual notices
about THM violations over the years and have been exposed to publicity about
THM risks in the local nevsmedia. The Southern 111inoisian, the major
regional newspaper, published several informative articles about Carbondale
8
and Marion's problems during this time period. The news media also reached
residents in nearby communities, such as Herrin, whose THM problems were much
less severe.
7. Because EPA regulations differ for medium and larger sized water systems,
we needed towns with populations between 10,000 and 75,000.
8. These arc contained in an appendix in Whitley (1985).
8
-------
On the basis of this experience, it might be presumed that our
respondents were knowledgeable about THMs in their drinking water. One
interesting byproduct of cur study is the finding that the public notification
9
program was largely ignored by the residents of these three towns."" The
level of information provided directly to the consumer differed greatly in
Marion and Carbondale. Marion's customer notifications consisted of cryptic
notices printed on customers' water bills. The notice on the September 1984
water bill read in its entirely as follows: "Annual ave. of THMS has been
reduced to 0.045 ppm over EPA MAC on 7-11-84." Carbondale, as befitting a
university town, provided its water customers, through clearly written
articles in its newsletter, with a far more informative description of the
problem and what the water system was planning to do about it. In addition to
the individual notices disseminated by the water companies; the newsmedia were
alerted to the situation and press coverage of these events was reasonably
thorough {and accurate). Although the possibility of THMs causing cancer was
noted in the press reports, they uniformly quoted state and local officials'
to the effect emphasized that the risk from the extra THMs was not great
enough to worry about. These assurances seem to have had an effect; there has
been no expressions of citizen concern engendered by to these notices, as far
as we can determine, and the water utility's remedial efforts have received
little publicity. Nor has any community or regional group made an overt
pro tes t.
This is in sharp contrast to the turmoil caused by the discovery in 1983
that Crab Orchard Lake was contaminated by PCB's. This lake served as a
source of drinking water for Marion. In this case officials and the press
both defined the situation as one which threatened the health of Marion's
water customers. Marion promptly ceased to use Crab Orchard Lake and
substituted other sources of drinking water.
Uerrin's 10,500 inhabitants receive their drinking water from the Rend
Lake Water District. Rend Lake, the source of the district's water, is
Illinois' second largest inland reservoir. The lake is located 40 miles north
of Herrin. Water is treated at the District's treatment plant on the
southeast end of the lake using precipitation with lime and alum,
sedimentation, flocculation, filtration, and continuous chlor.inat.ion. Owing
9. See Whitley (1985) for a more detailed analysis.
9
-------
presumably to the depth of Rend Lake which, at an average depth of 97 teet, is
considerably deeper than the sources of Marion's and Carbondale's drinking
water, Herrin's drinking water was found to exceed the MCL tor THMs only once,
in the summer of 1983. Because accounts obtained from the Rend Lake and
Herrin authorities differ, it i" difficult to determine whaf notification
procedure, if any, was used to inform the Herr in consumers about the 1983 THM
MCL violation. It appears that the utility may have utilized the radio
instead of notifying Herrin consumers individually as required.
lioiiin way liioscn as rhe silo tor the .survey because if i.s typical of I he
water systems in the area and, unlike Marion whose drinking water was found to
be contaminated by PCBs several years ago, it had not experienced problems
with any other kind of contaminant. Another desirable feature of town for tlie
purposes of this study is the homogeneity of its population. Unlike
Carbontia Lo, whose university arid;:: a number of highly educated and
sophisticated residents to the local population, Herrin's residents, like
those in other parts of: southern Illinois, are predominantly working and
middle class, viitually all white, and have lived in the area for most of
their lives. This enabled us to achieve sufficient statistical power to test
our instrument's of fe
-------
CHAPTER 2
INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH
The instrument used in this .study was gradual ly de ve i o ted over the pesi t chapter presents the
final instrument which embodied, the insights described here.
INSTRUMENT DESIGN GOALS
The heart of a €V survey is the description of the hypothetical maiket
for the good to be valued. In constructing the scenario for this study, ve
sought to maximize the following design goals.
1. The scenario should bo understandable to all the respondents.
?. The scenario should avoid [dements which contribute bias,
i. The scenario should meet the requii >-mcnIs of economic theory.
A, The scenario should be policy relevant.
The sequence given above is important. Unless the first two goals are met,
the later ones ai e iii.elevant since the data will be meaningless- If the
scenni io violates economic theoi y {goal .3), its policy relevance (goal 4) vill
be diminished or destroyed. Finally, even if the first three goals are met,
the conditions set forth in the scenario may leave the policy maker with good
quality theoretically valid results which are irrelevant to his or her needs.
In this study, foi. example, the risk reductions we valued covet the range of
risk reductions which might reasonably be ex peeIed to occur iI THM control
1. We benefitted troni being able to follow the pathbreaking work of Smith and
Desvousges (Smith, Desvousges, and Freeman, 1185) who, in 1984, conducted
an experimental CV study of the value of risk reductions from toxic waste
dumps which required them to struggle with many of the same methodological
problems which confronted us.
11
-------
programs were instituted by water «;yslems which exceeded the Environmental
Protection Agency'.-; maximum contaminant level for THMs. We also included the
MCL as an impoMant element in the .f;rpiiario.
DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY
Our development and pretesting efforts, which took place over a period of
seven months from December, 1984 to June 1985, were directed at meeting the
first two goals. l,'v began by conduct ing four focus groups in December and
January, 1985 to explore local residents' views about their drinking water,
it's risks, and risks in general. We also obtained the participants'
reactions to alternative versions of risk ladder we intended to use to
communicate the risks posed by various levels of THMs, The focus group
transcripts are included in appendix A.
7
The next step was to draft the questionnaire and pie test it. The
pretests occur ted in several stages spread over a four month period beginning
in March. The earliest stage was a series of interviews which Robert Mitchell
and Karla Whi fley ^ conducted with a diverse group of Carbondale residents.
Each person was debriefed after their interview to learn why they gave the
answers they did and what they thought about certain aspects of the schedule.
We made continuous modifications to the instrument during this process as we
learned what worked and what did not.
On May 9, a copy ot the current draft questionnaire was sent for comment
to Alan Carlin, George Parsons, Ann Fisher and David Sehnare of the U.S.
2. The literature on pretesting is surprisingly slight (e.g., Sheatsley,
1983), given its importance t" sin voy research practitioners. In the
strict sen.se, "pretest" usually i of ess to a smalJ survey conducted to test
a draft instrument. We will ;ilso use the term in the lcport to refer to
the broader range of instrument development activities which precedes the
testing of a survey instrument in the field.
3. Whitley, then a graduate student in geography at Southern Illinois
University in Carbondale, played an important role in organizing the focus
groups and assisting the pretesting work.
12
-------
Environmental Protection Agency; Paul Slovic and Nancy Eeiches of our advisory
committee; Cli.tf.otri Russell of RFF; and the following econom i s t; prac t i t ione l s
of the contingent valuation method: Kei i.y Smith, William Desvousges, Alan
Randall, Bill Schulze. This group (see appendix B) made nu.nerous suggestions,
a number of which led to changes and improvements in the draft instrument.
The final pretesting occurred during the two-day interviewer training
period and the first few days of field interviewing. This resulted in some
minor wording changes, a revision of the interviewer evaluation questions, and
various modifications in rhe interviewei's instruction manual.
Focus Groups
Focus groups (Smith, Desvousges, Freeman, 1985: chap, 8) are small groups
of people chosen to represent a chosen point of view who are recruited to
participate in a directed discussion. Commonly used by market researchers to
gain a better nuclei standing about how consumers respond to products and
marketing approaches, focus groups are also used by survey researchers to
obtain an in depth understanding of cci tain difficult to ask about topics
which are to be included in a questionnaire. This format offers the
opportunity to probe topics in depth, follow up new insights as they emerge in
the discussion, and get peoples' reactions to prototype products or interview
display cards. Focus group participants are not intended to be a random
sample of the largo I population; instead they are selected from elements of
the community who ate reasonably tepiosentative of its membership and are
likely to feel comfortable expressing their views in a gi oup .setting. Since
the participants are not randomly recruited, the insights gained from focus
groups Bust be tested through other means to ensure that they are generally
true.
Smith, Desvousges, and Freeman (1985) were the first researchers to make
JormaL use o! focus groups to aid the design a €V ins t miner t. They were
faced, as we veic in I his study, villi the need to communicate low level rinks
to respondents who, in their case, vote asked to value the mortality risks
posed by hazardous waste dumps. Smith ejt al. (1985) report that they gained
substantial Informat ion "that was invaluable in the questionnaire development
process" from their focus groups and our experience was very similar. We
obtained helpful insights into how people think about risk, the words and
1
-------
concepts they use to verbalize tlii.*; understanding, their reaction to beinj;
asked risk reduction valuation questions, and their reactions to specific
elements of our contingent valuation scenario, especially the prototype risk
laddei . This irformal ion allowed us to identify the most likely sources of
bias and how they could be minimised.
Two of our groups were conducted in Carbondale and two in Marion. Unlike
Carbondale, Marion's population is more typical of the area in terms of
educational and racial composition. Both towns have their own water plants
whose water supply comes troiii suiface sources. In addition to the excess
levels of THMs cesctibed earlier, in 1983 PCBy were discoveied in one of
Marion's backup sources of raw water. Crab Orchard Lake (Whitley, 1985). This
widely publicized occurrence forced the town to switch to alternative surface
sources of drinking water. We were interested to see the extent to which this
experience colored Marion residents' views about THMs.
Ue followed the practice, common to those who use focus groups, ot
recruiting our focus group participants from civic groups who were offered a
$75 contribution for their help. Karla Whitley set up the groups with the
cooperation of the League of Women Voters, the Junior Chamber of Commerce and
several churches. This recruifrnent process yielded participants who readily
understand the purpose of the group discussion and were articulate and candid
in expressing their opinions. They are also better educated and more civic
conscious than the average resident of these towns.
The groups raided in size i i om 6 to 1? with an equal number ot men and
women. Each met for two hours in a room at the university (Carbondale) or in
a community center (Marion). The discussion was led by Robert Mitchell- The
Carbondale groups were held in a two day period in early December, 1984, and
4
the Marion groups in a similar two day period at the end of January 1985. The
same general format was Lollowed foi each session. The resear chers, Resouu-c;;
for the Future, and the purpose of the session were briefly introduced. The
latter was described as an opportunity for us to get their views about their
drinking water so we could better understand how to design a questionnaire on
the topic. The sequence of the ensuing discussion proceeded from a general
4. The month long interval between the Carbondale and Marion groups allowed
us to assimilate the insights gained from the first groups before
attempting the second round.
14
-------
discussion about their drinking water to, at the end, our soliciting their
reactions to specific, features of a possible questionnaire such as alternative
risk, comparisons and risk ladder formats.
Although some participants spoke more frequently than others, in only one
group did one member tend to dominate. The Carbondale sessions were recorded
and transcribed. Owing to mechanical difficulties, the Marion transcript is
based on notes taken by Whitley which were written up by her and Mitchell
immediately following the group session. The transcripts a~e presented in
appendix A.
In general, the participants were knowledgeable about where their
drinking water comes from and how it is treated. They varied greatly in their
evaluation of the quality of their town's drinking water. Although a small
minority of participants wore very sensitive to health considerations, most of
the complaints concerned the taste, odor: and color of the local drinking
water.
It is noteworthy, considering the relatively high educational level of
the group members (all had graduated from high school, most from college) and
their participation in civic minded organizations, that they had very little
awareness of THMs or of receiving a notice that their communities had exceeded
the THM standard. This tends to confirm what we and others (Bruvold and
Gaston, 1980; Stegman and Schneider, 3 982a, 1982b; Bruvold, Wardlaw and
Gaston, 1985) have found that the publication notification process is
ineffective in informing the public about: drinking water contamination.
In-Depth Interviews
Mitchell drew upon the insights gained from the focus groups in writing
the first draft of the questionnaire. The basic format for the RFF risk,
ladder, which will be described in the next chapter, was also developed during
this period. The draft questionnaire was used in a series of trial interviews
conducted in Carbondale in April, 1985. Wo college students were interviewed;
only townspeople who were selected to represent as great a diversity of age.
5. It may be that when the contamination is controversial the notification
process has a different effect. We know of no studies which have examined
the notification process under this condition.
15
-------
sex and educational levels as possible. Bach interviewee was paid $10 for his
or her time. M.itche!.i and Whitley alternated taking the interviewer and
observer in! e . At the eonclus i en of each interview the respondent was asked
why he or she gave certain answers and what he or she thought about various
aspects of the scenario such as the risk ladder or the cigarette equivalents.
The inteiv iows were scheduled to allow time to rev i so the questioning Ire niter
each interview. Many changes were made in the interview schedule and display
cards during this iterative process, although the basic format was retained
because it worked well.
During the next six weeks the inlet view schedule was fut ther revised to
reflect the insights gained from the April interviews and from the experts to
whom the draft schedule had been sent for comment. This revision was then
pretested dining anothet round of in-depth interviews conducted in late May in
conjunction with the interviewer training.
FINDINGS
The following findings from the focus groups and in-depth interviews
played an important role in the questionnaire design:
1. People assumed the researchers' goal is to get people to give as large
amounts of money as possible to reduce the THM risk.
The mo.s i striking expression of this belief w.-ts ;i remark made in the
second Mai ion Lacus gionp by a young man. 'towards t lie end of. the two honi
discussion, after much discussion of THM risks and their low level, Mitchell
introduced the cigarette comparison idea for the first time and applied it to
the THM risks. This man immediately blurted out, "You won't get much money
if you explain the risk like this." Others in the group nodded in agreement.
Their assumption that we wanted high values was disturbing since Mitchell,
being aware of this possibility, had made a concerted effort throughout the
session to demonstrate that this was not his intention. He emphasized that'
the risk reductions they were discussing were very small and assured the
participants that any valuation they had for the risk reductions, including
zero, was acceptable.
¥e conjecture that two considerations helped create this mispercept ion.
The first is a salience effect wherein the subject of the study, in this case
16
-------
THH iisks, is assumed to be impoitant by the paiticipants because such an
elaborate effort is being made to measure their views about it. This is a
variant of the famous Hawthorne effect according to which the act of
conducting a study conveys value in itself. The salience effect interacts
with a social dcsiiability effect. This second iactor is pioduced by the
widespread and strongly held norm that drinking water contaminants are "bad"
and that reducing them is "good," This norm leads people to assume that a
positive response is expected of them when an interviewer (or group leader)
representing some noupiofit. or public agency asks them how much they are
willinp, to pay to ieduce this type of risk. The motivation in this case
simiiat to that engendered by a dooi to door solicitation lor i charitable
cause. In both cases the person is put on the spot by being asked to express
a monetary value for a socially desirable good in an in-peison interview.
Subsequent inteiview development work conf i i rued this observation. In our
in-depth inlet views tespondents, inred with the unfamiliar task of valuing
drinking water risk reductions, would sometimes mutter, "Well, I guess I
should pay something for this," in such a way that one got the strong
impression that they really didn't think the risk was worth paying for but
felt, under moral pressure to offei an amount.
These findings showed that compliance bias was a potentially serious
threat to the validity of this study. Compliance bias occurs when respondents
give WTP amounts which differ from their true UTP amounts in an attempt to
comply with the presumed expectations of the sponsor and/os the interviewei.
These "white lies" aie motivated by a desire to be helpful and cooperative
vith the interviewer's or sponsor's presumed intentions or by a desire to
maintain the respondent's self esteem in the interview situation by giving
6
socially acceptable responses. We redesigned the instrument to legitimate
$0 responses even more strongly than before and pre faced the valuation
questions with an explicit statement that we weie neutral about the referenda.
The interviewers were carefully trained to maintain a neutral demeanor and to
encourage the respondents to say what they really felt.
6. The instrument is described in chapter 3 and the text is presented in
appendix C.
17
-------
2. Participants confirmed our expectations that risks levels are dif.'^uU
for people to meaningfully understand and that numerical description.v. i
3 per 100,000 etc., are especially hard for people to grasp even when they are
used to compare an array of common risks.
A primary purpose in conducting the focus groups was to learn now people
react to descriptions of low level risks. As we expected, the focu- ¦ ¦ mp
participants did not find numerical expressions of risk in terms o?' " hs per
100,000 etc. particularly meaningful in themselves. We experimented • • •:h
variations of the Smith-Desvousges (Smith, Desvousges and Freeman, W p. 8-
35) risk ladder to see if this instrument, which compares risks by arraying
them on a logarithmic scale of annual mortality risks per 100,000, he ,>¦ d
respondents to low level risks.' Ue concluded that this instrumcM.;: /as not
satisfactory for our purposes because it did not adequately convey i:he very
low level of risks at the bottom of the ladder (those below 10 in 100,000).
People appeared to find it difficult to understand the logarithmic scale.
This led us to develop an alternative risk, ladder which uses equal increments
of annual mortality per 100,000 people and a three part format where, in
addition to the basic, ladder, two additional part-ladders expand the basic,
ladder's 0-25 and the 0 - 1 per 100,000 segments. We tested this type of
ladder extensively in our in-depth interviews with successful results.
Respondents often showed a considerable amount of interest in the ladder and
their comments about it indicated that they found it credible and that they
comprehended it in the manner we intended.
The focus groups also influenced our selection of the risks to be placed
on the ladder. Ue added the risk, of dying in an automobile accident, for
example, because people asked about it, and dropped some of the recreational
risks (such as the risk of death in hang gliding) because respondents tended
7. The lowest risk on their ladder and our versions is dying in a flood (.05
of 100,000). The highest risk on their ladder is the risk to stroke
victims of dying from the stroke (11,765 in 100,000). Since everyone is
vulnerable to a stroke, we felt respondents would not understand the
nature of this risk, without a special explanation. We used the second
highest risk on their ladder as the highest on our versions. This is the
risk of dying faced by Hollywood stuntmen (2,000 in 100,000).
18
-------
to regard these kinds of voluntary recreational risks as very different from
the risks imposed on drinking water users.
3. Cigarette equivalents seemed to be an effective way to convey low level
risks.
We probed the focus group members' reactions to a number of other risk
presentation techniques including bar graphs, pie charts and alternative
numerical scales. Only a cigarette equivalent scale seemed uniformly
promising; respondents had mixed reactions to the other techniques. For
example, researchers have recommended describing risks to J.aypeople in terms
of average loss of life expectancy (Cohen and Lee, 1979) or increased
longevity (Schwing, 1979). As shown in the transcripts for the second
Carbondale group and the second Marion group, many of our participants found
this approach confusing. Several people in the Marion group commented that
while the reduction in life expectancy made sense for cigarette smoking risks
which have a long latent period, it was not a meaningful way to describe risks
such as dying in a home fire since the latter risk involves an either/or
situation which they found hard to reconcile with a risk described as an
average loss of 2.3 days in a lifetime.
More recently, Urquhart and Heilman (1984) have proposed a safety-degree
scale as a vehicle to communicate comparative risks. Their logarithmic scale
is based on the size of the cohort for 1 death per year from the risk. On
this scale the annual risk of dying from cigarette smoking at age 35 (1 in
600) has a score of 2.8 and the risk of dying from lightning in the U.S. (1 in
1,900,000) is 6.3. The key problem with using this scale for conveying low
level risks in a survey is its logarithmic scale. The authors argue that the
similarly logarithmic decibel and Richter scales have received widespread
acceptance as a way of conveying noise and earthquakes levels. While it is
the case, that these scales are commonly used by the newsmedia, there is no
evidence that we are aware of that people grasp the notion that each whole
number on the scale involves a doubling of the effect. Typically the Richter
scale is used to compare earthquakes with other, well known, quakes. It is
these other quakes, and their descriptions, which convey meaning not the scale
number itself. Our anecdotal evidence and our experience with trying out a
logarithmic, scale in the focus groups suggests that many people find it
difficult to grasp the logarithmic, character of the scale. The potential bias
19
-------
introduced by people mistaking a logarithmic scale for a linear scale is very
large indeed, especially for low level risks. If people perceive being killed
by lightning as 1/3 as likely as dying from cigarette smoking (linear), they
are likely to view it as a much higher risk than if they grasp the fact that
it is 1/3167 as likely,
Our experience in the focus groups suggested that a cigarette equivalent
scale was a more successful technique for comparing risks. This scale, which
wo developed in this study, compares annual mortality risk per 100,000 to thi
number ot cigarettes a person would have ; o smoke 1o experience an equivalent
i L\;k ol. fly i up, f - run heart disease or cancel. In order to calculate the scale
it was necessorily to make a number ot simplilying assumptions, the most
i mjiot t an i of which was to posit a linear relationship between the number of
cigarettes smoked and the subsequent risk of dying from cigarette-caused heart
8
disease or cancer. Me also used cigarette risks for the population as a
whole instead of for different age or sex subgroups.
The reaction of the man who exclaimed that people would not give much
money for TUM risk reductions after hearing them described as the equivalent
of smoking a total of ten to thirty cigarettes indicated to us that this way
of describing the risks could help people grasp just how low these risks are.
Earlier in that discussion group Mitchell had attempted to explain the low
level nature of the risks to the group, but the participants had obviously
failed to grasp what we were trying to convey at that time. His reaction was
commonptaco; out focus group participants unifoimly perceived reductions
described in this manner as very small including !hose who were subsequently
willing to pay money to obtain such an apparently ttivial reduction.
Part icipants also appeared to find the use of r ig;uot te equivalents equally
meaningful for immediate risks (e.g., home fires or auto accidents) and for
delayed consequence risks (e.g., drinking water risks).
We were concerned that smokers and nonsmokers might respond in different
ways to the cigarette equivalents, with the smokers reacting emotionally to
8. The sources we consulted for a cigarette mortality rate varied somewhat in
the mortality risk per 100,000 which we derived from their data for a
single cigarette. Crouch and Wilson's (1982) data imply .02 deaths per
100,000, Urquhart and Heilmann's imply .04 per 100,000. We used .05 per
100,000 per cigarette as a conservative estimate.
20
-------
the suggestion that their habit threatened their lives. This did not appear
to be the case. Nonsmoker participants found them meaningful and smokers took
them seriously and did not seem to regard them either as more serious or as
more trivial than did the nonsraokers. There was an indication that people did
not find the cigarette equivalents credible when applied to the full range of
risks on the risk ladder. In the second Marion group, people found it hard to
take the cigarette equivalents seriously when they were used for the higher
level risks even though they regarded them as a credible and meaningful way to
convey the lower level risks.
On the basis of these findings we used cigarette equivalents in our
instrument as one of several devices to describe the low level risks. In the
first part of the scenario we explicated the concept of: cigarette equivalents.
Later in the instrument we placed them on the risk ladder for annual mortality
risks between 25 and .1 per 100,000. Finally, we used then to describe each
of the THM risk reductions we asked the respondents to value.
In the actual administration of the questionnaire, however, the cigarette-
equivalent scale played a less important role in conveying the low level
nature of the risks than we had expected based on these focus group findings.
9
In the debriefing the interviewers reported few instances of people
concentrating solely on the cigarette equivalents when contemplating the THM
risk reductions. Nor did any appreciable number of respondents react with the
astonishment displayed by the focus group participant. According to the
interviewers, most people treated cigarette equivalents as just one of the
several pieces of information about the risks provided to them in the
interview materials. Apparently the reaction we got from "he focus group
participants was influenced by the fact that we presented ihe cigarette
equivalents to them as a separate scale and solicited their reaction to it in
isolation, focus group participants' reaction was measured in isolation.
4. People's valuation of risk reductions are very sensitive to context.
When we probed the issue, we found people's value for THM risk reductions-
were sensitive to certain aspects of the scenario in ways consistent with
other studies of risk perception. First, we found that personalizing the THM
risks induced significantly higher values because people place very high value
9. See appendix K.
7.1
-------
on individual, iden I i f iable lives. When vc described the risk levels in tcrino
of the number of people who would die each year in a city of 14,000 people
(roughly Marion's size, although we did not explicitly link the hypothetical
town to Marion), people reacted to the anonymous hypothetical victim rather
than to (lie rela I i •'<' lisk rate. Instead of viewing the risk level relevant l :i
THM risks of .08 of a person dying" each year as very low compared to other
risks (such as experiencing childbirth or being a policeman) presented on the
scale, participants tended to view it as high and worth a lot of money to
reduce on the grounds that this iate yields one expected death each 12.b
years. However when we expressed risks in terms of annual mortality rate.*;
per 100,000 people, the participants did not worry that they were causing some
particular person's death if they accepted a higher risk rate. They accepted
this type of description as conveying the risk ihey and others faced and
valued it on these terms.
Second, risk values are sensitive to the scale used to describe the risk
level. For index numbers above one, the higher the numbers the higher the
value given to equivalent risk reductions. Several different indexes are used
to describe THM risks. Ve initially described the EPA standard as 100
micrograms per 1i t ot (100 m/1). On this scale, the risk reductions ve
intended to value were 10, 80 and 230 m/1. One respondent in an in-depth
interview alerted us to the possibility that these numbers conveyed-an implied
value when she commented that a reduction of 80 seemed sizable to her and of
coui sc a reduction of 730 must cei tninly be woi th reducing. Thus sensitized
to how I he seal:.- could convey meaning in itself the woman in question
concentrated on the THM numbers and made little effort to comprehend the risks
associated with them. Me therefore experimented with the use of a parts per
million scale which rendered the risk levels as .1, .11, .18 and .33
respectively. When the THM levels were expressed in this fashion, respondents
did not appear to attach significant to the levels themselves as indicators of
the degree of risk involved. This freed them to pay attention to the part of
the scenario which translated the THM levels into risk levels-.
That context influences risk perception is well documented In the
expcM i men ta I liteiatute on risk pi.it rep I. ion (Kahnemnn, Slovjt and Tversky,
1982). The inevitability of this phenomenon and the potential magnitude of
these effects place a burden on the researcher to justify the context he or
she chooses to use in a CV scenario. In our final instrument we avoided
22
-------
contexts such as deaths per community because it distracted respondents''
attention from the relative risks we wished them to evaluate. We decided not
to describe THM concentrations in micrograms per ii ter because this implied
risk levels which were inconsistent with the low-level nature of the THM risk
levels we wanted the respondents to value. In both cases we chose alternative
contexts which appeared to pose less chance of bias. Our findings are
necessarily contingent on this choice.
5. Awareness of THM risks was low and people confused these risks with other
dr .inking water risks.
Since the local citizens had been exposed to information about THMs as a
result of the mandated notification process, we needed to know the extent to
which people in Marion and Carbondale were aware of and concerned about THMs.
Our focus groups offered us an excellent opportunity to investigate this topic
because the type of people we recruited well educated, community-involved
- are precisely the type of people who would be most Likely to have paid
attention to the publicity about THMs. It was notable, therefore, that of the
forty or so participants in our groups, only one person was reasonably well
informed and only two or three others were partially informed about the THMs
in their drinking water.^ Those who had no memory of the THM notices and
newspaper publicity included several participants who had evidenced a very
strong concern about drinking water contamination earlier .¦ n the focus group
discussion. No participant knew of anyone who was trying to pressure the
authorities to take action to reduce the THM levels in their drinking water.
This finding demonstrated that the topic of our study was not the subject of
current controversy in these communities which made the job of designing the
questionnaire easier since we did not have to contend with strong and possibly
erroneous preconceptions. It also showed that we could no; presume that
people knew anything about THMs.
However, we did discover that many of our participants were aware of
another drinking water contaminant, PCBs. As noted earlier, in contrast to
their handling of the THM advisories, the press defined the PCB contamination
as a serious problem. Not surprisingly, given the fact that both contaminants
10. Whitley's (1985) M.A. thesis in geography at Southern Illinois University
explores this finding in depth.
23
-------
have three letter acronyms and people's Low level of knowledge about chemical
contaminants in f I I ec t i ve provi si on of i i sk i mprovetiient s .
7. Respondents had ambivalent vieus about public authorities' protection of
drinking water.
In order to value THM reductions, respondents have to evaluate the degree
of risk posed by a given level of contamination. Is it "high" or "low," is it
24
-------
"safe" or "unsafe?" In making such a determination, especially when it
involves a formal decision with economic consequences such as the referendum
vote we asked them to make, people draw on various sources of information
which include the views of relevant authorities as well as those of their
friends and relatives. Given the technical factors involved in THM
contamination and the difficulty people have in judging risks it seemed to us
people would be especially likely to be influenced by authorities' views in
this case. If this was the case, our scenario, to be realistic, would have t:o
include information about this topic. In order to do this, however, we needed
to understand how people view different authorities so we could appropriately
specify the authorities' views.
Vc therefore explored people's reactions to assurances made by city
officials, local drinking water operators, and state environmental officials
that various THM levels in excess of the MCL were not a serious threat to
health. We found our focus group participants were of two minds about these
assurances. On the one hand there was fairly widespread skepticism about
assurances that the water is safe, especially from local authorities. As one
participant in the second Carbondale group expressed it, "I've been inundated
with too many movies where the people in authority are pulling one over on
us." Participants in the first Marion group were skeptical of the competence
of their drinking water plant operators because they are not paid very much.
One person in the second group declared: "Politicians cover up the truth."
Some participants in the first Carbondale group viewed the local authorities
as having an interest in allaying people's concerns and used the term "public
relations" to refer to their statements. When asked which authorities they
would trust, participants tended to cite university scientists and the state
EPA as sufficiently independent and expert to rely upon.
11
On the other hand, the participants believed strongly that if there
really was a serious problem with their drinking water, a 'crisis," the
authorities would inform them. There appear to be several reasons why they
hold this belief. First, they believe their drinking water is constantly
monitored by the plant operators for contaminants. Second they believe some
of the important authorities, the state EPA in particular, are competent and
11. See transcript of the first Carbondale group and the second Marion group
in appendix A.
25
-------
would not be motivated to cover up serious local drinking water problems.
Third, they believe that authorities have acted when serious problems have
occurred with di inking water in ihe past. For example, they are accustomed to
receiving boil water advisories whenever work on their water system's pipes
lowers the watei pressure so that biological contaminants are temporarily
introduced into the system. The PCB contamination, in Orchard Lake was quickly
labeled a problem by all the relevant authorities and received appropriate
coverage in the Jmal pies.?. As n woman in one of the Marion groups expressed
it: "I have enough confidence t ha t 1 icuilly believe if some agency, private m
public, way convinced flat, there w,t; a real danger, something would be done
about it. I think most people feel this way. (Nods of agreement by the othet
participants.)"
These findings confirmed our assumption that people's valuation of
drinking water risks will be strongly influenced by how they are defined by
authorities. If the authorities legard these risks as trivial, people will be
much less condoned i hnr. it some 01 nil ot the authoi i tic*?; express concei 11
about the tisks. This made it neeess.u y to add to our scomu io a descript ion
of the authorities' views about the seriousness of the THM risk reductions;
without this specification we would not know what implicit assumptions our
respondents would have had in mind about this factor, The reaction we
specified was similar te the actual response to the THM notifications, the
risks were so low that they were not woith worrying about. It is very
probable that if our scenario had st.ited that the local .uid state authorities
actively supported a referendum to raise water rates to cover the cost of
reducing THMs, such a referendum would have received a higher proportion of
yes votes, and respondents would have been willing to pay significantly more
money for the same risk reductions.
8. Some people were afraid of giving a WIT amount highei than necessary to
accomplish the drinking water quality improvement because of a fear that
government would inke the extra money and use it foi ethei things.
This viewpoint emerged in the second Marion group. We noticed that when
we asked them how much they would pay for a given improvement, people in
several of the groups were anxious to know how much the improvements would
actually cost. One person voiced what apparently lay behind the other
participants' views on this matter when she said that she didn't want to give
26
-------
the town move than it needed because it would use the money tor other tilings.
This finding has important implications for the design of CV studies.
The welfare measure which CV studios n t tempt to measure is consumer's surplus
or the highest amount an individual is willing to pay ioi t-\n amenity before
doing without it. If people are averse to paying more than they think it will
cost to provide an amenity, and if they believe the cost of providing it is
lower than the maximum amount they would be willing to pay if necessary, they
will understate their WTP amount. Plausible assurances havti to be offered in
the scenario to addtess this concern as which we attempted So do in this
study.
27
-------
CHAPTER 3
THE INSTRUMENT
In the previous chapter we described the research problem and our
research efforts to learn about how people think about drinking water,
mortality risks, and the CV interview experience, This chapter describes the
icsearch im;ti union I which we developed J or this study and the considerations
which went into it-.: design. We piep;ued the first draft of the questionnaire
in February 1985 after the completion of the focus group phase of our
research. During the next few months we tried the draft questionnaire out in
various settings and on the basis of this experience we made numerous changes
in it's wording, format, use of visual aids (or "exhibits" in survey jargon),
and question order. These changes were intended to enhance the-scenario's
plausibility to make it easier for respondents to understand it.
From the .sin w«.»y designer's poinl oi view, certain fealuies of the
scenario are intended to describe aspects of the amenity which the respondent
should take into account when valuing the amenity and others are intended to
be neutral in this respect. Whether the respondents react to the scenario as
the researchers intend them to do is always an empirical question which roust
be explored in the design stage. It may turn out, for example, that
respondents ate sensitive to the particular payment vehicle used in a
scenario. 11 this is I he case, another vehicle may be pieiorablo because
respondents do noi lake it into account in valuing the amenity. It is not
always possible to find a neutral alternative to a troublesome design feature.
When this is the ease, a choice has to be made between alternatives (if there
are any), each of which has a particular effect on the valuation. To the
extent that a scenario feature, such as the scale used to describe the
concentration of THMs, appeared to influence the findings, we had to decide
which version of that feature was most appropriate for our purposes,
described in that chapter.
28
-------
OVERVIEW OF THE INSTRUMENT
A copy of the instrument (which consists of the questionnaire and a set
ol display c,.ti.ds) is piesented in appendix C. Refo.e describing the
instrument's most important feature.'.; in detail, it may be helpful to briefly
outline the scenaiio. It consisted of two paits, a lengthy introductory
section and a valuation section. The introductory section began by describing
the concept of mortality risks. It then introduced the concept of "extra" or
"special" risks which some people are exposed to and others are not, Next,
low level ripks ve> e rlesn ibod usinj>. sevei ril techniques. Drinking water risks
from trihalomethanes were then described and compared with other risks using a
risk ladder. The last portion of the introductory section introduced the
maximum contaminant level for IHMs and described the risks associated with
various level;.; of THM?' including the MCI. level. When the interviewer had
reached this point in the interview, the respondent was assumed to have
acquired a basic understanding thai the mortali ty risks posed by excess TIIM
contamination: (1) occur as an unintended byproduct of the chlorination
process, (?) pose a risk of causing cancer, (3) are t cgulaled. by KPA whose HCL
for THHs carries a small amount of mortality risk, and (4) are are low
compared to many oihei familiar extia risd'.s and much Lower than the basic risk
of dying faced by people of various age groups.
The valuation portion ol the scenario established a political maiket toi
controlling excess THM levels in which respondents were asked how they would
vote on thiee dilferenl referenda. In each case they were told to assume that
Iferrin's drinking water exceeded the EPA THM standard by a given amount and a
referendum would he held on whether or not the town .should spend money to
lower that THM level to the EPA standard and no lower. The respondents were
told what the change in annual mortality risk per 100,000 people would be for
each excess THM level if the relevant referendum passed. Those who said they
would vote for a given referendum were asked to state the maximum amount they
would pay in higher water bills for that risk reduction. At a later point in
the survey every respondent was given the chance to revise his or her amount
If he or she wished to do so for any reason.
29
-------
KEY DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The Institutional Context
A key clement which shaped our risk presentation format is the current
institutional context for THM contamination."'" There are two relevant
features here, the regulatory framework for THMs and the water supply
industry. Present government regulations mandate control of THMs in excess of
the maximum contaminant level (MCL). The MCI. in effect defines an officially
sanctioned level of acceptable risk, from THMs. In practice, programs to
reduce TI1M risks in local drinking water systems are only undertaken when the
MCL is exceeded. A plausible and relevant scenario, therefore, is one which
values risk reductions from some level of THM contamination in excess of the
MCL down to the MCI.. Such a scenario requires a willingness to pay format
where respondents are told that they face a given level of risk from excess
THMs and are asked how much they ate willing to pay to reduce this level down
to the level of risk posed by the MCL. From a property rights standpoint this
scenario, which we adopted, asked the respondents to value a gain from an
assigned level of risk imposed on them by the nature of their water systems'
raw water and its method of treatment. Unlike hazardous waste risks, which
involve considerable uncertainty about the probability of exposure, exposure
to the risks associated with the excess THM levels is certain unless
respondents choose not tc drink water from the tap.
In the United States, drinking water is supplied to communities by either
public or private systems. As is the case with the majority of the 40,000
community water systems, Herrin's system is publicly owned. Altogether,
public systems supply 88 percent of the total U.S. drinking water production
(Clark and Stevie, 1978). Capital improvements to Herrin's system would
require the issuance of bonds and the decision whether or not to assume the
debt obligation may plausibly be the subject of a community vote. This
suggests a referendum framework for the valuation of THM risk reductions,
where the decision lo recuce risks by installing and operating the appropriate
1. This context accounts tor much of the design difference between the
present study and Smith, Desvousges, arid Freeman's (1985) study of the
benefits of changes in hazardous waste risks.
30
-------
treatment equipment is decided by a majority vote.
Potential Biases
CV studies, for the reasons mentioned in the previous chapter, are
vulnerable to b i as from various soui cos. Table 3-1 lists the major potential
sources of bias in CV studies. We have elsewhere (Mitchell and Carson,
forthcoming) developed I he rationale ior this typology; here we will focus on
the sources of bias which we believed would pose the greatest difficulty in
this study. It is these biases which we made special efforts to avoid when we
designed the THH drinking water instalment.
The possibility of amenity misspccification clearly posed the greatest
design challenge. We had several reasons tor feai ing thai ;:he iespondonts
night perceive risk reductions from controlling THH concentrations which pose
a low level risk ot cancer diIf erently from the way we int ended them to
perceive them. The first is the possibility of metric bias, Low risk levels
are widely regarded as prone to misperception by respondents who exaggerate
thorn relative to ;-:ero i isks which they ovei value Fischhofi, Slov i c, and
Liechtenstein, 1981, 1982). Our survey required the respondents to value a
series of low level risks. This posed the possibility of metric bias, a form
of misspecification where the respondent values the amenity on a different
metric than the one intended by the researcher. In our case we were
particularly concerned that respondents might regard the risk reductions we
asked them to value as implying low, medium, and high improvements rather than
the numerically based improvements we intended to convey.
The threat of metric bias can be illustrated by some of the findings of
Smith, Desvousges, and Freeman's (19H'_>) contingent valuation study of
hazardous waste risk changes. These researchers used a very complex research
design which employed a number of different methods and contingencies. Table
3-2 presents the option prices obtained by direct CV questions. These
researchers communicated risk levels by means of pie charts. For each risk
level respondents were g i veil a card which showed a risk <>i exposure, a i isk of
death if exposed, and the combined risk (which was also labeled "personal
risk"). For example,, an exposure risk of 1/10 and a risk of death if exposed
of: 10/50 gave a combined risk of 1/30. Each of the eight subsamples valued
31
-------
Table 3-1 TYPOLOGY OF THREATS TO VALIDITY IN CONTINGENT VALUATION
I. Incrnt ives to Misteptcsent Responses
This class of biases occur when a respondent intentionally or
unintentional ly misrepi orients his or her 11 nc vil I ingnes;.: • to-pay (WTP).
A, Strategic Bias. Where a respondent gives a WTP amount which
differ^ from his or her true WTP amount (conditional on the
perceived infoimation) in an attempt, to influence the puwision of
the good and/or the individual's payment for the good.
R. Compliance Bias
1, Sponsor Bias. Where a respondent gives a WTP amount
which differs from his or her true WTP amount in an attempt
to comply with the presumed expectations of the sponsor (or
imputed sponsor).
2. Tnteiviewer Bias. Where a respondent y i ves a WTP amount
which differs from his or her true WTP amount in an attempt
to eithet please or to gain status in the eyes of a
particular interviewer.
II. Implied Value Cues
These biases occur when elements of the contingent market are treated
by respondents as providing information about the "correct" value for the
good.
A. Stai I ing Point Bin:.:. Whei c the elicit at ion mot.hod introduces a
potential WTP amount which influences the WTP amount given by a
respondent.
B. Range Bias. Where the elici tat inn method presents a range of p
otentia 1 WTP amounts which influences a respondent's VTP amount.
C. Re lal i ona 1 P i as . Where the description of the- good presents
information about it's relationship to other public or private
commodities vhich influences a respondent's OTP amount,
D. Yea-Saying/Nay-Saying Bias, Wheie the elici tat ion procedure
uses yes/no formats which influence a respondent's VTP amount.
III. Hisspecification of Market Scenarjo
These ertors occut when a respondent does not respond to the correct
contingent market. Presuming that the researcher describes the correct
market in the scenario, misspecificat ions are caused by the inability of a
respondent to understand or perceive one ol more elements of the
researcher's intended market.
32
-------
Table 3-1 (Continued)
A. Context Hisspecification. Where the intended context or
reference frame Cor the valuation exercise differs from that
perceived by the t.e'.;pondeni ¦
B. Payment Vehicle Hisspecificat Ion. Where the perceived payment
vehicle differs from the iniended vehicle.
C. Multiple Valuation Hisspecification. Where the respondent
values mm c dimension."; of the scenario than intended.
1. Payment Vehicle Valuation Bias. Where the payment vehicle
itself is viewed as desirable or undesi table ana hence i:;
valued along with the amenity.
2. Method of PtovLsion Valuation Bias. Whete the method by
vhit Is the K'iod will be provided is valued in and ol itself:
and affects the value given for the specified good.
D. Amenity M isspeei f i c;i t i on . Vhc-ie the perceived ^ood being valued
differs from the intended good,
1. Part-Whole Bias. Where a respondent values a larger or
smaller entity than the intended good.
a. Heogi aphiea! Pat ¦ -Whole Bir.s ¦ Where a respondent
values a good whose spatial attributes are larger or
rum I f er than the spatial attributes os the intended
good.
b. Benefit Part-Whole Bias. Where a respondent
include:; a broader oi narrower range of benefits in
valuing a good lhan intended by the researcher.
c. Policy package Part-Whole Bias. Where a respondent
values a broader or narrower policy package than the
one intended by the researcher.
2. Property Right Hisspeeification. Where the intended
property right oC the good differs from the perceived
property right.
E. Budget Constraint Hisspecification. Where the perceived budget
constraint dillei;, Item the intended budget constraint.
F. Probabi1iiy of Provision Hisspecification. Where the perceived
probability of juovision differs Uoni the intended probability of
provision.
-------
Table 3-1 (Continued)
IV. AggregaLion Bias
Where the aggregate value differs from the value whi ch would be
obtained from adding up measurements on every person or market in the
population ot interest.
A. Sampling Design Hi as. Where the sample design imperfectly
represents the population.
B. Response Rate Bias. Where those who complete the interview or
quest ion.iai re imperfectly represent the population.
C. Item Non-Response Bias. Where those who answer a WTP question
imperfectly represent the population.
D. Sequence Aggregation Bias. Where the WTP amounts for amenities
that are substitutes or complements are added together to value a
policy package containing those amenities despite the fact that the
amenities were valued independently of each other instead of in the
appropriate sequence.
E. B e n e 1 i 1. Com p <: n en t Aggregation Bias. Where independently
derived estimates of two or more benefit components for a single
amenity are aggregated to form an estimate of the combined benefits
despite the fact that the benefit components are not additively
separable.
SOURCE: Mitchell and Carson (forthcoming).
34
-------
Tabic 3-2. OPTION PRICES FOR RISK REDUCTIONS FROM
SMITH, DESVOUSGES AND FREEMAN STUDY
Risk
Combined risk
improvement
(&)
end paint
(annual deaths .
S t d .
Subsample (1/10)
(1/20)
N
per 100.000) Mean
deviation
1
1/100
36
1000
$16.56*
$20.57
1/250
34
400
8.06
10.89
2
1/200
41
500
29.39**
43.87
1/500
35
200
] 4 - 26
23.38
3
1/300
41
500
15,88**
21.28
1/500
31
200
11 .58
15.50
4
1/400
40
250
35.67**
50.26
1/1,000
33
100
20.12
34.20
5
1/600
43
167
21,42*
26.51
1/1300
36
R3
11.72
14.64
6
1/1 zoo
36
67
24.67**
46.84
1/3000
29
33
18.48
46.03
moo3
l/20tf
?
1/60,000
48
1.6
18.13
26.72
1/130,000
32
0.83
17.13
30.95
8
1/120,000
31
0.67
17.19
17.02
1/300,000
28
0.33
10.11
14.05
Source:
Smith, Desvousge
s, and Freeman
(1985), Labi i-
11-7 .
a.
Conditional risk
(risk of death,
if exposed).
b.
Protest bids excluded, outliers
i ncludf-'d .
4-
Metric bias comparison 1,
**.
Metric bias comparison 2.
-------
two risk reductions — first from the initial level to an intermediate (lower)
level and, second, from the intermediate level to a final (lower) level.
The risk of death if exposed was set at 1/10 or 1/20 for six subsaraples and
at 1/100 or 1/200 for the remaining two subsamples. What is of interest to us
here are the mean WIT amounts reported by Smith, Desvousges, and Freeman for
the .subsamples with the same conditional risk (risk of death, i f exposed).
Looking first at the subsamples with the 1/10 conditional risk (subsamples 1,
3, and 5), we see that the first risk improvement (in annual deaths per
100,000) which the respondents were asked to value varies greatly in size. At
the extremes, subsample 1 first valued an improvement of 1000/100,000 whereas
subsample 5 firs I valued 167/100,000, a risk reduction more than six times
smaller. A similar pattern occurs for the subsampling with the 1/20
conditional l i sl< . If (he UTP amount;: ,-n e not subject to metric bias, we would
expect to find significant differences in the amounts offered with respondents
offering more foi the larger risk reductions. If, however, metric bias is
present, we would expect the respondents to give roughly similar values. The
two relevant comparisons are the sets of three means marked by single
(comparison 1) and double (comparison 2) asterisks. Neither comparison shows
the expected relationship between amount of reduction and the UTP amount. In
each case the i .irtKes ioi the three WIT amounts over lap despite the iair.e
disparity in risk reductions. These bias pattern is consistent with metric
bias.
The risk reductions valued by subsamples 1-6 weie much larger than those
posed by realistic THM contamination levels. The last two subsamples, however,
valued much lower risk t educ I ioris which at e similar to those- which concern us
in this study, 'with the except ion of the $10.11 mean WTP amount for the lowest
risk reduction, the other three values reported for subsamples 7 and 8 are
36
-------
virtually identical and very similar to those we considered in the first metric
bias comparison. Tit orlior words, (he suhsaropl e who valued a ii.sk improvemen I
of 1000/100,000 gave a VIP amount ($16.56) which is similar to the amount
($17.19) given by those in subsample 8 who valued the much lover risk reduction
of 0.67/100,000. This is additional evidence of possible metric bias.
It is possible that these data patterns may be explained by factors other
than metric b i a.<;. Given the complex ity of the Smith, Deisvou.sgos, and Freeman
study's design, fiutheL analysis may show that our into pi el a t i on is invalid.
Our point in discussing these data ho o is to highlight the seriousness of the
threat posed by metric bias and the desirability of a study design which makes
it possible to test for metric bias.
The source of death, cancer, was another potentially complicating factor in
communicating our lisk reductions in ibis study. Cancer is thought to be
especially dreaded and, as such, an outcome respondents might regard as
unacceptable at any risk level. A final source of potential misperception was
the respondents' unfami1iari ty with the source of cancer, THM contamination.
This created the possibility that the Hertin residents might confuse THMs with
other acronymed contaminants, one of which, FCBs, had caused problems in a
nearby watei syslrrn. Alternatively, the unfamiliarity ol THMs might tempt
respondents to eschew the effort involved in valuing just THM-caused risks and
value instead the offered risk reductions as if they were caused by cancer-
causing contaminants in drinking water more generally.
In addition to amenity misspeci f i cn t ion, another potential problem for the
survey was bias ftoin compliance behavior. Since improving the quality of
drinking water is widely regarded as a desirable social goal, some respondents,
if they believed the interviewers wan red them to pay for the i isk reductions,
might be motivated to give positive OTP amounts in order avoid appearing cheap
-------
or ant i social in i he ryes of t ho interviewer. Ve earlier des< ribed how we
became alerted to the difficulty of avoiding this type of bias when a focus
group member let it be known that he believed, despite our careful assertions
to tho contrary, lh.it we wanted io obtain as hii'h values as possible foi the
THM risk reductions.
Our third area o£ special concern was the possibility of importance bias.
This type of bias occurs when the act of being interviewed suggests to the
respondent that the nmcnity has value. When lespondents are uncertain about
whether ot not a particular amount of risk reduction is large enough to worry
about, they may be inclined to settle the doubt by reasoning that interviewers
would not be going to the trouble of asking them about these risks if they
were, in fact, inconsequential. As we will see in the next chapter, when we
discuss what we call "position effect", the potential for importance bias is
likely lo be particularly strong when respondents who valued the first two ot
the tinee risk reductions at $0 ,uc confronted with the thiid and highest i i sk
reduction in the series. This is also the point where compliance factors may
exert their greatest effect as well.
COMMUNICATING LOW LEVEL RISKS
Our strategy for communicating THM risks in an in-person survey was to
begin by providing i n i ormation about risks in general in such a way that
respondents could compare the THM risk reductions with the risks involved with
other, more familiar, situations. In order to ensure that respondents grasped
the concepts necessary to valuing the risk reductions, we had to convey a
considerable amount ot information. Accepted survey practice rightly holds
that respondents should be actively involved in the interview, otherwise they
-------
are likely to become inattentive and bored. The standard technique for
maintaining respondent attention is to avoid description and instructional
mater inL in favor of short and frequent questions. We decided that ii was
impossible to do this and still communicate the necessary information. Even
after paring our descriptive material to a to a minimum and seizing every
possible oppnr t un i t.y ask questions during this process, it was impossible to
avoid a long stretch in which the respondents were required to listen to the
interviewer describe important elements of the scenario. As we wrestled with
the issue of how to maintain respondent involvement in this situation, we
developed a format which relies heavily on visual aids.
Mortality Ki:;ks
Thf natuie of m.ir informational survey appt oach is illustrated in the fust
portion of the scenario which sought to convey the concept of mortality risks.
The interviewer began by handing the respondent the card shown in figure 3-1.
While the respondent examined the card, the interviewer said:
This card shows the basic risk of dying we all face from such causes as
accidents, long term illnesses, heart attacks and the like. On the
average, census data show that out of evciy 100,000 people in the United
States aged 25 to 34, 137 will die each year from one cause or another.
Some will die in auto accidents, some from disease, some from accidents
at their job, and some because they fall off a ladder at home. Thus the
basic risk of dying for people in this age group is 137 of 100,000
(POINT).
Another way of expressing this risk level is to say that on the?
average one out of every 730 people (POINT) in this age group die in a
given year. The two numbers — 137 out of 100,000 and 1 of 730 - - are
just different ways of expressing exactly the same level of risk.
2. Here and elsewhere, all emphases in the questionnaire materials are in
the original.
-------
Figure 3-1. CARD 4 FROM HERRIN SURVEY INSTRUMENT
BASIC RISKS OF DYING FROM ALL CAUSES
(Annual)
Annual preaiuM
for $100,000 9
life Insurance
1137
$229
$584
$1363
Ho. of people who
die each year per
Age 100,000
25-34 137 of 100,000 or 1 of 730
35-44 229 of 100,000 or 1 of 437
45-54 584 of 100,000 or 1 of 171
55-64 1363 of 100,000 or 1 of 73
fi This rate reflects the cost of paying the families of those who die under an
"ideal" insurance plan in which everyone participates and there are no
administrative costs.
4U
-------
What 1 want to do is to show you how different risks compare with each
other. One way to compare risks is to use numbers like these. You can
see on this card thai as age i nr teases-, the number of peopJe who die in t
year also increases (RUN FINGER DOWN CARD).
Some people find it hard to make sense of numbers like these. Another
way to compare these risks is to look at the size of the insurance
premium I hat someone would have to pay for a life insurance policy with a
death "heaefi t of $100,000, For people age 25-34, i.t would only cost $13/
a yea: to rover death fro-i; average rir;ks. Because the risk of dying is
higher for people in the 55-84 age group, the same $100,000 life
insurance policy would cost $1363 a year.
FF3 RESPONDENT 0UESTI0NS THE PREMIUM LEVELS AS BEING LOW, EXPLAIN THAT
THIS IS AN "IDEAL INSURANCE SYSTEM" WITH NO ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. THIS
IS SIMPLY THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT, IF COLLECTED FROM EACH PERSON, WOULD
BE ENOUGH TO PAY THE 5100,000 PAYMENT FOR EACH ANNUAL DEATH.
Please look at. the- risk numbers foi the other age group;; on this cnid.
Do you have any questions about these numbers or what they mean? (PAUSE)
Think of these risk levels as showing the basic "risk of dying." We all
face these risks which increase as we get older. Of course some people
face greater risks than others.
Although the respondent i:. not asked any questions during this extended
description, the visual aid offers a focus for his attention. The interviewer
directly relates the spoken material to the visual aid and encourages the
respondent to to ask questions about it. Tluoughotft the informational portion
of the interview (as elsewhere), the wording and, especially, the sequence of
the explanations were repeatedly tested and revised until they appeared to
communicate the material smoothly and naturally. The interviewers were also
trained to pare each presentation accoi d i ng to the interest and needs of: the
particular respondent.
The scenario's structure relied heavily on a type of repetition where the
same concepts were used in different ways at various points in the interview.
For example, the section of the instrument which followed the one quote above
introduced the concept of "extra risks" such as dying while doing stunts as a
Hollywood sruntman, in an airplane crash, being killed by lightning, and dying
from smoking-induced cancer. The airplane and lightning risks later figured
prominently on the risk ladder. The use of cigarette smoking risks served to
introduce the concepts o£ death from cancer, which we later identified as a
potential consequence of ingesting THMs, and incremental risk from smoking
3. Here and elsewhere interviewer ins truetions are in caps.
41
-------
individual cigarettes, which subsequently appeared on the risk ladder as a
subsidiary risk scale.
Drinking Water Risks
The THM risks were introduced by asking the respondents to examine the
two cards given in figure 3-2 while the following material was read to them;
We all are exposed to many types of low level risks every day. These
include being exposed to air pollution and eating food which has
chemicals added to it to keep it from spoiling. Each of these activities
poses some very small risk, of dying from cancer. Sometimes if we tmy
mote money we can reduce the risk somewhat, but we can never eliminate
it. In each case we have to ask ourselves whether the size of the
reduction in risk is large enough to he worth spending money for this
purpose.
The particulai: risk I want: to ask you about involves drinking water.
HAND RESPONDENT CARD 7 (See figure 3-2.)
As you probably know, cities like this one who get their water from
surface supplies add small amounts of chlorine to drinking water to
purify it. The chlorine kills bacteria which would otherwise cause
disease. Under certain special conditions, the chlorine can produce
small amounts of chemicals called trihalomcthanes or THM's in the
drinking water people drink.
Because they are created in the process of treating the water, THMs are
very different front other types of chemical contaminants you may have
heard about such as PCBs. (PAUSE)
IF RESPONDENT ASKS ABOUT PCBs, SAY THEY WERE FOUND IN CRAB ORCHARD LAKE,
THE SOURCE OF MARION'S WATER, A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. IF THEY ASK ABOUT
THE NEWS STORIES ABOUT PCBs IN REND LAKE SAY THAT PCBS WERE FOUND IN ONE
OF THE RIVERS THAT GOES INTO REND LAKE, AND THAT SCIENTISTS ARE CURRENTLY
STUDYING REND LAKE WATER TO SEE IF IT ALSO HAS PCBS. EMPHASIZE AGAIN
THAT THIS STUDY IS ONLY ABOUT THMs WHICH ARE A DIFFERENT SOURCE OF
CONTAMINATION IN DRINKING WATER.
Because research has shown thai THM's at high levels can cause cancer in
animals, the Federal Environmental Piotection Agency has established a
maximum level for THM's in drinking water. This level is set at 0.10
parts pei million, ot about a few drops in a bathtub full of water. It a
town's drinking water is tested and exceeds this level, the Environmental
Piotection Agency requires the town to notify its water customers of tiiis
far t,
4?
-------
Figure 3-2,
CARDS 7 AID 8 PROM Mill STOUT IBSTBDMBIT
Card 8-A
WATER PURIFICATION
(CHLORINE)
1
I
i
i
I
~
Trihalomethanes
THMs
(NOT PCBs)
HYPOTHETICAL DRINKING MATE* MEASUREMENTS
(ppo • Pirta p«P Kllltoo)
EXCEEDS
LEVEL OF THMs STAKDMD HOTIFICATIOH
IN MITES BY NECESSARY?
D
North Saitftwllie
0.33
ppss
0.23
PP#
Yea
C
South Salthville
0.18
P(M
0.08
ppt
Yas
B
East Snlthvlllfl
0.11
ppm
0.01
ppa
Y«s
EPA
Standard
o.?o
ppm
»0
0.09
ppm
Mo
C«nt«r*llle
0.0?
pp®
Ho
10 parts per million (ppm)
-------
It is important to know that the EPA standard for THMs still poses some
tisk. But the EPA ieels this lisk level is low enough t.o be acceptable.
HAND RESPONDENT CARD 8 (See figure 3-2.)
This card gives hypothetical THM levels for five cities. As you can
see, three ot the cities exceed the limit and have to send notices to
their vofcr enstomets. 'Che other two have levels which are below I he
0.10 ppm standard and would not have to send notices.
A little bit later I'm going to ask you to imagine that Herrin's
drinking water is at the level of each of the three towns marked B, C and
D, which exceed the EPA standard.
But first yon will need to know how much risk is involved with these
three different levels of THMs in drinking water. (PAUSE) The best way
J can explain the t i sk is to compare it to other risks on this risk
ladder.
We defined the risk level for the .10 ppm THM maximum contaminant level
as a mortality risk of .57 per 100,000 per year. EPA defines total
trihalomethanes as the sum of concentrations of the four ha 1omethanes:
chloroform, bromoform, dibromomethane, and bromodichloromethane. Crouch et.
al. (1983) point out that the cancer risk posed by these constituents varies
considerably as bromolorm, lor example, poses a 600 times greater risk than
chloroform. The Safe Drinking Water Committee (1981) of the National Academy
of Science teviewed the evidence of the carcinogenicity of chloroform and
calculated the 95 percent confidence estimate of lifetime cancer risk per mg/L
concentration of chloroform at 1.7 per million. This represents an annual
cancer risk of 0.002 pet 100,000 for each mg/L of chloroform or a risk of 0.20
for the MCL if chloroform alone accounts for the contamination. According to
Crouch et al., only rarely is one important contaminant present in drinking
water so the "risk from drinking water in compliance with federal regulations
may be substantially higher" {1983: 1371). Our risk level of .57 is a best
4
estimate which allows for this possibility.
4. It is derived from the 3.7 10 upper 95 percent confidence estimate of the
lifetime cancer risk for chloroform for daily ingestion of 1 liter of
drinking water a day given in Rohlich (1978).
44
-------
The Risk Ladder
Should someone worry about a risk of dying when it is described as a
chance of 2/100,000 per year? Is this risk high or low, acceptable or
unacceptable? What about a risk of .05/100,000 per year? The basic
assumption underlying the use of a risk ladder is that people best understand
unfamiliar risks when they can compare them with the risks posed by other,
familiar, activities or situations. Our study strongly confirmed this
as snm.pt ion.
The risk ladder developed for this study was designed to provide a
meaningful context for the risk levels posed by our hypothetical THM risk
reductions. A basic problem with risk ladders is how to show a full range of
risks and, at the same time, provide sufficient detail at the low level. A
ladder which includes a reasonably wide range of mortality risks, say 0 to
100/100,000, would have to be several yards long to provide enough room at the
bottom to differentiate between various risks at levels below 1/100,000. The
most common solution to this problem is to use a logarithmic scale to compress
the range. Smith, Desvousges and Freeman (1985) used a logarithmic risk
ladder in their CV study of hazardous waste risk reduction benefits which
emphasized the break between the different probability levels by showing
spaces between the sections and by using a different color for each ladder
segment.
If people fail to grasp the logarithmic concept, a scale of this type may
convoy an exaggerated image of the size of the lower level intervals relative
to the higher probability risks. While people with reasonably high
educational backgrounds can probably grasp the concept of a logarithmic scale,
it is not, in our view, sufficiently intuitive a concept to use in a survey
such as ours. Our limited trials of the SmiIh-Desvousges-Freeman scale
reinforced our skepticism on this point. We therefore decided to adopt
another approach. Our solution, which appeared to work, well in the study, was
to use a linear scale for a basic risk ladder and to enlarge or blow up the
bottom portion of the ladder to show low level risks in more detail.
Figure 3-3 shows the basic risk ladder (A). At the top is an annual risk
of 1000 per 100,000^
5, Smith, Desvousges, and Freeman's (1985) ladder was able to include a risk
level of 2,000 per 100,000
45
-------
Figure <3-3.
RISK LADDER. PART A
ANNUAL RISKS OF DYING
BASiC RISKS
SPECIAL RISKS
Age 45-54» *11 rtaks
1000 per 100.000 people «ach year
»00
800
too
600
584
SW»
400
Age 35-44. *11 risks
25**4k 11 rlbkc
300
229
200
137
100
80
25
O
If S»oker («t least one pack a. da/)
If Skjrdiver
If PireMn (Professional)
If Police Officer
% Lightning
46
-------
of dying and the bottom is defined as zpio risk. In an attempt So convey the
overall risk of dying, we placed the average risk of dying from all causes for
three age groups on the left hand side. On the right we located several
reprp;;onta t i ve types oi risks which our research shewed were meaningful to
people in this context.^ These were described in the interview as the
"special risks" which people undertaking these occupations or activities are
exposed to.
As shown by the following excerpt from the survey instrument, the ladder-
was presented in a way designed to encourage the respondents to focus on the
ladder and to become involved in understanding it.
HAND RESPONDENT RISK LADDER FOLDED SO THAT ONLY CARD A APPEARS. MAKE
SURE THE l,l<;ilT IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE RESPONDENT TO COMFORTABLY READ THE
LADDER AND ENCOURAGE RESPONDENT TO GET READING GLASSES IF THIS APPEARS
NECESSARY.
As you can see, the ladder goes from 0 (POINT) or no risk at all to an
annual risk level of 1000 deaths per 100,000. The stuntraen's risk level
is so high that the ladder would have to be twice as high to show their
risk level of 2,000 per 100,000.
The let! hand side .shows the basic risk levels for ilu.ee ol the age-
groups talked about earlier. The basic risk for people aged 45-54 is at
584, (POINT), those 35-44 are here (POINT IF NECESSARY) and those aged
25-34 are here (POINT IF NECESSARY) at 137. Remember, each of these risk
Jpvels include the risk of death l.i.om all causes.
The right hand side of the ilsk ladder shows the average chance of dying
if someone undertakes particular kinds of activities.
The extra risk of dying for someone vho smokes at least a pack of
cigarettes a day lor a single year is 300 per 100,000 (POINT If
NECESSARY). This is the additional risk that his or her death would
eventually be caused by smoking this many cigarettes in a year.
Can you see the annual risk faced by skydivers?
(Each year someone engages in Che sport of skydiving (POINT), they have
a risk level of 200 in 100,000.)
How about, the professional fire fighter?
(OPTIONAL STATEMENT) (The yearly risk of death from this occupation is
80 in 100,000.)
6. These risk values are based on the following sources: Smith, Desvousgos,
and Freeman, 1985; Urquhart and Hei1 matin 1984, Crouch and Wilson, 1982)
47
-------
Notice how firemen have a higher i isk oi dying bemuse of their job
than police officers (POINT IF NECESSARY).
Please look at the part of the ladder which is marked in blue (POINT),
This is the risk level between 25 and 1 and is where the police
offleer's risk level is located.
Can you see the thin green line below the blue? This marks the range
of the lowest risks. This is where the risk of being hit by lightning
and dying- in an ail liner crash 1 i os,
After presenting the basic risk ladder, the interviewer introduced the
lower level risks by calling the respondents' attention to the bottom of the
ladder where a Rreen line marked the. 1 in 100,000 risk level and a blue shaded
area the 1 - 25 per 100,000 risk range. The respondent was then shown a
companion ladder (B), shown in figure 3-4, which expanded these two risk
ranges. The fiist expansion presented (lie 25 In 0 ran;>o and the second
unfolded the 1 to 0 range. The two ladders (A and B) were attached to each
other in such a way that whenever the B ladder was in front of the respondent,
the A ladder war; displayed to its left to underscore the lelationship in-- i ween
the 0 - 25 risk levels and the full range of risk levels.
By expanding the bottom range of risks in this manner, we were able to
provide a number of low level risk examples which the respondents could use in
evaluating the THM risk reductions. One set of examples consisted of
different situations such as the risk of dying during an appendectomy
operation or of being killed by a drunk driver. The other set identified the
risk associated with multiple occurrences of two types of risk - dying during
a scheduled airliner trip in the U.S. and smoking a single cigarette in a
lifetime. This material was explained to the respondents in the following
manner:
FOLD CARD B OUT FROM UNDKK CARD A AND POINT TO WHAT IS N0U THE RIGHT HAND
PAGE
In order to better describe the lower range of risks, this card stretches
out the areas marked in blue and green on the lirst ladder (POINT TO THE
BOTTOM OF A AND THEN TO THE REPRODUCTION OF THIS SEGMENT ON THE TOP OP
B). It's sort of like putting this part of the ladder under a magnifying
glass so we can see the details better.
(PAUSE) Please take a minute or so to look this card over.
(PAUSE, GIVE RESPONDENT A CHANCE TO EXAMINE IT. ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
THEY ASK)
-------
Figure 3-4,
RISK LADDER, PART B
LOWER LEVEL RISKS
(ANNUAL)
25 pet 100,000 people #«h year
22 If Folic* Offlccr
21 In Auto Accident
20 If Iim Ippondaeto^y Operation
5 In Alrllnar Craab (150 trips)
11 If Womjd Bavins • Baby
10
5 % Drunk Driver
4 If Voaan Contraceptive Pill Oaer {kge 25-3U)
3 1b love fire
2 Aa Pedestrian
10 In Airliner Crash (10 trlpa)
0.95
(0.75
0.50 In Airliner Crash (5 trlpa)
D.2S
3.10 In Airliner Craab Cone trip)
.05 % lightning
LIFETIME
TOTAL CIGARETTES
(lor comparison)
443
422
403
221
88
56
21
15
10
or*- in Of*' million people
2
1
49
-------
Remember that, even though the scale is stretched out in this way, all
these risk levels are at the bottom of the risk ladder and the part
ingreen is at the very bottom.
Here you can see the police officer's annual risk at 22 per 100,000
(POINT IF NECESSARY). Just below it is the average annual risk everyone
faces of dying in an automobile accident.
The next risk is not an annual risk like the others, but shows the chance
that someone would die of complications while being operated on for an
appendix..
IF RESPONDENT SAYS THIS RISK LEVEL SEEMS HIGH, EXPLAIN THAT THIS INCLUDES
DEATHS WHICH OCCUR ALL OVER THE COUNTRY AND SOME PEOPLE GET OPERATED ON
WHEN THEIR APPENDIX HAS BECOME VERY INFECTED.
IF NECESSARY, EXPLAIN THAT THIS RISK IS FOR A PARTICULAR OCCURRENCE
WHEREAS THE OTHER LEVELS ARE FOR EXPERIENCING A SITUATION FOR A YEAR.
At i\ per 100;000 (POTNT IF NECESSARY) is the extra annual risk of dying
faced by a young woman who uses contraceptive pills. The interesting
thing about :his risk level is that doctors say that it is low enough to
justify using contraceptive pills for younger women who want to practice
birth control.
IF RESPONDENT MENTIONS HE OR SHE HAS HEARD OF A HIGH RISK FOR THE PILL,
SAY THAT THE RISK INCREASES SIGNIFICANT!,Y FOR OLDER WOMEN AND DOCTORS NO
LONGER RECOMMEND THAT THESF, WOMEN USE THE PILL.
One of the reasons for this is that if the woman got pregnant, she would
face the somewhat higher risk of dying in childbirth faced by a woman
each time she has a baby. (POINT).
Each year we all face the risk of dying in an automobile accident caused
by a car driven by another person who is drunk. This risk, level is about
5 in 100,000 each year (POINT IF NECESSARY).
The bottom segment (POINT) stretches out; the tiny area marked in green on
the first ladder (POINT). All the risks in blue are quite low. These
green risk Levels are very low -- the chances of any of them occurring
are all below 1 in 100,000. One tenth of one, .10, is where the risk of
dying in a single airliner trip lies (POINT IF NECESSARY). (PAUSF.) As I
said before, this is at the one in a mi 1i ion level.
For each five airline trips you take in a given period of time you are
exposed to this risk, of dying (POINT TO .5).
Because some people find it hard to compare risks that are this small, we
have put some cigarette smoking comparisons on the right hand side of
this card. As you remember, the risk of dying from cancer or heart
disease from smoking two cigarettes is roughly equivalent to the risk of
dying in a crash when taking a single airplane trip. Note that this is
50
-------
nnl two cigarettes a day, Inn. the i isk of. dying if you only smoked two
cigarettes in your entire lifetime.
As you can see, the risk of dying in an airline crash is extremely low.
Let's compete it with .mothei risk i.lmt people face, the yearly risk of
dying in a home fire, (POINT). This risk is equivalent to smoking a
total of !>6 cigarettes in a lifetime. This means that it is 28 times
higher than the risk you face of dying when you take a single airline
trip. Although the home fire risk is higher, please note that both are
low level risks compared to the overall risks of dying that we all face
(POINT TO THE BASIC RISK SIDE OF CARD A) each year..,.Do you have any
questions about these cards?
Immediately aftci the risk ladder was introduced, the respondents used
the ladder to respond to a hypothetical situation. They were told to assume
that they had to travel to Denver and could either take a three hour airplane
trip or a 12 hour train trip. Both modfr: of travel, presented the same iisk of
dying, .10 in 100,000, and cost the same. They were asked which mode they
preferred (q. 6), and what was the highest risk on the ladder they would be
willing to accept before they would switch their choice of. Lranspor tat ion
mode. The purpose of this exercise was to involve the respondents in using
the risk ladder to think about risk choices. At the end of the survey, when
they wf-'ic formally debriefed, the interviewers were unanimously of the opinion
that the travel exercise was not successful in achieving its purpose.
However,.our experience with the risk ladder itself was quite favorable.
Most respondents' seemed to find it plausible and interesting and found the
other risks listed on the ladder useful points of comparison. As far as we
can tell, based on our experience with the ladder in the pretest interviews,
and on the accounts provided by the interviewers, no single feature of the
ladder dominated the respondents' risk valuations. The respondents did not
tend to rely on the cigarette equivalents or on one of the othei risk
comparisons to the exclusion of the others. In tact, contrary to our
expectations, many respondents did not pay much attention to the cigarette
equivalents when they assessed the THM risks. The interviewers indicated that
without the context provided by the risk ladder the respondents would have had
great difficulty in valuing the THM risk reductions.
7. This evaluation is based on the interviewers' debriefing, the full
transcript of which is contained in appendix E.
51
-------
THE REFERENDUM ELICITATTON FORMAT
We have argued (Mitchell and Carson, 1986) that referenda are preferable
to consumer goods markets as a model for CV studies since citizens actually
make binding decisions about the provision of public goods in this manner.
The particular appropriateness of this model for drinking water amenities was
noted at the bej* inning of this chapter. Our el ic i tat ion format asked
respondents how they would vote in hypothetical THM reduction referenda. Our
pretests, the interviewers' post-study evaluations, and the small percentage
of item !ioniON|jon.ses lot the WIT questions al.l suggested that fhe respondents
found this framework meaningful. The fact that drinking water is provided and
paid for at the community level no doubt contributed to the plausibility of
this approach.
Prior to any VTP question, respondeiits were told that they would be asked
to value three different amounts of risk reduction from THM contamination.
Each VTP question asked the respondents to imagine that Herrin's THM levels
exceeded the THM maximum contaminant level by a given amount and that they had
the opportunity to vote whethei or not to increase their household's water
bill to cover the cost ol; reducing the level to, but not below, the EPA MCL.
The amount of risk reduction which they would buy was described in various
ways including a risk ladder on which the THM levels were superimposed-
Respondents were told that the money they would pay in higher water bills
would go for the cost of the new equipment needed to ieduce the THM level and
that this equipment vouId only affect the THM jevel; their drinking water
would otherwise remain the same as it is now.
Con i i ngene i es
Respondents were informed, just prior to the elicitation questions, about
three things they should keep in mind when valuing the iisk reductions. The
first two reinforced i nformat ion previously provided to them; the third was
new. While the respondent was .shown a card summarizing each, the interviewer
read the following material:
First in deciding how to vote, you should assume that this is a
r. i Hurt ion where scientist-, a i a sui <• that THM*; are the only source ol
chemical contamination in your drinking water. Therefore, only the THM
52
-------
Level will be affected if the i
-------
be alarmed by this," "long run risk is minimal," "risk is extremely small,"
"long-term effect of drinking water containing THM is unknown and the risk to
consumers...is considered very low," these are "very, very low levels... People
shouldn't quit drinking their vato by any means," these are very minute
levels," "There's a lot of controversy in the scientific world whether that's
too restrictive (the federal THM MCL standard)." None of the local newspaper
articles carried any assessments of the THM risks which contradicted these
views nor did we hear about contrary views being expressed in any other way.
A second reason foi this contingency is that we wished to encourage the
respondents to make their own judgment about the acceptability of the THM risk
reductions. We knew from our focus- groups that when we informed the
i ospond tn t s about f he US LP A .-larifhud in the scenario, the jespondents would
be likely to interpret this as suggesting that THM levels in excess of this
level should be cause for concern. By introducing the views of the state and
local authoi i ties in the way that we did, we sought to legitimate respondents'
making their own decision about whether or not the risk levels were high
enough to be worth paying money to reduce to the EPA standard. Our empiricial
results and the interviewers' subjective evaluations suggest that we were
successful in this regard. The interviewers reported that respondents
approached tlie referenda questions seriously. Those who said the amount of
risk reduction was too small to be worth increasing their water bill for, a
view held by large percentages of the respondents for the lowest risk
reductions, expressed this view firmly and rarely mentioned the local
authorities' views as a justification for their position. Others did not
hesitate to disagree with the local authorities' views, saying such things as
"I know it is a small risk, but it is one we can do something about."
A final reason for describing the authorities' views in this way was to
obtain a credible, conservative estimate for the benefits of THM risk
reductions. Our estimates are based on a situation where drinking water
contamination was not a current nor recent subject of controversy and where
the citizens were offeied the maximum amount of reassutrance that the risks
are low. Me learned from our focus groups that many people assume that if the
risks posed by THM levels, such as the ones we proposed, were really serious,
the local authorities would tell them thai this was the case. It is
important, therefore, to treaf the benefits measured in this study as a lower
bound of people's willingness to pay for drinking water risk reductions. If
-------
we had portrayed the state EPA and, especially. Hie local drinking vatci
authorities, as regarding these risks as "serious" and worth spending money
for, it is very likely that the WTP amounts would have been bigger.
The Eli ci tat ion Questions
We used a two question sequence to obtain each ot the three WTP amounts
obtained from the individual respondents. They were first asked to say
whether they would vote in a referendum to increase their annual water bill to
get a specified risk reduction. Those who said they would vote no were
counted as willing to pay $0 for the amenity after ascertaining, by a followup
question, that they gave that i esponse i if: cause the risk reduction was not
worth anythiuk to them. Those who said fhey would vote yes weie then asked,
"realistically, what is the highest amount per year" they would be willing to
vote to increase their household's water bill tor this risk reduction only.
An open-ended format was used as we had determined that no elici(ation aid
such as a starting point or payment card was needed for this study.
At this point in the interview, about one out of four respondents asked
how much the control program would cost- Because our pretesting had led us to
anticipate this response, the interviewers were instructed to tell these
respondents I hat they would be given the opportunity to say how much of an
increase they would accept and that, if they were willing to pay any extra
money for this purpose, they should vote yes; otherwise they should vote no.
In older to separate protest zeros from genuine zero dollar WTP amounts,
respondents who said they would vote no in the referendum were asked why they
gave this response. Six percent of the 0$ bids were given in protest to some
aspect of the survey, a ielati
-------
This was intended to give respondents the opportunity to reflect further on
their responso:-; ittei experiencing tin1 on rive interview. All hough
approximately l'j pn c.ciil. chose to u-viw their WTP amounts at this point, i he
interviewers reported (see appendix E) that the opportunity to revise could
have been better presented to encourage more thought at the end of a long
interview.
THE EXPERIMENTAL DKSIGN
In oidet in I os ( for the pi escncr n! metric and question order bias, we
assigned respondents randomly to one of tour versions of the questionnaire
2
based on a 2" factorial design (Box, Hunter, and Hunter, 1978). As shown in
table 3-3, the A-R dimension consisted of lower and higher sets of risk
reductions while the ]-2 dimension vaiied the order in which the first two
reductions were valued.
The reductions valued by the respondents who received the A or low
-5
reduction treatment are .04, .4 and 1.3 (10 ), Those assigned the B or high
-5
reduction treatment valued reductions of 2.4, 4.4, and 8.9 (10 ). The A .set
of risk reductions covers the range most commonly encountered by local
drinking water systems in practice. The scenario used in version B is
identical to A except that each of the on t of-compliance risk levels is
approximately five times higher than those used in version A. If the WTP
amounts for A are statistically equivalent to those for B, the null hypothesis
is accepted indicating the respondents value low, medium, and high risk
reductions irrespective of the actual risk levels assigned to those changes in
the scenario. IE the UTP amounts given by the respondents in the B condition
are higher for each of the paired risk reductions (e.g., lowest A vs. lowest
B), an ordinal ranking, where the actual numbers on the risk ladder do not
have meaning to the respondents, can he rejected. Given adequate power in the
statistical design, rejection o£ the null hypothesis is a necessary but not
sufficient basis on which to establish that respondents reacted to the risk
stimuli in a cardinal manner.
The sequence of the risk valuation questions tor those assigned to
treatment 1 was lowest middle high vhtteas those in treatment /' valued the
middle reduction reduction first, then the lowest reduction followed by the
highest reduction. If question ordet bias does not occur, the mean OTP
56
-------
Table 3-3. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN FOR JOINT TEST OF METRIC
AND QUESTION ORDER BIAS
Valuation
Risk Reduction Levels
question
order
LOWER
HIGHER
1-2-3
Version A^
Version
5
5
.04/ .4/ 1.3/ 10
2.4/ 4.4/ 8.9/ 10
2-1-3
Version A^
Version
.4/ .04/ 1.3/ 10"5
4.4/ 2.4/ 8.9/ 10 5
5?
-------
amounts for both lowest risk reductions should be the same irrespective of
treatment as should those for both middle risk reductions. f f., however f
people's responses are influenced by the sequence in which they are asked t
value the risk reductions, the mean WTP amounts for the pairs will differ-
across treatments.
58
-------
CHAPTER 4
INI! J Al. FINDINGS
The completed instrument was tested in a survey conducted in Herrin,
Illinois. Conceived as pilot study for the instrument, a sample of 230
respondents were interviewed. In many respects the instrument worked well.
The interv iewotreported positively about the respondents' reactions to the
interview, the.' tests for question- order and metric; biases vfic negative, as
desired, and the WIT amounts ioi the combined treatments, niter adjustment for
a bias caused by the relative positions of the risk reduc t i -rns the responded t s
were asked to value, are well explained by a simple logarithmic function.
The estimates of the benefits of THM reductions which we report in this
chapter, while suggestive, must be interpreted with care. They are based on a
moderate size sample which comes from a single small midwestern town chosen
for its relatively homogeneous population. The question of whether our risk
ladder does indeed result in valid valuations of low-level risks cannot bp
answered until the ladder is used in other settings and with other research
designs.
The Sample
The sampling plan for the study was designed to pi ov i d a close
approximation of a simple random sample. The housing unit sampling frame was
selected in two stages. First, 7 50 households were chosen from the Herrin
phone book using a random starting point and an interval which was large
enough to provide this number of households and small enough to cover the
entire Herrin listings. In order to compensate for any possible bias caused
by a small number of households with unlisted telephones, each of the
initially selected households was matched with a second household selected by
a rule which specified the second house to the right of the household address
selected from the telephone book sample. Interviewers were randomly assigned •
address pairs from the resulting pool, of 500 addresses as needed until the
desired number o£ interviews were completed.
In-person interviews were conducted in Herrin by four interviewers during
June and July, 1985. The interviewers, who were noneconomist graduate
ji
-------
students at Southern Illinois University, received a two day training course
directed by Robert Mitchell. Selection of the respondent at the household
level required the interviewer to enumerate the members of the household.
Because we wanted to interview people who could make financial commitments for
their households, our sampling frame at this level consisted of "heads of
household." In each household, the person to be interviewed was selected in a
predetermined manner from the total number of residents 18 years and older who
"have or share responsibility for deciding the household budget and for paying
lor housing, food, and other expenses" (interviewer instructions). The four
versions of the questionnaire were randomly assigned to the respondents.
The level of nonresponse in obtaining interviews and, from those
interviewed, in obtaining answers to the WTF questions (item nonresponse), was
acceptably low. In all, interviews were attempted at 286 households and
completed at 237 for an 83 percent completion rate.^ Of those not completed,
22 occurred because the interviewer c.ould not get the person who answered the
door to provide enumeration information, 24 because the designated respondent
refused to be interviewed, and 3 for other reasons including those not at
2
home. Despite the fact that we used an open-ended elicitation format, only
seven respondents were unabLe to value the risk reductions. This low level of
item nonresponse --- 3 percent — appears to be due to the scenario's
plausibility. Respondents were familiar with paying for their drinking water
and they easily grasped and accepted the notion of voting in a town referendum
to decide whether or not to fund treatment facilities. The interviewers
reported that even respondents who exhibited a low level of interest in
answering the early questions or who manifested impatience about the amount of
information presented to them during the first portion of the interview,
became attentive and thoughtful when the referendum was described to them.
It should be recalled that the respondents were allowed to revise their
WTP amounts at a later point in the interview after they had had a chance to
1. Completed interviews were distributed across the four experimental
treatments as follows: A^, 60; 59; 60; 58,
2. The. not-at-home category was low because the interviewers made as many
call-backs as needed during the six week period they were in the field.
60
-------
fully comprehend the .interview and, possibly, to rethink their initial
amounts. Seventeen respondents (/ percent) revised their. ;imounts at this
point. Genera 11 y speaking, they used I he? opportunity to correct for
nonmonotonic responses (giving higher amounts for lower risk levels) or to
reduce or increase their OTP amounts for one or more risk reduction level.
Assessment of Condit ions in Herein
Respondent.': wci e asked to evaluate several asoeris of lien in's natural
and social enviionmont at the beginning of. the interview. These questions
were intended to communicate the fact that drinking water contaminant risks
are only one of many environmental problems and to measure the degree to which
the town's inhabitants were concerned about drinking water contamination.
Table 4-1 summarises their responses to these questions.
In genet «il . the respondents did not express high love's of concern (0. I )
when asked aboul i he harm caused in Heir in by three kinds of pollutants. Uu :t
ten point sc.alo, where 10 was the highest harm, only twelve percent rated the
harm from molui vehicle pollution at / or above. The mean rating for this
pollutant was 4.5. Pollution from manufacturing plants in Herrin received a
mean rating of <4,6 on this scale. The pattern of responses for current harm
in Herrin from "chemical contaminants in the town's drinking water" was
different. The percent who rated this source of harm at 1 or above on the ten
point, scale was somewhat higher than it was for the othn two sources of
pollution, 19 pf'icent, hut the mean tnting was lower, with a mean of 2.3.
Host Herrin iespondents appear to believe their drinking watet is very safe
from chemical contamination, but a small minority apparently believe chemical
contaminants are very harmful. This survey finding is consistent with the
views expressed by the focus group participants.
Using the same ten point scale, this time with 10 standing for the
highest level of satisfaction, Heirin incidents express.-(1 -m overall
dissatisfaction ( ?./) with street and highway maintenance in the town, strong
satisfaction (6,9) with the public schools and moderate satisfaction (5.5)
with the "competence of the local city officials." The latter item was asked
because we anticipated that the respondents' views aboul tne THM risk
reductions might be influenced by their assessment of the local officials'
competence. Our analysis showed that, this was not the case.
61
-------
Table 4-1. fBCIW® MM Ml KlfflMIK IN HERRIN
Lowest Highest
Pollution from... 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
N
I
- - — 4- * 1 - -
Ve«31^S f vlliCKS f
busses 2%
10
18
21
23
14
7
4
,4
1
10CK
233
4.5
Manufacturing plants 5
9
1?
21
14
13
8
7
3
3
100
236
4.6
Chertical contaminants
in town's drinking
vater(CHEKVAT) 6
18
21
19
9
8
6
6
3
4
100
201
2.3
SATISFACTION WM
SERVICES B3 THIS TOWN
Lowest
Highest
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
N
i
Street or highway
maintenance 13
20
18
18
11
4
5
7
1
2
101
240
3.7
Public schools 3
.5
1
2
12
19
21
29
9
5
101
218
6.9
Competence of the
local city officials 3
5
10
15
17
19
13
8
5
6
101
232
5.5
smtspachw arm aspects of idcai mmm water
Lowest
Highest
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
N
i
Taste 2
3
3
5
15
17
23
20
8
3
99
238
6,4
Odor 1
3
4
4
10
17
18
22
15
6
100
237
6.8
Appearance 4
1
3
3
10
14
22
23
18
6
100
237
7.1 -
Absence of supply
interruptions 1
1
4
2
3
4
7
24
38
20
100
238
8.3
Freedom from chem-
ical contamination 1
1
4
9
15
19
18
22
7
5
101
238
6.4
-------
The last series of questions (Q. 3) used the ten point scale to inquire
about how satisfied the respondents were with five characteristics of the
drinking water that "comes out of your tap." Again 10 represented highest
satisfaction. Respondents rating of their drinking water's appearance and
absence of supply interruptions was quite high -- 7.1 and 8.3. Mean
satisfaction levels for taste and odor were moderately high — 6.4 and 6.8
respectively - - as was t.heir satisfaction with their water's "freedom from
chemical contamination that presents a health risk" (6.4). Only six percent
were strongly dissatisfied with this last characteristic and rated it at 3 or
below.^
Uillingness-to-Pay for THM Rislt Reductions
Before discussing the summary statistics for the WTP amounts, a few
comments about the character of the WTP amounts based on the distribution of
the responses are in order. Appendix D gives the original and revised amounts
offered by each respondent in the A and B treatments in addition to the
respondent's household size, income, age and answer to a question which asked
them how harmful they think chemical contaminants are in Herrin's drinking
water (CHEMWAT). The first thing these distributions illustrate is that the
amounts offered by the individual respondents represent approximations rather
than precise values. This is shown by the respondents' overwhelming tendency
to use round numbers, such as $10, 12, 20, 24, etc. to express their value for
one or more of the risk reductions, instead of amounts like $7, 23, or 51.
Since we asked tor annual amounts, it might not be immediately apparent why
$12 and $24 qualify as "round" numbers. In the process of determining their
willingness to pay, however, most respondents mentally referred to their
monthly water. They did this spontaneously; the instrument did not ask them
to do this in order to avoid introducing an artificial reference level. A one
or two dollar increase per month results in WTP amounts of SI2 or 24 a year.
3. It would appear, judging from the responses to a different set of
questions about drinking water given a national sample interviewed for the
american Water Works Association Research Foundation (Audits and Surveys,
1985), that Herrin residents are somewhat less concerned about chemical
contamination in their drinking water than U.S. citizens more generally.
63
-------
This type of response to the request to value the risk reductions in dollars
is understandable, given the novelty of the exercise, and acceptable, provided
the approximations arc thoughtful and constrained by the factors such as
income which constrain respondent judgments in everyday life. We believe this
was the case for most ol this study's respondents. An aspect of the responses
of a small number of respondents, which is less acceptable from the data
quality point of view, was to give the same WTP amount for two or more levels
of risk reduction. For example, four respondents in the A version said they
were willing to pay S24 a year for each of the three risk reduction ievels
they were asked 1.0 value. Amounts such as these, which are unrelated to the
size of the ris< reduction, raise the question of whether the respondent is
genuinely valuing each level or is taking an easy way out by simply giving a
set amount for drinking water risk reduction in general. It is possible, of
course, that these respondents have a risk, reduction threshhold, at any point
above which they are willing to spend their entire risk reduction budget to
achieve that reduction and any other higher reductions. We are inclined,
however, to regard this type of response pattern as evidence of respondent
unwillingness or inability to arrive at considered values for the amenities
described in the survey. Consistent with this judgment is the fact that
almost all the respondents who exhibited this pattern are either retired or
have a low level of education or both. Although, respondents exhibited
this type of answer pattern -- 7 percent of the sample. This level compares
favorably with the 47. percent of Jones I.ee et al.'s (198b) respondents who
exhibited a similar response pattern in a value-of-transportation-safety
survey.
Table 4-2 .shows the WTF amounts obtained for each of the six risk
reductions valued in the study. Because a small percentage of extreme answers
are common in C\/ surveys -- a few people give improbably high VTP amounts,
relative, to their income - we present medians, 5 percent trimmed means and
adjusted means in addition to the mean values for each of the six risk
reductions.
Looking at the mean values first, they range from $3.47. per year for the
smallest, to $4'<. /0 lor the biggest risk reduction. Except for the a^-b^
comparison, an anomaly which we will discuss shortly, these findings show r*
anticipated positive correlation between willingness to pay and the size of
the risk reduction. This mean series contains a number "bad" data points
64
-------
Table 4-2 HOUSEHOLD WILLINGNESS TO PAY AMOUNTS IN HIGHER
WATER BILLS PER YEAR FOR THM RISK REDUCTIONS
Risk
THM
Reduc t ion
(ppm)
Improvement
{Annual deaths
per 100,000)
Version A
(N-121)
From To TOTAL
Percent
zero
Median Mean
cy
trimmed
Adjus tei
Mean
.11 .10 .01
(-04)
872
$0
$3.78
(+$2.76)
$1 .13
(+$1.41)*
$2.86
(+$1.82)
5
•
o
o
CO
(-43)
66
0
11. 37
(+4.33)
8.30
(-(3.72)
9.19
(+3.37)
.33 .10 .23
(1.33)
42
17
23. /3
(+7.37)
Version B
(N-ll7)
18.99
+6.35)
20.49
(+5.20)
.55 .10 .45
(2-43)
58%
0
15.7.3
(+4.64)
12.70
(+4.25)
11 .79
03.38)
.90 .10 .80
(4-43)
39
20
25.25
(+3.99)
23.08
(+5.78)
23.51
(+5.39)
1.65 .10 1.55
(8.93)
20
36
44.27
+7.22
42.32
(+7.98)
42.68
(+7.32)
* Ninety-five percent confidence interval - mean plus or minus this amount.
** N=117 for A, 110 for B.
65
-------
which are compensated for In different ways by the other three series.
The effect of using medians to estimate willingness-to-pay is to reduce
the value of the risk reductions up l:o 2.4 in 100,000 from positive amounts to
$0, As shown in the percent zero column, majorities of. the respondents said
they would vote no in a referendum to spend money to obtain these ]eve]s oT
risk, reduction. Considering the extremely small risk reductions offered in
a^ and a^j this finding lends credibility to the study. Despite the dread
associated with cancer and people's concern about the quality of their
drinking water, large numbers of our respondents did not autoisia t icaliy
consider any risk level, however small, to be worth money to reduce.
Moreover, our pretests provided strong anecdotal evidence that those who were
willing to pay for a^ understood the very small nature o£ the risk improvement
but valued it nonetheless on what amounted to symbolic grounds. As one woman
put it when asked why she was willing to pay $10 for a^ , "There arc so many-
risks that T can't do anything about; it is worth money for me to do something
about this one."
Comparisons may be made on the percent of respondents who express $0
responses for risk reductions with the findings of the only other CV study
available to us which attempted to measure people's willingness to pay for
risk reductions. Smith, Desvousges, and Freeman (1985) vised a different risk,
presentation format than ours when they interviewed 3/1 respondents in obtain
values for (among other things) a decreases in risk of. exposure to
contaminants from hazardous waste dumps. In all, 27 percent of their
respondents gave SO bids (1985; p. 11-31). Somewhat more than half (15
percent of the total sample) of these bids were protest bids in that the
respondents gave $0 for reasons other than that is what they felt the risk
reduction was worth. None of the respondents who gave nonprotesl $0 bids for
any of the. risk reductions explained their bid as representing what they
thought the reduction was worth. Most said they "could not afford anything"
(Smith, Desvousges, and Freeman, 1985: p. 11-31). In our study, which valued
much lower risk reductions than those proposed to Smith, Desvousges, and
Freeman's respondents, a total of 63 percent of the respondents in the two
versions gave $0 for the smallest risk reduction. Our level of protest bids
was somewhat lower; only / percont said they gave $0 because they did not have
enough information or for reasons other than the risk reduction was not; worth
any money at all to them.
C 6
-------
It is of some inloiest to compare our level of valid $0 bids will! the
findings of a national telephone survey of public attitudes toward drinking
water conducted by Audits and Surveys (1985). This study was a conventional
attitude sinvov which did not attempt to convey a detailed scenario 1101 , of
course, could it use visual aids. It found 55 percent of the respondents
would not pay when asked;
Suppose some substance vn p discoveied in your tap watei whose
chances of causing your death over your lifetime were thought to
be about egual to your chances of being struck and killed by
lightning. Would you be willing to pay to have this substance
iomoved fiom youi water supply?
The level of risk reduction invoked by the Audits and Surveys survey is quite
similar to the lowest risk reduction () in the present study.
Th*> five pet cent 11 i;nmcd mean is a tisefui way to identify t he degree to
which outliers affect the values (Hubet, 1981), It is calculated by dropping
the highest live percent and the lowest five percent" amounts before
calculating the means. As expected, given the small number of positive
values, the trimmed means are considerably lower than the means at the lowest
risk levels. Ti iinmiiiR the mean for the lowest risk i.eductr.on ,04 in
100,000 reduction — lowers the VTP amount by two-thirds to a level whose
confidence interval includes $0. The difference between the mean and the
trimmed mean eslimatcs is much less - ?5 percent -- for the . 4 risk ieduction
and declines further until the two values are quite similar for the higher
risk reductions. At. the highest risk reduction, b^, outliers have very little
effect on the values as the WTP amounts are very similar — $40 to $44,70,
Because these differences suggest the presence of outliers, we examined
the VTP amounts and calculated an adjusted mean after dropping 11 cases on the
basis of two criteria. The first is if the interviewer's comments on the
evaluation sheet suggest that the person clearly did not understand the
scenario. The second is if the person repeated the same sizable VTP amount
for each of the three risk reduction levels. The dropped cases in this
category consist of the following; four on the basis of interviewer comments,
three respondents who gave $120 WTP amounts for each risk level, and four
4. The respondents had previously been instructed about this level of
risk.
5, In this case a portion of the zero values.
-------
whose only positive WTP amounts were- $60 for two or more of the riak levels.
In all, the dropped cases amount, to five percent of the sample. A!"!-"' -'"".1 of
6
those cases were also excluded in the 5% trim, but the adjusted mtan ictains
all but one of the respondents who gave 0$ amounts, some of whom were excluded
from the 5% trim.
Test for Question Order and Metric Bias
Table 4-3 presents the results of the experiment to test for the presence
of metric and question order bias in the WIT amounts using an analy-i- of
variance of a 2^ factorial design (Box, Hunter, and Hunter, 1978}. IV: te.st
was conducted on the revised VTP data.' The hypothesis that, the WTP amounts
for the first and second levels were influenced by the order in which they
were asked is rejected at a high level of statistical significance. "i test
for an interaction effect between question order and the risk reduce on levels
was also negative. Irrespective of the order in which the first and second
reductions were valued, the amounts for those reductions are statistically
equivalent. This reflects the fact that only three respondents gave
8
nonmonotonic WTP amounts for the first two risk reductions and in each case
they spontaneously reordered their WTP amounts when they were offered the
chance to revise them a~; the end of the interview.
While the respondents were insensitive to question order effects when
they answered the elicitation questions, they were sensitive, as we hoped they
6. ID Numbers: 1011, 2017, 2025, 4018, 1009, 3004, 2008, 2036, 4017, 2062.
7. Parallel tests on the undevised data and on the revised data after
dropping the bad data cases noted above yielded similar results. We feel
the test on the revised unadjusted data is the most appropriate because
the revision to the data by the respondent was usually due to an obvious
mistake which the respondent consciously corrected. The unadjusted data
is probably to be preferred for this test because of the possibility that
an order or metric effect was responsible lor "bad" data.
8. Higher amounts for the lower of the two reductions.
-------
Table 4-3 TESTS FOR METRIC AND QUESTION ORDER BIASES
Metric Test; Ho; Ordinal Ranking
Hr
Amount A. = Amount B. i - 1,2,3
l i
Catdinal Rank i nR
Amount A. < Amount B, i = 1,2,3
i i
Order Test;
Ho;
V
No Question Order Bias
Order 1,2,3 = Order 2,1,3
Question Order Bias
Order 1,2,3 t Order 2,1,3
Interaction
'IVs t:
Hn:
No 1 n r p i ac. t ion F. f f cc t
A. B. for Older 1,2,3
1A, •1B, for Order 2,1,3
ii
In tei. act ion Effect
A, - B. for Oiclcr 1 ,2, 3 /
'a, lB. foi Order 2,1,1
:i i "
1 = 1,2,3
i 1,2,3
Joint Analysis of Variance Tests
Amount
1
VERAB
F =
21.93
P
>
.0001
ORDER
F =
0.09
P
>
.7641
0RDER*VERA8
F «
2.29
P
>
.1319
Amount
2
VERAB
F -
19.90
P
>
.0001
ORDKR
F ^
0.41
P
>
.5243
ORDER*VERAB
F =
2.05
P
>
.153?
Amount
3
VERAB
F =
20.74
P
>
,0001
ORDER
F -
0.04
P
>
.8478
ORDER--VERAB
F =
0.48
P
>
.4886
VERAB = Treatments A and B
ORDER - Treatments 1 (1,2,3) and 2 (2,1,3)
ORDER-'-VERAB Interact inn between treatments A and B mid 1 and
N
230
)
-------
would bo, to the amounts of risk reduction they were asked to value. When the
WTP amounts for each pair of risk reductions --- the lowest in A and the lowest
in B etc- were compared, B version respondents were willing to pay
significantly more money for the risk reductions they were asked to value than
9
were the A respondents to their lower risk reductions*.
On the basis of these results, we will assume that there are no order
effects. As for metric bias, our test rejects the notion that the respondents
valued "small", "medium", and "large" risks irtespective of the actual
caidin.il levels of these risks on the 1 isic srn Ie. This test does not provide
evidence whether: or not the A and B respondent;-: responded in the same mannei:
to the two different cardinal sets of risk values. The fact that is larger
than b-j provides some evidence that this was not the case. We believe this
anomaly can be accounted for by position bias to which we now turn,
Posi t ion Bi an
The research design we used to test for possible metric and order biases-
allowed us to test for another source ot bias in the data and to possibly
correct for it. As previously noted, the WTP amount for the third level in
version A (a^) is inconsistent with the generalization that the higher the
risk reduction, the greater the WTP amounts. The respondents valuing a~ gave
5
a trimmed mean value of $18.99 for a risk reduction of 1.3 10 , whereas those
valuing b gave a VTP amount of $12.70 for a risk reduction almost twice as
5
large (2.4 10 ). This anomaly suggests that the respondents are overvaluing
9. It is noteworthy that the respondents who elected to revise their WTP
amounts fended to do so in a way that enhanced this finding. When given
the chance to think further about what these risk reductions were worth :o
them, those who received the lowest risks judged them to be worth less
than they had originally thought. All nine respondents in treatment A who
revised their VTP amounts elected to reduce them, four to $0. In
contrast, four of the eight people who revised their WTP amounts in the
higher risk reduction treatment (B) decided to increase their original WTP
amounts. (Two of the others decreased their amounts and two reversed
them,)
-------
the last value in a sequence, a^, or undervaluing the first in a sequence, b^,
or both.
Thefc a r e several grounds; for believing; that the position o£ the i i si?
reductions in a sequence influences the respondents' VTP amounts. First,
while the respondents valued the risk reductions independently, they did so
with full awareness that they would be valuing three levels and what liio.se
levels were. Second, survey and market researchers have found that when
respondents are asked to choose one of a series of possible answers, the
position of the aiiswci s in the sequence can effect the responses. Thud, the
position el feet we posit — that respondents; undervalue the smallest i cduc t i on
and overvalue the la1 Rest one in the sequence — is consistent with our
present understanding of the factors which promote bias in CV surveys,and
appears to be consistent with i e,search un the cognitive factor.'; in decision
making and on the psychometric properties of attitude scales.
Immediately prior to the eiicitatioo questions, the respondents were
provided with a preview of the entire elicitation sequence. Our intent in
pi (jvidinfj; this infoi ma t i on was to Cive > esponden ! s the oppn r tuni ty to
grasp the nature of the valuation exercise and to think about the risk
reductions as they compared to each other. They were told that they would be
bo asked "how you would vote in each of the three different: loterenda"
(questionnaire, p. 12) and what the risk, reductions would be for each
referenda. Not only were the risk reductions described in words at this stage
in the interview, hut the respondents were shown risk ladder C which
superimposed each oS hip;hei i i :;k levels nu the low level risk ladder. As a
result, wc have an assurance that the respondents perceived the three risk
reductions as part of a sequence of three possible risk reductions from lower
to higher.
Position effects in scale items which provide respondents with possible
10- See Mitchell and Carson, forthcoming, chapter 8 £or a review of these
factors.
1J, We have informally consulted with several experts in these latter f ields
and they have supported our interpretation. Our "scale" is different
from ordinary attitude scales, however, so research findings from these
literatures which are directJy applicable to our finding are not
immediately available to U5.
/l
-------
response categories are well known in survey research. Consider a person who
is asked how much he spends, on the average, whenever he goes to a drug store,
and is given response categories to choose from of; $1-3, 4-6, 5-7, 8-10 or
11+. In cases like this one, where the respondent is unsure of how much he or
she actually spends in such a situation, market researchers have detected a
strong tendency to choose one of the middle categories (full and Hawkins,
1984). In this kind of situation, it appears that the end points suggest
i'X! remes and many people regard theit bohnviot as f,t I 1 i ng somewhere in between
the extremes.
Whni type of: position effect is likely with qui data where respondents
are presented with three levels of risk reduction and asked whether or not
they would vote to spend money to reduce each one? It is helpful to view this
question from the perspective of cognitive social psychology which holds that
an important influence on judgments such as these are the internal cognitive
structures which people use to receive and organize information. According to
Markus and Zajonc's (1985) recent review of this literature, cognitive
structures, or "schemas" as they are often called, help the perceiver achieve
some coherence in the environment and in the most general sense provide for
1?
the construction of social reality. ' Although our understanding of the
conditions under which particular schemas are invoked is still in its infancy,
the available literature suggests that they have their most compelling effects
in more complex cognitive tasks such as ours, where respondents were faced
with deciding how high a risk they would tolerate from THM's before they were
willing to vote to spend the money necessaiy to i(dure t lie risk to the KPA
MCL,
Faced with a judgment of this kind, some respondents may well have
13
unconsciously ' employed a schema where the lowest in a series of risk
reductions is regarded to be inconsequential and the largest as consequential.
12. The invoking of inappropriate schemas is the basis for the types of bias
discussed by Tversky, Kahneman, and Slovic such as availability bias
(Tvcrsky and Kahneman, 1973),
1 It appears that individuals are not. typically conscious that they invoke
schemas (Nisbett and Wilson, 197/).
! /
-------
Respondents invoking .such a schema would overvalue the Las; value, (a^.b^) and
undervalued the first value (a^, ).
Me would expect this effect to be strongest in the A treatment- ft-j is
the point whore 66 percent ol the respondents were fared with the decision
whether to value the third risk reduction at $0, as they had the first two, or
to give it a positive value. Some respondents who wcie uncertain about
whether the i i sk reduction posed in a, is sufficiently large to be wort.ii
buying could have decided that it was on the grounds that since it is the
large? t reduction in Use survey it probably repiesenTs a significant, j. isk.
Moreover, they may have been motivated to override their feeling about the
third risk reduction level by the realization that that it is the last
opportunity they will have to express their values for less hazardous vnter
quality in the survey. This would result in importance bias, which occurs
where some aspect ol the act of being interviewed suggests to the respondent
that one or nioi e levels of the amenity has valup. Iinportar.ce bias could work
in a reverse fashion and cause some respondents to undervalue the and b^
reductions on the basis that, since they are the lowest ones, they are likely
to be the inconsequential.
Another factor leading to the the invocation of such a schema, where
and b.j are overvalued, is compliance bias which occurs when respondents give
WTP amounts which are influenced by what the respondent believes is expected
of him or her by, usually, the interviewer. In the focus groups, as noted in
the piex'ious ihaptei. vr learned there was a tendency toi respondents to
assume that we wanted to obtain as high dollar values Cor the risk, reductions
as possible. Thus alerted, we designed the survey and trained the
interviewers to administer it in such a way as to minimise compliance effects.
However, if there was any compliance bias, it would be most likely to occur
when people who previously gave $0 values were asked to value the highest risk
reduction.
Note that, bias caused by the position in a sequence is different than
bias caused by the order in which the questions are asked. One of the reasons
why we infoi med the t esponden t.s about tin; entire sequence of i i sk reductions
they would be asked to value prior to the elici tation questions was minimize
question order bias. Our test for question order bias showed that we were
successful in this regard and allows us to reject this as an explanation of
the a^,b^ anomaly.
-------
Conclusion
The instrument worked well, overall, in the Herrin survey. Both the
response rate aid the WTP-item response rate were high, the interviewers
reported that t.ie respondents took the referendum format seriously, and the
interviewers held generally favorable views about how well the questionnaire
accomplished its intended purposes.
The empirical results were also encouraging. Only a tew WTP amounts
appeared to be outliers, given by respondents who had not grasped our
intentions or wiio were unwilling to cio so and therefore gave unrealist.ically
high WTP amounts. These outliers were easily adjusted by an explicit, process
whose intention was oriented solely towards removing obviously extreme WTP
amounts. According to the question order experiment, the WTP amounts were net
influenced by whether the lowest or the middLe risk, reduction were valued
first. The crucial metric bias test likewise showed the desired effect:
respondents did appear to discriminate between risk levels which ranged from
9.5 to .61 deaths per 100,000. This is, of course, only one piece of evidence
that the risk ladder and the instrument's other risk-communication features
successfully conveyed the intended risk levels to the respondents. Further
research is requited before we can be sure that the pattern of risk reduction
valuations was not biased by the laddei format or other extraneous features of
the scenario.
As for the data patterns themselves, we observe the following: (1) The
very lowest risk levels received many no votes in the referendum, a finding
which suggests that respondents were willing to accept the assumptions of the
study and to discriminate between levels of risk. (2) The findings predict
successful referenda where the risk reduction is in the area of ?. deaths per
100,000, a level associated with concentrations of THMs which have only been
infrequently measured in community drinking water systems. (3) The household
WTP amounts at this level are approximately S15 to $25 per household (based on
the adjusted mean) per year in Herrin.
(4) We have identified a position effect which we hypothesize accounts
for the anomaly that the highest risk reduction in version A was valued at a
higher level than the lowest risk reduction in version B despite the fact that
the actual risk reduction for b was almost twice as big as . Presented
with a scries of judgments to make about the value of different risk
74
-------
reductions, respondenIs tend to undervalue the .smallest reduction and to
overvalue the highest. That such a schema has an effect is conjectural, of
course, and the position effect needs to be tested in other settings before
accepting it as a general phenomenon! in CV surveys. A test £01; position bias
wil] requite a specification of a functional foim Lor the w.i .11 i ngness -1 o pay
equation. We provide this in the next chapter where we address the question
of what value of a statistical life is implied by the findings described in
this chapter.
/5
-------
CHAPTER 5
ESTIMATING THE VALUE OF A STATISTICAL LIFE
In this chapter we estimate the value of a statistical life (VSL) or,
perhaps more correctly, estimate a valuation function which depicts
willingness to pay, UTP, ay a function oi the magnitude of. the lisk
reduction, 5, posed to the respondents. There are three basic ways in which
the value of a statistical life can be estimated from tun: data: (1)
calculating the implied value of a stat i.s-tical life from the vi 1.1 ingner-'s to
pay entries in table 4-3, (2) fitting a regression function to this
"aggregate data", (3) using the individual obuoivations. This thitd appLoach
allows the calculation ot other quantities of interest, such as the income
elasticity for risk reduction.
ESTIMATES BASED ON MIAN AND MEDIAN ¥AL1JES
The imp.liec value of. a statistical life can he directly calculated from
the median, trimmed mean, mean, and adjusted mean willingness to pay series
in table 4-3, by dividing each of the willingness to pay amounts by theii.
respective risk reduction (a;; a fraction of one) and by 1-86, the size ol the
average household,"'" These calculations are given in table 5-1. The median
column has a zero for the VSL for three of the six risk reductions. We will
defer a discussion of the interesting policy implications of this finding
1. The usual way of defining the value of a statistical life is to use a
standard S*, solve for the N which satisfies the following condition,
N *
I
-------
Table 5-1. IMPLIED VALUE OF A STATISTICAL LIFE*
6**
Mean
Median
5% Trimmed Mean
Adjusted Mean
.04
$3,304
~0~
$987
2500
.43
924
-0-
675
747
1.33
62b
447
499
539
2.43
219
-0-
183
170
4.43
219
158
182
170
8.93
173
141
166
167
* Amounts arc in thousand dollars.
** Mortality risk per 100,000.
77
-------
until later in this chapter. The VSL for the means, 52 the trimmed means, and
the adjusted means series all tell a similat story. The VSL tends to dor 15 ho
with increases in the size of the risk reduction, 6, with those declines being
particularly pronounced for the smaller reductions. There is an order of
magnitude difference between the VSL calculated at the smallest 5 valued and
the VSL calculated at I he larger:; I S valued.
ESTIMATES BASED ON GROUPED DATA
Our next step is to attempt to fit some type of regression function to
one or more of the aggregate willingness to pay series. Having deferred
discussion of the medians and noted the problems of "bad" data points in the
mean series, the adjusted mean series and ihe trimmed mean set ies are the
most suitable candidates for this type of analysis. On the grounds that are
more familiar with working with mean and interpreting mean data as opposed to
other order statistics, the analysis that follows is biased on the adjusted
mean series.
We begin by fitting a linear risk reduction to the six adjusted mean WTP
data points. On the assumption that a zero WTP amount for a zero risk
reduction is a naUnal. i p.s trie! i on on this model, we set the intercept tcini to
have a zero coefficient. The estimated coefficient obtained from regressing
-2
WTP . on 8 is 5.1073 which has an accompany*ng t-statistic of 7.40 and an K of
6
.744. The implied VSL for this model is approximately $180,000. The linear
nature of the model forces the estimated VSL to be constant for risk
reductions of ail sizes. Inclusion of a POS variable indicating whether
the risk reduction was the smallest (-1), the middle risk reduction valued by
l he respondent '0), oi I lie largest valued hy the respondent (1) --- results in
_?
a decrease in R . Inclusion of a constant term results in a large increase in
predictive power, but implies a sizable willingness to pay for a zero risk
reduction.
An examination of ihe residuals and the actual data poinl r,, howevei ,
suggests the superiority of a logarithmic relationship between risk and
willingness to pay, particularly for small risk reductions. Here, a constant
term is needed because risk reductions smaller than one in a hundred thousand
78
-------
2
will lake on negative values when expressed in 1 agari!bms. This equation's
est ima teel coeI f i c ienrs are;
log (WTP) = 2.5570 + .4630*log(S), (1)
(20,65) (6,62)
-2 3
where the t-statistics are given in parenthesis and the adjusted E is .895.
This model implies that, the VSI. is much largei when summing individual WTP
amounts over very small risk reductions when the amounts are summed than over
moderate size risk reductions.
inclusion of the Pl>S variable in f'q. (1) insults in close lo a perfect
fit. The estimated coefficients for this new equation are:
lop, (WTP) = 2.5GB? , . 3680* Log (6) + .36.19*P0S (2)
(142.25) (29.80) (13.62)
-2 4
where R equals .998. Ve note a significant reduction in the magnitude of the
eoefl.ic.ient on Jog{6) with the inclusion of the PCS variable. Constraining
the POS coefficient to equal zero allows us to perform an F-test for position
bias as this coefficient should be zero under the null hypothesis of the
absence of position bias. The F .statistic from this test is 388. 55. We
{ i j 5 )
reject this null hypothesis at any reasonable significance level in favor of
the alternative hypothesis that respondents were responsive to the rank
position of the risk ieduction levels.
It is possible to correct for the position bias using Eq. (2) by
estimating a "corrected" log (WTP ),
2. Without a constant term this would imply that willingness So pay lor any
risk reduction smaller than one in a hundred thousand is always less than
one dollar.
3. The log likelihood is .M\, the log likelihood with only a cons tanl
is /.617. The estimate of a is .3027.
4. The log of the likelihood has been increased to 11.717. The estimate of a
is .0441. The POS variable implies a restriction that ft, + 0 = 0, where
is the coefficient for TOP which equals. 1 if POS. 1 and ?:ero otherwise,
and 0^ is the coefficient for BOTTOM which equals 1 if POS =.1 and zero
otherwise. This restriction is testable using an F test of the implied
constraint. The estimated F. is .001 indicating that the restriction
can not be rejected.
79
-------
log (WTP ) - 2.5682 + .36804*log(S). (3)
The WTP estimate is obtained by,
c.
" 2
a
VTPc = EXP{2.5682 + ,3680*log(5) + —, (4)
- 2
where the a /?. tsrm is needed if wc make the usiml assumpt' ion that the rnor
terms in the untransformed (i.e., linear) representation are from a log-
normal distribution (Goldberger, 1968; Hood, Graybill, and Boes, 1974).
Table 5-2 gives WTP, WTP, and WTP for each of the six risk reductions
valued by respondents.
There are a number of results from economic theory which describe how
willingness to pay for risk reductions should change with S. Following
5
Jones-l.ee (1974, 1978), we define a function V( &)=WTP^. This V{ S) function
may be thought of as a Hicksian compensating consumer surplus measure. The
other arguments in this function have been suppressed as we have equivalent
random samples at each of the six S points so the other arguments are
orthogonal to S and, thus, not, necessary for the estimation of V( 6). A major
theoretical result in the literature (e.g. Jones-Less 1976) is that V(6) is
an increasing function of S, so that
f! > 0- (5)
Another result is that the rate of change of V(&) with respect to changes in
§ is negative,
< 0, <6)
3&
5, Jones Lee's theoretical development used p, the actual risk level,
instead of 8 = p - j>, where p was the initial risk level. Only simple
algebra is necessary to rewrite his results in the form presented here.
This is not true of a number of Jones-Lee's and Veinstcin, Shepard, and
Pliskin's (1980) results on trade-off's between risk and income which are
highly dependent on p and the independence axiom of expected utility.
These additional tesults do continue to hold uodet nonexpected utility
theory (Machina, 1982; 1983a; 1983b) and appear to be often violated
empirically. We do not pursue tests of them here.
80
-------
Tab] e b- 2. PREDICTED WTE\ VTP AND IMPLIED VAl.lJK OF A STATISTICAL LI FK (VSL>*
&** VTP WTP VTPc VSL(WTP) VSM *TP )
.04 $2.86 $2.71 $1.90 $2,500 $*.492
,43 9,19 9,57 9.56 747 778
].3 3 20.49 20.84 14.50 5 39 381
2.43 11,79 12,17 17.54 185 275
4.43 23.51 22,55 22.55 186 178
8.93 42.68 42.00 27.22 167 114
* VSI. amounts are in thousand dollars.
** Mortality risk per 100,000.
81
-------
implying that WTP^ should be an increasing function of S, but that these
increases with changes in § occur at. a decreasing rate.
The condition in Eq, (5) is met ii the coefficient on log(S) in Eq. (Z)
is positive, which it is. The condition in Eq, (6) is met for the functional
form used in Eq. (2) if the coefficient on log(&) is less than one, which it
... 6
is.
Thus both of these theoretical results relating VTP. and & have been found to
O
hold for these data.
We can use Eq. (4) to graph villingness-to-pay as a function of 5 and the
value of a statistical lite as a function of 8. These graphs are given in
figures b» 1 and 5-2 for § in the range of 10 to 10 ^, roughly the range of 6
spanned by our o;: pel imcii 1 a 1 design.
It is sometimes argued (MITRE 198]; Temple, Cat ker & Sloane, 1982) that
the value of a statistical life should increase with £ rather than decrease as
shown in figure 5-1. This belief stems from another one of Jones-Lee's
theoretical, results which says that V{§) should increase with increases in ,
(?)
85 > 0,
3R
o
where Rq is the respondent's initial risk level, in the case of our
individual level data, we cannot estimate this relationship because we have a
fixed R . There were several ieasons why we did not attempt to introduce
different levels of R in the scenario for tills study. first, the
o
relationship shown in Eq. (7) is questionable as it relies very strongly on
expected utility's independence axiom and is the theoretical result most at
odds with the empirical evidence of actual behavior (Machiua, 1983a). Second,
the relationship is not policy-relevant. The & we ate dealing with are tiny
compared to the K in our population. Government iisk reduction programs,
particularly those involving drinking water. do not involve risk reductions
Eq. (2) is of the form y - EXP(a +¦ b*log( 6) -» c*x). The second
derivative of this expression with respect to & is,
b^*EXP(a + b* 1 og( 5) + c*x) b*T'XF'(a t b*log( 6) * c+>;)
r r
so that a sufficient condition for this derivative to be negative is
that 1 > b > 0.
82
-------
Figure 5
-1. IMPLIED value of statistical life as a function of delta
Annual Mortality Risk Reduction per 100,000
-------
Figure 5-2 WILLINGNESS TO PAY'AS 1 POICTIOH OF DELTA
5
Annual Mortality Risk Reduction per 100,000
-------
that will appreciably change R . Third, estimating the change in ¥(5) as a
0
function of Rq using the individual micro data would have required very
detailed and, ptobably, unob t a > nable information about the actual pel reived
level of risk to each member of the household for a risk of death twenty years
in the future. Successfully communicating an awareness of such an initial
risk level in a survey such as ours is, at best, a formidable task. Figure 3-
2 graphs the V(5) function toi the k in our population. The theoretical
o
properties of V( 8) function for a fixed R are given by Eqs. (5) and (6).
o
Jones-Lee'1: last major theoretical result is that
a< ) (8)
_ db _ > n
31NC '
which implies WTP^. i net eases with .income (INC). For a test of this
hypothesis, we will have to turn to our individual data.
Estimates Based on Individual Observations
In older to estimate a VSb usinp the individual observations we need to
specify. (1) a theoretical relationship between § and VTP and (2) one or
mole ways of opera t iuna ,1 i ¦/ in>c and estimating this relationship. For art
individual household, we posit the existence of an expenditure function which
gives the household's current level of income, INC^, as being necessary to
maintain its cuncnt If vol ol utility, U*, under existing -jondi lions. This
expenditure function can be expressed as.
E = El p ,q |U*, R (AS,HB,OS, SEX) » &--0, T(AS,AT,ED) , HS] = INC , (9)
O O O 0 o o
where p is a vector ot current prices; q is a vector of currently provided
o o
public goods; R (• ) describes the household's initial level of risk as a
o
function of the household's age structure (AS), habits (HB) occupational
structure (OS) and SEX; T(•) describes taste as a function of the household's
AS, attitudes (AT), and education (ED); and HS is a measure of household
size. A similar expenditure function can be defined as,
E. = El p ,q |U*, R (AS,HB,OS,SEX), 5-6., T(AS,AT,ED), HS] = INC., (10)
J o o o o J 3
85
-------
where the only argument whose value has changed is 6. A form of the Hicksian
compensating consumer surplus measure can be defined as,
Vj=EQ -E.=INC-E[po,qo|UA,Ro(AS,HB(OS,SEX),S=5j,T(AS,AT,ED),HS] (11)
which we can rewrite as,
V. = f(INCo, Ro(AS,HB,OS,SEX),S , T(AS,AT,ED),HS] (12)
where the arguments, and have been suppressed as they are the same for
all residents of Herrin. The observed realization of V.. in a contingent
1.1 6
valuation survey is simply VTP,., the i j respondent's willingness to pay for
t he r i sk red uc t i on 6..
3
To estimate V(-) as a function of its arguments, the first step is to
stack, the n individual, observations so that WTP.. is a 3n x 1 vector. It is
ij
useful, at this point, to define a new index variable, k=l N, where
each k represents a unique ij pair and N=3n. Some of the right hand side
arguments, such as 5., INC, and HS, are readily identifiable and available.
The functions R(*) and T(-) must be specified as veil as a functional form
for [(•)¦ We can operationalize AS in a number of ways. These include the
age of the respondent, the number of children, and the age of any children.
We have no real measure of OS, but Herrin is a light manufacturing town
without a lot of high risk occupations. The primary measure of habits likely
to be relevant to estimating Eq. (12) is smoking behavior. The most relevant
attitudes for explaining the VTP are likely to he those directly concerned
K.
perceived drinking water safety. Our measure of ED is the number of years of
schooling of the respondent. SEX is easily operational5 zed as the sex of the
respondent. Vc will estimate
g(VTPk> - h(XkP) + uk, (13)
where X is a N y 1 matrix of the explanatory variables described above, 3 is
a k x 1 vector of unknown coefficients to be estimated, y is a N x 1 vector
of error terms, and g{•) and h(*) are as yet undefined functional forms.
bf
-------
One way to estimate the parameters of Eq. (12) is to run a simple linear
regression ot the VTP amounts on the set of possible independent variables.
This is inadvisable on two grounds- First, a large number of the VTP amounts
are equal to zero, which leads us to consider limited dependent variable
econometric models (Maddala, 1983; Amenhya, 1985). Second there is a large
degree of multicoliinearity among the possible independent variables. We
add i ess the latter problem fitst, since engaging in specification seal che.s
over large numbers of possible variable sets using limited dependent variable
estimators is prohibitive in terms of computer time.
Theit; are numerous ways to specify the household's age structure.
Inclusion of age and number and age of children often results in a confusing
pattern ol signs on i ns ign i f i can t coefficients. A simple aid initially
appealing specification is to specify a dummy variable, AGED, which equals
one if the respondent vas 55 or older and zero otherwise. This specification
generally separates households with children at home from those who do not
and respondents 55 or older are less likely to be affected by a risk with a
2U year latency period. Our analysis includes an attitude question which
asks respondents to rate how harmful they regard chemical contamination in
Heirin's drinking water on an 10 point scale. We made a dummy variable,
CBEMD, out of this question with 1 equal to ratings of 8 to 10, where 10
represents the highest possible subjectively perceived harm and 1 the lowest
possible harm.
In designing the study, we were sensitive to the possibility that
smoking behaviot might influence people's evaluation of drinking watei risks.
Our initial concern was whether smokers would react defensively to our use of
the cigaiette equivalents in ,i way that would bias their iespouses. We were
unable to detect such a reaction in the focus groups and the preliminary
interviews. Smokers appeared to take the cigarette equivaients in their
stride and did not express resentment or hostility to them when they were
specifically asked to comment on the equivalents. We included a series of
questions about the respondents' smoking behavior in the last pait of I he
questionnaire. One third of the respondents currently smoke, and another 12
percent previously smoked but had stopped.
The variables which we use in the empirical estimation to be presented
below are defined and their sample statistics given in table 5-3,
87
-------
Surprisingly, we found little relationship between smoking habits and UTP^ in
our preliminary regressions. Neither current nor previous smoking behavior
was related to the VTP amounts. Nor did we find any relationship between SEX
or ED and UTP^. For this reason these variables are not included among the
explanatory variables in table 5-3. It should be remembered that all of the
demographic- variables are basically orthogonal to 5, thus specification err01:
in terms of inclusion or exclusion of demographic variables will affect only
the precision of the 6 coefficient.
We used nonnest hypothesis tests and Box-Cox regressions to explore
whether or not a linear specification tor WTP^, &, and INC^ was indicated.
As with the grouped data, this analysis suggested a logarithmic rather than
linear form.
The limited dependent variable which first comes to mind for estimating
the V(6) function using the individual data is the Tobit model (Tobin, 1958).
The basic Tobit model assumes, in our case, that
VTP.. - VTP.. if U. > c
i j xj £
and {14)
WTP, . = 0 if U. < c,
ij 6 ~
where U^ is an underlying latent variable representing the utility -which the
respondent gets from 6. and c is a specified constant term. The problem with
this interpretation is that we are really interested in VTP.. and not U^. Ve
need a model, where,
WTP., = VTP.. if VTP*, > c
ij ij ij
and (15)
VTP . . = 0 if VTP* . < c j
ij i] -
where WTP.j is the true willingness to pay for and c is a specified
constant greater than or equal to zero. This specification is still
it
troubling because it is possible for VTP.^ to be negative and because we have
not demonstrated a divergence between VTP^ and WTP^, and provided a rationale
for such a divergence, if it exists.
88
-------
Tali If 5 3 VARfABLK DKFTN1T IONS AND DESCRIPT LVK STATISTICS
Variable Name
WTP
LWTP
VOTE
&
INC
LINC
AGED
CillJHD
HSIZE
POS
Description
Adjusted annual amount willing in pay in highoi vater
bill.'.; lor specified 11 i lialomc thane risk reduction;-;.
Equals log(WTP) It VTP > 1 and equals 0 otherwise,
Equals 1 if WTP > 0 and equals 0 if VTI'-O.
Risk reduction in terms of fewer annual deaths per
100,000 associated with reductions in level of
t l ihaioiry thane contamination.
Annual household income (thousand dollars).
Equals log (INC).
Equals 1 if respondent is age 53 or older, and equals 0
if respondent's age is less than 55.
Equals 1 if tespondent rates the harm posed by
"chemical contaminants in Herrin's drinking water" at
8-10 on a ten point scale where 10 is described as
"highest harm" and 1 as "lowest harm."
Number of people in the respondent's household.
Equals 1 if largest & valued by respondent, -1 if the
siiial J e:; t & valued by iespondent, ard zeio otherwise.
Variable
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maxim'
WTP
18.210
27.200
0.000
150.000
VOTE
.459
.499
0.000
1.000
S
2.850
3.026
.040
8.930
log (S)
.0826
1.782
-3.219
2.189
INC
27.500
11.689
2.500
75.000
LINC
3.198
. 549
.916
4.317
AGE
43.782
15.560
18.00
80.00
AGED
.298
.458
.000
1.000
CHEMD
,087
. 283
.000
1.000
HSIZE
2.860
1 .257
1.000
6.000
POS
0.000
.817
-1.000
1.000
89
-------
The primary evidence for a divergence between WTP and VTP, is the large
C iC
number of zero WTP responses and the absence of any WTP, responses in the
C K
$.01 to $4.99 range despite the fact that WTP amounts in this range were
acceptable. If the distribution consisted of a spike at zero and then a
smooth function after that, we would suspect a simple Kuhn-Tueker Corner
7
Solution.
The gap between zero and five dollars implies that the likelih-.x-d of the
observed data being generated by any standard distribution is small unless
there is censoring occurring over at least, part of that gap. We bei/ic/? that
the "apparent" observed censoring is due to respondents with low WTP, giving
K.
zero answers rather than giving WTP^ There are a number of not necessarily
contradictory reasons for this type of behavior.
Firs!, even though respondedrn were f!ee to give answers in other than
even dollar amounts -- such as $.45 or $7.60 -- no respondent did so. As
previously noted, people tend to give round/common/favorite numbers to CV
8
valuation questions. As long as the bids are spread out over a large enough
range this tendency causes minor, and generally, ignored/ignorabie
econometric problems. This is not the case if a large number of VTP
Cr
observations are concentrated in a small range with downward rounding. This
"3*C
argument implies many of the zt-i us observed are really small positive WTPj,
which have been rounded downward. Second, the zero VTP^ amounts are the
result of no votes to the basic question - would you be willing to vote Cor
the referendum if it cost you any positive amount. Thus treating a no vote
as a zero depends upon the inteipretation that any positive amount means any
amount over $.01. It is likely that respondents took this statement to mean
"not $.01" (for which it seems difficult to see how any effective policy
could be implemented) but $1, $2 or $*>. The implication of this argument is
that our discrete choice question, VOTE, was not interpreted by the
7, A gap is observed between zeio and the lowest observed positive
expenditure in studies of consumer dnt ables such as new automobiles
(Tohin, 1958) due to the existence of a minimum price for the commodity.
Our situation does not have that characteristic since a respondent may
name any non-negative amount.
8, By this we mean that people tend to give responses of 5, 10, 25 instead
of 6, 9, or 27 dollars.
90
-------
respondents as meaning "no" means 0, "yes" nutans p;ieatc:r than zero, instead
the interpretation was likely to have been, more like "no" means less than $1
or even S3, while "yes" mean:-: greater than or equal to $1 oi Sb. The ihiid
is that one survey in treatment went to some lengths to legitimate no votes
while a VTP^ response in terms and hence to violate some social desirability
nouns. Reasons 1 and 2 .suggest censoring at $1 while l easor 2 images,
censoring at $1 or perhaps a somewhat higher amount.
Censoring at $1 instead of: $0, the log Jog form which we found lit. the
aggregate data well in Eqs. (1) and (2), suggests that assuming a log-normal
"it "k
distribution for VTP.^, and working villi the log oj. WTP. may be desirable.
This implies that WTP.j cannot be negative which is a desirable restriction.
If we assume that the censoring occurs at VTP.. > 1, then, censoring point
for log (WTPjj) is zero. Amemiya and Boskin (1974) have considered such a
Tobit-like model (although with right hand instead of left hand censoring).
The model they proposed is a icgular loli.it speei f i cat i on wheie the dependent
*
variable is considered to be the log of VTP, instead of
UTPj . Ciagg (1971) has proposed a more geneial model which includes the
Amemiya and Boskin model as a special case.
The Cragg model can be seen as a two-part or stage model where one
A
equation specifies the probability of a positive value of 1 og(W'TP ) and the
*
second equation predicts the value ot log(VTP^) conditional on the fact that
it is positive. Thus for the Cragg model,
E[log(VlT*)J PROB[log(WTP*) > MjAK|l0fT(WTl'k) ! log(WTpJ) > OJ. (16)
To simplify the notation, lei Z ^ - log (VTP^). Assuming a normal
distribution tor Z, ; the probability that a limit observation, VTP, - 0, or,
* *-
equi valcntly < 0, is observed, is given by the probi t model,
P(Z* < 0) ¦ $( -X^), (17)
where $ is the normal oumuln ( i ve distribution function, and f> is a vectoi of
9 *
unknown parameters. The density of the positive is assumed to be
9. We have no observations where VTP.. = $1, so the placement of the strict
inequality is ot no consequence. 1 -1
91
-------
2
vector Pj and vat wince 0 , so that their conditional density is given by
f{ZJZ* > 0) = — J^—1- -EXP[— /2ia ^
If we define T as ari indicator which equals one if Z. >0 and equals zero
* 14 - * *¦
if Z < 0, the log likelihood function tor can be written, as,
N
1. ^ Id - I, )log#(-XfL) *
k I k 1
1^1 log#(Xfij) - log#(X02/ff) - |log{2nff2) - 2^l(Z* - Xep2) I " (19)
The Tobit model represents the special case of the more general Cragg model
where,
g - 0_/af (20)
in Eq. (19). 1 z
The estimated pr obi t model along with a logistic and linear probability
model are given as F.qs. (21), (22), and (23) respectively in table 5-4. Each
shows almost an identical pattern of coefficient significance and each
predicts that 30% of the population will be willing to vote for a referendum
where S is approximately 2. For the pi obi t equation, the exact 50%
approval point is & = 1.87. The relationship between S and the percent
willing to approve the referendum ;it some positive amount is graphed in
Figure 5-3. The most significant predictor of vote is log(S). H5IZB and P0S
are also quite important in the prediction of vote.^ We note that the
10. These equal ions are evaluated at the mean levels of the other
independent variables.
11. A likelihood ratio test of the more general form ot position bias (i.e.,
inclusion of separate bottom and t np^dummies) has a value of .44 which
is asymptotically distributed as a X,-1 x variable under the null
hypothesis of position bias of the POS form. This value of the test
statistic has a p value of .493 so we accept the null hypothesis. Now
defining the null hypothesis as the absence of any position bias (i.e.
restricting the POS coefficient to be zero) results |n a test statistic
of 16.90 which is also distributed asymptotically X, ^. under the null
hypothesis. This test statistic has a p-value of .(JOT so we reject the
null hypothesis ot no position bias.
92
-------
Table 5-4
Eq. (21) Eq. (22) Eq. (23) Eq. (24)
Truncated Normal
Piobi t(VOTE) Logit(VOTE) OLS (VOTE) {log (WTP >1)]
CONSTANT
[1; ] j*
-.8179
(-2.47)**
-1.4459
(-2.58)
. 2206
(2.00)
2.3449
(9.01)
log (&)
1.0825;.8404]
.2623
(7.06)
.4470
(6.89)
.0831
(7.13)
.1398
(4.73)
LINC
[3.1979; "J. 251 3]
. 1054
(1.06)
.1965
(1.16)
.0401
(1.20)
. 3012
(4.21)
AGED
[ .2982; .154R]
-.1304
(-1.02)
—.2130
(1.00)
-.0427
(-1.01)
-.1596
(1-35)
CHEMD
[.0877;.0987]
.1953
(1.064)
.3177
(1.02)
.0622
(1.00)
.3418
(2.07)
HS1ZE
|2.8596;3.0287]
.1183
(2.47)
.1963
(2.44)
.0387
(2.43)
-.0053
(-.160)
POS
f0}.3026J
.2980
(4.09)
.4921
(4.14)
. 1069
(4.24)
. 1244
(2.41)
SIGMA
1.0000
-
.4489
.5935
N
684
684
684
314
Log-likelihood
(constant only)
-471.82
-471.82
-494.14
-320.20
Log likelihood
-396.66
-396.25
-419.15
•281.79
I2
-
-
.190
.202
* First number in bracket is variable mean for full sample. Second number
is the variable mean for sample t rv-'tr i c I crl to positive WTP obsorvnt i cms.
** Asymptotic tslatisties in parentheses.
93
-------
Figure 5-3. IES VOTE IN DRINKING WATER REFERENDA AS A FUNCTION OF DELTA
1.00 j
PERCENT
.as-
OTP
-80-
All
POSITIVE
•65-
AMOUNT
JO-
.75-
.70-
M-
.80-
¦SS-
.50-
.45-
.40-
.as-
.30-
25 ¦
.28-
.15-
.10
0
3 4 5 £
Annual Mortality Risk Reduction per 100,000
-------
coefficients on LINC, AGED, and CHEMD are all insignificant at the standard
1?
.05 oi .10 .level. ' The success of the probi t motif L in pi edict ing VOTE is
presented in tabic 5.
The truncated normal model which completes the Cragg model is given in
Eq. (24) of table 5-4. Here we note the much stronger role played by LINC,
an encouraging sign for the model since an a f f i rma I i ve answ?r on VOTE in ere.I y
indicates some positive willingness-to-pay but not the magnitude of the
willingness-lo-pay Iol 5.
The income elasticity is easily calculated using the relationship
between the probi t and t.luncated normal equations given in Eq. (1 /) and the
chain rule. This elasticity is .43 evaluated at the sample mean income and a
x of I .87. This confirms llie iheoieLica1 prediction in Eq. (8). The
coefficient for CHEMD is now significant; the coefficient for AGED again has
a negative effect but is not strongly significant; vhile the cooliicient on
HSIZE which was positive on the VOTE equations is now almost exactly zero in
the determination of how much the affirmative voters would be willing to pay.
The role of position bias, while still significant, is reduced in Eq. (24),
This is what we would expect if the bias is due to the respondents'
assigningtoo little importance to the lowest x valued and too much importance
1 3
to the largest x value. The elasticity from the Cragg model is dependent
on the independent variable values for which it is evaluated. Evaluating the
elasticity of VTP^ with respect to S, at & equal to 1.8/ and the mean values
of the other variables from the appropriate samples, indicates an elasticity
of- . 70. This result satisfies the theoi c-tical lestrictions in Kq. (5) and
14
Eq. (6), although it is somewhat larger than that of Eq. (2). Evaluating
the Cragg probit/truncatod normal model at. S-1.H7 and the mean values of the
12. Their t s ta t i s tic indicatg significance at the approximate .30 level--
the largest level where R is improved by their inclusion.
13. The qualitative conclusions as to the presence of a more general form of
position bias and the absence altogether of position bias are the same
as in footnote 11.
14. Increasing the assumed censoring point toward $2 (from $1) causes this
elasticity to move toward that of Eq. (2).
95
-------
Table 5-3. ACTUAL AND PREDICTED VOTE FROM PROBIT EQUATION
PREDICTED
0
1
A
C
684
368
616
T
U
0
370
262
108
A
L
1
314
106
208
96
-------
other variables, indicates a VSL of S3*3(>.000 compared lo $307,000 From En.
15
(2) evaluated at the same 8. The Tobit estimate is given in Eq. (26) in
table 5-6 along with the ordinary least squares estimate of the same
specification is given in Eq. (?':>). The Tobit speci f: i ca I i on indicates
elasticities which are fairly similar to those of the Cragg model. The tvo
equations give quite similar predictions for WTP^ over the range of our
experiment although they diverge significantly outside that range. The I obit
specification can be tested against the Cragg ntodel^ by means of a
likelihood ratio test. This test is essentially a test of the restriction
that the vectoi of parameters, fiy in (lie probit model is equal to n :i >rn
the Tobit model- The value of this test statistic is 425,56 which is
distributed as X7 7 x. asymptotically, indicating that the Tobit specif i c«i» ion
should be rejected. Due to this finding, we do not consider the Tobit model
further.
Overall, the results for the estimation of the V(6) function using the
individual data provides strong support for the validity and reliability of
our results. We have found our empirical results are consistent with the
major theoretical predictions .ibout the t ela r. ionship between V(&) and b.
These equations also have significant explanatoi y power suggesting that our
respondents did not given random unconsidered responses.
Concluding Remarks
Oin results show sizable d i f tereiu'c:; in the VSL depending upon the at
which the ¥(§) function is evaluated- This implies that there is no unique
15. The variance correction when making the transformation from the log form
to the linear form, noted earlier, must be taken into account when using
the estimated parameters in Eq. (24).
16. For the least squares equation, this specification amounts to treating
all of the WTP,=0 observations (.c. , the censored observations) as $ I
bids,
1?. Other test criteria such as the Lagrange multiplier test (Schmidt and
Lin, 1984), Wald test (Hullahy, 1984), and a White Specification Test
(White, 1986) had similar statistics.
9?
-------
VSL for: policy makers to use in making decisions about the quality of safety
increases/risk reductions to provide. We find the larger the 6 the smaller
the VSL. This would appear to be a perverse result, but it is the one
predicted by economic theory. Risk reductions, in a sense, are just like any
other normal goo;!; consumers have declining matginal utility, and hence,
declining marginal willingness-to-pay tor them.
Our study is one of the first to value a fairly wide range of 5's. If
is noteworthy that our findings are consistent with the pattern shown by VSL
estimates for particular 5's. Bloomquist (1982), on the basis of • "> >¦" of
this literature, notes a strong tendency for those studies evaluating tin' VSL
at small S's to have much larger VSL's that those studies evaluating at
large S's. This is generally true whether the VSL's are from contingent
valuation studies, hedonic wage studies, or household production function
studies of observed safety behavior and purchases.
If one believes in majority rule, then our study suggests that a lower
bound should be placed on the S which the government attempts to implement,
and an upper bound should be placed on the VSL to be used for policy
purposes. While we don't believe a single study such as ours which is
contingent on a particular scenario and on the responses of people in asingle
town should be used set this minimum § and maximum VSL, we believe that this
concept is sufficiently important to warrant much additional study. While we
have provided one possible explanation for the differences in the VSL found
by various researchers, there are undoubtably others. We believe, for
instance, that there are different VSL's for different types of risks for the
same given S, although it is likely that these different types of risk could
be placed into several large classes where the within class VSL 6
relationship was fairly constant. Other researchers [xxx 1 have
provided convincing evidence that risk is not a unidimensional concept to
most people and that most people have strong preferences over different risk
dimensions. Other possible explanations for the observed differences in the
VSL's from different, studies include the study of different populations and
self - selection, and there is the always convenient, and probably often true,
explanation that people did not correctly perceive the true risk (if the
analysis is based on actual behavior) or that they did not correctly
98
-------
Tabic 5-6 TOBIT ESTIMATES FOR CENSORED LOG-NORMAL WTP MODEL.
Va i: i abl p
CONSTANT
Log (5)
L1NC
AGED
CHEMD
[J SIZE
POS
Eq. (25)
OLS
-, 4091
(-1.07) *
.318
(7.84)
,2570
(2.20)
.2191
< 1.48)
. 3414
(1.58)
. 1275
(2.30)
. 4244
(4.81)
Eq. (26)
Tot) it
-1.9994
(-2.26)
.7700
(5.30)
.4064
(1.63)
-.4817
(-1.29)
.6894
(1.59)
.2853
(2.28)
.8101
(3.69)
Log-Likelihood ;
Log-Likelihood
(constant only)=
ft2 = .232
N = 684
-1272.3
- 1365.4
Log-Likelihood = -1004.8
Log-Likelihood
(constant on]y)-= -114H.2
N = 684
* Asymptotic t Statistic in Pm onlheru-v.
99
-------
understand the risk level presented to them in a contingent valuation survey.
Another possible but deeper reason which has strong policy implications
is that the risks valued are resolved at different points in time. Most risk
studies have evaluated risk in the form of immediate/near-term accidents.
This i s true of almost nil the iiidiiect studies of wages premiums and safety
behavior, and of the contingent valuation studies of risk changes conducted
to date. The types of risks of interest to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, however, oi ten have long latency periods of twenty or thirty years.
The correct VSL's are those which have been discounted for this latency
peiiod. The advantage of. the contingent, valuation approach in this situation
is that the respondents have already engaged in the appropriate discounting
in giving their willingness to - pay in the current period. Based on some
sketchy empirical evidence and some preliminary work on nonexpected utility
theory, it would appear that respondents do not engage in discounting
behavior which is consistent with expected utility theory, although this
observed behavior may be consistent with rational economic behavior. In the
very simplest sense there may be two factors at work, the traditional trade-
off between present and future consumption and the dread over the latency
period of possibly getting a disease .such as cancer if preventative stops aic
not taken in the current period. This implies standard discounting of the
VSL derived from near-term risks many not be an appropriate measure. The
entire theoretical underpinnings of the value ot life literature is almost
completely based on the maintained assumption that expected u111ity is the
appropriate behavioral model for explaining mortality related risk behavior.
This assumption is quickly unraveling. The available results from work on
nonexpected utility theory suggests that this theoretical framework will be a
much more appropriate basis for building models of mortality related risk
behavior. This is another area which is currently fruitful for additional
theoretical, experimental, and applied research.
100
-------
CHAPTKR 6
DEVELOPING A CONTINGENT VALUATION INSTRUMENT
TO VALUE MORBIDITY RISK REDUCTIONS
In this chapter we discuss a second study which we conducted as part of
our research program on developing CV methods tor use in valuing drinking
water benefits. The object of this study, is to develop an instrument
suitable for valuing drinking water morbidity risk reductions from infection
by Giardia Iambiia. Owing to the primacy accorded the THH study, and its
— — ~ \
complexity, the Giardia study was limited to instrument development. This
chapter reviews that work and introduces the draft questionnaire which is
contained in appendix G.
Outbreaks of giardiasis, the rather nasty, but usually transient, gastro-
enteric disorder caused by the Giardia lamblia protozoan, have occurred
periodically over the years in communities whose surface water supplies are
not chemically pretreated and filtered. The site we chose for this research
is one of the largest cities potentially at risk from giardiasis, San
Francisco. We conducted focus groups in the San Francisco area to obtain
information about people's perception of drinking water problems and the
prospects of a giardiasis outbreak. We used this information to design a
draft survey instrument whose scenario simulates a referendum on whether or
not San Francisco should sell a bond issue to install equipment which would
reduce the risk of giardiasis from a low but uncertain level to essentially
zero. A unique feature of this instrument, from the CV point of view, is
that it is designed for use as a telephone survey. Here to tore, because of
their need to describe a relatively complex scenario, and their need for
visual aids, very few CV surveys have attempted to use the telephone
technology, despite its much lower cost than in-person surveys of comparable
1eng t h,
1. The instrument is being lit LI tested and these results will be reported at
a later time.
101
-------
GIARDIA LAMBLTA
Giardia Iambiia is a pathogenic protozoan which lives as an intestinal
parasite in man and a number of other mammals. The disease caused by giardia
is known as giardiasis and is the most common one caused by intestinal
parasites in the United States. 1t is the leading cause of morbidity in
overseas U.S. travelers. Transmission of giardiasis is through person-to-
person contact, food, and water. The first well documented waterborne U.S.
outbreak, was in Aspen, Colorado in 1965-1966. Since that time there have been
2
fifty-four confirmed outbreaks in the United States through 1982. Both the
number of outbreaks and the estimate ot 20,000 illnesses reported by the Center
for Disease Control are believed to be large underestimates.
Of the 41 outbreaks in the Uni ted States between 1965 and 1980, all but
one (from a contaminated cistern on a Tennessee farm) occurred in the Rocky
Mountain area, the Pacific Northwest or New England. Almost half ot the
reported outbreaks occurred in one state, Colorado. The outbreaks have
generally occurred in areas served by small public or semipublic water systems
which use raw surface water (from mountain streams) or surface water treated
with low levels of chlorine and no filtration (Lippy, 1982). Several more
sizable systems have reported outbreaks including Rome, N.Y. (4,800), Vail, CO
(19 78) Bradford, PA (1979), and, more recently, Reno, NV and Luzerne County,
PA. Each of the later outbreaks involved more than 5,000 cases.
According to Guntber F. Craun of EPA's Cincinnati Health Effects Research
Laboratory, "Waterborne outbreak data, engineering experience, and filtration
theory indicate well operated and properly functioning, conventional treatment
plants employing coagulation/flocculation, settling, and filtration should be
successful in preventing waterborne outbreaks of giardiasis." Chlorination
without filtration is not completely effective in removing or killing Giardia
cysts. Thus the irony that raw water taken from very clear mountain water
sources which does not need filtration for other purposes poses the threat of
introducing Giardia into drinking water systems. This is the situation with
San Francisco which receives its water from sources in the Sierra Nevada.
2. Unless otherwise indicated, our source for information about giardiasis and
giardia outbreaks is the report by our RFF colleagues. The Benefits of
Preventing an Outbreak of Giardiasis_ JXie_to Drinking Water Contamination
(Harrington, Krupnick, and Spofford, 1985).
102
-------
Water systems with more advanced treatment processes may also be at risk if
3
monitoring and maintenace are inadequate. Once an outbreak is confirmed, boil
water advisories are usually issued as boiling water for one minute is believed
to kill the cysts.
The: cysts are believed to he caused by contamination from human and animal
populations. The Giardia lamblia protozoan multiplies in the upper portion of
the small intestine of mammals and then enters a cyst stage when it is shed
through the mammals feces into the environment (such as a reservoir).
Giardiasis is sometimes known colloquially as "heaver fever" owing to the
suspected role played by beavers in contaminatinp; leservoiis and other yaiei
bodies, such as streams used by backpackers for drinking water. The cysts can
remain viable for several months even if exposed to extreme cold or heat. Once
ingested by a mammal, the cysts can cause giardiasis. The concern about a
possible outbreak oi giardiasis in San Francisco stems from the recent
discovery that Giardia cysts are present in the city's Sierra Nevada
reservoirs.
Harrington, Rrupnick, and Spofford (1983) describe the disease's symptoms
in vivid terms:
Although seldom fatal, gi ai. d i as is can be an unpleasant and nasty
disease. The acute symptoms...mimic those of amoebic dysentery,
bacillary dysentery, bacterial food poisoning,- and "travellers'
diarrhea" caused by Escherichia co1i: explosive diarrhea, marked
abdominal cramps, fatigue, weight loss, flatulence, belching,
anorexia, nausea, and vomiting. Tn a few rare cases,
hospitalization for dehydration may be necessary.
These symptoms occur on average nine days after exposure. The acute phase of
the disease generally lasts three to four days although it may develop into a
chronic infection and reappear, in its acute stage, in an intermittent fashion
over a period of many months.
Testing is usually only done for giardiasis after a poison has suffeiod a
prolonged period of diarrhea (which rules out roost of the more common causes).
Detection of Giardia involves taking several stool samples and is highly
uncertain as the organism is only shed at irregular intervals. Susceptibility
to giardiasis is quite variable. Studies have Iound from 1 lo lb percent ol
3- Two systems with filtered water --- Camas, Washington and Berlin, New
Hampshire — have experienced giardiasis outbreaks but in both cases the
water systems were found to be not operating correctly (Craun, 1979),
103
-------
the U.S. population harbor the parasite, although most of these people had no
overt symptoms. It appears that, resistance to acute symptoms can be acquired
through repeated exposure.
Treatment by several antibiotic drugs is readily available with a high
cure rate. Quinacrine, a commonly prescribed drug, requires a week's course at
a cost of about $5,50, Currently there is no available drug for the prevention
of the disease. The costs incurred by those who suffer from the disease
include much more than the cost of the medicine, of course. Harrington,
Krupnick, and Spofford (1985) estimate the average losses for confi"nied cases
of giardiasis in Luzerne County from medical costs, time costs for medical
care, and loss of productivity and leisure time at $1,245 to $1,87" ;jtcase.
Costs are also incurred by those in an affected community who do no! -,>j' sick,
but who purchase substitute sources of water and engage in other ar . r to
avoid giardia. According to Harrington, Krupnick, and Spoffoud's calculations,
the average cost of averting behavior in the Luzerne case lie between $480 and
$1540 per household.
VALUING MORBIDITY RISKS
As with mortality risks, economists have several methodologies available
to measure the consumers surplus for morbidity improvements. Chestnut and
Violette (1984) provide a useful review of the studies which measure the
benefits of pollution-induced changes in morbidity. Their review, which
includes health production function, cost of illness and health index and
utility function approaches in addition to contingent valuation studies,
concludes that "we know very little about dollar values for changes in
morbidity" (Chestnut and VioLette, 1984: 6-13).
Only two 0V studies of pollution-related morbidity risk reductions have
been conducted.** Loehman et al. (1979) conducted a study which attempted to
put dollar values on the changes in symptoms expected to be associated with
changes in asthma attack and chronic bronchitis in Florida. This study used a
mail methodology (20 percent response rate) and a variant of the payment card
4, Other CV studies have focused to some extent on the health effects of air
quality improvements (e.g. Brookshire et ai ¦, 1 979) vithout valuing changes
in morbidity as such.
104
-------
format to elicit the VTP amounts. Respondents were asked how much they were
wiling to pay to prevent 1 day of suffering various symptoms.
The second study was conducted by Rove and Chestnut (1984) to value
changes in conditions that affect asthma symptoms and to compare components of
UTP with estimates of the individual's cost of illness. The sample consisted
of 90 asthmatics in Glendora, California, a high pollution area east of T.os
Angeles. They were asked WIT and VTA questions about changes in the number of
"bad asthma days" in personal interviews.
Harrington, Krupnick, and Spofford's (1985) recent study is the only
availabje economic study of giardia reduction benefits. They used a cost of.
illness or damages approach which measured the losses that result from an
outbreak of giardiasis on individuals, businesses, and communities. In
contrast to the present study, their approach is necessarily limited to
tangible losses; it does not include pain, suffering, aggravation, and anxiety.
It is also ex post whereas our instrument is ex ante. Whereas they value the
effects of a particular outbreak, the instrument which we will introduce in
this chapter is intended to value the respondents' willingness-to•pay for a
reduction of the risk oi experiencing a giardia outbreak from some uncertain
but presumably nonnegligible probability to an almost certain zero level.
FOCUS GROUPS
Two focus groups were conducted to explore local residents' perceptions of
drinking water quality, knowledge of the Giardia threat, and views about
various aspects of the draft scenario. Selma Monsky, of the Survey Research
Center at the University of California-Berkeley, led the groups. Her staff
used random telephone dialing in Berkeley and Oakland to recruit the
participants who received an honorarium for their trouble. The groups were
held at the Survey Research Center's building adjacent to the University
campus. As is common with focus groups, the participants were somewhat more
educated than the general public. Unlike the focus groups used in the THM
study, the phone technique recruited people who did not know each other nor
were they more civic-conscious than the general public.
The use of East Bay residents as participants offered an affordable
alternative to conducting the focus groups in San Francisco as East Bay
residents receive their water from the same type of source as San Francisco.
Monsky structured the groups so that the first consisted of women and the
10j
-------
second of men. Robert Mitchell attended both and Richard Carson attended the
first session and provided informs t ion about, the scenario a;-; appropriate.
Transcripts of poilion;; of the tone, gioups sessions aie contained in append i
F.
The participants' views about their drinking water were generally
positive. Similar to the views about THMs in southern Illinois, the northern
Cali fornians did not perceive a health threat of any kind, including Giard i a,
although, when their knowledge of Giardia was probed, many had some awareness
of the disease- They associated it with the warnings to hikers in the Sierra
not to drink water trom streams boc;ni;:(; of the risk of go I t ing Oiardia.
It is important, in designing a survey, to know which aspects of the
situation are most likely to influence people's decision about the subject of
the survey. This knowledge makes it possible to address people's central
concerns in such a way that their vote would be accurately predicted if they
were confronted with an actual referendum on a policy-relevant giardia control
program. The purpose of the focus groups was to identify these factors. The
following observations are based on these groups.
1. People pei [.¦<• i ved the risk a- noi life threatening. People in both focus
groups remarked that giardia "was not as bad as cancer," and that "chemicals
are a bigger problem." They clearly discriminated ,between giardia-induced
morbidity risks and mortality risks. The information that concerned them in
this regard was to know that it was not life-threatening and did not cause
permanent injury.
?. They wan toil to know whethei the nil r involved tiade oUs. Perhaps because
the respondents live in the ecology conscious Berkeley area several raised the
question of what risks or consequences might be imposed by the changes to the.
water plant which were needed to eliminate the risk of a giardia outbreak. The
interviewers should be prepared to offer assurances on this score.
3. They wanted to know whether people could become immune to the disease. The
analogy with other intestinal diseases led several group members to declare
that the disease would be more tolerable if people became immune to it. In
other words, it might be something that, people could live with.
4. Some people needed assurances that they would not he paying too much for
the program. This concern, similai to one experienced in the THM survey, has
important implicat inns for CV surveys. Several group members said they were
b. See appendix K loi the tran.se ipt ol the two focus gtoups.
106
-------
willing to pay for the giardia reduction program, but didn't want to pay more
than they had to. This quite understandable sentiment makes it difficult to
credibly communicate I lie notion of expressing theii maximum viIlingness-to-pay .
5. People expressed a value for not having to worry. One value of a giardia
reduction program is that it would essentially eliminate the possibility of an
outbreak. The idea that they would not have to worry about a giardia outbreak
and that this was worth money to them was expressed by some respondents.
6. The societal impact of the program also had value to participants. A
number of people spontaneously expressed concern that a giardia outbreak would
diJfereiH ia I Ly affect: (1) low income and pootly nourished people, (?) old
people, (3) and children. They were concerned about these impacts and while
some of them specifically incur ioned relatives who lit the.se categories, they
also expressed concern for these kinds of people in general. Two respondents
mentioned that it was a "matter of pride" to them that their community had good
water. This value confirms the similar expression of societal values we noted
for the southern Illinois case study and sttongly supports the ability of CV
surveys on drink ing vai ei risks to measure nonfamily impacts. Consistent with
this observation is the fact that no participant expressed an interest in the
possibility household averting behavior such as boiling water oi installing a
filter on their sink. Theit natural tendency was to regard the problem as a
community program and to accept the proposed scenario which involved community
level solutions.
7. People did not express concern about or much interest in the cost of the
disease_to them. The ivpe o! impact charted by the Hartiugtoiu Krupnick, and
Spofford (1985) study was not something which the focus group members commented
on or asked about. In this iespec.1, it may be well be that health care
insurance programs do lead people to undervalue this aspect of the disease's
impact because somebody else will bear most of the cost. It was interesting
that when they thought about how much controlling the risk of giardia was worth
to them, they used their watei bills as a baseline rather than the cost of a
visit to the doctor oi n course of medicine or the cost oi losing five days
from work.
8. People felt comfortable with thinking about their WIT amount in teams of
percent increases in tbeir wator bill. This was expressed spontaneously by
them when they were asked in the course of the group discussion what they would
be willing to pay, if anything, for a giardia program. Many of them seemed to
be well aware of what they are presently paying for their water bill, another
10?
-------
s i m i 1 a i; i t y w i i. b H e r r i t».
9. They said the referendum format would make the valuation effort more
plausible. It would make them take it "more seriously," One person made an
interfiling distinction between being "wi lling to pay" lor the program and
voting tor it.
Leader: Patricia, you're not willing to pay for it?
Patricia: I'm not saying I'm not willing to pay for it. You
asked if I'd vote for it and I said no, 1 wouldn't, I think that
that amount of money, and you know it would be very expensive,
could be used elsewhere. Air pollution, if you want to talk
health, in my opinion is worse. When you want water to drink, you
want air to breathe.
This observation makes a distinction between private accounts and public
accounts and suggests that when CV studies use a referendum [otra.it at least
some people search their preferences for public programs. We have elsewhere
observed the tendency for people to want to take money that they are spending
on other programs — defense is the program most often mentioned in this regard
— and transfer It to pay for more of an environmental amenity. This tendency
has to he discouraged in any re I ercnduin tormat because voters are nevot ottered
that opportunity. However, a reluctance to vote for a program because of a
belief that there are more pressing needs elsewhere no doubt does enter into
some voters' calculus, just as it. does for the person con temp] at iug a direct
mail appeal for a donation to a cause.
10, Participants tended to trust health officials more than engineers. ¥e
probed to s?e which typo of. expertise people would be more likely to trust, if
health officials warned that a giardia prevention program was needed while
water engineers said it was not needed. Overwhelmingly, people sided with the
health officials on the grounds that while the engineers are experts, they
nevertheless have a vested interest in perceiving their handiwork as adequate
for t ht > task.
TELEPHONE SURVEY
Although personal interviews have been the most common type of survey used
by CV researcher s, it i.s also possible to use telephone and mail surveys for
this purpose. Each technique has its advantages and disadvantages,6 The
6. A good comparison of the methods i.s Prey (1983), chapter 2.
-------
personal interview is the method of choice because it offers the most control
over the intnrviev yi tnation. For example, while it is possible to use charts
and other illustrative* material in a mail sutvey, it is not possible to have
the respondent look at the material in a particular sequence whereas in a
personal interview this can be done and the interviewer can call attention to
tlio.se aspects of the i Llustrativo material which the 1 esearc.hei most de.siies
the respondent to pay attention to.
Mail surveys are the least expensive survey method. But they suffer from
two serious drawback;-:. First. i t is very di fficul t to get a high response
i a t c. ^ And even if a high (e. y;. 70 to /S percent) i ;i t e is achieved, I hose who
do not respond are likely to be less interested in the amenity being valued
than those who do go to the effort of returning the questionnaire. This poses
a bias problem. Second, the general level ot literacy in the Waited States is
sufficiently low that a sizable proportion of respondents may have difficulty
understanding some of the questionnaire in the way the researcher intends it.
Telephone surveys are considerably cheaper to conduct than in-person
interviews, although 1rom a CV point of view they suiter from i ae problem J hat
the interviewer cannot use visual aids and it is more difficult to conduct a
3
long (over 20 minutes) interview by phone. We decided to experiment with a
telephone interview tor the f-iaulia study because the scenario which appeared
to be most realistic in terms of the actual policy possibility, and most
plausible in terms of respondent understanding, involved having the respondents
value a single referendum which would reduce the possibility of a giardia
outbreak fiom an unceitain, but definite, possibility to a viiiua.l
impossibility. This type of scenario does not require the use of a risk ladder
or the presentation of a series of risk reductions. Other features of our
scenario, to be discussed below, also fit a telephone interview iortnat.
THE INSTRUMENT
The Suivey Reseat eh Center at the University of CaliEorni; -Rcrkeley
?. Dillman (1978, 1983) offers proven techniques for maximizing the response
rate from mail surveys,
8. Frey (1983) gives examples of researchers who have successfully conducted
telephone surveys lasting 40 minutes or more.
109
-------
developed a survey instrument suitable for use in a telephone interview. The
Center drew on its considerable experience with telephone interviewing in
adapting a draft CV instrument to this format. Among the design considerations
they considered to be of critical importance was to reduce the amount of
exp 1 ariri i ory mateiial in a minimum. Up are euriently testing this instrument to
see if it works as a telephone survey and if the responses it obtains are
consistent with a valid CV study. In what follows we discuss its two most
salient features.
Referenda Format
Telephone surveys are routinely used to assess voter intentions prior to
elections. In California, which typically has ten propositions or more on the
ballot during general flections, tlicy have been successfully used to predict
9
the outcome of referenda as well. The giardia survey instrument* is patterned
after election surveys. As such, it includes standard questions about previous
voting behavior (Q. ?) which can be used to identify the probable voters. And
the elici tacion question asks whether "If an election were being held today,
would you personally vote lor ol a jr.li list10 a bond issue to prolect the City':,
water supply against this kind of disease?"
In the Herrin study we followed this question up by asking those who would
vote yes how much they would be willing to pay for the specified risk
reduction. In this instrument we adapt a single price offer technique (Bishop
and Heberlein, 1979) and ask different follow-up questions of those who say
they would or they would not vote for the program. Each follow-up question
poses a price and seeks the respondent's response to the program at that price.
Moreover, each follow-up question has its own tollowr up thus making it
possible to get two points on the demand curve for each respondent. The
sequence appears as follows:
A. Suppose it would increase your (household's) (wafer bill/rent) by $4
per month (tor 20 years), Would you (still) vote fot it?
Yes ................ .1
No, probably not. . . (SKIP TO C) . .2
9. See appendix G fot the complete text.
110
-------
8. Suppose it cost anothoi $10 pen month (for 20 years). Would you vot p
for ir then?
Yes , . . (SKIP TO NEXT PAGE) . . .1
No ... {SKIP TO NEXT PAGE) . . .2
C. Would you vote for it if it cost only another dollar per month (for 20
years) ?
Yes 1
No . , , (SKIP TO NEXT PAGE) ... .2
D And suppose it cost you an extra $2 per month {for 20 years)? Would
you votp for or again;;r ir?
For .... ............ 1
Against ...............2
In order to simulate a referendum where people typically must vote on mote
than one issue, we included a question which asked the respondents how they
would vote on a series of bond issues. This question, which precedes the
giardia valuation question, teminds the respondent that there a'e many worthy
public goods which government might provide. It is intended to add a dimension
of realism to the exercise. These referenda include the following:
Here are some other issue?; that people have suggested as possible
propositions Cor the next San Francisco City election. As I read each one,
please tell me how you would vote if the election were being held today.
How about (EACH)V (Would you vote for foi against it?)
Vote
Vote for against Would not DK,Can't
pioposition proposition vol? on it decide
A. A bond issue to pay lor renovat- ~
ing San Francisco's city parks—
including repairing buildings and
landscaping as needed -assuming
that it would cost each household
another $4 per year in taxes .... 1 2 3 4
B. A fund to clean up hazardous
mate;rial spills that could cost
(you/your household) $8 a year ... 1 2 3 4
C. A bond issue to build a new pier,
including new unloading and ware
house facilities—assuming that
it would cost (each household)
$3 per year .......1 2 3 4
10. Emphasis here and elsewhere in the original.
ri1
-------
D. Bonds to renovate the city hospi -
tals and to purchase new equipment--
assuming this would cost your house-
hold $6 per year 1
E. bonds to repair old jail facilities
and build new lacilities to reduce
overcrowding— assuming that this cost
your household $5 a year ...... 1
F. A bond issue to pay tor now buildings
at the community college—assuming that
this would cost (you/your household)
$10 a year 1
G. A bond issue to renovate the opera
house and museums and which would also
provide for expanding the art collec-
tions—at a cost of $3 per year per
householc. ............. 1
Amenity Description
A crucial problem with the telephone survey format for CV studies is the
limited amount of information that can be read to the respondent during the
course of the interview. The Herrin instrument is very wordy indeed, too wordy
in fact, but the presence of the interviewer and the use of visual aids made it
tolerable for most respondents. Even if they were bored by the pace of the
interview and its didactic quality, they endured it until the elicitation
question section when the referendum format engaged their interest and
attention.
With giardia, however, we knew from the focus groups that many people had
questions they wished to have answered, but the telephone format would not
allow us to convey this information in the usual manner. The solution we
developed wis to write ,-i series of answers to questions w<¦ believed wei o the
most likely ones to be asked by the respondents and to encourage the
respondents to ask questions. Question X 1 contains the information about
giardia which was ei ther offered directly to the respondent or was provided in
response to a question from the respondent.
|As you (may/probably) know), Giardiasis is a disease people get from
impure wafer. Tt won't kill you, but it can cause severe diarrhea (runny
bowels), cramps, belching, weight loss and other symptoms similar to a bad ease
112
-------
of intestinal or stomach Liu. The worst stage only lasts three or four days,
but if it's not treated, it can lead to more serious problems.
Some health and engineering experts say that it's possible tor San
Francisco's drinking water system to become infected with giardia in the new
future. They want the City to take special steps to protect the water supply.
Others think that the City's water is already adequately protected, and that
the risk is too small to justify building the large and expensive filtration
system or plant that all experts agree is the only way to guarantee that
giardia cannot get into the system.
Before I ask how you wouJd vote on this issue, is there anything more
you'd need to know in order to decide how to vote?
IF YES: What else do you need to know? (CHECK APPROPRIATE BOXES, INDICATING
R'S QUESTIONS. THEN GIVE ANSWERS INDICATED, RECORDING ANY COMMENTS FROM R.
Yes, need information 1
No, ready to vote (SKIP TO A) 2
i ] IF R ASKS ABOUT THE CHANGES OF AN EPIDEMIC IN SAN FRANCISCO, EXPLAIN:
That's the big uncertainty. Outbreaks of giardiasis are rare, but they
have occasionally occurred in cities like Wilkes-Barre, Pa.; Vail,
Colorado; Reno, Nevada and other cities which do not filler their water.
Host experts agree that there's not much chance of this happening in San
Francisco, but it could happen. San Francisco could go for 100 years
without an outbreak — or there could be one next year or the year after.
[ ] IF R ASKS HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD BE AFFECTED IN SAN FRANCISCO GIARDIASIS
OUTBREAK, EXPLAIN: Most people who are exposed to giardiasis even
during an epidemic — do not get the disease. If there were an outbreak
in San Francisco, the experts think that only a few thousand people might
get it, but that it might be as many as 100,000 who get it. In other
words, if there were an outbreak in San Francisco, it might be that only
one person in every thousand San Franciscans would get the disease -- or
it might be that as many as one person in every ten people would get it.
[ ] IF THEY DON'T BUILD FILTRATION PLANTS, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT COULD BE
DONE AFTER THE CITY FOUND OUT THAT TE1ERE WAS AN OUTBREAK? As soon as the
health authorities learn that there's been an outbreak, they will tell
people to boil their drinking water. Boiling water for one minute (after
it comes to a boil) makes it: safe to drink.
[ ] IF R WANTS TO KNOW H0V SERIOUS THE DISEASE IS FOR A PERSON WHO GETS IT:
113
-------
It's a very unpleasant disease, but it wouldn't kill anyone. I described
the symptoms earlier. Would you like me to go over them again briefly?
Yes.,.(REREAD THE FIRST PARAGRAPH
OF Q XI). .............. .1
No 2
IN EITHER CASE, ADD: Some cases are worse than others and put people in
bed for several days or even a week. But only rarely is it necessary to
hospi talize someone for giardiasis,
r ] IF a WANTS TO KNOW WHAT A PERSON WHO ACTUALLY GETS GIARDIASIS CAN DO,
EXPLAIN: There ate several drugs that can cure the disease and keep a
person from gelling it again. It's important to go to a doctor who can
check that a person really has giardiasis. The doctor will prescribe one
of these drugs, and It will cost between $10 and $25 in most drug stores -
- depending on winch drug the doctor prescribes.
I ) IF R ASKS WHAT IT UII.L COSTS: The engineers are trying to tigure out the
costs now. While they're doing that, we're trying to find out how much
the average person is willing to pay per month. In no case, would people
he asked to pay more than the actual cost of. building the filtration plant
(spread out over a 20 year period).
This scenario attempts to communicate the following iniornialion. First,
giardiasis Is described as a threat to morbidity. The respondent is fold that
it won't kill you. The symptoms are described in terms that respondents can
understand. The severity of the disease is noted by telling the respondent
that the worst stage lasts three or four days and that it can lead to more
serious problems if not treated.
Second, the possibility of an epidemic is described in terms of a
disagreement among experts. That some experts think it is ot concern, which
they do, gives the referendum credibility. That other experts think the risk
is too small to justify the expense suggests that the likelihood of an epidemic
Is probably low.
Third, the Ueatment method is described as involving a large and
expensive filtration system or plant. This specification is intended to
11. This statement may be a slight over simp!i f icat ion, but it is necessary to
make sure that respondents value giardiasis in terms of morbidity rather
than mortality.
114
-------
convey, in an economical manner, the notion that the solution involves
equipment rather than chemicals.
This is the total description oE the giardia risk reduction program which
all the respondents will receive. As noted above, this is far less information
than we attempted to convey in the THM survey. It addresses the most crucial
issues, but begs many questions which the respondents may have. In so far as
we are replicating a referendum, this amount o£ information is irore than many
voters have when they vote on a referendum (Magelby, 1984). And the
interviewers were prepared to answer the follow-up questions listed above.
One problem with providing information on demand is that respondents,
depending on how many questions they ask., receive different amounts of
information. The instrument is so constructed that the interviewers will
identify the questions which they answered for each respondent. This will make
it possible to compare those who asked certain questions and received the
preprogrammed answer with those who did not.
CONCLUSION
The approach to valuing giardia presented in this chapter represents a
further development of the referendum format for valuing public goods. It is
somewhat unconventional in the small amount of information provided about the
good, but the good is one which lends itself to a referendum of this type and
our developmental work suggests that the approach is likely to te feasible.
These assumptions are currently being tested in a small scale sirvey.
The efficiency and economy to be gained by simulating referenda in
telephone interviews is considerable. However, the validity of a survey of
this type depends upon the information available to the survey designer about
how people think about the issue. Without this knowledge, the brief scenario
may be implausible or meaningless to many respondents because key aspects of
the situation from their point of view are missing. In such a situation they
may give random answers or impute meanings which the researcher does not intend
them to impute. The degree to which respondents request additional information
about the scenario constitutes an important test for the ins turn ent described
in this chapter. If respondents tend to ask questions about the referendum
before giving their opinion, and if we have anticipated the questions which
they ask so that the interviewers have suitable answers available to provide to
115
-------
the respondents, it would appear that the respondents are receiving the
information thai is pertinent to their voting decision.
116
-------
REFERENCES
Acton, J.P. }<)/'}. Evaluating Public. P t ok t ams to Save Lives: _Thf Case fit Ht-:ari
At tank:,' (Santa Monica, California. Rand),
Aitchison, J. and J.A.C. Brown. 1369, The Lognormal Distribution with Special
Reference Jto 1 l;: Uses in Economi cs (London, Cambridge Uni versi ty Press).
Amemi ya, Takeshi. 1973. "Regression Analysis Whori the Dependent Variable is
Truncated Normal," Econometrics, vol, 41, pp. 997-1016.
Amemi ya, T., am! M. P>o.\d: in. V>74. "Regi ess ion Analysis When the Depend'-n t
Variable is Truncated Log-Normal, With an Application to the
Determinants of the Duration of Welfare Dependency," International
Economic Review, vol. 15, pp. 485-496.
Amemiya, T. 1984. "Tobit Models; A Survey," Journal of Econometrics, 24, 3-61.
Amemi ya, T. 1985. Advanced Econometiics (Cambridge; Harvard University Press).
Audits and Suivoys. incorporated. 19f?b. "PubJic Attitudes Toward Drinking Water
Issues," final report submitted to the American Water Works Association
Research Foundation (Denver, Colorado).
Box, C.E.P., William C. Hunter, and J. Stuart Hunter, Statistic.': for
Experimentors (Mev York, John Wiley).
Brown, R.A., and C.H. Green. 1981. "Threats to Health and Safety; Perceived
Risk and Willingness Lo Pay," Social Science and Medicine vol. 1 r.i. pp.
67-75. " — -
BruvoId, V., and J. Gaston. 1980. "Public Notification; Pain or Panacea?"
Journal of the American Water Woiks Association, vol. 12, no. 3, p 124.
Bruvold, V., L. Wardlav, and J. Gaston. 1985, "An Evaluation of Public
Notification Requirements in California," Journal of the American Water
Works Association, vol. 77, no, 3, p 40-43.
Burness, H.S., R.G. Cummings, A.F. Mehr, and M.S. Walbert. 1983. "Valuing
Policies Which Reduce Environmental Risk," Natural Resources Journal,
vol. 23, pp. 675-682.
Chestnut, Lauraine G. and Daniel M. Violet te. 1984. "Estimates of Willingness
to Pay for Pollution-Induced Changes in Morbidity. A Critique for
Benefit-Cost Analysis of Pollution Regulation." Report prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C by Energy and Resource
Consultants, Inc. (Washington, D.C.. NTTS, PB85-233708).
117
-------
Clark, Robert M., and Richard G, Stcvie. 1978. "Meeting the Drinking Water
Standards: The Price of Regulation," in Clifford S. Russell, ed., Safe
Drinking Water: Current and Future Problems {Washington, D.C., Resourr.es
for r.he Future).
Cochran, W.G. 197/. Sampling Techniques, 3rd ed. (New York, Wiley).
Cohen, Bernard I.., and I-Sing Loc. 1979. "A Catalog of Risks," Health Physics,
vol. 36, pp. 707 17.7.
Cook, Philip j., and Daniel A. Graham. 1977. "The Demand for Insurance and
Protection: The Case of irreplaceable Commodities," Quarterly Journal
of Economics, vol. 91, pp. 143 56.
Cotruvo, Joseph A, 1981. "THMs in Drinking Water," Environmental Science and
Technology, vol. 15, no. 3. pp. 268-274, March.
Covello, Vincent T. 1983. "The Perception of Technological Risks: A Literature
Review," Technological Forecasting and Social. Change, vol. 23, op. 285-
297. " '
Cragg, J.G. 1971. "Some Statistical Models tor Limited Dependent Variables with
Application to the Demand for: Durable Goods," Ecouometrica, vol. 39, pp.
829-844. '
Crouch, Fdmund A.C., and Richard Wilson. 1982. Risk/Benefit Analysis
(Cambridge, Massachusetts, Ballinger).
Crouch, F..A C. , R. Wilson, and L. Zeisc. 1983. "The Risks of Drinking Water,"
Water Resources Research, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1359-1375.
Culp, Gordon, ed. 1984. Trihalomethane Reduction in Drinking Water (Park Ridge,
New Jersey, Noyes Publications).
Deacon, R. and P. Shapiro. 1975. "Private Preference for Collective Goods
Revealed Through Voting on Referenda," American Economic Review, vol.
6 5, no, 5p p. 943 - 9 5 5.
Desvousges, William H., V. Kerry Smith, Diane H. Brown, and D. Kirk Fate.
"1984- "The Role ot Focus Groups in Designing a Contingent Valuation
Survey to Measure the Benefits of Hazardous Waste Management
Regulations," Draft" Report fo the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, ReseaLch Triangle Institute).
Desvousges, William II., V. Kerry Smith, and Mat I. hew P. Mr.Givney. 1983. "A
Comparison of Alternative Approaches tor Estimating Recreation and
Related Benefits of Water Quality Improvements," (Washington, D.C., U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy Analysis, EFA-230--0V
83-001).
DDlman, Don A. 19/8. Mail and Telephone Surveys -- The Total Design Method
(New York, Wiley).
118
-------
Dill man, Don A. 1983. "Mail and Other Self-Administered Questionnaires,"
Chapter 10 in Peter H. Rossi, James D. Wright, and Andy L. Anderson,
eds., Handbook of Survey Research (New York, Academic Press).
Duan, N. , W. Manning, C. Morris, and J. Newhouse. 1983. "A Comparison of
Alternative Models for the Demand of Medical Care, "Journal of business
and Economic Statistics, 1, 115 126.
Fisehoff, B., P. Slovic, and S. I.ichteristein. 1981. "Lay Foiblet and Expert
Fables in Judgments About Risks," in T. O'Riordan and R.K. Turner, cds,,
Progress in Resources Management and Environmental Planning, Vol. 3
(Chichester, Wiley).
Frey, Jamos ti. 1983. Survey Research by Phone (Beverly Hills, Sage).
Goldberger, A.S. 1968. "The Interpretation and Estimation of Cobb-Douglas
function," Econometrica, 36, 464-472,
Green, P. E. and V. Srinivansan. 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer
Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 3, pp.
103 123.
Gregory, Robin. 1982. Valuing Non-Market Goods: An Analysis of Alternative
Approaches, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation (University of British
Columbia).
Gregory, Robin. 1986. "Interpreting Measures of Economic Loss: Evidence from
Contingent Valuation and Experimental Studies," Journal cf Environmental
Economics and Management, forthcoming.
Groves, T. and J.O. Ledyard. 1986. "Incentive Compatibility Sir.ce 1972," in T.
Groves, R. Radner, S. Reiter, eds. In format ion Incentives, and Economic
Mechanisms (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).
Hammer ton, M., M.W. Jones-Lee, and V. Abbott. 1982. "The Consistency and
Coherence of Attitudes to Physical Risk," Journal of Trarsport Economics
and Policy, vol. 16, pp.. 181-199.
Health Effects Research Laboratory and Municipal Environmental Laboratory.
1979. "Waterborne Transmission of Giardiasis," report to the E.P.A.
(Washing ton» D.C.).
Huber, Peter J. 1981. Rohust S lat i s t i cs (New York, John Wiley).
Jones-Lee, M.W, 1974. "The Value of Changes in the Probability ol Death or
injury," Journal of. Political Economy, 82, 835-850.
Jones-Lee, M.W. 1976. The Value of Life; An Economic Analysis (London, Martin
Robertson; Chicago, Chicago University Press).
Jones-Lee, M.W. 1976. The VaIue of Life: An Economic Analysis (Chicago:
U ni ver s i t y of Chicago Press).
119
-------
Jones-Lee, M.V., M, Hammer ton, and P.R. Philips. 1985, "The Value of Safety:
Results of a National Sample Survey," The Economic Journal, vol 95, pp.
49-72.
Jones-Lee, M. W., ed, 1982. The Value of Life and Safety (Amsterdam, New
Holland).
Kami , Edi , David Schmeidler, and Karl Vind. 1983. "On State Dependent
Preferences and Subjective Probabilities," Economett ica, vol. 51, July,
pp. 1021-31.
Kahneman, Daniel, Paul Slovic, and Amos Tversky, eds. 198?. Judgment Under
Uncertainty: Heui istics and Biases ((Cambridge, Cambridge University
Pres..5 >,
Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky. 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of
Decisions Under Risk", Econometrita, vol. 4?, no. 2, pp. 263-91.
Lin, T. F., and P. Schmidt. 1984. "A Test of the Tobit Specification Against
and Alternative Suggested by Cragg," Review of Economics and Statistics,
vol. 66, pp. 174-177. " """"
Arthur D. Little Company. 1984. Evaluation of the State-of the Ar t in Benetiij;
Asses snien 1 Methods for Publi< Policy Purposes. Report to the Divi;:in:i
of Policy Research and Analysis, National Science Foundation.
(Cambridge, Mass.: Arthur D. Little).
I.oehman, Edna T. et ad. 1979. "Di str i but tonal Analysis of Regional Benefits
and Cost of Air Quality Control," Journal of Environwental Economics and
Management, vol. 6, pp. 222-243.
Machi na, M.J. 1982. "Expected Utility Analysis Without the Independence
Axion, " Econometrica^ 50, 2 77-324.
Macbina, H.I. 1983a. "The Economic Theory of Individual Behavior Toward Risk;
Theory, Evidence, and New Directions," Technical Report No. 433,
Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences, Stanford
University, October.
Macbina, H.J. 1983b. "Generalized Expected Utility Analysis and the Nature of
Observed Violations of the Independence Axiom," in B.P. Stigum and F.
Wens top, eds., Foundations of Ot.ili ty and Risk Theory wi th Applications
(D. Reide1 Publishing Company), 263-293.
Maddala, G.S. 1933. Limi ted-Dependent Variables in Econometrics (New York,
Cambridge University Press).
Markus, Haze], and R.B. Zajonc, 198b. "The Cognitive Perspective in Social
Psychology," Chapter 4 in Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aionson, eds., The
Handbook of Social Psychology (New York, Random House).
120
-------
Marin, A,, and G, Psaeharopoulos. 1983- "The Reward for Risk in the Labor
Market; Evidence from the United Kingdom and a Reconcilie:tion with Other
Studies," Journal of Political Economy, vol. 'Mi, pp. 827 853.
Mishan, E. 1971. "An Evaluation of Life and Limb: A Theoretical Approach,"
Journal of Pollt ical Economy, 79, 687-705.
Mitchell, Robert Cameion and Richard T. Carson. 1984. A Contingent Valuation
Estimate of; National Freshwater Benefits: Technical Report to the Ti.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (Washingtors. B.C., Re.voui ces tor tln=
future).
Mitchell, Robert Cameron and Richard T. Carson. 1986. "Some Comnents on the
State of the Arty Repoit," in Ronald C. Cummin^s, et at. Valuing
Envi ronmentai Goods (Totaw.t, New Joisey, Rowman and Al innheld).
Mitchell, Robert Cameron, and Richard T. Carson. Forthcoming. Using Surveys to
Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method (Washington, 0.C.,
Resources foi t hcj future).
MITRE Corporation. 1981. "Estimating the Value of Life Saving: A State of the
Art Review," Draft Repoit (Washington, D.C., U, S, Environmental
Protection Agency, Economic Analysis Branch, Office of Pesticides).
Mood, A.M., F.A. Grayhill, and D.C. Roes. 19/4. In 11oduction I > the Theory of
Statistics, 3rd. ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill).
Mullahy, John. 1984. "A Vald Test for the Cragg -Tobi t Model," draft paper
(Wash i ngton, 11.C., Resoui ces tor the Future).
Payne, Stanley L. 1951. The Art of Asking Questions (Princeton, Princeton
University Press).
Rohtic.h, Gerard A. 19/fl. "On Blinking Uafe; and Health," in CM I lord „S .
Ru se ] 1 , ed . , Safe Dr i ill: i np; Wa tei. : Current and Future Problems
(Washington, D.C., Resomces for the Future).
Rossi, Peter H., James D. Wright, and Andy B. Anderson, eds. 1983. Handbook of
Survey Research (New York, Academic Press).
Rowe, R. D. and L. G. Chestnut. The Value of Visibility: Economic Theory and
Applications for Air Pollution Control. Cambridge, MA, Abt Books.
Safe Drinking Water Committee. 1981. Drinking Water and Health (Washington,
D.C., National Academy ol Science).
Schving, Richard C. 1979. "Longevity Benefits and Costs of Reducing Various
Risks," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 13, pp. 133-
345. " " " ' ~
121
-------
SheatsIcy, Paul B. 198,"}. "Questionnaire Construction and Item Writing," chapter
6 in Peter Rossi et al. , eds. , Handbook of Survey Research (New York,
Academic Press). ~ ^ ~ ———
Shepat d, D.S., and R.J. Zeckhauser. 1982. "Life-Cycle Consumption and
Willingness to Pay for Increased Survival," in M.W. Jones-Lee, ed., The
Value of Life and Safety (Amsterdam, Hew Holland).
Slavic, P., B. Fischotf, and S. Lichtenstein. 1982a. "Response Mode, Framing,
and Information Processing Effects in Risk Assessment," in R.M. Hogarth,
ed., New Directions for Methodology of. Social and Behavioral Science:
The Framing of Questions and the Consistency Response (San Francisco,
Jossey-Bass).
Slovic, Paul, Raruch Pischofl, and Sarah Lichtenstein. 1982b. "Facts Veisus
Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk," in Daniel Kahneman ct al., eds..
Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press).
Siiith, V. K2iry, W. Dcsvousges, and A. Myrick Freeman, III. 1983. Valuing
Changes in Hazardous Waste Risks: A Contingent Valuation Approach.
Draft report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, Research Tiiangle Institute).
Stcgraan, C., and G. Schneider, 1982a. "Customer Awareness of Public
Notification," Journal of the American Water Works Association, vol. 74,
no. 5, pp. 229-2 33.
Stegman, C. , and G. Schneider. 1982b. "The Cost and Effectiveness of Public
Not i L i ¦ a t i on ol MCI- Violations," Journal of the American Water Works
Association, vol. 74, no. 2, pp 59-65.
Thaler, R. , and S. Rosen. 1976. "The Value o£ Saving a Life: I-.v i dencc from the
Labour Market," in N.E. Terleckyi, ed., Household Production and
Consumpt ion (New York; National Bureau of Economic Research).
Tobin, J. 1958. "The Estimation of Relationships for Li mi ted Dependent
Variables," Econometri ca, vol. 26, pp. 24-36.
Tull, Donald S. and Del I. Hawkins. 1984. Marketing Research: Measurement and
Method, 3rd ed., (New York, HacHillan),
Urquhart, John, and Klaus Hei!mann. 1984. Risk Watch (New York, Facts on File).
Weinstein, M.C., D.S. Shepart!, and J.S. Pliskiu. 1980. "The Economic Value ei
Changing Mortality Probabilities: A Decision-Theoretic Approach,"
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 44, 373 193.
Whitley, Karla L. 1985. "The Effect of Public Notification on Consumer
Knowledge and Perception of Trihalomethanes in Drinking Water," H.A.
thesis (Southern Illinois University).
122
-------
Zeckhauser, R. 1975. "Procedures for Valuing Lives," Public Policy, vol., 23,
pp. 419-464,
12 i
-------
APPENDIX A
TRANSCRIPT OF CARBONDALE AND MARION FOCUS GROUPS
INTRODUCTION
Four focus groups were conducted in southern Illinois as part of the
instrument development stage of the THM risk study; two in Carbondale and two
in Marion. All the groups, which consisted of from 7 to 12 participants each,
were conducted by Robert Mitchell. In each case the participants were
recruited from the League of Women Voters and the Junior Chamber of Commerce -
These organizations were given an honorarium for their help in arranging their
members' participation.
The two hour sessions began with a discussion of drinking water in general
which led to a discussion of drinking water contamination and THMs. The last
portion of the discussion was devoted to obtaining the participants' reactions
to various versions of the risk ladder and the cigarette equivalent scale.
Examples of the handouts which were used for this purpose aie included in this
appendix.
At the oeginning of each session, the participants weie told that Mitchell
was designing a questionnaire about drinking water. In order to do this he
needed to unlei stand how people in J he area feel about their drinking water.
He emphasized that there were no right, or wrong answers to the questions he
would ask, and that their frank and honest opinions were desired. The
Carbondale groups were tape recorded and the complete transcript is presented
here. As the tape machine did not work for the Marion groups, the transcript
consists of notes written by Mitchell and Karla Whitley immediately after each
session. (V"»it;cy organized the groups arid acted as rapporteur).
A- 1
-------
TRANSCRIPT OF FOCUS GROUP #1
CARBONDALE, IL 12/3/84
EM HOT DID YOU RATE YOUR WATER?
I rated my water, I checked several things and I said it varies.
Don't you think it varies, Lillian? I drink a lot of water and some days
it's quite good and some days I really don't like it. It's never terrible
and it's never marvelous.
The waters I've got a business in town, at least I do until the end of
this week. I pay two water bills. The water in town that I pay for isn't
as good as what I got when I lived in the water district.
You mean in terms of taste?
Yes.
I used to be on the Kinkaid Water District and they switched me to the
Carbondale about a year ago. I can't tell a difference. It could be
because we were on the extremity of the Kinkaid Lake Water Cistrict and we
are on the extremity of the Carbondale Water District, but I can't tell the
difference. Maybe because I'm not sensitive enough to water taste.
I rate this water against the best water I ever had and it's what kind
of coffee it makes and how it washes clothes and dishes. Bl t mostly on
taste. Good water to me is tasteless.
The thing of it is you gotta realize is that some of the plumbing it
runs through before it gets to you. Where I'm at with ray business, it runs
through a. copper line before it gets into the building. There is a lot of
corrosion in it, the pipe has been there a long time.
RM WHAT ABOUT THE COLOR?
I never see anything wrong with it.
Until you fill the swimming pool up with it and then it's green. You
can see about 2 feet down into it. Beyond that you can't see a thing.
That was a couple of years ago. If you fill it; up from the hydrant.
South highway water line is moderately new because that: area expanded
about 15 years ago and the source of the water was changed and Cedar Lake
as the primary source so that ours goes into Carbondale and then comes out
again. It is very different water except when the lake turns over, it's
very good.
RM HOW OFTEN DOES THE LAKE TURN OVER?
Twice a vear—well,- really only once a year—-in the sumrter.
A-2
-------
RM ON THE CHEMICAL SIDE, WHAT ABOUT THE FREEDOM FROM CHEMICALS THAT MIGHT
HARM YOU HUMANS, HOW DO YOU RATE THE WATER?
I think ours has quite a lot of chemicals in it.
I think it does too but there is no real way of knowing because facts
are not published. They probably should be.
RM We're talking about, not chlorine they put in to treat it, but
basically other kinds of chemicals.
Mercury, pollutants, you can't always tell from the taste.
Actually, isn't it one in the same. The chemicals they put in react
with the chemicals in the water to create chemicals and so it's a number of
things. And when you drink the water who's going to separate out the
chemicals in it. I am more concerned about the chemicals that come from
the chemicals they put in to treat it than the reactions afterwards. We do
have an awful lot of chlorine put into our water. And in the output you
get the carcinogenic byproducts out of that and I'm not happy about that,
RM HAS THERE BEEN ANY PUBLICITY ABOUT THE BYPRODUCTS IN CARBONDALE?
No. Not very much. Occasionally.
Wasn't there an article in there about one of the effects of one of
the chemicals we added created a carcinogen?
Yes. Very recently there was an article like that.
RM WAS IT THM?
I can't remember now.
A while ago there was a scare about eating fish out of the lake that
mercury in it because apparently we were in an orchard area and they
sprayed the fruit trees over 100 years or more and these contaminated the
water. And there was an article in the paper that said there was it didn't
affect the water and I haven't seen anything else on that. A couple of
years ago*
They switched the water to a new reservoir which we mentioned
earlier—Cedar Lake—and it's a relatively new lake, about 10 years old> it
was in a heavy orchard area. All that area down there Is fruit orchards.
The one bad thing that I have objection to about the water all these
years is when during the building season of the year, It's necessary for
them to attach plumbing and they flush out all of the mains. When they do
that the water comes out a horrible color and if you happen to wash your
clothing in it, at that time, the only way you can get the yellow out of
whits clothes is lemon juice and it takes a heck of a lot of lemon juice s;o
get a sheet back white again. It certainly is unappetizing to drink but I
don't know that it's dangerous. I never heard anybody say it was dangerous
to drink but you can so innocentlv get a washer load of clothes in there.
A-3
-------
They don't tell you, there is no warning.
Yes, there's radio warnings.
Weilj they do warn you but this happened for a good many years without
any warnings. Now they do put it in the paper on such and such a day there
will be this construction and water main flushing.
Hell, that must be one advantage of living in the inner city because 1
don't recall that.
This happens in the inner city.
They flush all over the city once a year.
Of course, the building is going on the periphery more but the
flushing is going right through the inner city because when we lived on
Elizabeth Street was when it was the worst and they didn't give us any
advance warning. Sow they do.
KM HOW DID YOU RATE NUMBER C? HOW MANY OF YOU GAVE IT A 10 RATING?
Nob ody.
KM THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE MOST CONCERNED, WHICH ARE THE PARTICULAR
CHEMICALS THAT YOU THINK ABOUT?
I'm thinking in general rather than specific.
We really don't know what is out there. After all, in the Crab
Orchard area, of course, you are probably familiar with the Dioxin problem
already.
Years ago, Crab Orchard Refuge Area the industrial area around the
lake and when it closed down they had a plant there that they made electric
motors, transformers, and they buried the by-products and since then it has
kinda seeped right into the lake..
Who's going to clean it up.
RM WHO DO YOU THINK SHOULD CLEAN IT UP?
It falls under the federal jurisdiction. Because the company has been
out of business for a. number of years. It's on federal ground.
It's federal property.
Wasn't it Ordell? Well, that isn't on Crab Orchard Lake, is it?
Yes, it is.
I was corrected, Carbondale never did draw their water off Crab
Orchard Lake..
A-4
-------
Oh, yes they did (agreement)
The federal government said we will not sell you any more water.
You've got to get your own and that is why Cedar Lake was built.
One of the concerns was how long had that been festering there before
somebody ever discovered it. They only found it this last year.
The company went out of "business in '76. Sangamo Electric. They
sold out to another company and went out of business.
That shows how carefully we read the newspapers.
RM HOW SAFE IS YOUR DRINKING WATER?
You have to assume that it is safe and that we aren't all being
poisoned or you go on a crusade to change it. And wc don't know that it
isn't safe so you have to make the assumption that as of right now it's
safe.
As far as we know.
It's relatively safe. Not as safe as the water that we drank when we
were young.
That's a good qualifying word, relatively.
RM What you are saying is that it is safe enough to drink and use it, but
It could be safe, it could be cleaner,
I would feel better if we didn't put so much additives in It- In
fact, some people claim that Cedar Lake water of and by itself is safer to
drink than the water we drink after it's been purified. 1 would feel safer
if I knew we were putting less things into it. In other words, if the
source was primary enough that you could do that, but obviously you can't
because it's gotta put things in it for the bacteria and what not,
RM A byproduct of chlorine is thought to be a possible carcinogen (THMS).
Bat they can take it out, can't they? They said they can add a
chemical and It takes out because it is one of the more dangerous chemicals
as I remember or carcinogen.
RM There are treatment processes that can be used.
Or were we just told that in the article to pacify our fears?
RM You have soae confidence in your water because of assurances such as
the one you mentioned. If there were problems, that things would be
done to it.
There is another factor.
A b
-------
I am skeptical of it. I generally go to the store and buy drinking
water, I don't drink much from the tap. Maybe it's just that I am
skeptical. I really don't know what's in it. I would like to, but I have,
it has tasted bad before. It has been cloudy before so I'm more or less
playing it safe, trying to. I've thought about "putting a water filter on
too—on the faucet,
RM DOES ANYBODY ELSE BUY BOTTLED WATER?
Nos but I do have a purifier.
But what does that take out?
It is supposed to take out the chemicals, but I really don't know what
it takes out anyway. It has a charcoal filter on it and it is supposed to
take out a lot of things. My husband bought it, I don't know what it takes
out.
I want to ask her a question. How often....
RM One person buys bottled water and is thinking about installing a
device and Gayle has a device, and no one else as of now....
What do they do about their ice?
Don't you think that we may feel a little more confident about our
water than people in an industrial area? Because at least we don't have
industrial waste being dumped in. We know we've got agricultural wastes
that may be polluting us. I think we're not as fearful about it as we
night be if we lived in some other place. But we still are kind of
skeptical. None of us think it's perfect.
RM WHAT COULD HAPPEN THAT COULD LEAD YOU TO NOT THINK IT'S SAFE?
Some news report or the mercury that they told us about five years ago
is really there in the water.
Confirmation of information or a new scare or something. They come up
about once every five years.
RM IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A SCARE GIVES YOU SOME
ASSURANCE THAT THE WATER IS SAFE?
No. There's things going on in all fields right now as far as you
look into beef now they're adding steroids and all sorts of hormones to the
food. I mean you're getting in the water, herbicides, insecticides, dioxin
possibly, sulfur, sulfuric acid possibly. The possibilities are endless.
One thing is that you can try drinking water and it has less contaminants
than your other drinks have in them. Wherever your coca-cola's made—in
St. Louis or Chicago—you're in bad shape there. It seems to me that you
have to be satisfied with your water because the alternates are more
detrimental. Milk in its fat content, DTD's and hormones and that sort ot
thing.
-------
EM BASICALLY, YOU FEEL THAT WATER COMPARED TO OTHER THINGS IS OK? THERE
ARE A LOT OF OTHER THINGS AROUND, BUT WATER IS NO WORSE THAN A LOT OF
OTHER THINGS AROUND, PERHAPS BETTER?
If we could do something about it we would make it more pure but our
capacity to do that is limited because of the bureaucracy involved and
because of the focus of our interests in general, in society, is not on
quality but on quantity. The cost would also...
We don't have a crisis here. We don't have water that tastes like
sulfur and we don't have water that looks yellow and we don't have water
that we know had dioxin in it, we don't have a crisis. We are not
satisfied with our water, but we are not unsatisfied.
Water here is 100 percent better than what you would get in Chester.
It'3 relative.
One thing that I think is not clear is what testing procedures and how
often tests are conducted. Usually we don't find out about anything until
after somebody has discovered it is already there.
Last summer they had an article in the paper that we had too high a
count of something in the water, therefore, don't complain if you find mora
chlorine, you may. When they quit putting it in they put a notice in the
paper the problem had been met and we are going back to the normal. I
think that kind of public relations give us a sense at least that things
aren't too bad. That they are watching. It isn't something we have on our
mind to worry about.
m HOW MANY OF YOU AGREE WITH MARY JANE THAT THEY REALLY ARE WATCHING
PRETTY MUCH? THAT IF SOMETHING REALLY BAD HAPPENS YOU'LL HEAR ABOUT
IT?
The State Department of Health requires, I think it's a continuous
monitoring, at least once a day.
But what does it monitor for?
Probably bacteria.
But not for some of these chemicals I wager.
IFm not saying they do it, I'm saying that the public relations they
carried on allay the average person's average interests. Through that, but
whether they should be, I have no idea.
I also think because of the University we have very well trained
people in the water plant. I think that we are better off than many places
in that we have a well run water plant«,
I remember when we visited with the children at school they told how
often they checked it and it was constant. But I think somebody raised an
interesting question, if thay change what they check for now that there are
more contaminants in the air. We hope they are.
-------
Maybe the part per million level is raised or lowered according to
whatever they're looking for.
RM DOES THE WATER COMPANY—IS IT A MUNICIPAL COMPANY (YES)—HAVE A PRETTY
GOOD REPUTATION IN TOWN?
It is evidently monitored or watched pretty closely by the federal
government because we were forced to put in a new treatment plant, weren't
we?
Yes, it's not bad.
RM IT'S WELL RUN?
It's a money maker.
Yes, but that doesn't take care of chemicals.
That was a waste treatment plant. That's a different kind of thing.
But what you say is true.
There are all sorts of checks going on from different governmental
agencies. Now whether they're functioning efficiently and freely, who
knows?
RM WHO DO YOU TRUST MOST? LET'S SAY YOU GET INFORMATION OR PEOPLE SAY
SOMETHING ABOUT WATER, WHO WOULD YOU TRUST MOST FOR THAT INFORMATION?
The federal—furthest away from the local manipulation,.
RM WOULD THE REST OF YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
The University if they did an independent test. (agreement)
You would want somebody outside of the department, the city structure.
At one time, I would have trusted the EPA.
Actually, the state EPA is pretty good- They are underfunded.
The state EPA functions pretty well.
The State Health Department and the EPA require constant monitoring
and they approve and so on.
RM THEN YOU HAVE A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TRUST IN THE STATE EPA?
I think so, a number of years ago we did a study on Carbondale's water
supply and we knew all these answers because we were to some extent for
getting for Cedar Lake because it was a very miserable situation and since
then we have assumed that everything is doing well. Haven't done anything
about it.
A-8
-------
KM IF THE CITY MANAGER SAID THE WATER IS SAFE, YOU WOULD NOT TRUST HIM 01
HER AS MUCH AS YOU WOULD THE OTHER AGENCIES YOU HAVE MENTIONED SO FAR?
We would have to know where he got his information. (agreement)
He's probably just rereading information that was handed to him.
From the Water Department.
RM WHAT ABOUT THE LOCAL PHYSICIANS? WOULD THEY BE A SOURCE?
No.
Maybe the Public Health Department. They might know something about
what's going on. County Health Department.
They are the ones who approve private water systems.
There are quite a lot of private water systems in this area too.
Other than municipal.
Well, cisterns, etc.
RM THAT WOULD SERVE A SMALL CLUSTER OF HOUSES?
Usually individual houses.
1 used to live on one three years ago. It had a deep well on it and
it served six houses.
RM DID YOU GET THE WATER TESTED REGULARLY?
No, About once a month one of the people who lived out there, a
professor at the university, would bring It in and get it checked. And
there was nothing wrong with it so we just kept using it. It didn't have
any chemicals in it. It was a deep well and we didn't add anything to it.
The only thing is you had to watch your wash cause their was a lost of
rust. Lot of iron in it. Hard water. Played devil with pipes, washing
machines, water heaters.
Tasted good,
How do you compare its taste to what you drink now.
I liked it better. I like deep well water better.
RM THM is a side product of chlorine. There is a certain amount of
uncertainty about what its effects would be because it is at a very
low level. They have been found to be carcinogens in rats. The
guideline for levels above which it is dangerous have been
established. These are very small amounts. The amount of THM varies
according to the organic matter in the water. Carbondale, I believe,
has exceeded this level a couple of times. Not by a lot but by a
little. Could we talk about your reactions to this? It is uncertain
A-9
-------
whether THM's cause cancer, but there is an indication that it is
probably something to worry about. This is a low level. It's
exceeded occasionally by not very much. To not exceed the standard
would require the installation of some equipment that would cost
money. DOES THIS KIND OF THING CAUSE YOU ANY CONCERN AND IF SO WHAT
CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT?
I would be interested in knowing if there were any studies on water
systems that are naturally chlorinated and what the results there were in ,
regard to THM.
I don't believe there are any that are naturally chlorinated but there
are some that don't need chlorine because they are from mountain streams,
etc.
I used to live in Galesburg and I heard that they did not need to
chlorinate their water.
RM Or was it fluoride possible?
That's probably what it was.
1 didn't realize that we had exceeded the limit. That does concern me
especially because there are chemicals that the EPA set maximum levels for
safety and then a few years later they said that's too much and they said
that the safe level is a lot lower than that. So that if we exceed the
current what is thought of as a safe level it may be that we are even
unsafer than we think. I didn't know anything about it. And I really
think that if it is known how to remove this stuff it's worth paying a
little more taxes.
I do too. I would pay a little more here and would hope that the
federal government would cut the defense budget. Considering I was looking
at what I think I spend for water a year and next to air it is the most
important thing I've got I'd spend a little more for better water.
I'd go along with that.
RM HOW MUCH DO YOU FOLKS SPEND?
It really depends on how much you use. Now that my son is not home
washing his hair I spend about $80 a year. Water bill is your water and
sewer.
For us it's about $100 a year unless it is a dry year and we water our
garden. Our sewage is not included.
Depends on the size of your house, etc.
Has the question ever been raised, is there a chance that the chlorine
is used more freely than necessary because it is not particularly harmful
and it will kill all these things and we don't measure carefully enough to
get just the right amount, which would apparently make quite a difference
in these fractional amounts.
A-10 ,
-------
KM I think we can assume that the water treatment folks for the last
decade have been pretty aware of this problem.
If nothing else probably for economy because the more chemicals they
use the more it costs them.
RM They are professionals and they pride themselves on doing the optimal
jiggling around with the chemicals so that the best quality water is
obtained.
RM WHAT IF THE LOCAL WATER TREATMENT PEOPLE SAID IN THEIR PROFESSIONAL
JUDGEMENT THAT IT IS NOT WORTH IT TO INSTALL THIS EQUIPMENT, BUT THAT
THE WATER IS SAFE. THE LEVEL RISK OF INVOLVED IN OCCASIONALLY GOING
OVER THE STANDARD IS SO LOW THAT IT WOULD BE A WASTE OF MONEY TO
INSTALL THAT EQUIPMENT, WOULD YOU STILL WANT TO DO IT?
When the level goes up does that mean they are putting more chlorine
into the water at that period say when the lake is turning over and is full
of retting vegetation?
It's only when more chlorine is in the water.
So it's only periodic particularly in the summer?
Right,
There is a period of perhaps a week when the water quality isn't that
true in every summer. Some summers are worse than others.
RM Would it make a difference if it were just 5 or 10 days a year that
you were subjected to? That would be of less concern than if it were
something on a regular basis?
Yes. (agreement) Unless we found that there was a huge incidence of
cancer that could be traced to the THM and that's pretty hard to prove.
RM We ara talking about a. really low level.
If it's just a low grade and I imagine that it doesn't occur very
often, I think we would tolerate it. We have tolerated it. It is not a
question would we, we have. We've probably tolerated it for the last 5 to
6 years and no one has caused any uproar about it. I guess it isn't enough
to bother us. I haven11 felt like, going out and striking against it. If
it only occurs every once in a while you feel you won't drink water that
day or I won't drink in this period or I'11 go do something else. But if
it occurs every day you might think twice about it.
RM Let's say it occurs so that you wouldn't know in advance when it
occurs.
You never do.
RM But it is only a few days a year. Under those conditions, you
wouldn't spend a lot of money.
A-ll
-------
It has happened, but I don't think any of us has gone out for a
referendum to change it.
I don't think I would go on a crusade about that. I'm on too many
crusades already.
RM Of course, that's a lot of work. Let's say something is on the
ballot, like a referendum on a school board issue or something like
that. WHAT'S THE MOST YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO VOTE FOR AS AN INCREASE
IN YOUR WATER BILL TO HANDLE THIS KIND OF SITUATION?
No one has said from any level that we should be concerned because a
lot of what you fear comes from outside. Nobody was terribly concerned
about dioxin until a lot of other people said you should be concerned, this
is what it will do. Then suddenly, we all got concerned. How much are we
going to play in the scenario with outside people.
RM Let's say some environmentalists think it would be a really good thing
but it didn't have the support of local officials. WHAT IF THEY WERE
THE ONES THAT PUSHED THIS? The water treatment people in particular
think it is a waste of time and money. The state health people and
the national EPA people think it would be a good thing to reduce this,
but they don't have a strong position on it.
What kind of money are you talking about putting in equipment?
RM I'M ASKING WHAT WOULD IT BE WORTH TO YOU? WHAT IS THE MOST THAT YOU
WOULD BE WILLING TO FAY TO INSTALL THAT EQUIPMENT? PER YEAR ON AN
ANNUAL BASIS?
It wouldn't be much per parson.
I'd feel $1.00 a month added to the bill perhaps wouldn't be
inordinately high, for me, but it might be for other people.
It wouldn't for you, but I can think of some people that I know that
it would be way too much for.
I spend $5.00 a month on buying water—plus what I get from the tap.
There are so many things in our environment: that we ara learning that
are carcinogens and we don't fish Crab Orchard because of the dioxin and
are uneasy about other places but if you were going to pay for machinery to
take everything out or to eat beef that was only slaughtered and didn't
have steroids, where would it end?
If we are only talking about combatting THM, machinery for that, then
we might say whatever we say about adding to our bill but then 5 years from
now we might have to add $5 a month more for complex machinery that would
take out another possible carcinogen. So where do you go,
A-12
-------
RM SO THERE IS AN UPPER LIMIT TO YOUR CARCINOGEN REDUCTION PROGRAMS?
If we had our choice, I would personally eliminate all the carcinogens
from our environment at a cost that would benefit all of society and build,
us all up as better people. Sut that is impossible. People obviously
don't care5 people smoke right now and it is well proven that they are not
going to stop smoking and the facts are out. People are going to go ahead
and do it to themselves. People I talk to say you eat the beef with the
steroids, you drink the water with the chlorine and chloride and THMs,
they don't care, they say everything gives you cancer. Ultimately go back
to war5 it's all over. Live today.
I wondered if it was just for THM. I think it would be interested in
anything that affects the water, toxic waste, spring crops, and other
things that to me probably are more immediate to me than this.
I would pay for THM right now because that is what we know about now.
And the next thing that came along I would make a decision on that.
RM You would be concerned that maybe THM's isn't the worst thing In the
water.
Because at one time we didn't know where dyptheria came from.
This has reminded me of something. I come from New Orleans.
Everybody drank the city water and it wasn't until I left that it became
apparent that that was apparently the worse water in the country as far as
carcinogens and all of Che other problems. The taste isn't too bad but
everything else is terrible. Anyway, everybody drank the water. Very few
people drank distilled water. Very few people got filters for the water.
Now almost everybody I know has distilled water or has filters on their
water. The reason we got our filter was because we got one for each of our
parents and we bought a third for ourselves. In this area I don't sense
there is a crisis, there is no one hanging over our heads telling us that
this is really terrible water so there isn't the rush by everyone. There
were always some people who got distilled water and I think that a lot of
people In this area get distilled water. I'm talking about all levels of
New Orleans are now buying distilled water and putting the filters on. So
it's a different sense of the safety of your water. At some point along
the line when enough people say enough things about your water you reach
that point and you go out and do something about it. We are no where near
it here. At this point, I think most of us feel our water is fairly safe,
fairly ok, but not perfect. We would like it: better. I'm not sure we'd
pay an awful lot more to improve it. Some on the whole scale of
sensitivity would take an awful lot more before they would want to put
anything on. I don't think as a society we are ready to pass a tax to do
that.
RM WHAT WILL YOU PAY FOR HELP, GIVEN YOUR OBLIGATIONS, INCOME,
PRIORITIES?
If you were designing a proposition?
A -13
-------
You have to threaten the people to Ceil them that in 15 years they are
going to die from drinking the THM's. You must have a sensational death
rate that can be related to.
RM In other words, unless it is a really dramatic threat —
People wouldn't pay very much.
Unless you say something that is dramatic, sensational.
1 would pay for the device. The general public will never do it.
This group is quite a bit different group than the general public.
We keep ourselves pretty well informed.
In relation to what Gail was saying though, a little thing entered :qv
mind and I just thought what an opportunity it was for the water purifiers
to sell a product and I might just be a little suspicious of what was
behind all cf this.
That's very true. It would enter a lot of people's minds.
People might be skeptical.
As a matter of fact, we had a salesman come to our house a year or two
ago selling a thing you put on your faucet which was supposed to remove the
impurities and we didn't bite. Some people I know did. I never buy from
people who come to the door,
I asked the salesman what kind of impurities will it take out and he
didn't know. I also don't buy from door-to-door salesmen, but that was too
silly.
RM IF I USED THIS APPROACH fHAVING PEOPLE VALUE THE IMPROVEMENT BY SAYING
HOW MUCH THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY FOR THE EQUIPMENT] IT APPEARS
THAT I NEED TO CONVINCE PEOPLE THAT IT WOULD DO WHAT I SAY IT WILL DO?
Right,
RM Otherwise they are evaluating not what I think they are evaluating.
They are evaluating the uncertainty of this thing working which isn't
giving me what I need.
I think we are going to have more apprehensions about the THM's,. If
is practically unknown in the general public at this point so the
questionnaire would deal with something that was so remote or strange,
misunderstood, not understood that they would probably would say "Gee, I
don't know what that is all about" and you probably wouldn't get the
answers you want,
1 think she is right. You have to specify what it is you are trying
to take out of the water before you can say that this product will take it
out of the water. You have to understand what it is doing.
A-14
-------
I read that same article or saw that same Item in the Southern
Illinoisan that you are referring to and I skimmed through it and I said
"Oh heck" and 1 didn't bother to read it through and really understand it.
RM When was this again?
This was Last summer, (agreement)
RM You think people would understand things that are simpler. There are
things in the water that run a small risk of causing cancer. This
device would reduce the risk.
What's the standard mean?
RM The standard is this arbitrary number.
RM YOU WOULD WAFT MORE INFORMATION?
Me don't know how dangerous THM is,
RM WHAT INFORMATION WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE?
How many deaths per millions occur from cancer caused by THM? And how
many less would occur if you decreased the level?
In a study if you do so and so for so many years, drinking say 2
quarts of water a day for 20 years or whatever you drink, then this would
happen then you'll cut your life span down by so much years and that
usually has an impact. It seems like a way that is measurable to many
people's eyes including mine.
RM IF I SAID YOl? WOULD CUT YOUR LIFE EXPECTANCY BY THREE DAYS WOULD THAT
MAKE A DIFFERENCE?
No* (agreement) It would make sense to people but wouldn:t make any
difference,
It wouldn't make sense for a big expenditure. It would be
understandable,
MM WHAT If I SAID THAT THE RISK REDUCTION WOULD BE THE EQUIVALENT OF 24
CIGARETTES A YEAR?
That is negligible. In fact: most of us get if by referred smoking,
RM DO YOU THINK SMOKERS WOULD OBJECT TO USING THIS KIND OF THING?
I think the general public Is used to that by now.
They understand.
It might bug sone people, but I don't know. It's a good example.
A -1 5
-------
EM Another example would be Diet Coke and saccharin. We need to
communicate the risk simply.
You are afraid that smokers would not answer your questionnaire? What
difference would it make?
My risks are far higher in the business I deal in than 12 cigarettes a
year. I deal in waste motor oil, solvent, exhaust fumes, and stuff like
this everyday.
I agree.
You have to modify that questionnaire because in our area it is
equivalent to 5 packs a year and in 4.4 area it would be equivalent to 4
times that so. That's what I mean you say there are some city levels that
have reached that point whenever they made the survey several years ago.
Those people would definitely have a much greater interest in putting in
some kind of purification system.
RM WHAT IS THE LEVEL OF CIGARETTES A YEAR THAT WOULD BEGIN TO WORRY YOU?
100 packs. (confusion)
What is the danger of cancer when you smoke that little.
RM Risk of THMs... It's sort of the risk of dying in an airplane crash.
What is the cost that we will have to put out to save three days of
our lives compared to passing a law stopping people from slacking amongst
other people or reducing or eliminating lead from gasoline cr stopping
steroids from being placed in cows to get the same results would be a
comparison how much are you willing to give to pay a cost that
proportionate number.
RM IT WOULD MAKE IT EASIER FOR YOU TO THINK ABOUT IT 3Y COMPARING IT TO
SOME OTHER RISK REDUCTION PROGRAMS..,?
Maybe like the lead—people really know about that.
How much extra am I going to pay to get the lead out of gasoline?
Versus how much am I going to pay to take the THM out of my water and then
it seems more rational to the individual to spend the money.
At the place where you can get the best reduction.
One out of 100,000 doesn't seem like a lot of people. Statistically
it doesn't...
A-l 6
-------
TRANSCRIPT OF FOCUS GROUP #2
CARBONDALE, IL 12/4/84
KM DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOU GET YOUR WATER? WHICH WATER SYSTEM YOU ARE A
PART OF?
Kinkaid.
RM IS EVERYBODY PAST OF CARBONDALE?
No.
KM HOW MANY ARE CARBONDALE:
I'm South Highway.
That's Carbondale water.
We used to be Murdale but they just took over our lines so we are
Carbondale,
RM YOU HAVE A PRIVATE WEIL?
I have a cistern.
I use a lot of Carbondale water.
RM Those who have Carbondale water, how did you rate the overall quality
of Carbondale water? How many thought it was a 9 or 10, 8, 7, 6, 5.
We had a discussion group like this last night and there was quite a
diversity of opinion. As far as taste goes, how did you rate it? How
about Che Kinkaid water?
A low rating as far as I'm concerned.
I buy distilled water to drink, just to keep in the refrigerator.
RM ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH CISTERN AND WELL WATER?
Yes, quite satisfied.
RM WHAT ABOUT THE FREEDOM FROM CHEMICALS SIDE OF THINGS? HOW DID YOU
RATE THE CARBONDALE WATER?
I gave i t a four that was the lowest rating I gave.
I put I'm not sure, I don't know,
RM YOU THINK IT IS PASSABLE OB YOU WOULDN'T DRINK IT?
Right.
A-17
-------
RM AND THE KINKAID WATER ON CHEMICALS?
I rate it 6.
RM Not terrific but it seems ok.
RM HAS THERE BEEN ANYTHING IN THE NEWSPAPERS ABOUT PROBLEMS WITH THE
WATER AROUND HERE?
Marion has had trouble with water.
Not in Carbondale recently. There was a scare years ago at Cedar
Lake.
RM WHAT KIND OF SCARE WAS IT?
That it had some chemicals in it.
It was a new lake and there is vegetable material and organic material
in new lakes which is inundated when the lake is first filled and that
frankly has to disintegrate and the disintegration product puts tannic acid
in the water and various flavors and colors that are not very well
appreciated by the public. I think it was basically safe but it was
unpallatable. It has improved with the age of the lake. And that is true
with almost all new lakes—there is a period of time when the water is very
unpallatable until the lake adjusts itself.
RM IF YOU HAD TO TALK ABOUT THE SAFETY OF YOUR DRINKING WATER, HOW WOULD
YOU RATE IT?
I think Carbondale water is pretty safe. I'm biased, my father worked
in the water department. There are minerals and things in it that they
cannot take out; it is not a distillery.
Before I heard that I probably have a more negative view of it than
now because I'm somewhat of a skeptic in terms of chemicals in the
environment and especially when there is any governmental control or
anything and I'm more of a skeptic and I had occasion to call the water
district trying to find out what the sodium content was and I still don't
know. That made me a little suspicious if someone can't give simple kinds
of information like what's the sodium content of the water that we are
drinking. But I have been reassured now.
The only chemical they are putting in is chlorine. They put some lime
in there,, too.
Flouride too.
My husband is a dentist and he checks some of the water here in town
periodically for his patients and when he called Carbondale, he was
reassured because he asked about certain chemicals too and they assured him
that fluoride is added to an appropriate amount. When I say I'm not sure
because I wouldn't know what was harmful for a human or not. I'm not a
chemist and I don't know what good levels are. I have to rely on people to
make sure it is safe for us.
-------
KM IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU GIVE YOUR OWN OPINION. WHEN YOU THINK
ABOUT SAFETY WITH DRINKING WATER, WHAT KINDS OF THINGS WOULD BE UNSAFE
AS FAR AS YOUR DRINKING WATER?
If it smells bad, I won't drink it.
There are a couple of things that I would think of as not being safe
and one I've been to Mexico a couple of times and you don't drink their
water, I rated Carbondale water high for color, appearance, and taste
because I happen to like the way it tastes, but when you stop and think
about it, you think there must be a lot of stuff in here to make it pure
arid I don't know-what all chemicals. What they' re putting in it to make it
safe so that we don't get sick immediately. And what are the long term
problems because of that. That would be my concern.
RM EVEN THOUGH IT SMELLS OK?
It looks ok, smells ok, tastes ok, and I'm not getting sick but I'm
thinking maybe I'm really going to be sick down the road.
I would certainly think the process would be a shorter one with Cedar
Lake water than like it is with Mississippi River water.
RM THERE IS SOME REASSURANCE THAT THE SOURCE IS A GOOD SOURCE?
It!s somewhat more pure than what many communities have to rely on and
the isolation of the lake surrounded by forest is certainly much better
than industry and so on.
RM WATER THAT IS UNSAFE WOULD HAVE WHAT KIND OF CHARACTERISTICS?
Just look at it.
If the source looks bad and smells bad then you know there's a
physical plant somewhere around there dumping into it.
Ox a lagoon,
I lived here most of my life and I just now heard over the last year
or so little things about different chemical spills in the area that I
didn't know existed. You never know what's happened at some point in time
in an area and then they create a lake 25 years later in that area.
RM WHAT WOULD BE UNSAFE?
Toxic chemicals.
That Is what worries me is man-made chemicals. Man-made pollutants,
I don't think we know enough about it to know what's going to happen,
I've drank water from the Mississippi and water from Lake Michigan and
it doesn't taste that touch different and it doesn't look that much
different than the water that we drink from Carbondale. I lived in Chicago
for quite a while and I lived in St. Louis and it worries you to wonder
A- 1 '5
-------
what type of stuff I drank water from a cistern and sometimes it tasted
awful and smell you knew sometimes after a rain all that stuff from a dirty
roof was pouring down into it. Sometimes we would have to haul water and
dump into, but you don't worry about those kinds of things (lizards and
frogs) so much because they are natural. But when you talk about toxins
that has only been around for 5 to 10 years you have no idea that1s what
scares me.
The Mississippi River which has such a large watershed naturally there
is going to be some industries and cites and so forth which discharge into
the stream and therefore you have a coalition of pollutants whereas
Carbondale is fortunate to have Cedar Lake which is isolated. It has
surface water that is rain water that has accumulated there, but there are
controlled man-made sources of man-made pollutants that should leave a very
high quality of water there.
RM SO YOU SEE IT IS PRETTY FREE FROM THESE KINDS OF POSSIBLE CONTAMINANTS
THAT THE OTHER PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT?
I think that the possibility of contamination there is greatly reduced
over a river or whatever.
We used to live south of town in the country and our washer and dryer
used to drain into a creek and the fanner next to us his cows used to
urinate in that same creek and that would come past our house and enter
into Drury Creek and I think Drury Creek went into the water system supply
¦eventually..
No. It empties into Crab Orchard Creek below Crab Orchard Lake. And
as far as I know there is no water demand for human use from that point on.
I was down in New Orleans just last year and I was really amazed at
how well the water tastes down there and I was bragging about it, I finally
found somebody that knew where the water came from and 1 found it came from
the Mississippi River. It was the best I had ever tasted and it looked
nice and they must purify it. That's right at the end of the Mississippi
River and they were doing a good job. I don't know what all I was drinking
but it tasted good.
RM WHO WOULD YOU BELIEVE IF SOMEBODY SAID THE WATER WASN'T SAFE?
The superintendent of the water department would know what was going
on.
Department of Public Health - State.
I listen to the newspaper, not as a final authority but I certainly
give it consideration.
If there was a big investigation going on and the newspaper was
bringing it to our attention I think I would be concerned.
Radio.
A ZO
-------
That always concerns me too, though it seems like 1 am always the last
one in our neighborhood to know that the water should he boiled. If you
are not listening to the radio at that particular time or didn't talk to
your neighbor you are out of luck. lasts a day or two or a week, depending
on the break that causes it.
The point is they suggest boiling the water until samples are analyzed
so the water is not necessarily polluted however it is a precaution.
According to certain sources that say the water is really ok to drink,
it looks bad. They put enough chlorine in there to kill anything that
possibly could be in there. We haven't had too many people come down with
Tijuana disease.
When your water is shut off for any reason now, if you have got your
water disconnected it drives you crazy because you realize how often you go
to that tap and turn it on. You really do become very dependent on our
clean water source. I've been to Mexico and you are scared to death to
drink the water and we just got back from Europe, they give water to you in
a bottle if you ask for it. I don't know if that indicates we are tourists
or if they all drink it out of bottles too, I don't know if they have a
really big problem with their water source, Paris and Geneva. You
automatically get bottled water if you ask for water. I don't know if they
have a problem over there or not. You come back here and run it all you
want fairly cheaply when you consider,
SM WHO WOULD YOU BELIEVE IF PEOPLE SAID THE WATER WAS SAFE? IF YOU MOVED
TO A NEW TOWN, WHAT KINDS OF PEOPLE WOULD YOU BELIEVE?
Health Department and check it out with them, They are a reliable
source to me.
I've been inundated with too many movies where the people in authority
are pulling one over on us. Maybe it's too much Hollywood or whatever. I
think I woulc want to hear it more from university people that were
chemists. I don't know just some people that maybe were skeptical
themselves ar.d had gone out to prove it and had proven to their own
satisfaction that everything was okay.
Maybe several independent sources coming to the same conclusion.
The newspaper investigation or a special committee of people or the
university but 1 would not go with the voice of authority.
If I'm moving to a new area, I'd go with asking my employer or friends
that I worked with or next door neighbors because these other people you
ask them questions well I don't believe their answers. They will say
something else that what it really is.
I think I would start out assuming It as okay. 1 have never moved
into a house and assumed that you couldn't drink the water. Once in a
while you will be in a park or something and they are using lake water to
run the showers and toilets and they say don't drink the water. There
aren't any signs like that around Che problems.
-------
For water to be safe, it has to be checked both chemically and
biologically and, of course, about the only one that really can do that is
some institution which has biologists and chemists involved and, of course,
the Public Health Department is about the only one conveniently available.
I 'd check facilities and look at that and if there are a couple of
coffee filters where the water is going through we are in trouble. You can
look at that and see what kind of equipment they've got. If it's pretty
modern stuff you pretty well get the idea they at least know what they are
doing.
I buy water to drink, I don't like the color, the taste, the odor. He
drinks it right out of the tap. I feel that they know when it is unsafe.
It's just my preference.
As far as we are concerned, it's a basic difference between our
physical make-ups. She has a particularly sensitive nose that she can
smell anything. As a result it affects her taste. I don't. I don't smell
things she smells.
RM DO OTHERS OF YOU HAVE THE SAME SENSITIVENESS TO TASTE?
Whenever I go out of town for travelling, I can immediately taste and
smell the difference in the water. Some places are very metallic tasting
and a strange color even. And I don't enjoy drinking restaurant water when
wes re travelling.
Dorothy is on a different water system.
We lived away from here for 25 years and whenever we would come back
to Carbondale, water always tasted great to me.
You can appreciate the smell of the water here if you go to Lake
County, Illinois in northern Illinois. It's high in sulfur and you can't
make coffee strong enough to kill that odor and taste.
We just came back from Florida and the sulfur water is so terrible.
I've never seen vending machines for water, you can get a gallon distilled
water.
RM Have you ever heard of something called THM? When chlorine reacts
with certain aspects of the water, a by-product is created which in
turn takes various forms. One of the forms is chloroform. These
constitute a class of things called THM's which some animal studies
suggest are cancer-causing. It is very difficult to make a judgement
about this with humans. They haven't found definitely that it causes
cancer in humans. HAVE YOU RUN ACROSS ANYTHING ABOUT THESE IN YOUR
READING?
No, a little bit about the natural breakdown of drinking water as it
reacts with biological material. The by-product is probably several
different items. That is the reason why the state Is no longer insisting
on chlorinating waste water unless it goes into a source of human contact
water. If it goes into a stream which has no known human use they find
A-2 2
-------
that the water natural contaminants may be less hazardous than the chlorine
to the environment of that stream.
Ul Chlorine is an absolutely necessary thing for humans because it has
made our drinking water safe. These THM* s are just one of i-- nany
kinds of things that could potentially get into your water. i would
like to talk about THM's, and, then try to talk about some ways I might
use to describe these risks to people, I'd like your own views about
whether some things 1 will pass out will help you think about this.
Let ae pass out a risk ladder. Take a look at it and see if it makes
any sense to you.
Where's cancer?
RM That1s not on here. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS THAT COME TO YOUR MIND
WHEN YOrj LOOK AT IT? IS IT CONFUSING? DOES IT MAKE SENSE? IS IT
INTERESTING?
I don't think it's real clear without verbal explanation.
RM If it were used in a mail questionnaire, there would have to be an
explanatory paragraph. So when you first looked at it what was
confusing or unclear to you?
What are the numbers anchored to? Are. you taking a 1,000 at random?
I think the relationship like 2,000 out of 100,000 stuntmen you did
explain that the-ones in the italics mean out of the whole population and
the ones that Is confusing to me until 1 heard that.
If you change your numbers from like 100,000 your constants over
100,000 if you'd write that in as say a million rather than numbers.
Even percentages. I think, people are used to saying 10 percent of the
people in the U.S. die of this.
KM HAVING ALL THESE ZEROS REALLY MAKES IT CONFUSING?
Yes, (agreement)
A, number per million might be easier.
If you could come up with something like just wr Ji<; in a 100,000 or
something some constant it wouldn't have to be a million but. just come up
with something without all these zeros.
Does it make a difference that there might be more smokers than there
are police officers. How do those interact?
RM light, the more smokers there are in the population the greater the
risk of everybody dying,
A -2 3
-------
* 7
The police officer is confusing to me because I have no idea how many-
police officers there are so what does 22 mean, or how many stunt men.
Would it help if there were two charts?
RM (Explanation) It is a constant ratio.
I don't think that is clear here,
RM You can compare the risks. All on the same base.
I've always heard chat home accidents are one of the leading causes of
death and looking at this I would say that It is much riskier to be a stunt
man.
But I've always heard that home accidents are one of the leading
causes of death and they are way down here in the middle.
It's like comparing apples and oranges, I donr t think you can, It
reminds me of first year statistics when my professor says we can prove
anything with numbers, we have to present it the right way. See, it isn't
so bad to be a homemaker. I don't trust data like this until you really
look at it and see what they're trying to say.
RM IS THERE SOMETHING ABOUT THESE DATA THAT MAKE YOU PART ICULARL Y
SKEPTICAL?
X think it is the range.
Two things make me very skeptical, I've never seen the relationship
shown out of a 100,000, I've always seen percentages, any time I have
looked at data on this type of thing. And the other thing is it just
doesn't go with some other things that I have heard before. Like home
accidents is really high and throwing this way down in the middle I'm
wondering where are they getting their figures and where's cancer and heart
attack and why aren't these mentioned. And some of these are a little
strange like truck driver and the stunt man.
I think the misleading thing is that there probably are a lot more
home accidents, people killed, than there are stunt men. You are using
high numbers, 100,000 when there are not even 100,000 stunt men available.
If you did use percentages, that's a little easier to compare.
I'd like to chop up your bar graph a little bit here. For somebody
that is mathematical if you'd just gotten out of college you can relate to
this. For the normal person, they could relate to a curve a lot easier
than they can with this kind of a graph where it jumps.
RM WHAT WOULD THE CURVE LOOK LIKE?
It's gonna - you want to plot an x - y axis and
A 24
-------
RM WHAT WOULD WE HAVE?
It doesn't make any difference to me. The variable goes up.
Bar graph is easier to read.
If you did it on scale, you couldn't even see flood with a bar graph,
Start with flood going up, poisoning, airplane, house fire, The other way
would be risk factor.
I still question the 100,000 thing.
How many people die a year front bad water?
RM These numbers are chosen to represent a range from very low to very-
high and to give you a sense of the whole range. The point of this is
to give you a sense of the high risk and the low risk. It is meant to
be representative rather than exhaustive. But it is also meant to be
clear.
1 think I would still try to do it with the bar graphs. While these
particular things might not be easy to put on a bar graph, if you have a
whole list of these you can get things so that a flood would show up and
then other natural disasters would be more proportionate,
I think they are more familiar with seeing that in newspapers and
type. Everybody is exposed to those data.
RM Would the rest of you agree? Feel free to disagree,
With the pie, you can't identify the segments of pies when they get
small. That is what I dislike. This is all right. There is no problem
there,
You could even, make little asterisks and say less than one-tenth of a
percent or something.
RM How many people out of a 100,000 die each year?
Something we could relate to.
RM It gives you an anchor against which you could get a sense of,,,
RM This is adapted, from the work, of other researchers. I'm just seeing
if it is possible to use it or not. I would think it would be
somewhere in the middle wouldn't: it? OTHER REACTIONS TO BARS?
They are fine for ae. They suit me the same way the bar graphs. 1
like both of them much better than the ladder, I think the ladder is.,.
One problem. I would add the numeric right in the bars.
A- 75
-------
The problem if you do that to these figures part of these involve
general population and then you have the specialized risk factors of
people. On the bar graph you are not going to be able to tell which is
which.
What if we had different colors?
It would have to be colored or something.
You're only rating so many people of that particular occupation
whereas the others, diabetes, you are considering the general population.
I don't think they should be on the same graph.
They are really not comparable if you go to analyzing it.
You should show two different graphs.
I think if you have a bar graph you can put them on the same graph.
You just use different lines for each type, solid, crosshatched. Make a
good differentiation.
Why would you want to compare them on the same graph?
RM To get to convey a whole range or risks and to get a high risk you
need a special population like stuntmen. To give variety.
I think you should include car accidents and maybe take truck driver
out. My husband is always telling me there is no problem going on an
airplane because x number of people die every year in car accidents and so
much smaller percentage die an I'm always saying where is it written. I
want to see it! That is a comparison that a lot of people make with
airplanes vs. car travel.
RM SO THAT WOULD BE OF INTEREST TO YOU TO COMPARE THOSE KINDS OF THINGS?
Now we are adding a new dimension to the risk line.
KM Look at the next risk ladder.
I have been thinking about who would I believe if I moved into a town.
I think you could get in a real dilemma because I wouldn't necessarily
believe the water department or the health department or the EPA at this
point mainly because what went on this summer at Crab Orchard. They were
all saying something different and we're all supposed to believe. Who are
we supposed to believe and trust? Supposedly dioxin was dumped into Crab
Orchard Lake at this certain point and the EPA was saying we should really
not use this water for swimming, eating the fish, drinking or anything
until we have a lot of tests. I suppose on the other hand with the
companies say "oh, ve ran tests" and the water department didn't close it
down and I know we've always water skied out there a lot and we've always
fished a lot. We did not fish this summer, we did ski and the whole tine I
was wondering why am 1 doing this? I know I would not drink that water.
A-26
-------
Basically this is the land filled or dumped. We are very fortunate
here in having some of the worst soil in the country which is clay and the
movement of this type of material In the clay is very minimal. If we had
sand we would have a real problem. 1 think Carbondale was fortunate that
this clay soil is more or less retained until something can be done about
it. It wasn't dumped in the water, it was around the buildings.
RM Did others of you feel confused about what the situation was?
I didn't feel confused, I felt scared. I wouldn't read the paper. I
thought nobody is going to tell the truth. All the conflicting stories it
was like - forget it. I felt the same way I would feel about the
possibility of a nuclear war. What are you going to do?
We quit rishing and most people didn't camp and I didn't even go
swimming out there.
The lake was not closed by the health department. EPA would have, I
think, closed it if the tone of the paper was correct. That's what 1 mean
when you say you move into a new town and if EM says I don't think this
water is safe and the Health Department and water officials are saying look
at my magnificent water treatment plant, I don't know who I would believe.
RM OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT WHO YOU BELIEVE OR SOURCES OF AUTHORITY?
You use the word sources of authority and this one thought keeps
running through my mind. My mother is the most skeptical person in the
world and she always hears about all this stuff ahead of time, you can't
drink this or you can't. I would go with my mother. There are some people
that research things very thoroughly and if they have come to the
conclusion that it's okay then I'll go with their decision.
I do that a lot. I don't comparison shop as much as i should, I have
friends who do a lot and when my washing machine broke down I said what
brand did you buy last time. I bought the same brand they did because I
know they really researched it.
EM Let's take a look at this ladder. On the right hand side is sotoa new
information. It's purpose is to convey more information using a
different way of describing the level of risk involved, Everything Is
on the same scale. The right hand side has numbers that tell you for
the population as a whole the average days of life expectancy that are
diminished by being in that occupation for the population as a whole<
CONFUSING?
Yes, (agreement)
We are talking about floods for example. In 3/10 of a day for a
general population that could be like stuntmen you could say if you live in
a flood plain area that would he an entirely different thing.
RM BEING FOR THE MOLE COUNTRY HAKES IT HARD TO RELATE TO?
A-27
-------
Actually this part is a little more reasonable to me. It gives it
another figure that I can use In making comparisons,
RK SO YOU FIND IT HELPFUL?
Yes, I'm not saying I still like this tiling. 1 think it would still
work on a bar graph but I think this does,
RM Rest assured that if the bar graph was better we could put this on a
bar graph.
This gives the other side more substance, a little more clarity,
RM DOES THIS HELP OR HINDER?
I think it does because it gives you a real quantity to think about.
Another dimension.
RM WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, WHICH NUMBER HAKES SENSE TO YOU?
Particularly when you get to 5/100ths and 3/10ths. The high and low.
RM For a smoker the 2,250 is a high risk and a 1/3 of a day is not so
many days.
I thought if people would stop riding airplanes, stop smoking, etc. we
would all each of us would gain this many days to our 1"ves. Except when I
got to the stunt man,
Some of then don't have numbers.
RM We ran out of time.
I think that is very confusing,
RM IF THE HEADING WAS NOT CONFUSING WOULD IT HELP?
Yes.
In other words, if this person didn't die in an airplane crash he
would live 6 days longer?
RM On the average if we didn't have airplane crashes, everybody would
live si* days longer.
I don't know where we arc going. I'm confused.
RM DOES HAVING THE DAYS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE HELP YOU OR NOT TO
UNDERSTAND?
No, I don't think It helps because it's just like apples and oranges.
I think if you are going to have a chart you need to make just one point.
This looks like you are trying to make 3 or 4 different points here. You
should make otic point with each graph and you need to say occupation risk,
-------
this many people die. Accidents and natural causes of death, this ^Lr>d of
risk for death per 100,000. You have too much stuff on here,
KM WOULD OTHERS AGREE?
1 like the right hand side, I think the reason I like it is that 1
finished going through a discussion over a period of 3 weeks oC •- ? c
measures of life support and we were constantly talking about fna • Trious
things we are talking about here. Another thing that might be if
we are talking about there is probably a cap cm life somewhere t .«*ain if
you had a reference point it might help a little bit. You are £ - • - g
about a cap on a natural life and if you eliminated cancer entirely so
these days.
To me, it is a lot clearer to understand I've got another three
hundred.
A-29
-------
RISK
2,000 of 100,000
Stuntnan
2.8 of 100.000
0.8 of 100,000
0.6 of 100,000
TEST "Firg~
.05 of 100,000
Airplane
Poisotina
300 of 100,000
Smoker
I p«ck a day
200 of 100,000
Skydive
99 of 100,000
itdriver
77 of 100,000
Stroke
47 of 100,000
Hom«builder
22 of 100,000
15 of 100,000
11 of 100,000
Home Accident
A-30
-------
RISK
2,000 of 100,000
Scuncman
( Loss of Average Life Expectancy)
300 of 100,000
Saokar
rpact * Hay
ZOO of 100,000
Skydiver
99 of 100,000
Truckdrlver
7? of 100,000
Stroke
41 of 100,000
Hoaebulldar
22 of 100,000
Police Officer
13 of 100,000
tKabatea
11 of 100,000
Home Accident
2,250 days <6 years, 2 aiatttks}
624 djy«
347 days
80 days
2,8 of 100,000
Homa Pipe
23 days
0.8 of 100,000
Axmlame
6 days
0.6 of 100,000
3
fij
!
4 days
.05 of 100,000
Flood
,3 day*
A-31
-------
2,000 of 100,000
Stuncman
2.8 of 100,000
H&m® Firt
48,660 cigarettes per year
300 of 100,000
Smoker
200 of 100,000
Skydiver
«*%i
99 of 100,000
Truckdriver
77 of 100,000
Stroke
*7 of 100,000
Bows builder
22 of 100,000
Police Officer
15 of 100,000
Diabetes
11 of 100,000
ftome Accident
7,300 cigarettes per year
(1 PACK PER DAY)
4,866 cigarettes per year
2,409 cigarettes per yaar
1,873 cigarettes pet year
1,143 cigarettes pet year
¦ 1,0*0 cigarettes per year
<1 PACK PEE WEEK)
535 cigarettes par year
36 J cigarettes par year
268 cigarettes per year
¦ 240 cigarettes per year
(1 PACK PER MONTH)
68 cigjr&ttas per 7«ar
0.8 of 100,000
Airs tana
19 cigarectas par year
0.6 of 100,000
Poisoning
15 cigarettes per year
—— 12 cigarettes per year
CI CIGARETTE PER MONTH)
,05 of 100,000
Flood
1 cigarette per year
A-3 2
-------
TRANSCRIPT OF FOCUS GROUP #3
MARION, IL 1/30/85
This grouo took place on a very cold and Icy night in the Senior
Citizens Center in Marion. The 9 participants were all members of an adult
Sunday school class in one of the local churches. Half were men, half were
women; all were married. As they pointed out, they are more educated than
the average Marion resident — five are college grads and three have more
than a college education. Their median income was in the $35 to $50,000
range. One had less than a $10,000 income; three greater than S50,000.
The participants knew each other well. They discussed the topic easily and
were willing to disagree with each other,
Robert Mitchell led the group discussion. He introduced himself as a
researcher with a nonprofit Washington D.C. research organization and Karla
Whitley as a graduate student at Southern Illinois University. He said the
purpose of the discussion was to get their help in learning how best to ask
people about their drinking water. When he writes a questionnaire he needs
to know how people think about things and what words they use. There are
no right or wrong answers.
It was not possible to record the conversation, so the following is
based on K.arla Whitley !s extensive notes which were used to reconstruct the
discussion a day after the session.
RM WHAT IS THE DRINKING WATER LIKE IN MARION? -
The group had very strong feelings on this subject. Virtually every
comment focused on the appearance of the water rather than on the risks it
poses: "Taste is terrible." "Can drink it, but don't want to wash clothes
in it."
Participants were quite knowledgeable about where their water comes
from and the problems faced by the drinking water plant.
RM HOW GOOD IS THE QUALITY?
Every person seemed to know that the drinking water had PCBs in it
because of the newspaper coverage about the PCS contamination. The general
publicity about toxic contamination (e.g. Times Beach) appears to have
stimulated their concern about this type of contamination,
RM WHAT ABOUT THE NOTICES ON YOUR. WATER BILL?
(These concern the excess of THM's.) People were aware that there was
such a notice, but were vague about it. Bob almost knew what it was
called, but couldn't quite come up with the initials. He was, however,
quite knowledgeable about the cause of THM's once KM mentioned them.
A-33
-------
RM WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THESE CONTAMIKAHTS ?
"EPA's limit. Has something to do with PCBs. EPA and our mayor are
always at each other's throats." (Very aware of the fact that the Mayor is
pushing the federal government to allow Marion to use allegedly pure
Devil's Kitchen Lake, which is in a federal wildlife refuge and therefore
unavailable, for its water supply.)
One person talked about the treatment plant being overloaded. Another
about PCB's being a product of a natural breakdown (obviously referring to
THM's.) They said the PCB problem occurred before the TEM problem was
identified.
Mike said there were conflicting stories on levels and dangerousness.
He knew that the THM problem only occurred when Crab Orchard Lake was used;
he works out at the lake.
RM HAS THERE BEEN A LOT OF PRESS COVERAGE ON THMS?
"No, lot on water supply and on PCBs, but not on THMs." (General
agreement)
RM HOW DO PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE DRINKING WATER AROUND HERE
WHAT WORDS DO THEY USE? DO THEY MAKE JOKES?
They agreed that people did joke about it, but that: the jokes
concerned the water's appearance. '» an't see my feet in the bathtub."
etc..
RM SAFETY? (probe)
Christy talked about hauling water home for several months from
another town where she worked because of her concern about PCBs« She said
her neighbors couldn't have cared less about the risk. People didn't
believe it; hadn't read the Times Beach and all.
Bob: "So many scares; people just think it is another thing. It s an
attitude we can't do much about."
Mike: "Christy's reaction is unusual."
RM ANY OF THE REST OF YOU DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE CONTAMINATION?
One couple talked about getting a water distiller. Someone else had a
demonstration and said it was "incredible" because it showed how much stuff
(dirt not toxics) was in the water. Another participant: was called by
- indsay Water who offered to do an analysis of their wa':er. One of the
group asked the person who was getting the distiller whether it would take
out dioxins and THMs. He said yes.
A i
-------
Rrl DO PEOPLE USE THE WORD "SAFE"?
"Thav use the word unsafe/'
"People are more concerned about appearance and taste than safety."
RM HOW MUCH TRUST DO 100 HAVE IN THE FOLKS WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF TOUR
DRINKING WATER?
"None, nope, not anymore."
"Not saying that the\ deliberately do things wrong. But the operators
are not paid a lot,"
(In other words, they believed the situation [old plant, low paid
operators] produces incompetence.)
Woman: "I have enough confidence that I really believe if some
agency, private or public, was convinced that there was a real danger,
something would be done about it. I think most people feel this way."
(Gene ra 1 ag r cement;)
"I'm concerned that it has to get to that point before something is
done." (General agreement)
Someone else mentioned that the PC3 problem took the heat off people's
concerns about THMs.
RM CAN ANYONE RKMEMBER WHAT THE THM LEVEL IS OR HOW IT IS EXPRESSED ON
YOUR WATER BILL?
Bob: "Parts per million. ,0075 or something like that," Someone
else added, "it's not a big number."
RM HOW MUCH OVER THE LIMIT ARE YOU?
People did not answer.
RM, WHAT SENSE DO YOU HAVE OF HOW MUCH OVER YOU ARE?
"I. don't know. All I know is that when I see it on my water bill, I
am over, I am assuming that anything over the limit is dangerous. We are
moving, and one of our criteria is to get off the Marion water system,"
(It was not clear, however, that the objection to the Marion water was
purely on safety grounds.)
"More than just a slight risk and Is continuous."
"As I recall seeing it, it's a slight amount, hard to measure. Also,
I question how those levels are set. They seen to be pretty arbitrary
anyway. 1 don't think anyone knows what 3 ppm would to to you compared
with 5 ppm."
A-35
-------
RM ' DO OTHERS OF YOU AGREE THAT IT IS ARBITRARY?
Rich: "I feel there is something,, but they may not tell us everything
about it. But I think they know what is there."
"I agree with Rich. How can they say this level will harm you and
this level will not?"
Bob: "I have a calculating mind. But with numbers such as .0075 or
whatever, I have trouble relating to that. We are saturated with
information like that because we are an information society, with lots of
people getting lots of government grants to study different things*"
"Things are getting better now. Originally we had pure water, than
industrialization harmed it, now we are making progress."
RM LET'S TALK ABOUT PARTS PER MILLION (SHOWED TWO LEVELS, 100 PPM AND 200
PPM). WHAT LEVELS OF RISK ARE WORTH SPENDING MONEY FOR?
"What does safe level mean?" (Reference to RM's explanation of how
the MCL is defined by EPA.) "What does no health effects mean?"
RM WHAT EFFECTS WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO SPEND MONEY TC STOP?
One man mentioned a small town which had several leukemia deaths in a
few months. They were of a mind to do something about this problem, no
matter what the cost.
A woman mentioned that the cancer society showed a friend of hers
figures about Marion's cancer rate and how it is going up.
(No one picked up on the ppm levels here. The implication is that
immediately apparent and drastic effects such as the ones mentioned would
definitely be worth spending a lot of money to cure.)
RM ARE THERE OTHER WAYS TO EXPRESS RISK THAT YOU WOULD REACT TO?
"I'm concerned if they are above normal limits."
"It's very difficult to pull up stakes, leave everything, if you have
nothing concrete„"
"And if you move, you may be moving into the same situation."
(General agreement, people nodding their heads.)
(Again, nobody picked up on relative risks nor on the notion of where
you draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable risks.)
RM SHOWED RISK LEVELS ON LADDER HE DREW ON THE BLACKBOARD. THEY INCLUDED
1 IN 100,000 AND 1 IN 1,000,000 RISK OF DYING IN A LIFETIME FROM THMS.
ETC. HE ALSO TRANSLATED THESE INTO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN A TOWN OF
14,000 PEOPLE WHO WOULD DIE EACH YEAR. (.11 AND .01 PERSON PER YEAR)
Immediate reaction. lOx increase is significant. RM reminded them
that these are low levels, and people picked up on this.
A-36
-------
RM WHICH DO TOO FIND EASIER TO UNDERSTAND, RISK LEVELS OR CONCENTRATIONS
(e.g. 100 ppm)?
Firm opinion by the group chat risk levels are more meaningful,
RM WOULD IT BE MEANINGFUL ENOUGH TO ENABLE YOU TO HAKE A JUDGMENT ABOUT
HOW MUCH YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY?
"That would be a fraction of a person in 75 years."
"It all depends on how expensive it would be to bring the level down."
They wanted to know how much it would cost;, then they could make a
judgment. Someone suggested using a scale of dollar amounts from which
people would choose an amount.
RM WHAT IF YOU DON'T KNOW IF IT WILL COVER THE COST 01 MOT?
Woman: "I couldn't do it if I didn't know if it would correct the
problem. Are we talking about $50,000 or $5,000 a year? It may be worth
$50,000 if I could be sure the problem is taken care of." Others made
comments along this line,
"Would have to put a monetary value on it, but if it takes more than
you can afford, you would have to uproot your family." WHY? "Because you
are talking about your life style, your children, and you want them to be
safe."
Another person said that respondent to a question such as "is It worth
so much a year" would be easier than reaction to not having any limits.
Another said he would like to have a line with suggested monetary amounts,
then you would have some sort of idea what you would be willing to pay.
"Need bottom line cost, then take into account your own situation.
Then tell them about the effects."
"I. could do it if the figure (cost) was given to us» but I really
couldn't pick that number that was the money part of it,"
"How about using a percentage value of income or taxes?" Others did
not like this idea very much, saying that dollars are more straightforward.
One person complained that people have different, incomes and what
would be fair for one person would not be for another person.
RM WHAT IF I GAVE YOU INFORMATION ABOUT THE LEVELS OF OTHER TYPES OF
RISKS? FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT IF I SAID REDUCING THE RISK FROM THMS WAS
THE EQUIVALENT OF REDUCING THE RISK FROM SMOKING FIVE TO SMOKING ONE
CIGARETTE A YEAR?
"We're thinking in our minds that the 200 ppm level is much more
dangerous than it is,"
A- 37
-------
"When you say it is equivalent to 5 cigarettes a year, I wouldn't
spend $500 a year."
"Nope, not even $100,"
At least one person said that we (the researchers) wouldn't get a
large WTP amount if we expressed it this way. The implication was that we
wanted to get large amounts and we would not be smart to express it this
way,
One person said he had done a calculation in his head that was helpful
to him. He saw the equipment coating the town $lm and worked out a rough
estimate of what this would cost each family.
"Give numbers so I can know how many people I would save in Marion,"
"Three rather than 1/10 of a person means a lot more/'
RM WHAT WOULD BE SOME USEFUL EXAMPLES OF COMPARATIVE RISKS?
They liked the cigarette example. Also being hit by lightening.
Other risks mentioned were: auto accidents being hit by airplane,
household accident, winning the lottery. Someone pointed out, with
reference to the Lottery, that the low probability of something positive
happening is more understandable (they mean, more likely) than the low
probability of something negative. Mentioned a friend who said of the
state lottery, "I am going to win this thing," People tend not to believe
that something negative will happen to them,.
They commented that people's understanding of risks will vary
according to their area of the country.
RM WOULD THE USE OF A REFERENDA FORMAT BE HELPFUL?
One person commented that: people vote in referenda in terms of their
gut level feelings at the time they vote.
A-38
-------
TRANSCRIPT OP FOCUS GROUP U
MARION, IL 1/31/85
This group took place on a very cold night in the Lions Club in
Marion, Illinois, Originally five Methodists and five Jaycees were
scheduled to attend, but the weather caused the Methodists to cancel. The
Jaycees were all young men, 23-30; 3 were college and 2 were higK school
graduates. Only two were long time residents of the town. They vera /ery
cooperative and loquacious. Karla Whitley arranged the session and Robert
Mitchell led the group discussion.
In general, the members of this group were aware of where their
drinking water comes from, although they were not sure about the
relationship between the City Lake and Crab Orchard Lake (the la-car, which
has been contaminated with PCB's, is used only when the water iti City Lake
is low). They were not impressed with the quality of the water works
personnel^ and knew the plant, which is located in the town, was very old.
One of the five brings mineral water home from Nutrition Headquarters, a
Carbondale heclth foods business,, where he works. The others drink the
local water.
Owing to a tape recorder failure, it was not possible to transcribe
the transcript of this discussion. The following is based on extensive
notes taken by Karla Whitley which she and Robert Mitchell wrote up
immediately following the discussion group,
EM EXPLAINED THE TASK OF DESIGNING A STUDY TO MEASURE PEOPLE'S VIEWS
ABOUT DRINKING WATER, HE SAID HE NEEDED THEIR HELP, IT IS HARD FOR
HIM SITTING IN WASHINGTON TO KNOW HOW PEOPLE THINK ABOUT DRINKING
WATER AND WHAT WORDS THEY USE. HE BEGAN BY READING THE DRAFT OF THE
QUESTIONNAIRE TO THE POINT WHERE THE RESPONDENT IS ASKED: HOW SAFE DO
YOU THINK THE LOCAL WATER IS?
The group expressed uncertainty for the most part. There was some
mention of PCBs and one person mentioned aioxin.
RM HOW HIGH ARE THE LEVELS?
Sot: suie*
RM IS IT SAFE?
Reasonable doubt in everyone's minds. "If the press hadn't covered
it, we'd never know."
"They have it roped off (waste site) so it must be reasonably
dangerous."
"They just: did that to Lake the heat off themselves."
A 39
-------
*
EH AT THE PRESENT TIME DO YOU BELIEVE THE OFFICIALS?
General feeling they expressed was one of skepticism,
"Politicians cover up the truth."
RM ARE YOU AWARE OF A NOTICE ON YOUR WATER BILL ABOUT THMs?
No one was aware of the notice. Nor about THMs.
RM (EXPLANATION ABOUT THMS, THE STANDARD, AND THE LEVEL, 100 PPB ETC.
NOTHING WAS SAID ABOUT THE LEVEL OF RISK.) IF I WERE TO ASK YOU HOW
MUCH YOU WOULD BE WILLING PAY IN HIGHER TAXES FOR EQUIPMENT THAT WOULD
PREVENT THIS PROBLEM, WHAT WOULD YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THIS
SITUATION?
"How would the money be spent?"
"What are the options. Can you boil the water and be rid of it?"
"What can be done to correct it?"
"How harmful is the problem? Would it cause diarrhea or whatever?"
"Would the solution work? Would kids be protected?'
"What are the long range effects?"
"How long has the problem been going on?" (Meaning, if it has been
going on for a long time> and no apparent effects have ecsued, perhaps it
is not that serious a problem.)
"I would want to know the basic, who, what, when anc why?"
*****
Since much of the group covered in this focus group replicated that of
the previous Marion group, the remainder of this transcript consists of a
summary of the major points which emerged rather than an attempt to
recreate the discussion as it occurred.
GIVING WILLINGNESS TO PAY AMOUNTS
They had difficulty giving WTP amounts. Later in the session it came
out that they were reluctant to reveal their total consumers surplus if it
was not all needed to remedy the problem. They felt government would take
as much as they revealed regardless of the actual cost. This accounted for
their concern about the actual cost.
A-40
-------
PRESENTATION OF RISK EVALUATION
RM PASSED OUT A SERIES OF RISK LADDERS AND ASKED THEM TO GIVE THEIR
OPINIONS ABOUT HOW HELPFUL THEY FOUND THE INFORMATION ON EACH LADDER.
(Each ladder had only eight examples of risks of which only smoker was
a self Imposed risk. Ladder 1 had no comparative material in the right
hand margin. The others had loss of average life expectancy in days,
number of people dying in a city of 14,000, and cigarette equivalents.
These were given to the respondents in turn.)
The conclusions which emerged from the discussion are as follows:
1. For some risks, certain types of comparisons seemed inappropriate to
them and either confused them or made them doubt the credibility of
the ladder. For example5 loss of average life expectancy made sense
for cigarette smoking, but not for death from home fires. In the
latter case, it was hard to reconcile an average loss of 23 days from
the fact that someone who dies in a home fire dies.
2. Some comparisons seemed inaccurate to them such as the average deaths
for household and car accidents. In this case, they thought more than
3 people would die a year in Marion and more than .4 in home fires.
Here the availability effect seemed to operate; they could remember
reading about house fires that killed several people at one time.
3. Overall, they were not enthusiastic about the cigarette smoking
comparison. When it was applied to low level risks, on the other
hand, it was very effective. Risk of smoking 12 cigarettes a year is
perceived to be low. A risk reduction amounting to reducing the
number of cigarettes from 12 to 6 was widely viewed as
inconsequential.
4. It took .some discussion before they realized that the risk would not
be totally removed and this knowledge was important to them. One of
the grojj used the anology of bringing blood pressure down, e.g.,
where someone's blood pressure is reduced from a "too high" level to a
level closer to but not at normal.
5. KM attempted to see if they found a series of risk reductions
meaningful. For example, going from 400 ppm to 200 ppm and then going
from 200 ppm to 100 ppm, etc. They did not find this easy to answer.
Having the comparisons on the risk ladders did help them somewhat.
But they were not sure 400 to 200 was a big improvement. This raises
the issue of whether or not respondents can discriminate between
various levels of low level reductions, or whether they only have a
value for a generalized reduction from being above the standard to
meeting the standard.
PERCEPTION OF RISK
1. One person said, if one person dies it is one too many. It appears
that although this is a view that people easily assent to, they do not
necessarily bring it to bear or. every situation.
A-41
-------
2. There were several spontaneous expressions of the view chat everything
causes cancer. Again, the pessimism and passivity implied by this
stereotypical view seems to be contextual; people can be made to think
about the relative risks of getting cancer.
3. In both Marion focus groups, it became clear that every person assumed
that we wanted to learn how to present the risks so we would measure
large values. It also seemed to be the case that they assumed the
risks were high simply because we were going Co such great lengths and
expense to bring them together to discuss these risks. As a result in
Group 4» RM had to go to some lengths to communicate the low level
nature of the risks (the cigarette example finally did the trick).
When the participants finally realized how low level they were and,
further, the slight risk reduction implied by bringing the THM levels
into compliances they warned him that his explanations would not get
the high OTP amounts they thought he wanted. He had to keep assuring
them that he did not care how much they were willlag to pay as long as
they really understood the nature of the risk improvement.
4. Nevertheless, even after group 4 understood the low risk levels, and
the fact that there was no pressure on them to give any amount, they
expressed che strong opinion that some payment (e.g. $10 - $12 per
year) was worth it to make the water a bit safer. They were not
dissuaded from this view even when RM probed their views on this
issue. They regarded this amount as a relatively lorainal amount for a
tax increase to lower the low level risk.
5. In estimating their WTP, they spontaneously used their current water
payments as a base. They believe this amount ia around $125 a year.
Oa this basis, another $10 is acceptable whereas doubling the water
payments to $250 would be clearly unacceptable.
6. In the discussion of risk, they commented how people take risks all
the time. E.g., kerosine heater fumes are probab1/ harmful, but
people use them all the time. They also cited smoking (and three of
the five were smoking away during the discussion),
7. They agreed that the mention of cancer makes people react.
A-42
-------
SUGGESTIONS WHICH EMERGE FROM THE MARION FOCUS GROUPS
I. The fourth group said it. would help them if they knew how many people
die from cancer each year.
2 Use multiple comparison scales; some people would find one meaningful,
others would find another.
3. Other suggested comparisons: street crime, heart attack (does stroke
include heart attack, they asked), falling off a bar stool. The first
group liked the lightening comparison; the second did not. The second
group thought work related risks would be helpful.
1-43
-------
RISK
COMPARISON
{ Loss of Ateragt Life Expectancy }
300 of 100,000
die each year
Smoker
1 pack a day
2,250 days (Syears, 1 Booths)
"""Han'
?? of 100,000
Strokm
624 days
22 of 100,000
Auto Accxdrnt
170 days
11 of 100,000
Accident
80 d«7>
RSSags#
2,a of loo.ooo
Home Fire
23 days
0.8 of 100,000
Airplane
6 days
0,6 of 100,000
Poisoning
4 days
¦OS of 100,QCO
Flood
.3 days
A-44 "
-------
MH
300 of 100,000
die each year
Smoker
77 of 100,000
22 of 100,000
U of 100,000
Stroke
Auto Accident
Home Accident
2.8 of 100,000
o.a of loo.ooo
0.6 of 100,000
Sot* Fir-*
.05 of 100,000
Airplane
Poisoning
Flood
7,300 cigarettes p«r year
(I PACK PES DA*)
1,873 dLgar*tt«a p«r year
— 1,040 cigarettes per year
{I PACK PES WEEK)
535 cigarettes per fear
268 cigarettes per year
—" 240 cigarettes per year
(I PACK MQHTB )
68 cigarettes per y«ar
19 cigarettes per year
15 cigarettes per year
r— 12 cigarettes per year
(1 CIGARETTE PER MONTH)
1 cigarette per year
A-45
-------
RISK
300 of 100,000
Smoker
1 pack per da?
COMPARISON
{Hunter of people dying each
year In city of 14,000 people)
42 {t£ everyone saoked I
pack » day)
n of 100,000
22 of 100,000
11 of 100,000
Stroke
11
- Auto Accident
Home Accident
3
1,5
2.8 of 100,000
o.a of loo.ooo
0.6 of 100,000
Home Five
0.4
0-05 of 100,000
A x
irslane
Poiaonina
0.H
0.08
'toad
0.01
A-46
-------
DRINKING WATER RISK FOCUS GROUP MO. 1
MARION, ILLINOIS. JANUARY 30, 1985
This group tcok place on a very cold and icy night in the Senior Citizens
Center in Marion. The 9 participants were all members of an adult sunday
school class in one of the local churches. Half were men, half were women; all
were married. Is they pointed out, they are more educated than the average
Marion resident — five are college grads and three have more than a college
education. Th.nir median income wa . m- - he
$35 to $SO,000 range, One had less than a $10,000 income? three greater t.han
$50,000. The participants knew each other well. They discussed the topic
easily and were willing to disagree with each other,
Robert Mitchell led the group discussion. He introduced himself as a
researcher with a nonprofit Washington D.C. research organization and Karla
Whitney as a graduate student at Southern Illinois University. He said the
purpose of the discussion was to get their help in learning how best to ask
people about their drinking water. When he writes a questionnaire he needs to
know how people think about things and what words they use. There are no right
or wrong answers.
It was not possible to record the conversation, so the following is based
on Karla Whitley's extensive notes which were used to reconstruct the
discussion a day after the session.
RM WHAT IS THE DRINKING MITER LIKE IN MARION?
The group had very strong feelings on this subject. Virtually every
comment focused on the appearance of the water rather than on the risks it
poses; "Taste is terrible." "Can drink it, but don't want to wash clothes in
it.w
Participants were quite knowledgeable about where their water comes from
and the problems faced by the drinking water plant.
RM HOW GOOD IS THE QUALITY?
Every person seemed to know that the dw had PCBs in it because of the
newspaper coverage about the PCB contamination. The general publicity about
toxic contamination (e.g. Times Beach) appears to have stimulated their concern
about this type of contamination.
RM WHAT ABOUT THK NOTICES ON YOUR WATER BILL? (These concern the excess
of T'HM's.) People were aware that there was such a notice, but were vague
about it. Bob almost knew what It was called, but couldn't quite come up with
the initials. He was, however, quite knowledgeable about the cause of THM's
once RM mentioned them.
A-4?
-------
RM WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THESE CONTAMINANTS?
"EPA's limit. Has something to do with PCBs. EPA and our mayor are
always at each other's throats." (Very aware of the fact ihat the Mayor is
pushing the federal government to allow Marion to use allegedly pure Devil's
Kitchen Lake, which is in a federal wildlife refuge and therefore unavailable,
for its water supply.)
One person talked about the treatment plant being overloaded. Anotehr
about PCB's being a product of a natural breakdown (obviously referring to
THM's.) They said the PCB problem occurred before the THM problem was
identified,.
Mike said there were conflicting stories on levels and dangerousness. He
knew that the THM problem only occurred when Crab Orchard Lake was used; he
works out at the lake.
RM HAS THERE BEEN A LOT OF PRESS COVERAGE ON THMS?
"No; lot on water supply and on PCBs, but not on THMs." (General
agreement)
RM HOW DO PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE DRINKING WATER AROUND HERE?
WHAT WORDS DO THEY USE? DO THEY MAKE JOKES?
They agreed that people did joke about its but that the jokes concerned
the water's appearance. "Can't see my feet in the bathtub." etc.
SAFETY? (probe) Christy talked about hauling water home for several
months from another town where she worked because of her concern about PCBs.
She said her neighbors couldn't have cared less aboutthe risk. People didn't
believe it; hadn't read about Times Beach and all.
Bob: "So many scares; people just think it is another thing. It's an
attitude we can't do much about."
Mike: "Christy's reaction is unusual."
RM ANY OF THE REST OF YOU DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE CONTAMINATION?
One couple talked about getting a water distiller. Someone else had a
demonstration and said it was "incredible" because it showed how much stuff
(dirt not toxics) was in the water. Another participant was called by Lindsay
Water who offered to do an analysis of their water. One of the group asked the
person who was getting the distiller
whether it would take out dioxins and THMs. He said yes.
RM DO PEOPLE USE THE WORD "SAFE"?
"They use the word unsafe."
"People are more concerned about appearance and taste than safety."
A <4-S
-------
RM HOW MUCH TRUST DO YOU HAVE IN THE FOLKS WHO ARK IN CHARGE OF YOUR DRINKING
WATER?
"None, nope, not anymore."
"Not saying that they deliberately do things wrong. But the operators are
not paid a lot.
(In other wcrds, they believed the situation (old plant, low paid
operators) produces incompetence.)
Woman: "I have enough confidence that I really believe if some agency,
private or public, was convinced that there was a real danger, something would
be done about it. I think most people feel this way." (General agreement)
"I m concerned that it has to get to that point before something is done."
(General agreement;
Someone else mentioned that the PCB problem took the heat off people's
concerns about THMs.
RM CAN ANYONE REKEMBER WHAT THE THM LEVEL IS OR HOW IT IS EXPRESSED ON YOUR
WATER RILL?
Bob; "Parts per million. .0075 or something like that." Someone else
added, "it's not a big number."
RM HOW MUCH OVER THE LIMIT ARE YOU? People did not answer. RM WHAT SENSE
DO YOU HAVE OF HOW MUCH OVER YOU ARE?
"I don't know. All I know .is that when I see it on my water bill, I am
over. I am assuming that anything over the limit in dangerous. We are moving,
and one of our criteria is to get off the Marion water system." (It was not
clear, however, that the objection to the Marion water was purely on safety
grounds.)
"More than just a slight risk and Is continuous."
"As I recall seeing it, it's a slight amount, hard to measure. Also, I
question how those levels are set. They seem to be pretty arbitrary anyway. I
don't think anyone knows what 3 ppm would do to you compared with 5 ppm."
RM DO OTHERS OF YOU AGREE THAT IT IS ARBITRARY?
Rich: "I feel there is something, but they may not tell us everything
about it. But I think they know what is there."
"I agree with Rich. How can they say this level will harm you and this
level will not?"
Bob: "I have a calculating mind. But with numbers such as .0075 or
whatever, I have trouble relating to that. We are saturated with information
like that because we are an information society, with lots of people getting
lots of government grants to study different things."
A-49
-------
"Things are getting better now. Originally we had pure water, then
industrialization harmed it, now we are making progress."
RM LET'S TALK ABOUT PARTS PER MILLION (SHOWED TWO LEVELS, 100 PPM AND 200
PPM). WHAT LEVELS OF RISK ARE WORTH SPENDING MONEY FOR?
"What does safe level mean?" {Reference to RM's explanation of how the
MCL is defined by EPA.) "What does no health effects mean?
RM WHAT EFFECTS WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO SPEND MONEY TO STOP?
One man mentioned a small town which had several leukemia deaths in a few
months. They were of a mind to do something about this problem, no matter what
the cost.
A women mentioned that the cancer society showed a friend of hers figures
about Marion's cancer rate and how it is going up.
(No one picked up on the ppm levels here. The implication is that
immediately apparent and drastic effects such as the ones mentioned would
definitely he worth spending a lot of money to cure.)
RM ARE THERE ANOTHER WAYS TO EXPRESS RISK THAT YOU WOULD REACT TO?
"I'm concerned if they are above normal limits."
"It's very difficult to pull up stakes, leave everything, if you have
nothing concrete.n
"And if you move, you may be moving into the same situation." (General
agreement, people nodding their heads.)
(Again, nobody picked up on relative risks nor on the notion of where you
draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable risks.)
RM, SHOWED RISK LEVELS ON LADDER HE DREW ON THE BLACKBOARD. THEY INCLUDED 1 IN
100,000 AMD 1 IN 1,000,000 RISK OF DYING IN A LIFETIME FROM THMS. ETC. HE ALSO
TRANSLATED THESE INTO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN A TOWN OF 1«4,003 PEOPLE MHO WOULD
DIE EACH YEAR. (.11 AND .01 PERSON PER YEAR)
Immediate reaction. 10x increase is significant. RM reminded them that
these are low levels, and people picked up on this.
RM WHICH DO YOU FIND EASIER TO UNDERSTAND, RISK LEVELS OR CONCENTRATIONS (e.g.
100 ppm)?
Firm opinion by the group that risk levels are more meaningful,
RM WOULD IT BE MEANINGFUL ENOUGH TO ENABLE YOU TO MAKE A JUDGMENT ABOUT HOI
MUCH YOU MOULD BE WILLING TO PIT?
"That would be a fraction of a person in 75 years."
A-50
-------
"It all depends on how expensive it would be to bring the level down."
They wanted to know how much it would cost, then they could make a
judgment. Someone suggested using a scale of dollar amounts from which people
would choose an amount.
RM WHAT IF YOU DON'T KNOW IF IT WILL COVER THE COST OR NOT?
Woman: "I couldn t do it if I didn't know if it would correct the
problem. Are we talking about $50,000 or $5,000 a year? It may be worth
$50,000 if I could be sure the problem is taken care of.5' Others made comments
along this line.
"Would have to put a monetary value on it, but if it takes more than you
afford, you would have to uproot your family." WHY? "Because youare talking
about your life style, your children, and you want them to be safe."
Another person said that respondent to a question such as "is it worth so
much a year" would be easier than reaction to not having any limits. Another
said he would like to have a line with suggested monetary amounts, then you
would have some sort of idea what you would be willing to pay.
"Need bottom line cost, then take into account your own situation. Then
tell them about the effects."
"I could do It if the figure (cost) was given to us, but I really couldn't
pick that number that was the money part of it."
"How about using a percentage value of income or taxes?" Others did not
like this idea very much, saying that dollars were more straightforward.
One person complained that people have different incomes and what would be
fair for one person would not be for another person.
RM WHAT IF I GAVE YOU INFORMATION ABOUT THE LEVELS OF OTHER TYPES OF RISKS?
FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT IF I SAID REDUCING THE RISK FROM THMS WAS THE EQUIVALENT OF
REDUCING THE RISK FROM SMOKING FIVE TO SMOKING ONE CIGARETTE A YEAR?
"We're thinking in our minds that the 200 ppm level is much more dangerous
that it is."
"When you say it is equivalent to 5 cigarettes a year, I wouldn't spend
$500 a year."
"Nope, not even $100."
At least one person said that we (the researchers) wouldn't get a large
WTP amount if we expressed it this way. The implication was that we wanted to
get large amount and we would not be smart to express it this way.
One person said he had done a calculation in his head that was helpful to
him. He saw the equipment costing the town $ 1m and worked out a rough estimate
of what this would cost each family.
A-51
-------
n
"Give numbers so I can know how many people I would save in Marion."
"Three rather than 2/10 of a person means a lot more.
HM WHAT WOULD BE SOME USEFUL EXAMPLES OF COMPARATIVE RISKS?
They liked the cigarette example. Also being hit by lightning. Other
risks mentioned wereJ auto accident, being hit by airplane, household
accident, winning the lottery. Someone pointed out, with reference to the
lottery, that the low probability of something positive happening is more
understandable (they mean, more likely) than the low probability of something
negative. Mentioned a friend who said of the state lottery, 'T am going to win
this thing." People tend not to believe that something negative will happen to
them.
They commented that people's understanding of risks will vary according to
their area of the country,
RM WOULD THE USE OF A REFERENDA FORMAT BE HELPFUL?
One person commented that people vote in referenda In terms of their gut
level feelings at the time they vote.
A-52
-------
DRINKING WATER RISK FOCUS GROUP NO. 2
MARIONt ILLINOIS. JANUARY 31, 1985
This group took place on a very cold night in the Lions Club in Marion,
Illinois. Originally five Methodists and five JC's were scheduled to attend,
but the weather caused the Methodists to cancel. The JCs were all young men,
23 - 30; 3 were college and 2 were high school graduates. Only two were long
time residents of the town. They were very cooperative and loquacious. Karla
Whitley arranged the session and Robert, Mitchell led the group discussion.
In general the members of this group were aware of where their drinking
water comes from, although they were not sure about the relationship between
the City Lake and Crab Orchard Lake (the latter, which has been contaminated
with PCB's, is used only when the water in City Lake is low, They were not
impressed with the quality of the water works personnel, and knew the plant,,
which is located :.n the town, was very old. One of the five brings mineral
water home from Nutrition HQ, a Carbondale health foods business, where he
works. The others drink the local water.
Owing to a tape recorder failure, it was not possible to transcribe the
transcript of this discussion. The following is based on extensive notes taken
by Karla Whitley which she and Robert Mitchell wrote up immediately following
the discussion group.
RM EXPLAINED THE TASK OF DESIGNING A STUDY TO MEASURE PEOPLE'S VIEWS ABOUT
DRINKING WATER. HE SAID HE NEEDED THEIR HELP. IT IS HEARD FOR HIM SITTING IN
WASHINGTON TO KNOW HOW PEOPLE THINK ABOUT DRINKING WATER AND WHAT WORDS THEY
USE. HE BEGAN BY READING THE DRAFT OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE TO THE POINT WHERE THE
RESPONDENT IS ASKED: HOW SAFE SO YOU THINK THE LOCAL WATER IS?
The group expressed uncertainty for the most prt. There was some mention
of PCBs and one person mentioned dioxin.
RM HOW HIGH ARE THE LEVELS?
Not sure.
RM IS IT SAFE?
Reasonable doubt in everyone's minds. "If the press hadn't covered it,
we'd never know."
"They have it roped off (waste nite) so it must be reasonably dangerous-"
"They just did that to take the heat off themselves.
RM AT THE PRESENT TIME DO fOU BELIEVE THE OFFICIALS?
General feeling they expressed was one of skepticism.
A-53
-------
"Politicians cover up the truth."
RM ARE YOU AWARE OF A NOTICE ON YOUR WATER BILL ABOUT THMs?
No one was aware of the notice. Nor about THMs.
RM (EXPLANATION ABOUT THMS, THE STANDARD, AND THE LEVEL, 100 PPB ETC. NOTHING
WAS SAID ABOUT THE LEVEL OF RISK) IF I WERE TO ASK YOU HOW MUCH YOU WOULD BE
WILLING TO PAY IN HIGHER TAXES FOR EQUIPMENT THAT WOULD PREVENT THIS PROBLEM,
WHAT WOULD YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THIS SITUATION?
"How would the money be spent?"
"What are the options. Can you boil the water and be rid of it?"
"What could be done to correct it?"
"How harmful Is the problem? Would it cause diarrhea or whatever?"
"Would the solution work? Would kids be protected?"
"What are the long range effects?"
"How long has the problem been going on?" (Meaning, if it has been going
on for a long time, and no apparent effects have ensued, perhaps It is not that
serious a. pro bl em. .)
"I would want to know the basic, who, what, when and why?"
#*»**
Since much of the ground covered in this focus group replicated that of
the previous Marion group, the remainder of this transcript consists of a
summary of the major points which emerged rather than an attempt to recreate
the discussion as it occurred.
GIVING VILLINGINGNESS TO PAY AMOUNTS
They had difficulty giving WTP amounts. Later in the session It came out
that they were reluctant to reveal their total consumers surplus if it was not
all needed to remedy the problem. They felt government would take as much as
they revealed regardless of the actual cost. This accounted for their concern
about the actual cost.
PRESENTATION OF RISK EVALUATION
RM PASSED OUT A SERIES OF RISK LADDERS AND ASKED THEM TO GIVE THEIR OPINIONS
ABOUT HOW HELPFUL THEY FOUND THE INFORMATION ON EACH LADDER. (Each ladder had
only eight examples of risks of which only smoker was a self imposed risk.
Ladder 1 had no comparative material in the right hand margin. The others had
loss of average life expectancy in days, number of people dying in a city of
14,000, and cigarette equivalents. These were given to the respondents In
turn.)
A-54
-------
The conclusion? which emerged from the discussion are as follows;
1- For some risks, certain types of comparisons seemed inappropriate to them
and either confused them or made them doubt the credibility of the ladder.
For example, loss of average life expectancy made sense for cigarette
smoking, but not for death from home fires. In the latter case, it was hard
to reconcile an average loss of 23 days from the fact that someone who dies
in a hone fire dies.
2. Some comparisons seemed inaccurate to then such as the average deaths for
household and car accidents. In this case, they thought more than 3 people
would die a year in Marion and more than .*4 in home fires. Here the
availability effect seemed to operate; they could remember reading about
house fires that killed several people at one time.
3. Overall, they were not enthusiastic about the cigarette smoking
comparison. When it was applied to low level risks, on the other hand, it
was very effective, lisk of smoking 12 cigarettes a year is perceived to be
low. A risk reduction amounting to reducing the number of cigarettes from, 12
to 6 was widely viewed as inconsequential.
'I. It took some discussion before they realized that the risk would not he
totally removed and this knowledge was important to them. One of the group
used the analogy of bringing blood pressure down, e.g., where someone's blood
pressure is reduced from a "too high" level to a level closer to but not at
normal,
5. RM attempted to see if they found a series of risk reductions meaningful,
for example, going from 400 ppm to 200 ppra and then going from 200 ppm to 100
ppm etc. They cid not find this easy to answer. Having the comparisons on
the risk ladders did help them somewhat. But they were not sure 400 to 200
was a big improvement. This raises the issue of whether or' not respondents
can discriminate between various levels of low level reductions, or whether
they only have a value for a generalized reduction from being above the
standard to meeting the standard.
PERCEPTION OF RISK
1. One person said, if one person dies it is one too many. It appears that
this although this is a view that people easily assent to, they do not
necessarily bring to bear on every situation.
2. There were several spontaneous expressions of the view that everything,
causes cancer. Again. the pessimism and passivity implied by this
stereotypical view seems to be contextual; people can be made to think about
the relative risks of getting cancer,
3. In both Marion foeus groups, it became clear that every person assumed
that we wanted to learn how to present the risks so we would measure large
values. It also seemed to be the case that they assumed the risks were high
simply because we were going to such great lengths and expense to bring them
together to discuss these risks. As a result in Croup 2, RM had to go to
k~ t 5
-------
some lengths to communicate the low level nature of the risks (the cigarette
example finally did the trick). When the participants finally realized how
low level they were and, further, the slight risk reduction implied by bring
the THM levels into compliance, they warned him that his explanations would
not get the high WTP amounts they thought he wanted. He had to keep assuring
them that he did not care how much they were willing to pay as long as they
really understood the nature of the risk improvement.
4. Nevertheless5 even after group 2 understood the low risk levels, and the
fact that there was no pressure on them to give any amount, they expressed
the strong opinion that some payment (e.g. $10 - $12 per year) was worth it
to make the water a bit safer. They were not dissuaded from this view even
when RM probed their views on this issue. They regarded this amount as a
relatively nominal amount for a tax increase to lower the low level risk.
5. In estimating their WTP, they spontaneously used their current water
payments as a base. They believe this amount is around $125 a year. On this
basis, another $10 is acceptable whereas doubling the water payments to $250
would be clearly unacceptable.
6. In the discussion of risk, they commented how people take risks all the
time. E.g., kerosine heater fumes are probably harmful, but people use them
all the time. They also cited smoking (and three of the five were smoking
away during the discussion.)
7. They agreed that the mention of cancer makes people react.
A-56
-------
APPENDIX B
HERR IN INSTRUMENT REVIEW
On May 9, 1985 a copy of the draft questionnaire was sent Eor comment to
Alan Carl in, George Parsons, Ann Fisher and David Schnare of the US
Environmental Protection Agency, Paul Slovic and Nancy Reiches of our advisory
committe, Clifford Russell of RFF, and the following economist practitioners of
the contingent valuation method: Kerry Smith, William Desvousges, Alan Randall,
William Schulze. A memo accompanied the questionnaire which described the
rationale for the questionnaire's wording and the design of an experiment to
assess the validity of the risk communication procedures. Two potential biases
in particular ware identified as potentially troublesome: amenity
misspecification and compliance bias.
The risk levels described in the memo were somewhat different than the
final risk levels used in the study. Version A contained our best estimates
for the levels of risk involved Eor the EPA THM standard and three realistic
levels of THMs which exceeded the EPA standard. Version B was identical except
that each of the out-of-compliance levels was three times higher than those
used in version A. (Thus a .11 ppm level of THMs in version A became .33 ppm
in the B version and so on.)
By May 29 comments had been received from a number of those to whom we
sent the draft instrument:. A summary of these comments and the changes made in
response to them are as follows.
Clifford Rassell suggested that, given the unreliability of risk estimates
in general, a greater difference between the versions A and B would provide a
more reasonable test. This suggestion was adopted and a five fold difference
between the two versions was implement. Thus the .33 level proposed for
version B was increased to .513 etc.
Ann Fisher, in a May 20 eominunical ion, pointed out several inconsistenc ies
on the cards and some minor word changes, all of which were corrected or
changed. She also raised several other points:
1. The diversity of the risk comparisons on the ladder might confuse
respondents because some arc annual and some (e.g. dying in an airplane crash)
are per event. (Kerry Smith and William Desvousges also raised this point.)
Although our pretests indicated that respondents did not find this type of
diversity confusing, we introduced wording changes to further clarify the
different types of risks for the respondents. We also alerted the interviewers
to watch tor confusion or problems caused by this diversity and asked them to
report any problems along this line to us immediately.
2. The description of the risks of cigarette smoking and being a
policeman as voluntary don't reflect the reality of the long term commitment
involved with being a policeman. While we understand the point, ve did not
change this part of the questionnaire for two reasons. First, it was too
difficult to address this point in the questionnaire without adding to its
already considerable cognitive complexity for the respondents. Second, our
distinction is one which, from everything we could determine, made sense to the
B-l
-------
respondents who viewed being a policeman or a smoker as ve:~y different from
drinking contaminated drinking water.
3. Respondents are likely to want to know the costs of any program before
they vote for it in a referendum as we ask them to do in the first part of the
willingness-to-pay questions. This is indeed a question respondents raise and
needed to be addressed. We revised the appropriate section accordingly.
4. If all respondents are not on city water, a question should be added
to ascertain their water source. I double checked the situation in Herrin and
determined that our entire sample was served by city water.
Kerry Smith provided extensive and very helpful written comments in his
letter of May 15. Among the changes we made which address his comments are:
the provison of a more detailed explanation of the assumptions behind the
insurance examples, varying the order of valuation, previewing the entire
series of risk improvements before valuing any one of them, gathering
information on whether people are home owners, changing the description of the
length of time the interview will take in the introduction, and varying the
text with more interrogatories.
We did not adopt others of Smith's suggestions for various reasons. He
recommended more design points to test how individuals' responses vary with the
information they are provided. According to our calculations of the minimum
sample size necessary to test differences with sufficient power, our sample
size of 200 would not permit more sample points than the four we already had.
Smith {and Alan Randall.) also raised the question of whether respondents
would react differently to risks with long latency periods than to those with
shorter term outcomes. This is one of the many complexities of working with
risk. To produce a risk ladder with meaningful benchmarks on it, we had to
combine different types of risk. But the risk ladder is only one of the
devices we use to help respondents put drinking water risks in perspective. We
feel the use of cigarette equivalents, which also involve long latency periods,
helped to ensure lhal respondents grasped the nature of the drinking water
risks. Again, our focus group and in-depth interview expedience suggested that
this would not be a problem.
Another of Smith's comments involves our assumption that the risks are
strictly additive. He provided a citation to a debate on whether or not there
are independent sources of risk and suggested that this debate was relevant to
how we interpret our results in an expected utility framework.
Finally, Smith raised the question of whether our respondents should
assume that they have other adjustment mechanisms available. We do assume that
respondents will be free to engage in averting activities such as the purchase
of bottled drinking water whether or not the referendum passes. We did no I
specifically describe this possibility, because we thought it would be self-
evident to the respondents and because the scenario description was already
over long. People in southern Illinois seemed to be very aware of averting
opportunities. The local drinking water in this area comes from relatively-
shallow surface sources with the result that its taste and odor characteristics
are objectionable to more than a few people many of whom resort to home
treatment or purchase bottled water. People are presumably aware of these
options through local product advertising. In order to further address this
B-2
-------
issue in the questionnaire, we added questions which probed whether respondents
engage in averting behavior of any sort following which we offered the
respondents the opportunity to revise their WTP amounts if they wished to do so
for any reason. In all, 18 respondents (9 percent) said they usually do not
drink the water as it comes out of the tap. One third of these respondents buy
bottled water and hall, have a purification device attached to a faucet. There
was no evidence that these respondents changed their WTP amounts because they
became aware of the implications of their averting behavior.
In addition to the point mentioned earlier, Alan Randall, in a phone
conversation, said lie had some difficulty with the cigarette scale and wondered
why we needed to mention "lifetime" when describing the number of cigarettes.
We use cigarettes smoked in a lifetime for the cigarette low level risk
equivalents to ensure that respondents do not misinterpret (as did some in the
pretests) 10 cigarettes total as meaning 10 cigarettes a day or year.
William Desvousges sent us a copy of the questionnaire on which he had
written comments. His primary concern was the instrument's wordiness in the
section (pages 3 to 10) which explains risk and the risk ladder. In addition
to various places where he questioned the way we worded various elements of the
scenario, and his concern, noted above, about the diverse nature of the risks
used as examples in the instrument, he also expressed his dislike of the
cigarette equivalents which seem awkward to him. We addressed some of these
concerns in our revision; others, including our use of cigarette equivalents,
we retained because all the evidence available to us suggested that they worked
well. Finally, Desvousges questioned whether the use of the respondent's water
bill as a payment vehicle might introduce an implicit starting point. We
believe the use of the bill as a starting point, which did in fact occur with
great frequency, is inevitable given the fact that the water bill is the actual
payment vehicle which would be used for any drinking water quality
improvements. The use of any other payment vehicle would make the scenario
unnecessarily hypothetical.
B-3
-------
A1
Hay 1935
Card 1/ It
D t«i _____________ Intarvlavar So, / 2
Int«r*l«wID Ho i / / t 3-5
*»nion V 6
Ra«ouro«a for Uw Future tfasbington» D.C.
ttililliO NiTKR QOBSTZOmULIlUt
• Hello, 'By name Is end I'm with Resources for the
future, & nonprofit research organization based in Washington, D»C.
We're conducting a study of people's views about certain kinds of
environmental issues and risk in Southern Illinois.. This letter describes
(BAND LETTER TO PERSON) the study and Resources for the Future. The study is
intended to give people like you the chance to have a »ay about government
policies, (It has no connection with ooaicareial products or services)*
We have scientifically nelectsd a sample of households to represent this
area and your household is part of that aaiuple. Because ve have ehoaevi
relatively few households, your participation is extremely important. We hope
you trill balp ub« (PA0SB)
9 eoroDCI BTtMBSATlON IKTtmiW TO DrrraKDCK BCSIOlUTro 8ES1»E«T.
I—1
Tb* lnt*rTl«« will Uk* «boot forty alautw.
ttore *r« a® right or wont ummn. fMBStt Hmmm Let ¦« know at aii|'
tlM if • question to w*ol**r or yen would like* to hare aora inforwtion tbout
It.
TO BE COBEB If milttieS™--
RwpoodMt 1# 1 Htl« 2 PwmiI* T
Respondent is! 1 Person first contacted op 8 Other person 8
lime endedt Tine beguns __________
Interview length* ' Blnutes. V 10
APPENDIX C
R1X INSTRUMENT
2
Pollution, which affects the quality of our air, vater, and food, cars cone
Troo oany different sources.
HAND RESPONDENT CARS 1
In a sonant X will n&ce several types of pollution, Uss this scale card to
tell me how harmful you feel each one is to people's health and to the
environment In this oity. For example, If you feel «ol
-------
5
A~ 1
.he th ir*j category of risks or, th* ar** S^vr level flakg* These are rare
•r.eeyrrenees such an r^ing hit k.-y iXflhtnin^ w^TT^, nan a risk i^vel cf less
tr.an one perscr. j-cr ICO T ft 00 .
itfery feu people 3re Mitel t-y lightning »ach y«»i». Out of the two
Billion people who die «ieh y*ar from all .tausss, only 1 t6 are killed by
lightning.)
This risk is so small that yon would •inly nave to pay rive cents for a
$100,000 life insurance policy agnlnnt bein<5 killed by lightning In any
is?.iven yesr,.
On the card we show (POINT) another type cf low level risk -- being killed
in an airplane crash when taking a scheduled airliner In the United States.
Too may consider the risk of dying In art airliner crash pretty high because
every crash gets a lot of televison and newspaper publicity. In fact, even
though tens of thousands of flights occur each year Involving millions of
passengers, the average number of people killed In scheduled airliner
crashes each year in the United States Is only 121 people.
The data show that the risk level for wach trip anyone takes on an airliner
is .10 per 100,000 (POINT). This racans that only one tenth of a person dies
for every 100,000 people who take a single airline trip. (PAUSE) Obviously
O it is impossible for less than one person to die. toother way of expressing
*his risk level is to say that the risk level of dying in an airplane crash
is one in a Billion.
This risk is so low that the coat of the $100,000 Ufe Insurance policy for
a single trip on a scheduled airliner would b* ten cents. (PAUSE)
Do you have any questions about these examples? (PAUSE)
Another kind of extra risk that soae people accept is to smoke cigarettes.
Of course, like being a policeman or taking an airline flight, this risk Is
voluntary. The riak cooes frora the fast that radical doctors have
determined that sca» sntokers will eventually die fros lung cancer or heart
disease caused by soaking even though other smokers Mill not.
The more cigarettes soaeone snakes in s UfetisM, the higher the risk. What
this means is that every cigarette a person smokes carries with it a very
tiny riak of eventually dying from lung cancer or heart disease — just as
every cila you drive In your ear poses a tiny risk of being killed in ar.
automobile accident. (PAUSE) Using the beat available data, we have
calculated the nusb«r of cigarettes you would have to sstoke to experience
the 3an« level of risk of dying aa a atuntraan, police officer and airline
Passenger,
6
A-l
•IAf,*r> tF.ir-0!.'~Ff,T CARD £
Thl? ."ar J shrws these sarre three rlvj. 1 ; at the airlift*1
' POINT ^. An a way ~f helping y?j. t- rr^para ria*?, '.hr jhowft how tMtiy
rigtrvttra would have tc sr.ote in \ lifetlr<* to i«e exp^s* J t- ;he it?"
t-l'Sl 'rls" a" boir.f, rfiliei uts-. tik-.r.,- a single -i r. 4n»*r trip.
^ yoj can see, tms ri«k Is equivalent to the r:s* of dying froc sr.c^irg
•rf>> cigarettes in a lifetime, Obviously Sutn risks ar? «»xf1st..
1fauke:
Can veu tell t," the cigarette equivalent f*r tr.r .innu.il ri.iic of b-ir.g a
:fy-| ^ n J* f | ^ f* ?
(Irs this case the annual ris« of 2R in 10C,0;ti is roughly comparable to
th* risk of smoking 438 cigarettes In a lifetimes. This is the satae as
smoking a little sore than 1 cigarettes a day for a single year.)
We can even make the same comparison for a stuntnan. This riak la so high
that someone would have to smoke 33,060 cigarettes in a lif«tirte to be
exposed to the same level of riak that a stuntaar. faces in a year. This
would be the equivalent of smoking 4,5 packs a day for a year I (PAUSE)
iF RESPONDENT SEEMS CONFUSED ABOUT THE CIGARETTE COMPARISONS, REPEAT PAHTS
OF THE ABOVE MATERIAL AS NECESSARY.
w» all are exposed to «any types of low level risks every day. These
Include being exposed to air pollution and eating food which has chemicals
added to it to keep it from spoiling. Each of these activities poses some
wry small risk of dying from cancer. ScEetioes if we pay aore sonsy we can
reduce the risk soisewhat, but we can never eliminate it. In eaah case we
fiavs to ask ourselves whether the sire of the reduction in risk is large
enough to be north spending aoney for tnis purpose.
The particular risk I war.t tc ask you about involves drinking water.
BMC RESPONDENT CARD 7
As you probably know, cities like this or.e who get their water froo surface
supplies add small amounts of chlorine to drinking wat<*r to purify it. The
chlorine kills bacteria which would otherwise causa disease. Under certain
special conditions, the chlorine can produce small amounts of chaaieals
called trlnalooethar.es or THH's in the drinking water people drink.
Because they are created in the process of treating tb« water, THMa are very
different froa other types of chemical contaminants you nay have heard about
such as ?CBs. (PAUSE)
-------
A-1
IF RESPONDENT SITS THIS RISK LEVEL SEEMS HIGH, EXPLAIN THAT THIS
INCLUDES DEATHS WHICH OCCUR ILL OVER THE COUNTRY AND SOME PEOPLE GET
OPERATED ON WHEN THEIR APPENDIX HAS BECOME VERY INFECTED.
IF NECESSARY, EXPLAIN THAT THIS BISK IS FOR A PARTICULAR OCCURRENCE
WHEREAS THE OTHER LEVELS ARE FOR EXPERIENCING A SITUATION FOR A YEAR.
At J) per 100,000 (POINT IF NECESSARY) is the extra annual risk of dying faced
by a young woman who uses contraceptive pills. The interesting thing about
this risk level is that doctors say that it is low enough to Justify using
contraceptive pills for younger women who want to practice birth control.
IF RESPONDENT KEKTIOHS HE OR SHE HAS HEARD OF A HIGH RISK FOR THE PILL,
SAY THAT THE RISK INCREASES SIGNIFICANTLY FOB OLDER WOMEN AND DOCTORS
NO LONGER RECOMMEND THAT THESE WOMEN USE THE PILL.
One of the reasons for this la that if the woman got pregnant, she would face
the somewhat higher risk of dying in childbirth faced by a woaan each time
she has a baby, (POINT),
Each year we all face the risk of dying in an automobile accident caused by a
car driven by another person who is drunk. This risk level is about 5 In
100,000 each year (POINT IF NECESSARY).
The bottom segment (POINT) stretches out the tiny area narked In green on the
first ladder (POINT). All the risks In blue are quite low. These green risk
levels are vary low — the chances of any of thera occurring are all below 1
in 100,000, 0ns tenth of one, .10, is where the risk of dying In a single
airliner trip lies (POINT IF NECESSARY). (PAUSE) As I said before, this is
at the one in a Billion level.
For each five airline trips you take in a given period of time you are
exposed to this risk of dying (POINT TO .5).
Because some people find it hard to conpare risks that are this small, we
have put aonse cigarette smoking comparisons on the right hand aide of this
card. As you remember, the ri3k of dying from cancer or heart disease from
smoking two cigarettes is roughly equivalent to the risk of dying In a crash
when taking a single airplane trip. Note that this is not two cigarettes a
day, but the risk of dying If you only smoked two cigarettes In your entire
lifetime.
As you can see, the risk of dying In an airline crash is extreaely low.
Let's eoapare it with another risk that people face, the yearly risk of dying
in a home fire, (POINT). This risk is equivalent to smoking a total of 56
cigarettes In a lifetime. This means that It Is 28 tinea higher than the
risk you face or dying when you take a single airline trip. Although the
home fire risk is higher, please note that both are low level risks compared
to the overall risks of dying that we all face (POINT TO THE BASIC RISK SIDE
OF CARD A) each year.
Do you have any questions about these «Mta?
10
A-1
5. Did any of these risk levels surprise you? (PAUSE) Which sues?
1 Yes 2 Ho 31
6. Now I'd like your opinion about the following hypothetical situation.
Let's say that you want to visit some relatives in Denver during your
vacation. You have the choice of taking a three hour airplane trip or taking
a 12 hour train trip. If tickets for the train and the plane both cost the
same and the risk of dying in a train crash was exactly the same as dying In
an airplane crash (POINT TO .10 ON THE RISK LADDER), which would you normally
prefer to take — the plane or the train?
1 Plane (GO TO QUESTION 7A)
2 Train (GO TO QUESTION IB)
3 Other (describe) REMIND RESPONDENT THESE ARE
THE 0SLX WO OPTIONS 35
IF RESPONDENT CH0SES PLANE
7a. What If the train risk remained at 0.10 (POINT), but the risk of death
from a plane crash was at some higher level on the risk ladder? What is
the highest risk per 100,000 you would he willing to accept and atlll take
the plane rather than the train?
__/_/» / Highest risk level before taking train
99.0 Other, describe 36-39
IF-RESPONDENT CHOSES TRAIN
7b. What If the plane risk remained at 0.10 (POINT), but the risk of death
from a train crash was at some higher level on the risk ladder? What Is
the highest risk per 100,000 you would be willing to accept and still take
the train rather than the plane?
/ /. / Highest risk level before taking train
99.0 Other, describe 36-39
Now that you are familiar with the risk ladder I'd like to show you the
actual risk levels for the three oitlea whose drinking water did not meet the
EPA standard. These risk levels were carefully computed by scientists using
the best available information. They represent the highest likely risk posed
by the different THM levels fop people that drink the water every day for a
ZMT.
PLACE CARD C ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE RISK LADDER
-------
13
A-1
These describe the situation I want to ask you about. la there anything
about these assumptions you find difficult to accept?
1 Y»a 2 No 11
IF YES, ASK WHAT IT IS, AND EXPLAIN THAT HE WANT EVERYONE WHO ANSWERS THE
QUESTIONS TO ASSUME THE SAME THINGS. EVEN IF THEY THINK ONE OR MORE OF THE
ASSUMPTIONS IS IMPROBABLE, THEY SHOULD ASSUME IT 13 TRUE FOR THE PURPOSES OF
ANSWERING OUR QUESTIONS, SAY THAT YOU WILL MAKE A NOTE OF THEIR RESERVATION
IF THEY WISH. (WRITE IT HERE)
OK, now I'm going to ask you about each of the three different levels of
THMs, one at a tine. We have found that some people vote yes and some people
vote no to each of these referenda. Please don't think that we favor any
position on these referenda. We do not. We simply want to understand how
people really feel about the Issue. So in answering the questions please try
to think how you would actually vote if there really was such a referendum
and the facts were as I have described then.
11 A-t
HAND RESPONDENT CARD 11, RESPONDENT SHOULD ALSO HAVE RISK LADDER AHD CARD C IN
FRONT OF HIM OR HER.
Trie first referendum is on whether or not Herrin should spend mousy to reduce
the 7 KM level in the city's drinking water froo .11 parts per million to the
EPA standard of ,10. (PAUSE)
This card shows the amount-of reduction in THMs that would occur if the
referendum passes, the reduction In the annual risk of death and the
cigarette equivalent for this risk reduction which is about the sane as
smoking 2 cigarettes in a lifetime (POINT TO THE BEFORE AND AFTER RISK LEVELS
AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO).
If the referendum passes your annual water bill would be Increased by some
amount and you would get this level of annual risk reduction and no more.
The amount of the increase will depend entirely on how much you are willing
to pay for this purpose. If it loses, you will continue to be exposed to
this higher level of risk (POINT) and no acre,
(Remember; the only source of risk in the drinking water coses froo THMs
and many authorities do not think this risk Is high enough to be worth
spending much money to reduce.)
10. If there were an election on this issue, which my would you vote! Would
you vote to increase your water bill by .some amount to get this ouch yearly
risk reduction, or, all things considered, would you vote not to increase
your water bill for this purpose?
IF RESPONDENT ASKS HOW MUCH HIGHER THE MATER BILL WILL BE, SAY "You will
be given the opportunity to say how ouch of an increase you will accept
for this purpose. Therefore If you are willing to pay any extra money at
all for this purpose, you should vote yes." If you are not, you should
vote no."
1 VOTE FOR HIGHER WATER BILL AFTER ASKING HOW MUCH
2 VOTE FOR HIGHER WATER BILL WITHOUT ASKING
3 VOTE TO KEEP WATER BILL THE SAME AFTER ASKING ROW MUCH
« VOTE TO KEEP WATER BILL THE SAME WITHOUT ASKING
5 OTHER {DESCRIBE)
*2
-------
17
,*-1
Here's the last referendum.
HAND RESPONDENT CARD '3
This time the vote is whether or* not to reduce the THMs from a level of .33
parts per million to the EPA standard of .10. (PAUSE) The sane asauoptiona
hold for this referendum as well.
The cigarette equivalent for this change In annual risk is about the saae as
smoking 20 cigarettes in a lifetime (POINT IF NECESSARY).
16. If there were an election on this Issue, which way would you vote? Would
you vote to increase your water bill by some amount to get this ouch yearly
risk reduction, or, all things considered, would you vote not to increase
your water bill for this purpose?
1 VOTE FOR HIGHER WATER BILL
2 VOTE TO KEEP WATER BILL THE SAME
3 OTHER (DESCRIBE) 52
IF TOTE FOR HIGHER WATER BILL:
17. Taking into account your income and expenses, realistically what is the
highest amount pet- year you would be willing to vote to increase your
^ household's water bill for this risk reduction only?
I
IF RESPONDENT GIVES A MONTHLY AMOUNT, CONVERT IT INTO A YEARLY AMOUNT AND
ASCERTAIN WHETHER THIS IS THE AMOUNT THE RESPONDENT WISHES TO PAY
* -J-! 1 Per year (ROUND TO NEAREST DOLLAR) 53-55
998 DoFf KNOW, NOT SURE
999 REFUSED
IF VOTE TO KEEP THE HATER BILL THE SAME!
18. Bid you vote to keep the bill the saae because you think the risk
reduction la not worth any money or because of some other reason?
1 RISK REDUCTION NOT WORTH AST MONEY
2 NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MAKE A DECISION
PROBE TO SEE WHAT INFORMATION THEY WISH TO HAVE AND
ENCOURAGE RESPOHDENT TO GIVE AN AMOUNT ANYWAY
3 WORTH SOME MONEY, BUT ASSUMED THE INCREASE WOULD BE LARGE
AMD MORE THAN I WANTED TO PAY
1 OTHER (PLEASE DESCRIBE)f 56
IF WORTH SOME MONEY (3) ASK QUESTION 17 ABOVE.
18
A-1
IF RESPONDENT VOTED NO ON ALL THREE REFERENDA ONLY:
19. The referenda I asked you about offered you three different risk
reductions. Since you voted no on all three, I'd like to ask what level of
risk from THMs in your drinking water you would be willing to pay something
higher on your water bill to bring down to the EPA standard. (PAUSE) la
there any level of risk from THMs in your drinking water that you would be
willing to vote in a referendum to reduce?
1 Yes GO TO QUESTION 20
2 No — Why not? (WRITE ANSWER HERE) SKIP TO QUESTION 21
5T
3 Not sure, don't know SKIP TO QUESTION 21
IF YES:
20, What is the lowest level of risk from THMs that you would be willing to
spend money to reduce to the EPA standard? Just tell me the number per
100,000 on the risk ladder.
/ /. / per 100,000 58-61
93.0 DON'T KNOW, SOT SURE
99-0 REFUSED
ILL RESPONDENTS
21. Now I'd like to ask you your opinion about the risks associated with the
EPA THM standard. Here at A is the annual risk posed by the present
standard. EPA chose this level as posing an acceptable level of risk from
THMs, but it could have chosen other levels, either higher or lower. Some
people think tha risk level SPA choose Is too high and should bs lowered even
If it Beans that more cities will have to spend money to Beet the standard.
Others think EPA ohose an unnecessarily low risk level and should raise it
somewhat so fewer cities will have to spend money to meet the standard. How
do you feel about the risk associated with the current EPA standard? As far
as you are concerned, do you think EPA should require aonsur.ities to meet
this risk level from THMs or a lower or higher one?
1 Too low 2 Too high 3 About the right level 1 DK 62
IF TOO LOW OR TOO HIGH:
22, Where on the risk ladder would you prefer the EPA THM standard to be?
Just tell ae the number per 100,000 on the risk ladder which is an acceptable
level of risk from life,
83-66
98.0 DON'T KNOW, NOT SURE
99.0 REFUSED
-------
21
1-1
36. What do yau mokmf
1 Cigarettes About how many each day? / / 13, M-t5
Z Pipe
3 Cigars
37. Do you own or rent your house (trailer, apartment)?
1 0«n 2 Rent 3 Other (DESCRIBE!) 16
38. Bo you or does soaoona else In your household pay a water bill?
1 Person pays (USUALLY OR SOMETIMES)
2 Sooeone else In the household pays '?
3 Do not pay a Mater bill (BECAUSE RENT ETC.)
IF PERSON OR SOMEONE IN HOUSEHOLD PAIS!
39• Bow many tines during the year do you gat billed for city water?
1 EVERT MONTH 2 EVERY OTHER MONTH 3 EVERY THREE MONTHS
IS
1 EVERT SIX MONTHS 5 ONCE A TEAR 6 NOT SURE, DON'T KNOW
10. About how ouch do you pay for your Mater?
$__/ /__/ per year (CALCULATE THE YEARLY AMOUNT If BSKMDBiT GIVES
S9l~DOR"t Know If BY A S'JBYEARLY AMOUNT ABB RBPBAT THE YEARLY
999 Refused TO THE RESPONDENT)
19-21
* 1. Had you ever heard of THKs before this interview?
1 T«a
2 Unsure, but mayba yea 22
3 So
IF IBS OH UNSURE, BUT MAYBE YES;
12, Please tell ne uher® you heard about thea? (RECORD;
*3. About ho# long ago was this? (iECOiM
22
$1. Please tell me what you resestier ai>out tiieo?
(PROBE TO SEE: s! IF WHAT THEY RECALL WAS REALLY THMs
b) IF THEY HAD PCBs CONFUSED WITH TSffls — IF SO, EXPLAIN
RECORD THE DIFFERENCE AND THAT THIS SURVEY IS ONLY ABOUT THMs
ANSWERS
HERE
e) WHETHER THET HAD HEARD OF THE EPA STAKDARD
U) AND WHETHER THEY RECALL AMY HOTZFICATIOH ABOUT REftgXN
ISMS OTER TBI STANDARD
45. Here's the last question. Thinking fcacV to the earlier part of the
interview, you said you were willing to pay (READ ANNUAL AMOUNT) axtra on
your water bill for (RISK REDUCTION). REPEAT FOR EACH AMOUNT GIVEN AND
RECORD IS THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT COLUXN,
Original Amount Rwlaed taount
B to A $ / / / per year par year i*-ih
c to A t / / t per year $ / / 1 per year 2T-29
5 to A $ /_/ / per year $ / /_/ per year 30-32
Now that you have had more of a chance to think about the question, Mould you
like to change any of these amounts to oaks thea lower or higher for any
reason?
1 Yes
2 Ho 33
3 Other (RECORD):
If TESj What changes would you like to unto? KCORD HEW AMOCIRT ABOVE IN TOE
REVISED AMOUNT COLUMN, IF HO CHANGE, COPY ORIGIKAL AKXJIfT 1110 SKVI3SD
AMOUNT COL OH!).
Why did you decide to take this change? (PR088; RECORD AHSVB8 HE®I
31
Thank you very much for answering th®s« questions. In case you may wonder what
Herrin'a current TKH level Is. It has been below the EPA standard for
several years.
-------
Card 1
Carl ?
-HARM 7G SMVXRCNMEKT IN THIS TOWK-
SATISFACTION VtZTH SEPVICEJ IS THIS TOW1-
Lcuast
Harm
¦¦ 2.
Highest
Ha Pa
... 10
Don % Kr.ow,
Net Sure
Loweas
Satisfaction
1 .2....
Highest
Satisfaction Don't Know,
..... 10 Hot Sura
-------
ASPECTS OF fOUR OFISKIKC WATER
Taste
Odor
Appearance
Supply Intarruptlon
Contamination by Cheoicals That Kay Kara (tea
Card #
BkSlZ RISKS OF DY1T. FROM ALL CAUSES
i Annua', i
Mo. of people «ho
die »«ch year per
100,000
innuai premium
far J!00,COO (
life lasuraace
25-31
35-M
15-5-
55-eX
l?7 of 100,000
229 of 100,000
584 of 100,000
or 1 of 730
or 1 of 137
or ! of m
'363 3f 100,000 01* 1 of 73
J' 37
$229
$584
$1363
* This pate raflaeta the cost of paying the faotlias of these who die under
"ideal" insurance plan In which everyone participates and there are no
adsinistrative costs,
-------
Card 5
ittSK
BASIC sra: SXT8A RISK . NEW BISK
Basic B i3K Annua I extra risk ti'
of Dying frote belfig s
Ages 25-34 SttJNTHAK
•JT Of 120,DCS * 2,000 Of 100,000 s 2,13? OF IOC,COO
Insurance
premium i . 12,000 . i2,137
Annual extra risk of dying
from being a
n AGE 25-3" POLICE OFFICER
ij! 13? OF 100,000' * 22 OF 100,000 a 159 Of 100,GOO
Insurance
prsniua ? * 422 s 1159
Extr* risk of dying
In an »irpl»n« crash during
AGE 25-3* OKB USiDC FLIGHT
13? of 1 CO,000 + 0,10 or 100,000 . 13?.13 of 100,000
or
C1 of 1,000,000!
Insurance
premiun *137 * *.10 ~ *137.10
Curd 6
CIGARETTE SM0KIW COHPASrSON
Baai; Jiatr Ar.nual extra ris
-------
z
Q
*5:
o
tr
3
a
tr
Hi
LU
z
o:
0
_j
1
o
(/)
©
c
re
.c
4-1
©
E
o
as
«M|MM
05
CD
o
CL
O
z:
E
CL
Q.
w
C
o
©
a
to
05
Q.
C-16
-------
Curt §-A
KMtwrxcii. nxiKDB urn msMusans
tppa » hru par »II4#6|
(ICOtM
LETO, OF THMa 3TUOJJU) iOTIFElIIQi
I* mm II mammt
D »viU« 0,33 ps» 0.23 ppa It*
0 SoutH Saitavtll* 0.18 pp» 0,08 ppa Its
B Eut SaltBirlli# 0.1! ppa 0.01 ppa T«s
A gp» Standard 0.10 ppa Ho
Sal twills 0,09 ppm No
CftnlMrvlll* 0,07 ppB is
&KS l-I
HTPOTHTnCU, SKIIKIMC WITH KCUOXEMDiTS
(HTM p*r milton)
EXCEEDS
LITE1. Of ttMs STJUtJSjU© lOTinCMIO*
U VATXX B* aaUUTt
D *ort6 1.65 ppa 1-55 ppa Y®s
Q South Salthvill* 0,50 ppa 0.80 ppa Yli
B East Salumli* 0.55 ppa 0«*5 ppa las
A Standard 0.19 ppa Mo
Saiumll# 0.09 ppa Mo
Caotarvlll* 0.07 ppa Bo
-------
Ctrd 9-A
mpoTSHicAL ntraroio nun Msnwnirs
umut. bisk Lxms*
TOTAL
LEVEL OF TIMS ClfiiWIKS
la
VJiXER
mfsx
Di
UFEIDS
D
Itorta SsltbvlLU
0
33 ppa
2
1 *9 of 100,000
or
39
clgaraltas
C
South Saithvilis
0
18 ppa
s
no of 100,000
or
21
aigarettea
8
East SalUivilla
0
11 ppa
a
0»6l of 100,000
or
13
clprtCMi
A
BPi SUmdarti
_0
10
a
0.57 of 100,000
OF
11
otgar®tt«s
Sal til villa
0
IS*! ppa
5
0*51 of 100,000
or
10
clgirattaa
Caatfcrvills
0
01 ppa
•
0.34 of 100,000
cr
7
algaratta#
n
i
h~>
03
• For aoaaone wUa driaks the water with this level of THMs every day for a
year.
Card 9-1
EUPOTHFTICAL BIUMM; VitSB ffi0K»!S
iwm kisk unu'
LEVEL OF TtttS
IN WATER
ntsr
TOTAL
GXaiMTTIS
11 LXfmtSE
D
North Saithvllla
1.65 pp®
s
|.5 Of 100,000
or
195 cigarettes
C
South SalUwUla
0.90 pp»
m
5.0 of 100,000
or
105 oigarettes
B
East Soitfcvtlle
0.55 ppa
3
3.0 of 100,000
or
65 cigarettes
A
G?A Standard
0.10
m
0,57 of 100,000
or
11 cigarettes
Salthvlll*
Q.tf) ppa
s
0,51 of too,000
or
10 cigarettes
Cant«rvlll«
0.07 ppa
3
0.34 Of 100,000
or
7 oigarettea
• For soMoae who drink* the water with this level of THMs every day for a
year*
-------
Ca.nl 10
I, THM's ARE THE ONLY SOURCE OF CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION
2, THM's HILL BE REDUCED ONLY TO THE STANDARD, HQ LOWER
¦ TASTE, ODOR ETC. WILL REMAIN THE SAME AS BEFORE
3. Each of the following soy the risk level posed by the
extra THM's Is qoi hign enough to worry about.
Local Drinking Water Utility Officials
City Health officials
State EPA Officio Is
"v
-------
Card A-II
B to A
LEVEL OF THMs ppm
General Risk of Dying
per 100,000
General Sisk Equivalent
in Total Cigarettes
From
. 11
13
To
.10
-.57
-11
CHAMGE IF aSFEBEHDUK PASSES
.01 parts per* uiliisn
.01 per 100,000
2 cigarettes in 11fatime
Conditions a 1. TSKa only source of ¦eentaEinatioa.
2. Radueec only to EPA standard.
3. Authorities my risk level not sign enough to worry
a. bout.
C to A
FroM
LEVEL OF THMa ppo .18
Gan«ral Risk of Dying
par ',00,000 1.0
General 813* Equivalent
in Total Cigarettes 21
To CKAXSE If 8EFSBSHPUM PASSES
.10 ,08 part# per Billion
.51 .*3 per 100,0C0
11 10 cigarettes in lifetime
Condltioaa; 1« THHa only source of eontaalMtloo*
2, Reduced only So EPA standard.
3. Authorities say risk level not higa «oougb to worry
about.
-------
C*rd i-13
D to A
Froe To CHAWS IF HEFEHEMDUH PASSES
LEVtL OF THte ppB .33 —— .10 .23 parts per Billion
General Hlsk of dying
{Mr 100,000 1.9 >•- -57 1.33 per 100,000
General Sisk Equivalent
in Total Clgsraetta 39 ¦»- 11 28 eigarsttas In lifatla*
Conditlenai 1. TtOta only tourcm of coRtuiiMtlon.
2. MduaM only to EPi standwd.
J, Authorities ur risk level not high wwucfc to worry
about.
S
-------
/
<
5
CO
i
I
§
a
3
3
<¦
X
si °
I
IIs
!
!¦
&
!
©
3
3
I
a
I I
o
- s
! I ll
!' I!
r is
W*
Mi
M
«• * «
° a t
3 O >*
I 3 9
I HI *
k 1 3
11!
(V-)
-------
Card S-i2
C to A
LEVEL OF THMa ppo
General Biak of Dying
per 100,000
General Bisk Equivalent
In Total Cigarettes
From
.90
5.S
To CHANGE IF HEFEREH5W PASSES
,10 .80 parts per million
.57 4.ii] per 1M.0OC
94 cigarettes in lifssinse
Conditions; 1, THMa or.ly source of contamination.
2. Jtaduoed only to EPA, standard.
3. Authorities say risk level not high enough to worry
about.
Cart B— 13
D to A
LEVEL or IBMs ppa
General Riak af Dying
per *00,000
Osnerai Sis* Equivalent
in Total Cigarettes
From
1.65
9.5
'95
- .10
-.57
1.55 parts par million
8.93 per i;3,CCC
'St oigarettM in lifetime
Conditions; 1. THMs only source of contamination.
2, Reduead only to EPA standard.
3. Authorities say riak level not high enough to worry
about.
-------
I
ANNUAL RISKS OF DYING
-."'M Q|SKS
0
1
KJ
4>
*ci Vi-Ht all rl»k«
4®e 3>-44. nil ri»k*
<(• 2S-K, all rl«k«
C0l»«4
ROD
600
5B<
son
l'"*
300
229
200
100
80
If Saokcer (sit l««Bt -one pack a day)
If Slgrdi*®r
If Fireman {Professional)
If Police Officer
By Lighten*
6
LOWER LEVEL RISKS
(ANNUAL)
' 1 r>*or'= y**r
[ 22 If Folio® Officer
21 In Auto Accident
20 If Have Appendectomy Operation
IS 1b Airliner Craab H50 trip#}
1 If Woihus Havlsg a Baby
10
\r $ By Drank Driver
f:t 4 If Vonan Contraceptive MU Our (Ift tl-H)
"3 In Bom Fire
LIFETIME
UJ
i22
403
2 *u Ped«atrlo»n
1 ~
O
221
86
10 In Airiin«r Cr*«h Ho trips)
0,95
OTS
15
' 0 SO In Alrl±n«r Crsafc |5 trip#} 10
,r p Alrlio«r Crmti fan# trip) 2
«^0 OS ty U.ghtaiBi |
0
/vJcfe. - fl *0 fix af'fc-c'iej fa.cS
C+A twi'h Aca^ "N
-------
\Jersicm rt
I! tf I ^4 "
"J'"" A
: »' L * £
as
i
o
LOWER LEVEL RISKS
(ANNUAL)
'as p», KM,000 p#opl» »Kh yMK
\
23 IT Police Officer
ft By Auto Accident,
20 if App*r>d«cto»y Operetl©®
ufctimc
Ti«L fSSif
UJ
422
403
IS la Airlitur Cr*«h (150 trips)
' 1 It VOMA i*VlB« « 1**7
10
tat
n
i
U*
5 B,y DrunX driver
4 If Iwu Contraceptive Fill 0««r C*f# 25-34)
3 Wf Mm Firs
.33 ppm D J A# Pedeatria
^ M-
~ ZT VO In Alrlinor Creib (10 trips)
18 ppm C o M
Sac.1-* (i
' \ \Kc
|(i -utlltnJ
0 75
0 SO In Urllwr CT*»k (} trip*)
OR
0 10 Is IlrlUtwr Cr»ih (oo» trip}
,05 1% U (fetal ¦«
ft,
21
15
10
I
LOWER LEVEL RISKS
(ANNUAL)
IS pi? 100,000 p*apJe tach y««r
27 It Folic* Officer
21 1b Auto Accident
gp If B*va Appendectoay Operation
IS Is Atrlin*P Crash (150 trip*)
11 If Vow Halving « Ubf
10
$0ppmC 5 By Dr\uii Drirgr
4 If Voq&e Contr
3 In lot* Fix*#
2 A* Pedeetrite
4 If Voq&e Contraceptive Pill fSmr (Afg 25-34)
.55 PPm B 3 In tone Fir*
V0 Is Airliner Cr«eb (10 tripe)
0J5
0.7S
ERfc SturxtertJ .K> ppm A
0,50 In Airliner Cmch {5 trip«)
* <** million people \ 0.10 Is Ur liner Cmefa (on« trip)
* 05 Bj Llgfetslsj
UFiTMt
V gist®
443
422
403
221
$6
21
15
10
-------
C»M T
rots. FKCLi' IXCDKF FCS
A $' ,0!'fi
B $5,000 to less than $10,000
C $'0,000 to less than $15,000
0 $15,000 to less than $20,000
E 120,000 to lea: than $85,000
F $25,000 to less than $30,003
G $30,000 to less than $35,000
K 135,000 to less than $40,000
'p I 1110,000 to less than t«5,00C
ro
& J $15,000 to less than $50,000
K $50,000 to less tnan HOC, CCS
L $100,000 «rsa over
-------
Appendix 0 U^fHlBUl 1011 OF WW RESPONSES KUK HERKIN MULif
VERSION A
ID
AMOUNT 1
4HUUNT2
IH0UN13
8»M0UfnTJ ,
R AMOUNT 2
B4M3UNT3
M S ! 2 f
INCOME
*Cf
cmnuhi
2 06 3
0
S
0
0
0
0
*
22. SO
35
6
2Ult
0
0
«
0
0
0
1
17/0
27
3
ioov
0
0
i
0
0
0
1
2,50
10
2
loi r.
0
0
0
c'
0
'tT
?? .50
" 56
. ^
2029
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
22 .'•o
76
3
20 3 7
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
?7,!.0
29
%
20* J
0
0
0
0
0
0
*
17.50
? 9
6
20* «5
u
0
0
f.
0
0
1
7/0
63
9
20t 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
12.50
54
A
2069
. o„.
0
0
0
-"0""
0
" <<
12.50
s=.
2
?u 7 ?
0
0
n
!)
0
0
3
17/0
•>9
*
300 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
22.*0
66
8
300'
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
72 .*"0
5
3009
0
0
0
c
0
0
t-
17.50
iP
»
301 ?
0
0'
0
p
0
0
?
2 7 / 0
53
6
3:29
0
0
0
0
0
— 0 -
S"
27/0
25
t
10 i 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2 7/0
IP
2
¦)U*«
0
0
0
0
0
0
37.50
2P
6
3 0 ft 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
*
37.50
<•2
*
*00fc
a
0
0
c
0
0
t
12.">0
31
R
SC29
0
0
0
p
0
0
4
22 /O
<• 7
%
100 3
a
" 0
0
r
_ 0-
...... . 0 ...
3
27/r
''"" * 9
2
100b
0
0
0
0
0
0
*7. 50
%5
*
2G03
3
0
0
a
0
0
3
32 /O
25
3
200 7
0
0
0
c
0
0
?
7/0
5 *
1
201 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1 2.50
BO
5
20 IS
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
17 /f
"if.
A
2055
0
0
0" ""
" '0 "
0
0
«
25'.00
to "
4
20 t i
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
32.*>0
51
A
20 7 9
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
27/0
Ifl
4
300 3
0
0
0
p
0
0
2
22. *0
66
3
3D 1 9
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
22/0
?~
3
302 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
17 .50
*5
7
365v
0
0~~
0
- "IT
0
• 0 ~
- -
" 6? ~
. .. -y-
30% 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
27,5ft
20
4
3C5 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
32/0
30
5
30*j 5
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
J 7/0
4.2
3
3063
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
22/0
6%
3
306 7
a
0
0
0
0
0
3
3? .50
3*>
a
307 1
0
0
0
" 0 '
¦¦ " o 1"
~ ~ "0'
72.11*
7fl__.
.
309 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
*
*7.50
35
3107
0
0
0 ¦
0
0
0
*
2 2.50
* 3
*
j a i l
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
32/0
«t3
2
*00 7
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
17.50
5f>
2
1.01'
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
32/0
5*.
10
«.c; <•
0
¦ 0
0
g—
0
0
"" *7.50
33
ft
*0 35
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
<.2 .50
2 0
2
3101
0
0
1 0
0
0
10
1
32.50
50
3
<.01 1
0
0
10
0
0
10
2
2.50
2fl
3
loot.
0
0
1 2
0
0
D
3
27 .50
*i5
1
2053
0
0
1 2
0
0
I?
1
12/0
33
*
' 1 30>S
0
0
12
o
0
' I?
*
31.^6
?t.
3
<.00 3
0
0
1*
0
M
I«t
-------
10 AHOUMll *H0UM2 ICCoHI 3 RAHOUNTI
3l)27 0 0 20 0
3039 0 0 20 0
3l>9 * 0 0 20 0
ioox " " cf " o 2* "a
2021 0 0 2 '¦» "• '0
309 3 u 0 ?S 0
20 > K I a ?r. 0
3 Co 31 ii 0 2S C
20IS u 0 10 0
joi s o o ic o
3C»> " "0 " 5*" "30 * 0
300 I '1 0 *S 0
i? 3 36 0
/«*)<» 0 a 36 o
30? 9 f) 0 3 6 0
301 1 >> 0 <>0 0
«»02l " "0 "0 * 66 ""0
202 3 fi 0 60 0
ioi 2 a o wo o
2027 O 0 120 0
310% 0 ID 20 0
309J 0 10 SO C
2033 0 12 I? "0
%flll 0 12 12 0
J04i 0 1? 20 0
2C% 3 0 12 Z«t 8
3091 o 1? 2* 0
301 I 0 12 it 0
3077 0 15 30 0
3109 0 IS 30 C
30.6% 0 2u »0 0
30*7 0 20 31 0
3l2S 0 20 *0 0
30S i 0 2S 30 Cl
3089 0 2S ' *0 0
203 J 0 3ft 3fc 0
2US1 0 3h Jb C
3.1S7 0 3b SO 12
3031 0 *0 SO 0
2u j 0 SO 5 0 0_
2 0*' " 0 SC 6S 0"
2 C19 0 60 60 C
*02 3 0 60 60 C
<,001 5 *> 1 •"
206 7 "" 10 l 12 12 12 12
2OS 7 12 12 2«—
it
36
36
30
SO
Yo
60
60
2*
2S
\T~
12
12
RAH0UNT3
20
20
?c
' 2
2<*
?<>
2%
25
" 0
25
?S
?S
30
30
30'
3%
36
36
31
_ 0
""?«
60
120
120
20
30
I?
1 ?
20
2t
2*
3ft
30
30
30
30
*0
30
MS I
TF
3"
3fi
¦50
50
•>0
~i>5'
60
60
%
3S
40
12
2<>
3h
iNCOwr
AGE
22 .50
7 2
27 , SO
72
22.se
t *
3>.sp "
7 3
22 .t-
<-S
«2.SO
1"
22 .'0
37
*7.«-0
*2
37.*0
27
so
2 7 .0
* 7 . * 0
32 .«-C
23
27,so
22
37,*>0
SP
" >2. SO
" 3">
17.^0
IP
« 7 .SO
3P
1 2 .'•f
64
17.*>0
fr7
22 .so
2f>
17. SO
2 3
37, SO
26
42, *0
«s
1 ?, SO
20
32 .SO
*2
*7,SO
S9
22, SO
"2
25.00
67
*?,S0
<.9
3? .'0
20
22.SO
2%
2 7. SO
6*>
17.so
21
3? .SO
32
3?.so
30
3 2. so
40
32 »S0
20
75.00
'S
2S .00
60
!?.«
S«
32.SO
28
» 7 .SO
40
27«S0
1.0
31. SO
30
22.SO
30
17.SO
2f
2.SO
*1
22.SO
?2
?7»S0
?e
>2. *6
M
12.SO
70
12.*0
63
CHfcHW*
-------
If.
A"«iUN T i
4MCU ki2
MQIJN13
<>Q 30
30% "5 20 SO
iou*- :<»
IQTi 2*t 36 36
<•009 JO hO 30
*Pi3 36 «tO «0
¦tO'H lb bC 1?0
J06 1 to t,Q lb
,2M1_ o.£L... ... k? 11,0
*c-
70
2C
6
0
0
0
L_1?jl50
??..
h
2-
36
36
2 17,5C
67
P
30
%0
30
] ?? ,%0
*1
*
?*
?<<
?<¦
* 37,SO
36
1 0
16
60
i 20
'¦ ?2.">0
* 1
»
10
60
7S
3
1%
«
6.P
»* - .
. ! -'r'
* , ..1.2 *55..
*0 ,
A
-------
VERSION B
IC
Anoimi
*MOUNT2
AW0UMT3
RAMOUNT 1
«t030
2006
2U!>fc
?' 1 C
3Mo
v; 71- '
32.9 c
*u02
*GJ *
<~026
/CO'.
201 ?
203 2
2t * G
2L«tS
20*j 2
/n^b
5DI h
304 0
3001
"»02
"o"
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3021>
u
0
12
JUSO
0
0
12
30^2
0
0
12
>09 R
0
0
20
2C6(
0
0
2«
30<. 2
0
Q
21
-H IC
0
0
2 *
2028
0
0
71
2 OHO
0
0
2%
302 4
0
0
2*
3030
0
0
30 "> fc
0
0
2h
«t01Q
0
0
2*j
306 C
fl
0
2*
2072
0
0
36
' 30&S
u
0
36
0
0
0
0
0
0
o"
0
c
0
c_
0
n
0
0
0
c_
~"c
0
a
n
0
_ft
0
c
0
0
p
c
"0
0
c
0
c
0"
0
0
R AMOUNT 2 RHWUNI3 HSIZf iNCOHf ACf CHEmWAT
0 0 3 2 ¦>. CO bS 6
0 0 4 27.50 «f> *
0 0 ? 27 .so *3 11
0 0 %
0 _ __ 0 _ ? * 7 .fO 30 4
6 "" " o T~ 3 77*6'" *4 ' 3
0 0 ? 2 ?. *>0 ?? %
0 0 3 7,^-C 71 5
0 0 1 7*i .00 7? 6
0 ,0 3 ? ¦ 50 3 7 1
0 _ 0 3 1.2 ."0_ <>0_ , *
0 0 ? 22.50 39 8
0 0 1 7,«>0 #>6 *
0 0 1 7 .SO Sft A
0 0 ) I 2 .'0 *>fl 3
0 0 1 ?.fS0 ? 7 *
0 0 2 22 .*0 f? •»
"0" "" ~ 0 3 2 7. SO """ " V3 ™ — V
0 (13 27, so *0 5
0 0 3 .37 .*0 27 2
0 0 <> 7* .00 %0 6
0 0 ? ?*. ,00 «,? 1
C 12 * > 22 3
0 " I ?' 3 I "35 " 3
0 12 ? 37. *50 30 2
0 20 3 ?7 ¦*50 27 3
0 2* 22 .<0 6P *
0 2* ? 22,60 S7 5
0 2* 3 27.f 0 _ 3? 3
0" "" 'i if.>>6 "SO™ "Y
0 2* ? 12.*0 33 3
O ?» «. * 2.">C 51 7
0 2' S 32,SO *1 *
0 25 1 *2 .*.0 S7 3
0 ?«. 3 22 . * 0 3» *
0 36 1 22.K C 30 *
-------
10
AWOUS Tl
mount?
AMOUNT 3 RAMOUNT 1
RAMnUNT? It A MOUNT 3 MSI IF INCOMf AGF CHfMWAT
0 *F 2 37.*iO 6"> 10
0 48 ? 7. *0 fc7 i
0 _ 50 J _22,«»n _ •>* __ I
"" tf " ' #>0" "" 4* " 17.*0 ' *>%" ' " 10"
1? 60 3 17.*0 7
0 60 1 27.»>0 5 3 21»*»0 31 1
D *0 '• 2? .^0 3<5 *,
1? *0 3 17. *1 !3 7
!* 30 « 3?.<50 3% I
?0 %0 A 4?.SO 40 5
20 AB ? I? .'if! <. I _ 7
~2«" ' 6*0 "3 *" 25 "
2*5 *0 ? 27.50 k i 3
2K *0 3 32.50 40 5
?? 100 ? ??.*>& 67 *
?•> 50 2 37,50 10 3
?•> «jo 2 32,*»0 5p i
30 *0 ~ ~ "A 3?.'50 A?" t~"
30 50 * ??.*0 3? 2
it* 60 7 27.*-0 ?B 3
«r> *jO ? 17 .*>0 23 *
50 75 » 25 .00 31 8
60 60 3 2* .00 39 7
"i?o i*'o a -yr.no n - t_
I? 1? 3 32 .*>0 34 b
?0 30 * 3? .VI <.3 3
3"> 60 4 ?7 .SO 40 *
12 2% 3 17.50 68 %
2* 10 « 3?.«.n 5S 3
—7< ** mw T 2 32,«s0 30 %
SO BO 3 *7.SO 4* 1
7A 7V~ ~T r.^ff *7 • 7—
2* 2* ? 2 7. *0 3# 7
2* ?» 2 12.«0 68 IS
2* 2* 3 l?.*0 67 *
?» 48 « 12.50 10 2
30 36 ? 12.*-0 62 A
"3fi Aft 1 T7.IW" A«T- ~ "flT-"
25 SO 2 27.«io 13 5
30 50 1 27.50 6® 2
30 40 4 37."id 31 ?
50 75 * 3?»*0 19 9
fcC 100 1 22,<50 31 *
Xff' STU 4- "Tr,^0 YC~- ~
HO 100 «t 3?,50 3? 2
50 100 3 17,10 12 3
-------
10
AMOUNT 1
AMOUNT 2
An Gun 13
^03<. 36 0 75
1007 36 36 36
20 30 36 36 36
TooC" 36" " "3ft ~ " 36"
3r« h SO *>0 75
307% 40 HO 120
206t< ha M 108
Jt>ri 16""" "' 36 " "" * *7.50" tO " 1
50 76 2 37.50 0 6 1.'. so 1? 3
100 120 0 10 2
100 I'O 4 32,^0 3? 6
60 90 1 *7 ,«-0 4 0 2
60 f.O * 1 7.50 70 •>
60 "60"""" " " A ? ??.«30 6° *
60 9ft J 25.00 M 1
70 100 " 22,'0 "U "" """ -7
125 125 3 22.60 53 9
-------
APPENDIX B
HEREIN INTERVIEWER DEBRIEFING
At the cr ri c I us ion of t lir field work in IJerrin, the interviews s were
formally debriefed. 'I he session, conducted by Robert Mitchell, probed their
views about hew the respondents interpreted the questions, how well or how
poorly the various elements of the interview worked, how meaningful were the
WTP responses, and what changes could be made to improve the interview. The
three interviewers who, conducted most uf (he interviews par tic,i pared in the two
hour session. This appendix contains .1 complete transcript of the debriefing.
What follows is a summary of the major conclusions.
MAJOR CONCLUSIONS
The interviewers reported that many aspects of the instrument worked as
intended. They discerned no tendency on the part of the respondent:; to act
strategic-ally or to give WTP amount;:: designed to gain the interviewers' or the
survey's sponsors' appiov.tl. They believed the respondents valued THM risks
and did not confuse them with PCBs or other types ol drinking water
contamination. The risk ladder was "a powerful tool" which contributed greatly
to the survey's success. The comparative risks caught the respondents'
interest and most respondents accepted them as plausible. Very few respondents
were judged not to have grasped the nature of low level risks. And the mode of
death, cancer, did no I appear to have created problems in the interview.
The WTP amounts given by the respondents were based on serious
consideration, for the most part, and most respondents' took their income
constraint into account. While some respondents found it difficult to give a
dollar figure, the referendum format helped the valuation process, and the
intervievery' felt thai most respondents' WTP amounts were reliable. Accord nig
to the interviewers, il the 1espondent •; were asked to value the same risk
reductions in a later inleiviev, their responses would very likely be about the
same. They felt particularly confident that the $0 amounts were given by
respondents who grasped the scenario. Regarding the outcome of an actual
election if one were to be held in Herrin, the respondents felt that those who
voted no in the hypothetical referendum might be less likely to take the
trouble to vote and thai a relatively nominal amounts, such as St? per year,
stood an excellent chance of passage under the contingent conditions posed in
the survey instrument. Fifty dollars a year, however, would, they thought, be
more difficult to get the Herrin voteis' approval.
The interviewers identified several potential problems with the
presentation of the risk levels at the point where the WTP values were
elicited. One problem was a feeling on t interviewers' part that, how the
t isks were presented may have led sone respondents to relate more to the levels
of THMr than to the ; i • !• • associated with these levels. Another problem was
tiie possible 'rias intioduced by the stjueUire of the ladder itself. Figures E-
1 and E-2 present the low level risk portion of the ladder with the THM levels
for version A (E-l) and B (E-2) superimposed as they were in the materials
presented to the respondent when the WTP amounts were elicited. For version A,
the highest risk level, . H, is on the upper of the two portions of the la
-------
and all three levels are on this portion for version B. Some respc ?• > THM
levels (A, B, C etc.) wi th the ppm level when they are shown on the ia.i.'ei » by
identifying some meaningful compasative risks to include on the la.ii at the
O.hO to 1.0 risk levels and by toyording the instrument te bettor • mi --ate
the relationship of the two low-level risk ladder portions at the e ration
point. Whether bias was actually introduced by the ladder configu• ¦: : n used
in the Her tin study is uncertain and more applications of versions rJ : he
ladder would be very helpful in improving our understanding of t.hi 1 ¦ ae.
The questionnaire's length was judged to be too Long although tbf rhe
WTP amounts. According to their remarks, candidates for deletion -.v,1 'j>_ some
of the material on cigarette equivalents, as respondents did not pav ,mc»
attention to them when if. canto time to value the THM risks, the mates iai on
insurance, and the questions (p. 10, questions 6 and 7) comparing plane and
train risks. The latter .vimply did not work as intended.
E~2
-------
Figure E-l
RISK LADDER, PART C
LOWER LEVEL
(ANNUAL)
*25 per 100.000 people eech y*M
LIFETIME
TOTAL CIGARETTES
ffor comparison)
22 IT Police Officer
21 By Aula Accident
SO If gave Appendectoay Operation
443
422
403
18 In Airliner Ctraah- (150 tripe)
11 If Vohd Hawing e Baby
10
221
5 By Drunk Driver
4 If Hosj&n Contraceptive Pill User (Age 25-34)
3 By Hone Fire
.33 Kim D \ 2 Ae Pedestrian
¥ ' *
o
to Id Airliner Crash (10 trips)
.18 ppm C 0.95
88
56
21
0,75
15
.11 ppm
EPA Standard .K> ppm
one in one million people
0.50 In Airliner Crash (5 trips)
0.25
0 10 In Mr liner Crash Cone trip)
.05 By Ligfitniag
2
1
E-3
-------
Figure e_2
RISK LADDER, PART D
LOWER LEVEL RISKS
(ANNUAL)
25 per 100.000 people «ach year
22 If Polle* Officer
21 In Into Accident
20 If Save Appaotoeto^y Operation
15 In Airliner Craah (150 tripe)
t.6Sppm D
11 If Woman Having • Babjr
li
\
.90 ppm CS % Drunk Driver
4 If lonpus Contraceptive Fill Beer (Age 25-34)
.55 PPW B 3 In Hone fire
\2 M PmAmBtrimn
I 1 " * VO In Airliner Crash (10 trips)
O 0.95
MS
ERA Standard JQppm A
0.50 In Airliner Craeh t5 tripe)
\
or* in one million people
0.25
0.10 In Airliner Cm«h (one trip)
.05 % Lightning
0
LIFETIME
TOTAL CIGARETTES
Hof comparison!
U3
422
403
221
88
56
21
15
10
E-4
-------
TRANSCRIPT OF HEREIN INTKRVIrJWER DEBRIEFING
MITCHELL: General — The first one is "How did people react to the topic
of risk?" When you began that part of the questionnaire. Was there any
particular kind of reaction to talking about those kinds of issues This
was before we told them about the drinking water Ride effects.
ELIZABETH: I didn't think there was any particular reaction. The main
thing I seemed to notice was that people were kind of waiting to see what
we were going to be talking about. You know this is leading up to
something, what is it leading up to?
PAT Sometimes3 I would say in about one in every ten interviews people
would say "what are you really selling?" But the initial questions people
seemed to just sit there and take it and I think once they saw we weren't
salesmen and we weren't really doing anything, in fact this was out of the
ordinary, that we weren't doing what they thought we were going to do, that
they found it interesting. I think most people tended to find it
interesting..
MITCHELL: When you were explaining the risk and going through that stuff.
WENDY: The general idea is what are you really getting at? Most people
were initially asking "how does this relate to any environmental issue at
all" and then when they are patient enough to listen then it sort of pulls
itself together.
MITCHELL: What made it come back together and come into focus for them?
WENDY: When you bring out the drinking water and then THMs again.
MITCHELL: Is that your experience, Elizabeth?
ELIZABETH: Yeah, I think even when you first got to the risk ladder they
start feeling like this is the purpose of the interview.
MITCHELL: Pat
E-5
-------
PAT le^h, " think Wendy has hit the nail on the head. There was a real (I
wouldn't call it anxiety) but people were waiting, and in fact, they would
ask, "What are we getting at?" I think that that sometimes worked against
the interview, because people would get impatient and it was like you know
what's there is just too much. It was like "what are you really going to
ask me?" Tt seemed to mc like things really didn't come together until >ou
really got tn the referenda question, or perhaps when you introduced the
actual levels of the TUM'sfor any hypothetical cities, Up to that point I
think people were still very much questioning what the purpose of the
subject was or where you were headed.
MITCHELL: Now, could we have taken out some of that earlier stuff, do you
think? You can see what the information tries to provide.
ELIZABETH: 1 think that we could have had a lot of the examples that couid
be replaced by a question like "Do you understand what we are talking
about?" and you know probing something specific to make sure they were
getting it, and if they weren't then going into more examples especially
when you go through each item on the risk ladder individually. It got
kinda long.
MITCHELL: But before we get to the risk ladder. The materials between the
first questions and what we were asking them about drinking water. That
range of materials which introduces the concept of risk and relative risks,
extra risk, etc. Could that material have been cut down?
PAT: I took the liberty of actually going through and editing the
questionnaire so I have kinda (1 don't know T may have the jump on Wendy
and Elizabeth in that respect) but there were several places where I felt
things could have been chopped out, but they may relate to other questions
you are going to ask. Perhaps having to do with the cigarette equivalence.
E-6
-------
I think that a lot of that descriptive material, for instance, didn't
contribute because I saw so few people using those cigarette equivalence
when they were going through and probing themselves and making decisions
about how they perceived those risks. So it seemed like a lot of that was,
even though it didn't take up a lot of the interview, there was at least one
big jump, you know when you used card 5 on page 4- where we were talking
about nothing but the cigarette equivalence. And perhaps on page 6 but on
the flip side of that I probably got more responses either concerning
cigarette equivalence when they were initially introduced. After that in
particular and looking at the risk ladder very few people ever seemed to
really use those for any comparisons. They found it interesting, you know,
in what people commonly got, but ordinarily they would doubt you ITI don't
know if I really believe that." "It seems like you might have made this
up." But past this point very few people really focused on that or used it
or mentioned it. Maybe they were thinking it but they never verbalized and
never seemed to use it in comparisons. So T begin to wonder sometimes in
reading that or in mentioning that in the interview whether it was adding
to it or not. The other big thing — the risk ladder was a very powerful
tool, 1 think that when you got it out graphically it was very good because
people tended to look at it and 1 think they looked at it very critically
so it seemed like a lot of description. Sometimes it seemed like people
were shaking their heads because they had already looked. They could
actually read the information before you could explain it. So they seemed
to already have that in hand in reading it kinda seemed like "come on,
let's hurry" especially people who were really keen and were probably the
exception anyway. They tended to be ahead of me in terms of looking at
that,
E-7
-------
MITCHET.T,: Pet, you mentioned two things. One is the cigarette equivalence
material was introduced early and something the people really didn't use
and the second is that the risk ladder itself seemed to be quite powerful
and self-explanatory. Let me check with Wendy and ask her about the
cigarette equivalence. Would you agree with Pat that very few people used
it and it is something that is redundant or is too much explanation about
it?
WENDY: In general, unless T really made it a point to show them on the
risk ladder that look here again you have the cigarette equivalence and
these are associated with these different events on the left hand side of
the column—unless I really made that effort to point that out again—very
few people did use the cigarette equivalence,
MITCHELL: Elizabeth3 what was your experience with this?
ELIZABETH: I agree with that very much. That nobody tried to give their
answers in cigarette equivalence instead of risk per hundred thousand or I
would say only about two or three people really appeared to go back and
forth between the rest of the risk ladder and the cigarette equivalence.
MITCHELL: The purpose of the risk equivalence was to convey the low level
nature of the THM risk. That is to say, for example, in a discussion group
1 was having trouble conveying the notion that the TIIM risk was very low
and then when I mentioned the equivalence of smoking 10 cigarettes in a
lifetime or something, they all of a sudden seemed to understand just how
low the risks were and the larger scheme of things. Did they play this
role at all? Or are you telling me the facts were irrelevant to people
thinking about TIIM level s as being low?
WENDY: I think that people were more comfortable in understanding the low
level risk if they had something to compare it with. For example, a woman
E-8
-------
had had a baby and was on the pill, or something generally found out some
other things on the ladder that were easier for her to understand than to
go back and forth to the cigarette equivalence, Tt was sort of an extra,
but not something that was very familiar to them.
MITCHELL: Then you can say that people did not really connect the use of
cigarettes?
ELTZARETH: T thought they were useful when they were on Card 6 when you
were going through the first examples. You know they got the idea that the
low level risk was two cigarettes in a lifetime and that kind of thing, but
once when you actually got to the risk ladder T. don't think they paid any
attention to it.
MITCHELL: Pat?
PAT: Yeah, I think the only exception T might feel to generalize on were
people were—I hate to say they were cynical—but their were people who
perhaps were always smokers, that did occasionally seem, to focus on that.
You know, they would say "that is crazy, I smoke two packs of cigarettes a
day." They were very few and far between, but there were a couple of
people who did use it and usually they were very obvious because they just
laughed at the risk levels because of the smoking equivalence. But other
than that, T would say that by far the majority of the people it just never
seemed to come up. And like Elizabeth said, they tend to look at examples
on the risk ladder like the risk of dying in a home fire or having a baby,
being killed by a drunk driver, and whatever, They just, in particular
when we do the actual referendums and when you definitely mention the
cigarette equivalence people just didn't go "Oh, 40 cigarettes, that's not
many, T could go for that." That just never happened. Vntuitivelv you
would think it would happen, but it didn't and so that is what I. would
E-9
-------
really judge on it—that in the referendum questions people just really did
not verbalize that they were using that as a scale at all.
MITCHELL: OK. It seems like the rest of you are agreeing with that.
Which is sort of what you have been saying. But just to make sure. The
fact that, the referendum questions people but you can tell does not focus
on the cigarette on those cards.
ELIZABETH: Yes, that was what was my experience. Nobody mentioned them.
WENDY: T don't want to jump too far ahead, but speaking about the
referendum question, are you going to talk about that later?
MITCHELL: Oh yes,
WENDY: Well, I wilt just wait and hold my comments until then.
ELIZABETH: T had one more comment on the earlier pages before you go into
the risk ladder. The explanation when you start talking about low level
risk—about being hit by lightening—people seemed to find this a little
bit confusing because they were looking at the card and they couldn't find
it on the card. It was like "Am I looking in the wrong place?" and then
when you get down to the one on the card, the airplane crash, they realize,
oh.
MITCHELL: Otherwise, when you shifted to the airplane thing then they
connected to the low level?
ELIZABETH: Right.
MITCHELL: But the fact that the lightening wasn't there was confusing at
that point on this problem of low level risk? Did people grasp the notion
of low level risks, do you think? Overall?
WENDY: In general?
MITCHELL: Yes.
WENDY: I would say the people I spoke with did not.
E-10
-------
MITCHELL: In what way?
WENDY: This gets back to my comments that I have on the actual decisions
they made at the referendum. It is just that they said a thing about
concentrations and numbers and concentrations in THMs and numbers as they
were you know surface value and didn't really translate it to the risk of
dying from that. They were just comparing the numbers without figuring the
risks associated with it. So just the question of risk, I think, most
people didn't quite grasp.
MITCHELL: OK. In other words, Wendy, when they were comparing .11 to .10
the difference between .11 and .10 wasn't very big. It just looks big. So
In other words, focusing on that and the difference between .10 and .18 did
not connect with different risk levels?
WENDY: Right. They were just looking at the numbers and they were not
looking at the difference between them. And seeing that change was one of
the things I had a hard time getting across to them. You know the actual
difference in the cigarette equivalence or the number of persons per 100
thousand. ,
MITCHELL: OK, Pat?
PAT: It is kind of a tough question. Earlier I think when Wendy started
interviewing we kicked this around a little bit and J think T even told you
we talked and I thought maybe she was introducing a bias because she felt
it was crazy and before even the last few interviews, I lave been doing, I
have kinda thought about it a little harder and T think that most people
get it but T think there were other things that interfered with them
valuing or not valuing and recognizing the risk levels. I think there were
things like people just having a natural bias against the thought of
something like water being contaminated. I think for sooie people it didn't
E— 11
-------
matter if there was any risk. 1 mean, if there was any risk, it was too
touch. And so I would say they might not have looked critically at it. I
don't see how someone could have sat through that entire interview and not
have had, you know, a good feeling for the way we were describing risk and
in the end they could not have come away with an idea of how they could
compare risk. Other than, of course, there were people who were either for
or didn't care enough or just wanted to get through it so they might have
made comments that they made just not giving it their best judgment. But
all in all, I feel that most people understood the risk but whether they
translated that into a personal decision of whether i want to assume that
risk or not that's a different question because T think people didn't
always do thac. They would value it because of grandchildren and because
it is just a bad thing to have contamination. They would value it because
of a sense of social responsibility and intergenerational equity.
MITCHELL: There were not valuing levels but just risk generalizing?
PAT: Right, because T think in certain cases (and 1 would not say that is
not necessarily always true) because if people didn't value it frequently
they looked at it and they said "this is crazy, the risk level is so low T
couldn't worry about this if 1 had to. This is ridiculous." And those
people you tended to think really understood it. And other people you kind
of questioned it. We have to question why did they value this given
especially lixe on the A1 version between the two lowest levels of
contamination. There you sometimes wonder how people discriminated, hut
some people did,
MITCHELL: Than what you are saying is those that took the zero dollars for
it, did sometimes understand the low level nature of the risk?
PAT: iell, 1 sometimes got that feeling. But you know there were
E-X2
-------
occasionally people who looked at the cigarette equivalence and they saw
that it was 40 and that was It. Their decision was made, Their were also
sometimes older people who sometimes looked at it and saw their basic risk
was off the scale and they realized that it was like they felt it doesn't
matter to me. But on the other hand, the next interview might be an
elderly woman who has grandchildren who might sav "I know this might not
make a lot of difference to me, but J would ho worried about my
grandchildren having to drink this water so I" would pay more money for
this."
MI.TCHKLL: OK, the issue is whether people who gave zero dollars really
understood how the low level risk really were or didn't they?
ELIZABETH: Well, in the first place, I fcinda disagree with Pat and Wendy
that the people who were willing to give money didn't understand. I
thought that on the whole they did tend to understand and their value for
it was based on other reasons but they understood the risk was not real
high. Certainly the people who weren't: going to give any money did seera to
be doing it because of the level of the ri.sk not because they didn't care
whether the water was clean or whatever. .Inst that the risk was very low
and that was the reason for their decision.
M JTCHEU.: Well, Wendy what is your reaction to that?
WENDY: I would agree that the people who did vote no either said that they
were on a fixed income, and absolutely could not afford it, or that they
did understand the lower level of risk.
MITCHELL: Elizabeth felt that those who did value it did so for various
reasons. Would you agree with that? That they did understand that there
is a low risk and went ahead and valued for whatever reasons?
E-13
-------
WENDY: I am not sure that they really grasped that it was tint low a
level. It seemed, to come on more when you go to the center of the
referendum and it was like increasing you know the difference was
increasing, they just upped the money without really discriminating and
trying to decide on a real value for that money use.
MITCHELL: Pat, how do you react to the idea that people gave money did
understand the low level of the risk, but for whatever reasons gave money
for it9
PAT: I fcould say that there are definitely people who understood it
because I would say that some of the more intelligent people who certainly
were a little more critical of the entire interview and the information we
were giving them valued it. But I would say that this might be something
you might he looking for, T think that looking at the E interviews shows
that it was better than the A interview perhaps except that I say that
because people with discriminate had the highest level and with B
interviews in particular people who, X think, really understood it and
valued it were really looking critically at trying to find that point where
they would draw the line. They were certainly looking at the risk
critically enough that they were looking to drav. a line somewhere and now
that I think about it, A interviews, it happened a lot at the C and D level
where the risk doubled. T sometimes wondered if we weren't introducing
that by saying "Well, if this D level was on a ladder it would be twice as
high on a zero to one scale." But on the other hand, I think that it
helped people see it, But I think there was a line and that brings up a
point—those lines between one and two where we separated the scale and
where we separated is something we will talk about a little later—-between
25 and 26 those places where people tended to pull numbers. Maybe that is
E-14
-------
-------
something you may want to kick around either that or the data that people
drew lines at. thrive points because.1 t lie scale shifted on the bottom,
MITCHELL: OK, that's the most useful thing. Let's make a note of that.
ELIZABETH: 1 have some other point I want to make about the valuing of
these two questions, I thought that they had some problem particularly
when they get to the point when we are saying "where should we put the
standard." We seem to concentrnte when we were talking about the change
when we are telling them about the number of parts per million rather than
the deaths per hundred thousand and then when you ask them to put it on the
scale of 100 thousand a lot of times they confused the parts per million
numbers with the actual deaths per thousand numbers and thought the parts
per million numbers were deaths. So that you know the lowest level was .1
death per hundred thousand whereas it- was actually ,1 parts per million.
MITCHELL; Of course on the scales it shows the two are side by side,
ELIZABETH; Right,
MITCHELL: Did the rest of you find that?
WENDY; Yeah, I did. What Elizabeth said,
PAT; T world say that something, I hat ( was kind of caref ul with because
and I think fliat was a problem wiris the questionnaire, and something maybe
we should have talked about changing. Something I actually started doing
in the last interview because I think Elizabeth is right that the way it
was written people tend to see those numbers, but when the referendum
questions were up T frequently al;;o mentioned the risk per 1.00 thousand as
well as the cigarette equivalence and T think it might have made a
difference as well as the mention of the PPM and the cigarette equivalence
in the text. But I frequently would say "you know the risk equivalence in
terras of ,100 thousand is this" and 1 think It did make a difference because
-------
I agree that the parts per million were not what they were really focusing
on other than that gave them the scale of contamination but I think that
might have drawn them away from concentrating on the risk perhaps.
ELIZABETH: Yes, because the number of deaths per 100 thousand for those
levels didn't show on the risk ladder. The only number that was associated
with them on the risk ladder was parts per million and a lot of times they
unconsciously started to answer "where would you put the above?" Say for
A2 when you ask them about 90 parts per million down to the point .1 you
know the 1.65 and then you ask them where would you put the level, they
tend to say "Maybe at 1" whereas actually they would have meant at 3.
MITCHELL: I see, so when you ask them where they would put the risk level
their answer sort of revealed what they were really thinking instead of
recording PPM and risk level.
ELIZABETH: Yes.
WENDY: That is what I feel, they do concentrate on the parts per million
and not on the actual data.
MITCHELL: Elizabeth? Comment.
ELIZABETH: I felt that it might have been clearer for them if we had the
numbers of the deaths on the card with different levels rather than the
parts per million. Because they have been thinking all along on how many
deaths per hundred thousand and then when we introduce the parts per
million we tell them but F don't think they caught it. You know that you
were switching scales.
MITCHELL: For example, on card 9, if we just had eliminated the THM's? On
the cards on the risk levels?
ELIZABETH: No, that was fine. When you had both of then on its it was
o.k. It was when you got to part C or D and you only ha^ the parts per
E-16
-------
million although it was on the scale. They didn't really pick up the
actual numbers that equated with the deaths. They kind of uncritically
took the numbers from the first parts per million as the number on the
scale,
MITCHELL: So one way to get around that might to have been to highlight
the risk levels and not the PPM levels?
ELIZABETH: Right.
PAT: I think a.lso A, B, C, and i) were pretty effective. I think that
without the levels of THMs that just A, R, C and D would have worked pretty
well also. Exclusive of the PPM,
MITCflELL: OK, One thing about the low level risks. They concentrated, or
a number of people concentrated, on the PPM levels, etc. And yet Pat. you
said that they on Version B search around more and that those levels seemed
to be higher or people perceived them as higher,
PAT: It seemed like the intervals on the scale, you know, just looking at
the risk ladder and the position of the different levels of contamination,
I think people just tended to see gaps there. It was obvious, I think with
a lot of people, that A and B were so close they were overlapped where the
difference was tiny. And even up to C, T think people did a good job, but
between C and D we changed scales and people perceived that as a
difference. You know, a big jump. And in fact, it is kind of a big jump.
But I think on the B scale people tended to be a little more
discriminating. You know, they tended to look at it and kinda — it was a
little more difficult to say, you know that going from C to 0 is too much
or that from B to C.
ELIZABETH: 1 thought too that possibly it was because when you got to the
B Scale on card D you had other numbers to compare to, like the risk of
E-17
-------
dying in the home. But when you are on the C card the A level for the
first three you don't have anything eJse in there for them to say "Well,
you know this is like the risk of being hit by a drunk driver.'1
MITCHELL: Right, and we do have, of course, the airplane crash business.
Any comments on that?
ELIZABETH: Well, but sec that is above C. That is not between B and C.
So they don't have anything. It was like there was 5 the airplane crash
below A and then you have A, B, C and then the next one and then you come
to the next example the pretend airplane crash. But there are no examples
in between,
MITCHELL: Right, they have to extrapolate.
ELI ZABETH: Yes.
MITCHELL: And of course the cigarettes were inserted there but as you say
many people didn't tend to focus on that.
ELIZABETH: Yes.
MITCHELL: When people got to varying the levels, would you say they focus,
because it is important, they focus on PPM's but they didn't search at
least on the lowest level. But they didn't search around en the scale to
fix themselves on cigarettes or airplane crashes, or whatever.
ELIZABETH: Well, I wouldn't say they focused on the parts per million, but
they focused on the number that was the parts per million, but they didn't
focus on it as parts per million.
MITCHELL: But they didn't connect that with risks and such. Unless they
singularly saw it as deaths per 100 thousand.
ELIZABETH: Yes, I don't think they managed to pull those numbers in with
the numbers that are on the deaths per 100 thousand in any kind of
comparison,
E-18
-------
MITCHELL: Other comments on that question?
PAT: f would say, in general, I did not have people articulate that they
were not seeing that number. T mean, they weren't saying "like o.k., so
the risk is 1.65." I didn't have people say that. I don't know, and if it
did happen, it probably happened very rarely. T don't think people were
making decisions because they were looking at those risk levels for the
most part in terms of the interviews T did. Although I think Elizabeth is
right that it cluttered the card that there were people who initially, I
mean by the time they got to the referendum question, I think they were
discriminating well enough and weren't making that mistake. But certainly
initially 1 think that card 9 was pretty busy. It was just too much with
the TIM and the risk levels and cigarette equivalence. It was helpful
because there was so much information, but for a lot of people they were
having a hard time seeing what might have been, the most critical
information on it.
ELIZABETH: Where I thought that their confusion showed up was not in
evaluating the levels when we were doing the referendums, but when we got
past the referendums and asked them about the moving the standard. That is
where these numbers confused them.
MITCHELL: OK. Let's look, hold that one if we might. It is a much less
important question in the interview and
Where the value that the people give and what they mean is actually crucial
to how I interpret the results or deal with the numbers that you got.
On the risk ladder question the problem of looking at the bottom of A and
meaningfully differentiating what are low level risks. So we draw B which
draws down 25 to 1 and 1 to zero. How well did that work in the way of
setting up the basis for talking about low level risks in the context
E-19
-------
of larger risks? What problems did we have with that?
ELIZABETH: I thought that it helped them see that those were low level
risks. But I also think that the risk ladder itself guided their answers a
lot. That people tended towards any numbers that you asked them from ones
that were actually on there. Like they would say (when you were asking
them about the plane and train) 22 or 25. Nobody said 23, because 23
didn't show up on the ladder. You know, it wasn't actually printed on
there-
MITCHELL: So if we had had risks for each of those points on the lower
level it would have helped people,
ELIZABETH: Even if we had had numbers for each of the points it would just
help some of them. The risks might have made a difference.
MITCHELL: I see. It occurs that it could have been a J ittle more precise.
ELIZABETH: Yes.
MITCHELL: Typically, a little hard to deal with. Do others of you think
that would help to have the numbers up and down?
WENDY: I think so too. Because they were lust seeing the one example and
taking that number.
MTTCHELL: What about on the very lowest level? Where we simply don't have
any examples? There aren't any examples really that are reasonably neutral
that we could use. Rut if we had the numbers up and down would that have
helped there?
PAT: I don't know. One thing I would like to say also is I agree with
Elizabeth that I think people who would say (and this came up on the plane,
train question). It was like 25, 80, 200, it was like there was actually
an interval there where no one would pick numbers. So I think that is
definitely something that people focused on the examples that were there.
£-20
-------
But urit jf the comments, and this is kind of the same thing you were
saying, there weren't examples. Perhaps you could use between 0 and 1 and
T think something that might have complimented all the discussions on the
risk level would be to have a risk similar to drinking water risk. You
know, such as drinking six cups of coffee a day.
ELIZABETH: Or possibly some other cancer causing agent.
PAT: Right, Something that is more like drinking water. Sometimes people
were treating water as different than driving a car or being a policeman or
having a baby, because very day you drink water. And even though every day
you might get in your car, it still seems different because you feel like
you have control in a car. You know people say "I have been driving all of
my life and I never had an accident" or whatever, but water is different
because there they have no choice. It is like when you turn that tap on
its right there.
MITCHELL: That was the purpose of the cigarette equivalence, to provide
precisely such a scale,
PAT: Right, unfortunately they didn't see it that way. They just didn't
perceive it that way.
ELIZABETH: It may just have been somewhat the physical set up of the card
that the cigarette equivalence was off to the other side and they weren't
actually on the scale.
MITCHELL: But the issue Is they para Lei led it someway.
ELIZABETH: Right, it might of
MITCHELL: 11 might of biased the answers. At least for some people it
might make the risk unacceptable just because some cigarettes are
equivalent even if it is only 10 in a lifetime.
WENDY: You know it was more the exception definitely the exception to the
rule,
E-21
-------
MITCHELL: That physical change might have really helped. Other reactions
to this comment?
WENDY: I was thinking that maybe right next to the example how many sugars
would this be? You did lose them. They didn't follow. I didn't follow
the cigarette equivalence.
PAT: I think that that may be true. But I think one other thing about the
cigarette equivalence was some people didn't smoke but were adamantly
against smoking. Any cigarettes were too many. They saw a cigarette scale
that said 2 and that was helping to make their decision right away. They
would say "I am definitely against cigarettes smoking" etc. So for some
people, T think they made the decision on that bias. I can think of a
couple of interviews here I am pretty sure T noted that comment.
MITCHELL: You mean any kind of
PAT: Yeah, smoking worked against, T mean it was like as far as I'm
concerned any smoking was bad and wrong and I don't
ELIZABETH: Smoking is evil, and anything that is equivalent to smoking.
MITCHELL: Elizabeth, you said that you met some people like that?
ELIZABETH: A few. Generally middle-aged people tended to feel like that.
The retired people didn't seem to be so adamant anti smoking. But there
were some younger ones who were very much against the idea of even having
tried a cigarette in their lifetime.
MITCHELL: That would have made the risk and tended to bias the findings if
they would have found the risk unacceptable.
ELIZABETH: It is possible. I think from my examples, it wasn't so much
that (again they weren't really following through with the cigarette
equivalence) I thought. So a lew people kinda :ended to react to it but I
don't know that they actually remembered that when they got to making a
decision,
E-22
-------
MITCHELL: 1 see.
PAT; I agree with Wendy that I can remember that there were only two
people specifically who just, I think with those two people, I think it
might have influenced their answers somewhat.
MITCHELL; OK, So it is a small number of people, but if they could be
ideiuii led then you know one could rule their nnwcrs out on those grounds.
Hut: generally speaking it wouldn't. Your impression is that it wouldn't
bias the answer,, for the most part.
WENDY; 'For t'Te most part, no.
Kf, F ZAUKTH: T think that Pat's suggestion th.it people don't see smoking
cigarettes on the same level as drinking water. It is not like something
that you can easily avoid—drinking water. So that example might have been
some kind of preserative in food or maybe saccarin. You know something
that you could not easily avoid,
MITCHELL: In regard to the sheer physical form of the risk ladder (parts A.
and B) getting the numbers. Are there other changes you recommend, or, to
put the question another way "Is the basic form promising?" As a way of
describing the low level risks.
WKNDY: T think that some people had trouble seeing once you broke the 25
to ero down seeing if as a continuing scale rhnt continued. They looked
at this as something separate than the left hand side of the card (Card A)
and I think that they lost perspective of where the basic risk of dying was
and where the smoking one pack of cigarettes a day was. Even though the
card was open and they could see both sides at the same time, 1 think that
they lost the perspective that that was so many times greater than you know
being hit by a drunk driver.
LLIZAHKTIf: Although putting them on the scale probably would have confused
the numbers much more.
K-2'3
-------
MITCHELL: Could you make a guess as to what percent of the people had that
problem, Wendy?
WENDY: What pcrcentage?
MITCHELL: Yes, was it everybody or a few or any number.
WENDY: I would say a few. I would say at first when you showed the other
side of the card that everybody sort of lost perspective. Some people were
able to put it hock together and see the card as a continuum but others
could riot. But a few who really couldn't had trouble grasping the main
ideas anyway,
MITCHELL: Elizabeth, what was your experience with that?
ELIZABETH: I thought the basic form was good. Possibly an addition of
some kind of line from the left hand ?r> to the 2h on the right hand side.
So it looks like its bottoming out and it is physically attached to tho
other side.
WENDY: Or maybe above and below it kinda folded out longer rather than
being side by side.
MITCHELL: 1 see. You could fold if out and look down and then attach with
an arrow.
ELIZABETH: Yt;s.
MITCHELL: Pat?
PAT: You know it seemed when you brought it out people like it. People
tended to really study it. They really studied it. Graphically I think it
worked very well and I don't see how we could have done this without an aid
like this. i think that what they arn saying is verv tine also. That
because graphically (next time maybe you should consult a graphic analyst
of some kind) because they maybe could have clued us in on that. That when
you separate that scale you know people practically ignored the initial
E-24
-------
risk ladder and I think that some place that really reared its head was,
once again, on the train and plane question. Because unless you really
almost told people "Picise consider the entire ladder" they were just
looking at that 25 to 0 scale. And they would initially just start looking
there Tor something they could use for comparison. And it is like you
know "Please, consider this." T. think there is a lot of truth to that,
people didn't always look at it as a whole.
ELIZABETH: I think another addition that might have helped to draw them
back to the left hand side might have been a few more examples on that yon
know like once you get to 300 there is no more special risks listed. So if
there was a little bit more going on there for us to look at they might
have tended to go back a little bit. Go back and forth between the two,
Tt is like on the plane and train question, it is pulling out a number as
an example. They arc not going to give an example higher than 300.
MTTCHELL: Right, How about the examples that were on the risk ladder? Did
anyone have any problems of bias or reactions to that in any way that might
have contributed to different levels o£ risk?
PAT: 1 don't know, you know in terms of people commentings i think they
tended to take this at face value, Robert. T think that a lot of people
not knowing what the numbers are when they looked at these things said "Oh,
that is interesting, T thought that was higher or lower." There were very
few people who tended to question, the numbers that were on the
Side 2:
ROBERT: As you were saying Pat, I gather you didn't find any. What was on
the card people took at face value? They didn't seem to react in the way
E-25
-------
that was harmful to the interview situation.
PAT: Nothing other than interest. You know people just "Yeah, that is
kinda interesting."
MITCHELT,: Wendy?
WENDY: Yes, 1 agree with Pat that people did like the look of the card and
didn't have any trouble with the examples on it. Everybody did seem to
find it very interesting.
MITCHELL: Elizabeth?
ELIZABETH: The only bias that I think existed would be that a few people I
ran into who were officers or firemen who tended to say "Well, you are
right, police and firemen face risk all the time. I believe these other
ones are less consequential to me." Other than that, 1 thought even people
didn't really identify (even with the airline crash) the number of trips
and saying "Gee, T fly, you know, a hundred times a year," They didn't do
that just specifically the police officer mainly and the fireman were the,
I thought that any one I interviewed reacted because of that one.
MITCHELL: Generally, speaking, on the levels of B, did people see that as
sort of an acceptable risk level, you know not extraordinary? How well did
the people understand the notion that we all face risk and these are levels
that different people face and this is not extraordinary?
ELIZABETH: I thought that they accepted it pretty well. The only thing
was they were surprised at how they were in comparison to each other. Like
the home fire was so much lower than having a baby. People tended to say,
"I don't know anybody who ever died having a baby."
MITCHELL: So what you are saying, the ladder seemed to work well and
people were interested in it but when they mapped the accept standards onto
the ladder they just went away from the ladder. Retting back to what you
E-26
-------
were saying before.
ELIZABETH: I think they were still tied very much to the ladder and the
problem was that for the A series, they didn't have the comparisons on the
ladder to pull comparisons from. From the A, B, C on the A, There wasn't
anything there and they tended to identify with the examples that were on
there.
MITCHELL: Is it possible with the A one that people were just valuing, as
1 think someone suggested earlier, some risk (low levels), extra risks and
find it very difficult to meaningfully discriminate between the acceptance
because one was higher than the other, etc.? Is that possible? Do you
think that is what was happening on the A?
UEM)Y: I think that is what happened, because between C, B-G, what kind of
risk woulc fall in there? What would happen to me, what would I have to do
to have something familiar to me? So they noticed that the levels were
increasing, but they couldn't tie it to anything that could possibly happen
to them. So they just noticed that the increase in concentration and not
really the risk itself.
MITCHELL: Other comments to that?
PAT: I don't know. I agree, I think that examples help because based on
people kind of articulating that and in that section of the ladder between
one and zero with so few examples it is hard to say. 1 think that it might
have influenced a little bit, but I just don't remember them ever asking, I
don't know, T just don't think, I don't know if it would have helped. It
probably would have.
ELIZABETH: like just one example in between B and C.
MITCHELL: What if I had done airline trips on the right hand side there,
not just having 9 and 10, 6, 7 or 8 or 9?
E-27
-------
-------
PAT: Yeah, I don't think that would work.
MITCHELL: Elizabeth, do you think It would have worked?
ELIZABETH: No, 1 think it was just like Pat said, an example. People do
not tend to say "Well, here I'll use this example at the 10 trip level,"
They would pick something that wasn't similar to when they were picking out
an example Io refer to.
MITCHELL: This was an attempt to introduce just another metric here. The
number of airline trips, cigarettes, etc. The problem is when you
introduce the risks that people may react to the particular event or risk
itseii, If i hey have a concept that finds that their to
another scale is meaningful like an up and down scale. What about the
connection of the KPA level? Did they understand that it did involve some
very low level risk or did they tend to put a zero here?
PAT: 1 think people saw that as having a risk, and it was as if many
people—one of the things that did inhibit decisions with many people was
the installation of equipment that wouldn't 'have lowered beyond thai
level—to zero perhaps. Or people who looked at that in kind of, comes
back to the q lestiou about .standards and how people interpreted it.
Undeniably people just said that risk level is ok and will say "They must
know what ihe/ are doing when they set those levels of risk," But T think
people accepted it and 1 certainly think they understood that there was
risk involved with all of those levels of contamination.
MITCHELL: Wendy, what was your experience? Did any of your people confuse
that with their risk?
WENDY: Nobody came out and said that but 1 get this feeling that people
did reach values that way because, especially those people who say "I will
pay anything, just give me clean water." But they may assume that it will
E-28
-------
-------
be perfectly clean and I think people did say, in fact, there would still
be some risk associated with that.
MITCHELL: They would pay for a slight increase, I would ask, They wore
focusing on a point there was a slight Increase in risk. There were
already taking a risk and that was a slight improvement,
WENDY: Right» I think that they assumed that they would pay as much as
they possibly could and the risk is definitely zero,
MITCHELL: F1ixabeth, what is your experience with these levels of risk?
ELIZABETH: 1 think generally they thought they realized that there was
risk there but again going to the change in the EPA standard question just
like one or two people wanted to lower the standards. They would go down
the risk ladder. Either it was nil right there although they were will ins; to
pay to go back to .11 or .10. They would still say Chev think ;he standard
is all right. I think it was just them not looking at it quite critically
enough when you get to the very end of the interview.
MITCHELL: And also the legitimacy of the EPA?
ELIZABETH: Yes.
WENDY: Yes, these are experts and they mist know what they are doing even
though they voted to increase their water bill previously. They just
didn't want to touch it if someone said this is how it should be.
PAT: That was perplexing because you would have thought that many people
would have changed the standards, up to that point they were giving every
indication that they thought it was too low or too hi^h and then when asked
the question, it was like "They know what they are doing. I don't know
anything about how they do that. So how could I..." and even people I
really pushed sometimes would say "Well, when they make a decision they
used data just like this, they have risk levels and that is how they make
decisions."
F,
-------
-------
See, people would say even then frequently like "Well, you know they must
be doing other things " so it didn't really make, no matter how hard
you seemed to push it was really hard to get people to value that change.
Even those we thought would do it.
MITCHELL: OK, Let me summarize what we have been saying in this area that
people meaningfully used the EPA standard as base and worked from that, Ts
that what you are saying?
PAT: Yes.
MITCHELL: Fooling around with the standards was beyond their ability and
comprehension to set it at different levels stretching their ability too
much.
ELIZABETH: I think that is particularly true for someone that you thought
would lower the standard. I think they tended to be kinda like "Yeah,
there is risk, but there are others, the risk of being hit by lightening.
Things on the level that you really can't do anything about and its not
really gonna happen to you", that kinda thing.
MITCHELL: Ok. The third thing would be most people did see the EPA
standard as Involving some risk somewhat unavoidable—as involving some
unavoidable risk. We have been going on for a little over an hour how
about a five minute break and then we will pick it up. 1 will leave the
phone line open. Turn off the tape recorder Pat and I'll start talking
again in about five minutes.
17 in
-------
-------
MITCHELL: Let me just get back to another question. These are overall
questions about the questionnaire. What is, apart Iron! the necessary
wording basis» comes the logica l progression of the questionnaire work? In
other words, going from, you know, From risks, in general, to drinking
water and the step by step thing? Did it progress logically in a way that
made sense to people? Was it workable?
ELIZABETH: [ thought, on a whole, it was logical. it might have been
beneficial to add somewhere if you asked about the first three questions
about the different scales. To give them some kind of more specific
statement where they are headed because 1 felt sometimes people weren't
paying as much attention as they might have if they knew where we were
going because they were trying to figure out where we were going.
MITCHELL: OK. Where would this be on the questionnaire more specifically*:'
ELIZABETH: Page three before you give them card >.
MITCHELL: What do the rest of you think of that idea?
WENDY: Yeah,, I would agree with Elizabeth there is a sentence that we wil
he coming mote to drinking water risks. To go further on that, and explain
why we are setting them up to understand risks at a)! and then give them
the next card.
MITCHELL: Pat?
PAT: I absolutely agree. It was four pages before you reintroduced the
idea that we are really to be speaking about, or asking questions, about
risks and drinking water and it was—there were people, i think, who were
kind of temuous there for a couple of pages. They were just kind of going
"What are we really doing? What are we really doing?" And you say "pretty
soon you will know because we will, be asking you some question and just
filling in general information you have to have." But I very much
P,~'i 1
-------
agree that it is something that definitely defines the purpose of the
interview early on and probably would have contributed greatly to capturing
the respondents attention and also be something that would have helped to
give them some sense of direction for all. this information. Because we talk
a lot about risks and then it seems after the fact here is drinking water,
I don't know—it makes logically sense—but somehow here T think it would
have helped to clue people in that this is very important information and
that understanding this will allow them to answer questions later on in the
interview.
MITCHELL: OK.
ELIZABETH: The struggle is to find some kind of framework that you can
use,
MITCHELL: If they had more framework they might have paid more attention
to the material
WENDY: Plus, we say that we are going to interview them and ask question
and then the next 20 minutes we just talk to them aside from a few
questions, like "Do you have any questions?" and "Do you need explanation
on the risks for the few examples," but they needed more of a chance to
respond and to keep their attention.
MITCHELL: OK. Next now is the wording itself, in general. Could most
people understand the wording in the questionnaire, or did it go over their
heads in some places?
PAT: I felt that it read very well. I never had people (maybe a couple of
places where it was awkward wording, like the stuntman-police risk, there
is a place where you say "the risk of dying while doing stunts like the
Hollywood stuntman" (a pause of course), the pause was really important to
make it work and then as the policeman, officer, etc. There were places
E-32
-------
like that where perhaps it gets where you were reading perhaps too quickly,
too fast where you really had it down well. Overall, 1 never had people
stop me "Well, what's that, I don't understand what you are getting at."
Other than the fact that they might have been wanting, like Elizabeth said,
to somehow frame all this information so they knew what was really going
on. In general, I felt that it read very well. Other than, like Wendy
said, it was too long. There were places where you lost people because you
were reading and reading and there were no questions, no interaction.
Which is kind of a preliminary problem we had months ago when we were just
beginning to field test it. You felt like there was too much reading, Lt
might be that it wasn't too long, but too much descriptive materia! with
too little interaction.
MITCHELL: That is another issue.
PAT: Yes.
MITCHELL: What you are saying, Pat, is that as far as the wording went it
did seem to be understandable and it flowed along reasonably well. Apart
from the other problem? Is that correct?
PAT: Yes, T thought it read very well.
MITCHELL: What is your reaction to the reading part of it, Elizabeth? On
how people comprehended it?
ELIZABETH: I thought on the whole it was fine. There are a couple of
spots that were bad. Question A, T thought, tended to be a problem where
you asked, you don't ask them, but you are saying "Do they have problems
identifying extra risks?" I felt like it was about a 50—50. Either they
felt like they got it the first time or they needed further explanation and
I think that is just because of the way the question was worded. They were
not quite sure what you wanted them to answer when you asked them "What is
E-33
-------
the extra risk per 100 thousand," and people, T would say, of the 50
percent who needed further explanation, it was just that they didn't tell
you the number, they told you the dollar amount. It was just a little
unclear.
PAT: This is something that I—I really think all the insurance premiums
should have been dropped myself. 1 really think that it just added
nothing. People never focused on it, they never asked questions about it.
It was something that was there. I just never had people comment on it and
it really was a pretty good jump of reading in this initial part and
because it was after this point, it was never really used again. It just
seemed kind of superfluous. I think it could have been used to streamline
it or perhaps something else could have been included. T just don't think
that it made any difference.
MITCHELL: Wendy, would you agree about the insurance premium?
WENDY: Definitely.
MITCHELL: What about the wording in general? Did it seem to be fairly
clear to people aside from these other problems?
WENDY: Yes, the comprehension everybody seemed to have, you know,
understanding well. In fact, just a few spots where there were minor
words. But overall, people understood.
MITCHELL: OK. Let me illustrate a comment. Kind of on the other parts,
but let me move on to some other things. Thinking about the values that
people gave, would you say that most people were giving meaningful answers
to the valuation question or were they guessing about something they really
didn't feel like they knew very much about?
PAT: T think a little bit of both. T think some people... I think that
the fact that some people scaled it against...almost all these people
scaled it against their monthly bill. Like "I would pay one more dollar on
E-34
-------
my bill, or $?. or $5, $10," or whatever and so I think at that point they
were thinking without us really initiating that. They were definitely
thinking in terms of a monthly bill and almost no one would just, off the
top of their head, give a yearly number. They would say, "Oh, my bill is
$9 5 I could give a dollar a month more," or something like that.
MITCHELL: UK. Let me look at that one, Pat. Did the rest of you have
that experience? Where people were aware, particularly about the amount of
the implications for them?
ELIZABETH: I agree with them, particularly about the amount, T did have a
lot of people who gave an annual number, but that may have been related to
the monthly figure in their head and instead of saying $2 a month, they
said $25. But not as much as Pat had the monthly figure.
MITCHELL: Did people seem to take their income and other monetary
constraints into account in giving their amount as far as you could tel.l?
ELIZABETH: T think the only element of guessing on it was that people were
concerned with how much it was going to cost and if they get an idea that
it was going to be extremely expensive to reduce their level, they might
have giver a slightly inflated set of values. Not that they weren't
willing tc pay that, but they wouldn't really expect, once they found what
it really cost, they wouldn't expect to pay that much.
MITCHELL: Let me see, what we are aiming for is for people to give the
most that you know, whatever the difference was worth to them? Are you
saying they were giving less or more?
ELIZABETH: No, I" think that they were doing the amount that it was worth,
but that had they had the information about how much it would cost that
they might have decided it wasn't worth that much. You know their portion
of J_t
£-35
-------
MITCHELL: T see,
ELIZABETH: There was a little bit of an element of guessing there that
they guessed that it would be expensive and this would be in proportion,
MITCHELL; Was it that people tended to give amounts that was geared to
what their income, etc. was?
KLfZABETH: On the whole, yes. There were a few people who were,
throughout the interview, saving "They think that it is important to reduce
these levels." They feel that you are exposed to so many of the risks that
if you can reduce them you should, and would give more than their income
would lead you to suspect. But on the whole, it was pretty much scaled to
income,
MITCHELL; Did the people tend to give you monthly amounts instead of
relating directly to their water bill or not?
ELIZABETH: 1 would say about half and half,
MITCHELL: 0K» more like Wendy's then Pat's in that respect,
I; j, 17.ABKTH: Well, it sounded like Pat's ware more toward the monthly.
MJTCliKLL: With Wendy it was fixed. ; gather.
WF.NltY: 1 haven't said anything yet.
MfTCHKLI.: Have we said it all, EJizaheth?
ELIZABETH: Yes,
MITCHELL: I thought Wendy has spoken before. Let me shift to Wendy. Is
that your experience with people giving an estimate?
WENDY: Definitely the majority of my respondents equated to the monthly
bill and then tried to compute it to a dollar a year figure- That was
definitely the case.
MITCHKM.: And they were giving an amount that w«is meaningful to them not
just ...
E-36
-------
WENDY: Yes, but that is what takes me back to the risk thing and makes me
wonder if we were just really evaluating their income. Did they really tie
it again back to the risk instead of studying the amount based on their
monthly bill and their income as it was independent of the risk. T keep
bringing that up, but I think that is what I saw most often.
MITCHELL: Yess that has been registered and these are really two different
issues. One is what exactly is there to evaluate. Some improvement in
risk level vaguely defined where you know a precise improvement as was
intended in the questionnaire. You can see what I mean. Did they really
understand the risk levels that are involved? Apart from that in valuing
whether it was the precise risk level or a vague improvement there is the
issue whether they were considering giving meaningful amounts, you know
random amount that came to their heads.
WENDY: No, I think people did give meaningful amounts. They did look at
what people were realistically paying and 1 think people thought about that
and considered that.
MITCHELL: T.f we interviewed everybody next month, which we are not going
to do. How many people do you think would give us quite different answers?
Or do you think they would tend to give pretty much the same answers?
PAT: That is a tough question. I have some confidence that most of the
people who were giving money were giving all they thought they wanted to
give or would give.
MITCHELL: Would they give the same amount or would there he a lot of
variability there and uncertainty and they might come out with a different
amount the next time around.
PAT: It makes me think about a guy 1 interviewed near the end of my
interviews I have done. He says, "This is a hypothetical study, right? I'm
E-37
-------
going to give you a hypothetical number." It was human nature and he was
hitting at the core of the problem with asking questions 1 ike that anyway«
I don't know what would the variance be on something like that, the
standard deviation. It think its pretty hard to say. I don't know. 1
think it is just guessing about it if you say anything other than T felt
like most people who gave money were being pretty honest. Although there
were also people who just kind of $25, $50, $100 and didn't really give it
a lot of careful thought.
MITCHELL: What proportion of the people were sort of like that?
FAT: One tenth. I would say at the most. I found fewer people who seemed
to be that way than those who gave it some thought and really "Oh, my water
bill is this...1 will give a couple more dollars." There were also people
who said, "Well, there is a hundred fifty thousand people on the Rend Lake
Water District. If we all give a dollar a month that would he over a
million dollars a year." There were people who did that too. They looked .
at it that way, you know very logically. And said, "You know, a dollar a
month is a lot of money for everybody." So it depended a lot on the
individual perspective in their thinking. It would be tough to say.
MITCHELL: Elizabeth, do you think people would tend to give the same
amounts if they were reinterviewed, or would it vary a lot?
ELIZABETH: I don't think it would vary a lot. I think most of them would
stick pretty much to..I think they based their amounts on their income and
that while they scaled between the different referendums, they based it on
the risk and changes in the risk levels. The number they started out with
was based, you know, like say the first one you asked them they said "Well,
I will give $2 a month more, $24," and for the next one as it went up they
said "Well, maybe I'll give $40 or $50." So I think they would tie it to
E-38
-------
their Income unless their income had changed, they would stick pretty much
to what they said,
WENDY: I think people would not change their answers very much.
Especial]v the people who came to their decision logicalIv and really
thought about it. There might be a little variance but if they went
through the same thought process then I feel that most people would give
about the same answers,
MITCHELL: Just for an estimate, what percentage gave a quick, casual
answer, Like Pat mentioned?
WENDY: I would say about the same, 10 percent.
MITCHELL: UK, How much of a problem do you think we have with people who
gave amount:; for these risk improvements because they felt that was what we
wanted them to say? That we wanted to get people to do that, they were
sort of pleasing us? Do you think thin was very much oi a problem?
WENDY: No. 1 don't think so. In the interviews that I did, I didn't find
that was a problem at all.
MITCHELL: People, it" they didn't feel it was worth it, f hey were free
enough to say Mia t ?
WENDY: Right.
MITCHELL: Elizabeth?
ELIZABETH: 1 agree I didn't think it was much of a problem. Maybe one or
two people.
MITCHELL: I'af?
PAT: I also feeJ that people..F had a couple of people that asked me what
it was worth. They would say "Well, what do you think it is worth?" Just
like, "Well, tell me what it is really worth so I can give you the right
answer." But they were few and rare so I don't think that we were not
F.-'W
-------
introducing that kind of a bias although I still think there was that group
of people who did it because it was the right thing to do — to vote yes
for environmental qualities. But that is kind of different than, T think,
us getting that out of them. On the other hand, because you were asking
the question, you kind of, I think some people kind of interpreted it as
"If I don't say yes then 1 am doing something that is not right for
humanity."
MITCHELL: How much of a problem do you think we have with people who
exaggerated how much they would really pay because they thought their
answers might encourage the city to do something about the TIIM risk?
ELIZABETH: T don't think that entered into it too much. People didn't
seem to really expect us to be feeding information back to water districts
at all I don't think,.
PAT: I agree. I don't think people played with the answers because of
that at all. At least there were no clues that I would tend to make or
believe that they played with the answers because they thought that it
might coerce some agency into changing policy or whatever.
MITCHELL: Wendy?
WENDY: 1 agree. Kohody did have that intention at all.
MITCHF/LL: In the interview we gave a lot of information about things that
included specialized payments on their water bill, risk levels, information
about risk, information about THM, THM risk levels. We described the
referendum and certain things that we wanted them to take into account in
the referendum to be used by the authorities, etc. What if any of these
elements were changed or new information was added? is there any kind of
information that if it was changed you think the people's answers would
have been very sensitive to? Does that question make sense? With the
E-40
-------
exception of some particular elements that require these things in
scenario, in other words* describing a scenario for people, giving them
information about risk, the la tide r, etc. if you fooled around with certain
things, certain elements, do you think people might have reacted to and
that it would change people's answers or would be likely to change, to give
more money or less money. If the circumstances that we described to them
were altered.
ELIZABETH: I think that the assumption about the au tho r i t i es agreeing i:h.U
it is not a high enough level to worry about, if you changed that il was a
concern. You know something like that that people would have tended to
give more money. But not everybody,
MITCHELL: OK, Pat, do you have anything to add to that?
PAT: Looking at the assumptions, I would agree in part with Elizabeth
there and ! also think that in the first assumption if you were changing
the taste, odor and color of the water, for some people that might have
been important because I know I had people who would say, "If all you are
going to do is eliminate the THM forget it, because it is just not enough."
Even as they were looking for, if they were going to invest money in
equipment they w.int equipment: that would really do a lot.
ELIZABETH: To do something identifiable,
MITCHELL: Wendy?
WENDY: T think that maybe If there was an example close to home.
Sometimes people saw it too much as a hypothetical .situation and had
trouble putting it in the perspective that this way actually for their
water. Maybe if there was an example that said, "Yes, your town, has had a
THM problem but it hasn't happened for a long time and you don't have one
now" or something like that. That they may have valued it more.
R -4 J
-------
MITCHELL: What is your reaction to Wendy's last statement?
PAT: Yes, I think that is very appropriate because people would ask, "What
Herrin?" They would ask at this point, or earlier, "What's Herrin's THM
level?" Before they would even want that information and then you would
say, "Well we will talk about that later." 1 think that is right that in
some way that definitely might have brought it home.
ELIZABETH: Or as an example, the levels, you know another specific town ±n
the area. Like Carbondale or Murphysboro. Their level is this rather than
just,, vhatever.
MITCHELL: What you are saying is that making it more realistic in that
sense. Even though the THM1s are high, they were not aware of it ana
people were pretty hypothetical. What effect would that have? Let's say
.if the levels were given, let's say for Carbondale a year ago, Marion at
the present time, etc. What effect do you think that would have had on the
amounts that people gave, whether they were willing to give or not?
WENDY: I think more people would have voted yes and more people would have
spent money on it because, as we pointed out earlier, everybody tends to
think "Well, it won't happen to me," If we demonstrate "Yes, it has
happened around here and it is still possible," then they might have
valued it more.
MITCHELL: Elizabeth, do you agree?
ELIZABETH: I think some people would have changed their minds but I think
the people, particularly those who didn't give money, might not have been
affected at all. But there were not many people who thought their levels
were low and that it didn't matter if it was here or Timbucktoo, they would
not give money.
MITCHELL: Pat?
K-42
-------
PAT: 1 think that is true. There is that group that would not give money,
but I think those were being very critical, which is why I think, as Wendy
was saying, people who might have given $12 might give $7.0. I think that
might have happened simply because T had a lot of people at this point who
were very intrigued as to what the THM level is, etc. You know, "Does
Herrin have this problem?" I think we would have seen larger amounts and
we probably would have seen a slightly higher response in terms of people
giving money at different levels.
MITCHELL: Could that feature of it, would if anything in your judgment
lead to underestimation, hard to know how much, but it probably biases the
answers down. It is hard to know how much, but it probably might, have
brought the answers down a little but that might have otherwise have had
that feature in it, in the scenario.
ELIZABETH: I think we would have had specific groups that would have
been more affected, like the older people who were doing it for their
grandchildren. If it was brought more to home they would give more money.
People who were basing it just on the risk levels, I don't think, it would
have affected them until we found some kind of logical progression that
didn't have some previous bias in one direction or another.
MITCHELL: How much of a problem did the PCR business introduce and the
fact that Marion has them and the potential confusion for that as a
prob1 em?
PAT: A lot of people mentioned it. I very rarely had the feeling that
they were valuing that although I agree I think that there was a group of
people that were very aware of the fact that there had been a lot of water
contamination problems because the media has focused so heavily on it here.
But I think the description—by the time we got to the referendum
E-43
-------
questionss I felt really comfortable with the information we had given them
about THM's and trying to screen out all the PGR's static, so it is hard to
say. I think there was a group of people that contamination to them is bad
and perhaps they didn't look at the risk level as critically as you would
have wanted them to and I think that that as a whole the issue of
contamination and PCB's entered because that is where most of these people
had exposure.
MITCHELL: They were more sensitive possibly to the whole issue of
contamination?
PAT: Yes, T would say they were more sensitive,
MITCHELL: Are there any more comments on the PCB thing? Would you agree
with Pat that our attempts to disentangle those two were successful?
ELIZABETH: Yes, I think the people who may have had the PCB and THM's were
confused somewhat where the people who didn't have much information about
the PCB to start out with and just had some general idea that it was
something in water. I don't think they based their information and answers
on that but more on information we gave them, I don't think that
introduced a lot of changes in it.
MITCHELL: Wendy?
WENDY: Yes, T. feel the same way. I didn't have a problem with that too
much but generally the set of people I spoke to were pretty much unaware
about any sort of water problems and I was really surprised about that. So
being unaware didn't confuse them, so it didn't seem to be much of a
problem.
MITCHELL: Despite what is in the papers and so forth.
WENDY: Right.
E-44
-------
MITCHELL: Elizabeth, were your people, roughly speaking, what proportion of
your people were aware of some water problems?
ELIZABETH: I think the main influence on their awareness of the water
problem was that front page article in the paper in June on the THMs. If
they were aware of any kind of water problem they were generally aware that
something had come up. It wasn't something they worried about or anything
like that, just that they had heard something connected to water.
MITCHELL: That was the end of June?
ELIZABETH: Yes.
MITCHELL: And after the article, it changed things a little bit?
ELIZABETH: Well, after the article, particularly about a week or two
after, people were a little bit more specifically aware of some kind of
issue about it and given like the last couple weeks now, they have been
less specific about "what did you hear?"
MITCHELL: A little publicity there that died out.
ELIZABETH: Yes. and 1 don't think that particularly influenced their
answers either, just that they were aware and if it influenced anything it
was just is there anything about these THM levels that is surprising to
you and after that point tended to say they were surprised that it was as
low as it was.
MITCHELL: What proportion of the people you interviewed would you say had
some idea there were water quality problems in the Herrin Area?
ELIZA-BETH: 1 don't know, maybe some 30 or 40 percent were aware, in
general, of something. They were aware, but they were not concerned.
MITCHELL: Pat?
PAT: Yes, I would say about half of the people would have mentioned
something about knowing—and a lot of people—the Big Muddy River is the
E-45
-------
water supply for Herrin for all intents and purposes. This is something 1
am sure Elizabeth and Wendy will back me on. Herrin used to have their own
water supply. They had two reservoirs that had exceptionally good water
quality and apparently within the last decade joined the Rend Lake system.
Many citizens, I would say about half of the people I talked to, at least
commented that they thought that was the biggest mistake the city ever made
and they say "Now we get our water from the Big Muddy which is Rend Lake
and so that is...
ELIZABETH: It sounds bad.
PAT: Yes, and I think that was something else that entered into some
peoples—T think that was early on in the interview—you know, I think by
the time you were doing risk valuations and all that it wasn't really
important. But a lot of people looked at Rend Lake because it is the Big
Muddy River and as being contaminated and that's that, to some extent. But
I agree with Elizabeth that in general those articles in the Southern
Illinoisan. I felt like they were aware of water quality problems. I
would say about half of the people, many mentioned or say 1 know about Crab
Orchard Lake or something like that. But they were specifically unaware of
the standard and no one knew that Herrin had exceeded the standards. Very
few people knew any specific information other than they might have had a
feeling that there is stuff in the water 1 know but I just don't know what
it is. People were vaguely aware but specifically no.
MITCHELL: I guess I know your people were sort of aware.
PAT: 1 feel like as many as half of them might have mentioned it some time
or other. In fact, I noted that here that I think really about in the
place T noticed that a lot was the first set of questions where you asked
about water contamination. People frequently would say "I read a lot about
E-46
-------
Crab Orchard T.ake and those problems, but I just don't know about Rend
Lake." So they might have mentioned it that way but certainly nothing that
they focused on and asked questions about.
MITCHELL; Did you have anybody who was aware of Herrin having a higher THM
level than they should have had?
WENDY: They were notified right?
PAT: Well, that's a good question, Robert, because when Carl and I were
trying to run that information down we got mixed stories from all the
parties involved where the city was saying the Rend Lake Water District d
responsible, the Rend Lake Water District says "Well, we notified via the
radio /just like we do with a boil water order" and so it would have been
easily missed or dismissed by people,
MITCHELL: So, in fact, they did not get a little deal with their bill?
PAT: Apparently in talking with the EPA people and the representatives
from the utilities, they were probably never given a written notification
which is what the law says they should be getting.
ELIZABETH: I know when 1 was up in Chicago and my sister where they live
they've been out of compliance several times and she says they never
receive any k ind of written informat ion in their b ill. They have only seen
it in the newspaper.
MITCHELL: So much for the law.
PAT: I would also the EPA, the guy from the EPA that I talked to, they
said that even though that may be what the regulation says, they know that
that frequently is maybe not ignored but it just doesn't happen.
MITCHELL: Turn to page 23 of the questionnaire. I recognize this page,
Wendy, tell me which, if any, of these items your answers to them you think
would be particularly useful for me in evaluating whether T should take the
E-47
-------
numbers associated with them seriously or riot?
WENDY: Item D, Really seemed to grasp the low level nature of THM risks.
MITCHELL: If you said no, definitely no, what would thaL mean?
WENDY; Then i would be hesitant to say they really understood the whole
purpose of the interview and they were really valuing the risks and not
just the concentrations or just giving me answers,
MITCHELL: Nows what if said not sure, same thing?
WENDY: Just not sure.
MITCHELL: What ahout any of the other items convey that kind of
information or
WENDY: Well, across the board, if 1 said they did not understand the
risk ladder, then i was lead to believe that they really didn't understand
the referendum question specifically at all.
MITCHELL: So in other words, when you said no in that you meant that at
the end of the interview they still didn't understand it?
WENDY: Uh-huh.
MITCHELL: Okay- On "1" when you first started intervi.ewing you tended to
have a lot of "no's" on "l"s is that correct?
WENDY: Uh-huh.
MITCHELL: How should I interpret those "no's"? Should I show those
answers as being meaningless?
WENDY: No, because I think as I got more familiar and more comfortable
doing this, then 1 presented the information more fresher or whatever, but
no 11d keep the answers.
MITCHELL: But, I should look particularly at the "b" and "c" as sort of
indicators as where the real problems lie?
WINDY: Yes, even on question "d" where if I said then I would
E-4H
-------
consider the answers. I'm not sure that they really considered in? >~i sks
in this problem as it was but they still showed that yes it was important
enough to them,
MITCHELL: I should look at those with caution?
WENDY: Yes.
MITCHELL: But then on "c", a no would be a more serious kind of flag.
Don't you think?
WENDY: Uh-hum.
MITCHELL: Elizabeth, can you give me your reading on the meaning of your
answers as potential flags to me, as to whose answers I should throw oil!:
consider with caution?
ELIZABETH: Okay, I particularly don't specifically remember saying no or
definitely not to "i". But I don't think I had any R's who were not taking
the answers seriously,
MITCHELL: So not understanding it enough so the answers were meaningless?
ELIZABETH; No, possibly "h". There were a few people that had enough
knowledge about the PCB's and had them confused with THM's that they might
have influenced their answers but I don't think a lot because I think they
also knew that PCB's were a problem in Marion, not Herrin, so that any of
the answers p. 23 that T said.definitely not, for you should look at
but I don't know that you would want to necessarily throw them out.
MITCHELL: Okay. Now on the "c" for you, what does a no mean there? Would
it indicate?
ELIZABETH: It wouldn't indicate that they didn't understand it. it would
indicate more that there was a lot more paraphrasing of the stuff, that T
went over it more, that they had trouble getting to understanding but not
that they didn't reach the understanding.
E-49
-------
MITCHELL: So it tells ma that you had to really work with them to get them
to understand it?
ELIZABETH: Right.
MITCHELL: Then "d"?
ELIZABETH: I don't think that should influence answers at all.. Some of
them didn't seem to really feel it was a low level risk but were still
sincerely evaluating the risk, It might have been people who were
adamantly against smoking although it was a low level risk it was something
you couldn't include like Pat's people who feel that water quality Is a
sacred thing that you should have anything in it but water kind of thing
but they would still sincerely meant their answers even more so. Don't
throw them. away.
MITCHELL: Pat?
PAT: T think with "c", unless people, with "c" I responded that I didn't
find people having trouble with the risk ladder as long as 1 had two
criteria I used, One was that they didn't ask questions. If they said I
don't really understand what's going on then I went on the assumption that
they do. And the other thing was where they seemed to have inappropriate
answers for that or they would value one thing and value a lower level of
risk and not a higher of risk and so I used that as a criteria. But I3 in
general, and I think that almost everyone understood it pretty well so I
think there other than you might remember those first few interviews where
1 was misinterpreting. But 1 don't "c." is where I was misinterpreting the
question. For the first few interviews remember I absolutely marked those
wrong. Remember that, we talked about that because you noticed it on that
first bunch of interviews. I think it was only about a dozen.
MITCHELL: So you don't think you have many yesses on "c"?
E-50
-------
PAT: I think that most people seemed to understand it very well.
MITCHELL: If you did have a yes, how should I interpret that?
PAT: 1 would say that those people really showed that they had a lot of
trouble. Anyone that said yes they absolutely were missing the boat,
MITCHELL: Now, Wendy, we were talking about "c"s I was assuming a yes.
WFINDY: Yes.
MTTCHELL: Then how about nd"?
PAT: I used that, 1 used kind of the same criteria there. 1 looked for
inappropriate responses. If T found that I really had to go back and say
"are you sure that this is what you want to say?" Look at the position of
this on the risk ladder or for peopJe that were saying outrageous things
like "yea, the risk that T would accept would be 1. out of 10, a level of
10,000 per 100,000 or something. T used again a pretty strict criteria
on!y where people really seemed to miss the boat, really seemed to be out
in left field, did I say that they were not grasping the low level risks?
MTTCHELL: Since you said that, I should be dubious about their answers?
PAT; Yes. Those people were just absolutely doing something that seemed
wrong so 1 was having to go over the material several times and it just was
penetrating.
MTTCHELL: What about "I'm not sure?"
PAT: Those would be people that maybe had what seemed like appropriate
answers but at the same time T was perhaps giving them a lot of extra
explanation so that it seemed like they knew what they were doing but T
certainly wasn't 100 percent sure that they were answering based on the
information that we gave them and their understanding of it.
P-S1
JLj X
-------
MITCHELL: Anything else any of you want to say on this because this is
very helpful to me. Otherwise, I'm crunching numbers, but if I know your
reactions that is a very helpful thing.
ELIZABETH: On "f", it is difficult to find anyone who appeared to focus oil
the cigarette equivalents., which may not have, was partly even people who
focused on the cigarette equivalents didn't tend to focus on it
exclusively.
MTTCH~LL: That's why I was asking. In fact, that just didn't happen hut
this is not . Many people work for and that's one of
the big surprises from conversation this afternoon. Let me ask you a
question about—did people react to the notion of cancer in a way that was
noticeable. Was cancer a big scarry think that got them a J 1. excited or
upset and they would do anything to avoid any risk of cancer? Or did they
take it in their stride?
ELIZABETH: I thought they tended not to be upset about it but they have
heard so many things about cancer causing unless they said this is causing
50 deaths a year... cancer because of it they weren't concerned about it.
MITCHELL: Other reactions?
PAT: Since we interviewed a rather old population, T would say a lot of
older people, I thought the thing would pop up, but it very rarely did. In
fact, it was just the opposite sometimes. People would say everything
causes cancer. This is just one of many causes which we would bring up in
the interview and talk about that too. I think that people interpret it
that way too. You mentioned something had anyone talked about Reagan's
condition. No one even skirted that or mentioned it at all.
MITCHELL: Do you have a reaction to Reagan?
ELIZABETH: Yes I haven't heard anything on it.
E-52
-------
MITCHELL: This would lead people to pay more attention to the cancer thing
or be more concerned,
MTTCHF.LL: Were there any others, news events that we have mentioned, were
there any other news events that affected people 1 s answers?
PAT: The airline crash off the British coast but it was only like for a
couple of days of interviewing after that people seemed to mention it and
then we were pretty much saying "well, that wasn't a flight in the U.S."
It didn't in general seem to he a problem.
MITCHELL: Wendy?
WENDY: No, T agree with him.
MITCHELL: Elizabeth?
ELIZABETH: I don't think I even had anyone mention it.
MITCHELL: That's a relief, because you hate to do a study and all of a
sudden have something in the middle of it.
PAT: Had another airline crash yesterday in Texas.
MTTCHELL: Right. How well did that referendum format work? That is,
having them make their decisions in terms of by thinking about how they
would vote in a referendum?
PAT: I thought It was pretty effective. T think it was a good idea and I
think that the problem was with the assumptions. T think that it was a
good technique to try to get people to think as we talked about earlier
when we were discussing the assumptions. I guess that helped to
standardize responses but they also some people thought they were a little
unrealistic when in fact speaking of question 23 that's the other thing I
would comment on is that on page 23 was the understanding or accepting the
assumptions because I had several that T am not sure there because they
K-53
-------
seemed to have pretty strong feelings about a couple of or one of the
assumptions perhaps and.
MITCHELL: What's wrong with the assumptions? Just the idea of the
referendum?
PAT: I thought it was very good,
MITCHELL: Wendy?
WENDY; T think it was a good format.
MITCHELL: Ivl izabeth?
ELIZABETH: The only thing I found as I was doing more of them 1 tended to
focus their attention more on the figures for the deaths per 100,000 which
isn't actually included in the text. But I found pointing them out
specifically helped.
MITCHELL: In other words, in countering what you intorated they weren't
really focusing on that side of it?
ELIZABETH: Right. And as I went on, I found myself doing more of that.
MITCHELL: Pointing to that? The rest of you—did you find yourselves
doing that or not?
WENDY: i sure did because they weren't really focusing on the change and
that I wanted them to look at, One thing I noticed too was that two
reactions that people tended to think that ray vote is not going to make a
difference anyway, that came up a little bit and the other was then they
voted to increase their bill without asking how much money. They were sort
of intimidated and uncomfortable at having to say "well how much should if,
be?" They ie.it uncomfortable trying to come to a dollar figure.
MITCHELL: Follow-up on that, Wendy. By asking first how they would vote,
was that a way of easing people who would have found it difficult anyway to
give a dollar amount?
E~ r>4
-------
WENDY: Did that make it easier for them?
MITCHELL; Is there another way we could have done it that would have made
it easier for those people to give a dollar amount?
WENDY: Maybe by asking them initially now if you had the choice how much,
asking them if you were on the City Council or something how much would you
charge people if you had to establish a dollar figure, how much would you
say is a reasonable amount. If they had to made a decision to charge.
MiTCHKLL: There has got to be a very different tiring that we are trving to
get at- We are not trying to get a reasonable amount nor would they think
everybody should pay.
WENDY: People seemed uncomfortable having to say a dollar and the one-two
punch like you said I don't know a more effective way there would have
been.
MITCHELL: Pat, did the one-two punch work? Would there be a better way of
helping people to deal with the difficult question of how much?
FAT: There was a wide variation. The re were some people that was really
tough lor liiew to come up with a number. You tclt like we just stalled oat
there .sometimes because they would tend to hem-haw around, but T thought it
was pretty effective overall. I felt that most people, because it was
realistic enough. The only thing once again going back to maybe varying
the assumptions or something might make it different but I thought It was
good, Tf anything it might have worked against an individual valuation
just because of that whole question of thinking of the community parent as
voting whether or not so in some ways it's taking something away from the
individual and like Elizabeth said earlier, "well, my vote is not really,
it won't make any difference" which was a classic argument for
E- 5S
-------
people that refused too. In my opinion, you don't want my opinion, get
somebody else's you know my opinion isn't worth anything.
MTTCHRLL: Except for that?
PAT: I thought it was effective though. I thought It worked.
MITCHELL: Elizabeth?
I'll,? ZARKTH: I thought it was effective too that the people who did have
trouble coming up with an amount once thev .said they would be willing to
vote to raise their bills felt it was probably easier for them to come up
with an amount.
MITCHELL: Some people wanted to know how much it would cost, right?
Telling them that they would find out later. Did that generally handle
that situation?
PAT; Yes, X wouldn't call it a misunderstanding, but that's exactly what
several people you had to say then you are going to make a decision on how
much you would pledge. That tended very rarely would those people change
their minds hut it would be hard to say when vou to Id tJiem that it t^ould be
an individual decision whether they went oik* way or the other because I
would say most of them didn't change their minds. If rhey were saying
"well, I probably would buy it, what's it going to cost?" It seemed like
most ni" those people still would say yea, what seemed to be their
inclination before,
MITCHELL: The assumptions we mentioned before, We described three
assumptions. Did you have problems with those assumptions? And if so,
what? Or were people pretty much able to accept them?
PAT: Most people did, but a lot of people don't like to believe that the
local drinking water officials are unresponsive to the federal regulations.
That was the thing I found the most often was that people were saying "1
E--56
-------
can't help but think that these people really would care about thr? : ' •
health which is their job and that they would say that they don't want
install equipment that would help to make our water better."
MITCHELL: For those people, did they say that they didn't see the
improvements were so slight that they wouldn't be worth much money. Did
this seem credible to them?
PAT: So, there were more people who probably tended to he concerned about
drinking water quality in general. They wanted to think they arc yielding
to these so-called experts or professionals who have the respons.LSjj.i Lty of
making sure that they have good clean water. So they were going, I think
that they care and that they do a good job. Of course, the flip side of
that were those people who said you can't trust them anyway. There were
just about as many people who had that attitude.
MITCHELL: Elizabeth, what were your experiences with the assumptions?
ELIZABETH: There was some skepticism for the first one that the only
source of the chemical contamination would be the THM's. They didn't seem
to have trouble accepting that for the purposes of the referendum. I think
they tended more to assume that no matter what was in there, that only the
THM's would be affected by the referendum rather that what the
referendum...
WENDY: I think I only had one response that had a question where they did
not like the assumptions. That was on the third one and this was a woman
who then didn't vote to increase her water bill. tier questions were if we
went ahead and set a standard why would they not think now that they should
support that standard and that was her onlv...
MITCHELL: Which is a reasonable question. Most people were accepting as
credible that the local authorities did not fee 1 it was worth spending
money.
E-57
-------
PAT: I'd say 80 percent of the people just said yes or no there are no
problems with the assumptions.
ELIZABETH: I have one comment on the questionnaire about the assumptions
that possibly if you queried them after each assumption, you might have got
a little more objection. I don't think I have anybody who objected two
assumptions. They objected to one of the assumptions and that was it. I
don't know if there might have been some who if asked each time might have
brought up a couple more objections. I don't think that it had any affect
on their accepting the assumptions for the purposes of the referendum. Pat
I think you might have heard a few more comments,
MITCHELL: If there was in fact a referendum in Herrin and let's say the
issue was to increase their water bills by $10.00 a year, let's say $12.00
a year, a $1.00 a month, based on your experience with these interviews
let's something say the local officials arc sort of dubious about it but
they are not saying this has to be done but they are saying well it
wouldn't hurt kind of thing, do you think it would pass?
ELIZABETH: I think that question that was missing from the interview if
there was a referendum would you go out and vote? A lot of these people
wouldn't have bothered. I think it would pass if people were concerned
enough about it to go out and vote for it.
MITCHELL: Which people? The ones said it wasn't worth anything to them?
ELIZABETH: No, T think the people who were concerned about their water
quality would be more Likely to go out and vote.
MTTCHELL: The others would be more likely to be indifferent?
ELIZABETH: Particularly at a $12.00 a year increase. Some of them would
vote against it but would not make a point of it.
MITCHELL: You would guess that it would pass?
E-58
-------
ELIZABETH: Yes.
MITCHELL: Wendy?
WENDY: I vote yes,
MTTCHELL: Pat?
PAT: I think it would pass too.
MITCHELL: What if it was $50 a year? Pat?
PAT: No. I would Hay it would be, there would have to be a darn good PR
campaign by whoever wants the changes. I don't think it wouJd pass on its
own initiative.
MTTCHELL: Elizabeth?
ELIZABETH: Yea, I agree. I think the people who were marginally against
it would be more likely then to go out and vote against it. Unless they
get some kind of real evidence of damage to people in the town.
MITCHELL: Wendy?
WENDY: 1 don't think it would pass.
MITCHELL: What if the water authorities said its a good thing and the
doctors in town say we are going to need all this equipment. And it costs
$50, what's your guess?
PAT: I think that it would be close with that kind of campaign with local
community leaders behind it and one reason I say that is because Herrin
seems to be a very tight community. Very close knit, people have been
there, lifelong residents, that they would like to see their kids growing
up there and they would like it to be everything that it could be. But I
still would say that at $50 a year J_t would probably be very close even
with a lot of support?
MITCHELL: Wendy?
WENDY: T think $50 is too high for the people in the area.
E-59
-------
MITCHELL: Even if...
WENDY: liven s T it was supported by health officials.
MITCHELL: Elizabeth?
ELIZABETH: I think a lot would depend on how they go about making the
information available to people. It seemed like a lot of these people
weren't up on local news. It took quite a while for it to filter Into
their awarenrss, A lot of people seemed not to read the local newspaper.
PAT: 1 would also say, Robert, that I have a bias here, knowing that the
usually the it would depend a lot on the level of contamination I think
too. I think at marginal levels people would be discriminating at the $50
level for just knowing the THM level for this area they tend to be very
marginal. That is something else that colored my opinion of that. It
would depend a lot on what the level was. If it was at a high level, 1
would think that the people who responded yes in the interview would
probably take that to the polls, but personally knowing that there usually
are very marginal levels here that f don't think people could be persuaded
unless there was a lot of support from local agencies, and the medical
community.
ELIZABETH: Again, I think that support wouldn't be there unless there were
high levels.
MITCHELL: Get the opportunity to revise your answers toward the end, did
people tend to do that at all?
ELIZABETH: Very few.
PAT: 1 think i had maybe one out of all the interviews r did. One, maybe
two.
MITCHELL: Wendy?
K 60
-------
WENDY: T just: had one person. 1 think reasons by the end of the interv i ew
they were relieved, I don't have to think any more and the questions are
over.
MITS'lIi-XL: In lael, if they had beer; fresher more people might have
changed? Are there other reasons why so few people did it besides that or
do you think that is the main reason? Pat?
PAT: I would agree with Wendy there. It was like an after-the-fact
question. At that point, yon do get the fooling that the interview is over
and in fact we cue them by saying here is the last question, I think
people, it's very easy to say no. Instead of yes and then revising those
numbers.
MITCHELL: That's very helpful. I've gone through my agenda pretty much,
I'm sure there are some things I didn't touch on that you would like to
comment on,
ELIZABETH: 1 had one more comment on the last question. 1 think perhaps
you might have gotten a little more response If you would have had another
card and listed each of the risk reductions so they could look at it and
sny "oh, yea* and well you voted lor this f irst one." lint 1 don't think
that would have made a lot of difference, T think very few people would
have changed their minds.
MITCHELL; If it had been up front more and not a tag-on it might have
offered people more of an opportunity to change. One notion about the
change was there was concern on my part that people would be valuing both
PCB and THM's so it comes right after further knowledge of PCB. But what
you have been saving is that: in truth we were successful in disentangling
the two so that you wouldn't expect anything. Such as confusion over what
had been valued, how can 1 lower it? That wasn't a problem? Other aspects
l-rbl
-------
of the interview that you'd like tc tell me about that we haven't touched
on?
PAT: There is one question that there is definitely consensus, the train/
plane question. T think and that is I know you had ulterior motives but T.
just don't know that it added anything. It would have seemed that by
design it should have gotten people to look at the risk ladder critically
in making some decisions but there was an awful lot of static, plus I think
it came at a kind of a critical point where you were very close to
referendum questions. People have a pretty good grasp of the risk ladder
and it almost seemed to break the flow of the interview, frequently. Plus
there was so much static in terms c-f T would never get on an airplane, or
people looking at the risk levels end just truly arbitrary answers because
people would just I don't know what to think of this then you probe them to
try to get them to say something and pretty soon I know it seemed like I
would say three out of every ten would just seem to throw out a number.
Some people I just don't know that it was an effective question in that it
added much to the interview.
MITCHELL: In other words, they would have grasped the ladder as well
without it as with it?
PAT: Yes, I just don't think it helped.
ELIZABETH: 1 think there was a lot of arbitrary bias in your answers to
start out with.
WENDY: But it was a chance for them to respond and to let us know the
person is out in left field or that was the two advantages I got.
ELIZABETH: Maybe something more closely tied to some kind of cancer
causing risk or...because a big enough portion of the people T think were
E-62
-------
completely predisposed to taking the train or plane and not care how much
risk they are exposed to.
PAT: One tiring Wendy said is very (.rue and I think flint that was the best
thing to question was people would say that risk would have to be pretty
high "how about two", but then this is troubling because you would think
that's riot high but maybe \( : hi ^ i for them. Although it seems totally
absurd. But it was a good clue as to sometimes as how people were looking
at that ladder.
MITCHELL: We could have had another way of accomplishing that mission, it
would have been better?
PAT: Yes, maybe, I would say that it did have some utility but it just
seemed like i t was such an import,-int. part where it broke the flow. People
are kind of "we'll, we are talking about drinking water risks,11 we are just
getting ready to look at these cities' levels of risk and then all of a.
sudden here's this out of the blue question. That's the way i think a lot
of people looked at it, like what?
ELIZABETH: Use a risk that is similar to one of the ones that is on the
scale. For instance where would you expect to find the ririk for taking a
train, that kind of thing. Maybe it was somewhere around 15 plane trips or
maybe it was somewhere around getting hit by a car,
MITCHELL: That a good idea. It gets them working to say something and if
they are thinking about applying what they understand about the ladder.
Other?
PAT: Yes, I have one on page 11 wture you ask "is there anything about the
THM risk levels that surprises you?" This is something I just kind of
started playing around with and a lot of people would say "no". It seems
like right away they would say no, I wondered if they said no defensively
!¦-() 3
-------
because they are perhaps not understanding or don't, these are the people
that before gave hints that they thought certain risk levels would be low
or high and I found that probing there sometimes saying "do they seem high
or low" and they would say "no" and then perhaps something like "well, none
of them look lower or higher than you might have expected them to be" and
if so, just adding something like th;it seemed to snake a difference.
MITCH[¦!,[.? It made the question less intimidating?
PAT: Yes, then J found that people would say "well, you know they do look
kind ot low.'1
ELIZABETH: I think maybe the use of word surprise was a problem here
because if they didn't have any knowledge of THM's. They had no
expectations about what the levels were going to be so they were really
surprised, not like it was contrary to what they would have expected to
see. They didn't have any expectations,
MITCHELL: That's a good suggestion. Other aspects where it night be
improved?
M ITCHKl.l.: Referendum questions—when ymi would ask "did you vote to keep
Lhe hill the same, did you think the risk reduction is not worth any money
at all or because of some other reason." From there on you start to corner
people and some people 1 feel like.1 we almost even trying to be a neutral as
possible you almost corner them into giving money. Because some people
catch that any money at all and go well you know it might be worth
something or someone who didn't have enough information the same kind of
thing they would start to say "are you certain no money at all" and you
would volunteer whatever information you could give them and T really felt
very rarely that there were people who might have given nionev because thev
Sell like they were being cornered there. Not verv oiten5 it might have
K-fi4
-------
been only a couple times, but these would be people that I felt like were
pretty firm with their "no" answers hut they kind of. stuck on that any one
at all and say we 1 ] everything is worth something may he.
MITCHELL: It sort of bullies them into giving an amount?
PAT: Yes, 1 think if that question was pushed much then you were kind of
right, it was trying to draw a yes out of them,
MITCHELL: How many people do you think may have given answers they
wouldn't have because they were pushed?
PAT: Very few because I was pretty careful and in general I think people
would settle on that it really wasn't worth, that's what they were trying
to say you know it's not worth it to me. In fact, that is the way they
tended to answer the question.
MITCHELL: Wendy, do you think that you had many people that may have given
answers, amounts who didn't really value the THM reductions, but who we
pushed it on them?
WENDY: Not when people voted no, it would seem like they were because the
risk wasn't anything or they were on fixed income and couldn't pay anything
anyway but no, I didn't feel like any answers were off.
MITCHELL: Elizabeth?
ELIZABETH: No, I didn't feel that they felt trapped by it at all. I did
think that the wording of the question disposed people to say yes, it
wasn't worth anything at all to me rather than coming up with their own
reasons.
MITCHELL; Other aspects of the questionnaire where you would like to make
comments?
ELIZABETH: Page 18, I still have a little bit of a problem with the
wording of question 21. By the time 1 finally got it so that I wasn't
confusing my.se] 1" either then ] rouli recognize if they seemed confuse'.!. I
-------
was resorting to using my own wording.
MITCHELL: Did the others of you have problems there?
WENDY: Yes, I had to reword and reexplain it, Looking at the risk, how do
you think you would set standards too "high or whatever. That was a problem
for me.
P\I Yes, even I know for sure Wendy didn't see the previous wording and I
don't know that Elizabeth did either} but before it was too blunt. This
seemed like an improvements but I agree with what they are saying hut still
I don't know but if the wording of the question made any difference we kind
of hoped that it would have but it just didn't. I think it was hard for
people to think like they were EPA administrators that were and the
question is were you asking them that perhaps but that's the way they
perceived it and so that's I thine the answers there. There is another
where it was real easy to say T think it's about the right level. That's
where people say "Well, X wouldn't mess with that."
ELIZABETH: My problem with it wasn't really that it was more are you
asking is the risk level too high or too low or is the standard too high or
too low and whichever one they are answering they are going the opposite
direction from the other. Once you got that straightened out you were all
right.
PAT: Yes, you are right because I found myself doing the same thing. You
would paraphrase and say please looking at the risk level because you are
right it's another one of those problems where the risk level and the level
of contamination were both in there.
ELIZABETH; If they wanted the risk level to go down, they wanted the
standards to go up.
MITCHELL: Right. it does get confusing.
E-{>6
-------
ELIZABETH: One page 20, question 3L1, I am curious about why there wasn't a
space for how many people over 18 because I know the information was on the
enumeration but I wasn!t sure how closely those were going to be showing
with the questionnaires,
MITCHELL: Which question was this?
ELIZABETH: Number 30 on page 20.
MITCHELL: We get the number of people over 10 going to 18, right?
ELIZABETH: Yes. But you don't have the people who are over 18.
MITCHELL: I see. What I am after there is whether there are kids around
but this would allow lie since some people may be especially sensitive if
they have kids around, especially younger kids.
ELIZABETH: Then on question 31 I thought it worked well with the card, I
didn't have any prob.lem with people telling their income level at all.
MITCHELL: Good, how about the rest of you?
WENDY: Just a couple said they refused to give it but for the most part it
wo rke d real we11.
PAT: Yes, I think I had a couple people refuse, but I think everyone else
seemed to be pretty honest given the way their dwelling looked and there
were a couple where I might have wondered but there were a couple I think
that they probably told me lower nunbers. I am sure they did given the
kind of cars that were in the driveway and the way their homes looked.
MITCHELL; It sounds like you had a better experience. Normally speaking
that is a tough question.
ELIZABETH: That's what I was expecting to find and it wasn't at all.
MITCHELL: It sounds like you did real well on that.
PAT: People were, in general, very open which was comforting after
initially being told by a lot of people that this was going to be, although
E-67
-------
I wouldn't say it was great. But once you were especially in someone's
home, they {end to be very friendly. That was good. E was never invited
to leave or anything like that.
MITCHELL; What proportion of the people, do you think, enjoyed the
interview? If anybody,
PAT: I would say the majority by far, Maybe not enjoy it so much as that
was a good experience. I really felt like I learned something.
MITCHELL: Even though there was that, had time in that long stretch of
exposition, but once they got to the referendum and the rest of it it sort
of came together for them?
ELIZABETH: Since they got to answer questions, they ended with a good
impression about it.
MITCHELL: It is really in the design it is obviously desirable to have
questions sprinkled through but it is really hard to come up with. We did
have those lines we could have given people a chance to say if they
understood, But to come up with meaningful questions or even interesting
questions which 1 would like to do.
ELIZABETH: I think another advantage of maybe cutting out some of that
long part would have been, 1 think, it would have gone over a little better
if it had been more like 30 minutes instead of 40.
MITCHELL: Sure. Could each of you sort of go through the questionnaire
and just do Lines through what you think in your experience could be
dropped out without harming the basic information that people get? I ' d
really appreciate that if you could send those to me. ! would like to
redraft it and try to fool around with the risk ladder and other things
based on your comments to see what I can come up with.
E-68
-------
ELIZABETH: I have one more question that 1 had a comment on, on page 21,
where you asked them if they heard of TBM's before this interview. I
thought it might have helped a little bit to segregate their feelings about
TIIM's and PCB's if there was a more general question before that "had you
heard anything about water contain!nation problems?" And then asking them
specifically did you hear anything about 'i'HM' s or was it something else?
MITCHELL: What If T in that deal where we explain much to them, if they
heard of THM'k there at some place where we are talking about THM's?
PAT: f think that would have been ^ood tight nfter that initial
introduction and description of what the source of THM's.
MITCHELL: In that general thing abut water contamination then THM's.
PAT: It was interesting, 1 had a couple of people who were pretty, in
fact, this was shortly after that front page article and it was interesting
that they never brought it up during the interview. They always waited
until afterwards and then they said something. These were both people that
f had appointments with and they said "! just read about this in the paper
and I just wanted to see what you w?re going to nay about this and it was
kind of interesting." They didn't volunteer it whereas it might have been
good to have drawn it out earlier aid known that they had, in fact, read
those articles.
MITCHELL; Other comments?
PAT: 1 don't know what else to say.
MITCHELL: Why don't we wrap it up. If you would go through the
questionnaire and mark those things then why don't we set the fee for
debriefing at $25, would that be okay?
PAT: Sure.
MITCHELL: Then I'll talk with Sunday and Monday.'
K-b9
-------
ELIZABETH: I have one more question that I had a comment on, on page 21,
where you asked them if they heard of THM's before this interview. I
thought it might have helped a little bit to segregate their feelings about
THM's and PCB's if there was a more general question before that "had you
heard anything about water contamination problems?" And then asking them
specifically did you hear anything about THM's or was it something else?
MITCHELL: What if I in that deal where we explain so much to them, if they
heard of THM's there at some place where we are talking about THM's?
PAT: I think that would have been good right after that initial
introduction and description of what the source of THM's.
MITCHELL: In that general thing abut water contamination then THM's.
PAT: It was interesting, I had s couple of people who were pretty, in
fact, this was shortly after that front page article and it was interesting
that they never brought it up during the interview. They always waited
until afterwards and then they said something. These were both people that
I had appointments with and they said "I just read about this in the paper
and I just wanted to see what you were going to say about this and it was
kind of interesting." They didn't volunteer it whereas it might have been
good to have drawn it out earliet and known that they had, in fact, read
those articles.
MITCHELL: Other comments?
PAT: I don't know what else to say.
MITCHELL: Why don't we wrap it up. If you would go through the
questionnaire and mark those things then why don't we set the fee for
debriefing at $25, would that be okay?
PAT: Sure.
MITCHELL: Then I'll talk with Sunday and Monday?
E-69
-------
APPENDIX F
TRANSCRIPT OF BERKELKY FOCUS GROUPS
INTRODUCTION
Two focus groups were conducted in Berkeley, California to explore
people's understanding of giardia and their reaction to a referendum to
install equipment to prevent a possible giardia outbreak. Although the
participants live in the East Bay area, their vater supply is similar to San
Francisco's. Each group was recruited by telephone from a random sample of
Berkeley residents in oi.der to ensure a wide representation of viewpoints.
Participants were given a small honorarium to motivate their participation.
The evening sessions were led by Selma Monsky, of the University of
California Survey Research Center, and took place at the Center which is
located next to the Berkeley campus. The following transcripts consist of
the portions ot each two hour session which were most relevant to the
purposes of this study, They are presented in the order in which they
occurred; skips from one section to another are identified by *****.
Participants are identified by W (woman), M (man) or S (Selma Monsky).
Succeeding comments are made by different people,
GROUP 1
This group, consisting of women only, was conducted on February 3, 1986
by Selma Monsky. Richard T, Cat son and Robert €. Mitchell sat in on this
group and occasionally asked oi answered questions.
S If we can get started. This is Richard Carson and this is Robert
Mitchell. Ve are here to get your ideas tonight on several aspects
of drinking water and heiore ve get started I just wanted to say
that we would like to be as informal as possible, you don't have to
wait to be called on, you don't have to raise your hand. If you
have something to say please feel free to say it and give us your
honest opinion. You're not going to hurt anybody's feelings i£ you
do disagree with something somebody el.se says. The only rule that
I would ask you watch is that we don't have two people talking at
the same time because it safest in the long run if ve can tape
these sessions and as you know tape recorders are stupid and can't
decipher two voices. To start with I'd like to know how satisfied
you people are generally with the quality of the drinking water-
that you get from the East Bay System.
*****
Selma Why do you believe the risk is worse than the media let us believe,
I'm not disagreeing, I'm just interested.
V Basic nature is of paranoria. I have that same reaction too.
You're suspicious of ... they tell yon Its safe and then you
discover they tested for ...
V Wei 1 that, and then they tell you that no rivet: water is safe today
and you shouldn't drink it in the high Sierra either.
F-1
-------
S Why is that?
W Giardia
V Giardia
U Fever
1? Giardia is not as bad as chemicals that you sit around and give you
cancer twenty years down the line. I wouldn't worry that much
about giardia. You can get rid of that, you know what the symptoms
are. The scarey thing about these chemicals is that it's not
really clear what effect they are going to have. And it von't be
clear for a long time like that whole asbestos thing
S She thinks that chemical p. r i <¦ a great aspect...
¥ 1 myself do
S You were nodding at one point, who was it that you were agreeing
with?
1 1 would say that I would agree with right now that the chemicals
are probably a bigger problem, although I don't think that always
has to be.
S Someone else reacted to gi;udi.i before, who was Unit
¥ I called it eager beaver. 1 had heard the reason not to drink
directly out of the streams is that they use it for range country.
Ranchers have cattle up there and hence there's manure and the
bacteria from it.
S Has anyone else ever heard of giardia?
W Vhen I was in Canada a couple of years ago camping at Jasper they
were telling people not to drink the water there. Not just river
water, but tap water had giardia.
¥ When I was at the University of Washington, there was a fellow that
had come up with some sort of filter device. I know a couple of
years ago he was going to try to market for hikers.
V The way T learned about giardia was this labor day I was at my
mo thei in law's. She lives in Mount Baker and she has well or
spring water. It is in a drought year and so there were alot of
cases. A little girl got sick. They'd called the doctor and he
said there might be giardia, there had been a lot of cases of it.
He said there were a lot of beaver around, a lot of other kinds of
small wild life that can get into the water systems.
S Have the rest of you heard of giardia before?
W No, not the term I heard about the symptoms, not the word.
F-2
-------
S Had you heard of "Eager Beaver"?
¥ Yes, I'd hoard about beaver,,,
S You said you hadn't had a problem.
¥ .1 was wondering what's in the water? f know its about the same
thing that causes problems in China and in Africa.
V In Africa, there's other things. I know we were told in Africa not
to even walk in the water because it would go into our intestines.
¥ You'll have to ask one of these men, I don't know the answer
¥ Ts that giardia?
¥ That sounds like flukes.
¥ Flukes, Yes
¥ I know there's alot of giardia in the Philipines because ...
S I'm so impressed you know, I never even heard of any thing of these
things until Richard came to see me a couple of months ago,
¥ Oh really?
S Because they have a particular interest in giardia and since some
of you do and some don't, which of you wants to tell them about
what its about?
RTC (Summary) Giardia is not too much different from traveller's
diarrhea. Basically a parasite and spread by beavers. Although
SF's water is not contaminated right now it's looking like at some
point in the future it might happen. 1.1 is not fatal. It
resembles a mild case of disentery. Never fatal in US. Lasts
about three to four days usually although when It lasts longer,
people have to go to the doctor and get treated.
¥ That happened to a women T worked with. She got it in Mexico and
it took her a very long time to get over it.
¥ It reoccurs?
RTu Basically, yes, it gets somewhat better and then it gets worse
¥ That's what the health department calls you about, who you went
with, who you live with? Do you work in the food industry?
RTC Right.
S The health department here?
RTC Right, pretty much it can be spread from person to person but it's
a lot harder. What people sort of worry about is the possibility
F 3
-------
of a large outbreak. If it comes in drinking water perhaps a
hundred thousand people would get it at one time. Chances of it
happening are really slim because most often the chlorine they
actually put in the water usually kills it. The way you can
prevent it with 100 percent, certainty is to build fairly large,
usually sand bank filter, systems.
V I was reading something about if you are out hiking, you can't boil
it. .1 mean its like that won't kill it.
RTC The only basic 100 percent way i.o get rid of it is to force the
water through a sufficiently fine filter where it can't pass
through. Boiling will kill it most of the time just like chlorine
will kill, it most of the time.
¥ What would you recommend to backpackers?
HK They make a filter devices, somebody actually I think is selling
these now, and they make some chemicals that you can put in the
water.
¥ Will Halozone take care of it?
R 1 think Halozone does take care of it.
V Do you acquire immunity from giardia?
RTC In Colorado where basically they are using close to pure mountain
water without filtering it, most of the local people seem to
d e v e 1 o p and i mmun i t: y t. o if.
S As far as I know its not a threat now. But assume for the moment
that public health experts in the East Bay said that our water
supply carried giardia and they got a proposition added to the
ballot for the next election to require building a filtration plant
or some other system to purity the water. If that proposition were
on the ballot would you be likely to vote for or against it?
Can I ask., how is water processed now?
RTC The water for both SF and the East Bay comes from the Sierras and
is in contrast to the water in southern CA, some of the best water
in the country. It comes down in the pipes and they basically test
it here and lightly chorinr.te it.
It's not filtered?
In a couple of reservoirs it is filtered but they don't use the
sort of filters that would pull out giardia. They do filter the
water where ever it has problems, but use different type of filters
to take out different things.
We are assuming now that it took more elaborate, more expensive
equipment or processes in order to protect against giardia. Would
you vote for it or against it? Patrica?
F 4
-------
P Against it.
S Why.
P Well because Mr. Carson just said that its not guaranteed that this
filter system is going to filter out...
RTC If they put in filters, there is basically 100X probability it will
eliminate the risk of giatdia.
V How many people is this going to affect? Not 100% of course.
RTC Probably 100 thousand people would get it. Alot of those would
just think they had a couple of day virus. Say ten to twenty
people would probably have to get medical help,
¥ Of the 900,000 that don't get it, is it because they have a natural
resistance to it?
KTl People have a natural resistance to it. It just depends on how
concentrated they were in that particular water. In this case the
chlorine the water stays in the system and the longer the chlorine
is in contact with the water the higher the chances of killing it.
W With your background in economics how much is this going to cost?
RTC That's part of the problem with this thing, really good estimates
of how likely it is to actually happen are unavailable.
S Let's turn it back to her, how much would it be worth to you?
U I would say that there are a whole lot of costs that I would want
to look at, such as the number of days away of work, the medical
costs, just some of the human costs. How many days of my life am 1
going to waste that...
W How much is each day worth?
V Right, so those are some of the things that I'd think about.
¥ I think that in America, the people who are likely to be most
affected by something like this would be the poor and malnourished
people in America, and we've got a lot of them. I would say that
those are the people who are going to be hardest hit. My family
has a stlonger chance of combating something like this, but it's
the people who don't have a vote, and who aren't as aware of there
political economical factor in such a ballot, that wouldn't vote
for it although they are the people that might be affected the most
by it. They might be a higher percentage?. Well if its so much
money that will come out of my pocket, I would have to think about
that, I would be mostly concerned with, is this something that
going to save a bunch of lives? Pool' people aren't going to be
able to get to a doctor and they at en't going to be able to take
the time off work. Socially I would be conscious to something like
that...
F-5
-------
S You would vote for it?
V Yes, because wo have to be able to drink water, there are alot of
people who cannot afford bottled water.
V There was a scare on bottled water, that it had too much of
something in it too. What is supposed to be good for you?
V Its also a matter of pride; this has been a country where you can
drink the water,
V In that case i would want to have an alternative that had free
bottled water.
S How much would it be worth to you? Assume that it raised your
water bill, how much would you be willing to pay extra on your
water bill each month before you started saying lets take our
chances?
V There's no guarantee of good health in just filtering the water
because there can be something else that comes up next month.
S This is protecting it against giardia.
¥ This is giardia, as I'm saying when your looking at this overall
there can be some other chemical unknown and there probably will be
alot in the future that...
V Well, I sort of think that we come to a ievel of civilization where
we can offer drinkable water at the tap and...
S Patricia, you're not willing to pay for it?
V I'm not saying I'm not willing to pay for it. You asked it I'd
vote for it and 1 said no, I wouldn't, I think that that amount of
money, and you know it would be very expensive, could be used
elsewhere. Air pollution, if you want to talk health, in my
opinion is worse. When you want water to drink, you want air to
breath.
V I would estimate the cost of a filter like this would cost less
than a trident submarine,
W What sort of filter is involved?
RTC The typical construction, is like 4 feet of sand that they force
the water through.
V So it's not going to be any sort of thing that the cure will be
worse than the illness?
RTC No..
}• I
-------
I don't know how much a trident submarine costs on a per capita
basis, llov much would knowing that the water system was protected
against giardia be worth to you and your family for a month? How
much more would you be willing to pay for your water? You don't
have to be afraid to say it, we're not going to teI1 anybody
No moie than twenty five percent 1 would figure, to be realistic.
Twenty five percent?
As top.
Do you know about what youi water bill is now?
I checked it out for tonight. Every two months its between $35 and
$45 depending on how much T...
So yotu saying another twenty five percent a month. You might be
willing to pay ten dollar,? a month more?
Yes, but also the quality of drinking water is vety high on our
list of piiorities so wo might be unusual.
Wo 11, I'm not concerned about whether your'e unusual. How about you
Kathy?
I would tend to agree with Mavis. I think that 1 would go up at
least 2bZ if I knew my watei was safe against giardia. I also look
at my water bill and I pay about $35 a month, I mean every two
months.
How about you?
Well if it were a real threat, of course ... I think clean air and
clean water are two of the highest priorities things in the US and
if it got, to a threatening point, yes I would be willing to pay for
i t.
How much?
That would depend on how serious it was., If was really a serious
thing, then you'd pay alot more than if it was just a chance here
and there. If they could convince me that it was quite serious,
I've lived in Mexico, we had to boil our water every day.
When you say "quite serious." what do you mean by that?
J mean that like in Mexico every gringo gets sick if they drink the
water if they didn't grow up with it- T think you should be able
to drink the water and not get sick. To me that's important. We
don't know how lucky we are that we can do that right now
I was trying to think of what dollar value I wanted to put on it
and that's becomes a hardest question at this point and time. This
idea of five dollars a family doesn't seem foi us to be hard, but
-------
today T was with some students who were worrying about not buying
books this year arid I wonder how that might affect that kind ot, a
household. Would an extra five dollars ... ?
S So you're saying that it would be worth it to you personally but
your concerned about other people's ability to pay?
U There would be costs in relation to the cost benefit ...
S Jan, what's it worth to you, if anything?
V It's not the money. I don't know if I would vote tor it, something
like this politically. But healthvise and medically I am real
concerned. I would think giardia is not that terrible a thing to
have to go through, it not like its something there's coleria.
V Something worse, it would have been a lot easier to value.
V Right.
W I guess I still have the conviction that we're just beginning to
Jive with giardia. In a generation we will he pretty immune to it
and ...
S You mean literally, physically immune?
V T mean the whole thing, immunity. Why can't they keep the cattle
out of the streams? I don't know if I would actually vote for it.
If everyone passed it, it would be depressing to me.
S Depressing?
V I wouldn't get bugged out if I had to pay two or three extra
dollars a month on my water bill and it .just seems like its
treating a symptom and not the cause.
S Would the filter system be giardia specific?
V We could reintroduce beaver coats in the market.
RTC That's actually the first thing they usually when this happens in
various places; they go out and trap the beavers.
V But only beavers?
R It usually tends to be mostly beavers.
w Really.
tf If there more beavers, why are we having giardia now?
RTC Beavers have gotten infected with giardia, and not from people,
S How do you feel about this proposition?
F-8
-------
V I think I be very much with . My' only question would be, how
does this affect giardia, affect the children, and older folks?
Depending on thai., I would surely vote for it.
S If you were what?
¥ Depending on if I know that its debilitating for children or for
the older people.
V It's a hard situation, but I would vote for it for health safety,
to help most of the children and people. If you don't have health
you are ... If it's for health I'd vote for it:.
S
V Well I voted for it, J just wouldn't put a price on it.
S How much would you price?
¥ My price? Well. .1 would most likely say 25 percent.
S And your water- bil.'l runs around the same as hers.?
¥ Yes.
S I was interested in the number of people you really thought if was
going to help, or if it depended on who it was going io help.
Suppose you were in a situation where the health experts said one
thing and the water department engineers disagreed. Which side
would you come down on.?
¥ Well I think I'd have to find out the facts, find out why
disagreed, what survey they had done.
S You've got a Lot of nerve thinking for yourself.
W I would want to know what studies they did and why they disagree.
Get all the facts possible, not only from them but maybe from other
organizations that had information.
S How about the rest of you? Whose advice or opinion would you be
most impressed by, the public health people or the water department-
engineers?
W The engineers who didn't take ...
RTC The public health people tend to worry about what would happen if
giardia ever got into the water system and the engineers basically
believe that the system as it's designed, eliminates almost all the
chances of giardia getting in the system. This is why they
disagree.
¥ I have one question. What kird of rime delay are we talking about
The health department says against that and the. engineers say
OK you want to build the thing its going to take five years ...
F-9
-------
ETC Public health is saying you better build now or in five years, it
might take three years to do it.
V I'm really confused about this. The beaveis have been out there
forever and giardia been out there forever to ...
RTC
V What are the percent of beavers who are inierted?
RTC This varies according to time of year.
W Who takes the survey?
V I'm coming from a health care pci sped i vo beeause I'm a nurs ing
student. I just did my rot at: ion for public health and know how the
client numbers would he if yon suddenly had to increase that, ail of
the other problems like infant nutrition.
8 If you suddenly had to increase?
¥ If I had to now take on 20 extra clients because I'm going to
be doing some sort of giardia follovup, I couldn't be doing all of
the other things, so that would become ...
V You mean it would stress the health care system?
V The health care system right now in the public sector is stressed
because of the payment schedule, what's happening there.
S What do you mean by thai?
¥ We're changing our, the way we're funding health care in this
country. We're now going on a thing called diagnostic related
groups so what wo are trying to do is do some cost containment.
And witli the cost containment, always the first thing that seems to
;>nt hit ate those things that mo perceived by the public as being
in excess tor people who should lie ab 1 >' to pay ior their own health
mm'. 1 think using the public health service to the maximum right
now.
I think right now when I look at my tax bill -- and we did our
taxes yesterday — I think 1 can remember when I used to think we
could buy a Rolls Royce for what I paid out in taxes. If you start
to look at that, and you feel you can't pay everything, so where am
I going to cut?
Pat r i ca and Jan, you were much more skeptical than most of the
others. I think, about the value of doing this. Can you picture
anything that might happen that might make you change you mind and
say yes I'd vote for it?
I don't feel a few days, a hundred thousand people out of a million
... A few days of lost time and discomfort are with us now because
we have it now, we have the flu were're not controlling, we have
F -10
-------
the common cold, we have the sore throat, and then there are always
new things. That's why I think that much money could maybe used
elsewhere.
S It would have to be a more serious illness or more painful or ...
W R i gh t.
¥ What happens to the economy of an area who have one hundred
thousand for every thousand out of work, along with the flu and a
cold. What's the cost of having that many people sick for a few
days and then recovering medical costs. It seems to me that there
is an effect on just deciding when the flu goes around. Somebody
you work with isn't in, and every few weeks somebody else is out
you don't have operators working the lines and that sort o< < <><:t is
something to consider too. You can take the money for something
else, bur if you have the disease you're going to have to spend the
money to go to the doctoi, so you won't be saving anyway.
S Can we come up with some .sort of idea of the cost of this plant?
ETC
W How much Is it per person?
RTC Somewhere between 2 and 4 dollars.
V For a year,
R For ten years.
¥ Vhere would they build these t i1 tors? At what site, on the river
and wreck the rivers?
RTC Put the fillers in the pipes.
¥ Do you rotate the sand banks?
RTC Every so often.
¥ Veil, the question really is, at what risk would you say its worth
RTC If they knew it was goirij;' to happen, it would be worth doing it.
Anybody knows what the risk is, except it's small.
S Jean, let me ask you a question, what would have to happen before
you would vote for as opposed to against this proposition?
V 1 could see that life threatening disease ...
S Life threatening as opposed to merely uncomfortable?
W Its nof really that I'm nor willing to spend the money. Its more
philosophical for me, thaf you just let nature run its course and
F-ll
-------
we'll get used to giardia just like we've gotten use to measles, so
... Two to four dollars a year for ten years is no big deal.
S The point that you were both making before, I think, is that even
if the costs are very small, you didn't think it would be voith it,
is that correct?
V No, I'd rather spend five hundred million dollars on something
else.
W Like what?
W I'd have to think about that, I think air pollution stuff or ...
V Like toxic, waste?
¥ Like toxic waste, or acid rain, any number of things.
W Or the fact that we're not going to have as much water in the
future as we've had in the past?
S Where do the rest of you put it iit the systems priorities compared
to air pollution and toxic waste?
W Clean water.
W But there's the risk of giardia.
S But, the risk of giardia ...
V Oh, much larger.
V It's a future risk. Where we know acid rain is right now a serious
risk, and air pollution, right now ...
S Which of those would you give top piiority?
W Living here, its like our water is ...
S Worse that air pollution?
W I, think so, actually I think there's been a little headway in terms
of air pollution and I know the Bay's a lot cleaner that when I was
a child here, and acid rain is tied in with air pollution ...
S How about you, do you agree or disagree?
W I think one problem in the future is nuc.leai waste.
S Nuclear waste
¥ Nuclear waste and hazardous waste, but clean air is very important
too. Jf they are going to cut down all the trees, they're not
going to have the oxygen.
F- 12
-------
¥
That comes from the ocean.
*+> v»
I start feeling crazy when I think about all these things that we
have to worry about. How do you stack these things up? Where do
you put them? 1 was reading an article the other day about Mexico
City, how it's the most polluted city. The air pollution is worse
there than any other city in the world and they advise people not
to run and exercise because you breath in more. They say things
like it it; like smoking i wo packs of >- i Ra i ct tes a day. In CA wc'n-1
pretty lucky. In SP, I don't know about LA. But 1 think one of
the big problems in the future is going to be water. I don't know
about giatdia. I think giardia is a serious problem. I know
somebody that got it and took months to get rid of it. She lost 20
pounds. If my grandmother had gotten that, maybe she wouldn't
survive, so I think giardia is a serious issue. But I think the
availability of clean water and just water, our water table it
going down. Without water I don't know what we're going to do.
You're more concerned about the water table than about the threat
of giardia?
Yes, I'm mote concerned about clean water, and then the water
t able, and I hen giardia.
S How would descr ibe the kinds of people who would favor this
proposition to protect the water against giardia. What kinds of
people do you think would oppose it and what kinds of people do yon
think would be for it?
V Probably people with young children and older people.
V Medical people.
V Medical, although the medical people would be drinking bottled
water.
S How about the test of you, how would you decide it?
S What do you think?
¥ It would he the oldei ones or the children.
V It could also be people that drink a lot of water.
V Some people I know never drink a glass water. They drink coffee oi
beer, everything but a glass of water. They aren't thinking about
it.
W I think it would be family, people with families, people who are
thinking about the future too.
¥ 1 think conservationists would think about water. They hike a lot
and they know what it is. They can't drink the water up in the
• « 9
F-13
-------
S Can we go back for a minute to the question we were raising before.
If it veic the public health people who are expressing the concern
that there was a potential epidemic, and if the water department
engineers said its not a big deal, who would you trust?
V I'd go wi th ..-
S With who?
v When you saying who might vote against it, I was thinking there arc
a lot of people who are skeptical. I would go with the health
authorities, that's what they are there for. 1 have to trust that
they are doing their job.
S Becky?
¥ I think I'd go with health department,
S Is there anybody who would go with the engineers? OK, there's no
one party line here. We really want to know what people think and
why.
¥ I bet it would be a close vote. If you had a epidemic, even a
little epidemic, it might sway more people than if you had none.
S Jan your feeling is that you would listen to the water engineers
rather than the people health people, is that right?
W Yes, I think, I think part of it is that the engineers are the
people building these things.
V " On the other hand, the engineers that built __ which like the
plant. Oh we put it in straight, and it turned" upside down, and
put it in backwards.
V Engineers are not infallible.
W Are those the engineers that designed Diablo Canyon?
W Are they people who might have a vested interest. Let's say Selma
was the engineer that had designed the system that is now being
used. Then I might say she might have a vested interest, whereas
if this is a different group of engineers, then I might want to
look at.
S If there were such a proposition, who do you think would be busy
trying to mobilize the people to vote either for it or against it?
V Contractors who would vote for it.
tf I won Id think the PTA's, mothers in clubs, school teachers and
things would, health caie people would be inclined to vote for ir.
¥ I don't know who would do it, to vote against.
F-14
-------
¥
V
s
w
KH
V
¥
¥
V
The heaveis!
Probably Christian Scientists would say that they would need to
vote for it, maybe.
Margaret, you've been awfully quiet back there. Do you want throw
something in?
] think what might be oh the ballot at the same time affects
peoples' votes. If you're casting a whole lot of votes, then if
this is down at the end (of the ballot) arid you voted for a lot of
issues that cost money, you've got to vote against something. If
it cost money, unless I've been sold on the idea, I'm going to vote
against it.
I would say maybe (position on the ballot) shouldn't affect my
vote, sometimes I think we vote against things under other
circumstances we might voto for.
Bow about the other people?
If I found out the beavers aren't moving really very fast I might
not vote for it,
If you're saying one person in a hundred, its one thing, if you're
saying that there's one chance in a hundred that, giatdia are going
to get through, it's very hard for me to take. We're talking about
an unknown and we're having professionals take a look.
What if there was a one in a thousand chance?
So if you project, that moans one out of a thousand people get it
in the population. I would say that's too much, unexceptional ly
high.
That's not a good ratio you would say?
At that point I'd be wilting to build the dam, I can't tell you
what number I'm gonna accept. I would say probably if enough
people were worried about it, and enough to put on the ballot, I'd
want to vote for it.
You just go around to get enough votes to get it on the ballot and
you just go around to houses and knock on the doors and say please
sign here.
Because they get enough signatures to put it on the ballot is not
going to influence me at all.
I suppose if somebody leaked a rumor that there was graft and that
people wanted to build it just because they wanted to build
something, you couldn't believe either side then. You'd wonder
whether you should vote for it, when it gets so political that you
can't believe one statement or the other. You vondei who is
telling the truth or is there any truth in it and you say a bunch
F -15
-------
of doctors, what doctors, how does my doctor feci abcut it? It
goes to that.
V I would rattier err on the side of caution. At the expense o£
twenty to forty dollars over a Long period of time, T would figure
that it generally would be justified... unless I got the idea that
the guy that was running it, that the people behind it, were kind
of flaky for whatever reason. That would sort of take away the
validity of their cause.
RCM It might not be legitimate?
¥ That's one of the only things I can think of. I would be very-
willing to throw out a little bit ol money just to be on the sate
side, but I don't want to be a fool about it either.
¥ I think I would vote against it if I found out it was all made up
or something. Well they just made up this giardia because sone
1 guys want to make lots of money.
V Want to sell sand!
¥ Or, if they said, OK, we're going to build this plant or this
filtering system and in 5 years from now when giardia starts
showing up we'll take care of it. But also you know some other
group says, well, in b years we can innoculate all the beavers
where there's not going to be a problem like that. Maybe in a case
like that I might say OK. If 1 knew there was a chance of it. being
taken care of in some other way...
RCM You would take a risk?
W If there was some valid way in the future, some other way it could
be taken care of, then ! might consider not voting for it.
W Or if you found out that it was, the forestry people or the lumber
people that wanted to kill all the beavers anyway because they
wanted to cut all the trees down and get them from the beavers.
You don't know, anythirg's possible now a days.
V I think we've all been watching 20, 20 too much.
W Sixty minutes.
¥ It would depend on the credibility of the people involved.
S How do you determine credibility.
W I would probably rely a groat deal on what the Sierra Club says,
what the Audubon Society says, what broader says, what other people
say about some of these issues, because I feel they have
i lives ti gated.
S Are you an Audubon or Sierra member?
F -16
-------
W I'm on the board of Audubon.
S How about you?
V Vlia t ?
S Are you cither Sierra club or Audubon?
¥ I work for an environmental law organization.
V I found that in CA there are so many issues on the ballot that I
don't have the lime to study all of them carefully. I belong io
fbp League of Women Voters and J go along with them. If they
foi some reason, no, 1 think I feel they have studied it and I
would go along with them.
S Have the test of you decided about the giaidia refereiulum?
W ! read the booklets, the arguments for and against, and certainly
the endorsement of a gioup like that would he important.
S How about are you?
W I usually discuss things with my husband because politically we
differ. I come from biology background, when it comes to areas
like this and he comes f i om the forestry industry. We usually
discuss it and we don't always vote together,
V 1 discuss it with my husband in general,
RCM If you had lo ask people about giardia, what kind of information do
you think they would want?
II Something that they can relate to.
RCM What aspect ot the description do you think people could relate to?
¥ Pint! iica -
H Abdominal cramping.
V Cramping.
II I think if you wanted to get someone's attention over the phone, a
description of something like dysentry stomach cramps and flu, you
could probably get their attention. I think over the phone there
are times when my best intentions are to give someone the time and
answer their questions. But they tend to call at the dinner hour,
the kids falling apart, dinner's burning, I'm tired then. After
dinner I'm tired, kids in bed. Its hard to get people on the phone
to give you live minutes or so and I would assume you really can't
take much mote than five minutes.
RCM What other kinds of information would be important?
F-17
-------
What causes it, hou close they are, and what I lie probability is
it being a serious heal, lb hazard in the future.
ic tell people the heivers are coming, the beavers arc coming.
F-18
-------
GROUP 2
This group, restricted to men only, was conducted on February h , 1986 by
Sclma Monsky. Robert Mitchell sat in on this group and occasionally or
answered questions. As before, this transcript consists of the portions of
the two hour session which were most relevant to the purposes of this study.
(Discussion of giaidia)
jfkick'k
Selma: There is a possibility of an outbreak of giardia in the next feu
years. However, health experts feel that the risk is too small to
be worth that much expense. How do you fec.l about it? Suppose you
lived in San Francisco.
M One of the ways that you treat water when your camping against
giardia is to use chlorine, common practice of treating city water
with chlorine so I would imagine that it. may take care of it, at
least it would lessen the chance,
M Did you have a taste of that? It must be good for you.
S Treating it with chlorine, what do the rest ot you think?
M I wouldn't rely on it, someone saying the risk, is to small to worry
about, but if it's possible to prevent it I'd be in favor of doing
so.
M I agree with thai. In fact the American Water Works Association
people who do water treatment, I'm sure they would be able to come
up with some good answers.
S What else would you like to know if you had to vote yes or no on a
referendum on this kind, whaI would you want to know to help you
decide which way you would vote?
M Things I would want to know would be exactly what are the factors
of the disease, the long term factors of the disease, what are the
treatments lot it, and what are the long term factors for the
treatment so you can balance one against the other. Less the cost
in terms of dollars and cents and tsiore in terms of human lite and
quality of life.
S How are you using the term "factors" of the disease?
M Basically the symptoms of the disease in the long term.
S Who can answer that?
M I think its a temporary discomfort that passes in four days, I'd be
a little more concerned about it if it had longer term effects.
M And how would it affect older people of given ages and pregnant
women. You would have to leally thoroughly examine the disease.
F-19
-------
I'd also be concerned nbm.il the estimate of the probability of the
risk. Both some numboi hut more import ant than that is some kind
of estimate of the uncertainty in that. It's easy to say one in a
thousand chance, that we'll have this outbreak in the next ten
years, but the biggest risk might be the fact that scientists don't
know and that if they were up front about the fact we might be
wrong in that estimate by a factor of a 1000. The other things
would be the risk of the treatment method for the water, if any.
'Ftying to compare the of doing the treatment against the ri ,;k
of the disease. Offhand, I wouldn't expect the cost to be that
much. People aren't spending that much on water. If the cost of
water went up a little bit to make it safer that wouldn't be my
main concern.
What do you mean by a little bit?
Compared with other utilities, to me, having clean water to drink,
to drink out of the tap and not worry about it, is one of the
biggest advantages of having a well organized society.
What's it worth to you?
It's worth a lot. I don't know. Obviously I don't want to pay
more than I have to, but I did use bottle water once when I was
travelling aboard. The one thing that I miss most, actually, abotif
advanced civilization, was basically being able to drink the water.
To me having safe water is very important.
So you want to know the long term effect based on particularly
vulnerable people ¦¦ pregnant women and old people -- and the
probability of people getting it and the relative tisk of treatment
versus the disease itself.?
1 think thar's the sort of nearsighted way we tend to go about
things, especially changing things, changing them very rapidly,
without knowing what's going to happen.
I would like to have bettei filtering and if that's what's going to
be installed I think, rather than filter my own water, I'd vote for
this and spend the cost. It seems like a lot of people are willing
to pay a lot more for their water but those people would jump at
the chance to vote for something like this.
And what would you want to know to help you decide whether to vote
for this?
I think I'd look tor what the method was, because i£ its installing
filters its a better technology than say putting chloroform in
waters.
Anything else anybody would want to know to help them decide?
I think before I get all excited about it, I'd like to know a lot
more about the science of treating water, how do they do it what
are the capabilities, what do they know about how they might be
able to handle this.
P 20
-------
1 know if you go down to RA1 to get backpack supplies, they sell
you a chlorine kit for treating water, you chlorinate the water,
you over chlorinate it, and you put another chemical that releases
the chlorine to restore the taste and supposedly it kills the
giardia. So maybe sim-e ym.i
-------
M
Is that charcoal?
M No its more than thai.
M There's different, kinds..-
M Similar to the ones they used for backpacking, that kind of filter-
big canister?
M You can't be in a hurry to get water for that.
S Are you saying that you would prefer...?
M This is just an alternative. I think, if this proposition came up,
personally I feel sort d£ proud of living in an area where we have
a real good water supply, good water district and I'd like to see
it be a leader in the field. I'd be all for it..
S So, you'd be vote for it?
M If Lhey say that's what they wanted installed. More rationally,
I'd like to know why is it necessary, I'd like to have them
demonstrate that there is a problem.
S How about the rest of you, would you be inclined to vote for ot
against il the proposition?
M I think i would vote for it. To build these plants takes years and
the water seems to be getting somewhat worse. They find more
places where pollution or something in the ground affects the
water. Ue don't know years from now what the effect will bo ot all
this combined.
M Uhat are you talking about, local referendum just for our district
or for the whole state?
S Local.
RCM In this case we should just assume that it would only affect.
giarciia, it wouldn't affect salt or any other contaminant that
might occur or taste or odor. It would simply filter out. the
giardia.
H Do you build up any sort of immunity for it, or is the second time
as bad ?
M Like a cold?
M I'd he very likely to vote for it unless it seemed iike they didn't
know what they were doing or they didn't present enough
information. I certainly be inclined to vote for it.
S How about you?
M Inc.li.ned,
F-22
-------
s
M
S
M
M
H
M
M
M
M
*****
S
M
S
M
S
M
Inclined to vote. Anybody included to vote against it, suppose the
public health people said that you need it and the water department
engineers said you don't need it, which way would you go, who do
you believe?
Public Health people.
Any special reason?
I'm not sure, somehow I place more faith in people whose job it is
to be concerned about health, than people whose job it is simply to
move water around.
And cut costs.
If the engineer said not that it wasn't needed, but that the
systems available were inadequate to do the job, that would be a
different thing because that's the area of expertise of engineers.
I'd be real interested if the public health people said you needed
it and they said you didn't, because as far as I can see its to
their interest to be for it. Basically it increases prestige and
their getting new projects to do which engineers like to do. Their
going to get more money and more people than if they said it wasn't
needed. I'd look twice at it, but I would still vote with the
public health people.
By the way, does this filtering system, it affect the entire
system?
Nobody's explained it to us yet.
So there's no major difficulty with installing the f iIters?
So you said you didn't want to spend like 10 dollars a month for
it, how much would it be worth to you?
I'd swallow live dollars a month fairly easily.
How about the rest of you, what's it worth to you?
The figures I go by are that bottled water would cost me about 32
dollars a month. It would cost less to install the system and
bottled water is not a convenience because it has to be stored?
So you'd happily pay ten dollars a month, how about you?
I would pay ten dollars a month without worrying about it too much.
I'd say if it got up towards S2U, 25 a month then T would start to
wonder whether they reaily understand the risk well enough.
Because that would be pretty expensive. But at five or ten a month
T. wouldn't read it too carefully and I would probably vote tor it.
If it were a lot more than thai, I would start looking pretty
f-23
-------
carefully at whether the risk, of an outbreak, is really that serious
or whether its just something ... there's always some finite hut
very very small probability of something terrible happening and
this isn't as terrible as a lot of things that, could happen. It
the risk was really small then I might have to look for it.
How much do you think its wor t h ?
Ten is pretty easy, most likely they'd float a bond issue. Ten
dollars a month is over a thousand dollars a year, I mean a hundred
dollars a year. That's not bad these days.
flow about you?
I was kind of amazed to think back when you had a drought. 1 don't
know how many years ago it was, and T like everybody else, we bent
over backwards conserving water, and when I got my water bill and
found out even though 1 was using less than half what I used before
J was paying more than twice as much as I paid before. So T don't,
think I'd kick about a little bit of money.
It proves the utilities have a fairly good, water has a good
reputation for the most part. Utilities have a very black
reputation, second only perhaps only to Nazies, Especially the
nuclear power, utilities in passing all that expense on to us.
We don't hear (hat much written about water in this area, although
you do in other areas. I've been here for over thirty-five years
and I haven't remembcrei much being written about water in this
area.
Except during the drought.
What kinds of people do you think generally would favor this
proposi t ion?
Anybody who thought they were going to get sick.
Well who do you think would think, they were going to get sick?
If they convinced the paople they were going to get sick, everybody
would believe it. On tne basis of what we talked about tonight I'm
not convinced at all but I'm sure if they came up with logical
explanations, statistics, and projections I could understand that.
I don't think they're over going to say that everybody's going to
get sick. What their going to say is that there's a high risk or
there's a risk that people might get it and so what I'm really
asking is how high the risk would have to be to make you fee! that
its worth it?
People come down with the flu, some people get it once or twice a
year, I just wondered if anybody would want to not get sick, for a
period of time.
F-24
-------
As 1 understand it, they're not saying that, there is a long term
effect unless; its untreated, is that right? But if you get medical
care you get. rid of it, but it doesn't keep you from getting it.
a.ga i n.
is there an accuinu J a t i ve effect as you go on in time? Is there a
greater and greater likelihood of people getting the disease from
the water? That would be one major con rem.
Is there a way of. getting it back?
It's got to come from someplace.
We're talking about the effects, not the details.
What I meant was as time progresses would water be transported
through this system in five years there may be fifteen chance of
infection, in twenty five years there could be a 35 percent chance.
No medical evidence to support it. But I still come back to this
theory. A lot of these people I worked with in Mexico that were
mostly Americans, the longer they were down there the less they got
anything. I don't know how you support that, but some of them have
been there 20, 30 years. They did not suffer from what the casual
tourist suffered from.
That's usually because of bacteria which are different in different
locations so you gel sick the first time you encounter bacteria
from a different location, and once you get those bacteria in your
gut it gets used to it, and you don't get sick. But giardia is a
parasite, it's different, so you don't build up any immunity to it.
Attitude may have something to do with your immunity system.
What does?
Attitude and expectations.
That would work in the favor of us because we don't expect to get
sick from out water, we expect to get sick from other people's
water.
There's no chance oi that.
Is there a chance of that?
It seems to me as though this issues rests on the probability of
people getting exposed, how many people are going to get sick in a
year, and is this going to increase in subsequent years and what
would cause the increase?
In this case you can assume you can't treat the source, you can't
attack the source, the only way to be sure there wouldn't be an
outbreak would be to install the I i Iters.
F 25
-------
What would 1 have to say would happen to the risk before you decide
it wasn't woi th it? It 1 said that yen had one in a 1000 r.hanm- >>f
getting it would you vote for it or against it?
You said tlie risk is what if. presently is then 1 wouldn't be
concerned,
I think if you said it is 1 in a thousand at 50 cents a month I'd
still vole lor it but if it'?; 1 in a thousand at Id dollars a
month...
Maybe you're going about it the viortg way if you're trying to sell
it to the voters.
I'm not trying to sell it, I'm trying to learn.
Nobody is trying to sell it. What we're asking is what its worth
is to people.
I'm not sure people could make up their mind on that until it
actually happened. There's a lot of people who tell you one thing,
but when it actually happens they may change their minds.
Who would gain from this aside from the public? Supposing the risk-
remains as it is and throughout the area things called filters oi
what ever it is, pipe systems, does somebody gain from that?
Manufacturers of the filters, is there some movement behind it?
People gel; suspicious,
You'd be ieI octant to um- L
-------
people like to take risks and put o£f for tomorrow the ri J; -¦ 'hat
they could start paying for today. I doubt that psychoid" > Lot
of the time unless its really, inexpensive. Wearing your .;,tatbelt
is free. Health insurance and water pollution aren't free.
M If you were to rank the things that could happen to you, injuries
or sicknesses, automobile accident, a fall in the bathroom, getting
sick from water is way down there. Look at things in perspective.
M You can be awfully miserable with something like that.
H You can sort of think about it as once in a lifetime thing. II
there's any possibility of it happening again, you just buy bottled
water.
M At home?
M 1 tend to be very risk adverse about things like this, in general.
S Risk adverse?
M Except in this particular case its not permanent injury. Its
something, well, what 1 guess I would be interested in knowing
whether if, is possible that the disease could be fatal for
sensitive populations ... babies and old people. 1 should assume
that's not true?
H There have been some canes...
S You've been very quiet, how much would it be worth to you?
H Having listened now, and getting a better picture of what we're
talking about if they .said they could put in a system that would
eliminate the chances down to a percent I'd pay ten dollars.
S Ten dollars a month?
M I'd pay SIS if it were 100X for sure?
M Would you pay that if the lisk of an outbreak in 5F were say 1 in a
thousand?
M I would feel better if I would just not have to worry about it.
M How can we separate East: Bay and SF? Assuming that SF will have an
outbreak and do we pay for it or do they pay for it and if I live
in Oakland and work in SF. Hov dees this affect me?
S So you are willing to pay 10 dollars a month. And how about the
rest of you?
S What percentage is it?
M 1 have no idea, I pay my landlord?
F 27
-------
H if you paid ten dollars a month, 10,000 people paid it, that would
be like two hundred million dollars, Ue should get for a twenty
year bond or something like that.
M Make a calculation about how much money they should gel.
M It seems like it would throw it in to a place where they had to do
it.
S Tf ve said the risk w;u: one in a hundred ,:is opposed u> nne in a
thousand would that have any effect on your feeling,
M Oh yes.
M One hundred per year?
M I really think anybody, if they're really convinced, would pay
anything they'd have to pay to get good water, Whether it was
five dollars or ten, 1 don't think they'd mind that much.
*****
M If you have five hundred thousand people, one in a hundred, five
thousand people a year, is an awful lot.
RCM Risking a outbreak.
M With the outbteak. there- could be five thousand people affected.
That could just be a major disaster for health care. Can you
imagine twenty thousanc people with those symptoms.
M Imagine it would be woise.
M Much worse.
M Considering those term;- 1 think its worth putting mote money...
M It's much more impressive when you think of twenty thousand people
sick at one time. When you think of yourself sick for four days.
RCM The odds of you being sick.
H You could cripple a city, having those many people sick at one
t i me.
M Is boiling the water alleviating this problem?
RCM Yes,
M It has been done, I know that from being from Europe, at certain
times we always boiled water, well water.
M Was this disease known to you in Europe?
M No, It was just a caution everybody boiled the water.
F 28
-------
H
I think I'd rather take the filters than everybody boiling their
wa t e r.
S Everybody boiling their wafer what;?
M Would be very wasteful.
M You would help allow extra energy lor gas. 11 you're talking about
a short term then maybe some people can justify the solution for a
few weeks, or a few months, to do that instead of paying ten
dollars forever.
M How many people is it estimated will be diseased in one outbreak?
R( M It could be 20,000 people.
M How many people are sick on the average now, does anybody know?
M Tremendous amount: of sick leave taking.
M If it wasn't publicized it might go almost unnoticed, there would
be a lot of people left home or sick.
M I don't think there's a voluntary interest to publicise it.
S This is a surprise, everybody here is so happily paying for this.
The women last night were tougher they had several people who
didn't want to. There's nobody bete who is bothered by the idea of
voting yes on this, nobody wants to vote against it?
M Were the same questions raised about the high risks and did they
discuss the same things we discussed?
S ' Essentially.
M I think there's a lot of evidence that women tend to pay the bills.
S I'm just interested, don't let the majority scare you into
agreeing. If anybody is against it. I'm really interested in
knowing. Everybody's for- it, that amazing.
M I'm not going to vote for it, but if it comes up the way you
presented it there's no way of denying it.
S But yon wouldn't discuss it, you'd really have to be convinced
M Oh yea, the documentation, what we were talking about earlier. I'd
like to know the sources, what can or cannot be done about that,
I'd like to know the medical health point of view, statistics,
I: tea t men t aspect.
S You say you want to hear these things, who do you want to hear it
from?
S What kinds of people would you expect to come out for it?
F-29
-------
M Do you mean individuals or organizations?
S Anyone, whose going to be quoted on the ballot as being in favor?
M Anybody to make money out of it.
M Anybody would jump on that bandwagon.
S I'm not clear, the politicians would jump on the bandwagon?
H We need this, we want to take care of you, you don't want to get
this disease, this is why i'm in support of it,
M You need a statement from the American Water Works Association.
M That wouldn't carry any weight with me, because I don't know that
name.
H I have a vested interest too, if they supported it, they said it's
needed, I think I'd believe it.
M I think health organizations would be behind it. I would assume
they would be.
M Health insurance organizations will.
S Anybody else you expect to ho against it?
H I think people who might represent pregnant women, -disabled, aged
people, children. Spokespeople lot them would be for it.
S And who would you expect to oppose it?
H Taxpayers association that are against it for no particular reason
M I think a lot of people too who, if the proposition if not well
preset 1led, then they would I (ml to vote against: it, figuring that
if it is really needed, it will come up again, and it will come up
in better form.
K I think my roommate would be against it too. People who eat
regularly McDonalds would he against it. People who eat cheap and
fast, they don't care what they put into their bodies.
S Would you mind explaining people about who eat at McDonalds
M If you are not really concerned with what goes into your body then
you wouldn't be concerned with what you drink either. You pay youi
money and take your chance.'; - The idea is you pay less and take
more chances. So I think those people would decidedly be against
any soit of investment capital in something that's only preventive,
may never happen.
M How many people who ate heavy drinkers or into drugs likewise may
not support it.
F - 30
-------
Some people never drink, water.
Who else do you think would be?
Drug manufacturers who wo-uld lose their business or selling their
certain drugs.
Something like that wouldn't be so much of any company's business
they would be willing to risk the:lr reputation by coming out on a
limb opposing it. So I don't think you have to be to concerned
about them, but a lot of people have a vested interest in illness.
In what?
But as sporatic as this there's no way to make a decent income so 1
don't imagine there would be any nested interest in preserving it.
1 guess there might be some people who would be concerned about the
filtering causing problems with the water, that some particles from
the filters might get into the water and cause health effects.
Some people might take a militant anti-interventionist attitude,
because I hey don't want to do anything that directly adds the risk.
I wouldn't expect this from too many people like that.
I'd be kind of afraid il this ever came up in proposition form,
they'd write it up the way they d:.d this real estate one that came
up years ago, where you voted yes to get no and no to get yes. It
had people so confused the people voted no no! knowing they were
voting yes. I can see somelhing ".ike this coming up and some
political, so many of them have come up that way you don't really
know what your voting for.
You think that's deliberate?
I'm pretty sure in this case it was very deliberate from the real
estate people. Sure that's the more reason they did that this,
they could pull the wool over a lot of people's eyes.
How do they usually decide when you vote on a referendum?
Something like that takes a tremendous amount of studying and
looking into, asking questions to really find out what's going on,
Who do you ask?
Lots of people, cigarette companies come in. you see them backing
something with millions of dollars.
Anybody else whose opinions you particularly respect or seek out
when you make decisions?
Often there's so many propositions that I haven't thought of at
all, there a very extensive brief prior...
What?
F 31
-------
H A brief explaining both sides and objective interpretations of both
sides and I depend very heavily on that for issues that are not
critical to me.
M Don't you find sometimes th.U fitter you read that you come away
with the distinct impi.e,s\s ion til;?! somebody ha-' to ho lying. Both
of these things can't be right. You come across that all the time,
I keep saying to myself, they shouldn't be able to lie on this
stuff, but I'm sure that they are, one side or the other.
M And if 1 can't decide one way or the other, if 1 don't feel that I
know enough about it, then often times I won't vote on it a certain
proposition.
M Don'I you flunk that mrsl people;, when that happen;;, are not
undet s rending what's h.1 ppf 'ii i up,. 1 wonder, do they vote a certain
way? Do they vote no or do they vote yes. I guess what I was
going ro say earlier I tend to think something too! .short concise
and simple would be good.
M I was just thinking a be. u r that, 1 kind of read things, if something
real complicated sometimes I will...
M Don't you read the proposition sometimes and see how many people in
the Senate voted for it?
M Thai'.', a good question.
M I guess what 1 was about to say earlier was that some times I tend
to think when something is real short and concise and simple, and
it looks harmless enough people, will vote yes.
M If they can have a price tag on it.
M I was just thinking about that, if there's something real
complicated sometimes 1 will or because I don't know.
M Don't you read the proposition sometimes and you see how many
people the Senate for or against, you figure if 77 people said yes
it must be alright in spite of what anybody else says.
H Until you read the his ory oi those 77 people, you're saying you
can't tell who is lying and why they would lie. I raise an
argument somebody say pro or against and it does sound like BS
sometimes. This guy who says no, no we can't do this I realize his
logic is completely off, and he is just BSing, I'm just thinking
something like this, the presentation is very very important and
the people who aren't going to take the extra few minutes to read I'
would think that they would want to do a little troubleshooting to
try whichever way you'd want things to happen. I would play that
game a little bit, playing politics.
M A lot of people don't really get that far down the ballot.
F-32
-------
Haven't there been studies made where you go down the ballot and
you only look, at it this costs money, OK I'll vote against that;
-------
S You'd say yes you'd vote for it?
M I'd vote for it. I'm not sure but I put more weight on it since it
i s a r e f e r e nd u m.
M It would focus my attention on it more.
M I don't know, I like really off the cuff opinions, I think someone
says referendums to me, immediately I'd start thinking about -
does this person want tie to sign something, am I supposed to, if
they want me to sign something am J supposed to go to a rally? T t
makes me more concerned about the opinion I express and 1 think
much more seriously. 1 think it's a good idea abstractly, of
course, its a wonderful idea, But if: it is expressed as a
referendum, I'd say I have to know more, have to think about it
more. 1 would probably be less likely to make a commitment to
them, but more likely to do backup work.
S On the one hand, when we conduct the survey we want people to take
it seriously, but don't want to make one side more patablo than the
other. We're trying to get an unbiased question, it never occurred
to me that that would have that effect
M It's hard, we want people to concentrate or: it and think it though.
Like I think everybody so Car said the referendum way of doing it
gets your attention, but. we really don't want people to think it's
on the ballot.
M Would this be a referendum to go to the state legislature?
M It's not a referendum, your just taking a public opinion.
S That's right.
M It confuses me.
S What if I said to you, if the presidential election were being held
tomorrow who would you vote for? You would understand that it
wasn't really being held tomorrow. This is the same sort of thing.
If we called, and said we're doing a public opinion survey, i want
to ask you some questions, and this is what giardia is like and so
forth.
M rf you didn't hear the word referendum.
M If you didn't hear the word referendum I'd understand you.
S Suppose that you had to vote either for or against a bond issue
that would cost your household X dollars and it would be for this
purpose?
M I'm a little surprised that most people would take the time out,
they could take the time out to listen on the phone about
any thing. 7 mean T consider my home to be my castle and if I ask
somebody to call me that's fine. If some of my friends call me,
F-34
-------
But anybody calls me for
on this or that, or they
something like, that I'd
any reason, and
want to sell me
tell them f don'
want's to ask my opinion
a gold mine in Africa or
t do this.
RCM
ht M
We were able to persuade better Ihan /OX of the people we called to
talk to us. That's if we call cold, using random digit dialing.
But if we know who we're calling, then we can call and say this is
the liugg residence. We can also write letters beforehand so that
increases the chances because it establishes credibility. But what
I'm so curious about is if the mere word referendum gives this more
credibility, and makes you more likely to vote yes, then why don't
you vote yes on all the propositions on every ballot. Somebody is
voting no.
I'm not influenced by referendums.
I think if you simply say what ii tomorrow there vere going to be a
vote, it have of course Less influence than if you said there is
going to be a vote, or that we're going to put this on the ballot.
That makes a big difference, it would be less, I'm sure, if you
simply said this is a hypothetical situation.
Of course we're not allowed to lie to people.
You could make a hypothetical that that sounded more realistic.
You could say that San Francisco loard of supervisors or the San
Francisco water district, vharevc: it is the proper authority, is
proposing this bond issue. Then it would sound like sort of real
If in the beginning of the conversation you gave them a very
descriptive scenario of vhat would happen if this disease broke out
in Kast Bay or SF, basically this equals ... now we'd like your
opinion about this, I certainly w^uld have an opinion on that.
Would you be as inclined to assume that a yes vote would probably
be in order?
My immediate reaction is that if there was a referendum, I wouldn't
be as likely to say yes if it was a referendum.
If it actually got on the ballot?
Would everyone agree?
Well, using tlie referendum format would make it a little more
gripping to people.
F-35
-------
APPENDIX G. SAN FRANCISCO DRAFT INSTRUMENT
SUGGESTED INTRODUCTION (IF R WAS NOT INFORMANT):
4/2/86
Form 2A
Hello, this is
from the Survey Research Center at the University of
California. We're conducting a survey, interviewing a scientific sample of people
who live in the Bay Area and your telephone number happened to fall into our sample.
(The rules we have to follow in selecting one person in each sample household tell
me to interview you.) Is this a convenient time for you?
IF P. ASKS ABOUT NATURE OF SURVEY: We're trying to learn more about people's
experiences and opinions about drinking water. IF NECESSARYj ADD: There are
differences of opinion about the need for and the value of certain kinds of action
to provide the right kind of water, and we're trying to find out what the average
person thinks,
1. A. How long have you lived in San Francisco — at least five years, or less
than five years?
At least 5 years . . . (SHIP TO Q 2) ... 1
Less than 5 years 2
B. Have you lived here at least one year, or less than 12 months?
At least a year (12 months or more) ... I
Less than 12 months 2
2. A. Have you ever voted (EACH)?
B. IF YES: Do you usually, sometimes, or only rarely vote (EACH)?
(1) In the presidential elections
(held every four years) . . .
(2) In the San Francisco cix.v
election for mayor .....
(3) For or against State
propositions . . . ,
(~) For or against City of San
Francisco propositions . .
A. EVER VOTE?
"Yes Ho
. . 1 0
. 1
0
B. HOW OFTEN VOTE ON THIS:
Usuallv Sometimes Rarely
A. In order to know which questions apply to you, please tell me whether you
own or rent your home or apartment.
Own ...... (SKIP TO Q 4) ...... I
Rent .... .......... 2
Other (SPECIFY:_ > 3
B. Do you ha e to pay your own water bill, or is that included (in your rent)?
Included in rent (or arrangement) (SKIP
TO Q 6) 1
Pay own water bi11 ............ 2
G-1
-------
4. A. About how much does your water bill usually run — for the average three-
month period?
Names dollar amount (SPECIFY: $ J . . . 1
Not sure or don't know . . (SKIP TO Q :>) , 2
B. It's often hard to remember how much bills like t he so run. How confident
are you about the (DOLLAR FIGURE) — would you say that you're quite con-
fident, somewhat confident, not too confident, or that it's a wild guess
that could be way off?
Very confident I
Somewhat confident 2
Not: too confident 3
W i lei guess that could hi* way off ... . . 4
NOW SKIP TO Q 6 BELOW
^uess, would you say thai it probably runs over $40 for the
month period, between $'30 am $40, or Jess than $30?
Over $40
Between $30 and $40
Less than $30
Can' t even guess, have no idea
6. A. How satisfied are you with the quality of the water provided by the Water
Department — very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, a little dissatisfied,
or very dissatisfied?
Very satisfied . . ic'K7r TO Q , 1
Somewba*. satisfied "JK-'F 7." W 7} . - . . .2
A little dissatisfied .......... 3
Very dissatisfied 4
B. As you see it, what's wrong with the San Francisco water supply?
5. If you had to
average three-
G-2
-------
7. Have you ever used bottled water (since you've lived In San Francisco) ~~ that
is, ordinary drinking water, not sparkling water?
Yes 1
No, never in San Francisco I SKI F TO «, ;?/, 2
8. IF EVER USED BOTTLED WATER:
A. About how long ago did you vise it, or are you using it now?
More than a year ago (SPECIFY:
years ago) 1
Used during the Jast 12 months 2
B. What's the main reason you (use/used) it -- (is/was) it because or t h«
way it (tastes/tasted) , bec;iu:-_> you (think/thought) it was healthier than
water from the tap, or what?
Prefer the taste of bottled water . . . . 1
Think/Thought bottled water safer . ... 2
Other (SPECIFY:
J 3
CODE ALL THAT APPLY,
BUT DO NOT FHOBE
FOE OTHER REASONS,
9. A. Have you ever heard of giardia or giardiasis?
Yes, have heard of it 1
Possiblv, not certain .......... 2
No, never heard of it . . fStil" TC ~
-AG;? .................. 3
B. Where or how did you happen to hear about it? f IF R Mi'XT JDK.' SCi'F. ? rOi"
,VJ MFATJJ'.V DF CCSTENJ: What -lid (it/thev) say about it?| [."f "FI~ :J :
What else did (it/thev) say about it?]
G-3
-------
Here are some other issues that people have suggested as possible propositions
for the next San Francisco City election. As 1 read each one, please tell me
how you would vote if the election were being held todav.
How about (EACH)? (Would you vote for or against it?)
Vote 1
Vote for against Would not i DK, Can'
proposition proposition vote on it 1 dec idc
A. A bond issue to pay for renovating
San Francisco's city parks — in-
cluding repairing buildings and
.1 andscaping as needed — assuming
that it would cost each household
another $4 per year in taxes . . .
B. A fund to clean up hazardous mater'
ial spills that could cost (you/
your household) $8 a year
. 1
C. A bond issue to build a new pier,
including new unloading and ware-
house facilities — assuming that
it would cost, {each household)
S3 per year ............
13. Bonds to renovate the city hospi-
tals and to purchase new equipment ¦
assuming this would cost your
household §6 per year .......
F.. Bonds to repair old jail facilities
and build new facilities to re-
duce overcrowding — assuming that
this cost your household $5 a year
F. A bond issue to pay for new
buildings at the community college --
assuming that this would cost (you/
your household) S10 a year 1 2 3
C. A bond issue to renovate the opera
house and museums and which would
also provide for expanding the art
collections — at a cost of $3
per year per household ........I 2 3 4
-------
X-l. [As you (may/probably) know), Giardiasis is a disease people get from impure
water. It won't kill you, but it car, cause severe diarrhea (runny bowels),
cramps, belching, weight loss and other symptoms similar to a bad case of
intestinal or stomach flu. The worst stage only lasts three or four days,
but if it's not treated, it can lead to more serious problems.
Some health and engineering experts say that it's possible for San Francisco's
drinking water system to become infected with giardia in the near future.
They want the City to take special steps to protect the water supply. Others
think that the City's water is already adequately protected, and that the risk
is too small to justify building the large and expensive filtration system or
plant that all experts agree is the only way to guarantee that giardia cannot
get into the system.
Before I ask how you would vote on this issue, is there anything more you'd
need to know in order to decide how to vote?
Yes, need information 1
No, ready to vote (SKIP TO A) ..... 2
IF YES: What else do you need to know? (CHECK APPROPRIATE BOXES, INDICATING
R 'S QUESTIONS. THEN GIVE ANSWERS INDICATED, RECORDING ANY COMMENTS FROM R.
[ ] IF R ASKS ABOUT THE CHANCES OF AN EPIDEMIC IN SAN FRANCISCO, EXPLAIN:
That's the big uncertainty. Outbreaks of giardiasis are rare, but they
have occasionally occurred in cities like Wi lkes-Barre, Pa.; Vail, Colorado;
Reno, Nevada and other cities which do not filter their water. Most experts
agree Lhat there's not much chance of this happening in San Francisco, but
it could happen. San Francisco could go for 100 years without an outbreak --
or there could be one next year or. the year after.
t ] ™ F ASKS HOW MANY ?E0rZ7 WOULZ 5E AETECTES J77 A 5.4"." FRANCISCO C1ARV1ASIS
X:~'5r.zA.Kt EXPLAIN: Most people who are exposed to giardiasis — even
during an epidemic — do not get the disease. If there were an outbreak
in San Francisco, the experts think that only a few thousand people might
get it, but that it might be as many as 100,000 who get it. In
other words, if there were an outbreak in San Francisco, it might be that
only one person in every thousand San Franciscans would ger the disease
or it might be that as many as one person in every ten people would get
it.
G-5
-------
t ] IF THEY DON'T BUILD FIITF.ATION PLANTS, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT OOULO BF
DOME AFTER THE CITY FOUND OUT THAT THERE WAS AN OUTBREAK? As soon as
the health authorities Learn that ther 2's been an outbreak, they will
tell people to boil their drinking water. Boiling water for one mi nut e
(after it come;, to a boil) makes it safe to drink.
[ ] IF H WANTS TO KNOW HOW SERIOUS THE DISEASE IS FOR A PERSON WHO GETS IT;
It's a very unpleasant disease* but it wouldn't kill anyone, I described
the symptoms earlier. Won 1 d you like me to go over them again briefly?
Yes . . .(REREAD THE FIRST FARAJKAPE
of g x-v ................ 1
No
IN EITHER CASE, ADD: Some cases are worse than others and put people in
bed for several days or even for a week. But only rarely is it necessary
to hospitalize someone for giardiasis.
I ] IF R WANTS TO KNOW WHAT A PEPSON WHO ACTUALLY GETS GIARDIASIS CAN D0i
EXPLAIN: There are several drugs that can cure the disease and keep
a person from getting it again. It's important to go to a doctor who
can check that a person really has giardiasis. The doctor will prescribe
one of these drops, and it will cost between $10 and $25 in most driif,
stores — depend Inr, on wjrirh <1 rup, the doctor prescribes.
| ] IF t. ASKS Wh'AT II Will 0007: The engineers are trying to figure out the
costs now. While they're doing that, we're trying to find out how much
the average person is willing to pay per month. In no case, would people
be asked to pay more than the actual cost of building the filtration
plant (spread out over a 20 vear period).
A. If an election were being held today, would you personally vote for_ or
against a bond issue to protect the City's water supply against this
kind of disease?
Would vote for it ............ 1
Would vote against it . .(SKIP TO
XV J C: — L. / . * . ...
Depends on the cost 3
-------
X <1 A. Suppose it would increase your (household's) (vater bill/rent) by $4 per
month (for 20 years). Would you (still) vote for It?
Yes 1
No, probably not. . . (SKIP TO C) .... 2
B. Suppose it cost another $10 per month (for 20 years). Would you vote for
it then?
Yes . , . (SKIP TO NEXT PAGE) ...... 1
No . . . (SKIP TO NEXT PAGE) ...... 2
C. Would you vote for it if it cost only another dollar per month (for
20 years)?
Yes ..,,,.,,,,.........1
No . . . (SKIP TO NEXT PAGE) ...... 2
D. And suppose it cost you an extra $2 per month (for 20 years)? Would
you vote for or against it?
For 1
Against: 2
r_?
-------
li. And now some background questions about you -
How old were you on your last birthday?
— for statistical purposes only.
years old
12 • What wa the highest grade you completed in school?
Ho formal schooling 1
Some grammar/elementary school . . . . . 2
Completed 8th grade ..... ...... 3
Some high school ............ 4
Completed high school 5
Some college or junior college graduate . 6
Completed 4 years college 7
Some postgraduate work or degree .... 8
Other (SPECIFY; ) 9
13. Are you presently employed, unemployed and looking for work, retired, (a house-
wife), a student, or what?
Employee full-time {3 3+ hours) ..... 1
Employee, part-time. 2
Unemployed or laid-off 3
On strike . 4
Retired , 5
Housewife . , ........ 6
Student ................ 7
Other (SPECIFY: / 8
14. What kind of work (do/did) you usually do {before you retired/became a house-
wife/student, etc.)?
A. What kind of business or industry (do/did) you work for? (IF XFCFSSAFY:
What (do/did) tnev do or make there?)
G-S
-------
B* And exactly what (do/did) you do there? [IF NECESSARY: What (is/was)
your job title? What (are/were) your main duties?
15, 'Now I'll read you a list of different, ways people describe themselves. As
I read each one, please tell me whether you think it's a very accurate (good)
description of you, a fairly accurate one, or doesn't describe you at all.
How about (EACH)? (How well does that describe you?) (Would you say it's
a verv accurate, somewhat accurate description, or doesn't describe you at all?)
Very Somewhat Does not
accurate accurate describe me
description description at al1
A- I'm more concerned about what's
happening to our air, water and
other aspects of our environ-
ment than most people are ........ 1 2 3
B. When it comes to politics, I'm
more conservative than the
average person .......... . . » 1 2 3
: i
C. When it comes to politics, I'm
more liberal than the average
person ....... 1 3
D. 1 rarely vote in national elec-
tions (for President of the U.S.) .... 1 2 3
E. 1 make a point of being informed
about the issues in most local
elections . , , 1 2 3
F. I'm not really interested in
politics ......... 1 2 3
G-9
-------
16. A. Does your household include any children who are less than 18 years old?
Yes 1
No (SKIP TO Q 77) .... 2
B, How many, if any, are less than 6 years old?
€« How many art' at least 6, but less than 18?
B, Under 6 C. 6-1?
None 0 0
One child . . 1 1
2 children 2 2
3 children 3 3
h or more children (SJ'F^IFY:
children) 4 k
17. And how many adults 18 or older live with you — or are you the only one?
No other adults, only R 1
1 other adult ,.,,,,*.-2
2 oiht-r adults . 3
3 ox more other adults (F-FFl.'J FY:
other adults k
18. A. What race or ethnic group do you consider yourself? (IF NECESSARY: We
mean White or Caucasian, Black, Asian, Mexican-American, Native American
Indian, or what?)
White or Caucasian ........... 1
Black, Afro-American or Negro ...... 2
Latino, Mexi can-Amei i. ait, Hispanic ,
Chicago or Mexican . . . (SKIP 70 Q 18'' . 3
Native American Indian, Alaskan native. . 4
Asian, Pacific Islander .(SKT7 TC i 2$ . 5
Filipino. ................ 6
Other (SPECIFY: ?
Don't know ............... 8
Kef used . 9
B. And are you of Spanish or Hispanic origin or descent?
Yes 1
No 2
G-10
-------
19. CODE, ASKING AS NEEDED: Are you now married, widowed, divorced, separated,
living with someone you're not married to, but in a marriage-type relationship,
or have you never been married?
Married 1
Widowed .2
Divorced 3
Separated 4
Not married, but living together in
a marriage-type relationship ...... 5
Never married (including only
marriage annul led) ,...6
We'd also like some idea of your total (family) income for last year — 1985 —
from all sources.
A. Was it over or under $20,000?
Over $20,000 .... (SKIP TO DJ ..... 1
Exactly $20,000 . . (SKIP TO Q 21) ... 2
Under $20,000 3
B. Was it under or over $10,000?
Over $10,000 .... (SKIP TO Q 21) . . , 1
Exactly $10,000 . . (SKIP TO Q 21) ... 2
Under $10,000 3
C. Ana was it under or over 55,000?
Over $5,000 ... . (SMP TC 0 'si: ... I
Exactly $5,000 , . . (SKlP TC 0
:i s
5
Under $3,000 . , . . (SRit3 TC H 21.' ... 3
D. And was it under or over $60,000?
Over $60,000 .... (SPJT TO £ 11} ... I
Exactly $60,000 , . ISKTP 2\ C 21 ' 1
Under $60,000 3
E. And was it under or over $40,000?
Over $40,000 .......... I
Exactly $40,000 2
Under $40,000
G-11
-------
21 - A, From time to time, the office calls people we've Interviewed to make sure
that we're doing our jobs properly. Just in case they should want to
phone you — or in case we find that I forgot to ask something — may we
have your pcrmission to call hack?
Yes ................... 1
No .... (EXPLAIN AND TRY TO PERSUADE
BEFORE CIRCLING CODE) (SKIP TO Q 21) . . 2
B. And what's the best time to teach you?
SUGGESTED DAY(S) OF THE WEEK:
SUGGESTED TIMF.(S) OF THE DAY:
22. That's my last question. Is there anything you'd like to add, or anything
else you think we should be asking?
THANK AKD TERMINATE |
23. TIME ENDED; _ ___a.rc.
p.m.
24, INTERVIEW LENGTH: minutes
G-1
-------
DO NOT ASK — INTERVIEWER OBSERVATIONS
R01. Sex of respondent : Male ; . . . 1
Female 2
R02. Did the respondent have any difficulty hearing the questions?
Yes, great difficulty . 1
Yes, some difficulty 2
No, none at all 3
R03. Did the respondent have any difficulty understanding the questions?
Yes, preat difficulty 1
Yes, some difficulty 2
So, none at all , . (SKIP TO E05) . , „ 3
R04, IF AMY DIFFICULTY: Which ones were troublesome?
R05. What was the respondent's initial attitude about being interviewed?
Very interested or enthusiastic . , , . 1
Somewhat interested 2
Indifferent 3
Somewhat reluctant „ , 4
Very reluctant 5
RUfc. What was the respondent's attitude during the interview?
Friendly and eager, volunteered
informat ion 1
Cooperative, but not particularly eager, 2
Indifferent or bored 3
Often irritated or hostile — seemed
anxious to get interview over with ... 4
G-13
-------
KG?. A. How confident do you feel about the validity of R's answers?
Completely confident . , (SKIP TO R08) , , 1
Some doubts 2
No confidence 3
B« IF ANY DOUBTS• Please say which data you have doubts about and why you
ftel this way.
ROB. Other comments about interview or respondent.
ROS. Date Completed; » 198 b
RIO. Interviewer Signature;:
I J—
------- |